The #Dilbert Sunday comic strip hilariously disses climate science certainty

From the “That’s going to leave a mark” department.

Scott Adams, who has recently written on his blog about his doubts about the certainty of climate science predictions, takes on climate science and the ugliness surrounding it with his Sunday comic strip. It’s hilarious how he states so clearly the issue at hand in a simple final panel. Of course, the usual suspects will scream foul, probably demand retractions and boycotts, and maybe even at the next pointless climate march, we’ll’ see “Down with Dilbert!” signs.  Michael Mann might even sue due to the scientist looking something like him.

The response will be entirely predictable, but for those people that aren’t climatic automatons, the fact that a worldwide read major comic strip has taken a position will likely sink in.

Due to copyright limitations, I can’t show the entire strip, only the first few panels, but click the image to see the entire Sunday comic, or follow this link.

h/t to Eric Worrall



240 thoughts on “The #Dilbert Sunday comic strip hilariously disses climate science certainty

  1. Whenever you ask some of these alarmist’s what climate change, they immediately pull out the global warming card, and if you ask them what global warming, they say it’s about climate change.

      • Trump did a great job getting his supporters out to vote.

        If he doesn’t stick to his guns and get rid of things like the Paris thingy, many may not come out to vote next time.

      • AndyG55 May 14, 2017 at 12:37 pm
        Trump did a great job getting his supporters out to vote.

        If he doesn’t stick to his guns and get rid of things like the Paris thingy, many may not come out to vote next time.

        But the labyrinth that is Washington DC politics has been in the making for over 200 years.
        Lots of Minatours to deal with on both sides of the aisle.
        “We the People” need to clear the aisle.

        PS Trump recently launched a commission to look into voter fraud. Could be good.
        “We the People of the United States“, in other words,ensure that only legal citizens (living) of the United States are the only ones that vote.
        Who could or would argue with that?

      • Dems are likely registering non legit voters but IMO the real fraud to look for is in the electoronc votes. This is what Jill Stone was really aiming to test in court. Many of those who chipped in to her fund were incorrectly thinking it was about overturning the election result.

        What she was really trying to get a legal handle on was deep state electoral fraud.

        That is the what you really should be getting interested in.

        He who counts the votes controls the result. Who counts the electronic votes ?! How do you recount electronic votes, if necessary?

        Sadly Reps did not support what she was doing because they did not like her politics. TOTALLY missing the point.

      • Adams called Trump’s win a YEAR in advance – if you had been following his blog. But Adams then publicly stated he supported Hillary since he didn’t want to get hit, and Hillary supporters are known to do that.

      • Reguarding the electronic voting machines: There needs to be a printed paper trail generated by the machines at the time the vote is entered by the voter. The voter can verify it before leaving the polling place.

      • In NYC, you mark in a ballot by hand and scan it into the computer, which reads it. So there is original paper backup, not machine generated paper.

        But I miss the good, honest Ka-CHUNK from pulling the big lever on the old machines. Made you feel like you’d voted. (They should program that noise into the computer.)

      • Actually, he called Trump’s win right after the first GOP debate when he responded to the misogynist question from Megyn Kelly with “Only Rosie O’Donnell”. He wrote a great blog post soon after that claiming that was the event that convinced him then that Trump had the persuasive power to become President, and he pretty much stuck to that forecast except of a week or so of wavering when that “grab their p….” tape came out. But he was right back to explaining why Trump was going to win soon after that wavering episode.

        That first GOP debate was in August of 2015, so he called it over a year in advance.

    • The best thing about it is that the Dilbert strip is based on ridiculing establishment BS, and it couldn’t be any clearer that CAGW is a prime example.

    • I Know, I Know!
      It’s the Drummer in that video. The one put out by Minnesotans For Global Warming. The cartoon looks *just* like him.
      Check it out.

      • Now if Mann were only bright enough to understand irony, I think even he could laugh at his own response. It is CLASSIC, and exactly what Adams was illustrating more completely by not including a response. Because you could put 1,000 memes in that last slide, they’d all less subtly state what I think Adams was saying.

      • Yes, I would have to be PAID to endure an explanation of Mann’s “climate science”. Even so, I would have a case of mild nausea.

        (And the last frame indicates Mann isn’t willing or able to answer the simple question: “How do scientists know that?”; no, instead Mann has to INVENT (make up) stuff. Such deception puts him far lower than Dilbert.

        Yes, Michael Mann–that means YOU!

    • “That scientist resembles somebody… trying to remember who. :)”

      Around here we call him “The Perp!”. That’s short for perpetrator. Perpetrator of the Hockey Stick illusion.

  2. In the last panel of that 8-panel strip, this is the dialog:

    Dilbert: “What if I don’t trust the economic models?”

    Climatologist: “Who hired the science denier?”

  3. Great choice, Anthony! lol

    More fine Scott Adams satire:

    (This was recently posted in WUWT by ?? — sorry ….. I forgot — it was a male name, that’s all I can recall. So, a wave of the hand to Mr. __ . :) )

  4. This is a strawman. While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real, they are far from certain about its future rate and impact. It’s more about risk assessment than prediction. It’s actually the “lukewarmers” who are overconfident in future predictions – given that climate has varied a lot in the past, there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.

    • While they are certain that AGW is real, as am I, they couldn’t be more wrong about the magnitude of the effect which is overestimated by at least a factor of 4.

      • Well, there have been floods in North America over the past few weeks, isn’t that proof enough of CAGW for you? Sheesh!


      • I thought their initial claim was that CO2 warms the planet.

        Then it was CO2 causes climate change.

        Now it’s CO2 causes significant fluctuations in precipitation?

        And since too much of the planet is desert, why is their goal to reduce “water from the sky”?

        (Cloud seeding sometimes utilizes dry ice, but I don’t think the sublimated form will cause cloud condensation or ice nucleation.)

    • “Given that climate has varied a lot in the past, there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations” can be projected with any degree of confidence at all.

      • David is correct, nothing unprecedented here. It’s all happened before. The temperatures have been higher in the past, and CO2 has been higher in the past, and we are still around to tell about it.

      • Like the discoverer of the greenhouse effect, Svante Arrhenius, I think a higher CO2, warmer world will be a greener and better place.

        Are we both deniers?

      • The odds are always on the side of cooling over warming, as is evident in any long term temperature chart of the world. It is only when things are at an absolute optimum, and nothing goes wrong, that earth stays in a comfort zone at least in the northern hemisphere. Hence human civilization that has grown from near nothing to what we have today in a mere 10,000 years. I will hate to see how we adapt to a world that is cooling drastically, because there is not much we will be able to about it. We have been in ice age for at least 1.5 million years, with only short interglacials in the NH. Antarctica has been in a permanent ice age for at least 18-20 million years, if not longer.

      • “It is only when things are at an absolute optimum, and nothing goes wrong, that earth stays in a comfort zone at least in the northern hemisphere.” The question whose comfort zone will it be, the earth’s or humans?

    • There’s also no reason to be confident that failing to enrich the atmosphere with carbon dioxide won’t result in millions of early deaths from malnutrition or that failing to avail ourselves of fossil fuels for electricity generation won’t cause millions of early deaths from respiratory ailments.

      • How many negatives are there in that sentence? I’ve read it ten times, and I still can’t figure out what you mean.

      • Here you go, Mr. Kelly:

        Joe Born paraphrased —

        It can also be said that we should:

        1) enrich the atmosphere with CO2,
        OR ELSE malnutrition will kill millions;
        2) we should use fossil fuels to generate electricity,
        OR ELSE respiratory ailments will kill millions.

        (And, actually, Mr. Born was being very generous with Mr. Betts. There is robust evidence supporting the basic premises (though much uncertainty of effect, e.g., perhaps only thousands, not millions) of Born’s conjecture. Betts’ nonsense is undergirded only by the breeze from his rapidly waving hands.)

        Well. If that was not helpful, at least I had fun trying! :)

    • “there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.”

      Completely and 100% wrong.
      There are plenty of very good reasons to KNOW that increasing CO2 will not have much of an effect.

    • This is a strawman. While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real, they are far from certain about its future rate and impact.

      Except for those who:
      A) Go on marches demanding action.
      B) Advise politicians on the need to make policy changes with respect to energy policy.
      C) Accept a simplified Summary for Policy Makers.

      In short, you are either wrong or just deny the existence of climate scientists.

      • Right on M Courtney!
        I would also add
        D) Those who viciously attack any scientist that dares raise their head above the parapet to question any part of the climate dogma.

      • “Advise politicians on the need to make policy changes with respect to energy policy …”
        Policies that foster vast wealth transfers from taxpayers and consumers to the rent-seekers of so-called renewable industries which Lomborg has shown following IPCC assumptions by 2100 would have no measurable effect on the AGT, inevitably causing great suffering and social unrest in the process — as well as the corresponding opportunity costs of not developing alternatives to fossil fuels that work and which would be of great benefit to humanity, regardless of AGW.

      • “just deny the existence of climate scientists. “Climate Scientists”? I know scientist who study different fields science. All may say they their study may, might, could or have no or little effect on the future climate. How, I would call someone who study past climate condition a “climate scientist” But they can only speculate as to why the climate changed in the past.

    • …given that climate has varied a lot in the past, there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.

      Non sequitur. Does Mr. Betts think he’s being logical?

      • “Given that climate has varied a lot in the past without any human influence, there’s no reason to be confident that only human activity could make it vary now, or in the future.”

        There. Fixed it for you.

      • “given that climate has varied a lot in the past”

        … there’s no evidence that the current warming is caused primarily by CO2.

      • I think Willy Wonka said it first:

        “You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.”

        Perhaps we should be worried about hornswogglers, and snozzwangers, and rotten, vermicious knids.

      • Nick,

        Microbes exist in the greatest possible profusion.

        Dangerous man-made global warming, not so much. As in, not observable at all.

    • Richard

      Well, there is nothing to argue about in this statement is there?

      “While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real, they are far from certain about its future rate and impact.”

      The entire point of skeptics making a noise about AGW hysteria is precisely because no one has any proof that warming is going to a) continue and b) be bad for any living thing, especially us.

      There is ample evidence that warming is beneficial and precious little, if any, that it is harmful. We are not short of land, or arable land, we are only short of enough warming to use it.

      When it is warm enough (like 8000 BC) the Sahara turns into grazing land from Mauritania to Somalia. What’s not to like? Polar bears love warmth – they move south less and the have a lot more seals to catch when it is warm.

      Penguins love it warmer too – fewer freeze to death and there is a lot more to eat in the ocean.

      The only species present in significant numbers that is doomed by the benefits of warming are the troughers in the ‘climate alarm’ business shouting that the world is going to end soon or sooner depending on the model they employ that day. That a crock! What a waste of time and expense. Prophets of doom should pay for their own computer hardware and ‘work’ on their own time.

      The entire population of the planet could already have had, over the past 25 years, clean water, nutritious food, useful education and housing if the money had instead been spent on real development instead of techno-cure boondoggles for imaginative ‘threats to humanity’.

      It is time to clean up the environment, not ‘save it’. It is time to harness human ingenuity, not human gullibility. I will close with a quote from my mathematician friend David R Garcia-Andrade:

      “It’s a testimonial to the power of indoctrination (particularly that kind dished out in the universities) that most students can have their minds manipulated into becoming able to ignore the obvious.”

      • It is true. Climate change (warm to cold to warm) does not disrupt ecosystems. Animals and plant just shift their range north or south a bit. Nobody goes extinct.

        The extinction of the last ice age’s megafauna was due to human hunting. That megafauna had come through all the previous ice age just fine.

      • “The entire population of the planet could already have had, over the past 25 years, clean water, nutritious food, useful education and housing if the money had instead been spent on real development instead of techno-cure boondoggles for imaginative ‘threats to humanity’.”

        But would the rich have got richer to the same extent? That is the only test for a policy.

      • @ RoHa –

        Yes, the rich would have gotten richer, if they had invested properly.

        However, some, like Al Gore, are highly invested in human suffering.

    • Richard. I know climate scientists. Some are as you say. However, it’s the casual people that believe it like religious dogma that I have problems with.

      I have a few problems with the IPCC. I disagree with their overall conclusions and think they go too far, but overall, it’s backed by science. Exaggerated, but still grounded.

      However, I have heard numerous people “in support of science” talk about how climate change will end life as we know it or even all life on the planet, and think they are completely backed by science. All of us here have shown the response encountered when any part of the dogma is questioned. I would actually suggest you read the introduction to “Think Like a Freak”, where Levitt and Dubner list the reactions to the “Superfreakonomics” chapter which advocated geoengineering after showing that CO2 reductions were ineffective. Despite not questioning the actual basis at all, they were practically attacked and the book was removed from many stores. It actually had a bigger impact than their chapter on abortion in the first book.

      It’s not a strawman if the portrayal is accurate. You are committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy yourself by denying these people are part of the debate..

      • But these people aren’t part of the debate. They don’t want to debate at all – it’s all settled and you will bow to their dictates or else!

      • The IPCC is a politically motivated organization and was crafted that way from the beginning. It has scrupulously ( or unsrupulously, more like) squeezed out all dissenters to the global warming mission from early on, and supported and promoted supporters of the warming meme regardless of any lack of talent or honesty. They pushed people like Michael Mann out front to tell lies to the people and politicians. Al Gore, the absolute non-scientist, pitched a video of completely disprovable bullshit to an unsuspecting public and indoctrinated kids with it while getting rich.
        This unholy alliance of Environmental Excessives and Socialists have created an almost unstoppable Frankenstein science that threatens the well being of the entire world. The Socialists are at war with Capitalism ( especially fossil fuel companies) and believe that Socialist Utopia depends on first destroying the current economic paradigm ( care to check out their other success stories like the Soviet Union, Communist China, Venezuela?). The radical Environmentalists think that 9 billion people can live happily on this planet without mechanized farming or industry or cutting down trees. Or maybe ( likely) they believe that a process that kills off several billion people would leave the planet “more pristine” The Climate scientists support this whole farce because it puts them in the spotlight and ensures grant money. They are mostly activists in disguise, anyway. The third world co-ordinates it all to destroy Western pre-eminence in the world and take over that perch. They think we’re crazy, but if we want to commit economic suicide they are happy to lend us some money for a while until they own us and we are completely crippled.
        The entire system is a conspiracy of self interest. It is Anti-science. That’s why they scream denier and attempt to attack their critics with personal attacks and obfuscation and refuse at any cost to admit any uncertainty or engage in debate. The science is settled they say! It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.

    • The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher in the past with no detectable adverse effects on the climate. It is all just speculation at this point. What makes this time unique? I’ll grant you the probability is nonzero but at least so far no one has made the case that it’s worth spending trillions of dollars and destroying the world economy. Personally, I think the science has been screwed up to the point that it will be decades before anyone actual has the answer.

    • “there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.”

      Au contraire. It is a mathematical certainty, that the impact of each additional ton of CO2 will shrink.

      All statements of the greenhouse effect of CO2 are in terms of the impact of additional units of CO2. The impact of 1 additional unit must be 1/n. That number goes toward zero as n increases. And total impact, which is the integral of 1/n is ln(n), which flattens out. See the first chart given by Janice Moore on
      May 14, 2017 at 8:57 am.

      This is why the sensitivity of the climate is always given as °C per doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2. See e.g. Hansen’s estimate 0f 3±0.5°C. Those sensitivity estimates have been declining, see Janice Moore’s second chart.

      But, no matter what estimate you use for sensitivity, 1/n goes towards 0, and ln(x) flattens out. And it was finally achieving a understanding of these simple arithmetic truths, that made a a skeptic of CAGW.

      • so you increase it enough…and it acts like any other buffer
        ..and presto……Richard has that magical stable climate he wants

        CO2 levels are obviously way too low ;)

      • Latitude: “CO2 levels are obviously way too low ;)”

        Plants would be happier with 1000ppm. However, if fossil fuel combustion is how we are going to get there, it is more likely that we will run out of fossil fuel.

    • “This is a strawman.”

      On that initial point, you could not be more wrong. Michael Mann, who the cartoon character clearly resembles, and climate scientists in general, have done all of those things in each panel.

      1. Made claims that it’s all basic science (like you’re a grade school-level science moron if you don’t buy that first premise)
      2. then measurements and more science are run in computer models which can’t be questioned (which are too complicated for non-climate scientists and engineers with advanced degrees to understand or criticize).
      3. The recent focus on model tuning transparency has highlighted the confirmation bias rampant in most or all of the modelling groups (plugging many models’ TOA energy leaks leads to far too sensitive and hot-running outputs w/o uncomfortably wild convection-precip tuning and aerosol parameters).
      4. The fact that CC scenarios are then run by academic economists to create cost scenarios to humanity. (which Adams knows have never been worth the paper they print out on).
      5. Mann calls JCurry and Spencer the D word in recent written testimony to Congress. (then denies that in verbal testimony when challenged.)

      Guilty on all points.

      No. Face the difficult truth Richard. Your field is chock-full of prominent charlatans and snake oil sellers. And they are collectively pulling down all of science with their fakery and lies to save their alarmist rent seeking careers.

      Joel O’Bryan

    • Richard Betts
      ” there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.”
      I see, so you’re saying the ‘climate’ is unstable because CO2 levels are too low. An increase in CO2 could have a large effect.

      What level of CO2 do you think we should crank it up to so the climate is stable?

      • The climate seems pretty stable now. Let’s go with the current level of CO2 as being a minimum. :)

      • The advocates of CAGW don’t seem to understand the additional CO2 is logarithmic. Which is that each additional molecule has less cooling retardation than the first 100 ppmv, where most of the effect is realized. They seem to think that every molecule of CO2 is linear and more is just as bad as the previous.

        Wrong. And there is no real disagreement on that basic physics fact other than hypothetical H2O feedbacks which are, hypothetical and the foundation of any real debate. Which is why the computer models are so out of step with real observations, because the mathematical modelers put wrong assumptions (or grossly overstated feedbacks) into the formulae.

        An analogy I heard many years ago that really helped me understand and change my mind, was like painting a window with a thin coat of black paint. Some light gets through, but subsequent coats of black paint just let less and less light through. Sort of like the law of diminishing returns.

      • Hmmm. The Holocene Optimum sounds nice and comfortably warm. But…wait a minute! The CO2 level was lower then! But it was warmer! Less CO2 means warmer? Do they have a model for that, too?

    • Your idiotic use of the Precautionary Principle is noted. There is no reason to be confident that there has been any measurable manmade CO2 effect on climate, much less that there will be one, and even less that it would be problematic, if it existed.

    • Latitude,

      IMO it is the Met’s Dr. Betts, who frequently converses with climate skeptics on Twitter. No reason for him not to drive by WUWT or other blogs as well.

      I hope he returns, in order to support both his assertion that AGW is real and his conclusion that its consequences could be dire. Neither proposition is supported by convincing evidence, or any at all.

      • Chimp, he said so many conflicting things in that one short paragraph…he should be a prize for obfuscation

        tranlation: we can’t predict the future because we have no clue about the past…but be worried about it anyway

        “climate has varied a lot in the past” “far from certain about its future rate and impact”

        ….and for some reason, sane people are supposed to listen to this

      • Maybe there should be some sort of standard mod reply to suspected drive byers, to the effect that they will need more than clichéd standard CAGW rants in order for their posts to be entertained/ acknowledged on WUWT. Like many such drive bys, this single post has occupied most of the discussion on this thread. While the comments have been good, the original topic becomes easily lost.

      • IMO it’s especially strange that the consequences are assumed to be bad, when it’s demonstrably true that so far the consequences of more plant food in the air have been beneficial.

    • Actually, there are reasons to be confident that the impacts of increased concentration in atmospheric CO2 to be small and beneficial. That is unless you adhere to the fabulous “tipping points” hypothesis. The observation of historical weather and CO2 concentration points to a low climate sensitivity and the fertilizing effect on the biosphere. The onus is still on the catastrophiles to demonstrate a danger. Wild hand-waving does not constitute proof.

    • “While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real”

      With little to no proof. but you BELIEVE anyway.

      That makes it a religion.

    • RB:

      The narrative from many of the most influential individuals in the Western world, along with the huge pyramids of government and orgs they represent, over many years, is what drives policy in the climate domain. This narrative is one of *certainty* of imminent climate catastrophe, communicated in the most critically urgent and emotive fashion, as can be seen from the sample snippets below. As likewise can be seen, it is the authority of science that is repeatedly used to underwrite this narrative of complete certainty, which is way beyond ‘over-confident’. False certainty inspiring critical urgency, hugely increases the chance of doing much more harm than good, like the various bio-fuel debacles and the European diesel fiasco. Where was and is the concomitant push-back from scientists across the world, that should be expected from this inappropriate hi-jacking of their authority? Mainstream / orthodox science does not support this certainty, let alone any skeptic offerings. Scott’s comic strip is not a straw man, because the scientist in the strip reflects the narrative that has strongly dominated the domain for many years, i.e. not an ‘assessment of risk’, but that there ‘will’ be a global catastrophe. In fact the presidents and prime ministers in the real world make it stronger still than the Dilbert strip, i.e. we have x days left etc. per below. You can’t separate out the scientists from this, other than ones who have spoken out against the narrative of certainty of catastrophe. In the end it is this narrative, which comes from the most influential authority sources in the world and has flooded the public domain for years, that is driving all the action.

      [GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND] to 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development : “So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” [OBAMA] Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet (2006) : “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Speech in Berlin (2008) : “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” George town speech (2013) : “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” State of the Union (2015) : “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] Paris climate summit Nov 2015 : “To resolve the climate crisis, good will, statements of intent are not enough. We are at breaking point.” [GORDON BROWN] Copenhagen climate plan (2009) : “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause…As scientists spell out the mounting evidence both of the climate change already occurring and of the threat it poses in the future, we cannot allow the negotiations to run out of time simply for lack of attention. Failure would be unforgivable.” [ANGELA MERKEL] to UN summit on Climate Change (2009) : “After all, scientific findings leave us in no doubt that climate change is accelerating. It threatens our well being, our security, and our economic development. It will lead to uncontrollable risks and dramatic damage if we do not take resolute countermeasures.” Same speech : “we will need to reach an understanding on central issues in the weeks ahead before Copenhagen, ensuring, among other things, that global emissions reach their peak in the year 2020 at the latest.” And while president of the EU, on German TV in a wake-up call for climate action prior to 26 leader EU climate meeting (2007) : “It is not five minutes to midnight. It’s five minutes after midnight.” [POPE FRANCIS] Asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris (2015) would mark a turning point in the fight against global warming, the pope said: “I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’. Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.” [MARK CARNEY] governor of the bank of England, speech ‘Resolving the Climate Paradox’, September 2016: “…climate change is a tragedy of the horizon which imposes a cost on future generations that the current one has no direct incentive to fix. The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors including businesses and central banks. Once climate change becomes a clear and present danger to financial stability it may already be too late to stabilise the atmosphere at two degrees.”

      • A few more narrative samples…

        [PRINCE CHARLES] speech to business leaders in Brazil (2009): “The best projections tell us that we have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change.” [AL GORE] speech to NY University School of Law (Sept 2006): “Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency — a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe.” [JOHN KERRY] as US Secretary of State, responding to UN report (2014): “Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy… …There are those who say we can’t afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic.” [HILLARY CLINTON] (Nov 2015): “I won’t let anyone to take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.” [BERNIE SANDERS] US presidential candidate (2016), : Bernie Sanders strongly believes climate change is real, catastrophic, and largely caused by human activities.

      • and yet a few more narrative samples…

        [M. LAURENT FABIUS] French Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, in the National Assembly (May 2014): “We have 500 days – not a day more – to avoid a climate disaster. People often talk about climate change or global warming. I attach great importance to words, and as far as the French language is concerned I don’t think those words are very appropriate, because – without alluding to this or that political programme – change is seen as rather a positive thing, but in the case of climate, it isn’t at all. Some French people say: why not, since they might think Lille, for example, is going to join the Côte d’Azur? That’s absolutely not it. We must face up to climate disruption, climate chaos. The scientists, several of whom are present here, have said it: ‘you’d have to be blind not to see it’.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] as French President, at 150 nation climate summit in Le Bourget, France (Nov 2015): “Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high, because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life.” [MERKEL] as German chancellor, at the Lowy Institute in Sydney (Nov 2014): “If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us – there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more droughts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods.”

    • The problem for me is that some of the leading lights of global warming theory are very committed to a view of the future which is catastrophic.
      Our own Climate Commissioner was influential in having many cities build desalination plants on the grounds of eternal drought caused by CAGW.

      PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
      When Al Gore told us about the long term fall in rainfall in Northern Australia it inconveniently became wetter.

      Professor Flannery’s commentary is peppered with good analytical science, such as the Australian soil deficit in carbon and the need to improve soils.
      The lukewarmers merely can’t find the evidentiary certainty that leaders of the CAGW movement can find and predict.
      With bumper crops in Australia and miniscule global warming as well as the flooding of our inland sea twice, who would you think is on the side of the angels?

    • The weather report was WRONG this weekend twice; the “big, yuuuge, huff ‘n puff DANGEROUS LATE SEASON NORTHEASTER never happened. Instead we had (wait for it!) a “rainy day.” Today the showers that were positively supposed to arrive at exactly 3:15 PM instead arrived after 5. You bet your sweet bippy they’re “unsure about future rate and impact!”

    • “This is a strawman. While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real, they are far from certain about its future rate and impact. It’s more about risk assessment than prediction.”

      What about the economic risks of artificially constraining our energy production? How many will have to skip health insurance because they have to spend more on energy? Or college savings for their children? What about the World Bank not loaning money to developing countries to build the fossil fuel fired power plants they desperately need, but instead hold the status quo where people have to inhale enormous amounts of particulates as they burn wood, or animal dung, or other biological matter in their homes for heat?

      What if the scientists are completely wrong and the amount of warming from CO2 emissions is on smaller side of projections, and is net beneficial?

      As long as we’re playing what-if games here, you have to consider both sides of the equation, and not just sum up the worst-case scenarios of global warming, you have to consider the benefit we receive from burning fossil fuels and the consequences to mankind of not burning as much. You also have to consider the opportunity costs should global warming be beneficial.

      We simply do not have sufficient information to make the risk assessment you suggest.

    • The definition of “lukewarmers” must be different in various places.

      “given that climate has varied a lot in the past, there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of increased GHG concentrations will only be small.” There’s no reason to reason to be confident that the impacts will be large. We just do not know.

    • Richard Betts — your mistake is assuming that there is only “right” or “wrong” here. Whether “AGW” is real is not the question. A better question is what would the actual impact of climate change policies compared to the actual cost.

      I’m more confidant that the risk assessment from the economic damage from climate policies is under estimated and that the carbon dioxide reduction and effects on climate change are over-estimated.

      In other words, I believe in the law of unintended consequences.

    • “While climate scientists are confident that AGW is real”

      … whereas competent scientists can see plainly and clearly that no warming has occurred for 20 years, despite the unabated increase in CO2. Ergo, real scientists are confident that AGW is NOT real.

    • This is a strawman. While climate scientists deniers are confident that AGW is real, they are far from certain about its future rate and impact. It’s more about risk economic suicide assessment than prediction ignorance. It’s actually the “lukewarmers” who are overconfident in future predictions – given that climate has varied a lot in the past, there’s no reason to be confident that the impact of indecreased GHG concentrations will only be small.

    • Richard Betts is right, of course. I think the net warming will be small, mainly because it has been so far. But I don’t know what the future will bring until it brings it.

      As a lukewarmer, my confidence is warm, but only lukewarm.

  5. I read some of the comments below the main post cartoon — some fine comments by wielders of the sword of facts and truth about climate models, but a wearisome pile of ignorant comments, too. I didn’t want to get into it there, but, in case anyone is reading here who has yet to do much research into the AGW issue, here ya go:

    To understand, read this free book:

    (Available here: )

    • Too Funny.

      Skeptic A: Climate science cant be falsified
      Skeptic B: Climate science falsified, models wrong.

      Here is a clue: Every climate model since 1896 has been correct: GHGs warm the planet they do not cool the planet.
      Here is the second clue: Models that are biased high or low are very useful.

      Here’s another clue: El nino is an effect not a cause. and its not even physical. Its an index. same for AMO.
      Not global and its an index.. non physical

      • Stevie baby, lol. You are reminding me of this guy….

        Foster Brooks (Brain Surgeon)


        SM: (hic) Aaaa…. climate science, modelswronghere (HIC) heeerrresssuhclue…. an aNUTHER clue!….. ss…. ssssssssss………………. ssSOMEBODY tell me what it was I was trying to say……..

      • Clue for Steven Mosher:
        Climate is not real either. It is a non-physical human interpretation of terribly sparse and undersampled historical and geographical temperature data. The error bars on the manipulated data points are likely far larger than the trends that have been tortured out of the set if proper statistical methods are applied (i.e., noise > signal). The idea that CO2 controls the boundaries of the behavior of a wickedly complex, multi-dimensional, non-linear, chaotic phenomenon called weather is also only a human interpretation, and an unsophisticated one at that.

      • Butch,

        Mosh is wrong again.

        Arrhenius’ original “model” was quickly shown false, starting a sorry trend that has lasted up until today.

      • Janice, if you could find the time, please e-mail me at “mark.stoval at” and let me know what the guy said. I would be most grateful if you would satisfy my curiosity. If you do not have time, I will understand.

        Regards, Mark

      • Hi, Mark,

        I’d rather just “talk” to you here, if you don’t mind (nothing personal — just trying to not have any male pen pal or “personal” correspondence these days). Thanks for understanding (I hope!).

        The gist of the snipped remarks was that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” — at all.

        It was what I recall several commenters posting from time to time, talking about “black body radiation” and stuff like that.

        Sorry I don’t recall more details (about 6 hours ago, I would have had a sort of “picture” of the comment in my memory, but, alas (or, perhaps, lol, not “alas”) it has been written over).

        Just to let you know where I am coming from, I would not have agreed with Anthony’s snip if the comment had ONLY been asserting that because CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, it may have no driving effect at all in the water-driven greenhouse effect. I believe that is a plausible possibility (only in highly controlled laboratory conditions is there data showing CO2’s having a controlling/driving effect in a real greenhouse (versus the “greenhouse effect of the entire planet”)). That is, I am nearly an S word person myself (if I have understood how that term is used around here)!

        Again, please forgive me for not taking you up on your generous offer to write. That was kind of you, but, I must decline.

        Friendly regards from
        your WUWT ally for science facts,

        Janice :)

      • Mark,

        Our esteemed host has banned self-styled “Sky Dr@gon Sl@yers” from posting here, I presume because their belief that there is no GHE would cast his blog in an unscientific light.

        IMO their view is that the mass of its atmosphere warms a planet or other celestial body, not its composition, including GHGs. Hence, Venus is hot, thanks to its thick atmosphere, while Mars is cold, due to its thin one, despite both being ~96% CO2. Earth’s is just right, being in between in density and having only a trace amount of the essential plant food.

        I happen to be convinced that there is a GHE, but that an increase in CO2 concentration from three to four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules, or indeed to six, will have only beneficial effects.

      • Dear Janice the Librarian….What does this reference to “Sky Dragon Slayer” stuff refer to ?? New to me !!

      • P.S. to MarkStoval — I am having serious concerns that I may have, in my hearsay testimony, misrepresented what Mr. Schroeder said. I just checked his name — you can CLICK on his name to go and ask HIM. :) He will probably recall what he wrote.

      • Hi, Butch!

        Well, back in 2013, when I started coming to WUWT, it seemed to mean the commenters who talk about earth being a back body and back radiation and no greenhouse effect and the like.

        I think some people think it includes people like me who see it as “not proven” that CO2 is a controlling driver of the greenhouse effect, i.e., that it isn’t essentially insignificant, i.e., supervened/overwhelmed by the LARGE (over 90%) effect of water vapor. I still think CO2 COULD be, but, I don’t think the results of CO2 testing in controlled laboratory testing necessarily transfer directly to the system called “earth.” BUT, I’m willing to admit that THEY MAY, so, I’m not a “s l a y _ r” (I hope!).

        The s l a y _ rs say they KNOW CO2 doesn’t have a driving effect in the “greenhouse effect” of the earth.

        I think they got that name because they see killing the CO2 = meaningfully powerful greenhouse gas assertion as essential to defeating AGW (it isn’t, in my opinion).

        Most skeptics seem to say they believe CO2 DOES significantly cause the earth’s greenhouse effect, but, they also see no evidence (in fact see anti-correlation data, now) that doubling CO2 is likely to cause a climate shift.

        Aaaand I’m not TOTALLY sure about all that!

        Anyway. FWIW, there you go.

        The less said about this, likely, the better!

        Take care, up there. :)


      • Chimp @ May 14, 2017 at 4:46 pm

        “I happen to be convinced that there is a GHE…”

        I do not doubt that there is a GHE. The theory is sound, on one level. We use thermal insulating (MLI) blankets on satellites to maintain warmth of components not facing the Sun all the time. These work in accordance with the principle that impeding heat radiation from exiting will, all things being equal, raise temperature.

        It is the “all things being equal” bit where the AGW hypothesis gets into trouble. A satellite is a relatively simple thermal system, in which all heat is either conducted or radiated. It would be a whole different ballgame if there were an intervening, heat convecting gas filling the space between the satellite body and the MLI.

      • Love that graph, Janice. Looking at that, you can see why climate scientsts back in the 1960’s and 1970’s were worried about Global Cooling.

        Then along came the bastardized, bogus Hockey Stick surface temperature chart and skewed the whole picture, making reality look like just the opposite of what it is.

      • Janice, the “Years Before Present (2000)” is incorrect in your graphic. “Smalliot’s” graphic correctly identifies the horizontal as “Years Before Present (1950)”

    • Yes, he went out on a limb. Almost as bad as this guy:

      “The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents.” — R.W. Wood

    • Scott Adams is very much about describing the hipocrisy of social convention and large groups such as bureaucracies and religions. That is what we are dealing with in AGW. A social convention. Just like the flat earth idea. It is so accepted that only “crazy people” ;like us oppose it.

  6. “This is a strawman.”

    On that initial point, you could not be more wrong. Michael Mann, who the cartoon character clearly resembles, and climate scientists in general, have done all of those things in each panel.

    1. Made claims that it’s all basic science (like you’re a grade school-level science moron if you don’t buy that first premise)
    2. then measurements and more science are run in computer models which can’t be questioned (which are too complicated for non-climate scientists and engineers with advanced degrees to understand or criticize).
    3. The recent focus on model tuning transparency has highlighted the confirmation bias rampant in most or all of the modelling groups (plugging many models’ TOA energy leaks leads to far too sensitive and hot-running outputs w/o uncomfortably wild convection-precip tuning and aerosol parameters).
    4. The fact that CC scenarios are then run by academic economists to create cost scenarios to humanity. (which Adams knows have never been worth the paper they print out on).
    5. Mann calls JCurry and Spencer the D word in recent written testimony to Congress. (then denies that in verbal testimony when challenged.)

    Guilty on all points.

    No. Face the difficult truth Richard. Your field is chock-full of prominent charlatans and snake oil sellers. And they are collectively pulling down all of science with their fakery and lies to save their alarmist rent seeking careers.

    Joel O’Bryan

  7. This old song still rings true, this is what I would say to the climate scientists and marchers.

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    You tell me that it’s evolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    But when you talk about destruction
    Don’t you know that you can count me out
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be
    All right, all right, all right
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well, you know
    We’re doing what we can
    But if you want money for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell is brother you have to wait
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be
    All right, all right, all right
    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be
    All right, all right, all right

    • Good one, John Bell.

      I like this part best: “But if you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell is brother you have to wait”

      Minds that hate. It looks to me like there is a lot of that on the radical Left, and not very much at all on the Right. Of course, someone on the Left would see it just the opposite, wouldn’t they. Two different worlds we live in.

      No money for you, Soros! No money for the other leftist billionaires trying to undermine our society, either! No money for hate.

      • As e.e. cummings put it many decades ago, “every kumrad is a bit of quite unmitigated hate.”

        The far left can’t exist without someone to hate. Remove the right, and the left quickly start eating each other for not being extreme enough.

        [Yes, but every kumquit stopped hating. And bit off something else more fruitful. .mod]

      • There is a tremendous amount of hatred on the Right, also. The Right deludes itself by believing they are pure. Read some of the right wing news site comments. Name-calling, racism, hoping people are killed, complete hatred for many, many people. You disagree with them and you’re a Hillary lover, a pajama boy, Left wing whack job. Matters not if you voted for Trump—they don’t believe you did. The Right and the Left are very, very much alike in their extreme hatred of much of humanity.

        It’s not just on the websites. My husband left a Saturday activity because there was a right-winger there saying we should just put gun turrets on the Mexican wall and pick all the *****s off. It’s very real.

      • True enough. The difference, though, is that the Left wing nutters are a lot closer to the levers of power. My only concern about the Right wing nutters is that the Left will push so hard that it drives ordinary people to ally with them as the only antidote. It is perilous indeed to navigate the waters between the Scylla and Charybdis.

  8. We had a pretty impressive thunderstorm in my town a few weeks ago. It shook the windows and rattled nerves, which is a very common occurrence, as we know. A person in town commented on a FB thread that the current president better pay attention to the changes in climate, because she had never heard, or felt thunder like that in her life. I couldn’t help myself (small town) and mentioned that it…was…thunder…and suggested wine as a calming influence in her life. This person is fairly intelligent, so it was quite shocking to see loud thunder associated with the current prez, not to mention global warming.

    Yes, there was a somewhat heated response to my comment, to which I suggested more wine, after referencing an article on why thunder is louder at times. It was stunning to see an intelligent person so misguided by the climate propagandists. It reminded me of a Bible verse, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”

    I do believe we have more of this kind of reasoning ahead – especially with the drivel that is taught today in college and high school. We will have to develop coping skills. I’m not sure coping skills will suffice.

      • In my intro to physics college course we made a ‘sound lens’ my filling a large spherical balloon with CO2. Using sound source placed on one side of the balloon it was easy to find a focal point on the opposite side where the sound was significantly louder demonstrating that the speed of sound in CO2 is different than in air. Not that this would have any effect in the atmosphere.

      • Rick,

        No, having four rather than three CO2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules wouldn’t make a measurable difference. Probably having 21% O2 and one percent Argon in the air might not even change the propagation rate of sound waves vs a medium of 100% N2 at standard conditions.

      • having four rather than three CO2 molecules per 10,000

        OMG!!! But that’s a… (furiously pushes buttons on calculator for 45 seconds) …33 million per cent increase in CO2!!!! OMG!!!

      • But Chimp, as the OCO2 satellites show, CO2 is not as well mixed as we have been led to believe. Maybe there was a turbulent bubble between the poor soul and the lightning, causing a focused sound event at her house! (mostly sarc)

      • Owen,

        Since it’s not well-mixed, there could be CO2 lenses in the air requiring study. In the tropics. During the NH winter.

      • The full proposal: ” to study the subjective and objective effects of wine consumption on the recognition of the effect on sound transmission of more CO2 in the air”.

        Where do I sign up?

      • I like the comparison to “witches”. There’s a growing tendency of people to believe in magic: energy from weather, hidden Tesla free energy machines, cancer cures that were hidden and are now found, etc, etc. We made it to the moon, but we can’t let go of that belief in magic.

      • Imagine what it will be like when AGW comes a cropper, and people who believe in these things will shrug criticism off with, “yeah, well, you sure got that Global Warming thing right, dintja?”

    • Re: “… they became fools…” (good one)

      And THAT reminded me of this one — edited to make a point:

      For the time will come when people will not put up with sound {science}. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from {science} and turn aside to myths.

      II. Timothy 4:3,4 (Note: this verse is a prophecy about doctrine, NOT about science — I’m not claiming the Bible prophesied the Cult of AGW and the enviroprofiteers who love and care for it so tenderly.)

      • There are many passages in the bible that attempt to describe human nature. They did a remarkable job of it in many cases without the twisting of language common in sociology and psychology. Granted, sometimes unwinding the parables to get to the message of human nature is a bit tedious, but sometimes worthwhile.

      • It’s not a prophecy at all, since 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and a number of other books attributed to Paul are 2nd and even 3rd century forgeries. By that time, there were differences over doctrine and dogma, which the emerging Church hierarchy wanted to squelch. Hence, the patriarchate forged books in Paul’s name in order to enforce their version of orthodoxy.

    • Becky

      At what point to you begin to become more, shall we say, “open minded” about thunder lady’s demonstrated intelligence?

    • “I do believe we have more of this kind of reasoning ahead”

      Yes, we have a long row to hoe. There are a lot of very confused people in the world.

  9. You guys are perhaps aware of he Northwest Passage having opened for the first time in 120,000 years? Or the Arctic Icecap thawing? I mean, sure the climate changes always, but it is changing rsather FAST, is it not?

    • The NW Passage has been open for more of the Holocene, the past 11,400 years, than it has been closed.

      The “ice cap” is not melting. The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are growing, and polar sea ice remains above average for the Holocene, which has been a lot colder than the Eemian, the previous interglacial ~114 to 130 Ka, which also lasted longer than the current one so far.

      The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of Earth’s fresh water, quit retreating over 3000 years ago, after the Minoan Warm Period. Earth has been cooling for at least that long. Maybe since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended about 5000 years ago.

    • You might try reading my essay Northwest Passage in ebook Blowing Smoke. Illustrations, even, showing how little you actually know as facts rather than propaganda. Mistake to come here with a rubber knife.

  10. The Dilbert comic strip is brilliant at capturing truth in a simple cartoon.

    Climate scientists ignored the scientific method. They attributed all of the warming in the second half of last century to AGHG emissions despite the variability of our natural climate, the MWP and the LIA (from which the warming lasted 300 years. They then repeated this mistake in the assumptions that govern their climate models.

    Now everyone is paying for these errors while the same scientists continue to avoid reality.

    • Schrodinger’s Cat: “they attributed all of the warming in the second half of last century to AGHG emissions ”

      When did 1950 become the start point for global warming? What happened to 1880 and the industrial age?

      • Check out the record land surface temperatures in the 1930’s…. . Gotta get that steep upward slope! :)

      • P.S. Sheri, I’m sorry about your husband having to be around such a vile person today. While I am for strong border enforcement (including a real, effective, wall), those remarks were disgusting. Unnerving to be around people like that. Hope the rest of the day was much better!

      • They claim that CO2 wasn’t high enough before WWII to have an effect. Which is strange, because Callendar thought it could explain the warmth of the 1920s and ’30s, which of course he considered beneficial.

        There remains the problem that CO2 took off after WWII, yet the world suffered a pronounced cooling from 1945 to 1977, when the PDO flipped. Thus we’ve seen dramatic cooling for 32 years, slight warming for the next ~20 years and roughly flat temperature for the following ~20 years, all with rising CO2.

      • Janice: Yes, his day got better after he left the activity. I suspected the warm 1930’s might be part of it.

        Chimp: Interesting. I guess if the data isn’t working, one just redefines what is “significant” and drops any of the data that won’t fit. When this whole mess started, 285 was the “ideal” CO2 level and we needed to keep it forever. I gather it’s now okay to reach whatever level we had in 1950, but no more. Sounds arbitrary and contrived, doesn’t it?

    • Because economic models like the UK’s Stern Report project huge economic costs from business as usual, and manageable costs from mitigation via renewables.

      • “… manageable costs from mitigation via renewables …”.
        That is utter fantasy.
        “… world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years.
        If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum …” (Matt Ridley):
        Via Jo Nova:”… So we’d have to build 350,000 wind turbines every year just to keep up with the growth in electricity demand each year …”.

  11. “Our freedom loving* Social Justice Warriors have justly punished Scott Adams by depriving him of as much income as they can.” Chairman Miaow link

    /sarc I will be astounded if they can’t find a way to get him banned from every newspaper and even the whole internet.

    *Of course they love freedom … theirs. It’s just that they hate our freedom. We’re too deplorable to merit any freedom at all.

  12. Almost 20 years ago, Scott Adams mocked the oil boycott crowd with a comic about oil is fungible and people will just buy elsewhere. They still haven’t grasped that basic argument.
    Search for Dilbert fungible.

      • One of the corner posts of stamping out ISIS is to deprive it of oil revenue. The trick is to make sure NOBODY buys its oil. link

        I agree that individual symbolic gestures are usually pointless per the cartoon.

  13. “We start with the basic science of pysics and chemistry”. This is such a classic lie they like to tell themselves. It’s another form of the Argument from Authority.

    • So true, Mr. Cobb.

      In case anyone reading would like to know why, watch Dr. Christopher Essex’s video lecture, linked in this WUWT post (especially focus on the part :

      {Name redacted to prevent embarrassment}: we have loads of evidence from the known laws of physics

      {Essex has a quote for you on that exact line at 48:00 on the below video, heh}

      You need to investigate that claim further, with your fine research skills. So far… there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that CO2 drives climate shifts.

      Chris Essex presents the actually state of the physics concisely and clearly here {WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO — I did and it is well worth it}:

      Dr. Christopher Essex,
      Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario (Canada) in London, 12 February 2015 —

      7 Key “Impossible Things” Points (listed at ~ 1:07:06 in the video} in Video with approx. times:

      {25:17} 1. Solving the closure problem. {i.e., the “basic physics” equations have not even been SOLVED yet, e.g., the flow of fluids equation “Navier-Stokes Equations” — we still can’t even figure out what the flow of water in a PIPE would be if there were any turbulence}

      {30:20} 2. a. Computers with infinite representation. {gross overestimation and far, far, misplaced confidence in the ability of computers to do math accurately (esp. over many iterations) — in this section he discusses the 100 km square gaps {specifically mentioned at about 46:00} (i.e., cell size) — e.g., to analyze air movement, the cell would need to be, per Komogorov microscale, 1mm (aerosols even smaller, microns)) — in climate data, at about 44:00 His discusses the fact that even IF the basic equations were known, there isn’t enough time since time began to calculate even just a TEN – year forecast, even at super-fast speeds it would take approx. 10 to the 20th power years (the universe is only 10 to the 10th power years old)}.

      2. b. Computer water and cultural physics {also in Intro through ~14:50}.

      {19:40} 3. Greenhouses that don’t work by the greenhouse effect.

      {14:50} 4. Carbon-free sugar.

      {15:40} 5. Oxygen-free carbon dioxide.

      {passim} 6. Nonexistent long-term natural variability.

      {49:00} 7. Nonempirical climate models that conserve what they are supposed to conserve {that is, they do not do this}.

      ( )

      • “focus on the part {that starts around 25:00 about physics and math and computers}.”

  14. Ah, the Warmians (or Alarmists, if you prefer)! This can go only one way for them. I feel sad for them. Such a narrow view.

    Considering that my day/night temps have been varying as much as 42F overnight, the heat I should be feeling in May hasn’t kicked in yet because the jetstream seems to be having some Rossby wave issues. In simple English, I’m having early April weather in mid-May. W-E-A-T-H-E-R.

    Now, if this were a shift over to a real long-term warming trend, I’d be having early July temperatures. Unfortunately for the Warmians, this kind of thing is Nature’s way of handling her own issues. I really don’t think we humans have a lot to do with it, except for those who need to listen to other views occasionally. Not interested in pointing out the flaws in their argument, because that descends into a waste of time. And I do not think we are in any way at all heading for a longer term warming trend.

    Since I have an interest in the length of time it takes to go from one warm cycle to the next cold cycle, and there are cycles within cycles (kind of like a hippodrome in layers), I think it’s quite reasonable to say that the colder-than-usual spring weather I’ve been recording, and extremely warm weather others have had elsewhere, are just
    weather and nothing else.

    However, my underlying issue is that a real drop in so-called greenhouse gases will include a loss of water vapor in the air, a/k/a lower humidity, resulting in lower precipitation, and in fact, the precise opposite has been happening for some time now. This becomes flooding rains for four years in a row in Oman, every year since 2013. It becomes morning fog in Dubai, snow in Kuwait, snow in the dunes of Morocco, and creates an annoying argument between the Saudis and their neighbors because humidity levels have risen so steadily and drastically for the past 10 to 12 years.

    If humidity levels drop, water vapor will no longer block heat radiating back into space. Any meteorologist will tell you that. This is NOT climate change; it is meteorology, a/k/a weather. Then I find in the mornings that my house, lawn and car are soaking wet, and it isn’t from rain. It’s from the temperature hitting the dew point, which frequently takes place around midnight where I live. It’s freakin’ weather, people, nothing else. The ‘argument’ is ridiculous and tiresome. I resent the fact that it costs us taxpayers money that could go for something practical.

    This argument by the Warmians is becoming sillier and sillier. Our 20,000+/- years of interglacial climate might be coming to an end. We could face another period of ice advances within two generations (80 to 100 years). I won’t say it would please me, but it can certainly happen. Then what with the Warmians ever do?

    • Very similar here in Western Canada. Cooland wet. Flooding and cool weather in many parts of Eastern Canada as well.

  15. Scott Adams is making a interesting statement with this cartoon. Previously I believe he has stated being public about his climate skepticism was dangerous to his financial health (among other things, he has 2 restaurants in Pleasanton CA)

    • Adams has said that he’s no longer receiving much money from his speaking engagements in the past two years, now that he’s become controversial. He’s said that he used to be among the highest-rate speakers listed by his speakers’ bureau.

      • Adams has said that he’s no longer receiving much money from his speaking engagements in the past two years, now that he’s become controversial

        The collectivist drones go where they’re told. And think what they’re told. And do what they’re told. They do not think for themselves and this makes them dangerous in large numbers.

    • He burnt his bridges when he publicly came out against Clinton.

      A brave man. And already sufficiently wealthy so that he can afford to be so.

  16. “Michael Mann might even sue due to the scientist looking something like him.”

    There’s no way that would work. The scientist in the cartoon is wearing glasses, while Michael Mann, as far as I know, doesn’t wear glasses. I mean, maybe he does, but most pictures show him without glasses. Think about it. Clark Kent has effectively hidden himself behind glasses for over 75 years now and no one has figured out they are one in the same. Clearly, with the glasses, the scientist in the cartoon panel isn’t Michael Mann.

  17. When did climate scientists ever ignore a climate model that “looked wrong?” They stick them all into an “ensemble” and pretend that the errors in one will offset the errors in others. More warmunist nonsense.

  18. The L A Times publishes Dilbert so it probably won’t be too long before the Times bans this comic strip which is now in violation of the Times climate alarmism censorship policy.

  19. Ah so he disbelieves in economic models.
    the models that tell us taxing carbon will destroy the economy.
    got it.

  20. From my experience in dealing with all this weather and climate stuff, wild hand waving immediately precedes, the “and then a miracle occurs” moment!

  21. Uh oh, Dilbert is entering verboten territory. A monetary/economic system that doubles debt every 8 years must not be brought into the same conversation as a natural system that doubles an insignificant gas like CO2 every 150 years. A rational person might do the math and conclude debt is a much, much greater concern to humanity than CO2.

  22. Spend some time reading the scientific literature rather than comics if you really want to pull your head out of the sand and educate yourselves

    [Please do not insult comics by comparing them to pal-reviewed, self-called scientific literature. 8<) .mod]

  23. The best part of it is, Adams does not dispute ANYTHING. He merely asked a question (through his character) and got the stock answer that Mann gave before congress! And yes, the beauty of it is, it is all true.

  24. It is not that contemporary long-term economic models are necessarily wrong (how would anyone know?) It is that they produce all sorts of scary projections in a range of areas. Most particularly social security/pension provision. But media interest is minimal and no one flies into marching hysterics. The topic of provision of old age benefits was mildly prominent in the 1990s. Someone called GWBush proposed ‘fixing’ US social security around 2000. How did that work out and who’s bothered? Compare and contrast with climate.

    • That’s the beauty of climate models for their perpetrators, who will be enjoying their taxpayer-funded pensions long before any of their scary, pretend projections could ever come to pass, which of course they won’t.

  25. ‘Dilbert’ must be pulled from our nations newspapers at once, and Scott Adams must be investigated before congress.

    • Sounds time consuming. The verdict is settled by your betters already. It’s the stake for him and the sooner the better.

      • Ya gotta remember – part of the modern crucifixion process is the ‘investigation’, the dragging through the mud in front of the city walls – which is always best when you’re making an example out of someone. ‘Time consumption’ is part of the goal.

  26. The answer, of course, is “physics”. You add an IR absorber to your system, without some compensating factor, the temperature rises. Pure, basic, physics.

    • There are always compensating mechanisms in our complex, homoestatic climate system. Also physics.

      That’s why Hansen’s loony Venus Express never left the station, even when CO2 was at 7000 ppm.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s