TV weatherman goes off on climate skeptics: “put up or shut up”

Greg Fishel, WRAL says on his Facebook page

Greg Fishel, WRAL-TV, Raleigh, NC

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change. All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice. That’s sarcasm to illustrate asininity. But wait! Let’s say one of these guest essayers is a modern day Galileo, and has that critical piece to the puzzle that no other scientist has. Then they should submit their findings to one of the American Meteorological Society’s peer reviewed journals for publication. If they are rejected, and the author feels unfairly, then make public each and every one of the reviewers’ comments for the entire world to see. If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected. But ya know what? I doubt any of these folks has the guts to do this, and they’ll continue on with their pathetic excuse for science education. So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you. Uncover that bias and corruption you’re so convinced is present. If you end up being correct, society will owe you a huge debt of gratitude. If you’re wrong, stop muddying the scientific waters with ideological trash.


Wow, I guess he doesn’t read beyond the AMS/BAMS much, because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change.

Let’s help him out.

Update: Added from comments, via “Aphan”

No Tricks Zone has a list I like to use for recent papers published:

248 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2014
282 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2015
500 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2016
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.UY4U91NX.dpbs

Advertisements

322 thoughts on “TV weatherman goes off on climate skeptics: “put up or shut up”

    • Well, he does appear to be a bit of a birdbrain now doesn’t he? The question is: “Can he point to a single study that rejects the null hypothesis that the increase in temperature during the 20th century was naturally caused.” Unless and until he can, I suggest that he is the one who has to put up or shut up.

      • +1 Exactly. the climate alarmists have made failed prediction (“projection”) after failed prediction. The ones that need to “put up or shut up” are the ones claiming we need to destroy our economies on the backs of their scare stories not the ones saying “wait a minute, that doesn’t add up”.

        As for “peer review” being the be all and end all, may I refer the Viking hatted one to “The conceptual penis as a social construct” ?

      • It’s worse than that, shrnfr.

        Richard Lindzen has published on how critical scientists are attacked and how the literature is censored to disallow AGW-critical papers from being published. Arxiv paper here.

        The UEA emails evidenced Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth conspiring to to exactly that — censor out critical papers. The Chris de Frietas episode an object example.

        And then this twit comes along and demands peer-reviewed papers with critical content.

        The guy exemplifies the self-righteous mindlessness that permeates the field.

        The pathology is so wide-spread among the eco-greens, that one wonders whether the phenomenon is that there is a population of the reflexively self-righteous who look for some cause to mindlessly support, or whether there are the mindless who are suckers for opportunistic self-righteous indulgence.

        Which causes what: mindlessness or self-righteousness; it’s the new chicken-or-egg problem.

      • Hi Mod — apparently my comment is stuck in spam purgatory, if it could be rescued please. :-) Please feel free to delete this request.

      • Hi, Pat (at 2:47pm) — I would suggest (I’m a Spam Bin veteran….) spelling out “moderat – r” and asking again. That way, your request will get into regular (as opposed to the Bermuda Triangle type) “moderation.” This is a more likely means of getting a mod to help (I think). Hope your comment makes it out! What you have to say is always worthwhile!

      • Thanks Janice. :-)

        Moderator, can you please remove my post from the heart of darkest spamness? And please delete my two requests? :-) Thanks.

        [Nothing in the queues right now now. .mod]

      • “the Viking hatted one”

        The Vikings didn’t actually wear hats with horns on. That is a Hollywood fantasy. I certainly hope his knowledge of meteorology is a lot better than his knowledge of history.

        The Vikings didn’t have plastic, either.

      • Peer Reviewed means approved by people of like mind. Like the National Academies of Science.

        There aren’t any qualifications for membership; well other than being recommended by people who tend to agree with you. They do have mavericks who somehow sneak in through their filters, and they even allow dissenting opinion.
        But dissenting view points do not go into their final reports to The Congress or the president. They issue only a majority (AKA consensus) report, with the points they all agree on, and NO minority report is ever issued.
        Yes Peer review is a good way to getting to a consensus.; the best thinking of your friends.

        G

      • Hivemind,

        Hollywood is guilty of many sins and transgressions, but you can’t pin the mythical horned Viking helmet on us. The first perpetrator of this myth was 19th century Scandinavian artist Gustav Malmström (1829-1901).

        By contrast, here is Hollywood:

      • The History Channel’s Vikings series gets it all wrong by using practically no helmets or body armor, being more interested in showcasing the characters’ tattoos and physiques.

        Then gets it even more wrong with their Anglo-Saxon opponents’ armor, equipment and tactics. The anachronistic series gives the English a cavalry arm, equipped with French Renaissance style helmets.

        In fact, the Saxons were almost entirely a heavy infantry force, using ponies only for transportation to the battlefield, not for shock action on it, and lacking light infantry, such as archers. Their heavy infantry was the best in the world, but alone insufficient to withstand the modern, combined arms force of the Normans in 1066. But just barely. Had Harold not taken an arrow in the eye at Hastings, we might still be speaking a more purely Germanic English.

    • Why does anyone bother paying a bit of attention to ANYTHING some asshat posts on Facebook or Twitter? Anyone can post any blather, making sense or not; ever see the comment sections following every news item? Truly a tower of babble! Ignore, ignore, ignore and give these people’s crap no daylight.

      • Ole Greg is the leading Meteorologist at WRAL TV. He has always been a bit on the dingy side. He is part of the Church of man made global warming. No one that I know really takes anything he says seriously.

      • Much to everyone’s dismay and relatively few have the knowledge of it, most media decide what they will run on a daily basis by the number of “hits” generated on Facebook and Twitter. Media organizations use them as the metric for what is “popular” and what will drive traffic to their site. So while I agree with anyone that proclaims that Facebook and Twitter are largely useless platforms for communication of anything scientific they are what drives the content of what the media puts out and as such are entirely too relevant. This is true of the old school print media (now largely web based electronic) or traditional or nontraditional electronic media. Blech.

      • I do agree with one of his comments. The money his parents spent on his higher education was most definitely a waste.

    • He appears to live in Cary, NC near Chapel Hill, a bastion of progressive visceral thinking.

      • Cary is a vast, vast suburb, on the WSW side of Raleigh. Cary is the home of NC’s wealthiest software entrepreneur. It leans Democrat, so it is to the left of the State as a whole, but it’s not crazy leftist like Chapel Hill / Carrboro, though both Cary and Chapel Hill / Carrboro are part of the “Research Triangle” / “Raleigh-Durham” media market.

      • What has happened to the Research Triangle area (politically) is a tragedy. As a youngster living just to the southeast of there in the late 60s, they were sane, down to earth people. It has now morphed into a real-life Bizarro World cartoon. Very sad.

    • I find it amusing that he wears a Viking helmet while saying what he says – especially since the period of time that the Vikings farmed Greenland is enough to bring into question what his peer reviewed papers claim about today being the hottest period ever.

      • Yes it’s a surreal thought – digging potatoes 🥔 on Greenland for his day job and in the evening facebooking about climate change before getting drunk with the locals and shouting about Odin and Vallhalla.

    • So he’s a weatherman.

      I can go outside and hold up a wet finger to find out the weather.

      Thunderstorms have a way of making themselves known both visually and orally, so that’s no biggie.

      So he has NO climate credentials. What is his bibliography of published peer reviewed climate papers. (authored by HIM of course. ??

      Basically that’s what talking heads are.

      G

      • … and as for “helping him out”, … well, he might be beyond help, given his preference for swimming in shallow water.

        But, just in case, my first tip would be, “Learn to swim in deeper water”, like the writings of John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and others, who rank a tad above the bloggers over whom he takes such self anointing pride in fermenting.

      • BCBill: In keeping with the rules of warmists, the fact that this person is sporting a myth for a hat and is not educated enough to know it or to care (or both), he should be ignored. Yes, that’s a strawman argument, but it’s what every good troll using the Troll Manual does. You hear it over and over and over. So, feel free to ignore this person based on their own standards for belief.

      • Well a crash helmet like that looks ever so much better on Brunhilde, than it does on him.
        And she sings a whole lot better than he does.
        G

    • His look is exactly the same as my older brother’s. My brother has been a dingbat the whole of his 71 years.

  1. As is usual, it’s the “peer review” canard. Peer review isn’t science or the scientific method. Independent replication is.

    • Especially when the gate keepers abuse the peer review process to make sure that no paper that disagrees with them gets published.

      • make public each and every one of the reviewers’ comments for the entire world to see. If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected

        That is a very good idea. I suggest that Fishel contact the editors of all the peer reviewed journals in his field, asking them to provide public statements as to why journals do not make all the review comments public. It could be really enlightening for him.

        The reason I mention this is that I once threatened to make public the extremely shoddy peer reviews I received on a publication I submitted in my field. The editor was very opposed to the concept and offered both threats and possible rewards to discourage any such transparency.

      • Old joke: A judge tells a suspect (who’s pleading innocent) that he has the right to a trial, to be judged either by a jury of his peers or else by the judge himself.
        The suspect asks, ‘what’s a peer’. The judge responds, ‘it’s people just like you.’
        The suspect says, ‘I’ll take my chances with you, your honor. I don’t want to be tried by a bunch of criminals.’

    • I reviewed a few papers in the late 1970’s when I was doing basic research.
      I was not asked to validate conclusions. I was only asked to identify errors and verify that the work was suitable for publication.
      I never found reason to oppose any publication and I never offered any opinion on the author’s work.
      I recall one paper was not published but I was never informed as to the reason – caused me to question what, if anything, I had overlooked.
      40 years ago. Perhaps peer review has changed; So many other things have.

    • No Name Guy

      I think your comment needs repeating. Replication is the gold standard of science. If a work cannot be independently replicated, whether due to a lack of a clear description of what was done or how, or because the claims and conclusions are in error, matters not. If it cannot be replicated, it is not acceptable as a basis for a validated scientific claim.

      Given the healthy turmoil in the health field over this issue, the same exposure should be given to climate studies, even those which are purely speculative such as what the climate will be like in 100 years time.

    • Those papers are for the most part irrelevant. And certainly none of them appear to refute or
      argue against the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans are changing the climate.

      Most of them appear to either try and reconstruct and understand past climates or to quantify the size of the natural climate variability. Both of which are important but do not undermine the case for human
      caused climate change in anyway.

      • Geronimo,

        You read over 1,000 papers in one afternoon? Good for you.

        Obviously your post caters to the illogical and uninformed assumption that every “skeptic” believes exactly the same two (or three) things:
        1. CO2 is not a “greenhouse gas”
        2. That humans can’t possibly affect the climate…ever
        3. That the climate is not changing/has not changed over the past two hundred years

        I’ve met the rare person that might believe one of those things to some degree, but never anyone who believes them all. What MOST skeptics believe is that it is currently impossible to measure/quantify/determine in any accurate way IF or HOW MUCH of the changes over the past century are the result of human activity. EVERY study that focuses on natural factors that affect the climate is one step closer to establishing FACTS over foolishness.

      • “Germinio May 23, 2017 at 1:45 pm
        Those papers are for the most part irrelevant. And certainly none of them appear to refute or
        argue against the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans are changing the climate.”

        Perhaps, but then, how many papers can you list that show conclusively, with observable data, that human CO2 emissions are having more than a negligible, but measureable, warming effect on the atmosphere?

  2. If he wants bias and corruption, he needs to look at the history of the M&M response to MBH98. But of course, if he finds that he can’t answer any critique, then he’ll just say that it was paid for by big oil or that this single point may be wrong but there are hundreds of other proofs supporting climate change, or something…

  3. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal.

    …and in over 100 years you haven’t been able to prove your agenda either

    • “Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education”

      He sure got that right!

    • Bruce Cobb —

      Bugs Bunny, in reference to one of his defeated adversaries would say, “What a maroon!”

      The origin of this phrase has been debated with much hand wringing from the left deciphering it as racist. I recently learned that in the old NHL one of the early teams (1924 to 1938) was called “The Montreal Maroons”. They won the Stanley Cup twice during the time of their existence.

      I am just adding to the word fun.

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • HaH! The budget needs to first get past Ryan in the House and then McCain/Graham/Collins in the Senate. Fat chance. They all hate Trump and will throw everything in the way of anything he wants to do.

  4. I repeated my post here on his Facebook page seconds ago. Any bets on how long it stays there? I say everyone should post links to lists of papers there, screen capture it, and let’s see if he puts up or shuts up?

    • I couldn’t find your post. I must be too late. Found a couple of commenters that refuted his ‘facts’, but not yours.

    • For those who posted a link to notrickszone’s list they are all apparently still up, unless when I follow the link to his Facebook page it’s going to an old cached version.

  5. The nitwit does not want to have a real discussion. We will still insist on real evidence instead of far-left drivel. Fishel ignores published scientists who are skeptics. So-called Climate Science has become the most politicized endeavor going. The classical rules of the scientific method do not apply with politicized Climate Science.

    • “The nitwit does not want to have a real discussion. We will still insist on real evidence instead of far-left drivel. Fishel ignores published scientists who are skeptics.”

      What he really ignores is it is not up to skeptics to prove anything. It is up to those speculating that human-introduced CO2 causes the Earth’s climate to change, to do the proving. Just assuming something is true, as this meteorologist does, doesn’t make it so. He wants skeptics to disprove his presumption.

  6. Greg Fischel is an obvious science d*n**r! He is ASKING for people to disprove accepted science! He MUST be in the pay of Big Oil! If he wants to see that there is no corruption in Climate Science he should be hounded from his position just like Philippe Verdier was. That will show him that there is no bias here – no bias towards scepticism at all….

  7. This ‘weather man’ obviously doesn’t live in the cold Northeast. This is one of the coldest springs I can recall except for the Pinatubo volcano event.

    • He would just call that weather.

      As far as I can tell, no matter how much cold weather there is worldwide, the anomaly from the global average temperature will NEVER be affected by those low temperatures. No matter how much snow falls in the desert, how many cherry blossoms freeze, how many corn crops are destroyed by late frosts, etc, there will always be sufficient hot areas to keep the average from EVER dipping in the negative direction. This is a fascinating characteristic of global warming. I have not run across an average that could never be moved into the opposite direction until global warming. Data will always be found or created to keep the average of the globe HOT. Must be new math……

      • I’d put him in an open boat and send him out to sea so that he can experience real temperatures. I was the coldest I’ve ever been in the NH in May, just last week, as we crossed the English Channel.

      • Sara, the coldest I have ever been was a night spent down in a half-full rice paddy in Vietnam.

    • It’s been markedly cooler than any spring I can recall during my 55 years here in central Texas.

      • We’re having problems in Jersey County, Illinois with corn not germinating due to cold spells and torrential rains. Looking for some sunny weather to replant before time runs out and we have to put in beans.

    • I still have the furnace running. I live in the Midwest north of Chicago, 3 miles west of Lake Michigan. I’ve been putting out some birdfood, but more importantly, I’ve put out dried mealworms because there are few if any bugs out. My vian visitors are redwinged blackbirds, brownheaded cowbirds, and grackles, and they are all looking for food for the kids. Too much rain is drowning earthworms and burrowing insects. I haven’t seen butterflies or moths yet. Too chilly. But my radishes are growing!

      Same thing happened last year. I turned the furnace off by July 1st. We may be having a spell of several years of cooler than usual spring weather, and nothing else, BUT I keep an eye on something besides just thermometers. Birds, bugs and blossoms are just as important as thermometers and average mean temperatures.
      And no: no bees yet, but that may change.

      This TV weatherman? I think he’s just dancing and pointing at himself, sticking his oar into the waters of contention, and not much else.

  8. I’ve lived in Raleigh since 1974 and watched Greg Fischel on Channel 5 here since he first showed up in the 80’s. Early on he couldn’t weather forecast his way out of a paper bag. Making one outrageous forecast after another, especially on snow. They have since moved to the “models” forecasting the weather cause it looks high tech and the TV station bought the graphics forecast, and has many a day forecast warm and its cold or forecast cold and its warm. Based on his track record of forecasting, I wouldn’t put much into what else he believes.

    I think he was a classmate of Joe Bastardi at PSU however. Guess something didn’t rub off.

  9. A 2011 paper by George Mason researchers concluded that only 19% of TV meteorologists believe that man-made global warming is significant and harmful. Mr. Fischel is one of those 19% it seems. I’ll stick with the other 81% and with experts such as Lindzen, Curry, and many many others.

    • I live in Durham, NC – so I know Greg Fischel well from his many years as the chief meteorologist for WRAL. Only in the past two to three years has he publicly climbed aboard the Irritable Climate Syndrome Express. Climate change has been real ever since our planet was formed out of the primordial dust. Unlike Greg, I have done peer-reviewed atmospheric chemistry research back in the late 1980’s while I was a post-doc at the University of Florida. I’m firmly in DHR’s camp on this…

  10. Yes, somebody should notify his parents they wasted money on trying to educate this guy. There are numerous documented cases of flawed peer review and he’s clueless about them. He’d rather rant in ignorance on FB than do the research necessary to find and evaluate the claims. Pitiful.

  11. The only help he could get is to get a refund on his college education. Apparently he learned nothing there. Even in high school where science is taught, they teach you about how the process works. Skeptics have nothing to prove. He is the one that has to put up or shut up. And while papers are important, strangely none of them have disproved the null hypothesis yet.

    All he has done is proven he wasted all that money on college. And the worst part is, it was not HIS money, but once again, OPM. I guess he did prove one thing. Free college is a waste of time and OPM.

  12. So, during the past couple days, WUWT has exposed us to a climate scientist dressed as a cowboy and a climate-skeptic critic dressed as a Viking.

    … and we are supposed to take these guys seriously?!

    I guess consensus science now requires you to dress up in costume to make a point. Of course, I would have to check the consensus on that.

    • Over the last few years there have also climate “scientists” who dressed up as a super hero and another as an SS officer.

      • Such behavior of AGW alarmists does raise questions about their emotional maturity and how they view themselves compared to the ‘simple folks.’ Perhaps they suffer (not so very silently) with some kind of hero complex.

    • Watch it! A former student just reminded me that I wore cowboy boots teaching and last year I went to a good doctor who did. Boots keep you above the dung and hats keep off the snow and sun. Of course, this is Texas, faux Viking hats not allowed.

      • “faux Viking hats not allowed”

        A faux Viking hat would get you in trouble in Texas. :)

    • Sadly, “climate science” today isn’t about the facts, it’s about the presentation.

      Ring around the proxy
      A pocket full of money
      “Carbon! Carbon!”
      We’ll all fall down!

    • The reason for all the new silly costumes is obvious. White lab coats have been in short supply.

  13. I reject the premise that Anthropogenic Global Warming is harmful. So, what is that I have to put up? I didn’t make the extraordinary claim. It’s not me has to provide the extraordinary evidence.

  14. You know something is wrong with him because he is wearing a horned helmet. No Viking ever wore one. This is clearly shown in Viking histories.

  15. I’d put more faith in his judgment on this if he could assert his forecasts are 100% accurate more than, say, 70% of the time.

    • You obviously misinterpreted Mr. Fischel. He only claims that his forecasts (and hindcasts for that matter) are 97% accurate.

  16. The burden of proof is on the Warmists, not the skeptics. He needs to show us the proof to support his claims, not the other way around.

    • Since these people are not “real” scientists, they don’t understand that. It seems their entire “science” career was actually marketing practices and intimidation tactics falsely labeled “science”. It could explain his inability to forecast weather.

    • “The burden of proof is on the Warmists, not the skeptics. He needs to show us the proof to support his claims, not the other way around.”

      Or what? You’ll take your ball and go home? The world’s scientific bodies have decided AGW is real, saying they need to prove it to your satisfaction is an empty threat.

      • Maybe, Chris. But who decided CAGW is real? Only those IPCC climate models that run super hot.

        Look at the Russian model. However, that might have been hacked. Those pesky Russians, trying to do away with CAGW.

        I know, let’s appoint a Special Prosecutor!

      • Chis, that same IPCC group,made a number of short term predictions/projections that have utterly failed.

        Skeptics only have to point out the failures of the AGW conjecture,nothing more.

        Surely you know this?

      • “The world’s scientific bodies have DECIDED AGE is real”

        Perfectly outted them Chris. Not “discovered”, not “proven”, not “concluded by using the scientific method and eliminating every other natural component”….nope…DECIDED.

        If the world’s scientific bodies decide that 97% of people named Chris are mutants with minimal IQ’s, you should accept it without question.

      • Dave Fair: skeptics seem to think that there is some tribunal that casts votes on AGW – “do we have consensus?” Research in this area has been going on for 40 years, the “consensus” is one that built up gradually over time, based on 1000s of research papers. It’s not just models.

        sunsettommy: The Arctic is predicted to lose ice, that is happening. Same for Antarctica. Same for glaciers -not every single one, but the vast majority. Growing seasons in norther latitudes are predicted to start earlier. You say skeptics only need to point out the failures of AGW conjecture, nothing more. if you want to satisfy the readership of WUWT, then yes, that is true, that’s all you need to do. But if you want to change the opinion of the world’s scientific bodies, the Fortune 1000, the oil companies, etc, you need to publish papers. It’s up to you.

        Aphan, I was trying to be brief, so I used the word decided. You could look up for yourself how the various scientific organizations reviewed the evidence, but it won’t matter. You’ll call them all corrupt, self serving, in it for the money, etc.

      • Chris-

        “Aphan, I was trying to be brief, so I used the word decided.”

        So are you saying that brevity causes you to speak inappropriately/use incorrect terms?

        “You could look up for yourself how the various scientific organizations reviewed the evidence, but it won’t matter. You’ll call them all corrupt, self serving, in it for the money, etc.”

        Logical fallacies all around.
        1-the assumption that everyone in every “scientific organization” you are referring to has reviewed all the evidence on any particular topic
        2-the assumption that if I look up how the “various scientific organizations” evidence, it won’t matter. To the contrary, it’s exactly how the “various scientific organizations” view “the evidence” that drove me to my current stance on things.
        3-the assumption that you can read my mind, or know my opinion on anything without having a personal conversation with me about it. You just engaged in the same cognitive bias you were attempting to insinuate I surely have.

        But let’s examine your skill, or lack thereof, with logic further:

        “Dave Fair: skeptics seem to think that there is some tribunal that casts votes on AGW – “do we have consensus?”

        Really? And what makes you state that skeptics “seem to think” that? Please provide the “evidence” that supports that claim here for us to “examine”.

        “Research in this area has been going on for 40 years, the “consensus” is one that built up gradually over time, based on 1000s of research papers. It’s not just models.”

        Right, So after 40 years of research, not ONE scientist, or paper, has been able to conclusively demonstrate that CO2, or man-made emissions, are causing the globe to warm or the climate to change outside of it’s demonstrated natural variability. In order to do that, using the scientific method, we would have to KNOW that we KNOW every single aspect and mechanism involved in our climate AND be able to quantify the effects of every single one of those possible mechanisms in order to rule out every single one of them EXCEPT CO2/human emission. And after 40 years of research that is STILL NOT POSSIBLE.

        So if all of these “various organizations” have reached a definitive statement on AGW, while ignoring, abandoning, and mocking the very principles and methods upon which SCIENCE is supposed to be conducted, while at the same time admitting that “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”, the question is, why do YOU call them “scientific”, or believe everything they say about AGW???

      • The phrase is “or else”. And he did not issue it. However, SCIENCE says (no demands, just facts), that they have to prove it. Just because the whole world believes continents never move does not make it a fact. Just because the prevailing “consensus” is that continents do not move, does not make it reality.

        Perhaps you just need to learn what science is. You do seem to have religion down pat.

  17. Do you really need to submit an article about looking at a graph of temperatures to a scientific journal to get this guy to look at it? Most “skeptic” articles on climate are not about new theories, they are just showing data and calculating rise rates and fall rates using standard mathematical formulas.

  18. All reasonable suggestions. So call me Galileo as I have just managed to falsify the greenhouse effect, and can perfectly explain why earth is a warm as it is, without greenhouse gases. The GHE theory is indeed nothing but a stupid mistake.
    So I can send a draft to, for instance, Professor Christopher Keating and get an immediate, though badly unsubstantiated response. Like “Overall, your statement is fatally flawed with the assumption that the GHE science is incorrect. You put yourself in the position of saying nearly 200 years worth of scientific research (some to incredible detail) is invalid and you are, therefore, smarter than all of those tens of thousands of scientists..” So science is not about questioning. I hear venerable Jorge de Burgos talking. Ok, you would not expect anything else from a global warming apostle.

    What I can not get however, it seems, is the slightest response from a single climate scepticist. Oh the irony! Let us face it. If there are greenhouse gases and you enrich them, then temperatures will go up. It is as simple as this. You accept the GHE theory, and then try to win an argument you could only lose, even if there was a rational discussion!
    But listening to an unknown genius (sorry, my IQ accusses me to be one) who can make perfect sense of it all, who can derive from simple physics how water and clouds make earth as it is, is too radical? Too absurd? I do not get it!

    PS. just click my name, and learn it all..

    • yes, my IQ is also hi, in fact it’s so hi that it equals 3 times my shoe size. Actually, your IQ is irrelevant, butt greg’s is relevant, as his intellect is compromised by his bias

      • Assuming that absorptivity and emissivity sum to unity, then we are left to conclude that emissivity varies over the surface of the globe, depending on the angle of illumination. Actually, we can be certain that emissivity varies with the surface materials. However, that would seem to contradict the idea that emissions vary only with temperature. So, appealing to the idea of a Black Body is too simplistic for a real Earth.

        Did you mean reflectivity and absorptivity add up to one?
        And well, of course emissivity varies not just with temperature, but most of all with the surface type. Interestingly, and I did not even cover this one, we have one relevant surface type where emissivity is definitely lower than absorptivity, and that is sand! How do we know? Simply because sand gets extremely hot in the sun, just like metal sheets – despite constand “air cooling”. However we have one homogeneous surface type which covers 71% of Earth, and that figure even goes up to almost 75% for its role in climate, if we allow for the more peripheral location of continents. That one of course is water. For that reason, we need to know emissivity and absorptivity of this pivotal surface type. You can show me better ways to determine it, than the ones I used. But you will not talk away the significance of this one point.

      • Litracy indeed seems to be a subject here. Maybe it facilitates thinking if I name absorptivity (A) and emissivity (E) of water, which happen to be 0.934 and 0.8395. Based on that we can calculate (0.934 / 0.8395)^0.25 * 279.2 = 286.7K(!)

      • Litracy indeed seems to be a subject here. Maybe it facilitates thinking if I name absorptivity (A) and emissivity (E) of water, which happen to be 0.934 and 0.8395. Based on that we can calculate (0.934 / 0.8395)^0.25 * 279.2 = 286.7K(!)

        Well, it is actually “Literacy” but perhaps the mods may correct your inadvertent spelling error.

        0.934 = 1- albedo.
        Assuming albedo of water = 0.066.
        Which it does. But only if the solar elevation angle is greater than 33 degrees for direct radiation. (The albedo of diffuse radiation, never greater than roughly 2/3 that of direct radiation, is in fact, fairly constant at 0.066 across all solar elevation angles. )

        Your “model” is only approximately correct for “perfect” assumed conditions of uniform gray water bodies radiated in perfect conditions; and STILL requires a flat earth assumption of a uniform radiation field hitting a perfect flat planet in a perfectly circular orbit with a perfectly uniform atmosphere.
        Which does not happen in the real world, as Tycho Brahe and Kepler and Magellan’s men established many years ago.
        Your “model” is valid ONLY for temperate latitudes when the sun shines above the horizon at 33 degrees on a perfectly clear day into calm seas.

      • @RACookPE1978

        Well, it is actually “Literacy” but perhaps the mods may correct your inadvertent spelling error
        Let us pray for it!

        Not quite, these results are obtained if you use a Fresnel equation and weight it according to the geometry of a hemisphere. I am talking about hemispheric A and E! I could just as well ask what the hemispheric E of water is, but I am pretty sure no one here has a clue. And you will not find any information on that on the net, which is quite astounding. I mean next to this:
        https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/

        So I did the calculation on my own, and here is the result…
        And for the literates among us..

        https://de.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid

      • The Fresnel approximation for water albedo is a poor choice: It is valid. For only for pure water, perfectly calm, for single phase light (right angle and perpendicular) under direct radiation measurements in the laboratory. It is good for a physics book approximation to make the physics book look “scientific”. But it is not accurate in the real world.
        Far better is Pegau, Payne, and the others who have measured actual ocean albedoes under actual wind conditions and cloud conditions above the actual ocean in the field at various angles of incidence. However, they don’t don’t that “magic” appearance of seemingly being able to calculate the reflection of light from water from approximation of parts and pieces of assumed first principles. They had the audacity of going into the field and measuring it! Gasp!!!

        Specific reference links later.

      • I could just as well ask what the hemispheric E of water is,

        The energy exchanged (and lost to the environment) will depend on the shape factors of the two bodies, does it not? Are you not making the classic assumption of two black/gray/white uniform bodies in a perfect vacuum ?

      • The energy exchanged (and lost to the environment) will depend on the shape factors of the two bodies, does it not? Are you not making the classic assumption of two black/gray/white uniform bodies in a perfect vacuum ?

        One body will do, for the sake of simplicity. The second one would be “space”, if you will. As the refractive index of air will be n = 1, and the one of water n = 1.27, according to the results referenced above, we can determine the hemispheric E of water. If that is perfectly precise, should be less of an issue. If water heats earth to 286.7K, or 286.5, or 286, or 287 … WHO F****** CARES?!
        The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!

      • RACookPE1978,

        The word “albedo” is a poor choice for the description of Fresnel (specular) reflection. Albedo is classically used as the apparent brightness of celestial bodies when viewed from Earth. (It is commonly used inappropriately by born-again climatologists.) The Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) has both specular and diffuse components and can be measured and modeled. The integrated hemispherical BRDF reflectance gives the total reflectivity. Specular reflection varies with the index of refraction of the reflecting medium, which in turn, typically varies with the wavelength of the light. Temperature and Dissolved substances can also affect the index of refraction, including the imaginary component (extinction coefficient) of the complex index of refraction. One can calculate the specular reflectance for either a particular wavelength or the full spectrum of illumination. Specular reflectance also varies with the angle of incidence and approaches the spectrum of the source at glancing angles. The diffuse-reflectance component of BRDF varies with the roughness of the surface, orientation of any aligned features such as waves, and the size and spectral absorptivity of suspended particles (turbidity). The full Fresnel Equation also takes account of the polarization state of the diffuse skylight, but that is only of much concern for light emanating from a band (halo) approximately at right angles to the rays from the sun.

        This may be more than you wanted to know, but I’m just doing my part to try to maintain the level of literacy here.

      • Erich,
        Assuming that absorptivity and emissivity sum to unity, then we are left to conclude that emissivity varies over the surface of the globe, depending on the angle of illumination. Actually, we can be certain that emissivity varies with the surface materials. However, that would seem to contradict the idea that emissions vary only with temperature. So, appealing to the idea of a Black Body is too simplistic for a real Earth.

      • Erich,
        Assuming that absorptivity and emissivity sum to unity, then we are left to conclude that emissivity varies over the surface of the globe, depending on the angle of illumination. Actually, we can be certain that emissivity varies with the surface materials. However, that would seem to contradict the idea that emissions vary only with temperature. So, appealing to the idea of a Black Body is too simplistic for a real Earth.

        Did you mean reflectivity and absorptivity add up to one?
        And well, of course emissivity varies not just with temperature, but most of all with the surface type. Interestingly, and I did not even cover this one, we have one relevant surface type where emissivity is definitely lower than absorptivity, and that is sand! How do we know? Simply because sand gets extremely hot in the sun, just like metal sheets – despite constand “air cooling”. However we have one homogeneous surface type which covers 71% of Earth, and that figure even goes up to almost 75% for its role in climate, if we allow for the more peripheral location of continents. That one of course is water. For that reason, we need to know emissivity and absorptivity of this pivotal surface type. You can show me better ways to determine it, than the ones I used. But you will not talk away the significance of this one point.

        PS. took the wrong exit first time ;/

    • Uh, Erich, buddy; one of the scientific questions under debate has to do with the atmosphere’s sensitivity to additional CO2. You might want to read some of the studies indicating that such sensitivity is below or about the low end of the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for each doubling of the CO2 atmospheric concentration.

      Modeled CAGW is based on assumptions of aerosol, water vapor, and cloud responses to very low temperature increases associated only with doubling CO2. The assumptions have been conclusively proven incorrect.

      Did you break into the liquor cabinet early this morning, Erich? That tends to lower genius IQs quite a bit. I know; I’ve experienced the effects.

      • I am sorry, but the whole “science” is based on an assumed greenhouse effect, which ironically does not even exist. And i happen to know that, as the radial properties of water already yield a temperature of about 286.7K, and clouds additionally heat the planet. So CO2, vapour, GHGs of what so ever kind have no role to play.

      • Erich, are you serious? Did you leave out a /sarc.

        A little bit of math does not trump observations.

        Your comments seem disjointed, all over the place. Same question about hitting the liquor cabinet in the morning.

      • It is a little bit of physics, and no, observations do not trump physics. As a seemingly experienced consumer of liquors you should know that by now.

      • Observations trump everything, Erich, old boy. Especially incomplete physics assumptions.

      • Erich
        “As the refractive index of air will be n = 1, and the one of water n = 1.27, according to the results referenced above, we can determine the hemispheric E of water. If that is perfectly precise, should be less of an issue. If water heats earth to 286.7K, or 286.5, or 286, or 287 … WHO F****** CARES?!
        The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!”

        One question…Um….what heats the water? :)

      • Erich said-“The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!”

        But, because water has no ability to generate heat on it’s own, it’s actually the Sun that heats the planet….not water. Correct?

      • Erich,

        Thank you for evidence that my instincts are correct. I merely pointed out that you said something, in your own words, in a rather heated fashion, that isn’t scientifically true. Water does not “heat” the planet. Screw your IQ….while you arrogantly posture about as if to portray yourself as consistently logical and accurate, your temper and ego reveal that you really are not.

        For example, your article states that in 1980, “Dr. Roger Revelle states that because of CO2,
        “temperature near the earth surface is about 30° Centigrade higher than it would be in the absence of carbon dioxide”.

        I cannot find that quote attributed to Dr. Revelle anywhere, nor would he have stated such a thing, because he never published the notion that ALL of the warmth of this planet (all 30C) was caused by CO2. I think you either misquoted the man, or repeated something that isn’t true. I’ll be happy to see a link to something other than a youtube video.

        Water’s ability to absorb and emit heat (energy) also counts when it’s water vapor, in our atmosphere. It’s properties don’t just disappear the moment it’s not in one solid body of water in the oceans. I don’t care what you, or NASA or anyone else opines, I believe that water vapor in the atmosphere can both warm, and cool. The water in clouds is just water that used to be in liquid form on the surface, and it does not HEAT the planet as much as it SLOWS DOWN the rate at which heat escapes to space.

        Our atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse, nor does it work like a real greenhouse. But the gases-including water vapor-that are suspended in our atmosphere DO exhibit physical properties that delay the COOLING of this planet when the Sun is not shining on half of it. The affect of CO2 in our atmosphere is logarithmic and negligible.

      • I cannot find that quote attributed to Dr. Revelle anywhere, nor would he have stated such a thing, because he never published the notion that ALL of the warmth of this planet (all 30C) was caused by CO2. I think you either misquoted the man, or repeated something that isn’t true. I’ll be happy to see a link to something other than a youtube video

        Are you suggesting that video has been manufactured / manipulated?? I mean if not, you can hear his own words. That is just what he said. And no, you do not need to watch the whole video, as the link gives you just the right entry point. So I do not get your point..?

      • In the video he DOES indeed say that Earth is 30 “centigrade” warmer due to CO2, than it would be without it, but that makes no sense. First, Revelle published papers in which he did NOT attribute 30C of warming to CO2 alone. Second, the word “centigrade” was changed to Celsius in 1950, and third, even NASA states that only 20% of the warming caused by “greenhouse gases” can be attributed to CO2. If, as according to article 1 linked to below, the Earth is 33C warmer today due to “greenhouse gases” than it would be without them, 20% of that equals 6.6 C, not 30 C. (Fourth, the greenhouse theory/effect was around long before Dr Revelle…so he’s not even the grandfather of the idea).

        Dr Revelle is clearly suffering from the effects of old age and ill health in the video. Who knows if he’s already been affected by the Alzheimer’s he was supposedly diagnosed with before his death? Using that particular quote as if it’s definitive “evidence” of the mantra/belief/exact definition held by all scientists who embrace the greenhouse idea is a shaky argument at best, so rebutting it isn’t exactly difficult.

        But very few people believe that the Earth’s atmosphere works just like a “greenhouse” in the first place. It’s a really inaccurate analogy and it’s unfortunate that such a term ever took hold at all. So if you’re work is merely trying to rebut the concept or the terminology itself, great…but no one really believes that Earth does work like a greenhouse if you question them seriously, so it’s kind of a waste of time.

        If you are trying to say that you have proven that Earth’s atmosphere plays no role at all in Earth’s climate, I’ll say that it would take more than just your paper to agree with you. If you’re saying that you’ve proven that Earth’s atmosphere does not “heat” the surface, then good for you, but it was never been proven that it DOES. Proving to Team Alarmist that you have proven that their unproven idea is false will be ignored, and proving to Team Skeptical that Team Alarmist’s idea is false is completely unnecessary, because they already pretty much know that. Not to mention that “proof” isn’t what science is about, and at this point in time, with so many unknown unknowns, nothing you say can be accepted with certainty either. (Article 2)

        Article 1:
        https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

        Article 2:
        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5337/fc85869fe68edeb2ee216f121392d5968f59.pdf

    • Erich – Excellent work, I can see you started from EXACTLY the right point i.e. No GHG. Not sure about all your conclusions yet, will read and study the paper later however we do all need to start, as you point out, from the existing understanding of GHGs and work out what went wrong. THEN move on to the new theories.
      You are right, it’s VERY difficult to get many skeptics over the first hurdle. I am still not sure why. It looks like those who claim to be open minded scientists are as close minded as their adversaries. Fucking frustrating innit !!!!!!!

      We see your frustration, don’t despair, there are others like you and a small growing band I am doing my best to nurture little by little.

      Keep up the good work.

      • @Badger Thank you very much for these encouraging words! If you are just a follower, you will allways find friends. But if you formulate your own thoughts, you’ll be treated like a leper ;). I am afraid we are not quite as civilised as we should be, and certainly not as most of us think.
        I should add, that I have spent less than 3 months on the whole thing. So I did not spent my life on it, and I can fairly well accept if I am wrong. What I can not accept however, is how these obviously pressing questions are neither discussed, nor even considered. The discussion must take place, and even if I was not completely right, I am very optimistic about not being all too wrong. Specifically with the part on clouds.
        A theory can only attain quality by surviving attempts of falsification. The GHE has remained untackled as it seems to me. Probably that is the only reason why it still exists.

  19. “Greg the Terrible” knows very well that there would be no “AGW” without “Adjustments and Homogenization” to the actual recorded temperatures.
    — Changing history into fiction–.

  20. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM Watts Up With That? wrote:

    > Anthony Watts posted: “Greg Fischel, WRAL says on his Facebook page PUT UP > OR SHUT UP You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite > frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet > about the scientific fallacies of man induced clim” >

    • Tanya, why are you posting gibberish like this? Same thing in several other recent threads. Is this a bot?

  21. I have a little question …
    what climate change?
    The persistent mildness we’ve been experiencing for the last century needs to be explained.

    • shhhhhhhhh…. I shouldn’t point out that the US Government commissioned a study in 2002 in which that concluded that “Abrupt Climate Change” is the norm, and that the past 11,000 years or so have been the LEAST active and most calm period of time on this planet….maybe ever. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate. The evidence from ice and seabed cores and tree rings showed temperature changes of 10°C or more, often in LESS than a decade.

      http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Abrupt-Climate-Change-Inevitable-Surprises/10136

      Jeffrey Masters,PhD wrote an article about the report on his weather underground site-https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

      “Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off.”

      It would be extremely uninformed and unscientific, to believe that the anomaly we are currently living in is NOT an anomaly.

  22. That hat. I stopped at that hat and never got to the grin. Reminded me of this:

    Maybe the gravity-challenged lady IS singing, and that means the climate scam show is over.

    • I have exclusive footage showing that the hat is actually vital for weather forecasting.

  23. I wonder…
    Meteorologists have problems predicting weather forthnight ahead with acurracy. How is it then possible to predict climate several decades ahead? Both weather and climate are chaotic systems and thus more or less impossible to predict long periods of time ahead…
    I still wonder…has the world gone mad..?

    • Going out a fortnight or so with a “weather” forecast is really no longer a weather forecast but a “climate” forecast. In my part of the country it is typical to see rain forecast out 10 days or so at 20% chance of rain, which is tantamount to saying “we don’t really know, but it rains about 20 percent of the time around here so that’s the ‘forecast.'” But that is a “climate” forecast, not a “weather” forecast. And it is probably very “accurate” for what it is.

      Long range climate projections are, on one level, just projected “averages” of expected weather, aka climate. It doesn’t appear that the GCM’s are doing a very good job of this, so traditional 30 year weather “normals” are probably just as good a guess, if not better. We could probably improve on that with a little Bayesian reasoning, but not much, because we really do not understand long term climate change processes taking place on centennial and millennial scales to be able to parse that into smaller decadal or multi-decadal increments like the next 30 years. For forecasting climate change over the next few decades, we would be better served by focusing on learning as much as we can about decadal processes like the PDO and AMO, etc. Unfortunately, these are “natural” processes hard to turn into catastrophic scenarios, especially catastrophes driven by evil human beings.

      I’m one who thinks that not enough attention is being paid to human activity like the UHI, changing land use patterns, etc., which I think are far more important than CO2. But I don’t see see the impact these human activities might have on increasing temperature to be evil or undesirable. On the contrary, the overall benefit is clearly positive, and some slight warming just adds to the benefit.

      • The next 5 years may give us some better notions of cyclic climate perturbations, especially in the oceans. We might be coming down off the high AMO.

      • The leaders of some 200 countries…? Just a few leaders making policy for a vast majority of the people of the world……

  24. Off -piste but from the we can never win-

    1989-
    “WASHINGTON: Environmentalists
    fear a global warming trend because it
    might melt the polar ice caps and cause
    massive flooding, so a report that the polar
    ice is getting thicker is good news, right?
    Wrong.
    Scientists from the Goddard Space
    Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland, said
    yesterday that the ice sheet over Green-
    land was getting thicker but concluded this
    “may be a characteristic of warmer cli-
    mates in the polar regions”.
    So thicker ice results from higher tem-
    peratures?
    “It’s consistent with warmer tempera-
    tures. It’s consistent with the idea that this
    century is warmer than the last century,”
    explained Dr Jay Zwally of Goddard’s
    Oceans and Ice Branch, who led the God-
    dard research team”

  25. It would help if he defines his terms. What is it, exactly, that he is challenging people to disprove?

    Absent that, we can’t even get started.

  26. Funny. When I ask people how the physics of climate change works, immediately they point to a real greenhouse, or better yet, to a car in the sun with windows closed. So maybe we should ask people to explain the science. Exactly how does CO2 work in heating the atmosphere? Does the earth cool primarily by radiation? Kind of a trick question, because the answer is yes and no, so the real question is, does the heat get to the top of the atmosphere primarily by radiation? Does CO2 block convective heat transfer?

    That’ll give them fits. They’ll always have to refer back to what the climate models say, because they don’t really understand.

    • I do the same asking. The best explanation to “prove” it was the guy who pointed to the sun lamp and plastic bottles “experiment” shown to school children and claimed it was all the proof needed of CO2 GHG.

      LMFAO

  27. Take the fight to him.
    Hold his feet to the fire and get him to explain, in his own words, his ‘elevator speech’ and without passing the buck via appeals to authority & consensus – How Does The Green House Gas Effect Actually Work?

    We constantly let these sorts of folks off the hook, not least as we ourselves don’t have a consistent story.
    No. You don’t get ‘trapped heat’, wtf is ‘offset radiation’ and the atmosphere Does Not work like a microwave oven does.

    • Agreed! Have him explain why he thinks CAGW exists without using an appeal to authority as ‘evidence’.

  28. Except for the still rapidly cooling El Nino blip, no warming this century unless by Karlization. Yet this century comprises 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Sea level rise not accelerating. Planet greening. Polar bears thriving because they do not depend on late summer sea ice.
    Tougher and tougher to be a warmunist when Mother Nature does not cooperate. This clown is a good reason to avoid Facebook.

    • Good points, but with regard to “Polar bears thriving because they do not depend on late summer sea ice.” – – – I’ll add:

      Well, that is true but the sea ice has not even approached 1 Wadhams, or ice free as now defined.
      [Susan Crockford explains the threat to seals and bears is the very thick and widespread spring ice. LINK]

      • Well, “House Arrest” for the rest of his life and a banning of all of his publications.

        I know, I know, potato, potatoe.

      • The Roman Inquisition sentenced him to prison, but the sentence was commuted to house arrest.

        He was convicted of heresy for writing that, contrary to the Church-approved consensus, the earth goes around the sun and rotates on its axis. In the late 20th century, the Church finally apologized for having wronged GG.

        Here’s an English translation of the court’s verdict:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence

        It reads, in part:

        By the grace of God, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and especially commissioned by the Holy Apostolic See as Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all of Christendom.

        Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were denounced to this Holy Office in 1615 for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitled “On Sunspots”, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus’s position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture;

        And whereas this Holy Tribunal wanted remedy the disorder and the harm which derived from it and which was growing to the detriment of the Holy Faith, by order of His Holiness and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals of this Supreme and Universal Inquisition, the Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:

        That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

        That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith.

        Whereas however we wanted to treat you with benignity at that time, it was decided at the Holy Congregation held in the presence of His Holiness on 25 Feb 1616 that the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine would order you to abandon this false opinion completely; that if you refused to do this, the Commissary of the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned. To execute this decision, the following day at the palace of and in the presence of the above-mentioned Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being informed and warned in a friendly way by the same Lord Cardinal, you were given an injunction by the then Father Commissary of the Holy Office in the presence of a notary and witnesses to the effect that you must completely abandon the said false opinion, and that in the future you could neither hold, nor defend, nor teach it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; having promised to obey, you were dismissed.

        Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books treating of such a doctrine and declared it false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

        And whereas a book has appeared here lately, printed in Florence last year, whose inscription showed that you were the author, the title being “Dialogue by Galileo Galilei on the two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was informed that with the printing of this book the false opinion of the earth’s motion and the sun’s stability was being disseminated and taking hold more and more every day, the said book was diligently examined and found to violate explicitly the above-mentioned injunction given to you; for in the same book you have defended the said opinion already condemned and so declared to your face, although in the said book you try by means of various subterfuges to give the impression of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable; this is still a very serious error since there is no way an opinion declared and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable.

      • He wasn’t convicted of challenging the consensus, He was convicted of heresy for claiming that the Bible proved that the sun was the center of the universe, when it didn’t. With a side charge of insulting the pope.

  29. Note: not peer reviewed!

    Ek het jou hier op die radio gehoor.
    Hier is die resultate van my ondersoek oor die reen in Potchefstroom:

    ek dink jy mag dit dalk interessant vind.

    There is no man made climate change but there is some natural climate change, but it is not much. I give you my general take on it, from investigations done by myself:

    “Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
    I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:

    The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function. But here in South Africa it was not warming up at all. I figured there is no warming, or, at least it is not ‘global’
    I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:

    Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
    Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is useless. You cannot have an “election” about science.
    You only need one man to get it right”.

    Ek hoop die resultate van my ondersoeke kan jou bietjie help.
    Lekker naweek.

    Henry

    • Henry, It is clear that with the figures you choose to illustrate your point, that the quadratic is certain to appear to fit very closely to the k per hour data. Of much more interest to me would be the complete set of data (54 stations, presumably). Only then could I hope to make a sensible numerical comment on the parabola, which at present seems to describe the overall data perfectly, but whose general validity I have to question.
      Could you publish the fulldata, please? Thanks. Robin.

    • Hello Henry,

      I see you’re still quoting the rainfall from Bushy Bend Farm, near Potch.

      I can’t quite make out from your graph which is your last year of data, but here are the last few annual totals

      2014 518.5 mm
      2015 424.6 mm
      2016 647.8 mm

      The 2015 drought has been well and truly broken, as I’m sure you know, with the Vaal Dam overflowing

      The rainfall for February 2017 was 225.4 mm, which made it the wettest Feb in the record (since 1922) – previous wettest was 1996 with 214.2 mm. This was partly the result of cyclone Dineo pushing its way unexpectedly far inland.

      Regards

      Richard

  30. The Final problem is, when presented with bias and corruption, he make a conscious effort to ignore it.

  31. [Moderator], just a minor gripe, “because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of climate change.” This should be changed to Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming or similar. Don’t want to give anyone some ammunition.

  32. I watch Greg Fishel quite often.

    I believe the saying ‘it is impossible to get someone to believe something when he is paid not to believe it’ is very apt in this situation. His employers, Capital Broadcasting, is very much leftist. (Big surprise, huh. The real surprise is when a media company is center or right or only slightly left.) I’ve watched him for years. It was about 2 years ago he changed. Drastically. He started promoting global warming very much, whereas before his statements implied doubt. It was almost as if he had marching orders: believe or be fired.

    The thing is, he talks about weather history. He quite often mentions when it was hottest or worse or so on. That makes it all the more puzzling as to why you would believe when you study and see clearly nothing is unusual. It was the drastic change that made me believe Greg Fishel was given an ultimatum.

      • Because hot weather is used to reinforce global warming while people must be reminded that cold weather is just weather. That is the job of the weatherman—to reinforce these “truths”.

      • Sounds like he’s gullible. From the article:

        “There’s a guy named Kerry Emanuel at MIT, a world-renowned scientist, and I love the way he framed this. He was in a debate in Huntsville, Alabama, with one of the few remaining science skeptics. And he turned to the moderator in the middle of the debate, and he said, “Is there a chance that John’s right and I’m wrong? Yes, there is. But I look at this as risk assessment, just like you would with insurance. If there’s a 20 percent chance that your 2-year-old daughter will get run over if you don’t walk with her across the street, would you let her do it?” Let’s suppose that a bunch of stuff comes along to cancel all [the climate-related dangers] out. What are we left with? A cleaner atmosphere, cheaper energy. What are the downsides to that?”

      • Stroke his ego with “You’re so brave”—there’s NOTHING brave about running with the crowd. Sheep do that, so do lemmings. He’s not brave—he’d jump off a cliff if everyone else did. He’s a spineless joiner.

        My question always is “If a model said your child had a ‘high probability’ that she had blood cancer, and 97% of doctors using models said so too, would you have your child go through chemo and radiation?” With NO physical reality involved, just models, it sounds much different. When the stakes are very high, it sound much different. It’s not clean air and clean energy, it’s the complete destruction of capitalism, income redistribution and returning to the 1880’s way of life. No matter how much warmists deny this, it all comes down to this solution in the end. Punitive government control with the rich exempted.

      • “Let’s suppose that a bunch of stuff comes along to cancel all [the climate-related dangers] out. What are we left with? A cleaner atmosphere, cheaper energy. What are the downsides to that?””

        We are left with the same level of cleanliness as we started with since CO2 does not “dirty” the air.

        Cheaper energy? That’s a joke, right? You don’t really believe that do you?

        The big downside to all this is the waste of Trillions of dollars in an effort that will not change a thing with the Earth’s climate.

      • “Cheaper, ICISIL?”

        Not hardly. That’s the downside he’s ignorant about. Sounds like a superior intellect got to him and he caved. Like alexwade said, something got to him in 2015. I read a Washpo article about him and they were trying to use him as a poster boy.

      • If renewables were actually cheaper, you wouldn’t need government mandates to force power companies to use the stuff. They would be falling all over themselves to install as much as they could, because it was cheaper.

    • “It was about 2 years ago he changed. Drastically. He started promoting global warming very much, whereas before his statements implied doubt. It was almost as if he had marching orders: believe or be fired.”

      I wonder if he got any pushback from his viewers.

      Happily, none of the meteorologists I watch ever mention anything about AGW or CAGW. It is strictly the weather with them. If one of them suddenly started pushing CAGW, I would have to write a letter of complaint. Leave that speculation out of my weather report!

  33. Here is my comment on Mr. Fishel’s Facebook page:

    In the original post and in over 400 comments and counting, no one has defined the issue! Are ‘skeptics’ arguing that mankind is having zero influence on climate? Absolutely not! No one is denying that climate changes and almost no one is denying that increasing CO2 has a warming impact, all else being equal. That is the scientific consensus that everyone talks about, and the so-called skeptics hold that opinion as well. Yet, the skeptics are always attacked as if they held the position that there was no human impact on climate. That is simply not true! The debate has always been over the amount of warming we can expect and is the warming a crisis that needs to be addressed. On these issues, the hard science greatly supports the so-called skeptics. The science and the current trends do not support the alleged climate crisis, which calls for a warming of 3 degrees C or more, from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, the science never supported such a conclusion. The paleo climate record, the current trends and the hard science all point to about 1 degree of warming or less, and that is simply not a crisis, although it would likely bring huge benefits!

    Mr. Fishel does a great disservice to his viewers and followers by failing to define the issue, while throwing out derogatory accusations at men and women he knows nothing about. This is all too common in the climate change debate, largely because skeptics win in almost every ‘real’ science debate that has been held anywhere. Those supporting a climate crisis have been reduced to (empty) appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. Crisis supporters are no longer willing to engage in a scientific discussions, or acknowledge the hundreds of ‘skeptical’ papers that are published in the peer reviewed literature every year, or even define the issues being discussed. They lose on all fronts. Consequently, those who challenge the climate crisis meme are not answered with science. They are labeled ‘denier’, and ridiculed as being stupid, much like Mr. Fishel has done here. This post and the following comments have the tenor of a witch hunt, not a defense of science.

    It seems ironic that those who are loudly proclaiming their support for ‘science’ want almost nothing to do with it when it comes to climate change.

  34. jclarke says
    No one is denying that climate changes and almost no one is denying that increasing CO2 has a warming impact, all else being equal.

    Henry says
    you have to come up with prove that more CO2 causes warming. As I said, I could not find it?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/23/tv-weatherman-goes-off-on-climate-skeptics-put-up-or-shut-up/comment-page-1/#comment-2509475

    So what is your proof that more CO2 causes warming?

    what about the movement of the elephant in the room {come down 1 km into a gold mine here and meet the elephant in the room}

    [??? Ground-heat from below? .mod ]

  35. Wow, I guess he doesn’t read beyond the AMS/BAMS much, because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of climate change.

    Let’s help him out.

    There are darn few peer reviewed papers that actually purport to prove that anthropogenic CO2 will result in runaway global warming leading to catastrophe. By the same token there are darn few that state the opposite. Each paper is a small part of the puzzle. Here’s an example of how it works.

    CLAIM: Twentieth century warming is unprecedented. RESPONSE: There are literally thousands of papers listed at the medieval warm period project at co2science.org . CONCLUSION: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was at least as warm as it is now (probably warmer) and it was global in extent. Therefore, twentieth century warming is not unprecedented. Since the MWP was obviously a result of natural variation, it is likely that the twentieth century warming is also a result of natural variation.

    If that’s what Mr. Fischel wants, there’s plenty more where that came from.

  36. One of the most common effects of becoming a climate true believer is a lack of critical thinking skills, as this Viking meteorologist demonstrates so well. Perhaps his parents should have saved their money?

  37. Ah, the perfect irony of criticizing people who post on the Internet without backing up their words with peer reviewed sources, by posting on the Internet without backing up his words with peer reviewed sources.

    Anyway, there is nothing sacred nor perfect about the peer review process, especially as it relates to getting a journal article published. Anyone who thinks so should read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A.W. Montford and see some of what he went through to get articles critical of Mann published. Peer review is certainly a critical part of the scientific process, when it applies to identifying errors in research techniques, data collection and analysis, and so forth. But when it becomes a political process, which is the case in the “game” of getting research published, it becomes just another grey area in the broad spectrum of what we might call “science.”

    I do believe that 95 percent of the stuff that is written on the Internet regarding climate science is absolute garbage. But that applies to things that are said on both sides of the debate. But then again, anyone who is paying attention understands that the Internet is generally not a great place for careful, well-defined, scientific-based discussion and arguments.

    • Personally, I think that there is more cachet to posting an article on this blog than putting a micro-essay on Facebook! I don’t have a high opinion of Facebook.

  38. Oh no, I just noticed the town this guy is from, and it’s in the state I live in. Crap!

    Just to be clear, all people from NC do not hang out on the front porch, smoking unfiltered cigarettes, watching the grass grow, while hosing down their babies in the front yard during the hot summers, as they condemn all those who disbelieve human-caused climate change catastrophe.

    • Judging by where he lives, I think it’s much more likely that he would be one to show up at some protest wearing a pussy hat and sporting some dumb sign that makes him think he is so clever.

      • Weren’t the dudes who are supposed to have worn those hats the ones who pillaged Europe?
        Was Europe not enough?

    • Just to be clear, all people from NC do not hang out on the front porch, smoking unfiltered cigarettes, watching the grass grow, while hosing down their babies in the front yard during the hot summers, as they condemn all those who disbelieve human-caused climate change catastrophe

      Just the NC weather people of the area.

  39. there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change

    No need to restrict ourselves to so called “sceptical” papers. See eg. The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance, published in the Journal of Climate, which belongs to AMS.

    It says annual average incoming shortwave radiation is the same for both hemispheres due to a peculiar property of Keplerian orbits. Oddly, annual average absorbed shortwave radiation is also measured to be the same (by satellites) for both hemispheres within 0.1 watts per square meter, in spite of the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has a much lower clear sky albedo (by about 6 watts per square meter, sixty times larger than that).

    No computational climate model reproduces this observed symmetry, not even close. Therefore they are falsified, all of them.

    This last sentence is of course missing from the paper, but everyone, except journalists and climate activists can see that much based on the text.

  40. He unintentionally raises the point that the wealth of peer reviewed papers that challenge the AGW alarmism is completely ignored by the Hockey Team. How unscientific is that?

  41. There was a good essay here at WUWT on April 15th/17 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/15/discussion-five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher-scientific-quality-than-journal-articles/ Perhaps Greg Fishel, at WRAL-TV, Raleigh, NC should make some discussion here, since as I understand it, meteorologists are probably the best trained experts about current weather issues, which is called climate when all tallied up after 30 years. I have always wondered why meteorologists (weathermen, or should it now be weather people?) aren’t given more respect and prestige about the climate debate. Maybe because 81% of them don’t believe hook line and sinker the ‘97% consensus’ by activist agendas, scientists and NGO’s? They should be, since they understand the core science of what makes weather tick hour by hour. Probably much more than some mathematical climate modelers.

    We could promise to be extra civil, so as it doesn’t bog down into an embarrassing dust up argument about weather/climate and go off the rails making both sides look bad. Greg Fishel has already called us a bunch of loons, but I could get by that if he also promised to stick to defending ideas. Maybe he would be up for a friendly debate between Anthony and himself, and then we could all offer comments (peer reviewed by people here of various and many backgrounds) and everyone would know more about weather and climate issues when done. Plus it may help to bridge the gap between the alarmists and the skeptics, which is really what we are needing more of now and in the future. C’mon Greg, lets have some healthy discussion as you suggest, the forum is here with a global audience, and I am sure it would get very serious attention.

  42. Well after all he is a “weather man”. By the by isn’t anything this hump spews just weather and not climate? Lol.

    • I’ve seen quite a few warmunists dismiss our Anthony because he is “just a weatherman”.

  43. Another one who mistakes ‘peer review’ for the scientific method . . .

    All too common. It boils down to ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ or appeal to authority.

    It makes his argument as valid as the geocentric model of the universe prior to Galileo.

  44. Meteorologists seem to fall into two categories. 1. Just defer to climate scientists and accept their view (I was one of those).
    2. Actually look at the data yourself and compare to your own knowledge of weather and climate. (I did this when challenged by a scientist in another field). This guy is the former. A regurgitator and if not simply does not have the skills or knowledge to make judgment.

  45. > None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected.

    And this idiot doesn’t see the connection?

  46. I see Greg Fishel is wearing the non-Viking helmet. Viking never wore helmets with horns- they’d be a pain to wear and draw people to their location. Vikings were practical.

  47. So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you.

    You mean submit like Michael Mann did? Trying to hide the data etc. from those (like a certain couple of statisticians) who could spot the flaws in treeringlogy?
    Your heroes are the ones who made the expensive claims.
    All they’ve put up are computer models that have failed to reflect reality.
    Selah
    (In the Psalms that means you are to pause and consider.)
    Long past the time for them to “shut up”.

    • Or to play some music. Or get ready for what’s coming. It’s not clear what the ancient Hebrew word means, but psalms were meant to be sung.

  48. Choir leading.
    A cursory glance of the notrickszone link shows this statement:

    “there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change”

    to be false. None I looked at questioned anything of the sort. I am sure the choir can fossick through and find an outlier or two, however it remains a false news statement… but confirms the bias and unleashes the usual torrent of misdirected bile.

    Well done for such a positive contribution to scientific debate.

      • No, a random ample of 7. That was enough to make the statement: “there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims” patent hogwash so I stopped.

        It’s pretty obvious Chimp, any post with the word “claim” in it, is the science you’re not encouraged to accept. And this post is just grist for the mill.

      • ‘tony mcleod May 23, 2017 at 4:48 pm

        No, a random ample of 7.”

        That’s not even ample…less than 13.5%. I guess that is your basis for science in the opposite.

      • Dave Fair,
        You just have to understand and be fluent in “climate math”.
        Using it, like President Obama was fond of doing, you can turn 41 papers (out of 11,944) that explicitly state that humans have caused most of the warming since 1950 into : “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

        :) :) :)

      • Why can’t we all just agree that one-half of 1% is sufficient to dismiss the remaining 99.5%?

      • Tony-
        “It’s pretty obvious Chimp, any post with the word “claim” in it, is the science you’re not encouraged to accept. And this post is just grist for the mill.”

        Um no, it’s pretty obvious (to anyone with a dictionary and/or a grasp of the English language) that since the word “claim” means either:
        (verb) “to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.”
        (noun) “an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt”

        …that any post with the word “claim” in it, is not referring to ANYTHING scientific or fact/evidence based by definition!

    • The sentence you quoted should be revised thusly to be correct (probably):

      “there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question undermine the claims of [dangerous] climate change”

    • Wow. Tony, either you have a comprehension problem, or the inability to accurately respond to statements.

      1. The embedded link in the phrase “there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change” goes to a site called Popular Technology.net, not to NoTrickZone. The link to the papers listed on the NoTrickZone site is below that link under “Update”.

      2. This is a privately owned blog, not a “news” site or organization. Thus while you might disagree with Anthony’s personal OPINION that the “peer reviewed papers” linked to do indeed call into “question the claims of [dangerous] climate change”, you don’t get to label his opinion a “false news statement”.

      3.YOUR opinion that those papers do NOT call dangerous climate change into question bears the exact same weight that Anthony’s does that they do. Those papers are positive contributions to the scientific debate about how the mechanisms of this world operate, and in ALL of the research embodied in them you will not find ANY proof that ANY form of climate change will/must/can-only- turn-out-to-be “dangerous.”

      4.Please list the 7 papers you randomly selected to read so that we can also review them and have a positively scientific debate about whether or not the conclusions of those papers support the claim of DANGEROUS climate change or not. I look forward to it!

  49. Whistle Blower- Dr. Bates

    A high-level whistleblower at the Natfional kOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) thas revealed that the organization published manipulated data in a major 2015 report on climate change in order to maximize impact on world leaders at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
    According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study DENYING the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.
    Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
    Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.
    The “Pausebuster” paper produced by NOAA in 2015 was based on two new sets of temperature data—one measuring land temperatures and the other sea temperatures—both of which turned out to be flawed.
    According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”
    A reported increase in sea surface temperatures was due to upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by ships, according to Bates.
    Bates said that NOAA had good data from buoys but then “they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
    The land temperature dataset, on the other hand, was the victim of software bugs that rendered its conclusions “unstable,” Bates said.
    Climate change skeptics have long insisted that scientists are susceptible to political and social pressures to produce the “right kind” of data to back up specific policy decisions.
    Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.
    Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.
    The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.
    Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.
    “In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.
    Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.
    “Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
    “It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.
    NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.
    Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
    President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions. The
    Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome

    Whistle Blower- Dr. Bates

    A high-level whistleblower at the Natfional kOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) thas revealed that the organization published manipulated data in a major 2015 report on climate change in order to maximize impact on world leaders at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
    According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study DENYING the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.
    Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
    Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.
    The “Pausebuster” paper produced by NOAA in 2015 was based on two new sets of temperature data—one measuring land temperatures and the other sea temperatures—both of which turned out to be flawed.
    According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”
    A reported increase in sea surface temperatures was due to upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by ships, according to Bates.
    Bates said that NOAA had good data from buoys but then “they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
    The land temperature dataset, on the other hand, was the victim of software bugs that rendered its conclusions “unstable,” Bates said.
    Climate change skeptics have long insisted that scientists are susceptible to political and social pressures to produce the “right kind” of data to back up specific policy decisions.
    Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.
    Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.
    The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.
    Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.
    “In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.
    Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.
    “Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
    “It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.
    NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.
    Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
    President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions. The
    Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome

  50. Open an excel spreadsheet and do a simple calculation of heat transfer between concentric spheres. The thermal conductivity of atmospheric components can be looked up on the internet. (So can the necessary equation). Change the CO2 contribution by an order of magnitude and get a rough idea about the magnitude of the impact on the heat transfer. Remember that thermal conductivity is a measured value. There is no way to turn off the radiative component of a gas while measuring its thermal conductivity. All of the various contributions are there. To convince yourself that your thermal conductivity components roughly add up to the atmospheric thermal conductivity components, compare current reported atmospheric thermal conductivity with that calculated in your spreadsheet using the components. Multiply the CO2 component by ten. Calculate how long it should take for the temperature of the planet to go up by one kelvin.This is a very coarse test, but perhaps instructive.

  51. Note that a fair amount of the arguments depend on thermal radiation leaving the planet. Remember that the T of the planet is inhomogeneous and that the average T depends on T while the average emission depends on T^4. Open an excel spreadsheet. Give yourself a column for T and a column for T^4, both weighted by area. Show that it is possible to increase the average temperature while either increasing or decreasing the average T^4 within a few Kelvin. The reverse is also true.

  52. That camera light in his picture goes in one ear and right out the other side .
    Climate changes , it’s been warming for thousands of years thankfully
    and if you think humans are now in charge of setting the temperature you are a denier .
    How appropriate Fishel wears a Viking costume . Stick to Mr. Dress Up .

  53. I know how he feels. I’d like to sell my home a km from the beach and I’m having trouble convincing RE agents it will be prime seafront any day now-
    http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/revealed-the-aussie-suburbs-expected-to-be-underwater-in-2100-because-of-climate-change/ar-BBBqUd4
    although like the man says I’m not letting on that I want the money to put up and shut up shop-
    https://www.wired.com/2012/06/ticket-to-space/
    Gotta go as I see they’ve got a sale on baked beans and ammo again.

  54. Yay, matey could get together with Scott Mandia and John Cook for some dressing-up fun and to moan about climate de niers.

  55. Greg Fishel is right:

    we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected.

    Instead, as always

    we live in an age where “higher education” counts nothing compared to the COMPETENCE of a man.

  56. So this clowns qualification is that he is a weatherman on one of three TV stations in a city that is 10% the size of Melbourne.
    Gotta believe everything he says.

    • Raleigh is part of the “Raleigh-Durham” or “Research Triangle” media market, population approximately 1.2 million. It is just about exactly 25% the size of Melbourne. Greg Fishel has been the best-known local TV meteorologist here for about 35 years. By now he’s probably the most-recognized face on TV, around here.

      He is completely wrong about climate change, but he’s not a “nobody.”

  57. Hmm. Looks like he is trying to emulate his King Obama, getting ready to turn back the onrushing tide. (Too bad so few seem to know the actual story about Cnut the Great.)

  58. Greg Fishel seems to have a “my evidence is all I need” attitude, which is hardly unique amongst the CAGW crowd. Same old story, same old song and dance.

  59. Again, one of the biggest problems today is that so many “scientists” that seem to think Science is the sacred process of publishing in the holy Journals under the guidance of the Peers. That’s not how science works, that’s how religion works – science is proved by replication.

    Probably >90% of scientifically verifiable phenomena have never been formally published at all, they’re just massively replicated. Many of them come from industry, many from common experience (“if you don’t eat, you starve to death” or “you can see better with your eyes open”). Anyone can test an hypothesis, anyone can practice science.

  60. Here is a link to a peer reviewed paper
    TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

  61. The irony

    He says PUT UP OR SHUT UP, but refuses to engage anyone who actually DOES ‘PUT UP’

    I’d say he is the one who needs to put up or shut up. We know where that will end up

  62. Hi all, I believe it was my link that started this post. I am a small independent car dealer and not a scientist. I have been following this debate for 7-8 years. I am strongly considering posting the following and could use some help with information gathering in the unlikely event I am taken up on the offer.

    Open Letter to Greg Fishel regarding “Put up or Shut Up”

    Hi Greg, As a Raleigh native, you have been my go to meteorologist for most of my life. I respect you greatly. I recognize that with any discussion about important topics there will be an array of attitudes and opinions. Some are based in fact, some opinion, some a little of both. Regardless, I think there is a huge misunderstanding of what most reasonable “skeptics” of “climate change” are suggesting. Therefore, I am willing to “put up” $500 of my hard earned money to simply have and lead a real and honest discussion that is recorded for all to see. Perhaps I will be shown the light, as I am seeking the truth. Perhaps, I can help clear the air on what reasonable “skeptics” are suggesting. I am not skeptical about “climate change”. I am skeptical that man-kinds contribution of CO2 will have catastrophic consequences. Conversely, what is mankind capable of doing to stop it. Yes, I do believe that much of the actual science related to climate change has been hijacked to promote a political agenda. I believe this can be demonstrated. Show me the light and I will give $500 to the charity of your choice. If we should have a reasonable discussion that indicates there is truth to what I say. Let’s split it, $250 from me and $250 from you to the charity of your choice. This is done in the spirit of more fully understanding this important topic. My goal, separate the science from advocacy.

  63. Browsing the internet, I discovered where the “viking horns” idea came from.
    The popular image of the strapping Viking in a horned helmet dates back to the 1800s, when Scandinavian artists like Sweden’s Gustav Malmström included the headgear in their portrayals of the raiders. When Wagner staged his “Der Ring des Nibelungen” opera cycle in the 1870s, costume designer Carl Emil Doepler created horned helmets for the Viking characters, and an enduring stereotype was born.

  64. Greg Fishel has been the weatherman at WRAL in Raleigh for several years and was always skeptical of climate change claims. Until, that is, WRAL switched to an NBC affiliate in early 2016. Then he had to toe the climate change party line at NBC or be thrown out. He caved and has become an elder Bill Nye of sorts. Hence, the latest fake temper tantrum with no real arguments one way or the other. I predict we will not see reasoning or science supporting or refuting climate change from Fishel as he is smart enough to know the truth but is also smart enough to keep getting paid.

  65. Is the hat in the picture for a Greenland viking, cause those guys are the obvious put up/shut up symbol of climate skepticism.

  66. In my town, the weathermen are weather gals. The news producers were smart enough to realize that men only are interested in the Sports Report. To keep them watching between the local crime report and sports, they parade young blonde females who are recent grads (no idea if they are meteorologists. But the young weather women can read teleprompters). Greg Fishel at WRAL takes himself too seriously. He’s in the entertainment business. Most of use could care less what the TV weather persons’ views are concerning AGW.

    I know I know. They are many trained meteorologists on TV. Most are damn good ones. But, for me, a former aviation forecaster, the last place I go to check the weather is the local TV News. There’s a number of TV meteorologist I follow on Twitter.

  67. Greg Fischel lives in my town. I’ve responded to his challenge, via Facebook post, direct Facebook message to his personal account, Twitter, and direct email. This is what I wrote:

    Greg, you say, “the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change. All of them are guest bloggers or essayists.”

    That is incorrect. For example, I am one of those “folks,” and I was a UN IPCC Expert Reviewer on their (latest) Fifth Assessment Report. My CV is on my web site: http://sealevel.info/

    Greg, you say, “None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal.”

    That is incorrect. Mine has been, and I would be happy to provide you with lots of other examples.

    Greg, you say, “ya know what? I doubt any of these folks has the guts to do this… So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you.”

    I did exactly that. The problem, Greg, is not that skeptical scientists won’t write papers, the problem is that you won’t read them.

    In fact, you won’t even talk to people who don’t agree with you. If you only talk to people who share your own viewpoint, how do you expect to learn?

    How about this? Let’s have a friendly debate, you and me, about climate change. You do a little powerpoint presentation, and I’ll do a little powerpoint presentation, and then we’ll talk. I’m sure we can get one of the local “think tanks” or colleges to host it.

    It can be as formal or as informal as you wish. Are you willing?

    Or if you don’t want to have the conversation in public, we can do it in private, over lunch. I am flexible.

    How about it?

    Are you sure enough of your opinions to defend them? Do you have the integrity and humility to be willing to consider changing those opinions, if confronted with sufficient contrary evidence?

    I am, and I do. How about you, Greg?

    You say, “Put up or shut up.”

    Alright, then. Greg, I’ve picked up your gauntlet. My phone number is 919-244-3316. Call me. Let’s do this.

    • Dave, I hope you’re prepared to change your phone number here shortly. You’re inviting the entire circus, not just the clown, to make your life miserable…

      • Not the number of minutes you have that concerns me. You just published your telephone number on a world-read blog, and on Facebook and Twitter. Prepare for calls all hours of the day and night, your voicemail box filling up, random messages, having to scroll through endless texts, and the possibility that your friends and loved ones cannot reach you if necessary because of the above or because you just shut it off.

      • We live in interesting times. Most folks accept with a shrug that governments and numerous giant companies have compiled big, fat dossiers about us all. Yet those same folks are afraid of their phone number being publicly known.

        They think nothing of swiping their Kroger “loyalty card,” in exchange for a few pennies discount, when they buy anything, so that the grocery store can keep track of what they eat, the pharmaceuticals they use, and even their preferences in toiletries. They buy everything with “plastic” so that their bank knows how and where they spend every penny. Yet if they post an opinion on-line they do so using a nom de plume.

        It all seems strange to me. I grew up quite a while ago, and it was the other way around. Everyone’s phone number and address was in the phone book, and you could call xxx-555-1212 and find almost anyone. But we bought everything with cash, and nobody had records of our preferences in toiletries.

        I guess I’m an anachronism. I still don’t mind everyone having my phone number or other contact information. But I kind of wish that Google didn’t have my life’s email history, my appointment calendar, and my Little Black Book.

    • “the problem is that you won’t read them” – or even admit they exist.

      What is so sad to me is that he so publicly called people out, and when they responded, he flat-out ignored them. Hundreds of responses to his FB post, and not once did he even acknowledge any of those responding to him.

      I’ve met him – used to work in the same place – and this is very much not the impression I had of the man. It is saddening (and maddening)

    • I am pleased to report that I was wrong. Greg Fishel has replied to my email, and he has indicated that he is very willing to meet and discuss over lunch. (No commitment, so far, to a public debate or discussion, but I am hopeful.)

      My erroneous belief that he was unwilling to consider or discuss other viewpoints was based on his failure to reply to messages from me in 2015 and 2016. But it is likely that he simply overlooked those messages, which I can certainly understand. I, too, often overlook messages from others (which is a source of frequent embarrassment).

      I am also pleased to report than, so far, my phone number hasn’t been hit with any harassing calls or texts.

      • I am thrilled to hear all of the above. I hope you’ll report back to us on how your lunch date/debate goes. I’m highly interested to hear how things turn out.

  68. Where is all his physical, irrefutable proof? Oh, yea, got none. All he has is his fake [pruned] religion of Human Caused Globall Warmining.

    [“Warmining”? Might be more accurate than you expect. .mod]

  69. I made a comment or two (Dale Mullen) and was immediately attacked by the cultists. Too bad, few if any, from this forum failed to jump in for support.

  70. I have been a scientist for more than 30 years, more than 120 peer-reviewed publications, multi-millions in highly competitive federal funding, involved in training more than 50 PhDs (14 as their major professor), and I have read several of the peer-reviewed climate science papers of the type lampooned recently by Scott Adams in Dilbert. He is exactly correct. In fact, one particular “climate science” paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stands out to me as possibly the worst paper I have ever seen. It’s the one in which an unvalidated climate model, which is known even by IPCC as totally worthless for regional climate prediction, was used to generate “data” which were then fed into a second unvalidated model to predict crop production. The output from the crop production model was then used as “data” and fed into an absolutely ludicrous model that used crop production to predict migration of people from Mexico to the U.S. Why do I say it was a ludicrous model? Because it didn’t consider any potential confounders that might have more impact than crop production on deciding to leave one’s home and move to a different country. In serious biomedical epidemiology studies that I read, this would have been regarded as a silly joke and would not have passed the first step of peer review. It wouldn’t have been pretty. Reviewers would not have said fix 20 things and send this back to us, they would have said this isn’t science; go away and don’t bother us again. Yet this paper was hailed in the press and defended online by “real” climate scientists. There is a real and serious difference between “climate science” and real science.

    • In climate science, Steve, it appears that speculation – especially model speculation – is taken as hard evidence.

      Models are programmed with modelers’ assumptions. Enough said?

      • I do think the specialized models, which try to model specific processes like PGR or radiation transport, are useful. But I am deeply skeptical of the GCMs.

        In general, for a computer model to be useful it is a prerequisite that the modelers have a good understanding of what they are modeling. MODTRAN passes that test, the GCMs fail it.

        The so-called “semi-empirical models” are worst of all. They’re garbage.

        “Semi-empirical modeling” is an oxymoron: “modeling” that doesn’t model anything. It is sort of like modeling, but without reference to any physical basis. It is really just curve-matching. It can be made to produce just about any result you want.

        GCMs are subject to criticisms that they don’t accurately model the real world, because of inconsistency with observations of things like clouds and the predicted tropical mid-tropospheric hot spot. The semi-empirical modelers neatly avoid such criticism, by not even trying to model the real world. It’s the worst sort of junk science.

      • Dave Fair, that’s how oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf comes up with his predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise:
        http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff

        Those wild predictions are useful to Rahmstorf’s financial supporters at Munich Re, to help sell expensive reinsurance. Just a coincidence, I suppose.

  71. test:

    [img src=”http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/42472″]

Comments are closed.