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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This guy lives in a treehouse?

shrnfr

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.

John Endicott

+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” ?

Pop Piasa

I think Tucker Carlson should put him on to debate with Dr. Christy and Joe Bastardi.

Pat Frank

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.

Pat Frank

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

Janice Moore

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!

Bryan A

Just another one of Gullible’s Yahoos

Pat Frank

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]

Hivemind

“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.

Broadie

John Endicott
Here is another extract from a peer reviewed Social Justice Jihadist Global Warmer twat.
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/05/insights-into-islam-and-terror-part-two-what-can-the-world-learn-from-waleed-alys-phd.html
Clearly plagiarised from the ‘Conceptual Penis’.

george e. smith

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

Chimp

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:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BKBWMJ/the-vikings-1958-tony-curtis-kirk-douglas-vik-012-BKBWMJ.jpg

Chimp

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.

Goldrider

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.

Chase

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.

buggs

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.

sunsettommy

I quit posting at Facebook,since they are incredibly ignorant and rude.

secryn

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

I Came I Saw I Left

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.

Jay

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.

Tom O

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.

george e. smith

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

Santa Baby

“How the Social Construction of the Penis Affects Climate Change”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMv8-uPqZ5M

Tim Huls

he’s using evil electrical lights using evil electricity from evil coal……

He lost me at the shit eating grin

He lost ME at the Viking helmet — a clear sign of a clown, to whom the only tenable response is laughter.

… 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.

The Original Mike M
BCBill

Vikings didn’t have cow horns on their helmets. That’s a moron hat.

Clown?? You mean there’s another Bill Nye?

Sheri

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.

I Came I Saw I Left

IMO local newscasters tend to be attention whores.

george e. smith

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

Dave Fair

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

Freddie Stoller

that question the claims of “anthropogenic” climate change.

No Name Guy

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

MarkW

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

PiperPaul

+97

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.

Joel Snider

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.’

+1

I Came I Saw I Left

Circle jerk review would definitely be more appropriate terminology.

czechlist

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.

Crispin in Waterloo

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.

The climate always has changes. I am tired of the ‘climate change’ being code for ‘global warming.’

kokoda - the most deplorable

+ 1,000

Aphan

No Trick 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

sunsettommy

On top of that list from NoTricksZone, is another one from Popular Technology site with many more older published science papers:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

sunsettommy

Oh I see that Anthony already pointed it out.
Here is another list that at least indirectly also show significant skepticism on AGW conjecture claims:
Global Warming Petition Project
http://www.petitionproject.org/

sunsettommy

Here is another group:
CO2 Science
http://www.co2science.org/

Germinio

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.

Pat Frank

There is no scientific case human-caused climate change.

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.

Oh, and your opinion that those papers are irrelevant….is irrelevant.

JohnWho

“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?

Dodgy Geezer

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…

Latitude

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

Bruce Cobb

What a maroon.

MarkW

Did the plastic viking helmet give him away?

Peter Morris

I think it was when he started singing “Kill the Wabbit.” Haha.

I Came I Saw I Left

I can look past that. For me it’s the fact that he uses Facebook

Oldie from the Goldie

“Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education”
He sure got that right!

Eugene WR Gallun

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

Jerry Henson

If the budget the Trump administration just made public goes through,
the EPA budget reduction should greatly reduce or eliminate the “Pay
For Pay” AGW echo chamber.
The effect will be fun to watch.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/22/white-house-budget-cuts-entitlements-1-7-trillion-slashes-epa-30/

Rhoda R

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.

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?

Kalifornia Kook

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

Butch

…Copied your post above and sent it…45 seconds it was gone…..LOL

Butch

…Maybe I should not have edited his picture and added the “DUNCE” cap ?

D. J. Hawkins

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.

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.

TA

“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.

Dodgy Geezer

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….

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.

Sheri

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……

Sara Hall

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.

Dave Fair

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

MarkW

Dave, thank you for your service.

Dave Fair

De nada; I was drafted.

Myron Mesecke

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

Ditto to that Myron–infact ,cranked up a space heater the other night a bit north of central texas, but still south of I-20

Pop Piasa

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.

Sara

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.

rbabcock

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.

Bastardis of a feather hang out together. 🙂

DHR

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…

I Came I Saw I Left

“Irritable Climate Syndrome”
^^^^^
This
too funny

Maybe Mr. Fischel can read up on atmospheric physics from Dr. Salby’s textbook, which provides an antidote to climate fears such as his. It takes some reading and thinking but does well to overcome the myopic and lopsided distortions from alarmists.
He can start with this introduction:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/fearless-physics-from-dr-salby/

Gary

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.

I Came I Saw I Left

If they got him out of the house for good, not necessarily wasted money.

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.

Crispin in Waterloo

Refund??
No, recind!

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.

MarkW

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

Clyde Spencer

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.

Tom Halla

NEWS: there is a nationwide shortage of propeller beanies/s

Pop Piasa

Here’s the answer (even has a little Mann in it)!

We can ask them to dress as a clown.

John Endicott

Yeah, but the point of dressing up it to dress up as something you aren’t. 🙂

Phil R

emsnews,
not to be pedantic, but you spelled “assclown” wrong. 🙂

Gunga Din

Phil R,
I laughed so hard I choked!! Good one!

Phil R

Aphan,
Thanks, but that one sort of wrote itself. 🙂

H. D. Hoese

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.

TA

“faux Viking hats not allowed”
A faux Viking hat would get you in trouble in Texas. 🙂

Gunga Din

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 Reverend Badger

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

Jpatrick

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.

PiperPaul
Kenw

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.

NorwegianSceptic

Quite true. They appeared in Wagner operas in the 1800’s….

Sarge

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.

RayG

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

Joey

Who does this clown think he is? Bill Nye?

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.

Sheri

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.

Chris

“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.

Dave Fair

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!

sunsettommy

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.

AGW…not AGE.

Chris

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.

Steve Thayer

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.

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

Read the paper!

RWturner

Gravity isn’t real either, it’s actually a downward slope of space itself.

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.

Phil R

You must be a genius. Your post makes absolutely no sense.

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!

Clyde Spencer

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.

@Clyde Spender and what is the hemispheric emissivity of water now??

Clyde Spencer

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 ;/

Dave Fair

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.

Dave Fair

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.

Dave Fair

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

Do you possibly have an argument????

Dave Fair

Erich, try reading your screed, to which I responded.

That means .. no? Ok, did not expect anything else.

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? 🙂

@Aphan the sun?!

Dave Fair

Non sequitur.

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?

No shit? I guess you are right! Why only did I never consider the sun ..

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..?

Aphan

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

The Reverend Badger

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.

Dave Fair

Those in power don’t need to discuss.

“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–.

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

+++

I think the Alarmists are desperately afraid that nothing might happen.

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.

Neil Jordan

That hat. I stopped at that hat and never got to the grin. Reminded me of this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4hrlv-0fnY/U-P4Jvs5eJI/AAAAAAAADDo/g9CYepkr2UA/s1600/fat-lady-sings-2.jpg
Maybe the gravity-challenged lady IS singing, and that means the climate scam show is over.

RWturner

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

Erik Pedersen

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..?

blcjr

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.

Dave Fair

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.

TA

“I still wonder…has the world gone mad..?”
No, just some people.

Erik Pedersen

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

2hotel9

Just because a bunch of people do the wrong thing does not make it right.

richard

Poor fruit, best to not be the last alarmist, meteorologist in town-

“In 2016 29% of meteorologists who thought climate was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year”

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”

Latitude

…and every day they inadvertently admit they don’t have a clue

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.

Steve Fraser

Hencalled it ‘human-induced climate change’

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.

The Reverend Badger

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

powers2be

The first problem is that his parents paid for his education.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

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.

Bad Apple

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

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.

John F. Hultquist

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]

powers2be

The second problem is that he has t explain to his acolytes what sarcasm is.

powers2be

The Third problem is they threw Galileo in jail for bucking the consensus.

MarkW

No they didn’t.

DavidE

Well, “House Arrest” for the rest of his life and a banning of all of his publications.
I know, I know, potato, potatoe.

Chimp

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.

MarkW

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.

Note: not peer reviewed!
Ek het jou hier op die radio gehoor.
Hier is die resultate van my ondersoek oor die reen in Potchefstroom:comment image
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:comment image
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:comment image
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

robinedwards36

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.

Richard Barraclough

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

powers2be

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

Duncan

[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.

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.

Steve Fraser

Why would global warming, Present or not, come up in a weather report report?

Sheri

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”.

I Came I Saw I Left

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?”

Dave Fair

Cheaper, ICISIL?

Sheri

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.

TA

“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.

I Came I Saw I Left

“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.

MarkW

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.

Jon Jewett

See the movie “Network”
https://youtu.be/gQUBbpvXk2A

Jon Jewett

Howard Beale’s rant from Network
https://youtu.be/AS4aiA17YsM

TA

“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!

jclarke341

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.

So your hero is Don Quixote?
Keep tilting my friend. 🙂

comment image
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/18/anatomy-of-a-collapsing-climate-paradigm/
According to Cook et al., 2013, 78 peer-reviewed papers either minimized and/or rejected “man induced climate change:; while only 64 peer-reviewed papers explicitly stated that humans were the primary drivers of recent climate change.
So, Greg Fischel can frack off.

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 ]

yes. according to the measurements of the magnetic north pole, this elephant has been moving north-east……
no wonder the arctic is melting a bit….

MarkW

The magnetic pole is moving, the core isn’t.

henryp asked, “So what is your proof that more CO2 causes warming?”
A: see the thread beginning here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/20/sequestering-blue-carbon/comment-page-1/#comment-2512742
henryp also asked, “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}”
Geothermal heat flow to the surface is negligible compared to solar and GHG influences, except in some isolated microclimates. It’s not an elephant in the room, it’s a flea.

pameladragon

Does this clown go in front of the camera wearing that foolish hat?
PMK

Sheri

He did once.