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
Throw in Ross McKittrick ( though he is Canadian)
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].
However this is done, it should be in a publicly available forum for all to see!
““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…
Bring it on!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Gavin Schmidt when he refused to even be on the desk with Roy Spencer. !
Thanks Andy….I get those two mixed up…they look alike especially around the mouth
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.
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 .
Oh boy, is that going to sting at The Guardian and the BBC 🙂
Richard Lindzen’s take on the whole argument is simple and straightforward:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say
The logical team captain but any expectation blue would show up for such a debate is an obtuse expectation.
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.
i’ll take the DON’T TOUCH MY WALLET side which trumps all the rest, tnx…lol
I agree that it is crap but I think it is also adulterated! Lol
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.
I certainly hope that “red and blue” do not indicate political bias in the team selection process.
It should not be. Its a military devised term of art only.
It could be Orange and Green, with the latter being the team in favor of more CO2.
Are you of Irish background, perhaps 😉
I suspect the “blue” team will no show
“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;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
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.
https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
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.
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.
Fair point. Except the climatariat does not control Trump,or Pruitt, who can make it so.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
What about Leonardo di Caprio?
Raises the question: Does adding idiots increase group IQ or reduce it?
He gets to play Gavin, who is already a no show..
LdC should be added to the “ensemble” for completeness.
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.
Blue, Tim Flannery.
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.
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!
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.
+100
Fiction – a polite way of saying BS.
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.
Average of unphysical guesses.
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.
Yes my spelling and typing are very poor. Thanks for adding relavant information.
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.
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. 😉
” The conclusion was foregone. Curry is scathing on the fr@ud…”
SM,
She savaged your unwarranted conclusions.
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.
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.
Nevertheless, there could be a hidden flaw that vitiates all their reasoning. For instance, see this comment a bit upthread:
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.
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.
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 “data” are packs of lies.
So the models are open to the public for examination?
The BEST methodology on UHI is a joke, as is the methodology for creating upward trends.
Forecast error evaluation is not a one and done spot check long ago.
“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.
+1 Excellent comment.
Canabian,
YHGTBSM! Mark Steyn would laugh in your lying face.
You actually imagine that Canada respects people’s rights to express their opinions?
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/27/canadas_clampdown_on_free_speech/
Free speech is illegal in Canada. The US is headed your way, unfortunately, but still has a long way to go.
So-called “hate speech” that is illegal in Canada is still legal in the US.
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%?
blue pill
The Blue pill in 1887 was mercury based, in every medicine cabinet…
Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_mass
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?
+10
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.