EPA’s Pruitt: Establish ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ of scientists to examine climate risk of CO2

Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.

EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2. The American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
Breitbart News Daily
June 5, 2017

h/t to Harry Readme

Advertisements

553 thoughts on “EPA’s Pruitt: Establish ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ of scientists to examine climate risk of CO2

    • Tried this very thing not too long ago….

      For some God unforseen reason…our team sits there with their tails between their legs

    • A second grade boy did this experiment

      Saul’s experiment tested the effects of carbon dioxide in heating a small biosphere. His control jar contained only dirt and air, his first test jar had dirt and a plant, symbolizing the rainforest and the second test jar contained dirt and carbon dioxide gas. He used a lamp as the heat source. The jar with the carbon dioxide had a warmer temperature than the other two.

      This is called the greenhouse effect. It been science for more than a 100 years. Yes, the planet is a bit more complicated yet nobody has been able to disprove the FACT that putting more CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere the planet will heat up. That’s why glaziers are disappearing around the planet.

      Please sling all the abuse that you want, I laugh when I read it. But replies with science to disprove the greenhouse effect that NASA accepts would be welcomed. If you can then you should contact NASA and tell them they are wrong …. that’s a big call!

      • And how sensitive was this boys instrumentation ? What was his actual CO2 concentration, compared to the 400 and some PPM in the atmosphere. That less than 0.05% – this is one smart 7 year old who can prepare a concentration as low as that. Give him some leeway, lets make it 10,000 PPM, 1%. How’s he made his sample up ?

        Why do people need fewer windows ?

      • Apparently you’re unaware that glass jars act like greenhouses, so if the jars were glass, the “experiment” is worse than worthless.

        In fact, no one has been able to show that adding a fourth molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules has any effect at all in the real climate system, rather than in a controlled lab situation.

        The first two molecules of CO2 do have an effect, if only because they make photosynthesis in the air possible. The third also helps and the fourth helps green the planet. But due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, it’s not at all clear that the fourth molecule actually causes any measurable warming.

        In a self-regulating world, the net feedback effects are liable to be negative. Over most of the planet, the GHE is swamped by water vapor, leaving little scope for CO2, most of whose absorption bands overlap with H2O’s. In the hot, wet tropics, more CO2 might well have a cooling effect.

        The science is far from settled. In any case, so far more CO2, ie plant food, has been a good thing. Doubling present level to 800 ppm would be better and 1200 ppm best of all.

      • Except the greenhouse effect isn’t the issue, the issue is whether a bit more–as a percentage of the atmosphere–of a relatively minor greenhouse gas–CO2s way less effective as a greenhouse gas than water vapor, for example–is causing or likely to cause effects worth spending trillions to try to avoid.

      • The jar with the carbon dioxide had…..thousands of times more CO2
        ….would have been easier and a lot more efficient to just add fog

      • A second grader, really!? Did he wear a bow tie? Bill Nye the “Science” guy wears a bow tie.

      • About a second grade try, Steve. The earth radiates every night virtually all the energy it absorbs from the sun during the day. A greenhouse doesn’t do that. Neither did the 2nd graders experiment. Not even climate scientists consider the experiment any more than a crude demonstration that heat from a lamp will warm a small closed container. BTW, all the jars contained CO2. The one that warmed had have had lots more than the other two, maybe . 100,000ppm

      • R. W. Wood ran an experiment in 1909 and concluded that it is convection that makes a greenhouse work and Arrhenius’ RGHE did not do much. Angstrom thought RGHE not worth his time to refute. Spurning Arrhenius, De Marci went off a different direction.

        NASA is a big organization and those of us who have experienced large organizations know the unwritten rule: do what the boss wants done and say what the boss wants said.

        NASA/NOAA are no longer credible.

      • Where is the greenhouse effect in the temperature data for the 20th century?

        The first half of the century had a little warming.

        The second half of the century had almost identical warming.

        But you smarmy leftists tell us lots of CO2 was released in the second half of the century

        .. yet the horrible, life-threatening effect of adding CO2 is completely invisible in the data

        … even after “adjustments”, infilling and who knows what other distortions.

        The climate change in the first half of the century is claimed to be “natural” but nearly identical climate change in the second half of the century is only caused by CO2?

        So, I guess you believe that after 4.5 billion years of natural climate change, in 1975 natural climate change suddenly “died” and CO2 took over as the “climate controller”, like the transfer of power in a mob family?

        Only a stupid person would believe that, Steve, and I suspect you would qualify!

        If CO2 increases at 2 ppm per year, and the unproven in real life greenhouse theory is correct, and assuming no negative feedbacks from our planet trying to self-regulate the temperature, then the average temperature will be up about 1 degree C. in 200 years — mainly nighttime warming in cold areas of the planet … assuming fossil fuels are still in use for the next 200 years, which seems very unlikely.

        I guess that means we should panic, Steve?

        Alaska might be a degree or two C. warmer at night 200 years from now?

      • “That’s why glaziers are disappearing around the planet.”

        Hmmm … The glass business up the street is doing good business. I seriously doubt your claim about glaziers is true.

      • The planet is in a glass jar, of course. That’s a settled fact. It also sits atop giant turtles, as the sun revolves around it.

        Forget that a glass jar has no convection. Who needs convection, when you’re trying to prove a religious claim?

      • HA HA HA!
        Common glass is completely opaque to IR.
        All IR will be absorbed by the glass in both cases, and none would reach the atmosphere inside.
        Claiming to see the effect of IR with CO2 using glass means:
        A) you are stupid.
        or
        B) you think we are stupid.

      • Glass is essentially transparent to UV and visible (short wave lengths) light but opaque to infrared (long wave lengths emitted at normal temperatures). The CO2 added to a closed glass test jar, therefore, does not change the fact that the warming of the inside of the jars from the short wave length source increases the temperature until the heat loss by conduction through the glass and radiant and convective cooling from the outside of the jar to its surroundings balances the heat gain. What is in the jar is mostly immaterial other than its thermal mass which simply affects the time required to reach equilibrium and perhaps some small insulating effects. A plant in the jar would have a small cooling effect due to incoming energy used in photosynthesis, but not likely to be detectable without a much more elaborate experiment.

      • What you posted here is so intellectually and scientifically bankrupt it makes me want to cry.

      • Steve
        They are glaciers not glaziers -the latter fix broken glass sheets
        Glaciers have been melting for quite some time well before mankind started putting CO 2 into the atmosphere
        Did the boy’s jar contain an ocean equivalent or a near vacuum (space) found in the actual world?

      • Some people are easily duped with pretty experiments and sciency sounding things. Others actually study the literature and learn what is really going on.

        CO2 affecting the climate is not the same thing as NASA’s claim that CO2 is the planet’s thermostat. Maybe we can find a child who can do a pretty, flashy demonstration of this and change your emotional response to the issue.

      • “steve June 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm

        A second grade boy did this experiment

        Saul’s experiment tested the effects of carbon dioxide in heating a small biosphere. His control jar contained only dirt and air, his first test jar had dirt and a plant, symbolizing the rainforest and the second test jar contained dirt and carbon dioxide gas. He used a lamp as the heat source. The jar with the carbon dioxide had a warmer temperature than the other two.

        This is called the greenhouse effect. It been science for more than a 100 years. Yes, the planet is a bit more complicated yet nobody has been able to disprove the FACT that putting more CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere the planet will heat up. That’s why glaziers are disappearing around the planet.”

        And just what constitutes that as an experiment?
        • What are the components you call dirt?
        • How was the CO2 sample prepared?
        • How would the child know the CO2 content after day 1?
        • What were the exact distributions and facings for the jars? Was this experiment replicated trying all jars in all positions?
        • Did any sunlight cross the experiment?
        • How was the temperature measured? If by Thermometer, you should read up on measuring temperature of gasses as the experiment failed immediately.
        • Where in the glass was the temperature measurement device?
        • What colors is the temperature measurement device?
        • What is the surface area of the temperature device?
        • how often was the temperature measured? Every hour every day? or after an hour ride in a car?
        • Did the experimenter calculate the temperature device area and heat absorption capability for that area?

        Then could you please explain why the Goreman, Bill Nye not the science guy both conducted similar experiments and they had to doctor results to obtain the result they desired?

        NASA and NOAA have been under the influence of determined and rather unscrupulous activists for quite some time. Otherwise, you could pull up a live OCO-2 world graph explicitly defining where CO2 is emitted from and absorbed from. Instead you will find that NOAA prefers their global CO2 model that shows zero relationship to actual CO2.

        Now, be specific; exactly where and when was this “experiment” allegedly conducted? Right now, it sure sounds like a lame bogus rumor dreamed up by lazy activists.

      • “steve June 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm

        A second grade boy did this experiment

        Saul’s experiment tested the effects of carbon dioxide in heating a small biosphere. His control jar contained only dirt and air, his first test jar had dirt and a plant, symbolizing the rainforest and the second test jar contained dirt and carbon dioxide gas. He used a lamp as the heat source. The jar with the carbon dioxide had a warmer temperature than the other two.

        This is called the greenhouse effect. It been science for more than a 100 years. Yes, the planet is a bit more complicated yet nobody has been able to disprove the FACT that putting more CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere the planet will heat up. That’s why glaziers are disappearing around the planet.”

        And just what constitutes that as an experiment?
        • What are the components you call dirt?
        • How was the CO2 sample prepared?
        • How would the child know the CO2 content after day 1?
        • What were the exact distributions and facings for the jars? Was this experiment replicated trying all jars in all positions?
        • Did any sunlight cross the experiment?
        • How was the temperature measured? If by Thermometer, you should read up on measuring temperature of gasses as the experiment failed immediately.
        • Where in the glass was the temperature measurement device?
        • What colors is the temperature measurement device?
        • What is the surface area of the temperature device?
        • When and how often were temperature readings taken? Every hour, every day? Or after an hour long car ride?
        • Did the experimenter calculate the temperature device area and heat absorption capability for that area?

        Then could you please explain why the Goreman, Bill Nye not the science guy both conducted similar experiments and they had to doctor the results to obtain the result they desired.

        NASA and NOAA have been under the influence of determined and rather unscrupulous activists for quite some time. Otherwise, you could pull up a live OCO-2 world graph explicitly defining where CO2 is emitted from and absorbed from. Instead you will find that NOAA prefers their global CO2 model that shows zero relationship to actual CO2.

        Now, be specific; exactly where and when was this “experiment” allegedly conducted? Right now, it sure sounds like a lame bogus rumor dreamed up by lazy activists.

      • The question of the effects of CO2 under radiative forcing is in the realm of physics. Look over this paper by some German physicists and see what you think. There are some interesting points made in this paper.

        A few words from the summary from these physicists.

        There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
        and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
        phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.

        Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the
        actual heat flow without mechanical work.

        Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of
        the temperature of the illuminated surface.

        There’s more, and it’s worth reading the entire paper. Sorry I’m not offering any abuse for you to laugh at with this reply. Abuse and insults are no way to have a conversation. Now, if you have actual physics to back up any claim you might have, bring it in to the conversation. If you’re going to make a claim, also give a scientific citation to back up your claim. Anecdotal evidence, at least in this conversation, is not evidence at all. Or, you could just continue trolling for the fun of trolling. It’s up to you.

        Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

        https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf

      • Good thing he didn’t put any water in there, water absorbs 100 times the infrared CO2 does across a wider energy band!

        Here’s a thing while you’re chuckling to yourself.. ask yourself if you’ve ever been in a greenhouse. They work by stopping convection – that is, preventing the air from moving and transporting the heat (hot air rises – and causes wind, remember that from early school?) All gasses are refrigerants and work by doing this precise thing. Want to know something else? All gasses absorb energy and it doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘heat’ IR or UV – any material than absorbs energy has a raised energy state – which is the same thing as it getting hotter. Oxygen absorbs UV and thus gets warmer, were you aware of that? Now tell me, if near 30% of the atmosphere’s gas oxygen can warm with more UV , do you honestly think 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 would have a measurable effect? Water gas can be hundreds or thousands of times the concentration of CO2 – if the AGW theory is right, humidity should also drive temperature!

        As to glacier retreating yes, many of the glaciers we study are retreating but you know why? Because we were studying what was under those retreating glaciers long before the climate scare – as we leave the current ice age, we’re finding interesting things beneath that ice – and of the tens of thousands of glaciers the few we study are the few that are retreating. many are also growing..

        Ask yourself why we pump CO2 into greenhouses while you’re at it. Plants depend on CO2, WE depend on CO2 to stay alive – it’s the catalyst for energy conversion and current levels are way too low for ideal plant growth. Look up C3 photosynthesis, read about the fertilization effects that have increased our food production by 17% or more, read about how more CO2 means plants need less water and are vastly more drought tolerant.

        If you were a scientist, you’d question, challenge and test any new theory (and AGW is the interloper here) and you’d find as many of us here have that assuming other scientists have the same degree of rigor or the same critical thinking skills as your own can be a mistake, which will lead you as it has us to discover the world would benefit from MORE CO2 not less.

        If however you read the 70’s book ‘how to save the world’ as I did and agreed with the proposed ‘air tax’ that picked CO2 as an arbitrary unit of exchange for redistributing wealth from the first world to the third (i did at the time, but I was young) then we can’t help sorry.

        If you think the best course of action is to stifle examination of a theory then you’re advocating faith over science and again, we can’t advise you on that – maybe a priest can?

      • Yep that’s definite proof. Some 2nd grader known only as Saul did an experiment with jars of unknown size filled with an unknown amount of CO2 and heated by a lamp of unknown wattage and an unknown setup and it produced a temperature increase of an unknown amount. No doubt about it that clinches the case for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming . Come on!

        BTW Glass is opaque to infrared so none of it will escape the jar regardless of whether there is CO2 in it or not. That experiment cannot work. I think that was shown at WUWT in the past.

      • By the time the second grade boy was entering middle school he realized that the silly “experiment” his second grade teacher had made him do was part of a “progressive” indoctrination plan ordered by the NEA.

      • Where did Little Stevie go? Off to play with his toy science experiment kit?

        I’m pretty sure the little snot has been here before … several times … with the same kiddie story and the same insults. The insults probably make him feel like he’s playing with the big kids.

        Say … you don’t suppose that is Steve Mosher, Jr, do you?

      • Well Steve, it seems like you schoolboy was probably misled by Bill Nye’s science lie video which also stupidly used glass jars and had to post-production editing of the video image to falsify the result to what he wanted.

        It seems you were misled too.

        This is what happens when TV clowns are mistaken for scientist because they put on a white coat and pretend to be “eccentric” by wearing a silly tie ( ie top notch, mad professor type ) .

        Nye has arguably got lots of children interested in science. Sadly he is now using that position to mislead them the media treat him as if he actually knows something about science, instead of presenting him as a TV clown character of scientist , which is what he really is.

      • From Watts policies for this blog:

        “For the same reasons as the absurd topics listed above, references to the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Book and subsequent group “Principia Scientific” which have the misguided idea that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, and have elevated that idea into active zealotry, WUWT is a “Slayer Free Zone”. There are other blogs which will discuss this topic, take that commentary there.”

        I really wish that he would add a paragraph banning people insisting that everybody on this blog who points out the lack of certainty and doubt the correctness of the political correct belief are claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.

      • As I have posted before, all you guys below should publish your evidence, get it peer reviewed and win a nobel prize for physics. It comes with a million dollars prize! By the way, Stephen Hawking accepts the science behind man made global warming. Does that mean all of you know more than Stephen Hawking, gee!

      • >>
        Does that mean all of you know more than Stephen Hawking, gee!
        <<

        So your argument is that genius scientists can’t be wrong. Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice.” That was his argument against Quantum Mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a paper in 1935 (called EPR from the letters of the authors’ last names) that discounted the Copenhagen interpretation and of quantum entanglement. The idea was referred to as the EPR paradox (named after the paper they published). They were wrong. How can that be if Einstein was a genius?

        Jim

      • “This is called the greenhouse effect. It been science for more than a 100 years. Yes, the planet is a bit more complicated yet nobody has been able to”…show that when we began shooting rockets off into space any of them ever hit a glass bell jar.

        I kinda get that steve but have you considered hitting other materials like steel, aluminium or plastic with our rockets? If you discovered it was dirt they hit then that really would be ground breaking science. Keep up the good work and I’m sure you’ll get to the bottom of it all in the end.

      • “Does that mean all of you know more than Stephen Hawking, gee!”

        No, it means that I agree with another eminent theoretical physicist called Freeman Dyson, Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever and a highly qualified climate scientist named Richard Lindzen.

        Two can play the ad verecundiam game.

      • How about this science steve.

        Did the 2nd grader replicate ALL the climate feedbacks in his 3 jars? Heck, did he even just include the KNOWN feedbacks (as including the unknowns would be kind of hard)? How about just clouds, did he include cloud feedback in his jars?

        Sorry, but unless his jars were the size of the largest building on the planet and included an actually working biota, then his “experiment” was completely useless and had no relation to what the effects of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are.

        And the fact that climate alarmists are using this “experiment” as something needed to be rebutted is so laughable that it is crosses the line into being sad. If anyone truly thinks this ‘experiment’ deserves any mention, Much less a rebuttal, then they need serious mental help.

      • @steve June 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm A second grade boy did this experiment
        Saul’s experiment tested the effects of carbon dioxide in heating a small biosphere. His control jar contained only dirt and air, his first test jar had dirt and a plant, symbolizing the rainforest and the second test jar contained dirt and carbon dioxide gas. He used a lamp as the heat source. The jar with the carbon dioxide had a warmer temperature than the other two.

        That’s a blatant lie that you have been told, and I assume you honestly believe it because you’re repeating, which only could lead rational people to conclude you’re very naive, gullible and lacking critical thinking skills. Trust me, firstly the jars don’t and can not contain enough CO2 to produce a measurable effect and secondly the glass the jars are made out of almost completely block the infrared light whose effect was trying to be measured. Repeating such drivel only weakens your position Please refer toAl Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment for a more in deoth explaination.

      • The number of people who deny that CO2 can warm the planet is small.
        The question has always been by how much.
        The fact that you have to lie about what others are saying is just further proof that either you have no idea what you are talking about, or have no ability to be truthful.
        Neither position says anything good about you.

      • “Please sling all the abuse that you want, I laugh when I read it.”

        Request granted. You are Trolling.

      • Steve, shocking a man with your perspicacity can miss this, but where is Saul published? Where’s the peer reviewed article, in a fourth glass jar? Where oh where is Saul’s Nobel Prize? (Prof. Mann knows). So Saul’s experiment fails your standards of science, yet it convinces you, and should convince us all.
        Gotta say, you’re the lamest troll we’ve seen in a while.

      • What does a jar of CO2 have to do with Earth’s atmosphere? And what is CO2 doing to the poor glaziers on a *planetary scale*? Who would have thunk that the destruction of mankind by CO2 would start with glaziers!!!!! darn you eeeevil Exxon! You are driving glaziers extinct!!!!!

      • Steve (not the auroral purple streak I hope), Glaziers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazier ) are doing quite well in my nich-o-the-woods. As for your correlation of CO2 to warming of the planet, nature has “blown it out of the water” (if you’ll excuse the pun). Stick around, read and learn, but try to avoid the embarrassment of commenting with the same old spurious coincidences.

        Please challenge your indoctrination by reading one of these free books by Bob Tisdale:
        https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/three-free-ebooks-on-global-warming-and-climate-change/#more-10885

      • steve
        Planet Earth 🌏 is the experiment and CO2 does not warm the earth’s climate. CO2 simply follows temperature changes as a proxy thereof, due to temperature dependence of seawater solubility of gasses. The poor and variable correlation of CO2 and temperatures over the Phanerozoic disprove CAGW. The best that your side can do is stop people looking at the earth’s climate records both recent and in deep time, stop them being curious about truth and nature for their own sake, just keep on honing the intolerant narrative repressive of free thinking and rely on people’s cynical self interest to guarantee that enough will fall onto line to keep the “den1ers” of the party line at the margins.

      • Replace CO2 with argon gas (a non greenhouse gas ) and the experiment would show even more warmth than the CO2, so what is this experiment really demonstrating?

      • Look at the record. Jim Hansen predicted that the Major Degan expressway would be underwater by now. Not even close.

      • If the heat source is an incandescent lamp, most if its radiation is infrared that cannot penetrate the glass jars, but is absorbed by the glass jars heating the glass. Inside the test chamber the hot glass then heats whatever gases are inside which in turn transports the heat to the portions of glass that are not directly heated by the lamp, transfers energy and the glass then convects and radiates outward. What is being tested is the glass and convection. Some of the light passes through the glass and heats the dirt at which point the dirt heats the air and the air convects and finds cooler glass to transfer that heat to. So there is some relevance to the difference between CO2’s ability to convect heat as air, but at 400 PPM there’s not enough CO2 for it to alter convection more than a trace. These test chambers are much too small to reveal infrared emission and absorption phenomena.

      • “Joz Jonlin June 6, 2017 at 7:05 pm

        The question of the effects of CO2 under radiative forcing is in the realm of physics. Look over this paper by some German physicists and see what you think. There are some interesting points made in this paper.

        A few words from the summary from these physicists.”

        Nice link. Should be required reading.

    • Climate models are engineering models, not scientific models. Pruit needs to get two or three validation and verification teams of hard-minded engineers to look at those models.

      When it comes to climate models, physical scientists have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing accuracy from precision. Blue team, red team, if they’re scientists both teams will be negligent. Their negligence has been going on for 30 years. It won’t suddenly improve.

      Engineers pay strict attention, because accuracy means things don’t fail. Let engineering teams get hold of the models for a little V&V, and the models are toast.

      • Right on the money. If you do not understand the difference between engineering and scientific models then you do not understand the debate about climate models. Also, climate modelers should stop claiming that they have created scientific models, aka physical theories.

      • Theo,

        Good distinction.

        The Copernican v. the Ptolemaic systems were dueling models, subject to falsification.

        GCMs are not models in the same sense. They are GIGO computer games. To the extent that they do make predictions, they’ve been thoroughly falsified (in both senses), but their perpetrators wiggle off the science hook by calling their outputs “projections”.

      • While they’re at it, those engineers might look ant the GHCN with an eye to accuracy of measurement, precision of measurement, frequency of re-calibration, instrument drift and, since the “adjusted” data are actually estimates, the error of the estimate.

    • When he asks the CO2-causes-warming group to show their evidence, I would love to be a fly in the wall.

      • Truthfully that is not the issue. The issue is CAGW. Sans the C, and the evidence is the benefits are real, the catastrophe is non existant, there is no basis for action.

        Then discussion of GHGs becomes academic.

      • Hig: I have no doubt that the earth i warming. We are , after all, in an interglacial period during which the globe warms…and continues to warm…until it doesn’t. Then back into an ice age.

    • It needs to be a team that includes top notch statistics analysts not from the climate scam union

    • The concern over CO2 rests sole on the projections from computer models that claim dangerously high levels of warming are going to occur within a specific time frame. All that is required is to demonstrate that the models are not fit for purpose; they are wrong with regards to amount of warming, with the timing of their projections or they do not accurately represent the atmosphere or drivers of our climate.

      Should be easy to accomplish any of these or all three of them.

      Stake, meet heart.

    • Of course the “Red Team” will have John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the shadows ready to surrender at a moments notice. There are plenty of science equivalents to RINOS whom I dub SINOS (Skeptics in Name Only).

      Being a skeptic today is like being a Cleveland Brown football fan the past decade. I want the team to win but objectively my side are born losers who punt on third down every chance they get. By worrying about just showing up they never plan on winning the game.

      The Dr. Lindzen swat team, Seal Skeptics #7 should have landed the day after the election and the whole kahuna of the UN Climate Framework exit should have been on the table. The climate trolls control NASA and NOAA to this day, crony green stocks are booming in many cases, no subside cuts are on the table. They are dug in ready to outlast DJT and the odds are in their favor.

      Paris was a symptom, the entire UN Framework and academic/MSM/Greenshirt political base and globalist cabal is the disease. It’s going untreated to this point. I don’t blame Pruitt intensely, I think DJT tied him up and made some very weak calls. This was a galvanizing issue that he went soft on I would say for not trying to disrupt the money bubble and the 2 million jobs largely linked to climate hype. Elon Musk gets a free pass and will collect billions more in the Federal subsidies as the bubble only gets bigger at the moment. 250k car backlog x $7500 per car and forget about what California tax payers are on the hook for.

      The campaign slogan for 2020 should be “For the good of the climate investment bubble” or more simply “I like my Tulips”. What could be next? Imagine TARP for the green industry, all the signs are there. Maybe DJT is playing his famous 4-d political chess again and knows he can’t pop the bubble at the moment. Maybe it is a longer game.

    • Who fires the team picks and bans them from publishing in the future and mocks them.

      • Rguy: Good shot! Obviously. the team that’s saving the planet is justified when attacking, degrading and destroying the team that seeks the truth. Can’t let ’em publish that! /s

    • Well, yeah.
      How to keep the politics out of it?
      Find scientist that voted for Obama and Hillary that have publicly opposed “the consensus” vs those who voted for Trump that have publicly endorsed “the consensus”?
      In a perfect world both teams would be made up of actual scientist who disagree about what the raw, un-adjusted, data may show.
      In other words, both sides made up of those whose personal pride will permit them to admit “I was wrong” or, worse yet, “I just don’t know”.
      In fewer words, “honest and ethical in their evaluations”.
      Even fewer words, “I’m still open to learn.”

      • How to keep the politics out of it?

        You don’t. You run it like a civil tort case. Give them equal access to resources and let them slug it out. Maybe an extended version of the standard formal debate format: First Affirmative, First Negative Cross Question, First Negative, etc.

      • D. J.,
        In the absence of a way to guarantee personal integrity, I guess that’s the best we’ve got.
        (But on the plus side, we do know of a few Menn out there that have no personal integrity in this field.)

      • “I just don’t know” appears to be forbidden to say in a science context, at least in climate science. I have always admired doctors who will say “We just don’t know” for their honesty. I’ll like to see more such openness.

      • @Sheri
        They still don’t like to admit it. The diagnosis comes back “[Your mysterious symptoms here] due to unknown etiology.”

    • I do ! Mann, Hansen, Gore Kerry (who served in Vietnam)and 100 hundred others named by the aforementioned will be the RED team. The blue team will be SEAL team six. Rules …..none.

    • Plenty here would pick Dr. Curry who spent most of career promoting group think consensus and then went on an agonizing 11 year Road to Skeptical Damascus to get to the most nuanced and wimpy form of skepticism imaginable. Such is the state of “skeptics in name only”. I don’t want Lomborg appeasing the core fraud either. If they pop up you know it was all a phony climate war exercise.

      Our best known and qualified players are old, it isn’t a good situation at all. Heaven help us if we let the GOP pick the red team. Skeptics refuse to accept the basic political agenda since 1988 (at a minimum) and that’s why we are perennial climate war losers. It’s a delusional premise to begin with that actual “science” brought us to the UN Framework brink. The entire field should bear the mark of pseudoscience shame as there isn’t going to a logical science concession from the blue team. I would hope Pruitt knows this going in.

      Let the pie throwing begin but only fools think a science process would be accepted by the blue team. Dr. Lindzen is the best the skeptics have. He’s a little too dignified frankly for the task and what the blue team will look like.

      • It’s never going to happen where the “blue team” will ever acknowledge the “red team” to exchange science as equals. They are committed to authoritarianism, settled science, it’s really that simple. If Pruitt can embarrass them through their own arrogance that will score a few points.

        The better tactic is to study the IPCC process and denounce it as anti-science and political fraud, which is exactly what it declined to very rapidly from the very first meeting. There’s plenty of testimony to that fact.

        The gloves should have come off much sooner then this as far as the science cartel is concerned.

  1. We have had this “true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion” on CO2. Science tells us man’s contribution is negligible.
    That’s it. Learn it. Know it. Live it.
    Of course, what is really meant is “a chance to put forth utterly laughable junk science as “peer reviewed”™. Too bad the “peer review” process has been compromised and corrupted as fully and completely as has science. Some of us know better.

    • “Science tells us man’s contribution is negligible.” Do you have a source for that?

    • seaice1 Man only occupies 3% of the earth, that where he mostly measure temperature, he extrapolates what he measures where he lives to the rest of the earth, he certainly locally warms the earth both through his structures and agricultural, when we have over a hundred years of unadjust satellite data in the raw form the basicly the sensor reading for that day and to where the satellite was in orbit at that time we “might” have a clue wat direction of which way the climate is moving, the past proxy reconstructs tell us overall down with short periods of up, long after you are I are dead I betting that trend will prove out to be true, not the computer models the so called “climate scientist” tell us to believe and keep asking us to fund more expense computer in which I know will not improve their models. after all GIGO does not change with faster computers.

    • Scott, you nailed it!!! Watch the junk on tv get into Comey & for the minor news Trump killed the World, these story’s are so distorted! It’s not the World, it’s about the Power of the De-Growthers and the far left!!!

      • De-growther? I’ve been calling them exterminationists .. it has been popular under many left wing authoritarians, and quite necessary according to them. They’re saving the world after all.

    • “question is, would discussion of this nature get as much air play as Comey will this week?”

      I think the MSM will give this contest a lot of airtime, because they would want to show Trump was wrong and CAGW is real.

      The MSM will be very interested in this endeavor until the alarmists start losing the argument. Then they may cut back on coverage. :)

      • But it won’t be truthful coverage. It’ll be spun to discredit science, and validate the political agenda

  2. Please can they also asses the effectiveness, risks, and benefits of any proposed “fixes” (professional’s call them mitigations) should there be CO2 risks that need to be dealt with.

    • @rms, I would think that the greatest CO2 risk is not having enough of it to support life.

      • While that may be technically true, in practice nothing could be further from the truth. To a man and woman, the supporters of the CAGW view are intimately involved in policy making.

      • Oh Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, you do not get to set the rules, and proclaim junk as science, and decide what is admissible as evidence, and decide the outcome.

        It was fun for the alarmists and data fiddlers such as your good self while it lasted, but science will eventually prevail despite your best efforts to suppress it.

      • “The “fixes” are not a part of climate science.”

        Bwahahahahahahah.

        Are you drunk?

      • Bingo Mosh, for once. The “fixes” like the Parris avreement, have exactly ZERO to do with any science.

      • Steve M.- “The ‘fixes’ are not part of climate science.” How about the marches?

  3. Let us only hope that EPA avoids the sloppy and unprecise citation practice adopted by IPCC and rather document the results in a way that makes them independently verifiable.

    It simply isn´t good enough to follow the practice of IPCC and just point to an entire paper without identifying the relevant statements, figure, or table within that paper.

      • Biologists, some of great “stature” and some who seem otherwise good scientists, do this all the time, ignoring the importance of understanding the whole temperature spectrum. Q10 is very important to physiology, but the apparent fear of demonic chemicals and phenomena has apparently resulted in their bias and advocacy. Of course, ego and money may be there also. They need retraining, if possible, in the basics of science and its particulars including fields like toxicology. The wonder is that much good biological science proceeds, but the emphasis on heat has changed the previous more balanced older view. .

      • H. D. Hoese
        Thanks for bring up Q10. I should have thought of it, but didn’t. For those not in the know, Q10 is a chemistry/chem eng. term for the fact that roughly, a 10K change in temperature changes a reaction rate by a factor of 2-3 for many biological reactions. It applies to all chemical reactions through the Arrhenius equation, which he used to introduce activation energy- the concept that chemical reactions that you’d expect to occur, such as fire, require some excess energy to actually get started. It might be a match or some other source of heat. Catalysts(almost all enzymes) work by reducing the activation energy so the molecules have enough energy to react more readily without requiring high temperatures.

        Interestingly, “normal” temperatures on earth have oscillated over a range of temperatures daily far exceeding 10K. Life has adapted.

      • RACookPE1978 June 6, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        The actual sequence of creation in Genesis 1 could scarcely differ more from observed and inferred reality:

        1) Waters. These aren’t created but already existing, and of course bear no relationship to a remarkably hot, dense point or singularity. Nor does the spirit of God moving over the waters equate to inflation starting at the Big Bang, which expansion causes the universe to cool as it grows. We also aren’t treated to the creation of atoms of hydrogen, most helium and a little lithium in the first three minutes of inflation, because biblical authors knew of no such things.

        2) Light. This you apparently find similar to the phase in the early universe, when at about 380,000 years old, it cooled enough for a flash of light, but then went dark again until stars were able to form, after some 400 million years. By contrast, in Genesis 1, light not only originates at this point, but so does night, and they alternate. Clearly the author didn’t know that day and night occur because of earth’s rotation. Day and Night end the First Day.

        3) Firmament of heaven. This solid dome separates the waters below from the waters above. Even John Calvin knew that there couldn’t be waters above the vault of heaven. There is water ice in outer space, but that’s not what the Bible envisions. Rather, there are storehouses of rain, snow, etc, which God Himself lets fall from these bins, while walking on the vault. Day and Night end Second Day.

        4) Dry land. God gathers the waters under the firmament together so that dry land might appear. Of course that’s not remotely how it actually happened on earth. First the crust cooled, then water accumulated upon the dry surface.

        5) Land plants. Please explain how it’s possible for plants or any other photosynthetic organism to exist without the sun. Thanks. Day and Night end the Third Day.

        6) Sun, Moon and Stars. The sun and moon are merely signs (since Night and Day already exist), but the stars are to give light. They are set in the firmament. Elsewhere in the Bible we learn that they are anthropomorphic, ie the Heavenly Host, and sing. They’re also in danger of falling to earth. No mention of the formation of elements above lithium in these stars. Day and Night end the Fourth Day.

        7) Water Creatures and Flying Creatures. Well, animals did evolve in the ocean, but all flying creatures, ie insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats, evolved on land, as you acknowledge. How they fly in the firmament of heaven is a little vague, too. Day and Night end the Fifth Day.

        6) Land animals and Man. Note that unlike the myth in Genesis 2, Man and Woman are made at the same time in this chapter. The flying creatures of course should have come after the creation of land animals. Day and Night end the Sixth Day.

        How exactly is it possible for earth, let alone land plants, to exist before the sun? Earth coalesced out of the protoplanetary disk surrounding the sun, as we can see happening around other stars today. What are these primordial waters doing in outer space, which God separates to allow dry land to emerge? Clearly biblical cosmology is the same as that of other prescientific Near Eastern creation and flood myths, including those on which the Genesis stories were modeled.

        From the surface of the earth, the sky does look like a dome, with stars hanging from it. So it was natural for myth makers to assume that God could sit on the edge of the earth, as He does in Job, and look down at people, who appear to Him as bugs. And that He should walk on the dome, operating the levers of the storehouses of precipitation. Plainly no inkling of the hydrological cycle there.

        You may not like it, but that’s what the chapter actually says. As noted, the sequence in Genesis 2 contradicts this sequence, but is even more wrong, if that’s possible.

    • The IPCC is a SUMMARY of the science, not a recapitulation.
      I’ve never had any problem finding the support in the papers.
      But then I actually read the chapters that lie within my experience.
      And I actually read the papers in the bibliography.

      IF you want your windows washed and diaper changed, then try a different field.

      Or sign up as a reviewer and make suggestions to IMPROVE the document

      • That summary includes opposing views, of course, since science looks at all viewpoints and objectively presents all such viewpoints.

      • Steven, that kind of attitude doesn’t strengthen your position, let’s turn it around a bit.
        IF you want us to pay for having your windows washed and diaper changed, then try convincing us there’s a need. We can always take our Billions of dollars and go home; then you can compete for burger flipping jobs with the English majors.

      • @ Steven Mosher:

        But the ‘Summary’ (political) is produced first and the report then has to be amended to agree with it.
        That ain’t science it’s marxist politics – but maybe that’s how you prefer it.

      • The IPCC Summary is written by politicians (final draft) and falsely claimed to be a summary of back up books released many months later in the hope that no one will compare them with the summary.

        The IPCC is supported by climate change activists, environmental activists and scientists almost entirely believing in the CO2 is Evil Cult

        Scientists who do not believe CO2 is Evil will not be asked to participate or will leave when they realize the conclusion was determined when the IPCC was formed in 1988 –Manmade CO2 controls the climate and will cause runaway global warming that will end life on our planet.

        The IPCC was charged with collecting evidence to support that assumption, and ONLY that assumption — ignoring all contradictory data.

        And that’s what they do.

        Mr. Masher, you are apparently too dense to understand that the IPCC is nothing more than
        a large data mining exercise with politicians putting the final spin on the summary.

        Since no one knows what causes climate change, the arbitrary selection of manmade CO2 is wild guessing and claims that the future average temperature can be predicted are nonsense … as is obvious after 30 years of wrong wild guesses from the global climate models.

        Masher, you brag that you read chapters of the IPCC Summary, as if you don’t know the conclusion was decided when the IPCC was formed in 1988, and will never change … no matter how many years of wonderful climate we enjoy … the end of life on Earth is always claimed to be coming … but never comes.

        Only fools would keep believing this every year since 1988 with no doubt or skepticism.

        Yes, you are right, I’m calling you one of the fools.

        Climate change blog for non-scientists
        (Don’t bother visiting Masher, the logic is over your head)

        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blopgspot.com

      • Richard Greene:

        A good post, but you say….no one knows the cause of climate change.

        Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for the answer

    • Don,

      Funny!

      Could be wrong, but my guess is that the screenwriters didn’t know nor care how closely related the giant and red panda are. Which isn’t really very much at all, since “panda” would have to include raccoons for the term to mean anything phylogenetically or cladistically.

      They’re both on the same (non-felid) branch of the Carnivora, but so too then are dogs, weasels and seals.

  4. Let’s be patriotic…. I want to be on the ‘White Team’, to review results, moderate debates, and drive appropriate changes in our regulatory agencies.

    • Debates?

      Leftists don’t need no stinkin’ debates.

      I though the leftists / government bureaucrat scientists were all going to stand on the stage and hurl insults at the other team … just like the current “climate debate”

    • Sorry, just to clarify…that youtube video has, literally, nothing to do with climate science. Well, actually, it has nothing to do with any science…but it IS funny.

      • The coming runaway global warming catastrophe has nothing to do with science, so a youtube video that has nothing to do with science would be appropriate, like white wine and fish.

      • Wrong again! At least you’re consistent. And persistent in commenting on topics about which you’re totally ignorant, to include physics, all other sciences, statistics and military power.

        The B Team was right. The CIA grossly underestimated the USSR.

        After its fall, we discovered that the B Team was spot on. Instead of the maximum of 20,000 nuclear warheads estimated by the CIA (A Team), there were more than 42,000. As the B Team correctly pointed out, every submarine carried nuclear torpedoes. That was discovered before the fall, during the Whiskey on the Rocks incident in Sweden. Every artillery battalion of 152mm and larger caliber was nuclear-armed. Their ICBM silos and SLBM launch tubes were (and are) reloadable.

    • A similar Red State / Blue State re-evaluation occurred in oncology in the 1970s. Circa 1940, estrogen was FDA-approved for the hot flashes of menopause. Wyeth promoted this, as Prempro, and was selling this drug to at least one of every three women, ages 45-65, by 1974 (Hemminki 1988). Big money.

      In the 1970s, a couple of oncologists noticed that many of their endometrial cancer patients seemed to be estrogen-users. They did a case-control study, and found estrogen use in about 50% of a series of entrometrial cancer cases, and only 15% in matched controls.

      Ziel HK, Finkle WD. Increased risk of endometrial carcinoma among users of conjugated estrogens. N Engl J Med. 1975 Dec 4;293(23):1167-70.

      Sales dropped almost in half by 1976. The drug company, Wyeth, was worried. Wyeth questioned the “science” of the 1975 study – including suspecting the pathology lab work of being poor, biasing the determination of cases. The authors said, “OK, you send over your docs, and we will all blindly read the path lab samples.”

      The corresponding 1977 publication confirmed the 1975 finding:

      Gordon J, Reagan JW, Finkle WD, Ziel HK. Estrogen and endometrial carcinoma. An independent pathology review supporting original risk estimate. N Engl J Med. 1977 Sep 15;297(11):570-1.

      Gordon and Reagan were Wyeth’s “hired guns,” with the other two authors just innocently carrying out their science in the interest of mankind – and womankind.

      This moment of true science spurred a new line of research – that resulted in the finding that adding progesterone to the estrogen dropped the endometrial cancer risk.

  5. In principle it’s not a bad idea, but like all things in Washington it will turn political and the media will mis-report it. I’d rather Pruitt step up and start to call out the people that we already know have mis-represented the issues and take NOAA to task for their role in creating fake data. Pruitt needs to become an activist for science, unlike the former head who was an activist for anything the green blob said

      • Thanks, SorF. The nature of science has been defined in law:

        Legally speaking, the word “science” was defined in McLean v. Arkansas (1982), a famous court case that exiled creation science from public schools. Judge William Overton found that creation science was not science at all because it failed a five-prong test. According to his decision genuine science must:

        1) be guided by natural law;

        2) be explanatory by reference to natural law;

        3) be testable against the empirical world;

        4) have conclusions that are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

        5) be falsifiable.

        Works for me … I’d definitely like to see those applied to the usual range of alarmist claims.

        w.

      • The principles of McLean v. Arkansas seem to be more about the demarcation of science from religion. The principles I suggest are intended to identify necessary characteristics of verifiable and reliable results.

      • Willis,

        1) be guided by natural law;

        2) be explanatory by reference to natural law;

        3) be testable against the empirical world;

        4) have conclusions that are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

        5) be falsifiable.

        “Works for me …”

        Regarding Evolutionist vs Creationism? Sir, it eliminates one potential by definition . . How could you not notice that? I swear, sometimes it seems atheists are the most gullible people in this planet ; )

        But, I don’t think either belongs in a science class, and I believe allowing Evolution (the kind no one ever observed ; ) in, was what opened the “Pandora’s box” of pretend science now threatening our very civilization.

      • John,

        Why do you keep repeating the lie that evolution has never been observed?

        It is observed daily.

        None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

      • @Gabro: Thanks for the feedback. I think it is covered by §6: “A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.”
        I imagine that a concept that is well-defined in that manner should be repeatable. §10 and §11 should also help to ensure repeatability. However, it could be that it should be explicitly stated. I´ll make a note of it and consider it for the next revision. :)

      • SoF,

        You’re welcome. I used to teach the history and philosophy of science along with science classes.

        As nearly as I can tell, 17th century chemist Robert Boyle was the first to stress the importance of reproducibility and replicability in the scientific method.

        Here’s a recent PNAS opinion piece on reproducible results. WUWT has also had some discussion on the topic.

        Opinion: Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach

        http://www.pnas.org/content/112/6/1645.full

      • Gabro,

        I meant what I said, the kind no one ever observed. There are several meanings, and I don’t want to go through the ritual obfuscatory BS about that.

        I’m talking about the kind Darwin himself said was not evident in the fossil record, and still does not appear (as far as I am aware).

      • Readers, please note the similarity in how Gabro responds to “me”, and how the climate alarmists respond to their skeptics (insulting, condescending, claiming it’s plain to see, etc.) I suggest they took that approach because they knew it could work to silence opposition, because they had seen it work . .

      • John,

        Darwin never said that evolution wasn’t evident in the fossil record. He used the fossil record as evidence of the fact of descent with modification. He himself didn’t use the term evolution. He adduced various lines of evidence to show the fact that new species and higher biological classifications arise from previous ones.

        What was an insight in 1858 is now a trivial observation. There are many evolutionary processes, but all can be directly observed or unavoidably interred without reference to any supernatural agency. Evolution is a scientific fact, ie an observation.

        I shouldn’t have said daily, since evolution is observed continuously. The only difference between so-called microevolution and macroevolution is time. The processes which cause them are the same. There is no magical genetic barrier stopping micro from becoming macroevolution.

        Cartilage is partially mineralized collagen, which connective protein was invented by sponges, the group from which other animals have evolved. When, in the Late Devonian, the fin rods of lobefin fish further calcified and fused into fingers, en route to the evolution of tetrapods, was that step micro or macroevolution? The same development pattern as seen in fossils is observable in the embryological development of fingers today.

        Were you willing to look, you’d see the fact of evolution in your own body and everywhere around you. But you’ve blinded yourself to reality.

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 3:28 pm

        Readers can plainly see that you, like CACA advocates, are immune to reality, adherents of a religion to be accepted on blind faith rather than scientific fact.

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 3:20 pm
        Gabro,

        I meant what I said, the kind no one ever observed. There are several meanings, and I don’t want to go through the ritual obfuscatory BS about that.

        I’m talking about the kind Darwin himself said was not evident in the fossil record, and still does not appear (as far as I am aware).

        “Climate Change”. “Evolution”.
        Both are terms thrown around that need to be defined before one can agree or disagree depending on what “the thrower” was implying.

      • JohnKnight, sorry to hack in as this is not my thing. Please buy and read scholarly ‘In the Blink of an Eye’ by Parker (2003) Or read my synopsis with many other peer reviewed papers added in the characterization chapter of The Arts of Truth. You have it wrong. Very wrong.

      • “JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 3:28 pm
        Readers, please note the similarity in how Gabro responds to “me”, and how the climate alarmists respond to their skeptics (insulting, condescending, claiming it’s plain to see, etc.) I suggest they took that approach because they knew it could work to silence opposition, because they had seen it work . .”
        john, what superstition is in opposition to is reality.
        you have no reason. that’s how you earn the condescension and it would be an act of moral embezzlement to deny to you what you have earned by your efforts.
        howbowdah.

      • PS ~ Oh, and the similar vague lingo games (evolution/climate change), that take so long to get through in terms of what’s really being disputed/doubted (if the certitude side doesn’t want it to happen). The terms have very broad potential meaning ranges, but you will note if you look (I believe) that one side generally speaks as though it’s a very narrow range, and any definition sense being met means all have been, essentially (and then the skeptic is berated as uninformed for not going along with the vague lingo game).

      • Gunga Din June 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm

        “Evolution” does have precise definitions in biology. For the purpose of my comments to John, the term means “change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”. This applies whether we’re talking about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in microbial pathogens or the evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms or domains of related organisms.

        “Climate change” OTOH is intentionally vague shorthand for the hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change or global warming or weather weirding or something bad and all our fault.

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm

        As I’ve just commented, “evolution” isn’t a vague term. It has precise definitions.

        You only imagine it’s vague because of your willfully complete, total and utter ignorance of the subject. Worse than that, all that you imagine you know is dead wrong.

      • ristvan,

        Make your case, or I suggest you don’t really have a good one, yourself . . and it seems so freaking obvious to me that lots of peer reviewed p[parers can mean corruption and confirmation bias etc., that I’m kinda stunned you would act as though it’s impossible . . now, anyway.

      • gnomish June 6, 2017 at 3:39 pm

        Remarkable that people who’ve never studied science feel qualified to comment upon it.

      • Please note readers, how Gabro goes right ahead and plays the vague lingo game;

        “As I’ve just commented, “evolution” isn’t a vague term. It has precise definitions.”

        Like I can see the ‘s’ at the end there ; )

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 3:56 pm

        IOW, you can’t be bothered to educate yourself, for fear of what you might learn.

        Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s still ignorance. Commenting falsely out of ignorance only earns you well-deserved derision and condescension. You must have missed the part about pride going before a fall.

      • (And then we see the Evo version of “you’ enot a climate sceintist” game ; )

      • lolz –
        john’s winning rhetoric: ‘i’m so victim!’
        next up: ‘truth is hate-speech’

      • John,

        Nope. You don’t have to be a scientist to make worthwhile comments on “climate science”, but you do have to have studied the relevant science and math in order to understand the arguments. A complete neophyte could possibly ask good questions, but, as you yourself have shown, a lack of physics education just causes you to embarrass yourself. That goes double for biology.

      • Note the lack of even an attempt to make a case, folks. It’s hand waiving and accusations of ignorance, all the way down ; )

        Seriously, I’m only suggesting that something possible, was spun into “settled science”, and that many are too well indoctrinated to even question their absolute certainty, and now that pattern has been replicated with the CAGW clan. I’m a skeptic, and these lightweights (including ristvan in this case) are displaying a total lack of that commodity . . while pretending they are being ever so scientifically. No your not, I say, you’re just brainwashed (as I was most of my life).

        You’ll pay lip service to the need for skepticism in science, I’ll grant you that . .

      • John,

        I don’t know who you imagine to be a “snowflake”, but the term surely doesn’t apply to anyone who has pointed out your profound ignorance here.

        But I’m prepared to be astounded by your understanding of nature. Please tell us, in your own words, how you imagine new species, genera, etc. arise. If they don’t evolve, how then have they been “created”.

        Does God just poof! new ones into existence to replace those going extinct, or did He make them all at once?

        In Genesis 1, you might recall, the earth brought forth plants on the third day of creation, then the waters brought forth sea creatures and winged creatures on the fifth day, followed by the earth again bringing forth land creatures on the sixth day. Of course, in Genesis 2, it’s a different kettle of fish entirely. So what is a Bible-believing anti-scientist to suppose?

      • In Genesis 1, you might recall, the earth brought forth plants on the third day of creation, then the waters brought forth sea creatures and winged creatures on the fifth day, followed by the earth again bringing forth land creatures on the sixth day. Of course, in Genesis 2, it’s a different kettle of fish entirely. So what is a Bible-believing anti-scientist to suppose?

        No. You have some of the words, but not the complete sequence.
        First, everything was created. From nothing.
        THEN, there a great wave (wind, blast, or Big Bang – as some call it.)
        THEN, light was formed as everything cooled from the initial blast.
        THEN, solids formed from the light as everything continued to cool. (These early solids formed the first shadows.)
        THEN, the clouds, dust, plasmas and gasses above (that formed the stars and other planets) separated from the clouds, dust, plasmas and gasses that condensed together and formed the earth.
        THEN, one land was formed and one ocean was formed. (Or one ocean was formed because one land was gathered together.
        THEN, plants grew in that ocean, and the skies cleared (as oxygen was released after the plants grew), and so the stars and moon were first visible through the atmosphere in today’s positions.
        THEN, dinosaurs grew (well, today’s birds evolved on land – but they were from dinosaurs. Or dinosaurs ARE today’s birds. There is much disagreement today.)
        THEN, mammals evolved.
        THEN, Man evolved. Or was formed – depending on how you look at it.

        Now. Am I quoting Genesis?
        Or Darwin, paleontology, geology, evolution, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and today’s Big Bang Theory?

      • Gabro June 6, 2017 at 3:44 pm
        Gunga Din June 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm

        “Evolution” does have precise definitions in biology. For the purpose of my comments to John, the term means “change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”. This applies whether we’re talking about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in microbial pathogens or the evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms or domains of related organisms.

        “Climate change” OTOH is intentionally vague shorthand for the hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change or global warming or weather weirding or something bad and all our fault.

        Hmmm…
        ““Evolution” does have precise definitions in biology. For the purpose of my comments to John, the term means “change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”.”
        Sounds like “seed after its kind”.
        People have been breeding dogs for a long time. Lots of different breeds of dogs out there. Yet no no one has ever observed a dog having a kitten.
        As I said,

        “Climate Change”. “Evolution”.
        Both are terms thrown around that need to be defined before one can agree or disagree depending on what “the thrower” was implying.

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 4:26 pm

        What hand-waving?

        Commenters here have wasted hours trying to educate you in great detail, free of charge, but you can’t handle the truth, since you have not the least interest in it.

      • Gunga Din June 6, 2017 at 4:30 pm

        How do you get a dog having a kitten out of the definition of evolution I gave you?

        What has been observed, in fossils, in genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, indeed ever possible relevant line of evidence, is that dogs evolved from Pleistocene wolves, which evolved from solitary Pliocene canids similar to coyotes, which evolved from Miocene canids, which evolved from Oligocene bear-dogs, which evolved from carnivores ancestral to both cats and dogs in the Eocene Epoch.

        The genome of dog wouldn’t suddenly evolve in a single generation into that of a cat. Are you serious or just kidding? Is it really possible to graduate from high school and understand biology so ridiculously poorly?

      • A “bear-dog”, actually more closely related to canids than to ursids:

        Amphicyon ingens lived during the mid-Miocene.

      • “What has been observed, in fossils, in genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, indeed ever possible relevant line of evidence, is that dogs evolved from Pleistocene wolves, which evolved from solitary Pliocene canids similar to coyotes, which evolved from Miocene canids, which evolved from Oligocene bear-dogs, which evolved from carnivores ancestral to both cats and dogs in the Eocene Epoch.”

        Hand waiving, to me, sir. Just you spouting what you believe, with no evidence we can actually see and consider. It looks just like Michel Mann playing “pile it on” with all the vast array of verifying “science” he like to evoke (which we get to watch sliced and diced around here ; ) but I’m (we’re) supposed to just soak it up if it’s claimed in regard to Evolution . . HYPOCRISY ALERT . . ; )

      • John,

        No hand waving. It’s summarizing the evidence, which you’ve been shown over and over again, to no avail. You’re impervious to reality. You just ignore all the effort that scientists here have provided you free of charge.

        Can you move your ears the way that dogs, cats, horses, llamas and so many other mammals, including prosimian primates can? Then why do you imagine that you have the muscles to move your immobile ears and the neuropathways in your brain for the muscles to respond to stimuli which animals with mobile ears can locate? Only an idiotic designer would give us apes and monkeys muscles to move immobile ears. Wiggling doesn’t count. Only forward, sideways and backwards work.

        You won’t even reply to direct questions. You’re a waste of time. Why cast more pearls before swine?

      • Gabro, evolution, however you define it, has a problem similar to modelling climate. We can only observe one “instance” of evolution- there is no way to show that any example, whether it is moths over a hundred years, or humans over millions of years, or amphibians to reptlles, can only occur on one pathway. It’s less a hypothetical science than an explanatory one that gives some basis for evaluating change in the fossil record and even in fruit flies over a few years. We are a looong way from being able to determine which genetic changes in which order and among which genes will give a particular result that survives the evolutionary challenge in response to an experiment.

      • philohippous June 6, 2017 at 5:20 pm

        Nope. We do what you describe all the time. Every day in every way.

        Just to take a couple of salient examples from human evolution, we know the genetic changes responsible for our upright walking and for our big brains.

        We learn more all the time. Evolution is a scientific fact, ie an observation, with more examples compounding all the time. There is also a body of theory explaining these observations, just as the ever-changing theory of universal gravitation tries to explain gravity. Evolution however is much better understood.

        You seem to imagine that evolution always occurs gradually. More often than not, however, speciation occurs in a single generation, via such rapid processes as single mutations, hybridization and polyploidy. Not just speciation, but microevolution also happens in every generation. You yourself were probably born with four mutations, and acquire more during your life.

        Evolution is a consequence of reproduction. It’s a fact, observable all around us, all the time.

      • Gabro says;

        “A “bear-dog”, actually more closely related to canids than to ursids:

        Not thought by some to be such and such, but a totally skepticism free declaration of ostensible absolute truth. Why? And, where has the alternative gone? (creation) . . What is it about that skeleton that tells us, in a scientific sense, that it was certainly not the handiwork of a hyper intelligent being? I don;pt see it . . there is no logical argument even presented here, but Gabro doesn’t even realize that’s what he’s supposed to be demonstrating can’t be the story of how that thing came to exist, I don’t believe. (He forgot ; )

        And this is where the “settled science” trick began, I propose. This explains what went wrong, such that science, the institutions/community, is not rushing to defend skepticism now . . better than anything else I can detect, anyway. In this realm of a propaganda generated pretend war between religion and science, and most of science went for the Priestly robes, so to speak. Saving us from . . not having them rule over us, they foolishly believed, it seems to me . .

      • Ristvan,

        “The easiest thing is the eye evolution. Already covered.”

        No one saw that happen, sir. They only imagined it . . right?

      • You see, folks, a different form of science (that I sometimes call Siants, because it sounds like science ; ) has become perfectly acceptable to most scientists and other people who really should know better, I feel; When direct observation is not possible, the visions of leading experts can act as a proxy for it.

        Nope, that’s not science, that’s belief in the (vicarious) visions of seers . . (it’s false religion, in Book-speak)

      • John,

        You fail fundamentally even to grasp what science is.

        Science was Copernicus’ insight that the earth goes around the sun and isn’t immobile, as in the Bible. He couldn’t directly observe that fact, as we can now, but his hypothesis was correct. He was wrong about circular orbits, but he was closer to physical reality than was Ptolemy and especially the Bible.

        Science was also Darwin’s insight that species originated via natural selection and other evolutionary processes. He didn’t know about heredity, just as Copernicus didn’t know that orbits are elliptical, but he was right about natural selection.

        Science infers unseen phenomena from observations, then tests those inferences. Predictions made on the basis of evolution prove valid. Those on the basis of creationism, never. Thus evolution is science and creationism religion.

        Fossils are observations of past life forms. In the case of the bear-dog, it’s easy to see both its canine and ursine features. The inference is that it represents a stage in the evolution of canids, after their separation from the line leading to bears. All available evidence shows this relationship and none show it false.

        That’s how science works. We know that species evolved in the past and can see them doing so today. Willful ignorance is all that is keeping you from learning how the world really works.

        Why not be brave, free your mind from myths and put yourself through a course of education? Here’s a good book, easily accessible by lay readers, on the fossil record. It mentions some of the other evidences supporting the fact of evolution, but focuses on fossils.

        No one with an open mind can avoid accepting the reality of evolution after reading it. The truth is overwhelming. Then maybe you’ll go on and read books on the dozens of other lines of evidence, ie all the evidence in the world. In that case, you’ll realize just how ignorant you were, and how presumptuous and sinfully proud you were to spout such drivel here.

      • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm

        The evolution of eyes isn’t imagined. It’s reconstructed from observations, the same way that a crime scene is reconstructed from available evidence. Hypotheses are made and tested. That’s science.

        Much of the genetic machinery used in eye development is shared by all eyed animals, yet complex eyes have evolved dozens of times.

      • “Fossils are observations of past life forms. In the case of the bear-dog, it’s easy to see both its canine and ursine features.”

        So what? I have no idea what causes you to think that a living thing Creator would only utilize basic “features” once only . . Do you impose such an arbitrary limit on yourself, in the things you create? You can shadow box with a dorky phantom god that is limited by urges or habits you yourself are not bound by, but it’s just boring to watch, frankly.

        A wide array of “breeds” of dogs can come into existence without ANY new functional DNA coming into existence (last I heard) but it doesn’t seem to dawn on you that this swings the door of possibility that what that record is showing us is actually a wide variety of “breeds” that “evolved” from a relatively few initial critters, pre-supplied with the coding to generate that wide variety, as dogs and other critters have done.

        I can understand doubting that’s what happened, but I can’t understand ruling it out, if we have observed that pattern in reality-land. You do, though, it seems . . So, I don’t consider you a scientific/self-critical thinker . . As I said, atheists can be the most gullible people I’ve ever encountered (# not all atheists ; )

      • In Siants, all it takes to make some idea into a Siantific fact, is for some self worshiping well paid practitioners to imagine it, and then generally agreeing it seems plausible . . Hence the imaginary “observations” of eyes evolving into existence being shoved in my face as some sort of proof they did, by devout believers in this Siants struff, and, hence the CAGW being shoved in all our faces by some others . . the one paved the way for the other, I believe.

      • @JohnKnight, take away all knowledge and writings of evolution, and the next generation of archaeologists and biologists will re-discover exactly the same facts and draw the same conclusions. Take away all knowledge and writings of the Bible, and it will never reappear.

      • >>
        JohnKnight
        June 6, 2017 at 4:14 pm

        (Weak, snowflake ; )
        <<

        Ahhh Geee, and I thought “snowflake” was your special term for me.

        But here you’re using it on others. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

        Jim

      • >>
        Gabro
        June 6, 2017 at 7:30 pm

        Much of the genetic machinery used in eye development is shared by all eyed animals, yet complex eyes have evolved dozens of times.
        <<

        What annoys me is that God gave us humans the same basic backwards, upside-down, inside-out eye design that he gave all the other vertebrates. As I age, I need stronger and stronger glasses, because the muscles adjusting our eye lenses aren’t strong enough to compensate for the stiffness as the lenses age.

        Now God designed the cephalopod eyes correctly (in my opinion). The cephalopod eyes with lenses work like real cameras–the lenses move in and out to focus. I’ve never seen an old octopus wearing glasses (or a young one either). I wonder if octopuses suffer from cataracts.

        Jim

      • Studying botany as a student near 3 decades back I never questioned evolution, nor had I for many years after for it was taught as a fact. Hearing the word ‘evolved’ almost everywhere, it was with some shock I realized the term was being used in regard the expression of alleles more oft than not and rarely in regard evolution.

        “Ah this group of humans has ‘evolved’ to eat such and such a diet” – Rubbish! They’re the same species as every other human, they’re not exhibiting any such thing as evolution.. Should we ever see one species turn into another species then by all means, we’ll have seen evolution for the first time but so far no matter how hard we look or how many thousands of generations of microbes we culture, we’ve not seen a single example of a species becoming another species (accepting the criteria that differing species cannot generally interbreed).

        This got me pondering things – we were taught speciation is divergent – but would convergent speciation look any different?

        A galah parrot (Eolophus roseicapilla)mates with a weero cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus) and produces viable offspring. Assume this new creature being larger than a weero competes more successfully for food than the weeros and the weeros die out
        – we would observe this as the ‘species evolving’. Even though thta’s not what happened at all. by the way, this has happened and currently such creatures are often labeled hybrids. If we’d stumbled across this hybrid creature in the wild after it became endemic, we’d have named is as just another species..

        We’ve seen the specific example above occur, it’s been observed many times across the world but convergent evolution is generally not offered up as an alternative to the never-seen-but-intuited divergent evolution.

      • Whenever creationism is raised here it is interesting to see the same tactics used to reject evolution as are used to reject AGW.

        We get obfuscation by semantics (discussion of what evolution means is like discussion of what acidification means)

        “and it seems so freaking obvious to me that lots of peer reviewed p[parers can mean corruption and confirmation bias etc.” Or the fact that nearly all scientific papers support one position is not evidence for that position.

        “Evolution has never been observed” So similar to “AGW has never been demonstrated”. Requiring an impossible standard.

        “If they don’t evolve, how then have they been “created”. Does God just poof! new ones into existence to replace those going extinct, or did He make them all at once?”
        The exact parallel of the “its natural” argument for climate change. How does nature do it? Does it just poof! climate change into happening without forcings?

        I sympathise with Gabro, but think they are on a hopeless mission.

      • Johnnight

        “No one saw that happen, sir. They only imagined it . . right?”

        Not that I really care one way or another because in the end you believe what you want and as long as you don’t force your views on anyone else (i.e. CAGW) own it, but I have to ask where you there when god created the Heavens, or anything else? There is no science in what you believe it is only belief and that’s OK because in the end we can prove a lot with science when its done correctly but I don’t think we will ever prove or disprove the existence of a god, you have yours and let everyone else have there’s, just don’t tell me have to live based on your personal beliefs.

      • Karl June 7, 2017 at 1:21 am

        You misuse the term “convergent evolution”, which has nothing at all to do with hybridization.

        Hybridization is one way in which new species and genera can arise in a single generation. Another is via gene multiplication, often duplication of the whole genome, ie polyploidy. This is especially common in plants, but also happens less often in animals, to include human ancestry. Thirty to eighty percent of plant species have arisen in a single generation thanks to polyploidy.

        Contrary to your false assertion, divergent evolution has been observed repeatedly and is an inescapable inference in untold other instances. Among the observed instances of speciation via gradual divergent evolution by natural selection is the famous case of Galapagos finches. Both in the wild and in the lab, nylon-eating microbes evolve in a single generation from sugar-eating bacteria, due to a simple point mutation.

        It’s remarkable how many people consider themselves qualified to comment upon a subject they have never studied.

      • Jim Masterson June 6, 2017 at 11:56 pm

        In general, I’d agree that the cephalopod “design” is superior to the vertebrate eye, but both have advantages and disadvantages.

        Sadly, octopi don’t live long enough to suffer presbyopia. If they did, they would probably rule the planet rather than vertebrates. They are scarily intelligent, given their numerous brains and ability to grow new ones.

      • JohnKnight,
        As an outsider to this discussion and as a Christian, you are being less than honest in your argument.
        Your defense of evolution on religious grounds and by way of false claims is much more like that of the climate true believer than a skeptic.
        Evolution is part of God’s plan. Period.
        And we are not facing a climate crisis of any sort, much less one caused by human generated CO2.
        Period.

      • hunter June 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm

        Most Christian denominations recognize the reality of evolution. The only large American one that I know of which doesn’t is the Southern Baptist Convention, with 15 million members. I belong to what used to be called the American Baptist Convention. Some small sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses also don’t accept science, plus somewhat larger ones like the Seventh Day Adventists, with some 16 million members worldwide. Modern creationism is largely the work of SDA Church activists.

        It is easier to interpret the Bible as supporting evolution than it is to read modern astronomy, physics, chemistry, meteorology or geology into its text. But trying to do so is IMO a fundamentally misguided exercise. Science and religion don’t mix well. Each has its appropriate sphere.

        If one insists on trying to find science in the Bible, however, Genesis 1 doesn’t say that God Himself made species. Rather, the waters and the earth brought them forth. But in Genesis 2, God does Personally plant a garden, cause seeds to grow, make a man, then animals, then a woman. Elsewhere in the Bible, He Himself lays the foundations of the earth and causes precipitation to fall from the storehouses of the snow, rain, hail, what have you.

        So IMO, it’s better just to accept that biblical creation myths aren’t literally true. That’s what Augustine argued for, against those Early Church Fathers who insisted upon the biblically correct flat earth, and later even Calvin, the theologian with whom most ardent YE creationists associate themselves. The message of scripture isn’t about the natural world. Trying to make it so is the sin of idolatry, ie bibliolatry, the blasphemous worship of a book rather than God.

        Modern science began as a revolt against authority, whether of the Church’s interpretation of the Bible or of the ancient natural philosophers, like Aristotle. One dead giveaway that CACA isn’t science is its fallacious appeal to authority. Same as John’s reliance on the Bible rather than observation of nature.

        That’s why I asked John how he imagined that species have arisen, if not by evolution. Creationism is nothing but stupid, ignorant arguments against the fact of evolution, rather than a positive, rational explanation for observed reality. No surprise, he’s not bothered to reply.

      • Bob,

        ““No one saw that happen, sir. They only imagined it . . right?”

        Not that I really care one way or another because in the end you believe what you want and as long as you don’t force your views on anyone else (i.e. CAGW) own it, but I have to ask where you there when god created the Heavens, or anything else?”

        No, and that’s why I said Creationism doesn’t belong in science class . . by which I meant taught as “settled science” to kids, basically, the way Evolutionism is. I think it’s fine that these potentials be discussed and elaborated on, in terms of observable evidence and such, particularly in more advanced settings (like WUWT ; ) but simply eliminating one potential by decree from “the bench” so to speak, is crazy-town stuff to me. And now I think that is perhaps becoming more tangible to some, with the CAGW being force fed to the kids as “settled science” too . . and the SJW “social science” stuff as well . .

        “There is no science in what you believe it is only belief and that’s OK because in the end we can prove a lot with science when its done correctly but I don’t think we will ever prove or disprove the existence of a god, you have yours and let everyone else have there’s, just don’t tell me have to live based on your personal beliefs.”

        Fine, but unfortunately “your” belief clan is extracting money (effectively at gunpoint) from non-believers, to pay for having their kids indoctrinated with your beliefs . . not the other way round. And frankly it’s kinda creepy to me that some dude on the internet is trying to flip the script, so to speak . . Prolly brainwashed by some giant headed Dawkin’s/Nye types, I figure, as I was . .

      • John Knight
        It is not true that there are no present day examples of evolution in action. Evolution on the present tense is best shown by the phenomenon of “ring species”. Here a species is distributed in a ring, like a salamander Ensatina around the ring of hills around Central Valley in California and Oregon, or like the Herring gull – Black backed seagull whose distribution forms a ring around the world at high northern latitudes, from the North sea to the Baltin, Russia, Alaska-Canada, the Atlantic and back to the North sea.

        In ring species there is gradual change in the species along the ring but for most of the ring the neighboring forms are close enough to breed. But the ends of the ring species meet abruptly like the date line in the Pacific, and across this junction there is no interbreeding. The species is different yet the same. Different in one direction, same in the other. “La plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose”.

        I don’t agree that science and religious faith are incompatible btw. This article shows how the 19th century poet Walt Whitman celebrates both together:

        https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/when-science-had-no-shame-the-poem-passage-to-india-by-walt-whitman/

      • JohnKnight June 7, 2017 at 2:39 pm

        What you don’t get, because you’ve never studied science, is that it’s not based upon belief. It’s science, not religion. Creationism is a belief system totally contrary to all observation of nature. Evolution is a scientific fact and a body of theory seeking to explain that fact, subject to the scientific method. Comparing the fact of evolution with belief in creationism is invalid, to say the least.

        Science is rarely settled. But comparing evolution with CAGW is also invalid, to say the least. Evolution is a fact. CAGW is aun unsettled scientific hypothesis repeatedly falsified, but unlike creationism, it at least is subject to the scientific method, by which it has been shown false. Thus its proponents need to resort to the same kinds of antiscientific appeals to authority to sustain it employed by adherents of creatonism.

        Formerly unsettled science does sometimes become settled, at which time other issues arise. Heliocentrism was once an hypothesis. Now it’s known to be a fact that earth goes around the sun. Similarly, gravity and evolution are also now known to be facts, with theories explaining them. Evolution however is better understood than gravitation.

        Public schools have a duty to teach science, which is why biology classes teach the fact of evolution. Creationism isn’t science, so can’t be taught in biology classes. Because you’ve never studied biology, the distinction eludes you.

      • ptolemy2 June 7, 2017 at 2:45 pm

        Linguistic evolution works the same way. The Eskimo languages, for instance, form such a ring. Inuit from Greenland can understand the dialect of Inuit from eastern Canada, who can understand the speech of Eskimos from western Canada, who can sort of understand the Inuktitut of northern Alaska, but the Inuktitut dialect or language is unintelligible to Greenlanders.

        Yupik spoken in western and southern Alaska and Siberia however is not intelligible even to the Inuktitut. It’s a separate language from any form of Inuit-Inuktitut, and has its own dialects. So it’s analogous to a different species in the same genus as the ring “species” from northern Alaska to Greenland.

      • Ptolomy,

        “It is not true that there are no present day examples of evolution in action.”

        I agree . . but I doubt we mean the term in exactly the same sense . . The critical question centers on the “coding” to me, the information which ostensibly allows change to occur. Is brand spanking new functional genetic coding coming into existence? Or, are we seeing coding that already existed being “selected” from an available pool, so to speak . . such as we can observe with various organism lines we humans have sort “evolved” ourselves?

      • “What you don’t get, because you’ve never studied science, is that it’s not based upon belief.”

        Yes it is, you blithering imagination worshiper ; ) But again, you play the vague lingo games . . The whole point of all the careful testing is so people can believe the results of test are valid. There would be no point in conducting science if it didn’t result in something people can believe . . You have been indoctrinated to BELIEVE it’s all about asserting/enforcing some worldview or something, I guess . .

      • JohnKnight June 7, 2017 at 3:40 pm

        Only in your ignorant imagination is it a vague word game. As you’be been showed time and time again, evolution is precisely defined, both as a fact and as a theory explaining that fact. It is far better defined and understood than gravitation, for example.

        You are blinded by false religion. You don’t even dare to read a book on evolution, one such as that I recommended for you, which is tailored for creationists who have swallowed the lies they’ve been told, hook, line and sinker.

        Evolution is science because it makes testable predictions, capable of being confirmed or shown false. Creationism isn’t science because it can’t make such predictions, and when it tries, they are invariably shown false, if testable at all. Evolution is taught in public schools because it’s science. Creationism isn’t because it isn’t. Not even close. It’s a pack of lies perpetrated by shameless, professional liars.

      • JohnKnight June 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm

        Had you been paying attention to the scientifically educated here, you would know that new genetic information evolves all the time. It can be made in the lab, to include reproducing the changes observed in the wild.

        How many times do you need to be told this and how many examples do you need to be shown before you shake off the blinders which professional liars have stuck over your eyes?

        Mutations make new information all the time. It’s easy, inevitable and unavoidable. Often the new information was previously lethal, but in changed circumstances the same mutation can be beneficial. This is the case with nylon-eating bacteria. The simple mutation which permits nylon metabolism must have happened innumerable times before nylon entered the environment, thanks to humans. But once it did, a formerly lethal mutation became beneficial.

        Whole genome duplication is a great source of new genetic information. since now evolution has twice as much material with which to work and all of the added base pairs are available for mutation, since the organism still has all the vital genes it needs. (A gene codes for proteins, but genomes contain a lot of non-coding, epigenetic material which is also useful. Maize and teosinte are identical in terms of their genes, but human artificial selection, ie domestication, has turned teosinte into a new plant epigenetically.)

        Humans and sponges share about 70% of our genes. The other 30% are all new, having evolved in the past 600 million years or so of genetic innovation in animals.

        Horizontal gene transfer also is a source of new information in the species to which the genetic info is transferred.

      • Here’s a diagram of animal evolution. Each node represents a branching due to a genetic innovation. We can look at sequenced genomes and see which new genes and other genomic changes are associated with each divergence.

        At the root of the animal phylogenetic shrub is one of the key genetic innovations made by the earliest animals, ie motile, heterotrophic, multicellular eukaryotes, sponges. That’s the protein for connective and structural tissue, collagen. Working out its subsequent evolutionary history is an exciting and rewarding field of research, promising great human and other animal health benefits.

        Similar diagrams can be drawn for the other multicellular eukarotic groups, ie plants and fungi, and for microbes, both prokaryote and eukaryote. Shared derived traits all owe to shared genetic coding and noncoding changes.

        Only ignorance, willful or from lack of educational opportunity, keeps any sane person from recognizing the reality of evolution.

      • RACook,

        Good engineers are easily recognized by their ability to see the big picture… :)

      • Gabro,

        Without taking the time to look it up, can you give an approximate guess as to how far back in time it was that the first guy felt the need alter “fact” by adding the qualifier “scientific”? In other words, when did the term “scientific fact” become a reasonable and accepted term?

      • Don,

        The use of “science” in something close to its modern meaning predates the scientific revolution of the 16th century. The earliest record of “scientific revolution” which I’ve found is from 1803, and “scientific method” dates from before 1854.

        The first use of “scientific fact” to mean a valid observation of nature, I don’t know, but certainly from well before Huxley, who employed it in its modern sense.

        If you don’t like the term of art “scientific fact”, then please feel free to use its equivalent, ie scientific observation.

      • hunter,

        “As an outsider to this discussion and as a Christian, you are being less than honest in your argument.”

        How dare you? Do you fancy yourself a heart-knower?

        “Your defense of evolution on religious grounds and by way of false claims is much more like that of the climate true believer than a skeptic.”

        Bullshit, I defended nothing here on religious grounds.

      • JohnKnight June 7, 2017 at 10:25 pm

        As always, you are ludicrously wrong.

        All your idiotic objections to the fact of evolution are religious.

        You have no valid scientific objections to the fact of evolution because there are none.

      • Gabro,

        “Here’s a diagram of animal evolution”

        Imagined/believed animal evolution, sir.

        “We can look at sequenced genomes and see which new genes and other genomic changes are associated with each divergence.”

        Or not . . People can “associate” anything they like. It’s called imagination . .

      • John,

        The imagined is all yours.

        I yet again show your the fact of evolution. You lie that genetic codes can’t be altered. I show you the indisputable facts that they have been, over and over and over again. And that we can not only observe that fact now, but make it in the lab.

        Your lies put you in league with the devil. Maybe it will take burning in eternal hellfire for you to realize at last how stupid and ignorant you have been to fall for the lies with which professional liars against God have tempted you.

      • John Knight,

        Your blasphemies against God ensure that you will indeed roast in the hottest circle of Hell forever. Your soul is in mortal peril for repeating the damnable lies against God spread by creationist devil worshipers.

        I pray that you will see the light before you die, to spare your soul eternal damnation.

      • You’re like a little kid to me, Gabro. You recite pat little evo pablum, with narry a trace of actual evidence or logic to back any of it up. If someone came on here and said; *The CAGW is science because it can make predictions* . . nobody is impressed.

        You need to say exactly what prediction(s), and explain why that particular prediction is exclusively attributable to the process in question (Not like when you said that skeleton showed features similar to other creatures, demonstrating some special connection, since that could easily occur if they were both created, as I pointed out,), and show/explain the evidence for your claim, etc, etc. Just spouting bundles of claims is silly, to me anyway . .

        “All your idiotic objections to the fact of evolution are religious.”

        If that were true, you’d surely be able to present an example, or ten ; ) But you don’t, because it didn’t happen I say. The subject (I originally responded to Willis about) involves a set of potentials; Evolution and Creation, and I have made no arguments based on any religious anything, just those options.

        Now, in your mind there is apparently the notion that the Creation potential is itself inherently “religion”, but that to me is residue of the brainwashing I’ve been warning about. It could have been hyper-advanced “little green men” who seeded the planet with life forms (which also renders the similarities in various critters “features” unremarkable sans decadency), or a God-like to us, superior form of entity that never made any “contact” with us at all, and so no “Religion” exists that has any relevance to It.

        I’ve been speaking only to the Creation potential itself, not relating it to any particular scripture/text or doctrines or whatever. That potential was ruled out by a judge, when to do so is patently unsceintific, I contend. It’s the sort of evidence of very heavy handed stacking of the deck, so to speak, that is demonstrated in something like the *CO2 is pollution” ruling, and one of the reasons I came to suspect it was a springboard to much corruption of science, including the CAGW “powerplay” (as i see it).

      • While I wish eternal torment in the lowest circle of Hell upon no one, few are they who merit it more than inveterate Satanic devil worshiper John, whose every comment is blasphemous calumny against the Lord of Creation.

        I fear the worst for his self-condemned soul.

      • (Oops, should say; sans descendantcy . . (which I’m not entirely sure is even a word ; )

      • JohnKnight June 7, 2017 at 11:39 pm

        That all you do is spread lies against God is made plain for all to see because you refuse to even try to answer the question I ask.

        But it’s not for me to judge. God has already weighed you in the balance and found you wanting. Even before your miserable, lost soul was formed, the Calvinist God knew your fate, which is eternal damnation as a damnable liar against the Creator.

        I hope you like it hot.

      • “You lie that genetic codes can’t be altered.”

        In your imagination apparently . .

        “That all you do is spread lies against God is made plain for all to see because you refuse to even try to answer the question I ask.”

        Question? You asked a question? I must’ve missed it . . Could you ask again, that’s a lot of text to go through, ya know?

      • RACookPE1978 June 6, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        Your story disagrees in every particular with the actual words of Genesis 1, which mean what they say. And Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2.

        Neither creation myth even remotely resembles what actually happened in the history of the universe. Indeed, compared to the discoveries of science, both myths, and everything else in the Bible having to do with nature, is preposterously, ludicrously wrong.

        The more scientific sequence which you imagine you find in the Bible bears no relationship whatsoever to what it actually says. You’re free to read into the text whatever you want to imagine, but the words really mean what they say, not what you want them to mean.

        You: “First, everything was created. From nothing.”

        Nope. Not even close. Genesis 1 starts out with the breath of God moving over the waters. Where did these waters come from? The Bible doesn’t say. Note that Genesis 1:1 explicitly states that God created the heaven and the earth. It doesn’t mention His creating the pre-existent waters. This is understandable by comparing Genesis 1 with the Sumerian original of the myth.

        “1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

        “2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

        You: “THEN, there a great wave (wind, blast, or Big Bang – as some call it.)”

        Nope. The wind you imagine is properly translated as the spirit or breath of God. You don’t get to imagine words which aren’t there. But even if it were twisted into a wind, it in no way resembles the expansion from a hot, dense singularity associated with the Big Bang.

        You: “THEN, light was formed as everything cooled from the initial blast.”

        Nope. There is no such blast from which to cool in the actual words of Genesis.

        “3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

        “4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

        “5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

        Note that the author of Genesis 1 doesn’t understand that night and day aren’t possible without the sun, let alone that the turning of the earth is what causes them.

        You: “THEN, solids formed from the light as everything continued to cool. (These early solids formed the first shadows.)”

        Nope. Not even close. What really happens in the actual universe is that the elements heavier than lithium are made inside stars. But in Genesis there are no stars yet.

        “6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

        “7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

        “8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

        “9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

        “10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

        Among the solids you imagine is the solid dome of heaven, the firmament, which is from the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew word which means something pounded out. It’s an onomatopoetic word, “raqiyeh”, similar to the English word “racket”. So unless in your alternative universe earth is covered by a solid vault of heave, Genesis bears no relationship whatsoever with observation.

        Note also that dry land appears from the waters. God doesn’t create it. The division of the waters comes from the Sumerian original.

        You: “THEN, the clouds, dust, plasmas and gasses above (that formed the stars and other planets) separated from the clouds, dust, plasmas and gasses that condensed together and formed the earth.”

        How exactly do you square there being solids before the “plasmas and gasses” solidify to form them. As noted, the elements which form solids are made in stars. Now hydrogen can form ice at near absolute zero, but the early universe was very hot. It has been cooling for 13.7 billion years, while expanding.

        You: “THEN, one land was formed and one ocean was formed. (Or one ocean was formed because one land was gathered together.”

        Again, not at all how it actually happened on earth. During the Hadean, the molten surface cooled to form a crust. Then water was able to concentrate on the surface, being deposited by comets and possibly generated internally. As with all else, the Bible has it perfectly bass-ackward.

        You: “THEN, plants grew in that ocean, and the skies cleared (as oxygen was released after the plants grew), and so the stars and moon were first visible through the atmosphere in today’s positions.”

        This is hilarious! Nice try, though.

        Explain please how plants are possible without the sun? The alleged plants appeared on Day Three, but the sun and moon not until Day Four. We now know of course that the sun formed before the earth and the moon after that.

        On the actual earth, plants didn’t evolve until long after animals. The oxygen producing organisms were cyanobacteria, which lived in the sea, not as “grass” on the land. Life was tough on the land before there was free oxygen in the air to form ozone and protect the surface from ionizing UV radiation. There were stromatolites in shallow pools, however.

        “11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

        “12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

        “13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

        “14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

        “15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

        “16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

        “17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

        “18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

        “19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

        You: THEN, dinosaurs grew (well, today’s birds evolved on land – but they were from dinosaurs. Or dinosaurs ARE today’s birds. There is much disagreement today.)

        The Bible plainly says that flying creatures were brought forth from the waters. No way around that. All known flying creatures evolved on land, to include insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Flying fish don’t actually fly, but fish which leap out of the water and glide have evolved a number of times.

        Dinosaurs, the ancestors of birds, also evolved on land. Their distant ancestors, and ours, of course did evolve in the water, but, as noted, flying creatures were not brought forth directly from the waters.

        “20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

        “21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

        “22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

        “23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

        You: “THEN, mammals evolved.”

        Genesis says not just mammals (“beasts”), but living creatures, to include insects, which evolved before birds and were the first flying creatures. So yet again, the Bible is as wrong as wrong can be.

        “24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

        “25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

        You: “THEN, Man evolved. Or was formed – depending on how you look at it.”

        Both Genesis 1 and 2 agree that God made Man, but differ drastically in how He went about it. Among the many irreconcilable contradictions between the two myths in Genesis 1 and 2, the creation of humanity is one of the more stark discrepancies. In Chapter 2, He personally forms the first man from dirt, then He makes animals, then he makes the first woman, from the man’s rib.

        “26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

        “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

        “28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

        “29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

        “30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

        “31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

        You: “Now. Am I quoting Genesis?”

        No, you’re not at all. You’re quoting nothing. You’re just putting an imaginary gloss, totally unjustifiably, on the plain words of the text.

        You: “Or Darwin, paleontology, geology, evolution, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and today’s Big Bang Theory?”

        You’re trying to fit one of the two ancient myths in Genesis 1 and 2 into modern science as you imagine it, but, as I’ve pointed out, your effort has failed. There is no way to make the text of the myths jibe with observed reality.

        Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic theologians have recognized over the centuries that such efforts are futile, and result both in bad science and false religion. They are doomed to failure because there is no way to tease reality out of the words of the ancient mythmakers.

      • seaice1 June 7, 2017 at 6:12 am
        Whenever creationism is raised here it is interesting to see the same tactics used to reject evolution as are used to reject AGW….

        “Whenever Evolution is raised here it is interesting to see the same tactics used to reject Creation as are used to reject (c)AGW….”
        “The science was settled.” “The Consensus said a hundred years ago….”
        As I said way up there, the terms need to be defined.
        To observe a fossil of, say a “bear-dog”, is not the same as observing a bear-dog having a pup instead of a cub (or vice versa).
        Man breeding dogs to produce a breed with the traits Man desired? Sure.
        Nature and environmental pressures producing a different breed of dog that can survive in the wild? Sure. Call it Evolution if you want to.
        Man or Nature producing a cat from a dog or a dog from a bear or a “blank from a blank”?
        Never been observed.
        The “molecules to Man” definition says something like that last MUST have happened nth number of times.

        We have theories (hypothesis?) that support theories that support theories (etc) that say it MUST have happened because of…. and theories say it COULDN’T have happened because of…..

        Maybe a topic that’s a candidate for a Red and Blue team?

      • John,

        I recite nothing. I try to teach you reality, as observed. You, like a child believing in Santa Claus, aren’t interested in reality, just the falsehoods you’ve been taught by professional liars.

        Do you now accept the reality that it’s easy for parts of the genetic code to change, causing innovations in biochemistry and molecular biology?

        To return to the ancestry of dogs and cats, their protein-coding genes are well over 90% similar. At around four nonlethal mutations per generation, and an average of perhaps one generation a year for 50 million years of separate evolution, there has been far more opportunity than needed for their different adaptations to have evolved from the ancestral Eocene carnivore.

        Among the many questions others and I have asked, which you’ve dodged, is how do you imagine new species arise, if not by evolution? Did all of them come into being at once, poofed into existence by God, or have they been continuously created over the four billion years of life on earth? Or do you still imagine that earth is only thousands of years old, too?

      • Gunga Din June 8, 2017 at 2:54 pm

        I don’t know why this is hard for you to understand. Artificial selection involved in domesticating animals and plants is the same process as natural selection. There is no genetic barrier that keeps changes from accumulating until a new species has evolved, no longer able to produce fertile offspring with its ancestral and related species. Besides which, there are evolutionary processes much more rapid than gradual natural selection or stochastic processes like genetic drift.

        It should be obvious that a dog in a single generation isn’t going to undergo a one fell swoop the millions of precise mutations, and only those, separating its genome from that of a cat. Dogs and cats have gone their separate ways phylogenetically for some 50 million years, accumulating genetic differences all along in both lineages. Do you really not see what a stupid suggestion that is?

        What has been observed repeatedly is the evolution of new species from old ones. No one would expect a mammal to give birth to another living species from which it is distantly related. Decent with modification usually means small changes, although, as noted, whole genomes can be duplicated and often are, giving rise to a new species in a single generation.

        There is no need for a Red and Blue Team because the fact of evolution is indeed settled science, just as is the fact that the earth goes around the sun. Details in the theories explaining planetary orbits and evolution aren’t settled, but what were once insights by Copernicus and Darwin are now known to be facts, ie observations of reality. Science is never settled, but some facts have become so since modern science began in 1543.

      • Gabro June 8, 2017 at 2:52 pm

        No matter how ingeniously biblical apologists try to spin the Genesis stories and other myths elsewhere in the OT and NT, it’s impossible by any interpretation honestly to reconcile them with reality and each other.

        Mammals evolved before birds, no matter how loosely you define either group. In fact mammals and dinosaurs evolved at about the same time, if you go by the mammalian jaw joint, which is the key skeletal trait. Late Triassic mammals or protomammals, like the iconic Morganucodon, had both the reptilian and mammalian joints, with the former already adapted to hearing, its rear jaw bones well on their way to becoming the middle ear characteristic of mammals.

        Birds OTOH evolved from maniraptoran dinosaurs in the Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous, again depending upon what groups you count as “birds”. But by the Jurassic, there were already indubitable mammals, by whatever definition. Indeed, the monotreme, marsupial and placental lineages had already diverged.

      • There was a “Jurassic Explosion” in mammal evolution. Our ancestors’ hyperevolution went into warp drive during the middle of the period.

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716123846.htm

        Then of course there was also the post-K/T event explosion in mammalian evolution, a better known adaptive radiation into niches left empty by the mass extinction that wiped out non-avian dinosaurs and so many other living things.

        http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/07/05/Study-Mammals-diversified-in-wake-of-dinosaur-extinction-not-before/7271467739985/?st_rec=2081468435216

        But in between these two explosions in mammalian evolution, birds evolved, however defined. By the end of the Cretaceous, the ancestors of modern birds already existed, obviously, since they survived the mass extinction event.

      • Speaking of evolutionary explosions after MEEs, the second biggest of the Phanerozoic Eon, after the famous Cambrian, was the Triassic Explosion, which followed the worst MEE of the eon, the end Permian “Great Dying”. It led not only to mammals, lizards, turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and dinosaurs, but to the latter’s archosaurian kin, ie crododilians and pterosaurs.

        The MEE which preceded the Cambrian Explosion was of the strange Ediacaran biots, last of the Precambrian Supereon. Most of its animals went extinct when the basis of their food chain, cyanobacterial slime mats on the seafloor, was consumed. That produced a catastrophe almost as horrific as the Great Oxidation Event.

      • Since evolution of the Order Carnivora arose here in the absurd context of a bitch having kittens instead of puppies, here’s a summary of the mutational history of cats, hyenas, etc on the one hand and bears, dogs, weasel kin, seals, etc on the other:

      • I would have a hard time using “observation” & “fact” interchangeably, without being sure that the observer is cognizant of the distinction for fear of creating confusion.

        And wrt to Huxley, an apt quote

        ” The antagonism between science and religion … appears to me to be purely factitious — fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.

      • Don,

        Precisely why it’s not superfluous to say “scientific fact” to mean a proper scientific observation. Evolution has been repeatedly observed under the strictest possible, controlled, rigorous scientific conditions. Hence, it is a scientific fact.

        T. H. Huxley lived in Victorian Britain, so couldn’t come out as a fire-breathing. militant atheist, even if he were one (which I suspect). Among his many great accomplishments, which include being arguably the first to recognize that birds are reptiles, indeed dinosaurs, was providing the modern definition of “agnostic”:

        “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle… the fundamental axiom of modern science… In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration… In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

        The principle that science is naturalistic, rejecting all supernatural “explanations” for observed phenomena, had not been so overtly stated previously. At least not that I’ve found. But I’d welcome earlier instances.

      • Chimp,

        So, from the chart, a “Trash Panda” is fairly closely related to a Red Panda…. Makes the joke in the movie that much better.

      • One of Huxely’s lesser known scientific observations:

        “It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.”

        Of course he was using to argue for emancipation, but still, as far as scientific observations (or facts) go, this one has fallen by the wayside.

      • DonM,

        By the standards of their time, Huxley was a liberal and Darwin a superliberal. Recall that at that time Europeans were hunting Australian Aborigines as wild game weed species to be eradicated and Hottentots were being exhibited as missing links between African apes and humans.

        Africans hadn’t been given the opportunity to show of what they were capable, so it’s not surprising that even liberal men of good will presumed that their capacities, on average, were significantly less than Europeans.

        Huxley was far in advance of many eugenics advocates of the early 20th century. Not to excuse his faults and those of others of his generation, but please put their opinions in chronological context.

        It is beyond a shame that Darwin has been tarred with the brush of social darwinist theorists, when in fact few if any Europeans of his generation were so convinced of and committed to the belief that “lesser breeds without the law” were fully human.

      • PS: Lincoln’s views were similar to Huxley’s. He believed that Negroes couldn’t reach the same heights of intellectual prowess as Whites, but felt that they should not be kept from advancing as far as their talents could take them. At first he wanted to deport them “back” to Africa, but was forced by war to accept them as fellow citizens.

      • Willis Eschenbach Do you really thins Mosher would agree to that since Steve is not stupid and knows so called “Human induced Climate change” is not falsifiable. If Steve does no understand this he not as smart as he gives himself credit for.

      • Gabro says “Precisely why it’s not superfluous to say “scientific fact” to mean a proper scientific observation. Evolution has been repeatedly observed under the strictest possible, controlled, rigorous scientific conditions. Hence, it is a scientific fact.” Gabro you are incorrect, the ability of DNA to adapt has been observers many time. The real question is how DNA evolved, I have never found a scientific observation to explain that on, you are looking at the finish product “DNA” I want to know how on this earth DNA evolved, at this point and time it simply showed up and no one knows how or why. The don’t even have a good guess, answer that one and you will get a Nobel prize. Yet I have no problem with the earth being billion of years old in about twice the time the earth as existed it will be vaporized by the sun. I am not willing to rule out any answer how DNA show up, and I understand that having a “creator” has it own set of problems. like where did the creator come from, that a big one, of course the creationism tell us not to question that. So basicly the evolution question is what came first the chicken of the egg another question we cannot answer.

      • Gabro,

        You help to make one of my points.

        Cultural/personal norms bias observations and thought. And obviously a lack of information can result in conclusions that are wrong. Changing cultural/personal norms and additional information can result in different observational conclusions.

        “Scientific facts” can change. Facts don’t change. Saying: “By the standards of their times … their observational conclusions were solid” would be an honest statement. Sometimes people are right and some they are wrong (although some can’t bear to admit it).

        Some would say that, by the standards of OUR times, we need to get on board with the rest of the world and work on “Climate Change” (of course, they don’t take the time to define terminology precisely … maybe purposely? … because the main point is to argue rather than understand).

      • Mark Luhman June 8, 2017 at 11:14 pm

        You clearly haven’t look very hard to discover how DNA evolved. It evolved from RNA, which is still used as the genetic information molecule in some viruses and is essential in the replication and protein synthesis processes.

        The only difference between DNA and RNA is that the sugar portion of the former lacks one oxygen molecule. This enables it to form a double helix and makes it a more stable genetic information storage molecule. Pairs of RNA molecules forms straight strands.

        The steps in the replacement by DNA of RNA as the information molecule, and the evolution of the DNA-RNA-protein synthesis process have been elucidated and various hypotheses tested.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

        We do know approximately when and how DNA appeared. We have more than good guesses. Most of the process is known in detail. Your comments to the contrary indicate that you haven’t bothered to study this topic before presuming to comment upon it.

        Perhaps what you have trouble with is not the origin of DNA but of RNA. This is an active area of research. The short answer is that it self-assembles from its constituent compounds, which abound in the universe, spontaneously under a variety of conditions, but only in oligomers of a few monomers, not the long strands (polymers) required for genetic storage. It also has the remarkable ability to act as an enzyme, ie an organic compound catalyst.

        The remaining issue in origin of life research is getting RNA to stay together in long enough strands for information storage and enzymatic activity, without the protein enzymes which catalyze the synthesis reaction today. A lot of exiting answers are being discovered in labs around the world.

        DonM June 9, 2017 at 9:23 am

        I don’t see that saying “scientific fact” rather than “fact” has much bearing on Huxley’s social opinions. As I said, he had never rigorously scientifically investigated the issue of “Negro” mental or physical abilities. Hence his opinion wasn’t a scientific fact at all, just an opinion based upon casual observation of a society in which sub-Saharan Africans weren’t permitted to show their full capabilities.

      • Mark,

        Yet again a long, detailed response by me has gone missing.

        The short version is that we do indeed roughly know when and how DNA evolved from RNA:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

        Short chains of RNA self-assemble from abundant chemical constituents spontaneously under a variety of conditions, and it is capable of acting both as a storehouse of genetic information and as an enzyme, ie a catalyst.

        Don,

        Huxley’s “racial” opinions weren’t scientific facts. They were just opinions, since he had never studied the issue African capabilities scientifically.

      • PS:

        The Harvard team working on origin of life research is headed by a Nobel Prize winner, Jack Szostak. If his lab is the first to create a replicating protocell, he will indeed likely win a second Nobel. His group has already experimentally solved the problem of the origin of the cell membrane. They’re now working on getting RNA to replicate itself without any catalyst other than itself, with a non-protein catalyst or with a simple peptide catalyst, ie an amino acid chain shorter than a protein, which is a polymer called a polypeptide.

        The Szostak lab has a good working hypothesis for the origin of life and are testing its components. Theirs involves the surface of the earth rather than the deep sea vents favored by some other origin of life research teams.

      • The origin of life is a different process from the origin of species. Biological evolution is about the development of living things after life got started via chemical evolution. Once the first protocell existed, biological evolutionary processes came into play, such as natural selection, leading to prokaryotes with modern-style membranes, using DNA in their genomes and messenger, transfer and ribosomal RNA to build proteins. Ribosomal RNA is itself basically transfer RNA.

        RNA molecules also functions as enzymes, called ribozymes, capable of catalyzing specific biochemical reactions, similar to the action of protein enzymes. An important advance in OoL research was the discovery that the ribosome, site of protein synthesis in cells, is in fact a ribozyme.

      • Don,

        Jack’s lab is getting close, but they have competitors, whose contributions they welcome and celebrate. The Sutherland lab in Britain has made great contributions, but not quite in the same field in which Jack is working.

        Szostak has some older and more recent presentations on Youtube, and has written good summaries of the outstanding remaining issues. Basically, it comes down to keeping RNA; phosphate group backbone together in long polymers. Another engineering problem is separating strands after copying, but Jack has hit on a wonderful possible solution to that issue, by substituting another nucleobase for one of the four in standard RNA (the base is still used in a restricted application in modern RNA). Previously, it was thought that water temperature changes could do the job in the absence of an enzyme, which is still also possible. A hydrothermal vent environment would seem ideal in that case.

        There is progress on all fronts. But other researchers still favor a metabolism-first approach over the more popular and IMO plausible RNA-first avenue. A version of the Krebs cycle does however occur in nature independently of biochemistry.

      • DonM June 9, 2017 at 1:53 pm

        Re. Harvard’s Nobel laureate geneticist and “literal creationist”, a talk from last month:

      • Much origin of life research is funded by the Simons Foundation, set up in 1994 by the “smartest billionaire”, quant Jim Simons, formerly of private hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, and his second wife.

      • DonM,

        He’s already almost half way there, aged about 79.

        Unfortunately, he’s also a big Democrat Party donor, like so many Wall Street denizens. He’s worth around $18 billion, as wealth is estimated.

        He suffered two tragedies. One son was killed by a car while biking on Long Island in the 1990s, then another drowned while on vacation in Bali from his work in Nepal. One son survives, in the investment industry.

      • I utterly reject the entire idea that anyone (commenting here ; ) can do more than believe things like “The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old” or “Birds evolved from dinosaurs”, or many other things that people just casually assert as flat statements of fact here.

        No one observed any such things. Grow up, little kids, and stop treating what you can see inside your head as if actual observations, I suggest . .

      • >>
        Chimp
        June 9, 2017 at 2:51 pm
        <<

        The talk isn’t particularly impressive. I thought abiogenesis would be further along than it is.

        It’s interesting that the genetic code is universal on this planet (with only minor exceptions). Considering that it’s completely random (i.e., the assignment of codens to amino acids, etc.), that means it was probably only created once. I wonder if there are planets with more than one planet-wide genetic code–assuming there are other planets with DNA based life.

        Jim

      • JohnKnight June 10, 2017 at 4:50 pm

        It’s astonishing that you are so utterly and profoundly ignorant of science.

        The age of the earth is a measurement, ie an observation, a scientific fact. No “belief” is needed. The direct dating of meteorites is confirmed by the physics of the sun itself.

        Your imaginary biblical cosmology is OTOH entirely based upon belief, contrary to all the direct evidence in the world.

        Evolution is an unavoidable consequence of reproduction. It cannot not happen eventually, and has been observed always to do so. It’s the same process that causes antibacterial resistance in pathogenic microbes.

        The scientific method does indeed require an imagination, to come up with hypotheses to be tested. But a scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions subject to falsificaiton by observation or experiment. Inferences are thus testable. It’s not pure imaginary flights of fancy, unhinged from all physical reality, like the compilation of ancient, prescientific myths which you so blasphemously worship.

        The fact that birds are dinosaurs has been confirmed over and over and over again by every possible line of evidence and never once shown false. For all the centuries before it could be directly observed, the same statement applied to the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

        Instead of making such childish, credulous accusations, please study the subject upon which you feel qualified to make such ridiculous assertions out of total ignorance. Read a recent book on the fact of evolution. You won’t because for you ignorance is bliss. Your attitude is precisely that against which the scientific revolution began in AD 1543, with all its wonderful discoveries for mankind.

        Grow up.

        Jim Masterson June 10, 2017 at 5:10 pm

        “The talk isn’t particularly impressive. I thought abiogenesis would be further along than it is.”

        Starting from where we were just 20 years ago, we have made great progress, IMO. It’s likely that in the next decade, one of the labs currently working on artificial life or a new one will succeed. The remaining engineering problems are clearly solvable, given the current level of funding.

        “It’s interesting that the genetic code is universal on this planet (with only minor exceptions). Considering that it’s completely random (i.e., the assignment of codens to amino acids, etc.), that means it was probably only created once. I wonder if there are planets with more than one planet-wide genetic code–assuming there are other planets with DNA based life.”

        Szostak mentions research on other possible genetic material. A planet might start out with competing systems, but given enough time, one would probably beat out the other, unless they were separated in some way.

      • Scientific imagination is creative and productive, arising from curiosity, trying to understand nature and thereby find ways to improve life.

        John, by contrast, has no imagination or creativity, or desire to learn anything of value, but rather accepts as God’s own gospel imaginary worlds made up my myth writers 5000 years ago. Hence no need to learn anything. As far as he’s concerned, evil spirits cause disease, not the microbes and maladies discovered by biological and medical researchers using the scientific method.

        [??? .mod]

      • Our host is highly tolerant of anti-scientific, anti-human commenters like John. Unfortunately, this policy gives CACA advocates ammunition with which to blast the charge that CACA skeptics are anti-science, as well as, in his case, anti-Christian, since he belongs to a heterodox, blasphemous, fringe cult which regards the Christian God as incompetent, deceitful and sadistic.

        The vast majority of Christian denominations accept the incontrovertible fact of evolution as obvious, and the great age of the earth as simply another valid scientific observation. His cult totally misses the point of Christianity. Even as long ago as Augustine and Calvin, two of the five most important Christian theologians*, real Christianity recognized that the Bible is not literally true as to the natural world. The author of 2 Timothy (who wasn’t Paul) was wise enough not even to include description of nature among the uses of Scripture (which in his day meant the OT in Greek).

        *With Athanasias, Aquinas and Luther. I’m not so sure about Aquinas, since I don’t know if the Roman Catholic Church still considers Scholastic “proofs” of God’s existence as a worthy enterprise. In Protestantism, it definitely isn’t.

        For Protestants (with possible exception of Anglicans, who are Catholic without the Pope), justification is by faith alone. Hence, God must remain hidden, since blind faith contrary to all reason has no value if God be obvious. Luther couldn’t have been clearer on this vital theological point, although he ridiculed Copernicus. To Calvin, the Bible wasn’t important as a science book. His Institutes was all about theology, not science. He thought that the obviously impossible cosmos, with waters above the vault of heaven, described in the Bible was intended for the simple folk of ancient times.

        Yet here in the 21st century we have raving lunatic, anti-Christian, anti-human, anti-science, willful ignoramuses like John who lack the wisdom and understanding of Calvin in the 16th century.

      • Gabro June 12, 2017 at 4:56 pm

        Mods, I don’t know why the question marks.

        Have you not read John Knight’s comments against science, which he, like so many creationists, calls “sci-ants” or something like that?

        He rejects not only modern biology, but astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and every other scientific discipline, because they contradict the Bible.

        It’s your blog, so of course you can tolerate however much insanity you want to allow, but total rejection of science seems to me somehow out of place on an award-winning science blog.

        John doesn’t even believe that science is responsible for the burgeoning of human population in recent centuries, as if public health, sanitation, vaccination, antibacterial drugs, fossil fuel use, industrial processes, etc, all came from Genesis, but just were somehow delayed for 3000 years.

        John thinks the world is just thousands of years old, and that all the geological layers were laid down in Noah’s Flood. In their fight against skeptics, he and his fellow sectarian ilk are the gift to climate alarmists that keeps on giving.

      • >>
        Chimp
        June 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm

        Starting from where we were just 20 years ago, we have made great progress, IMO.
        <<

        In my 10th grade biology class (that was back before the Earth had cooled ;-)), we learned about the Miller-Urey experiment. Then heating this mixture led to micro-spheres. Soap film reproduction isn’t much progress, IMO.

        Jim

      • Jom,

        There has been a lot more progress than that.

        That experiment showed that amino acids could be formed spontaneously under the then presumed early atmospheric conditions, but now that’s a trivial result. We know that not only do much more complex precursors to life than simple amino acids arise spontaneously under early earth conditions, which are now better understood than in the 1950s, but that they form in outer space and arrive here on meteorites.

        The RNA World hypothesis has since then received ever more support, but until the ’90s its problems seemed insurmountable. RNA is now known to form spontaneously itself in short sequences, and that it can also act as a catalyst, ie an enzyme called a ribozyme. These discoveries were huge breakthroughs. The ribosome, in which modern cells make proteins, has also been recognized as a ribozyme.

        The production of constituent chemical compounds of nucleic acids and proteins isn’t the problem, although the UK lab has made breakthroughs in understanding the places on the Hadean earth in which these could have been produced. The gap between chemical components of life and protocells has been steadily narrowed in the past two decades.

        Szostak’s lab has done a lot more than show how protocell membranes could form and divide. His and other labs are increasing the length of RNA sequences that can form stable polymers, and made advances in copying and then separating strands, as his talk showed. He didn’t elaborate in the talk above, but his team has solved the splitting apart problem as well.

        We’re basically just left with copying longer strands without a protein catalyst, which comes down to keeping the phosphate backbone together in chains longer than oligomers.

        The advances have been so great and so rapid, and the remaining problems so reduced, that workers in the field expect artificial protocells within the lifetime of most readers of this blog, if not in just a decade.

      • >>
        That experiment showed that amino acids could be formed spontaneously under the then presumed early atmospheric conditions, but now that’s a trivial result.
        <<

        And there were some who argued that the early Earth atmosphere wasn’t as described in the Miller-Urey experiment. It’s not so trivial unless you have a reducing atmosphere–like Jupiter’s.

        >>
        The ribosome, in which modern cells make proteins, has also been recognized as a ribozyme.
        <<

        Yes, the ribosome is a complex little machine. I’m not sure where it belongs exactly: the abiogenesis camp or the evolution camp. It’s also interesting as to where, exactly, the codons get translated.

        >>
        The advances have been so great and so rapid, and the remaining problems so reduced, that workers in the field expect artificial protocells within the lifetime of most readers of this blog, if not in just a decade.
        <<

        I understand the difficulties. It seems that if the right environment is found, then these things should form spontaneously. I remember some successful results with clay deposits.

        The “primordial soup” concept seems to have gone by the wayside–at least with the oceans.

        When looking in an old chemistry book, I was intrigued by the common use of the porphyrin rings in heme and chlorophyll. The iron version transports oxygen and the magnesium version captures solar energy.

        >>
        Sorry for the typo in your name.
        <<

        Yeah, with a good editing feature, that wouldn’t be a problem. Maybe Anthony is moving his site to a provider with that capability.

        Jim

    • Does anyone think the general public would watch something like this let-alone understand what is being discussed?

      • You would be surprised, once you get out of coastal cities or college towns there are a lot of people who are very articulate about the subject.

      • That is a fair question. Be that as it may, however, it would already greatly help if at least skeptical scientists could come out of the closet and speak freely on the matter without having their careers ruined. The interested parts of the public would at some later point tune in.

      • It isn’t just a single, quick debate but an ongoing commission.

        Otherwise the warmist side would simply stonewall as always- “the debate is over” “97% of climate scientists…” etc.

        The only way to come to a real conclusion would be to force both sides to produce the evidence for any assertion they make and allow the opponents to test it. It’s a scientific debate, not a political one.

      • This could just become a he says, she says discussion.

        Is this a trial political balloon or a distraction so that nothing is done about the EPA’s past actions?

        Clever tactic by a lawyer?

      • Since the begin of the civil service laws the left has filled most of the civil service seats, the left seem to gravitate to grovernment service of a number of reason, they as a whole are adverse to risk something the private sector is full of! Since they do most of the time having a Republican President has not change the direction or the makeup of the bureaucracy

    • Mark: Why not fire the bums — the climate is wonderful and has been getting better for centuries — there’s no need to study it and make wild guess predictions of the future climate — what a waste of money to have any government employees doing this.

    • JohnKnight June 6, 2017 at 7:01 pm said:
      “You see, folks, a different form of science (that I sometimes call Siants…”

      looks like u simply misspelled ‘saints’

      and went on to posit:
      “Nope, that’s not science, that’s belief in the (vicarious) visions of seers…”
      the literate among us will recognize the etymology of ‘vicarious’. does that not taste like foot, john?

      and then, cherry on the lump of recycled mystery meat:
      ” . . .it’s false religion…”
      cuz real religion is way different…lol

      but if the only cause for rejecting that musty mythology were its humorlessness, it would suffice.

      • What a hoot! Thanks.

        From Amphioxus to human required whole genome duplications, which allowed our ancestors to repurpose old genes for new functions. This study is almost a decade old, but remains important in figuring out the history of vertebrate evolution.

        Worm-like Marine Animal Providing Fresh Clues About Human Evolution

        http://newswise.com/articles/view/541865/

      • yeah.
        i was a biologist before it was really an applied science- before kary went tripping around oakland…lol
        darwin, shannon and rand, oh my!

      • Gnomish,

        I’m a geologist myself, but paleontology, hence biology, are deeply embedded in the rocks and the science thereof. Our ages, stages, epochs, periods, eras and eons are named for the life we find in the rocks.

        It occurs to me that Don, above, might not know what a scientific fact is. I perhaps naively assumed that commenters here would know that. It’s an observation properly made according to the best scientific practice, ie subject to being repeated by other researchers under the same rigorous conditions.

      • it may have been that mr don’s point was about ‘conceptual inflation’ which is used to devalue a concept.
        an example of that is ‘rights’. there are individual rights and no other kind. to dilute the concept and render it valueless, gurus (aka spindoctors, propagandists, social engineers, orwellian persons of the psychoteratogenic persuasion) invent numerous varieties which are false distinctions- worker’s rights, taxi driver’s rights, animal rights and so forth until the word no longer distinguishes the original concept it defined.
        ‘true facts’ automatically implies there may be any other kind- alternative facts…
        i know that just because i think everybody who does this should be marched into an oven somebody will call me a grammar nasty…oh well. ;-}

      • gnomish June 8, 2017 at 12:45 am

        It is valid to modify “facts” with the adjective “scientific” because the modifier is shorthand for how the facts are observed and how they are to be treated after being determined. The observations for instance have to be capable of being repeated and independently verified, and ideally the data containing them should be archived.

      • sure. when the context is understood, it causes no confusion.
        in a defined the context, truth can be evaluated.
        so it can be understood that your use of the modifier is not applied to the noun ‘facts’, but rather to the category of study.
        context dropping and false equivalencies are impediments to reason, however, so as a devout epistemologist, i appreciate mr don’s point.

      • one thing about the curious monkey is that he will go nuts on a topic just cuz he can.
        for an example (that i found this morning and has elicited hours of gobsmack)

        and so it is with the study of epistemology- there are players at a level no ordinary person can achieve without a lifetime of obsessive dedication.
        once you see the top of the mountain – then you see the stars – and then you know, you will never know it all, never do it all – but the best part is – you will never ever be bored.
        and the achievements of man at his best – well, there’s just no limit is there?

        this is what i like about people. they will spend years and years to create one minute of WoW.
        if everybody did that there’d be about 4861111 nonstop days of Wow which is about 13,318 nonstop years of solid WoW –
        more than anybody could handle
        but noooooo – 6,999,000.000 of em are lazy worthless fux

      • somehow the link was vanished…
        one more try:
        https and a colon and a pair of backslashes and a triple W with a dot, followed by pinterest.com/pin/347692033711812284/

    • I’m pretty sure the chosen colors for each team were well thought out. Even as a concept it is indelibly political, and neither side will believe the other nor will either side convince the other they are wrong. For an example of the impossibility of success just read the wikitedia pages regarding global warming, CO2, 97% consensus, the email hacks, endless bickering, and total lack of proof. It will be just more weaponized conjecture.

    • Gabro June 6, 2017 at 4:39 pm
      Gunga Din June 6, 2017 at 4:30 pm

      How do you get a dog having a kitten out of the definition of evolution I gave you?

      Something that is not a “Cat” had to have had a kitten.
      Something that is not a “Dog” had to have had a puppy.
      Something that is not a “that” had to have had a “this”.
      Never been observed.

      Some genetic similarities?
      All us critters live on the same globe.
      Same oxygen. Same CO2. Same variety of foods to digest (veggie or meat or both).
      So, do any such similarities exist because they “evolved” to deal with the same or because they were “designed” to deal with the same?
      No “observations” prove either scientifically.

      “Molecules to Man” evolutionary “trees” have no more to support them than Climate Models.
      (Theories supporting theories supporting theories…..etc, etc.)

  6. Bring it on – and let’s do the same in the UK please.
    Only issue – choosing genuinely independent and knowledgable scientists with no financial or political axe to grind.

    • 1. C02 is a GHG. You wont find any scientist or engineer with an IQ who can effectively dispute this
      2. Humans add C02 to the atmosphere. Again, nobody will offer a counter case
      3. Increasing c02 causes warming, Again, no possible red team here.
      4. Doubling c02 will result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming. Again, no red team can be fielded to
      challenge this.

      The real issue is… risk aversion, risk managment, and policy.

      Not science.

      If republicans would Push for more nukes and natural gas, and let coal die, they would DEMONSTRATE a solution that is better than paris.
      Better for the climate
      Better for health
      Better for the economy.

      • Doubling of CO2 with result in between 1.5 to 4.5c of warming.
        Nor can a blue team be fielded to support it.

      • Steve:
        1)CO2 is an infrared absorbing gas. H2O is an infrared absorbing gas at thousands of times the concentration and with a wider infrared absorption plus absorption in the visible and UV spectrum. No one has established any scientific basis for distinguishing between the two in regards to greenhouse effect. They both do it.
        2) agree
        3) Increasing CO2 has been correlated to some extent with rising temperatures on short timescales in the climate.
        4) doubling CO2 is somewhat likely to have an effect on temperature. The range of 1.5-4.5 C hasn’t changed since it was first reported. The last 10-15 years have shown more reports concluding that 4.5deg in highly unlikely and anything 1.5deg C or lower is more likely and maybe no effect is possible.

        The real issues are political as you point out, and not science and I’d love to see more action on nuclear reactors and natural gas and frakking. They definitely demonstrate better ways to go than the Paris agreement.

      • Actually, in the real world, you do find real scientists that would disagree with #4—at lot of them. Unless the only “real” scientists do research for the IPCC and even then, some have openly disagreed with these ideas. There are a few scientists that will debate #3. #1 and #2 are pretty much settled, but irrelevant to any political or scientific policies (because saying CO2 is a GHG means nothing for policy unless you know how much effect it has—and we don’t). You eliminate the Red team in hopes of winning via intimidation and name-calling. NO science there, just politics. So you don’t want a scientific discussion, you want political intimidation.

      • Wrong again.

        “3. Increasing c02 causes warming, Again, no possible red team here.”

        There is no actual scientific evidence of this assertion in the real climate system. Indeed, the evidence shows that under steadily rising CO2 since 1945, earth cooled deeply for about 32 years, warmed slightly for around 20 years, then stayed about the same for 20 years.

        “4. Doubling c02 will result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming. Again, no red team can be fielded to challenge this.”

        That’s easily challenged, since no scientific evidence actually supports that assertion. The best evidence shows that a doubling of CO2 might produce warming between 0.0 and 2.0 degrees C. But cooling can’t be ruled out.

        The range you cite isn’t based upon scientific observation, but upon the average of two guesses from the 1970s, with an arbitrary margin of error thrown in.

      • “3. Increasing c02 causes warming, Again, no possible red team here.”

        This is just where the Red Team ought to be focused.

        The Red Team needs to establish whether there are any negative feedbacks to CO2. ECS estimates are at 1.5C and falling. The Red Team needs to find out just how far ECS is going to fall. Don’t you think? What is more central to this argument than that?

      • Mosher you are not dumb so it must be ideological. Getting everyone to agree on the simplistic points you list is far from proving that we are going to warm dangerously. Or that the increased carbon is a net detriment. Also what works in the laboratory ceteris paribus takes no account of the effect this has on a multitude of phenomena. You measure your 1.5+C per doubling in the laboratory, but in the atmosphere you have plants and phytoplankton and conches taking up CO2. It turns out that the earth’s rapid greening was a surprise! The growth is exponential and the reactions are endothermic. The doubling based on additions to the atmosphere need to be subtracted from pushing the doubling farther into the future. Meanwhile, fossil fuels won’t last forever. They are likely to be declining and getting more pricey beyond the next 30yrs.

        Do you disagree with Willis’s emergent phenomena – that evap and convection raise the warm air rapidly past the troposphere where this heat is more readily emitted to outer space. Then warming must be subtracted from.

        Let’s say BEST did a diligent job up to 2015. Did BEST accept Tom Karl’s erasure of the Pause that was causing career ending chronic depression among a number of climate scientists who couldn’t face the implications of it? Models were taken by surprise – oh there were rationalization galore but your settled science has taken a beating.

        Only a few years ago, natural variability was thought to be a small factor. The Pause and other pauses show it to be a much larger factor. You have to subtract the amount of warming per doubling in the real world.

        Were you aware of a shrinking ice cap on Mars coinciding with that affecting the Arctic?

        Are you satisfied that clouds have a net positive forcing? Or are you not certain.

        This is not an exhaustive list but I’m sure they will be among the things put out there by the red team. I hope blue isn’t going just with your high school list.

      • Steven Mosher:
        You stated what it is. The 1.5 to 4.5 C is what we have. If we want policy, climate scientists are not the ones to lead that.
        A from a winning point of view, it’s not likely the mass of the climate science cannot be turned. TCS & ECS may drop, the oceans will decide. We don’t need to win on the science. It’s the economics. My new number is 1%. The combined wind and solar contribution to total global energy production is 1%. After so many years. Conceding the problem and searching for answers, 1% is not that. Even though it’s a lot higher than 1% in the U.S., much of the world is not following. Lack of following suggests it’s not going to work.

        At the end of your comment are 3 things to campaign on. A good politician would get out in front of natural gas and take credit for it.

        Besides nuclear and natural gas we have:
        http://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight
        Is you look at the numbers as to how much CO2 could be removed, then consider the above 1%, which makes more sense for the climate?

      • Steven Mosher June 6, 2017 at 3:10 pm

        4. Doubling c02 will result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming. Again, no red team can be fielded to
        challenge this.

        Oh yes it can:

        willhaas June 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm
        One researcher [Monckton, in press] has found that the 1.2 degrees C is too great by a factor of more than 20 because what has been ignored is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.

      • SM
        The red team is team photosynthesis. What’s that? Google is your friend.

        When cyanobacteria started doing – you know – that thing that climate scientists and nature presenters like David Attenborough are forbidden to mention even the in documentaries devoted to plants 🌱 – yes, photosynthesising, they started oxygenating the atmosphere. This came to be called the “oxygen catastrophe” since all change is catastrophic in some way. Fortunately no activist movement arose among these cyanobacteria arguing to stop the change to the atmosphere are leave the pristine pre-photosynthesis atmosphere of ammonia and methane intact. Since they let nature follow its course, we are here today. And we’re part of nature, not gods.

    • Mosh

      4) is more like .8 C to 1.8 C in which case there is no C in AGW and mitigation is a simple matter of deal with it where and when there is an issue and then the past 20 years of trying to scare the crap out of everyone and reengineer society and indoctrinating our kids with a bunch of BS has been a colossal waste of time and money. If it was done for political reason and not because of misunderstanding the facts then it should also be followed by the largest legal action the world has ever know with thousand going to jail for a long long time.

    • It is imperative that the 4.5 degrees is included to be able to hype the risk. If an honest assessment was peddled to the public (1 degree), then the stated “risk aversion” issue couldn’t be hyped as well.

      Politically, the public policy is then based on cost-benefit. Not “risk aversion”, and throwing money at authors of the associated nebulous studies.

    • There are only two types of people at EPA. Green and Green fanatic. You need to go outside.

  7. I think it depends on just how it is done. One possible outcome is that the greenies will boycott the enterprise, claiming it is somehow unfair, and then claim it did not settle anything because they were not involved.

    • TH, the avoidance tactic might not work this time. Starting ‘blue team’ point should be a distilled essence of AR4/AR5 WG1. Something indisputably correct (page references, etc). Could be done by staffers. After all, the IPCC blue team has indelibly spoken. The issue will be to get live blue teamers responding to the red team attack on the essence, when Gavin Schmidt won’t appear on stage with Roy Spencer. But to a certain extent, that can be ‘forced’ by ordering federal scientists at places like NOAA and NCAR to participate. And there are probably plenty of ‘defenders of the faith’ in academia.
      WG2 is also necessary to tackle as a basis for revising the endangerment finding. A few key basics like crop yields, SLR, polar bears, extinctions. Same approach. Distillation of IPCC, red team attack, blue team rebuttal and so on. Different subteams, though. For polar bears, the red subteam is just Dr. Susan Crockford.

      • Too many variables for this to be a conclusive means of settling an argument like this.

        What’s the time frame on it all, when can we expect an ‘answer’?

        What’s involved? To take you’re point, do Polar Bears have anything to with evidence, circumstantial or otherwise? The Arctic? Is that to be compared inch by inch with the Antarctic?

        Will they be reviewing existing evidence? Will they be regurgitating Mann’s Hockey stick and re-examining that? Then will it be condemned as fake science, bad science or just fraud, in which case what happens to Mann? Turn that around and some sceptical scientists might be in just the same boat. There are millions of scientific papers to be considered, how long will that take?

        Or will new scientific studies be launched to “prove once and for all” there is/isn’t anything to be afraid of? And what should we be afraid of, if anything? How long to credible new studies into something like this take?

        Will the green blob believe any conclusion that doesn’t fit their agenda, and will there be any reason for them to stop their activities? It’s not like we can pass a law to shut them up. The same with us. I’m not sure there’s much in the way of evidence that could be brought to bear which would convince me anything more is going to happen in the future than, has happened in the last 40 years.

        And just what will the right answer/outcome/conclusion be? “CO2 is a harmless, natural, atmospheric gas, beneficial to the planet and it will do no harm in the future even up to 3,000ppm” Or “We’re all gonna burn unless we stop breathing”. And if its the former, there will only be accusations of a whitewash. If its the latter, we will still be on this forum in 10 years time.

        The cure here, seems worse than the disease as the general public was growing tired of the whole issue and it was dying a slow natural death. I think this proposal will just add fuel to the embers and reignite the whole thing.

        But what will almost certainly fall out of it will be another ballooning government department that will fight for its right to survive and suck up yet more taxpayers money.

        Call me a sceptic.

      • HotScot, gave some directional answers in ebook Blowing Smoke. Polar bears are Arctic symbolism Antarctic equivalent is Adelie penguins. Sierra Nevada equivalent is american Pika. And on and on. All false. That why this red team volunteer called dibs on climate extinctions. My red team has already published on this.

      • The Blue team work is already done.
        The First opportunity for Red team was IPCC reviewers. That was open to anyone who asked to be a reviewer.
        few if any skeptics took part.
        Since then the opportunity to Red Team as never been denied.
        Over a year ago GWPF tried to red Team temperature series.
        Blue teams submitted…..
        GWPF quit.
        Ask Roger Pielke Sr why? he was part of the red team.

      • The best talkers will win the “debate” not the best scientists.

        Ristvan you seem real mart like a real scientist but are not a great writer.
        How are your communication skills live in front of a TV camera ?
        Excellent communications skills may be more important for A – B teams than any science knowledge.

        And what difference would a red – blue competition make other than to waste even more money and time on climate change — haven’t taxpayers wasted enough money so far?

        The leftists were never reasoned into CAGW so can never be reasoned out of it.

        The leftists will say runaway warming is coming in the future.
        .
        The real scientists will say no it’s not.

        The politicians will say — no one agrees — but we can’t risk runaway global warming.

        And then we are back where we started.

      • Steven M: Again, you are going for intimidation and dismissiveness in the hopes of pummeling the opposition into defaulting or just going away. You are into politics, NOT science. So far, the only thing you have demonstrated is your a really good bullying political person. I’m waiting for the science part.

    • Of course they’ll balk. Debate is beneath their dignity. Their proclamations are sacrosanct.

      • Balk?
        The blue team work is already done.
        The issue is there is No red team, and those who might join it are dying or too old to finish any meaningful work

      • What scientist would be so arrogant to say that all of the work is done? No one who knows anything about the complexities of the physical world could ever say such a thing. Climate scientists haven’t gotten one prediction right yet, which just proves that they don’t understand what they claim to understand.

      • Steven M. once again proves there is no interest in discussion, just cease speaking and go home if you aren’t an AGW worshipper.

      • Really the best team or most truthful won’t necessarily win the debate nor will the one that presents the best case. If the debate is close between both sides then the team that generally wins the debate is the team most favored by the judging panel whether they deserve the win or not.

  8. Red/Blue team idea looks great BUT if you happen to be on the “losing” side is it the end of your career as a scientist? The MSM will ensure that one team of scientists is reported as being the losers don’t you think?

    • Many so-called scientists on this should end their careers. The panel members and overall referee must be above reproach, such that when the media makes it’s call there is no basis to say that the process was fixed. It needs a Feynman equivalent, if there is such a person.

      • I was thinking of Feynman too after I posted, another thought was scientists who are retired (so have nothing to lose) but might come from an area different to climate science. Physics, Thermodynamics?

    • I don’t imagine there will be a losing side. This is a political initiative, not a scientific one.

      More jobs for the boys I’m afraid.

    • The last thing this needs to be is a media event. Use it as leverage to deligitimize the consensus nonsense for legal reasons

    • I guess I misunderstood the point of the exercise … to have an open debate where both sides have equal opportunity to put their case before the American public … ie. to educate. Give US an opportunity to hear a good back and forth … and make up our own minds. There doesn’t have to be winners and losers … teach us what you think we need to know. And in English, please … if you can’t explain climate so that a third grader can understand it, then you don’t know the material.

      As long as I have the floor, this is a complex subject. It can’t be covered in one 1 or 2 hour debate. It would have to be a series with each ‘episode’ covering different aspects. And each speaker must have enough time to cover his/her subject, followed by Q&A and rebuttal. IOW, let them talk to each other … to challenge each other and to argue it out. Needless to say, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt will not be invited … Mann uses outdated material and ad hom attacks, and Gavin has already demonstrated that he can’t/won’t debate with den … er, skeptics.

      What I do NOT want to see is one of those staged, stilted, so-called ‘debates’ like they have in Congress where the politicians hog the floor and ‘speechify’ and the witness has no time to answer.

      Just a few of my hopes and wishes.

  9. Natural Climate Change Deniers have lost the Science Battle. So now it’s purely a propaganda battle.

  10. Pruitt referencing Koonin. Very smart. Curry had an excellent post on Koonin’s WSJ op-ed that puts more meat on the bones. Issue is to get it properly covered for general public understanding.

  11. It is not only the risks that need to be identified and quantified but also the benefits.

    • Benefits like:

      – Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all Carbon based life forms

      – Carbon Dioxide is necessary to complete the Carbon Cycle of Life – CO2 is the only singular throttle in the Carbon Cycle of Life

  12. Sorry -science is not a competition in fooling the public! This approach might be useful to brainwash (or reprogram) the public, but is has nothing to do with science. It would be pure Eristic Dialectic nothing else.

    • Nice reference, but I don’t think so. The concept has been applied across the military, intelligence services and in high risk investment scenarios [which is where I first encountered it in the venture capital industry], specifically to arrive at a decision based on best available information and best understanding thereof. In many cases action based on these exercises had actual lives or very significant quantifiable funds on the line.

  13. Hurry up before all the skeptical team members dementia gets worse.
    Both of them.

    Pruitt would do better to push a strong nuclear and natural gas agenda.
    The obama commitment to Paris is easily Beat, if you push strong for nukes and gas.

    Imagine the irony of leaving paris and Doing a BETTER JOB at lowering C02.

    • Mosher,
      Just when I think you can’t be a bigger jerk than you already are, you prove me wrong. Shame on you. If you were half the man either of them are, you would be apologizing right now; but we know that won’t happen.

      • What’s Hansen’s excuse for the dementia he has clearly suffered for 30 years?

        Anyone who actually believes that Earth is on the Venus Express is plainly deranged.

      • Mr Mosher,
        Don’t forget about Hydroelectric Generation and pumped storage, they are also CO2 free energy sources

    • The US has already beaten the Kyoto signatories like a drum. We’ll easily do the same with Paris. We would even if we ended “renewables” subsidies, as we by all means ought to do.

    • SM,
      Did you read the Scott Adams blog where he explains how those who resort to personal attacks are admitting they have already lost the argument because they have nothing better to offer?

    • How’s the dodgy bros used cars dealership going, Mosh.

      What are your academic science credentials , again ?

    • Mosher
      You just don’t get it, do you?
      The US has for a while already been doing a BETTER JOB than anything that could be expected from Paris. CO2 levels are down – in absolute and per economic unit terms. Tell that to Crocodile Tears Merkel.
      Taking the wind out of OPEC sails by enabling a fracking industry to develop that makes a profit at USD 35/ barrel equivalent, those pesky capitalist markets have been producing outcomes that no central planning based, unelected, unaccountable supra national “global government” circle jerk could ever expect to do.

      In turning the USA’s back on Paris DT effectively exposed and killed off the UN global wealth transfer programs masquerading as “climate science” so many UNEP/IPCC cardinals [from Strong to Figueras] have been advocating and overtly flagged they were pursuing. That game is over.

    • Steven Mosher June 6, 2017 at 1:26 pm
      . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
      Pruitt would do better to push a strong nuclear and natural gas agenda. The obama commitment to Paris is easily Beat, if you push strong for nukes and gas.

      Imagine the irony of leaving paris and Doing a BETTER JOB at lowering C02.

      Correct. That’s what Trump and Pruit should have done to sell their policy. I’m surprised they missed the boat. But that option is still open to them. (For bonus irony points, Trump can make a deal for China to supply and install inexpensive nuclear power plants.)

    • We are already beating Paris. getting out of that dangerous tar baby of an agreement was vital.
      But now, if we can get the tinfoil hat Red Scare behind us, we might get to see how developing gas and finally getting the greens to stop denying the science of nuclear energy would do for us.

    • The US is already doing a great job on emission controls of all sorts. With the exception of verbal diarrhea and brainwashing of children in the horrors of polluting the atmosphere with CO2. In Oilbera, Canada, it is mandatory to start this brainwashing in grade two. Refusal will get a teacher fired.

      It will be a real shock when those kids get to high school and they still have to walk to school at 30 below.

    • So is McIntyre. We’ll lend them out cheap! You can’t let nationality get in the way of putting the key people in play.

    • Beg our pardon? McKittrick? “( though he is Canadian…)”?.

      And McIntyre too, then? The very guys who truly first showed up the “climate science” scam [ e.g. “Hockey Stick” and were among the very first to expose the 2009 Climategate emails] for what it is?

      For comparison, the US was not the country that broke the Enigma code [as much as Hollywood would have Americans buy that line].

  14. ““What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.”

    Well, those folks would be the skeptics – real scientists who adhere to scientific methods.

    Where would we find CAGW Believers willing to join in such a discussion since the description “true legitimate, objective, transparent” eliminates them from conversation?

    Unless, cleverly, both the Blue and Red Teams would consist of skeptics?

    Hmm…

  15. An open discussion between individuals (including scientists) with differing viewpoints is referred to as a debate in some circles. It is by definition not “peer-reviewed”. (What an over-used and misunderstood term).

    Shelve the “red team”, “blue team” approach, too. Just do an Oxford Rules debate, as is the format on IQ2.

    Guess which side lost the last time that Climate Alarmists met with AGW skeptics? Guess which side is unwilling/afraid to accept a similar format in the future?

    • It’s not a debate. It is a detailed analysis of peer reviewed literature. That leaves a massive question about all the entirely legitimate papers that were never allowed to see the light of day, but there will b e an army of real scientists to provide rebuttal for the garbage published by the Warmist side.

    • Lincoln-Douglas debate format:

      1) Positive case for the proposition.

      2) Positive case against it.

      3) Rebuttal by con against pro.

      4) Rebuttal by pro against con.

      5) Summary of pro position.

      6) Summary of con position.

      • Requires an impartial judge. Where can we find one of those? The judge(s) determine the winner of said debate, right?

      • Let the public decide.

        Televise it, put it on Youtube and see how the public reacts when they learn that the 97% consensus is not only a fallacy but a myth, a lie manufactured by mendacious enemies of humanity and maintained by the media.

  16. There are too many subtopics of the climate change debate for one pair of teams to handle—or anyway, not in the same time period. See below. There should be at least a half-dozen teams.

    In the debate over global warming, cases should be broken down to manageable subtopics, like the Hockey Stick, acidification, UHI, arctic ice, corals, storms, CO2 fertilization, peer review, bias in govt. funding and publication, purported Big Oil funding of a “well-funded, well-organized” skeptic movement, the 97% consensus, warmist predictions, the hot spot, the stratosphere, oceanic cycles, the efficacy of wind and solar power, nuclear power, extinctions, aerosols, methane, arctic permafrost, polar bears, feedbacks, isotonic adjustments, Antarctic ice shelves, the Pause, flooding and drought, snowfall, glaciers, sea level, volcanoes, wildfires, beetles, homogenization, temperature records, ocean cycles, the sun, geo-engineering, diseases, refugees, etc.

    • I disagree. To begin, only the topic of “what effect does CO2 have in the atmosphere?” should be discussed. If it is then shown to be of little or no measureable consequence, then there is no reason to discuss “global warming” or “climate change” as they are used today.

      • JohnWho June 6, 2017 at 1:44 pm
        I disagree. To begin, only the topic of “what effect does CO2 have in the atmosphere?” should be discussed. If it is then shown to be of little or no measurable consequence, then there is no reason to discuss “global warming” or “climate change” as they are used today.

        There are two flaws in that way of looking at the matter:

        1. Even if CO2 can be shown to have only a minimal warming effect, greens would still claim it needs to be mitigated because it causes ocean acidification. So that topic much be part of the debate, at least eventually. (Other justifications for mitigation would also be offered, such as: More CO2 = more weeds = more hay fever = more asthma. Obama has already played this card.)

        2. Your “If it is then shown …” implies that persuasion would be complete. But that’s not how debates move public opinion. A member of the public presented with a persuasive skeptical case doesn’t go from 100% believer hood to 100% dismissive. Rather, he goes from 95% believer hood to 75%, or from 75% to 50%, or from 50% to 25%. The public as a whole might shift 10% in a skeptical direction after a successful red/blue series of debates. Therefore, there’d still be a lot of residual concern ttt climate alarmism might be right. So it would be helpful to debate alarmist claims about Impacts, to reassure a still-worried public.

      • PS: If Monckton has in fact found the hidden flaw in warmism, the laughter up on Olympus will be Jovian. I’ve long suspected that the Pranksters Up There have led arrogant environmentalism and arrogant science into temptation by offering them a seemingly bulletproof case for a crazily impractical and destructive policy. It was a set-up for a gigantic practical joke, allowing do-gooders and scientists to make cosmic fools of themselves with their know-it-all pronouncements because of their overweening hubris—their belief that they had got everything covered, when actually they were trapped in a limited “reality tunnel.”

      • PS: 3. If the warmist consensus can be shown to have exaggerated the risk of impacts, and to have a poor prediction record, that will make the public less accepting of its claims about the amount of warming to be expected from continuing CO2 emissions.

    • IMO the subtopics which matter are:

      1) Is there a “greenhouse effect” from the alleged GHG CO2, and, if so, how does it work?

      2) Is the observed increase in CO2 since c. AD 1850 real, and, if so, is human activity mainly responsible?

      3) If more CO2 causes warming, how much? Are net feedback effects from more plant food in the air positive or negative?

      4) What is natural climatic variability, and is observed warming, if any, outside of it? If so, is there a human fingerprint?

      5) Is more CO2 in the air a good thing or bad?

      6) If net bad, then is it worrisome enough to warrant shutting down fossil fuel use?

      • Gabro, a good list, but I would look at other things as well.

        AGW the hypothesis in brief
         
        I agreed that CO2 is a ghg. The difference between the two sides comes in the form of feedback. CO2 ‘s increasing the temperature will result in more water vapor. Alarmists see this addition water vapor actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level Cirrus clouds that will trap more heat. This in turn will raise the temperature even more and eventually (although the AGW supporters see this as happening soon) you will hit tipping points where permafrost starts to melt, bogs start to warm and all of these give up more and more greenhouse gases eventually causing a runaway greenhouse effect which will raise the temperature even more, melt the ice at the poles and raise the ocean levels by 20 to 30 feet. It is from this that we find the disaster scenarios we keep hearing about in the press. Other points about Methane is generally only mentioned by the wildest alarmists.

        Skeptics also see CO2 as increasing water vapor, but they see this water vapor acting as a net negative feedback. Rather than break up low level clouds, skeptics see the water vapor adding to the low, thick clouds (such as stratocumulus) which primarily reflect incoming solar radiation back into space. This would negate the formation of a hot spot and cool the planet. In addition, these low level clouds will cause rain to fall which also acts as a cooling mechanism to the planet.

        In Spencer et al. (2007) found a strong negative cirrus cloud feedback mechanism in the tropical troposphere. Instead of steadily building up as the tropical oceans warm, cirrus cloud cover suddenly contracts, allowing more OLR to escape (this is the iris effect that the alarmist are scared to death of and continual try to say it’s dead). Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who directed the study, estimates that if this mechanism operates on decadal time scales, it would reduce model estimates of global warming by 75%. The latest study on this the authors Thorsten Mauritsen and Bjorn Stevens who in the abstract say: “models underestimate some of the changes in the hydrological cycle. These discrepancies raise the possibility that important feedbacks are missing from the models. A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations.

        The science regarding clouds is not well understood. We simply don’t know exactly what will happen with additional water vapor in the atmosphere, but the affect could be significant. A 1 percent change in clouds could account for all of the shifts in climate over the past 2000 years. That certainly should be in the list of questions the two sides need to agree upon.

        But I don’t think the alarmists will go along with this idea. They have too much to lose.

      • “I agreed that CO2 is a ghg.”

        CO2 is a radiative absorber and emitter.

        If anything it is just another conduit for cooling.

      • AndyG55, you go far and thus damage the skeptic position, in 1859, Tyndall experimentally showed that CO2, H2O, and other gasses retarded LWR (i.e. Greenhouse gasses). That is incontrovertible. The issue is the consequences of that experimentql fact.

      • Goodspkr June 6, 2017 at 2:42 pm

        The models don’t do clouds, whether high or low.

        All the GIGO models care about is the presumed added radiative warming effect of more H2O.

        The GCMs ignore or downplay the role of clouds and evaporative cooling.

    • Not necessary. Just “Is there such a thing as a Greenhouse Gas Effect?” A look at the evidence for/against, the experiments, Nikolov & Zeller’s Unified Theory of Climate, Loschmit’s Gravity induced temperature gradient, the work of R.Graeff, Stephen Wilde, D**g C**tton, etc. THAT IS ALL YOU NEED !

      The whole idea of AGW / CC rests entirely upon there being a real greenhouse gas effect from CO2. IF you can show that there is no such thing as a GHG then you can toss it all in the bin ! And then proceed to burn as much coal and oil as you like (nice and cleanly of course!) while you carefully research MSR etc for when the coal/oil finally runs out.

      • To show the effect of GHG – or the absence thereof – is the purpose of this exercise.

      • Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that the Earth’s temperature depends on the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere plus the sun’s irradiance at the top of the atmosphere, and has nothing to do with CO2.

        People are going to turn around and start asking, “Why did we jump through all these hoops, and ruin all our landscapes, and kill all these poor animals, and spend all this money to fight CO2, when CO2 turns out not to be a problem? Somebody had it wrong and misled us into foolishness. That’s probably going to make a lot of folks pretty angry.

        It will be interesting to see how this works out.

    • I think it would be all over once it becomes clear that the “global temperature” is only an estimate with unknown and probably incalculable error bars, and that the purported trend is driven almost entirely by increases in Tmin, with Tmax almost flat.

      • Yes, somewhere in this debate, scientists must show that the changes in the anomalies from the average of homogenized non-random samples of land, sea, atmosphere and proxy temperatures, using some base period, actually have a true relationship to the changes in climate on earth.

  17. a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent

    HA!…..that’ll be the day……we’ve been trying that for decades

    red team/blue team….and the ring leader won’t play (Mann)

  18. Halleluyah! This sounds to me like the “Blue Ribbon” panel I have said for some time that is needed to re-establish scientific credibility for a basic discussion of the science. This panel needs to sit for 2 or 3 years and systematically call out the crap science and conspiratorial nature of government and university funded pseudo science that has produced ever more ridiculous headlines for several years now. they need to pass scientific judgement- starting with Al Gore’s B.S. and continuing on through Hansen’s insanity, ocean “acidification”, the bizarre constructs of the IPCC and the U.N and all the other pathological Green slime they can find-naming names all the way!
    This would, I’m sure, provide the U.S. with a mighty hammer to beat the U.N. into an approximation of rationality and fairness through reduction of funding for specific causes.

  19. Little point if it just turns out to be a case of a very 1984 good and double-good .
    Which given the reality of climate ‘science’ means their as likely to say AGW is busted as Catholic Priest is to say god does not exist .

  20. “Interviewed by Breitbart…”

    Oh boy, is that going to sting at The Guardian and the BBC :)

  21. Red team Blue Team public debates are precisely what the world needs. The alarmist have tried to stifle debate and marginalize skepticism. To quote Trenberth, debating skeptics only gives credence alternative explanations. But that has defiled science. We trust scientific hypotheses only because alternative explanations are well vetted.

    I would love to participate on the red team. Every claim of biological catastrophe from rising CO2 can be shown to be unadulterated crap.

    • You get corals and butterflys and pikas. Dr. Crockford gets polar bears. I want dibs on extinction risk based on essay No Bodies.

    • Agree 100%. A series of televised debates (maybe aired on various cable news outlets – CNN, FOX, BBC, C- SPAN, etc.) on specific elements of the issue – ECS, attribution, models v. observation, etc. Maybe 5 or 6 primary topics. Organize Red & Blue teams for each topic and give them X months to prepare their arguments. Debates should follow standard formal debate rules. No need for an official determination of winners and losers, the public will draw their own conclusions.

      It would be must see TV. There could also be an associated web site to provide cited documentation and references. By the way, I can think of a couple dozen regulars at WUWT who would be terrific Red team members.

      • Rick, you poor dear. Sponge Bob reruns would have a higher TV rating. Most of the audience is sick to death of this debate. It’s isolated to mostly nerd driven political factions and only expands when there is an imminent threat of expanded government intrusion and authority (cost, loss of freedom) in defense of blue team grasping for money and power often at a planetary scale. If the blue team thought they could win an honest debate they would show up for one, they don’t and have declared themselves the science winners. Their funding is tied to the globalist collective and they are simply waiting for the dissent to die.
        Grasping for reason and a logic contest victory ignores 100 years of progressive political success. Politics are settled by emotions. If the world comes around to the proper conclusion that climate authority isn’t just murky on science at best but evil in political design and intentions the tide will turn. It’s that many have reached that conclusion that the climate terror state hasn’t been achieved. Since most skeptics can’t accept that for many complex reasons you will see how hard the road will be.
        The red team idea should be denouncing the consensus pseudoscience and there should be no expectation the blue team would ever sit at an equal table. The focus should be on the many obvious corruptions, political lust for power that drive AGW “science” and in fact NWO globalism. That would be consistent with the current DJT election agenda. The only reason the Paris symptom was shelved formally. If enough reasonably qualified science community members grow a spine to denounce the AGW movement as predominately political in design, many have in fact, progress can be made.
        Delusional spaghetti chart and flawed data worshiping needs to be minimized. It had little to do with AGW marketing success and it isn’t going to bring it down either. Fear and Utopianism go hand and hand in all progressive marketing promises. Thanks to climate hucksters the base line view of used car salesmen, politicians and “scientists” are reaching record convergence. I’m sure many legitimate scientists would join the Red Team if the promise of restored status and reputation was presented to them. Breaking leftist academic funding commonality isn’t an easy road either. There’s plenty of other bogus science being funded and maybe it’s worth throwing the climate cartel under the bus from their view just to just get the worst abuses off the front page. Maybe not and the whole academic research machine is in need of harsh reforms.

    • I would love to participate….

      And I would give anything if you would…..the last time our side seemed to forget who the hell they were

    • I am guessing one of their excuses not to debate is there would have to be 97 of them and only 3 of us, otherwise they won’t debate.

      • “Suspect”? Unless the debate is rigged their favor you’ve reached metaphysical certitude.

        The exercise Pruitt triggered here is worth the price of admission. Skeptics really are politically obtuse as so much of thread confirms. What kind of world do they think they’ve been living regarding the AGW agenda the past 35+ years? They call you Holocaust Deniers at the drop of hat over a vague talking point and claim with no empirical evidence after billions in featherbed funding and largely share a rather stereotyped political world view among the most vocal and publicly known. The official policy is the debate is over and you are less then human. Not to pick on you but you only “suspect” they might not show up and debate the points? You’re doing then many here who are wondering how this would turn out. Gavin Schmidt and his pathetic stage antics tell you all you need to know projecting debate outcomes;

  22. Don’t like the idea, has been tried before. The ice is melting. No it’s not. Yes it is, No it’s not. Cannot win a religious argument.

    • The issue is, “Is the state of sea ice now outside of normal variation?” Ditto glaciers and ice sheets. “Can man-made CO2 be shown significantly to have affected ice?”

      The answers are: ice is well within normal variation for the Holocene and prior interglacials, and there is no discernible human effect.

      • Their response would be, the full effects of climate change have not been felt yet. In X amount of years the Arctic will be ice free. You cannot win that argument…just saying.

      • You can win it by showing the natural variability of sea ice, and that we’re well within it.

      • The answer to that Duncan isthat the Arctic is already Ice Free many times ovrr according to the predictions of the past.

      • The term normal variation is not uniquely quantifiable. Its largely subjective.
        What we want to know is does ice melt.
        various causes,, warmer climate explains much of it ( about 50%)

      • SM,

        Natural variation is most certainly quantifiable. We know the historical extent of Arctic sea ice, for example, both high and low, for the Holocene, Eemian and other interglacials. For most of the Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent has been lower than now.

        Hence, your assertion that warmer climate explains about half of it might be more or less right, since most of the Holocene has been warmer than now as well. But air temperature isn’t the main factor. Ocean temperature is. Thus man-made CO2 has virtually no effect on sea ice extent.

      • While I agree with all your comments, how do you argue against predictions? Past or current conditions are not dire, but in the future……they will be. It would be a circus, that’s my opinion. Cannot win a knockout punch, it will take decades to unravel this organically.

      • Hey Mosh, did you know that Arctic sea ice extent is greater than it has been for some 90-95% of the Holocene?

        Only time its been higher is during the last 500 or so years of the lead-up, during, and warm-up, of the Little Ice Age.

  23. Lots of luck with this. I can imagine the climateriats response: “Just look at the IPCC’s AR5. 97% of climate scientists agree. Why dignify the 3% with a debate. Nothing more to discuss.”

    • Government “scientists” can be ordered to participate. Academics can be threatened with cutoff of funding if they don’t also join in.

      • Scientists can be ordered to participate? Maybe, and so what? What do you think they’ll say? “Just look at the IPCC’s AR5….”

        I’d have to agree with Mr. Mosher, i.e. the argument about warming will be replaced by the argument about who won the debate. Why don’t we concentrate on the science.

      • And real scientists will point out everything that is wrong with IPCC’s fake “science”, to include its internal contradictions.

        It would be great to concentrate on the science, but that’s not what IPCC does. Instead it gives its political masters what they want, in the policy section, regardless of what genuine science says.

    • Science doesnt work by debate.
      Science gets replaced by better science.
      yes, there are arguments in science, but arguments dont move science forward.
      Better science moves science forward.
      Red team/Blue team is not science. Its largely a process of CYA for the blue team

      • SM,
        Au contraire! Publication in journals, with follow-up comments is essentially a time-delayed virtual debate. Plate Tectonics would not have been accepted if there hadn’t been public debates between respected proponents for both sides. Claims made by advocates supporting Plate Tectonics were often challenged in open sessions at conferences. Some of the participants actually had to think on their feet. Opinions were swayed in such exchanges.

      • Doesn’t work by consensus either, mosh, or by bullying, or by shutting down arguments..

        The problem is that because of the shut-down of the debate…

        .. the very wrong “climate science” hasn’t been replaced by real science …. YET.

      • Oh Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, you more than most should understand that what you do is not science.

        Do yourself a favour and stay quiet until you can clearly state why what you do is not science.

      • So saying “the debate is over” and “the science is settled” is nonsense. I think we can at least agree with Mr Mosher on this point.

      • Steven Mosher June 6, 2017 at 2:53 pm
        Science doesnt work by debate.

        Trenberth, Wigley, Heyhoe, Hansen, Mann, and others evidently disagree. They have already entered the public arena with objections to skeptical claims.

        Or let non-climatologist promoters and defenders of the Paris Accord speak for CliSci. E.g., that retired admiral who testified to the House within the past 12 months, Nye, Tyson, Gore, Patchy, etc.

  24. Mr. Pruitt is correct . Even since the Inconvenient goof movie the scientific method was thrown out the window . We have been fed a constant steam of con men garbage . The science is settled , polar bears are not drowning , New York is not under water and most of the media sit there like dash board
    bobble heads . These climate con artists have gotten away with this heist too long .
    The science is new , it’s not settled and the notion that humans are going to control the temperature
    via a trace gas is unscientific fraud . These people are unabashed con artist and they know it .
    By all means review the science but keep the lobbyist con men out of the room . Good luck
    they have a $trillion dollar business run off this fraud .

  25. I vote blue team be Mike Mann, Bill Nye Al Gore and Gavin Scmidt. Red team Richard Lindzen, Juddith Curry, Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre.

    • Let it be as with the CIA, in which a government or Establishment team was countered by outside experts.

      The government-academic team might consist of Hansen or Schmidt, Trenberth, Karl, Jones and Mann. The pro-science team might include Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Christy or Spencer, Dyson and McIntyre. For a real Nobel Laureate, add Giaever. Too bad Bill Gray has gone to his reward.

      • we probably need a lawyer on the team who knows how to frame arguments so juries, ie; the public, can understand our answers.

    • James Delingpole since the core AGW debate isn’t really science based from inception. When you pretend otherwise Blue advances their agenda.

      Red just isn’t funded to match the circus clown science infrastructure in media mass. It’s a global left enclave.

      Stage it at Berkeley so there is good riot against the Red Team, those optics help, most Americans have the debate figured out already. Techno skeptics seem to struggle with basics.

  26. If it’s done right it is exactly the right idea! We ( the deniers) have no fear of the science! It just needs scientists of unimpeachable credibility to write the conclusory reports and poke the IPCC and U.N> in the eye with a sharp stick!

  27. Let me start the debate by saying that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter tha atmosphere but no real evidence that that additional CO2 caused warming. Most of the computer models that have been gnerated have CO2 based warming hard coded in and they thus beg the question and hence are of no real value. Based on the paleoclimate record and the modeling work that has been done one can say that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control.

    The AGW conjecture has some gaping holes in it, the biggest of which is that the radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture. There is plenty of scientific rational behind the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. In the troposphere conduction and convection dominate over energy transport via LWIR absorption band radiation. A good absorber is also a good radiator so whatever LWIR energy a CO2 molecule absorbs and does not share with all the molecules it encounters, the CO2 molecule radiates away and hence does not trap heat.

    After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has failed to measure the climate sensivity of CO2. They have been unable to narrow there range of initial guesses, one iota. Apparently there is no climate sensivity of CO2 to measure.

    The debate can all take place on the Internet on a forum like this one.

    • The estimate of ECS is now nearing forty years without improvement. It remains an average unphysical guesses, with an arbitrary margin of error.

      In the 1970s, there were two guesses, ie 2.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 and 4.0 degrees, the latter being Hansen’s. The average of these two WAGs became the “canonical” 3.0 degrees C, with plus or minus 1.5 degrees C, for the IPCC’s range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, and there it has stayed. The no-feedback, laboratory figure is about 1.2 degrees C.

      After decades of observations, IPCC would have lowered the range to 0.0 to 2.0 degrees C, if it actually practiced science rather than politics.

      • One researcher has found that the 1.2 degrees C is too great by a factor of more than 20 because what has been ignored is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.

    • will.. word is “sensitivity” ;-)

      and yes, there is no sign of any CO2 signature in the whole satellite temperature record.

      Any warming has come purely from ocean events such as El Ninos and ocean currents.

    • Willhaas:

      You wrote ” Based on the paleoclimate record and the modeling work that has been done one can say that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control.”

      This statement is incorrect.

      Mankind HAS caused the climate change that has occurred by, either unintentionally or intentionally, affecting the amount of dimming sulfur dioxide aerosol pollution emitted into the troposphere. Reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions, both globally and regionally, always results in greater insolation, as would be expected.

      The warming caused by SO2 aerosol removal so closely matches the average global temperature record between 1975 and 2011 (latest data available) that there can never have been any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses.

      All of this is explained in detail in my post “Climate Change Deciphered” (Google the title).

      You also suggest that the debate could take place on an internet forum like this one –why not attempt to prove me wrong, as an exercise?

      • Climate change, as intense or more intense than todays climate change, has been going on for eons without the intervetion of mankind. The IPCC’s supported climate simulations that tried to provide evidence that CO2 is the cause of today’s climate change have all failed to predict today’s global temperature. If they are evdence of anything it is that there is something wrong with the idea that today’s climate change is caused by CO2. Others have provided climate models that show that today’s climate change can be explained by changes in the sun and the effect of the oceans. Other effects such as different aerosols and particulate matter may have some effect but exactly how much has not been determined. The case for CO2 affecting climate is very weak in view if the paleoclimate record, modeling results, and atmospheric physics.

      • willhaas:

        You wrote: “Climate Change, as intense or more intense than today’s climate change has been going on for eons without the intervention of mankind”

        No intervention of mankind required, since large volcanic eruptions provide ample amounts of SO2 aerosols. Periods of intense volcanism will produce ice ages, while quiet periods without extensive volcanism will result in interglacials.

        And “If they are evidence of anything it is that there is something wrong with the idea that today’s climate change is caused by CO2”

        Exactly. And as I have shown in my post, it is caused by the removal of anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere

        Also “Other effects such as different aerosols and particulate matter may have some effect, but exactly how much as not been determined”

        Warming due to the reduction of SO2 aerosol emissions is a First Order effect, which I have quantified as being approx. .02 deg. C of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions.

        Which is why we are in danger, since annual emissions are in the range of 80 Megatonnes, and continued efforts to reduce them will engender even more warming (unless temporarily offset by increased emissions, La Ninas or volcanic eruptions).

        You really do need to read my post.

  28. This is purely a political stunt and not a scientific one. A “true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2” has already happened in the scientific literature over the past 100 years resulting in the current understanding. If you want to claim that all of the current peer-reviewed
    literature on the effects of CO2 is false then I do not see how you would (a) find scientists you would believe if they came up with a same conclusion as the current IPCC report or (b) find scientists that other people would find credible and unbiased.

    The closest to this was Berkeley Earth and the result was that there the earth had warmed by 1.5
    degrees and that human influences played a major role.

    • BEST was just more of the same. The conclusion was foregone. Curry is scathing on the fr@ud perpetrated by the supposedly neutral investigators.

      • Curry was a member of BEST. She had no objections to any of the data or methods.

      • Where does the $1M+ a year “anonymous” funding for BEST come from, Mosh.

        Not selling used cars, that’s for sure. ;-)

      • Oh Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, that Curry would be both part of BEST and scathing about what happened would give a rational person reason to think.

        But not you. What ever happened to you?

      • Nick,

        See above.

        Since she participated, she knew that BEST was overselling its results.

        The used car salesman analogy is apt. Little wonder that Mosh is in marketing.

      • Gabro,
        “She savaged your unwarranted conclusions.”
        You give no links or references. I don’t believe she did.

        “she knew that BEST was overselling its results”
        She was one of the “perpetrated by the supposedly neutral investigators” that you decry. She co-authored one of the main papers “selling” the results.

      • Yes, Curry was a member of the Best study. The objective was to resolve the discrepancies in the various surface temperature series. The result was a series that confirmed the temperature increase in the second half of the 20th century. I recall that Curry strongly objected to the increase being characterized as caused principally by agw, a conclusion that she considered as gratuitous under the circumstances I don’t recall any allegations of fraud or any real acrimony.
        Attribution and sensitivity are Curry’s areas of concern, which pretty much summarizes the principal areas of disagreement between the consensus and skeptics (lukewarmers?). Having read through these comments, I’m beginning to wonder if a “debate” could be limited to these two areas, and maybe a clear statement of the differences here would be about all we could ask for. The two areas of course could be debated, but defining the differences would be very helpful.

    • Try submitting a scientific paper in any discipline on the topic of “what don’t we know”. Good luck.
      Just like people don’t try and publish all the experiments that failed, “Peer reviewed” literature is simply not set up to try and answer some of the questions Pruitt is posing.

    • First, the scientific literature over the past 100 years is full of contradictory information. Do you just pick out the conclusions that match your own pre-conceived biases like what the IPCC does?

      Second, does a reliable summary of the past 100 years of scientific research exit? Normal people don’t have the time or background to study 100 years of scientific literature. It’s impossible for most of us to keep up with what is being published now. If these teams of scientists can simply summarize what is known and not known about climate science, without government pressure to create a crisis they can tax, it would be a big help to the rest of us. I’m not convinced they’ll be able to separate the information from the disinformation, or will even agree with each other, but we can always hope they’ll be able to do a better job than the IPCC.

    • Geronimo, it is a scary idea but, hey, if your boys got the goods there should be nothing to worry about. Only thing is so far we haven’t been shown any evidence. Models that even the IPCC says are running hot are not evidence, ceteris paribas experiments in a lab are not evidence for a complex system with elements that react to changes in one element.. Eg: warming in tropical seas results in evaporation and the rapidly rising air carries the heat past the troposphere where the heat is emitted to outer space. This makes the effect of CO2 less than in the laboratory. Many parameters are unknown and are guessed at. As a social science guy, you will not have been told that. The red blue with moderators will evaluate responsiveness of both sides. Everydebate so far has been won by sceptics

      • Gary,
        on the contrary every debate has been won by the climate scientists who believe that CO2 is responsible for warming the planet. If every debate has been done by the skeptics then why do almost every world leader, scientific body and the vast majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 causes global warming?

        You would appear to have a choice – either accept that there has been a rational and peer-reviewed debate in the scientific literature and that there is a clear winner. Or you can believe that there is a massive conspiracy involving deliberate fraud and almost every climate scientist in the world. And given the sheer size of the number of people who would need to be involved in the fraud someone by now the chances are by now that someone would have come forward and admitted it.

      • You are closer than you think in your second choice. The simple answer is governments latched on for the huge revenue potential and the elitists (champagne soshulusts) for global governance ideologies. Scientists, if they wanted grants from government (or if they wanted to keep their jobs) , went for CO2 will raise earth to unbearable temperatures and CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. IPCC even agrees models are running too hot(~3x observations) and we had a temperature pause of 20 yrs interrupted by an El Nino. The cooling after this event could put us back into the pause again. Note we have the ‘dangerous’ CO2 causing an unexpected rapid greening of the planet – 14% more forest cover since a previous survey about a decade ago. Also we’ve doubled crop yields, a large part due to CO2. Your arguments are based on what you are told by activists and gov’t. So a little research with an open mind ; it’s not that hard to find lots of peer reviewed science that differs. That’s how I became a skeptic.

      • Germinio June 6, 2017 at 6:12 pm
        Gary,
        on the contrary every debate has been won by the climate scientists who believe that CO2 is responsible for warming the planet.

        Citation needed. AFAIK, formal debates have generally been won by skeptics, or at least moved the needle among the audience in a skep[tical direction.

    • Germinio June 6, 2017 at 2:34 pm
      This is purely a political stunt and not a scientific one. A “true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2” has already happened in the scientific literature over the past 100 years resulting in the current understanding. If you want to claim that all of the current peer-reviewed
      literature on the effects of CO2 is false then I do not see how you would (a) find scientists you would believe if they came up with a same conclusion as the current IPCC report or (b) find scientists that other people would find credible and unbiased.

      Nevertheless, there could be a hidden flaw that vitiates all their reasoning. For instance, see this comment a bit upthread:

      willhaas June 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm
      One researcher [Monckton, in press] has found that the 1.2 degrees C is too great by a factor of more than 20 because what has been ignored is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.

    • Isn’t it funny how Nick S and Steve M show up here and there in the scientific debt, but when it becomes a policy debate that has to do with funding then it’s no longer just drive by it’s full on anyone that disagrees is clearly incapable of rational thought. Well gentleman i say this, you both know there is no C in AGW you will pretend that there might be or play other word games but neither of you well say that there is so you are in the end both frauds and that actually pains me to say, especially Steve Mosher because i have defend him on many occasions but that I can no longer do.

    • It’s a legitimate political stunt to expose the anti science consensus for what it is. Arrogant, compromised by political and financial bias.

      Most of mainstream climate is little more then decades of stunts and hyperbole with the assistance of similar MSM and academic operatives.

  29. Count me in as a supporter. Hopefully it will be an open process available for all to follow. Any reluctance on the Warmist side to participate will be viewed negatively by the public as “what have you got to hide”? You can count on the MSM being biased in reporting the proceedings and that’s no different from now. If done transparently people will make their own conclusions which isn’t happening today. The sooner they can begin the better.

  30. Which team documents all data and all adjustments in detail and all models in detail? And which one honestly presents model errors and evaluation of model error to all inquires and the public?

    • That’s already been done.
      Most people ignore it.

      Second, its never been the remit of science to answer all the questions the public has.
      The best thing is to give the public access to the code and data. THAT trumps any answer
      you may get from a scientist.
      Long ago hansen answered my questions. Problem? I wanted to see the actual data and actual code to
      CHECK HIS ANSWERS.
      answers are not enough.
      you want access to the tools: data and code.
      Now all that is available. It took a few years, but now you have MORE than you need to check and see for yourself

      • The BEST methodology on UHI is a joke, as is the methodology for creating upward trends.

      • Oh Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, perhaps that explains what happened to you. Did the people inside the alarmist tend invited you in? And offer you some Kool Aid?

      • “So the models are open to the public for examination?”

        In many cases the answer is yes. The actual source code for a number of different
        global climate models are freely available online. Feel free to check them to find any
        errors and then get back to us.

      • SM
        GIGO. Access to poor models and adjusted data doesn’t help.

        As an aside, snide remarks directed at Mosh, Geronimo, and others degrades people’s comments to the trash bin. After one derisive comment, I always skip by that person’s comments in that thread and frequently, future threads.

        Of course we all know that the grid based global temperature anomalies are just a “construct” right? A useful construct perhaps but still a construct/model. Don’t we?

        I think we need to respect those with different views.. But maybe that is just my “Canadian” heritage coming out.

  31. I can’t remember, is it the team that takes the red pill or the blue pill that gets to go back to their former fake reality with its pretend “settled science” accepted by a pretend 97%?

  32. Superficially it sounds good. But before this could really be of merit, there should be an accounting, with firings and purges of Leftist liars and censors in every government office, and re-hiring of CO2 critics who have already been fired, to level the playing field. And no secret word-battles in closed rooms. Make videos of pro and contra lectures, with responses, and responses to responses. Then have it all posted to internet. Go around the MSM and “science” journals entirely, as the will only lie about everything, and score all the points for their side like bought-and-paid-for referees. Don’t expect fair play on anything, as they are incapable of it. Expect every dirty trick and lie in the book. We are confronting skilled liars with a proven history of it, not honest scientists. They’ve already declared the desire to imprison CO2 critics, exposing their Stalinist attitudes. Don’t be fooled. “Honest debate” requires honest people. Can anyone really identify a single leader among the “climate change” hysterics who is?

  33. There should be at least one person in the discussion who understands thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy. They explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. There should also be a person who is aware that warming from the rising water vapor trend is countering the cooling that would otherwise be occurring.

  34. Peer review lost its way several decades ago. I was a tough peer reviewer in my field. I asked tough questions, in some case blatantly obvious questions the researchers should have asked in the first place. Often my comments and the other peer reviewers comments would be ignored by the editors, interestingly this happened most often when the federal government was in anyway involved, most especially for journals they published. I was also involve, actually had to live with the results of blue ribbon and, I guess we would call them today blue/red ribbon, panels. They were a bit better than peer review but not much. One of the most significant problems in both peer review and panel review was that the fields of study were so relatively small everyone knew everyone else if not personally by reputation. I cannot imagine that the field of climatology is a whole lot larger than my field of study. Several papers have been written about the peer review problem. One solution was to bring in honorable and honest scientists expert in their own but other fields to do a final review after field expert review. They would look at the very basics. For example, was good Scientific Method used, were the statistical models appropriately applied, did the results support the conclusions. To good scientists those would certainly seem like uncontroversial topics that all could support or should. However in the last paper I reviewed for a journal published by the federal government none of those things applied. The tables even had addition errors which were ultimately published. All comments by me and others were ignored. The paper was published. Though supposedly a blind review, the author some how got the names of the reviewers and called blasting us. How dare we question his work? He is now serving in the federal government at a relatively high level.

    • Wrong Ed. The climate industry published more than 11, 000 papers in a decade (3 or 4 a day) . I learned this remarkable statistic when Cook of sceptical science blog did the famous 97% paper. I dare say this field today is the largest of them all.

  35. Easy Climate Proof.
    It is easy to prove that our atmosphere has about 49% more carbon dioxide than 3,300 years ago (and) it is easier to prove that the atmosphere has been in a cooling trend for 3,300 years.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    CO2 parts per million now minus 3,300 years ago.
    409 – 274 = 175
    175 / 274 = 0.492700729927 about 49% more CO2 parts per million than 3,300 years ago

    The Cooling

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/24/current-warming-is-not-unprecedented-it-is-not-even-unusual/#sthash.YirWw2lK.dpbs
    The same but just the last 4,000 years. That makes the detail easier to see.

    https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/kobashi-and-alley-gisp2-central-greenland-temperature-reconstructions/

    Current interglacial period compared to the previous 4.

    While we are at it let’s look at sea level rise.
    The home page. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
    The Battery, New York https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
    San Francisco, California https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
    If humanity had increased the rate of sea level rise there would be a big increase after 1950.

    How did the belief in man made global warming begin? Because the scientific consensus was wrong.

    http://history.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm
    “By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade.”

    the end

    • Marlow Metcalf

      Great name.

      I burst out laughing when I read your comment.

      You are extremely confused.

      You presented good charts and links.

      You seem to understand climate science.

      But the coming runaway global warming catastrophe has absolutely nothing to do with science.

      There is no science to support that conclusion.

      It is a false boogeyman used to scare people.

      Scared people want their government to save them.

      That allows governments to seize more power.

      This is save the Earth socialism … because socialism doesn’t sell well any other way.

      I mean it didn’t work so well in Russia and China and Venezuela … so those who want BIG GOVERNMENT needed a better sales pitch — global cooling, hole in the ozone layer, acid rain didn’t catch on for long — but runaway global warming did.

      The new pitch for socialism:
      We need a much stronger central government and new energy taxes on those pesky corporations, to save the Earth (not because we want to control people and micromanage their lives — we are good people who want to save everyone, even dumb white Republicans too stupid to understand any science).

  36. Well I was once on a Blue Team,representing skeptical views. To debate with the Green Team and the Red Team. The debate was adequately moderated, in that partisanship,insults and other inappropriate comments would be moderated out,which means you had to be civil and try to debate.

    The end result was that the Red and Green Teams were slaughtered by the Blue Team on most climate issues,they knew it and so did the Greenie/warmist forum founder, who closed it down. It was illuminating to see how poor the alarmist/warmist arguments were.

    I can’t remember the name of that forum,as this was around 6 years ago. Anyone recall?

    • All I can remember is an Intelligence Squared debate some years ago, but I only recall two sides. After the debate, the audience did move clearly to the side of the skeptics, though.

      • Not that one, Kurt. It was in a forum set up,where there were THREE groups in it.

  37. When I read about the red/blue team idea by Koonin here on WUWT (along with many others) I saw this as a permanent part of dealing with scientific issues which effect policy, the economy, health etc. Also, it could have broader use, its presence in the system serving as a disciplinary agent in research to stop all the fraud. I would add a code of ethics with teeth that must be part of the disciplinary picture for scientists as it is for engineers.

    • Com’on mods I used the fr**d word re a passle of medical, biochemistry a d other sensational examples in the literature,even pointed out by Nature and Lancet. Please put my post at the bottom when you release it.

    • In addition to a Red Team and a Blue Team to figure out the science, we also need a Fraud Team to investigate past fraudulent surface temperature modifications in order to figure out who is guilty of lying to the world about CAGW, and how much they have cost the world in wasted money on the CAGW fraud.

      • Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin. The use of unverified data by a member of either side should lead to the user being shown a “red card’ and forced to use the field.

        I anticipate that if the debate proceeded on these lines it would end in a walkover by the skeptic team as none of the CAGW side would be let to argue their point. .

      • Mod please ignore my earlier submission. I have corrected one word.

        Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin. The use of unverified data by a member of either side should lead to the user being shown a “red card’ and forced to leave the field.

        I anticipate that if the debate proceeded on these lines it would end in a walkover by the skeptic team as none of the CAGW side would be let to argue their point. .

      • “Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin.”

        I think that is a darned good point.

    • J. Philip, I agree, they won’t show up, and make good sounding excuses, but that would still be a single for our side, not the home run all of us would hope for. But, a single is better then not playing the game.

  38. This is surreal stuff, Anthony.

    In a bad way. (Subreal?)

    Last time I checked the scientific method, scientists were supposed to be their own hypothesis’ harshest critic. The Red Team and the Blue Team were one and the same person.

    You know something is seriously, terminally gangrenous in a supposedly “scientific” field when the practitioners view skepticism as the OTHER side’s job.

    Climate science, as an enterprise, is dead. It’s passed from the sclerotic, arthritic spasticity in which it lived its final decades to livor mortis, rigor mortis and unlovely states beyond.

    Weekend at Bernie’s was fun for a while, but it’s Wednesday now. Time to let our putrefying puppet rest in peace. Not for the sake of its dignity (I doubt it ever had any), but for health & safety.

  39. I’m torn as to whether Bill Nye and Al Gore should be included … just for kicks and giggles

    • Bill can wear a spinning bow-tie, and Big Al can pretend that he’s not in it for the money.

  40. The apocalyptic green believers will never agree to a detailed debate with cross examination as it would be an end to the CAGW scam and they well know it.

    Great play by Pruitt.

    Post live and written transcription / closed caption (or as close as possible) for those of us with hearing loss or slow connections.

    There is REAL HOPE for REAL CHANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Covfefe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  41. The Blue team would have too much at stake, and have shown time and time again that they aren’t interested in the truth. So, I’m not sure how productive a debate there could be with known liars.

  42. “[H]e talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2.”

    The very idea of this is silly, almost beyond comprehension. Only those scientists who believe that we know very little would even be willing to participate. Those scientists who already believe that the “science is settled” will be of the opinion that there is nothing to discuss. Even if you did assemble these two teams, they would never agree on a list of what is known and what is not.

    At its heart, this is a naked appeal to the authority of scientists, but under a stipulation that the scientists should arrive at their conclusions by a decidedly unscientific process. Why on earth would you ever appeal to the authority of a scientist in these circumstances? Scientists’ expertise is in the scientific procedure. The results of those procedures speak for themselves.

    Moreover, there’s a circularity problem here. if you have to call for such a meeting, you already know the answer. Do we need to have a red/blue team meeting to resolve what the acceleration of gravity is at the Earth’s surface is? Of course not. The request for a red/blue team to meet under these circumstances itself presupposes the existence of so much uncertainty as to obviate the need to even call the meeting.

      • The problem is that politicians, and unfortunately much of the general public, want the scientists to depart from their procedural expertise in the scientific method, and instead offer their opinions on things that the scientific method can’t determine. There is no scientific procedure capable of objectively measuring the “risk [CO2] pose[s] to health, the United States, and the world.” There is no scientific procedure capable of objectively quantifying how much emissions increase temperatures, or what the downstream impacts will quantitatively be.

        There will never be a “scientific needle in the alarmist haystack” – there can’t be. The “alarmist” part relies exclusively on subjective interpretive judgments of ambiguous scientific data. Thus, there is nothing “scientific” about the alarmism. Climate scientists seem not to understand that opinions are a corrupting agent in a scientific endeavor. That’s why scientists came up with protections like double blind studies.

        What’s missing in the global warming debate is either the technical literacy, or the willingness, (or both) on the part of the politicians/journalists/general public to intelligently sift through the scientific studies and draw their own conclusions from the objective evidence. I don’t outsource my own intelligence to some scientist or group of scientists. I can read a study, see the methodological flaws in it (e.g. any study co-authored by Cook) and see that its garbage. I can read a study and see the unfounded assumptions on which it is based (e.g. any attribution study) and discard that as being useless, as well. When that happens over and over again, it informs my opinion that there is no objective evidence of harmful warming from CO2 emissions.

        The outcome of any team exercise like this isn’t something that I would ever find relevant. What I would find relevant is if the climate models start successfully predicting the timing, geographical boundaries, and severity of droughts. Or the predicting future rises and falls in global (or better yet regional) temperatures. Scientists can convince me through performance. Not talk.

      • Kurt, I pretty much think the same way except that I remain optimistic that some actual science may have been done somewhere along the way by somebody even if propaganda was the ultimate purpose.

    • I agree. The issue is whether the science is understood or whether it isn’t. The Blue team would have answers for all the issues based on faulty peer review.

      What we really need is to remove the funding prejudice. Get more skeptical papers funded. Since this will take time, the first thing is to bring a skeptic team into NOAA and audit the work being done. Analyze the data. This is sort of a red team but no debate. Just real scientific work. Once all the problems in the data are released there will be more openness for the skeptical viewpoint. Of course, the activists will have a fit but who cares.

  43. My question is whether there are sufficient scientists worthy of the name to form a Blue Team. Others have in jest put forward names like Nye and Gore, but in all seriousness that is about the depth of that side.

    Will the real climate scientists please step forward.

  44. Red + Blue is a waste of Green (money)

    Pruitt is a dork.

    Trump is a coward.

    Both afraid to say anything about “climate science”

    The leftists predict runaway global warming … in the future.

    They’ve been doing that for the past 30 years.

    No leftist is going to change his mind — climate change is a religion.

    How can you prove something wrong if its ALWAYS coming in the future?

    The government should get out of the climate change and green energy subsidies business

    There is absolutely nothing in the adjusted, infilled, wild guessed surface climate record in the past 150 years that even suggests we have a climate change problem.

    The surface temperature data records have already been cooked — at least half the warming is “adjustments” and who knows how much warming is infilling bias and urban heat island effect ? — I bet the raw data are “lost”.

    We already know one team will be misleaders, adjusters, infilllers and generally smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists” — people with great communications skills from many years BSing about “climate change”.

    A skillful presentation of exciting alarmism BS could easily beat boring real science presented by nerds:
    The temperature has been quite stable in the past 150 years = boring
    The temperature has barely changed in the past 15 years = boring
    No one knows what the future climate will be = boring

    Runaway global warming will end life on earth as we know it = exciting
    NYC subways will be flooded and train cars will have to be replaced by submarines = exciting
    NYC streets will be flooded so executives will have to take gondolas to their offices = exciting

    The problem with two teams is that the wrong team could win.

    This is 99% politics and 1% science — the science is almost irrelevant for people willing to believe in a coming global warming catastrophe with the positive feedback “tripler” .

    Climate blog for non-scientists:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  45. “Global Warming – Climate Change” world biggest hoax and scam.
    Just like Obama causing Global Flooding by pissing in the ocean.
    That much can humans contribute.
    Elaborate scam to screw off taxpayers off their money!

    Earth climate and changes are dependent on Sun’s and Sunspots activity supplying 99.99% of energy. Humans can do schit about it.
    Volcano eruptions can produce much more distractions to climate than all humans and SUVs farting together.
    CO2 is not poison, it is “food” for plants, which in turn produce Oxygen, that we need to breathe.
    STOP the scam, jail all the scammers!!!
    God bless and protect Mr. Trump!
    MAGA!!!!

  46. well exactly……where does he think he’s going to get ” true legitimate, objective, transparent……….peer review”

    • Forget the science.

      The future climate is a mystery.

      Neither team knows the future climate.

      But I know — it will get colder … or warmer.

      Now let’s move on to important things:

      Let’s have white collar scientist “brawlers” team boxing match
      — red team faces off against blue team —
      so the scientists can beat each other up in a ring.

      They’ve been verbally beating each other up or decades —
      it’s time for a real fight!

      A strong ring will be needed.

      We wouldn’t want it to collapse under the weight of Al “The Blimp” Gore, who will boxing in a brand new weight class beyond the conventional Super Heavyweight class … called “Stupid Heavyweight”

  47. I fear that a simple red/blue delineation will meet with disaster from the get go. There are far more detailed concerns to consider in choosing teams — things such as racial balance, gender balance, sexual identity tolerance, and so forth. The challenge to pick one politically correct team would be hard enough, let alone two. Good luck with that.

    For each team selected, one of these issues would be a point of complaint for somebody — “There were no women scientists on board.” … “The number of whites outweigh the number of blacks.” … “The Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans-sexual/Questioning community does not have fair representation.” … “Not enough people from other countries, … Northern Hemisphere inhabitant bias, … Western-science biased forbidding in depth discussions of chi energy.” … Oh, the list goes on.

  48. You would hope something like this could do some good. However, I am afraid the Blue team would be so wedded to their agenda that they could not find common ground. And worse yet, if the Blue team did admit that the science is not there and the risk is not great, the media, politicians, academia and your average liberal would ignore the results. Their whole global governance agenda is built on controlling the world’s economy out of fear of a climatic apocalypse.

    • Oh, I think the “Blue Team” might eventually admit that there’s really nothing practical that humans can do about trying to control “global warming”, whether using a fundamentally flawed view of CO2 or not. BUT [notice, that’s a big “but”], the “Blue Team” would insist that the practical effect of spending trillions of dollars for nothing was NOT the greatest value of human action.

      Rather, the greatest value is in TRYING, “sending a message to the world”, as Dr. Mannn has said, I believe, in his own admission that the Paris Agreement would have little practical effect [but then he contradicts himself seemingly in later interviews, using some made-up higher runaway effect that makes some claimed smaller reduction look bigger and more significant].

      In other words, the truth might crystallize that what is more important in the minds of alarmists is the symbolic meaning of human actions, NOT the practical results. The world needs a common demon, in order to fight to be more united for a common cause, and CO2 is such a demon.

  49. I have argued for several years that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. With all modesty of course I would be happy ,if asked ,to organize a red team to give Pruitt a helping hand.
    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.””

  50. What good will that do?

    The Blues will insist (as they do now) on using doctored data-sets, computer-printed “predictions”, pointless polemics, large fleets of ships, aircraft, and heavy automobiles to shuttle their dog-and-pony-show from palatial abodes to imperial venues in sunny climes safe from the building cold.

    Meanwhile the Reds will continue to try to get their story of facts and scientific acknowledged by people that want only their political aims and mandates to be heard.

    • The final A versus B presentation / debate will be scheduled in mid-summer in Warshington D.C..

      Someone will turn off the air conditioning the night before and open the windows on a very hot humid day in Warshington … so all the scientists will be sweating and loosening their ties and that’s all CNN will talk about.

      Didn’t that work once before?

      • Richard, surely even mention of air temperature by the news media would be far too boring. The REAL story by CNN at that final, turned-off-air-conditioner sweat-fest debate would be about some celebrity who happened to walk in with a new hair style that was compromised by the negligent hosting venue’s operation manager, and the law suit she filed for damages.

      • There are 2 million green jobs and many propped up on climate fraud. DJT isn’t going to tank them actual science for obvious PR reasons. He wants to be the “jobs” President not the bubble bust catalyst of whom no one will love.

        He’ll leave the academic alarmists alone and funded as well.

        I don’t agree with it but I get the short term political logic of deferring the climate war or making “nice” with all sides. The GOP position since Reagan has been appeasement and triangulation of green base culture. That’s what has to change.

        Nothing deeper then the climate swamp. Cruz had stronger climate fraud positions and LOST. Paris exit as such is half a loaf at best. Climate trolls remain in charge of NASA and NOAA.

  51. What better way to cement your career than to join then single-handedly sabotage and sink whichever team is supposed to invalidate the climate scam, while feigning objectivity?

  52. Good idea however think about it, a $Trillion dollar global warming fear industry and when someone dares ask a question who do they send in ? A comedian , a failed politician or an actor that barely made it passed high school .
    If they did it then have reputable scientists show up .Not lobbiests , rent seekers, and climate pretenders pushing their religion .
    To ensure a free and open discussion with no sound bite contests keep the media the hell out and let the
    participants discuss the science . . One of the problems for the people who actually know the science is they are almost always put in a completely un science setting trying to explain a very complex subject because the media likes little 5 minute packages . Polarized views and no room for reflection .
    The public have been ripped off as a result .
    This could take weeks but pay them well and get the cards on the table .
    This could be the most significant contribution they will make in their careers .

    Maybe they can say whether there is any point .

    • Perhaps because he was an anti nuclear testing protestor who had no knowledge or interest in climate or the wider environment, who resigned from the anti nuke group he helped lead when it merged into Greenpeace as that org was founded… (he was not a founder of Greenpeace)

      • So, “helping to lead” does not count as “founding”. The first people who participate are somehow magically removed from the action of “founding”, and “founding” somehow happens by itself with zero effort to actualize an organization at its earliest stage.

        Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

      • Robert, Greenpeace wasn’t ‘founded’ – it was an amalgamation of existing groups.

      • Griff,

        Your perfect record of always being perfectly wrong continues unbroken.

        Moore was one of four Don’t Make a Wave members who decided to change the name of their organization to Greenpeace, two of whom were also founding members of DMAW.

      • Griff,

        I see you still haven’t made the least little effort to get the facts behind Patrick Moore’s tenure as president of Greenpeace. Here they are:

        In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Moore was elected president. He inherited an organization deeply in debt. Greenpeace associations began to form throughout North America, including Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada.

        Moore and the board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time, California lawyer David Tussman, together with other Greenpeace activists and some staff-members, announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore’s Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.

        The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named Chairman. Moore became President of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a Director of Greenpeace International.

        In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government. He and other directors of Greenpeace International were greeting the ship off the coast of New Zealand on its way to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. Expedition photographer, Fernando Pereira, was killed. Greenpeace’s media presence peaked again.

        In 1986, after leaving Greenpeace over differences in policy, Moore established a family salmon farming business, Quatsino Seafarms, at his home in Winter Harbour. He commented that he had left Greenpeace because it “took a sharp turn to the political left” and “evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas”. Which of course is true.

        So, Griff, how does this record of Moore’s involvement with Greenpeace disqualify him as a founder?

  53. Talk is cheap, Team Trump has gone out of the way to avoid the fraud AGW science cartel. Ethanol fraud is mainstream as well.

    With a thin base does any one think this slow poke approach was wise? The skeptic science team should have hit the ground with not just a Paris exit but the entire UN Climate Framework elimination.

    How are you going to cut green subsidies with such an ambivalent approach to climate fraud arguments? Tesla keeps the $7500 per car fed subside and the stock is at record highs.

    Swamp is winning. Pruitt’s hands are tied or he wasn’t really up to the task. I think it the former at the moment as I think appeasement is the standard RINO fall back position the DJT was committed to.

  54. Assuming Blue Team represents the Pro AGW / Climate Change side (Mann, Gore, Hansen).

    We have had two decades of Blue Team. For fairness and balance we need two decades of Red Team – only.

    Along those lines, President Trump was elected because Americans had already made up their minds. AGW was about Green Money, Funding, Power, and Control, not about reality or science. The Blue vs. Red team will only perpetuate the AGW Fraud.

  55. To avoid confusion about the “red vs blue “teams I’ll refer to to the apocalyptic vs real science teams in this comment. Choose the apocalyptic team from the EPA as they are assumed to be the best informed and most influential on the “dangers” of CO2 and global warming. Choose the “real science” teams from some of the notable “skeptics” such as Curry, Lindzen, Michaels, Ball, Spencer, etc., etc., and let the debate begin. It will take months and those within the EPA found to be unable to support their current and past position to be fired from the EPA due to incompetence.

    Heated debate will be necessary and welcome. No soft talk. Debate the points aggressively as would be seen in a legal proceeding. So if past claims were made and shown not to be supported by observations that would be indicative of incompetence and justify dismissal from employment within an influential and regulatory intense organization such as the EPA. Sweep would reach to others outside the EPA also shown to be incompetent. Pull the plug on the swamp.

    • I like it but please include Mann, Jones and a few other non-EPA alarmists. That would be interesting if they even dared to show up.

  56. I don’t like the idea of a red/blue team face-off. There is the usual likelihood of politics getting in the way.

    I think a much better solution would be a climate prediction contest, the Edward Lorenz Climate Prediction Contest, with a prize of say, $250 million, to make it worth while to enter. The only contestants allowed would be the IPCC models, one model, one entry. The object would be to predict the lower troposphere temperature maps from the satellite data for each season for ten consecutive years, forty maps in total. For each season, the measured data map would be subtracted point-by-point from the prediction map and an error distribution created from the residuals. The distribution mean and full width at half maximum would be recorded for the purpose of scoring the model. All maps would be encrypted and sent on day zero of year zero to a neutral party, say NIST, and only decrypted after the data has been collected. Publication of a prediction map prior to the time its data was collected would disqualify the entry as an attempt to bias the results.

    Beginning on day zero of year zero, the satellite data would be collected and used to generate seasonal maps. The four maps created from the weather in year zero would then be the baseline for comparison for the contest entries. Starting in year one and for the full ten years, the mean and full width of the baseline maps would be computed in exactly the same way as the contest entries. Any entry would score one point for having a better mean and another point for a better full width than the baseline map, with better being two sigma. In order to win, an entry would have to be better than the baseline maps 75% of the time. This means that there is a possibility that no model will win the contest.

    I have chosen the satellite data because it is measured using genuine scientific instruments with nearly full coverage of the earth and because there are two competing teams on opposite sides of the global warming dispute analyzing the data. The ground based weather stations are too sparse and not designed, calibrated, or maintained as a scientific instrument for measuring global temperature.

    I chose temperature maps because a model of the physical world should be able to predict physical things. As far as I can tell, no physical, chemical, or biological process depends on the global average temperature anomaly that is used to measure global warming.

  57. When they get to discussing models and simulation, as soon as they are asked if all of the individual equations within a model have been verified, job done, all go home, because the answer is no. See:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

    “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. “ page 574

    The warmists book of warming states that they do not know what clouds do to the temperature of the earth.

    Why do we continue any further?

  58. This approach is needed because if we are to change the current bias in science education (pretty much totally alarmist), then something like the results of this approach can be used to justify a more neutral curriculum endorsed by the findings. At the end of the day, this is needed to form a basis for change – just making the change without a deliberate, verifiable process won’t work politically. Let the folks who want to continue the scam be forced to refute the results with better science than the teams came up with – as unlikely as that is.

    In the process, we can also justify the reversal of the “endangerment finding” and get CO2 back to its beloved status as plant food vs. pollutant.

  59. Peer review sounds nice but the true tests are replication and falsification. Let’s see some hypotheses put forward that can be tested, replicated or falsified….as in real science.

    • RayG:

      You had written “Peer review sounds nice, but the true tests are replication and falsification. Let’s see some hypotheses put forward that can be tested, replicated, and falsified…as in real science”.

      Okay, here is my simple hypothesis: the reduction in the amount of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide aerosol emissions into the troposphere is the actual cause of climate change.

      This hypothesis has been falsified (that is, empirically tested) multiple times and has been validated each time. It has been replicated multiple times, and enables temperature projections/predictions accurate to within .02 deg. C. or less over a span of decades.

      Does this meet your criteria?

      Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for details of the above.

  60. I thought all the Blues were going to move to France and save the world through their leadership there (at least until that trough dries up too).

  61. Exactly why adults are supposed to be still seriously discussing this always fringe, always idiotic, plain silly hypothesis after half a century generating not a whiff of evidence in support and volumes of falsifying evidence is a bit of a mystery. I suppose it may be considered as a start but I’m wary of the potential for legitimising what isn’t science at all but rather some bizarre insane cult.

    If they have evidence linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide to evolution of the climate system then let them present it. If they do not then they can just shut up about it. After half a century and funding which makes the Manhattan Project look trivial then failure to produce any evidence means it’s over – permanently.

  62. I hope red and blue represent hot and cold and not a political map. Politics in science is the problem not the solution.

  63. Rather than a televised debate, how about Trump just replaces the NSF director, deputy director and 24 members of the National Science Board with skeptics, then let them change the Foundation’s statements on climate?

    It would also be nice to reverse the EPA’s ruling finding CO2 to be a pollutant.

    • The President appoints 24 Members of the National Science Board for six year terms. The NSF director serves as an ex officio 25th member. Every two years, one-third (eight) of the members rotate off of the Board and eight new members are appointed (or occasionally re-appointed) to serve for six-year terms.

      Thus Trump will be able to replace 16 of the 24 members, and all of them if he be reelected.

      Staff will do as they are told by the director and board.

  64. AGW supposes that the increase in Global Average Warming since about 1950 is caused by Man’s burning of carbon-based fuels, because it produces increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The basis of this guess is that carbon dioxide is known to be a “Greenhouse Gas”.

    The familiar but poorly understood term Greenhouse Effect is a temperature – that resulting from heat held by all the gases in the atmosphere.

    Therefore, ALL gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases as they all get warmed by Earth’s heat.

    Each gas’ contribution to the heat held is about in proportion to their quantity.

    As carbon dioxide constitutes a tiny 0.04%, its contribution to Earth’s greenhouse effect is also only an immeasurably small 0.04%.

  65. “Not even climate scientists consider the experiment any more than a crude demonstration that heat from a lamp will warm a small closed container.”

    In fact, the summer sun does the exact same thing to my car… damn you Trump!

Comments are closed.