Aussie Government Broadcaster Gives Climate Skeptics Airtime

Australian ABC

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Judith Curry (one of the guests): The ABC, Australia’s government owned media outlet, has dedicated an entire Science Show program, including a star cast of climate skeptics, to exploring why some politicians and academics dispute the alleged climate consensus.

Has ‘denying’ won?

Saturday 24 June 2017 12:05PM (view full episode)

The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics. We shall talk to a few of those who remain unconvinced by climate research and its conclusions: a former vice-chancellor, a renowned Princeton mathematician, a space scientist from WA who worked on the Apollo program, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a climate researcher in America. Have they ever changed their minds on the topic? Do they perceive any risk at all? What do they think of President Trump’s policies? How can critics remain unmoved as the evidence mounts? Sharon Carleton reports.

Read more:‘denying’-won/8618656

My favourite exchange from the transcript;

Judith Curry: Say 10 or 12 years ago, I was working on a few narrow problems that were related to climate change, but I wasn’t looking at the whole picture. And since I wasn’t looking at the whole picture I thought it made sense to accept the consensus conclusions from other scientists who were looking at the whole picture, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. I bought into their meme ‘don’t listen to what one scientist says, listen to what this group of hundreds of scientists have concluded after years of deliberation’.

I changed my mind in 2009 after the climategate emails, if you are familiar with this, it was the unauthorised release of emails from the University of East Anglia, included email exchanges by a number of the authors of the IPCC reports.

Sharon Carleton: No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called ‘climategate’ affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated.

Judith Curry: From what? Basically what I saw from those emails, and I read pretty much all of them, was that I really did not like the sausage-making that went into this consensus. It was a lot of skulduggery and bullying going on, and trying to hide uncertainties and thwart people from getting papers published and trying to keep data out of the hands of people who wanted to question it. I realised that there was a lot of circular reasoning, a lot of uncertainties, a lot of tuning, just a lot of things that made me not have any confidence at all in what they had done. So I started speaking out. This basically turned me into an outcast amongst the establishment climate scientists.

Read more: Same Link as above (Click Transcript)

The guests on the show were;

  • Don Aitkin

    Former Vice-Chancellor

    University of Canberra

  • Brian O’Brien

    Adjunct Professor of Physics

    University of Western Australia

    Perth WA

  • Judith Curry

    Former Professor and Chair

    School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences

    Georgia Institute of Technology

    Atlanta Georgia USA

  • Freeman Dyson

    Former Professor of Physics

    Institute for Advanced Study

    Princeton University

    Princeton New Jersey USA

  • Garth Paltridge

    Retired Atmospheric Physicist

    Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University

    Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow

    Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies

    University of Tasmania

    Hobart Tasmania

  • Andy Pitman

    Professor and Director

    ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science

    The University of New South Wales

    Sydney NSW

  • Steven Sherwood

    Climate Change Research Centre

    University of New South Wales

    Sydney NSW

In my opinion, the Australian ABC frequently mistreats climate skeptics. Last year Aussie climate skeptic Senator Malcolm Roberts faced a hostile reception to his views during an ABC appearance. In my opinion the Roberts appearance last year amounted to an attempt to set Roberts up, to deride his views without giving him a fair chance to answer criticism.

The ABC Science show Has ‘denying’ won? starts with a reference to the Roberts appearance – but this time things are very different.

This latest crack in the facade of solid media support for “settled science” will be noticed by Australia’s climate community.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 25, 2017 4:58 am

Wow! Does anyone imagine that the BBC will be next? I thought not!

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 5:49 am

Fat Chance, they seem to manage to bring ‘Climate Change’ into nearly every programme!

Curious George
Reply to  meltemian
June 25, 2017 7:23 am

People can’t comment on a BBC web page. For a reason.

Reply to  meltemian
June 25, 2017 9:38 am

Canada’s CBC does exactly the same thing, they follow the BBC like robots.

Bryan A
Reply to  meltemian
June 25, 2017 10:24 am

About 14:20 into the program, the question arises was there a front page on Time Magazine regarding any impending Ice Age in the 70’s to which the reply was “No, I don’t think there was” while technically true, there were several Front Pages in the 70’s like The Big Chill and The Cooling of America with articles regarding a perceived cooling trends and the potential impacts should it continue

Reply to  meltemian
June 25, 2017 3:08 pm

I tried to comment on the ABC web site but I am not sure that it was allowed.
However I will reproduce it here.
I am surprised that none of the panel mentioned Karl Poppers writing on “falsability of Hypothesis”
Here it is simplified.
Here Richard Feynman uses Karl Popper in his lecture to a physics class.

We have a hypothesis which describes Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“the planet is heating significantly because of Anthropological Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere”
We are able today, after some annual empirical evidence from satellites has accumulated over a number of years, to test this hypothesis.
That is, are now able to compare the empirical evidence with evidence from “climate models” who have projected temperatures for the some years now.
Here is a graph which compares the emperical data with the data from the climate models.comment image
(Courtesy of website of June 4th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer)
Question 1. To “paraphrase” Richard Feynman :- are the projected data from the models supported by the empirical evidence?
I say no more.


Reply to  meltemian
June 25, 2017 6:02 pm

I used to comment a fair bit on ABC articles, and they “moderated” a lot of my responses despite not transgressing the guidelines. I cross-posted several examples to Jo Nova’s blog. I imagine they were feeling a real or perceived pressure that they would be outed (I used to call them out all the time on their obvious bias, along with many other people), and so the easiest thing was to remove all feedback instead. That way they can continue to heavily slant to the left and don’t have to countenance any dissenting opinions.
I am thankful for Youtube and Netflix … I haven’t switched on the television for anything except those apps and the occasional sports event for some time now. The relevance of commercial channels and the taxpayer-funded dinosaurs like the ABC, BBC, and CBC is rapidly dwindling.
As an aside, a survey of ABC journalists was done in 2013 and showed that their voting intentions (as a proxy for their political views) were heavily skewed to the left of the political spectrum. Note that the following link is from Australian academic site, The Conversation, in which discussion invariably skews to the political left:
I am sure this comes as a shock to no one. Even less of a shock that the personal political views colour the articles and shows presented on the ABC, despite their legal mandate to represent the views of the Australian public (not just some views, or heavily slanted views). The Charter section of the ABC Act can be found here:
Of course, by claiming scientific consensus, they can generally disregard sceptic views as they aren’t representative, right?

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 6:22 am

You can find the occasional skeptic voice. Here’s a quote from Dr. Judith Curry:

And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).
“These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed.”

The above quote is taken from this story on global greening.
The existence of one story out of thousands is hardly a proof that the Beeb has, in any way, become fair and even handed. Ditto ABC, CBC, etc.

Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 7:59 am

Yes, commieBob, along with a load of negative comments which one would expect seeing as the article’s author was the renowned and nefarious environmentalist Roger Harrabin (one of the architects of the BBC’s climate policy – of silencing any dissenting voice and not allowing sceptics any air-time whatsoever).

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 8:23 am

commie bomb: Missing from the article is that scientists were completely blindsided by the magnitude of the greening. It shows in the lame stale disaster-climate talking points.
Mentioning lack of water being a factor shows they deviously omit the fact that the new plants use less water! They make no mention that this is an exponential process and an endothermic one (cooling). They say the effect decreases with increased CO2, ignoring that the trillions of tons of coal seams formation from CO2 worries them if it gets put back in the atmosphere. They always attack negative feedbacks despite the fact that they are axiomatic in a world where life is an unbroken chain for 2billion years. Even the scars and damage from huge bolides striking the earth were counteracted by negative FB. Neg FB should have been the starting point of deliberations on climate science. It was clear to geologists from long ago. I agree with Steve McIntyre that (from his study of and dealings with climate science PhD researchers) they would have been lucky in earlier generations to have become highschool science teachers.

Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 10:23 am

I believe that it is now written into the BBC’s charter that they shall not challenge the climate change agenda.
As always, if the case for AGW were so strong, one could always rely on rational argument to settle the matter, and such Orwellian prohibitions wouldn’t be necessary.

Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 10:38 am

I believe the magazine in question was Newsweek, and from 1975. The hysteria, if substituted for today’s verbage, is almost identical, except it mentions “cooling”, instead of warming.

Greg Strebel
Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 2:47 pm
M Seward
Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2017 3:00 pm

Gary Pearse,
you are spot on re the ‘high school science teachers’ comment. Academia has been so corrupted by its infatuation with publishing almost for the sake of publishing that it matters little if anything as to the substance of what is published. Judith Curry’s ‘sausage making’ comment re the IPCC is particularly resonant. What we have with so called climate science is a reiteration of ‘junk bond’ collateralised debt obligations. Someone is making a buck on the sheer quantity of the ‘product’ and quality is no longer of much moment. Quality is no longer a KPI.

Reply to  commieBob
June 26, 2017 4:26 am

M Seward June 25, 2017 at 3:00 pm
… Quality is no longer a KPI.

University administrators use a proxy for quality. The quality of your work is rated by the impact factor of the journals in which it is published.
Like all proxies, impact factor is, at best, an approximation. If we rate journals by their retraction rate, high impact journals are actually worse and, by that logic, lower quality. link
So, as I am being pedantic, you are technically wrong. Quality is a KPI. However, the way they measure quality makes it a joke anyway.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 9:17 am

The British Brainwashing Cult are currently far too busy trying to ignore the 10,000 people of different races and religions who just marched in London against naked Muslim aggression and terror to be worrying about deceiving the public with climate alarmism disinformation. However, please do not adjust your sets – normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Reply to  cephus0
June 25, 2017 10:46 am

Did not see anything about this. Did see something about the planned Muslim March in Cologne..

Reply to  cephus0
June 25, 2017 1:02 pm
No surprise that the Muslim anti-terror march in Cologne was denounced by the Left.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 11:01 am

They will be soon.
There are cracks appearing everywhere you look, just tiny holes in the AGW dykes that will keep on growing.
It was only a matter of time, and when the dykes breach, the backlash from the general population will be ‘unprecedented’…….to coin a favourite phrases of the alarmists.
In my unscientific, politically uninformed opinion, no more than 5 years off before this is all over.

Reply to  HotScot
June 25, 2017 9:06 pm

You may be right, but it could collapse very suddenly if enough closet skeptics realize that waiting until after the AGW bubble bursts is very poor, perhaps even risky strategy. It might take only one or two flipping to cause a massive run for the exits.

Reply to  HotScot
June 26, 2017 5:46 am

Too funny.

Reply to  HotScot
June 26, 2017 11:36 am

@Steven Mosher
I’m happy you consider the prospect of the inevitable crash of the AGW fallacy amusing, because I suspect you’ll be laughing on the other side of your face soon enough.
Trump has sealed the fate of the Paris agreement. Assuming America begins to grow it’s industrial and commercial output over the coming few years, there will be many competitors also jumping the Paris accord ship in order to compete. China won’t say they’re doing it, but they will do it. Germany will be under so much pressure from its own population because of it’s wildly rising domestic and commercial energy costs, they’ll be forced to make a drastic change of course. France will follow Germany simply because, well, it’s France, and that”s what France always does.
And the main reason?
Trump will be coming up for re-election in 4 years or so and by then will have a spreadsheet of successes as long as your arm, in terms of employment and commercial success, but more than that, he’ll demonstrate how much money he has saved the country. The moment he produces evidence of having cut America’s global debt because of it’s commercial growth, the public will be clamouring to vote for him. The scandals will evaporate as the MSM jump on the bandwagon and start getting on his side.
There will then be ambitious politicians in the UK, for example, who will see the opportunity of saving the country £14Bn a year at the stroke of a pen and making a name for themselves. They will condemn AGW openly and they will use the usual suspect as ammunition. Our NHS had a deficit of £2.6Bn in 2016 yet we are currently chucking £9Bn at a climate that has barely changed in 40 years, or more. We Brit’s might be suckers for a cause but we’re not entirely stupid.
Every other contributor under the Paris accord terms will begin to do the sums and start asking questions, and they will turn to the sceptics for answers because, so far, asking the alarmists has only cost them money.
The whole game will turn from a political exercise into a commercial race. In my opinion, Trump is determined to demonstrate that trading, on a level playing field, is a far better way to earn money and pay down debt than bleating about everything and stopping business flourishing.
The writings on the wall mate.

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2017 7:11 am

I love your optimism, but almost no leftist EVER changed his mind on anything he believes in
… EXCEPT to move further to the left.
History says you are wrong.
And why bring dykes into this — did they cause warming?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2017 5:27 pm

You’re right, no Leftist has EVER admitted to being wrong, but that doesn’t mean they won’t jump ship like the rats they are when CAGW starts going down.
I expect a lot of ‘I never claimed’ and finger pointing from some of them. And utter silence from others. Many will just keep claiming that the REAL danger has always been decades from now, and just stop pushing it. Then just wait out the publics short attention span.
Look at the hight of the Population Bomb scare compared to now, for an example of how the next few decades of the Climate Change scare will go.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 11:05 am


richard Verney
Reply to  Mick
June 26, 2017 5:16 pm

Regarding your inquiry:

Still no links to any science, data, measurement or even photos refuting the fact that 90% of all glaciers are melting at an alarming rate over the last 30 years.

You do not have to worry, there is no alarming glacier melt. Indeed, glacier melt was far more pronounced in the early part of the 20th Century before CO2 emissions became a significant factor, as you would know had you read H.H. Lamb Climate, History, and the Modern World (1982), pg. 248

[T]he retreat of the glaciers after about 1925 became rapid. It was almost entirely during the [pre-1950] twentieth century warming that the Alpine glaciers disappeared from the valley floors up into the mountains. Similarly great retreats occurred in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, in the Americas, and on high mountains near the equator.

The melting of the Greenland glaciers has dramatically slowed down these past 30 (or so years), compared to the rate at which they were melting during the early part of the 20th century. I guess that this is not so surprising since like the USA (and Iceland), temperatures in Greenland are no warmer than they were in the 1940s.
If you are interested in Glaciers then you ought to be aware of the 2017 paper by Fernandez & Fernandez published in The Holocene.. This paper examined the Greenland Glaciers. It found that as from 1898, the average retreat of the Greenland Glaciers to 2005 was some 1334 metres, of which retreat some 1062 metres had melted by 1946, and only some 272 metres as from 1946 to 2005.
You will appreciate that some 80% of all retreat had taken place in the first 46 years of the 20th century, and only 205 as from 1946. The rate of retreat dramatically slowed the past 50 or so years. For example:

Studies of aerial photographs and satellite images show that the glacier snouts have retreated by more than 1300 m on average since the LIA maximum (considered to be AD 1898 in Gljúfurárjökull and AD 1868 in both Western and Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull as explained in the publications presented in section ‘Introduction’; Figure 2), with an altitudinal rise of more than 100m. The retreat accelerated rapidly (15.3 m yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century (Figure 2). In the second half of the 20th century, the retreat decelerated considerably, reflected in the lowest values around 1985 (5.2 m yr−1) and a trend shift in 1994, with an advance observed in Gljúfurárjökull.


The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005 (Table 1). In the 1946 photograph, this significant retreat of the ice reveals two large moraines in the centre of the deglaciated area. The snout retreat slowed down considerably during the second half of the century, especially in 1985 (1.5 m yr−1).

So you will note that in Western Tungnahryggsjökull, the glacier retreat had slowed down to just 1.5 m yr−1 during the second half of the 20th century down from a rate of 19.5 m yr−1 between 1898 and 1946. So when the IPCC considers the level of CO2 to be material the immediate impact is a dramatic slow down in the rate of Glacier retreat.
There was a recent study conducted of the Himalaya glaciers which showed that the vast majority of the glaciers were stable these past 12 years. See the April 2014 paper (in Current Science Volume 106, No.7) Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating? by I. M. Bahuguna1, *, B. P. Rathore1, et al.. I quote from the abstract:

a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% ( 2.5% of 20.94 sq. km).

But even going further back in time (ie., back to the 1960s) whilst there has been glacier retreat, it is not dramatic (circa 0.2% per year), and certainly not what one would categorize as melting at an alarming rate, viz:

The study 31 reveals that there is 0.4%/ yr loss in area from 1969 to 2010 for small glaciers o f the Trans-Himalayan region 0.2% to 0.7%/yr from 1960s to 2001 in the Indian Himalaya and 0.12%/ yr from 1968 to 2007 in Garhwal Himalaya.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
June 25, 2017 5:21 pm

The article mentions senator Malcolm Roberts, ex coal mine manger and also anti vaccine supporter and also someone who believes that NASA is making stuff up. He was on a panel with Professor Brian Cox, a particle physicist. Cox made him look like the ill informed simpleton. A commentator the next day noted how balanced the ABC was, they had someone who knew a lot, Cox, and someone who knew nothing, Roberts. By the way, this is a question I ask science deniers and I dont seem to be able to get an aswer based on science or data, why are 90% of glaciers around the planet melting so rapidly over the last 30 years, what melts ice, heat. Anyone else have a reason, don’t tell me lack of snow, that snow is actually falling rain as it is too warm to snow.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 5:33 pm

Nowhere near 90% of glaciers melting, nor are those (perhaps half) which are doing so at a pace more rapid than before the past 30 years. The vast majority of glacial retreat since the LIA took place before 1987.
Many factors go into glacial advance and retreat. In many places where retreat has occurred, such as on Kilimanjaro, there has been no local warming at all. In that falsely iconic case, the loss of ice cap is caused by deforestation on the mountain’s lower slopes.
The ice on which I spend the most time, in Alaska and Chile, is growing.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 5:42 pm

Steve, if you think that Cox won that debate on the scientific substance of his arguments, then there is only one “simpleton” in this affair — you.
Nobody denies that it is warmer now than it was 30 years ago. The open question is, how much of this is due to human activity, and CO2 in particular. Glacier statistics do not answer that question.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 8:05 pm

By the way, this is a question I ask climate warmists and I dont seem to be able to get an aswer based on science or data, why were Vikings able to raise barley on Greenland over 1000 years ago; what ket ice away was heat. Anyone else have a reason, don’t tell me lack of heat, as it was too warm to snow.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 8:27 pm

Javet. There was a warm period but this was local and NOT global. Average global temperatures during that period were still GLOBALLY lower than they are now. There was very limited production of corn and was probably over a very small area. Archaeologists, you know they are scientists, ooooo! I know people who are not liked on this site, but thanks for accepting that they know what they are talking about, found some very small amounts of barley but no evidence of any real production. The Vikings then abandoned Greenland as the climate returned to its normal state, snow ice and cold. Still, didn’t answer the question as to why 90% of glaciers globally are disappearing at an alarming rate of the past 30 years. You actually google photos of glacial melting. Remember heat melts ice, and this melting increase as the temperatures increase.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 8:31 pm

You might as well stick Cox on a show about brain surgery, as the particle physicist “who knew a lot”. I’m sure his learned contributions would be just as banal. Here’s the brilliant Brian in action:
Small wonder they only let him loose on first year undergrads.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 8:33 pm

Steve, please stop posting lies and made up nonsense, which includes every single assertion you have made on this page.
It is very disrespectful of the intelligence and education of everyone who reads the articles on this site.
Thanks in advance

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 9:03 pm

You are regurgitating errant lies and nonsense perpetrated by mendacious CACA advocates.
The Medieval Warm Period was global, as was the Little Ice Age which followed it, the Dark Ages Cold Period which preceded it, the Roman WP before that, the Greek Dark Ages CP before that, the Minoan WP before that, the Biblical CP before that, the Egyptian WP before that and the Holocene Climatic Optimum before that. Prior interglacials show the same alternating warm and cold intervals as the Holocene.
And within these centennial-scale secular intervals are ~30-year long countertrend cycles, such as the coolings of c. 1888-1917 and c. 1948-77, preceded and followed by warmings of similar length.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 9:12 pm

Heat is not the only thing that can melt ice. I lived in Denver for several winters, and it was fairly common to see snow on the ground at sundown and have most of it gone by morning. It certainly wasn’t hot at night, or even higher than freezing, but the humidity was low enough to sublime the snow in a few hours.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 9:39 pm

So far I have had plenty of abuse. Still no links to any science, data, measurement or even photos refuting the fact that 90% of all glaciers are melting at an alarming rate over the last 30 years. Some bloke was going on about the Medieval warming period. By the way, globally we went past those global temperatures a while back now. Funnily enough he was referencing the data gathered by hard working climate scientists, woops! Someone on this site that credits climate science, unless he was there at the time. I’ve been told I am lying and yet there are photos on line showing the melting that has occurred even over the last ten years. Explanation please. Before you do just google the photos. Something that is a scientific fact and everyone here can do the experiment. Take an ice cube out of the freezer where the temperature has been constant, then put it on your bench top, this area should be warmer than the freezer. What do you think happens? Anyone what to phone a friend?

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 9:51 pm

You are a very funny guy!
You never posted any evidence whatsoever supporting your false on its face assertion that 90% of glaciers are retreating. You didn’t because you can’t. At best, it’s made up. At worst, it’s a bald faced lie.
Nor can you support your further lie or delusion that we have passed the peak of Medieval WP heat. We have not done so. There has been no 50 year interval during the Current WP warmer than at least three such intervals during the MWP.
You’re spouting utter garbage. If I’m wrong, please show us some actual evidence in support of your baseless assertions. Thanks.

Reply to  Steve
June 25, 2017 11:27 pm

Hey Gabro. Yes I am a funny guy, thanks, check this out
They have been gathering data for the last 120 years. But I suppose they aren’t a reliable. Check out some of the before and after photos on the net, especially some of the huge glaciers in Alaska. Remember ice is melted by heat.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve
June 26, 2017 6:12 am

I can’t speak for current glacial melt nor prove/disprove any significant increase or decrease over the last thirty years versus any other prior thirty year period, but when you talk about current global temperatures versus historic global temperatures, you are comparing data that has extreme resolution (current thermometer measurements) to data that has been compiled from proxies, run through filters and smoothed with far less resolution. There is simply no proxy data available which can produce historic temperatures at a resolution which is identical to that of today’s thermometer measurements. What would today’s measured temperatures look like if smoothed to the same resolution as the historic proxy data?
The climategate e-mails gives us one definite plausible answer — “Hide the decline”

Reply to  Steve
June 26, 2017 6:27 am

Troll posts link to propaganda site and then declares that it has won.
How typical.

Reply to  Steve
June 26, 2017 9:43 am

I am saddened to inform you that you are not a “funny man”: you are a deluded little man whose comments posted here are “funny” (in both meanings of the word) because they are divorced from reality.
The Medieval Warm Period (which used to be called the Medieval Climate Optimum) was certainly world wide. This is clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt by the excellent paper of Soon and Baliunas
(ref. Soon W & Baliunas S, ‘Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years’, Climate Research, vol. 23: 89–110, 2003)
that alarmists have much reviled but never refuted. You can read it here.
That paper is real science so it is probably too technical for your comprehension and I therefore suggest you read this less technical analysis because it will assist you in learning that as Soon & Baliunas report

Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the
warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.


Reply to  Steve
June 26, 2017 9:45 am
Reply to  Steve
June 28, 2017 11:20 pm

The problem Steve is Glacier advance or retreat is not a great indicator of anything. You only need to look at New Zealand and it’s glaciers to see that, so lets give you the article from the published study and it is a pro climate change publication. The advancing glaciers are blamed on local factors over the study period 1983 and 2008 (25 years).
Now the World Glacier Monitoring Service started in 1986 so we are dealing with the same period. They are only showing 90% decreasing so are you seriously saying that the 10% that aren’t decreasing are the only ones that have some local effect going on. So not any of your 90% that are decreasing have local factors those ones are all clear indications of global warming.
Now I am what is probably called a luke warmer and I follow hard sciences and what your data says is you don’t know enough. I need to know numbers that are affected by local factors on both sides please. You are following the same perverted logic Griff does when the squiggly line took a downturn and suddenly the Sea Ice is going to be all gone next year.

Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 5:00 am

encouraging news.

Greg goodman
Reply to  Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 5:07 am

I remember the Roberts episode, he was surprisingly well informed for a politician. Brain Cox who was brought in as the star witness science “expert” really did not know what he was on about and was just spouting what he’d heard on telly and in the media.
Hopelessly ill-prepared. So smug and confident that he could dismiss any “sceptic” arguments without even doing his homework.

Reply to  Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 6:42 am

You are right that Cox had nothing to offer scientifically, but he had Roberts licked regarding debating tactics, interrupting each time he was getting ready to make a major point. The roles were kind of reversed between the ‘scientist’ and the politician.
The great British spy novelist Eric Ambler once commented that some people cultivate a very charming smile only to hide a very unpleasant personality. Watching Cox always reminds me of that comment.

Reply to  Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 7:18 am

Exposing the tactics being used by someone like Cox is key to our breakthrough. This can be done and is being done brilliantly on this site.
It’s always good to identify the tactic as quickly as possible.
Once people recognize these tactics, they can no longer be fooled by puppets like Cox.

Reply to  Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 8:20 am

Here’s one of their favorite tricks – Motte and Bailey. I’ve edited the below:
“Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches at will between a ‘motte’ (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as ‘pollution is bad’) and a ‘bailey’ (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as ‘CO2 is causing global warming’) in order to defend their viewpoint.”

Reply to  Greg goodman
June 25, 2017 5:29 am

I wouldn’t get too excited, the ABC will take the warmest line. The title says it all.
Has ‘denying’ won?

Reply to  Old44
June 25, 2017 7:59 am

Appearing on TV is not science.
[neither is writing snarky drive-by comments -Anthony]

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Old44
June 25, 2017 4:16 pm

Please tell Bill Nye that for me, Mosh.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Old44
June 25, 2017 8:09 pm

Assume your comment applies to warmists as well?

Reply to  Old44
June 25, 2017 8:35 pm

“Appearing on TV is not science.”
Neither is making stuff up.
So please stop doing it.

Reply to  Old44
June 26, 2017 3:01 am

got it the heavily repeated use of “denier” instead of the fairer term Sceptic was a dead giveaway
as was the smarmy smug nauseating tone used by the pro announcers
i did’nt expect any better from the ABC and was’nt disappointed
usual stunt -say theyre offering right of reply or views but crafted to their agenda
next week?
they have the egregious non climate creditworthy naomi o on
dunno if I have strong enough stomach to listen to that crap!

Bryan A
Reply to  Old44
June 26, 2017 12:30 pm

Steven Mosher june 25,2017 at 7:59 am
Appearing on TV is not science

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. (always on TV and as an Astrophysicist is the closest to being a scientist)
David Takayoshi Suzuki, CC OBC is a Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist.
William Sanford Nye, popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science communicator, television presenter, and mechanical engineer.
But all are really Communicators and activists so…
You are correct, Appearing on TV proves nothing

June 25, 2017 5:01 am

It was not an evenly balanced show. The alarmists were not corrected for their constant exaggerations and flat out lies. E.g. They kept calling climate models simulations which is a lie. Every modeler knows they are nothing like simulations, nor can they ever be. The comments made by alarmists on CO2 greening were also dishonest. They ignored the good evidence we know have showing global greening, which can only be due to CO2.

Reply to  mark4asp
June 25, 2017 5:45 am

Sorry. They are simulations.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 6:02 am

But not simulations of this planet’s atmosphere, and therein lies the problem.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 7:13 am

So what is an incomplete simulation called?
No one claims to be simulating the atmosphere and all its aspects. I think of them as computer models and the programs execute a model run with certain initial conditions. It is not a simulation of the ocean and atmosphere. A simulation would be able to produce modeled 18 year pauses and El Ninos.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 8:00 am

Sorry..John they are simulations of the atmosphere.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 8:06 am

The difference between modelling and simulating is that simulations must correctly account for all influences, while modeling can generally make high level assumption and approximations.
For example, when we design silicon chips, we write models in a high level language to approximate the desired behavior. For example, an 64-bit adder is represented as a + b. After the high level design has been synthesized into a low level design where that adder becomes 100’s of individual logic gates, we then simulate these gates and/or transistors to make sure the design is correct and to be more precise about things like how fast the adder can add 2 numbers. Since it costs millions of dollars to make a mask set for a new integrated circuit, it better be right. We use modeling because it has much faster run times and high level ‘what if’ questions can be tested at the expense of being far less precise . We use simulation when we have to know that it’s exactly right.
While simulating the climate is theoretically possible, it’s impractical to account for every last detail in order that the simulation be accurate, or even accurate enough for that matter. You may think a climate model is simulating the climate, but why does every model get a different answer? It may be simulating something like a climate but is definitely not simulating the Earth’s climate.

Shawn from High River
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 8:18 am

Simulations predicated on the assumption that c02 is the main driver of climate.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 10:58 am

Yes Mosher the models simulate a hypothesis and generate imaginary data,

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 11:35 am

Steven Mosher
“Sorry. They are simulations.”
They are computer generated guesswork, crystal ball gazing without a budget.
Spotty oiks with X-Box degrees buggering about with voodoo predictions of the future, presented as credible by ‘scientists’ with a profit motive and an ego problem they should be discussing with their shrink instead of projecting it onto innocent members of the public. Which of course, includes you.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 12:11 pm

“They are simulations.”
They are no better than computer games – in fact, the average computer game is incomparably more accurate a simulator than all the “climate models/simulators/projections/whatever” put together, as I rather think you are well aware.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 12:18 pm

Forrest Gardener : “Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, what ever happened to you?”
It slowly became apparent to him that the AGW cash cow that he’s been milking all these years using his AlGoreithms to Mannipulate the data to match his beloved computer games “climate models” was drying up, and there was likely to be a reckoning coming down the line real soon now.
Seems it’s done his head in.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 12:21 pm

They are question-begging, GIGO lies.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 12:51 pm

1) Shawn from High River said:

Simulations predicated on the assumption that c02 is the main driver of climate.

Yes indeed. A model with an unproven assumption can’t be a simulation. A simulation must attempt to truly reproduce behaviour. Simulators should first discover which assumptions are valid. There’s never been a proper discussion of the legitimacy of climate model assumptions. It’s a issue alarmists bypass, even accusing everyone who would open the discussion a ‘denier‘. Another way may be to take different assumptions and run models to see what happens. Climate models all have the same core assumption. CO2 is guilty without a trial.
2) RobRoy said:

To be a simulation, the thing must have FIDELITY.

3) co2isnotevil said:

The difference between modelling and simulating is that simulations must correctly account for all influences, while modeling can generally make high level assumption and approximations.

I’ll add to those 3 good points above:

Simulations should not use parameterizations, especially when the parameterization is derived from assumptions. Clouds …

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 12:54 pm

‘simulations’ that don’t even include the PDO and AMO oceanic cycles in their logic, nor the complete effects of cloud cover. Some simulation, eh??

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 1:15 pm

Of an imaginary world.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 1:26 pm

Simulations of Planet GIGO, not Earth.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 1:45 pm

Sorry. They are simulations.

The BBC could make a good headline of that: “Steven Mosher apologises for the climate models!” (Well, somebody ought to).

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 2:17 pm

Osher writes

Sorry. They are simulations.

When they’re known to have the wrong surface temperature (as an example of one of many deficiencies) what exactly are they a simulation of, Steve?

richard verney
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 3:11 pm

Sorry. They are simulations.

If climate models were simulations, their output would be predictions, but as the IPCC well knows, model outputs are not considered as predictions, but only projections. It follows from this fact alone, that models cannot possibly be simulators.
The proof that climate models are not simulators is found in the number of models being used. if they were simulators there would only be one model in use, or at most three models covering the three different scenarios for future CO2 emissions, viz: BAU, cut back of CO2, no further CO2 emissions.
As we know there are some 102 (or more) Climate models, not one agrees with any other, and we therefore know as fact that at least 101 of these 102 models must be wrong. In fact since not one of the 102 climate models accurately tracks observational data, we know as fact that all of the models are wrong. Any model that cannot model observational data is not a simulator.
Compare a flight simulator. What use would these be in the training pilots (or aeronautical design) if they were only a projection of how a plane would behave. Thank god, that flight simulators can predict flight
There is no point in being disingenuous. All models are rubbish, and a complete waste of time and money.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 3:34 pm

Sorry, they are not,at least not of earths climate system.
They are, at best , a highschoolers attempt to explain nuclear fission using cardboard cutouts.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 3:35 pm

“Steven Mosher June 25, 2017 at 8:00 am
Sorry..John they are simulations of the atmosphere.””
Steven, would you be so kind as to post a link to which of these simulations states that it includes all of the known attributes and forcings of the planet’s climate and applies them correctly? All the ones I’ve seen have some statement regarding their incompleteness regarding its ability to accurately “simulate” the Earth’s atmosphere.

Stuart McLachlan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 3:59 pm

For once I agree with Mosher. They are indeed a simulation. As in:
Merriam Webster:
2 : a sham object : counterfeit
Oxford English Dictionary:
1.1 The action of pretending; deception.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 6:05 pm

No you are the simulation. I suggest you lay off the C2H5OH imbibing, and get real..

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 8:38 pm

Steven Mosher,
I shall give this response every attention to detail and evidence it deserves, given the obvious amount of same that you have given to your comment:
Sorry, right back atcha now. No they are not.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Nice one, Stuart.

South River Independent
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 11:01 pm

The map is not the territory and the model is not the system.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 25, 2017 11:04 pm

Mosher, let’s look at a dictionary definition of simulation.
“the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.”
The money words here are
“… representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system…”
As none of the climate model systems represent the real behavior or characteristics of the observed climate system, then their output are not simulations. None of them represent the behavior of characteristics of the observed climate so they are guesses, diverging climate model outputs, useless model outputs not correlated or physically related to the observed climate, or just time series of numbers unrelated to real/observed climate.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2017 7:35 am

GCMs are not real models, no matter what they are called.
Models have to be based on great knowledge of the process being modeled.
There is no great knowledge of the physics of climate change.
The GCMs are nothing more than the personal opinions of the people who developed them
Real models can make accurate, or reasonably accurate, predictions.
GCMs produce grossly inaccurate predictions (projections, simulations,
piles of steaming farm animal excrement — whatever you want to call the output)
The poor predictions are evidence the GCMs are not real models.
Climate dim wits like SteveMasher love the models because they “predict” the future.
And the future they “predict” is runaway global warming that will end all life on Earth.
Climate dim wits LOVE a scary story.
They like to hear it again and again
And they don’t care if there is absolutely no evidence that anything unusual has happened to our climate since the ramp up of man made CO2 after 1940.
In fact, the change in average temperature in the first half of the 20th century was very similar to the change in average temperature in the second half of the 20th century.
Yet the climate dim wits claim the warming in the first half was “natural”,
but the very similar warming in the second half was caused by man made CO2 !
To be a climate dim wit you merely have to claim that 4.5 billion years of climate change ended in 1940 and suddenly, with no explanation of how or why, natural climate changes stopped and man made CO2 took over as the “climate controller.
(A) is a summary of what climate dim wits believe.
And (A) is what SteveMasher believes.
My climate blog for non-scientists:
Free. No ads. No money for me.
A public service.
Almost 11,000 page views so far
Please stay away Mr. Masher
We prefer you to remain a leftist parrot on climate change,
to entertain us!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2017 6:10 pm

Damn, whatever Climate Crisis Inc. is paying Mosher, it isn’t enough.
A few drive by single sentence comments, and he derails the whole thread. Hell, he probably hasn’t even been back since he made them. We all know he runs interference for the Faithful on at least a dozen Skeptical and Lukewarmer sites. Gotta be economical with your time to troll that many sites at the same time. Can’t get bogged down actually debating anyone or providing facts that can be proven false.
Very impressive, really. Mosher is one of the best. A true Trolls Troll. ^¿^

Reply to  mark4asp
June 25, 2017 5:55 am

Really? I would think simulations is an ok term. They are simulations within the constraints of the models used. You can have nearly perfect simulations for simple models and simulations that are absolute crap when the model is missing important details.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  billw1984
June 25, 2017 10:35 am

What would happen if every flight simulator for training pilots reacted differently than the others and the altitude of the simulated aircraft at ‘touch down’ was different every time? They would be useless for the intended purpose and might even cause harm if the student pilots expected a real plane to act similarly.
A model may be anything from a crude approximation to a realistic simulation. The effort and expense expended to create a model should be dictated by the intended application. Remember the remark, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” The purpose for which a model is created, and the ability to produce results that meet the need for that purpose determine the utility.
Mosher’s remark not withstanding, all simulations are models, but not all models are simulations.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  billw1984
June 25, 2017 5:14 pm

They are simulations the way fish cakes are fish! They float upward likewise. And there is something fishy about them, for sure.

Reply to  mark4asp
June 25, 2017 8:41 am

To be a simulation, the thing must have FIDELITY.
Meaning: it should match the characteristics of that which is being simulated.
We see many graphs here that show climate models lack fidelity; hence these models are not simulations.

Gunga Din
Reply to  RobRoy
June 25, 2017 12:06 pm

[fi-del-i-tee, fahy-]
noun, plural fidelities.
strict observance of promises, duties, etc.:
a servant’s fidelity.
fidelity to one’s country.
conjugal faithfulness.
adherence to fact or detail.
accuracy; exactness:
The speech was transcribed with great fidelity.
Audio, Video. the degree of accuracy with which sound or images are recorded or reproduced.

The closest climate models come to “fidelity” is #2, loyalty to “the cause”.
A flight training simulator with the same fidelity as climate models (defs 4,5 and even 6) would be very costly in lives and money once those trainees tried to fly the real thing.

Reply to  RobRoy
June 25, 2017 2:31 pm

None of the climate models have been subjected to any form of test and evaluation or verification and validation. Visit the FAA or FDA web site if you are interested in understanding just what these terms mean and the work that goes into these processes. I find the idea of making decisions about our future based on the existing climate models to be preposterous.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  RobRoy
June 25, 2017 4:42 pm

GD, they should have phrased it
fidelity to one’s country or religious beliefs.

Reply to  RobRoy
June 25, 2017 4:46 pm

by Beat Schwendimann:
The terms simulation and model are often used synonymously. However, I suggest the following distinction:
A model is a product (physical or digital) that represents a system of interest. A model is similar to but simpler than the system it represents, while approximating most of the same salient features of the real system as close as possible. A good model is a judicious tradeoff between realism and simplicity. A key feature of a model is manipulability. A model can be a physical model (for example a physical architectural house scale model, a model aircraft, a fashion mannequin, or a model organism in biology research); or a conceptual model (for example a computer model, a statistical or mathematical model, a business model.
Modeling is the act of building a model.
A simulation is the process of using a model to study the behavior and performance of an actual or theoretical system. In a simulation, models can be used to study existing or proposed characteristics of a system. The purpose of a simulation is to study the characteristics of a real-life or fictional system by manipulating variables that cannot be controlled in a real system. Simulations allow evaluating a model to optimize system performance or to make predictions about a real system. Simulations are useful to study properties of a model of a real-life system that would otherwise be too complex, too large/small, too fast/slow, not accessible, too dangerous or unacceptable to engage. While a model aims to be true to the system it represents, a simulation can use a model to explore states that would not be possible in the original system.
Simulating is the act of using a model for a simulation.
-Maria, A. (1997). Introduction to modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the 29th conference on winter simulation.

Roger Knights
Reply to  mark4asp
June 25, 2017 1:58 pm

“It was not an evenly balanced show. The alarmists were not corrected for their constant exaggerations and flat out lies.”
JC will surely be posting a thread on this topic. I suggest that someone collect the alarmists’ objectionable statements in a numbered list and post them near the top of that thread.

June 25, 2017 5:04 am

If the ABC gave climate sceptics any chance of provoking their views at all, it can only be an accident. They are serial offenders now despite a legislated responsibility to be even handed.

michael hart
Reply to  Quilter52
June 25, 2017 7:39 am

Somebody will probably lose any chance of promotion, if not their job, as a result of allowing dissenting views to expressed by honest people who actually understand the issues.

Reply to  Quilter52
June 25, 2017 11:42 am

It’s called ‘hedging your bets’.
In other words, the ABC is beginning to wobble on the subject and must have a fall back when it all goes tits up.

Reply to  HotScot
June 25, 2017 12:24 pm

“It’s called ‘hedging your bets’.”
Precisely so, HotScot.
Going by the exponentially increasing number of papers being published by such unlikely individuals as Mann and Santer concerning the reality of the pause, the inefficiency of the “models” and the apparently beneficial effects of both the increased CO2 and temperature, it seems to me that there’s a lot of it about!

Reply to  HotScot
June 25, 2017 3:00 pm

My tellingbone tells me sir, the electrickery is failing.
The wurm is turning.

June 25, 2017 5:08 am

The problem for the ABC and other mainstream media organisations is their credibility is lost. I, for one, have moved on. When I tune into the ABC I do so in the spirit of enquiry, to get a snapshot of left positioning. Old brands are diminishing, and soon enough the greater part of the ABC will be dismantled.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Mark
June 25, 2017 5:38 am

Mark, I do the same thing with CNN – look into the designer-brained ‘thinking’ of the new left. It’s exasperating to not be able to confront the formulated style and encapsulated positions they take. Trump has them dead right – purveyors of fake news and totally partisan politics. The ignorance, hubris and information-free reporting makes one ask about the First Amendment (re freedom of the press) , freedom to do what?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 7:26 am

I’ve stopped listening to CBC radio in Canada more than ten years ago. The rare times when I do catch segments of it invariably reinforce the reason I gave up on them. I spent years providing them with well researched truth on a variety of subjects and they continued to thank me for my feedback and then repeated the lies.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 8:29 am

Yeah, like ‘progressives’… progressing towards what, exactly?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 8:43 am

I do the same with the CBC. Morbid fascination to find out what silly claims will be made today.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 10:38 am

When does the Fourth Estate become a Fifth Column”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 5:04 pm

Clyde Spencer: Trump himself calls them the opposition. When 97% of the journalists in CNN and the other lefty newsies voted for Hillary Clinton, it’s hard to see how objective journalism can come out of these designer-brained 24hr talking heads.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 5:27 pm

The media motto is to make the comfortable “uncomfortable”. In free press countries, the media have themselves become “comfortable”.They can’t see that they are a part of a failing paradigm. Life is easy, information is free and no one is afraid forthe future because they don’t think about it!

Reply to  Mark
June 25, 2017 5:38 am

Spot on Mark.
Australia’s ABC is LEFT to a sad and sickening extent.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  Mark
June 25, 2017 3:03 pm

If you want to see what comes next, the following report lifts the skirts
of the greens’ thinking about their political future as they devise the
next round of projects for mass media and public consumption:
The report is chock full of climate disaster assumptions, not building
a response to the “denied” science but basing political activity and
salesmanship on the utility of building a green utopia using taxes and
other incentives to create a “just transition” from our current economy.
They want to turn the steel, auto, oil field and construction workers
into a big band of apostles for their forms of climate change action.
It looks like they’ll never give up trying to slip us sideways into
socialism no matter how the broad or deep the debate on what was
loudly declared “undebatable/undeniable” science turns out.
Climate science “activism” is obviously a socialist wolf in sheep’s
It’s going to be tough for folks like Dr. Curry to use actual science
to dodge a political curveball.

June 25, 2017 5:14 am

I would love to see something like this on “60 Minutes”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Wharfplank
June 25, 2017 5:48 am

Wharf, 60 minutes is corrupted too. The biggest boondoggle of our times IS CAGW! They used to be great. Like wiki, it’s good on certain topics but don’t look for the big swamp issues to get an airing. They are behaving themselves in the ‘correct’ places. Go to Mark Steyn if you want the progressives’ taboo stuff to be criticized.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 8:15 am

Well, they did one right thing (and were heavily criticized for it): Three and a half years ago, on Jan. 5, 20014, Lesley Stahl hosted, on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, an episode called “The Cleantech Bust.” Its subtitle was “Despite billions invested by the U.S. government in so-called “Cleantech” energy, Washington and Silicon Valley have little to show for it.”
Its transcript is at 

Mick In The Hills
June 25, 2017 5:32 am

The ABC will now claim this backwoods programme demonstrates their “balance”.
Which will now entitle them to run Al Gore’s new movie in prime time on all channels.
Leopards, spots etc.

Reply to  Mick In The Hills
June 25, 2017 10:53 am

The CleanTech piece has been removed, and the headlines are All Anti Trump and disasters of one sort or another..

Reply to  Maxx
June 25, 2017 2:34 pm

Maxx – It works if you remove the extra slash !

June 25, 2017 5:46 am

It is a start; but it is too little too late. The media in all the Western countries have lied and spread propaganda for years and years. Trillions have been wasted and good people have been destroyed. What they did to Curry herself is a deep black mark against “science” and the media.
And why has this delusion keep going forward? The issue is about the left-wing being able to discredit western industrialized societies and move in a stealthy way towards the totalitarian socialism that they think is mankind’s future.
There is definitely an “atmospheric effect” but it has darn little to do with CO2. It is maddening to be so close to the end that I know I can not live to see the end of this delusion. Even many of my luke-warmer friends think a doubling of CO2 would have some warming effect. Darn, darn, darn — the alarmists propaganda has been effective.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  markstoval
June 25, 2017 5:56 am

Mark, eat your broccoli and do your exercises! I’m determined to see this one through. It could fall apart quicker than you think in a cascade of baling wire and chewing gum.

Reply to  markstoval
June 25, 2017 10:24 am

Mark, we may be a lot closer to the end of this mass hysteria than you think. A mass hysteria can fall apart fast. A few bad winters might be all it takes.
Is this global warming thingee really that much different than a bubble in the stock market? When a stock market bubble collapses it happens almost overnight. Different context but same human nature. A few bad winters, a few influential people realize they were taken in, and then suddenly there is a waterfall of doubt and defections.

Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 10:41 am

Please forgive me, but I’d like to expand upon my remarks above how the global warming thingee could collapse quickly. Remember the story of the Enron Corporation? At one point by market capitalization they were the fifth biggest stock on the New York Stock Exchange. One of the big five accounting companies (Arthur Anderson) vouched for their fiscal soundness. You couldn’t watch a financial program on television without hearing some financial expert advise you to buy Enron stock. The officers of the company were friends with the governor of Texas and with the President of the United States. They generously gave contributions to politicians and to charities. Then suddenly the public realized the company was mostly smoke and mirrors. It was just a small pipeline company and a lot of funny numbers. The stock price collapsed, the company went bankrupt. and all the wise financial gurus in the news media shut up about it.

Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 11:37 am

I think you are right that when the end comes, it will come fast. I can see your point and I agree with it.
I just hope the unraveling comes soon as my doctors say I don’t have a many years left to watch. But you have given me some hope that I might see the end of this delusion. Thanks for that. 🙂

Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 4:00 pm

All it will take is a relatively few years of unmistakable cooling, which could come about more or less overnight. It fact, it may have already started…hard to know at the beginning.
How many years that are a return to conditions of the 1970s would it take to destroy the myth that we are on a one way trip to warmer?
One, two or three could well do it.
Five at the most.
But even one or two would conclusively demonstrate that natural variation is far larger than any possible CO2 “forcing”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 5:16 pm

Gee Markstoval, I apologize for my insensitive remark about eating your broccoli to hang on and see the end of this CAGW rippoff. I’m in my 80th yr after this fall and I thought you were referring to great age. I’ve valued your longtime poignant contributions to the battle and I do believe it’s on the ropes. Even Santer and Mikey are accepting the Pause. They are weighing their chances of trying to keep a hook in the gravy trough in a Trumpian era.

Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 5:23 pm

Menicholas June 25, 2017 at 4:00 pm
It will take a lot of real cooling for any to show up in the Warmunistas’ cooked “surface” books. But the satellites and balloons will be hard to shut up, although RSS’ recent joining the charlatan charade parade is worrisome.

Reply to  Marty
June 25, 2017 5:45 pm

Menicholas writes

All it will take is a relatively few years of unmistakable cooling, which could come about more or less overnight. It fact, it may have already started…hard to know at the beginning.

Its already happened. Scientists are smart people on the whole and when they hear “CO2 caused the increases as CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas” they can extrapolate the rest without too much thought and assume its correct due to “consensus”.
When confronted with the hiatus and the climate scientists saying “Natural variability is causing the hiatus, we cant put our finger on why, exactly, but CO2 based warming is expected to resume” then the smarter of the scientists will be taken aback by that and some of them will get back on the fence and others will even take the time to look into the sceptic’s arguments.
One thing’s for sure, if they cant ACTUALLY explain the hiatus, then their argument for “most” of the warming being caused by CO2 goes out the window. Doubly so when the models cant replicate the length of hiatus when forced by the CO2.

Reply to  Marty
June 27, 2017 8:08 am

To Marty (June 25 at 10:24am)
I hope that you are right, and I like your optimism,
but believe that you are wrong about almost everything you wrote.
Don’t you love the internet?
Someone on another website called me a “Debby Downer”,
but I like to call myself a realist — I’m too old to be optimistic
about everything !
A stock market bubble does not collapse “almost overnight”, as you wrote.
The end of a bull market is a process that can take years.
I believe the current bull market started deteriorating after the 2015 high.
I had been bullish since March 2009, until becoming neutral in Spring 2016.
I expect to turn bearish this year … or next.
For example, right now almost 40% of S&P 500 stocks are priced below their 200-day moving average.
That deterioration is invisible to most investors.
They see market averages dominated by large capitalization stocks making new highs
… while in reality market internals are deteriorating.
More and more stocks are not keeping up with the mega-cap “leaders”
that almost everyone watches.
Concerning the alleged coming global warming disaster …
the actual warming so far is too small to be felt almost everywhere on Earth
and the climate catastrophe is always coming in the future.
How can anyone refute an “invisible” catastrophe allegedly coming after we all die?
“A few bad winters” will turn the tide, you say.
I believe a few cold YEARS in a row could change some beliefs
… but leftist government bureaucrat scientists own the temperature
actuals (historical data).
They have already been doing a lot of “adjustin'” and “infillin” since 2000.
They have already doubled the total warming since 1880
(that they had previously reported, as of 2000 … in spite of the fact
there has been a relatively flat average temperature trend since then)
There can only be global cooling if the government bureaucrats allow THEIR data to show cooling.
If there were a few cold years, and bureaucrats allowed the riff-raff (the general public) to know that, they would then claim a few cold years is part of any long-term global warming trend.

Samuel C Cogar
June 25, 2017 5:51 am

Quoting Eric Worrall

This latest crack in the facade of solid media support for “settled science” will be noticed by Australia’s climate community.

Hopefully ……. it will also be noticed by a few climate communities in the US and Europe, as well as academic institutions and a few Publishers/Editors of the MSM.
But no matter what, one should still expect a massive verbal attack by partisan “warminists” to quickly “patch” the aforenoted crack before it widens any further.

A C Osborn
June 25, 2017 5:52 am

This has to be considered a “success” due to tyhem just getting that much air time.
You could see that the presenter had been suitably primed with comebacks, but Doctor Curry is well used to those.
Some sort of tipping point does seem to have been reached with so many sceptic Research papers being printed, politicians coming out against CAGW and Renewables.
Let’s hope it is the start of the end.

June 25, 2017 6:01 am

“The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics.”
To begin, someone should have challenged that opening statement.
“The science” being “rejected” is not whether we’ve been warming, or whether atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising, or whether the sea level is rising, or a number of “climate related” issues.
The primary “science” being rejected is the certainty of the amount of warming human CO2 emissions may be having on the atmosphere, and regarding that, there is no “150 years old and growing each day” conclusion.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 25, 2017 8:57 am

Glad you went through the exercise to point that out. The false AGW narrative is built on thousand seemingly trivial lies just like the opening statement pregnant with advocacy and presumption.
Picking on globalist, Greenshirt propaganda is low hanging fruit and only half the intellectual tragedy of course. Dr. Curry’s revisionist accounting of her transformation and lack of political identification of the AGW movement is as telling of our times and the greater debate failure as anything else. She turned in 2009? Certainly not publicly on her website and clearly the most hair splitting luke warmism allowing even more political cover for the entire malevolent AGW agenda. Sorry, choose your heroes wisely. Dr. Lindzen is the face of actual skeptical dissent and if you want to the Whittaker Chambers conversion award you should own up to what you actually said and advocated for. It remains relevant the central planning agenda of the “precautionary principle” of Curry/Lomborg was/is exactly the pandering appeasement to Greenshirt fanaticism that brought us down this dark road. So whose white wash on the ABC program is truly more offensive and counter productive to the AGW political fraud corrective movement?

Reply to  cwon14
June 27, 2017 8:22 am

To Cwon14 (June 25 at 8:57am)
“The false AGW narrative is built on thousand seemingly trivial lies
just like the opening statement pregnant with advocacy and presumption.”
I disagree.
The false AGW narrative is built on a few HUGE lies:
(1) Humans can predict the future climate
(comical after 30 years of wrong computer game predictions!,
(2) Natural climate change suddenly stopped in 1940,
(3) Man made CO2 became the “climate controller” in 1940, and
(4) The 1910 to 1940 warming was natural warming,
while the very similar 1975 to 2000 warming was man made CO2-caused warming
A reasonable and logical person would look at (1) through (4)
and think only idiots would believe all that …
but if you think of CAGW as a secular religion,
you’ll realize that predicting a catastrophe in the future,
is a centuries old strategy used by religious and political leaders,
to control people and tell them what to do / how to live.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 25, 2017 1:52 pm

“The primary “science” being rejected is the certainty of the amount of warming human CO2 emissions may be having on the atmosphere, and regarding that, there is no “150 years old and growing each day” conclusion.”
And it’s this strategy that’s led to the alarmists confusing the public for decades now. It isn’t science in any way, but it’s remarkable how many people fall for it.
It really is a case of who yells the loudest; no rational thought behind it at all. For a very long time I thought people were just being kept ignorant of the facts, and that if the facts were explained clearly, they’d see how they’d been fooled. No such luck.
People are tribal animals, they aren’t good at thinking independently.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 25, 2017 4:45 pm

“The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics.”
JohnWho: “To begin, someone should have challenged that opening statement.”
I agree. They are essentially saying that the laboratory experiment that established the CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect way back when, means that this effect is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to get hotter than it would without the increased CO2.
One effect does not necessarily follow the other, but they are saying they do follow one another. Sorry, there is no evidence that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to get hotter. It’s pure speculation. Claiming it is confirmed is just wrong.

Reply to  TA
June 25, 2017 5:55 pm

Earth has already showed us that more CO2 doesn’t in fact warm the planet.
Arrhenius and Callendar thought that it was doing so in the first half of the 20th century and would do so more in future, but the cooling of the ’40s to ’70s showed their hope for beneficial AGW false. That cold interval occurred under rising CO2, as did the 20 years of flat GASTA during the so-called “hiatus”.
The CACA hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, in both senses of the term. The 1.2 degrees C per doubling found in at least some labs simply doesn’t show up in the real, complex climate system, let alone IPCC’s fanciful 4.5 degrees C. The reason might be negative feedbacks or that the lab results are simply wrong.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  JohnWho
June 25, 2017 5:38 pm

It’s been warming for 200 years or more which by itself puts the lie to the anthropogenic aspect of the claim at least as regards CO2.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 27, 2017 8:24 am

It’s been warming for 20,000 years.
And cooling for billions of years.
Pick a different start and end point and you change the trend !

June 29, 2017 4:49 pm

“It’s been warming for 20,000 years.”
no, it clearly has not.
typing this kind of stuff just reveals
the worthlessness of your argument.
please do better.

June 25, 2017 6:23 am

Having listened to this episode of the podcast, it makes no attempt to address the ongoing bias of the ABC in regard to Climate Change. Every assertion made by the so called deniers was given the right of reply by Andy Pittman who is modeler and part of the IPCC machine with no further opportunity for reply by the original speaker. He spouted typical alarmist rhetoric including assertions that average temperatures would rise by up to 4 C with extremes of up to 10. No mention that we had only seen 0.3 in the last 30 years. No acceptance of tuning through adopting high sensitivities in models.
I used to be an avid listener of the Science Show when it dealt with a range of scientific issues but now it rarely deals with anything without dragging climate alarmism into it. Hard science, engineering and astronomy are rarely covered. I discontinued it about 2 years ago after another nauseatingly biased episode dealing with the death of the barrier reef (yet again). Nothing in this episode has made me want to change that decision. The Science Show is not on my list of regular Podcasts and will not be back there again until Robin Williams has resigned. Robin should go an learn from Dr. Norman Swan who runs the Health Report. He is brilliant. Well researched, does not suffer fools, conducts probing and perceptive interviews and above all does not introduce his own biases into the show.

Reply to  EOSWA
June 25, 2017 9:19 pm

I agree with EOSWA
I generally don’t listen to ABC Science Show any more because of Robin Williams clear bias but i was in my parked car when they announced how they would hear from five prominent scientific skeptics so I listened to the whole one hour long radio program.
For those who think this was an accommodation to skeptics by warmists I say I regret not/
This was a put -up- job designed to hold the skeptics up to ridicule with dismissive commentary following each skeptics remarks, while allowing the ABC to claim an even handed approach
The worst of those commentaries were made by Dr Andy Pitman a contributor to the IPCC
Pitman was allowed to get away unchallenged with frequent comments that 4c warming would occur and that the models were not tuned because they had embedded in them fundamental physics reliant on Newtonian principles
These comments artfully dodged several key issues
1 The relationship between temperature and CO2 was not examined or explained
For example a reasonable query is If it requires a doubling of Co2 to raise temperature by a degree or so how does Dr Pitman arrive at 4 c of warming by end of the century which would require several doublings
If there is an answer not including several doublings of CO2 then it must lie in the scale of the feedback effects which however do not seem as high as are implicit or assumed in the IPCC models
Another key question avoided is If the models incorporate laws of physics as claimed, then how does Pitman explain the huge and growing gaps between model projections and actual atmospheric temperatures observed by weather balloons and two sets of satellites as reported in Prof John Christy’s presentation to the US Senate committee ?
Sorry Folks but the impression I think the non science listener was meant to leave with was that the prominent skeptics were sadly but obstinately wrong

Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 6:23 am

Trump gets full marks for this one. If Hillary had been elected the disease would have deepened. Now both the rogues gallery of insider scientists and the media are trying to figure out where the parade is going and how to get in front of it.
They see that in America the progressives are ensuring they are out of the ruling class for a generation or two if they can’t get over their righteous indignation at losing and remake themselves. I think the present lot have to retire or die off before this can happen.
Just promise me there will be no amnesty for the dishonest scientist-enablers and the elitist pollies who wreaked such ruin on the world economy, education of children, foreclosure of opportunity through massive destruction of wealth and death and despair of the poor of this world. Repairs will cost as much as the malfeasance itself.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 25, 2017 9:09 am

Full marks require exiting the entire UN Climate protocol, hiring actual scientists to denounce the globalist/socialist corruption as policy not talking about “deals”.
Some progress yes with Trump but the rotting green disease remains well incubated in the untouched academic cartel and subside fraud thrives. He backed ethanol fraud as well, the text book of green and crony energy convergence.
Far from full marks. A higher expectation skepticism is required and likely for another generation to be wasted on this contrived agenda.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  cwon14
June 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Well, at least we don’t have Hillary’s list of things needed.

June 25, 2017 6:53 am

Yeah, until news organisations interview scientists that dispute the existence of the Greenhouse Effect itself, this gravy train will continue to keep puffing along.
It’s also about time that WUWT writers swallowed their egos and accepted the truth on this matter. Heat is not the same thing as energy and in the absence of other forces acting on a system it only flows from hot to cold.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 25, 2017 8:28 am

That heat flows from hot stars to cold intergalactic space is not disputed by anyone. The mere temperature distribution is.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Hugs
June 25, 2017 3:47 pm

Hugs, I think you may not be getting it. Or, you may be meaning it is the distribution that is being squabbled about. Fair enough! Heat is a process that only exists while it is happening. Radiation is not heat. Temperature is a human construct to measure instantaneous heat flow as work is performed. Molecules vibrating at a certain rate (kinetic energy) contact and speed up molecules vibrating at lesser rates until they are equal in velocity. Heat then ceases there in that system.
Radiation flows, heat may or may not result from what relatively small amount of work it might do.on striking matter. Space itself cannot be ‘heated’, not being matter, hence no vibrating molecules and so on.
Happy yachting, from NZ.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Hugs
June 25, 2017 3:52 pm

Electrical Circuit Analogy;
You cannot explain fully the workings of a circuit subject to an a.c. input by means of only d.c. equations and diagrams. You may be able to explain some aspects of some elements of the circuit with d.c. equations.
Ohms law is a good starting point, as is -g/Cp.

Reply to  Hugs
June 26, 2017 7:05 am

Radiation from a cooler object cannot heat a warmer object unless you perform work on the system. Nothing in the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis shows any work being performed, only heat being transferred by radiative means. All the text books on the subject show the cooler atmosphere adding heat to the warmer surface. Authors on WUWT have also done “thought experiments” with “steel greenhouses” that are devoid of all rational thinking and claim the same phenomena.
So they are WRONG. Cold objects don’t spontaneously increase the temperature of warmer objects. The atmosphere doesn’t increase the temperature of the surface.

Reply to  Hugs
June 26, 2017 7:05 am

Radiation from a cooler object cannot heat a warmer object unless you perform work on the system. Nothing in the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis shows any work being performed, only heat being transferred by radiative means. All the text books on the subject show the cooler atmosphere adding heat to the warmer surface. Authors on WUWT have also done “thought experiments” with “steel greenhouses” that are devoid of all rational thinking and claim the same phenomena.
So they are WRONG. Cold objects don’t spontaneously increase the temperature of warmer objects. The atmosphere doesn’t increase the temperature of the surface.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 26, 2017 11:48 am

It is important to look at differences in evolving temperatures, as opposed to arguing from absolutes. I’m not defending it, but the argument goes that more GHG in the atmosphere “blocks” outgoing infrared radiation. Photons are (in effect) parcels of energy, and more absorption (“blocking”) within the atmosphere means the total energy within the atmosphere will increase. This must be evident in some meaningful measure, a rise in temperature aloft is predicted. Note – change of temperature. As such, the atmosphere is expected to radiate more, increasing the flux of infrared photons coming back to the surface.
A delta-Temp at the surface is proposed to arise from a delta-T within the atmosphere. No work necessary. And no requirement that absolute temperature aloft is greater than the surface.
The idea is plausible, and lots of people have allowed themselves to be totally convinced by it. Except the many measurements and observations we have confirm it is wrong.

Reply to  Jordan
June 28, 2017 1:07 am

Absolute poppycock. Photons are mathematical constructs born out of an inability to decide whether light was moving objects or a wave motion through objects. Regardless of how you view them, they do not get “sent back” anywhere in the form of HEAT.
You CANNOT increase the radiative flux of anything using its own naturally recycled energy! Show me the device humans have engineered to make use of this magical ability and I will show you a way to solve the world’s energy needs from now to infinity!
Stand inside a glacier. Allow your photons leaving your body to be absorbed by it. Wait for the glacier to send some of them back to you to increase your radiative flux and warm you up!!

I Came I Saw I Left
June 25, 2017 6:53 am

Establishment journalism has become a professional guild of liars and character assassins. Is there any more worthless profession?

John G
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 25, 2017 11:14 am

Establishment politicians.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 25, 2017 4:58 pm

Question: How can you tell the difference between a journalist and road-kill?
Answer: There are no skid marks in front of the journalist.

June 25, 2017 7:03 am

I left this comment in reply to david, who was trying to prove AGW is caused 100% by humans, by proving that humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere. Don’t know that it will ever show up. 🙂
“This is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, that carbon burnt by humans is the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”
All you’ve shown (assuming no flaws in the hypothesis that turn out not to be true in the future) is that man has added CO2 to the atmosphere. This is NOT the same thing as proving that this man-added CO2 is 100%, 60%, or any other percentage, responsible for a given rise in temperature, which is what Nick L was addressing.
Correlation does not equal causation. This simple statement of logic USED to be used by everyone with a scientific bent, but more and more sciency disciplines are ignoring it in their “studies.” Correlation means that maybe there’s something that should be investigated and proven or disproven with hard facts.
Models aren’t hard facts. Statements asserting that something is a hard fact isn’t a hard fact. Asserting that something must be true because you don’t have an alternative answer doesn’t make something a hard fact.
Even algorithms designed to calculate a “global temperature” don’t yield a hard fact… they yield a calculation, which is only as good as the numbers going in, and the assumptions that the calculation makes (how to spread temperatures into grids without actual measurements.) If the spreading function is bullpucky, and I suspect it is, then values going up may be simple happenstance on a given set of data. If temperature distribution changes over time, the spreading could lower the “global temperature” calculation even if the total heat content of the earth actually INCREASED (not that we’d have any way to know that, just stipulating the ability to know absolute fact from a Godlike perspective to make the point.)
All said, there is a LOT that is not known and proven with anything approaching the level of scientific robustness that we normally expect of science. Certainly not to the level to expect everyone to nod their heads in agreement and impoverish themselves, their nation, and their children.

Steve Case
Reply to  kcrucible
June 25, 2017 7:17 am

kcrucible at 7:03 am
On top of all that is the fact that original data has been subject to various modifications and those modifications seem to follow a pattern, which is another something that should be investigated.

Roger Knights
Reply to  kcrucible
June 25, 2017 8:25 am

“I left this comment in reply to david, who was trying to prove AGW is caused 100% by humans,”
Huh? There’s no David commenting in this thread. Was this comment meant for some other thread (or site, like JC’s)?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 25, 2017 1:36 pm

He may be referring to the “David” in the comments section of the link in the post.
I didn’t see it there so maybe that’s why he repeated it here?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 7:25 am

Perhaps what is needed in theUK is a public letter from climate realist and honest scientists overtly criticising the BBC for a deliberate and sustained breach of its charter responsibilities to allow even handed presentation of the sceptic position on a matter where the science is far from settled despite the calculated misrepresentation of this by its reporters, presenters and so called science correspondents. This could include reference to the one-sided secret meeting with extremist green activists and the continued refusal to give sceptics any opportunity in more than 20 years to present their position without constant interruption and abuse.
Such a letter should be sent to major newspapers, sending any complaint to the BBC is a complete waste of time since it would not be treated properly.
A public complaint about the BBC’ s behaviour should also make it clear that the BBC senior management is absolutely complicit in this corruption of its charter responsibilities and as a direct consequence the corporation has had a significant and harmful impact on the allocation of national resources into wasteful and unnecessary areas at a time of need in education and health, constituting nothing less than gross misconduct by its most senior executives.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 7:36 am

This is precisely what is needed in Canada as well for precisely thew same reasons. An open letter to CBC is long overdue.

Reply to  Sommer
June 25, 2017 4:21 pm

Global TV in Canada is no better, maybe worse than CBC at times. The Global Commentary on Global Warming is deep and presumably pushed by their owner.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Sommer
June 25, 2017 5:52 pm

There are quite a number of highly competent scientists in Canada who could sign such a letter. It should be done in every Western country. It should be direct, accusatory and fairly precise in pointing out the uneven nature of the coverage. Finally, the letter should demand equal treatment as a valid scientific interpretation of the facts.

michael hart
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 8:14 am

Largely a wasted effort, and they know their careers may end if they did so. Most major newspapers would not publish such a letter anymore than the BBC would. It would require editorial decisions, probably above the responsibility of the most senior editorial staff. Funding cuts,bankruptcy, and threat of job loses is the only thing that might slow the good media-ship Global Warming as she heads towards the rocks.

Reply to  michael hart
June 25, 2017 10:57 am

It would have to be a Paid -for , letter, buying time above the fold, so to speak. It that were refused, there would be issue for lawsuits.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 8:23 am

“the BBC senior management is absolutely complicit in this corruption of its charter”
Not to mention (even more importantly) its board and other overseeing bodies.

David Lilley
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 9:35 am

A letter to the BBC has already been done, although I’m not aware of whether it has been disseminated to the press.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 25, 2017 2:11 pm

Cross, most scientists aren’t independently wealthy and most derive their income from public funding. What you suggest would be financial suicide. While there are many scientists upset by what’s happening, few are so disturbed as to destroy their lives and the lives of the people they’re responsible for.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Bartleby
June 25, 2017 4:03 pm

Yes, because.. is important that their children..
..can continue to sing..
“Tomorrow belongs to me.”
Scared to openly do what is right because your family might suffer? Then just become a member of the resistance and engage in sabotage. Gather evidence secretly on all those you work with, your bosses etc. Document all the lies and corruption. Hand it down through the generations if necessary. One day it may see the light and we can see that at least you tried to do something.

Roger Knights
June 25, 2017 8:04 am

TYPO in the article or transcript; “un” is missing from this quote from Judy:
“if you are [un]familiar with this, it was the unauthorised release of emails “

Dr. Strangelove
June 25, 2017 8:23 am

“The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics.”
Tyndall concluded in 1859 that water vapor is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Arrhenius calculated the climate sensitivity to CO2 in 1896 and he believed warming is good. These excellent scientists never promoted catastrophic warming. That fake science came from Al Gore, the science illiterate who thinks the earth’s crust is hotter than the sun’s surface. With billions of dollars in research funds for catastrophic warming, thousands of unscrupulous scientists joined the money bandwagon.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
June 25, 2017 4:11 pm

Dr S., it needs to be recorded that it is all lies. Tyndall, like Fourier, considered these matters. but never supported any future warmism. He eventually built experimental apparatus, with his usual skill, and it still exists, at last count. The radiation receiver was water-cooled internally, because he also figured there was no energy transfer ( causing in this case IIRC, an electromagnetic effect and swinging like a compass), UNLESS the receiver was cooler than the emitter. End of story!
Arrhenius mused but did not experiment. After Prof. Robert Woods refuted his musings experimentally, he stopped and moved on to more fruitful research. Only charlatans, as you imply, would twist these facts so evilly as to make fine scientists of the past. appear to support them.
I sense that all major and once trustworthy news outlets, including my own NZBC/RNZ, have been part of Maurice Strong’s subversion plan. Successful so far.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Brett Keane
June 25, 2017 6:12 pm

I think this is correct. So how did this come about? Watching the U.S.election process, I was struck by Bernie Sanders 1930’s solutions to 21st century problems going entirely unquestioned by the media. I put it down to the media being only too happy to feel relevant to youth (pathetic), but it fits the pattern too well. Given a choice amongst Trump, a conniving liar and the barely reanimated corpse of Karl Marx, the media chose Karl!

Roger Knights
June 25, 2017 8:30 am

The article says:
“Read more: Same Link as above (Click Transcript)”
What should be clicked, once one gets to the site hosting the transcript, is the word “show” to the far right of “transcript”.

Patrick Powers
June 25, 2017 8:40 am

Climate change is not ‘correct’ just because of a number of scientists who might stand up to say they agree. Science is not conducted by poll though you might be forgiven for thinking so by the likes of Gore.
As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
That is the basis of real science. Sadly too many have not grasped this basic fact and they promote and believe a pseudo science. We need always to explore counter-views – and to remember the Royal Society motto ‘Take nobody’s word for it’. Pity they have somehow forgotten it.

June 25, 2017 8:50 am

Just listened to the show, very biased output with the climate alarmists able to rebuff every comment from a realist.
I did note that at 39 minutes in, Andy Pittman suggested that warming could reach 10 degrees or more with business as usual……..

Reply to  steverichards1984
June 25, 2017 10:28 am

Pretending humans won’t change and thus continue “business as usual” is retarded.
IEA says global CO2 has been flattish for 3 years and US emissions declined by 3% last year.
U.S. CO2 emissions peaked in 2006. Yet our annual GDP is $5 trillion more than it was then and our population is larger by 20 million people.
Who predicted 10 years ago that global CO2 emissions would be flat for three years; that the US economy would be $5 trillion larger than it was then; that we’d have 20 million more people living here; and yet CO2 emissions would still be lower than they were in 2007 without a carbon tax, cap and trade, or some other massive government coercion?

Reply to  Scott
June 25, 2017 10:48 am

Its almost all just two things: fracked natural gas firing new CCGT as old coal generation is retired, and the loss of heavy industry (Steel, aluminum,…) to China. The first is good unless you are a coal miner. The second is not.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scott
June 25, 2017 10:48 am

Is that $5 trillion in constant dollars, or was inflation ignored?

Reply to  Scott
June 25, 2017 11:17 am

@Clyde Spencer: (run your cursor over the curve to see annual GDP was about $14T then and it is $19T now.)

June 25, 2017 8:58 am

You owe me a new computer monitor, Eric.
15 mins or so in I’d had enough and threw a capo that came to hand at it.
Why do they speak so slowly in Australia?

Roger Knights
Reply to  fretslider
June 25, 2017 9:48 am
Reply to  fretslider
June 25, 2017 10:45 am

So the rest of the world can understand!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
June 25, 2017 10:52 am

Maybe it is because there is a time delay as they repeat what they are being told through their earpiece by the ‘Man behind the curtain.” After all, it is Oz.

John in Oz
Reply to  fretslider
June 25, 2017 3:09 pm

Because we have to learn to read upside-down and that slows us down

Reply to  fretslider
June 25, 2017 3:45 pm

At least you raised the tone. . .

June 25, 2017 10:44 am

Too little too late for the ABC. As a former Friend of the ABC I no longer watch any TV at all. The ABCs treatment of people it disagreed with has been appalling and as far as I am concerned the organisation has no credibility whatsoever. Close the ABC and spend the money it uses on essential services.

Paul Penrose
June 25, 2017 10:55 am

Fail. You can hardly call it fair or objective when you start out with a pejorative (denier). It’s like introducing someone as “the discredited liar Mr. X”. Talk about poisoning the well. 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an operating manual.

June 25, 2017 11:23 am

Has any skeptic ever asked in public of a believer this simple question: The human contribution to the influx of atmospheric CO2 is 3%; the rest comes from natural sources. How can this 3% cause a climate catastrophe?”

Roger Knights
Reply to  joel
June 25, 2017 11:31 am

Supposedly it disrupts the balance and accumulates.

June 25, 2017 12:12 pm

I hope that Freeman Dyson lives to be 100. At least.

Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:13 pm

ABC moderates every comment on their site.
They are without doubt the most partisan horrid media outlet in the world, closely followed by CNN

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:13 pm

They only allow the “right” comments on their site, the ones they can deal with, I even wonder if they actually post straw men in their comments to attack

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 6:23 pm

What if you comment that the comments are censored on a political basis which is completely inapropriate for a taxpayer funded media corporation? Would it post?

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 2:18 pm

My experience is any Conde Nasty publication is worse. Ars Techica is hands down the worst I’ve seen.

Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:15 pm

I made a post in reply, copied the text, a respectful post with a solid argument against someone claiming we know what warming is human vs natural, with a realclimate citation!!

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:16 pm

I doubt it will appear after their moderators shred it.
I used the recent spike in CO2 at Mauna Loa and the surprise it caused by NOAA co to show we cant even separate human and natural CO2, ever mind even more difficult to prove warming

Richard Wright
June 25, 2017 12:15 pm

Perhaps the ABC could present a similar program addressing the issue of sea level changes along the coasts of Australia. On one side, the alarmists, with their models. On the other side, the realists, who look at the tide station data, who go to the beach to look for changes, or who go to Sydney to see if the great city is already under water. It could be a lively show.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Richard Wright
June 25, 2017 12:17 pm

ABC is cancer, they only let skeptic opinions on to misrepresent them and attack the straw men.

Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:19 pm

They are as bad as the conversation who sanitised all the posts in the comments of their Gergis interview.
Post with the email contents that showed she was lying throughout the whole intervew
Gergis is no scientist. She is a pathological liar

June 25, 2017 12:28 pm

Although it was nice to give prominent skeptics, I felt the program was designed to refute skeptics and characterize their concerns as wrong and or dishonest. I would bet Pittman was given the skeptics comments before hand so that he could craft his rebuttals. PIttman often repeated that anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal, he stated what evidence justifies that assertion.
I saw the program as a cleverly crafted attack on skeptics.

John in Oz
Reply to  Jim Steele
June 25, 2017 3:23 pm

The program left out the nuances of the science, as any short program on this topic would given time constraints.
For example, Pittman would have us believe that adding CO2 will increase temperatures – no mention of logarithmic effects nor saturation points. Perhaps he also believes that merely adding heat to water will make it rise above 100C.
In denying the ‘models are tuned’ argument he was adamant that the models are based on physical science and could not be tuned to provide any result desired. No mention that there are dozens of model outputs that disagree with each other even though they are all based on the same scientific principles (apparently).
And, according to Pittman, the IPCC is squeaky clean in all of its processes and procedures and all reviewer comments are considered and responded to (and he has a nice bridge in Sydney Harbour that you can have for a song)

Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 12:34 pm

The best though has been CNN this year.
CNN Jan 2017 “Climate change causes record low sea ice”
The ice was compacted by storms but meh ok.
CNN June 2017 “Canadian expedition canceled due to Climate change”
The compacted ice caused late June heavy floes and the expedition could not get an ice breaker becaue they were all busy/
The expedition was canceled due to no free ice breakers.
CNN is cancer

Iain Russell
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 2:18 pm

Yes, the icebreaker conundrum. The US is, I understand, looking to build it’s first, and biggest ever, ice breaker in 30 years ….because the ice is melting?!

Reply to  Iain Russell
June 25, 2017 10:01 pm

Those icebreakers will just open up water to vent more heat into space.

June 25, 2017 12:34 pm

The ice in the Artic is at its lowest level recorded, 95% of the glaciers are retreating, snow cover is retreating, the rise in sea level Is accelerating.
Is this because 1) the data on global temperature has been frigged up by dishonest scientist Or
2) the ice is actually increasing, the sea levels are not rising at an increasing rate we are only been told this by communist photographers and tide table writers Or 3) the data calibration by the scientist, although not an exact science and has flaws does actually reflect a warming of the earth
What is therefore your opinion of climategate?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 12:37 pm

Antarctic low, storms, the ice increased to maximum in 2014, so why did AGW wait until 2014? and and even then it was not warming
The Antarctic peninsula is cooling over a decade..
The Antarctic sheet went nowhere when temps were 20c higher (British Antarctic Survey)
Arctic low, warm air and storms
and what a massive straw man argument to attack 😀

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 12:38 pm

Warming melts ice. STOP THE PRESS 😀
What is causing the warming is the question.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 2:01 pm

What is causing the warming is the question.

Are we back to “warming” now? I thought since shortly after “The Pause”, “change” was the issue.
Hard to keep up sometimes on whatever the latest that Man is supposed to have caused.
Which, of coarse, gives the Elite an excuse to control the rest of us.
( I wonder how many of the Elite envy Kim Jong-un? He doesn’t have to fool the electorate. He doesn’t have one.)

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 2:12 pm

Gunga Din
June 25, 2017 at 2:01 pm
What is causing the warming is the question.
Are we back to “warming” now? I thought since shortly after “The Pause”, “change” was the issue.
Hard to keep up sometimes on whatever the latest that Man is supposed to have caused.
Which, of coarse, gives the Elite an excuse to control the rest of us.
( I wonder how many of the Elite envy Kim Jong-un? He doesn’t have to fool the electorate. He doesn’t have one.)
Never, warming happens, I merely pointed out to our nice visitor that “warming” is a misnomer.
MMMMMechanism 😀

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 12:40 pm

and how many of that 95% of glaciers are retreating since 1800s?

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
June 25, 2017 5:17 pm

And even more telling is what they are finding under those glaciers as they melt: tree stumps and occasionally archaeological sites, sometimes well above the current timber line. There is ample written historical evidence and archaeological evidence to refute any assertion that this modern warm period is different from past ones, other than it’s not yet quite as warm. If anybody doubts that I suggest they try to farm and raise cattle on Greenland like the Norse settlers did for centuries. Good luck! Maybe in a century or two that will again be possible.

Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 12:52 pm

Ice in the Arctic is not at the lowest level ever recorded, neither on land or sea.
Where did you get that false impression?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 1:14 pm

Let me quote Lindzen “The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.”

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 1:21 pm

As usual, the good doctor is right yet again.
There is no actual evidence that having four instead of three molecules of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules is in any way bad. In fact, it’s a good thing, and five or six would be better. Eight or 12 would be best of all, but alas, we’ll probably never get there.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 2:20 pm

I got them from the NSIDC website which is open to anyone.
2012 was the lowest ice cover. 2017 is the third lowest at the moment following 2016

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 2:36 pm

Argument from Acoustics – The claim shouted loudest must be the right one.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 2:37 pm

You are sadly mistaken, based upon NSIDC’ own (highly suspect) data.
As of yesterday, Arctic sea ice extent was higher than on that date in 2012, 2016, 2010 and practically tied with 2011. It was lower than in 2013, 2014 and 2015, so it’s in the middle of the range for the past eight years, counting this one.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 2:50 pm

Gabro, regarding Arctic sea ice extent……do you know what 2 standard deviations below the average means?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 2:56 pm

Mark S Johnson June 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm
Since I taught statistics at one of the best universities in the world, yes, I do. What is the point of your question?
Do you know that 1979 was probably the highest Arctic sea ice year of the past century? Do you know that Arctic sea ice was just as low in the 1930s as now? Or that it also was in 1973? And that it was lower for most of the Holocene than now?
The “normal” range for 1981 to 2010 is higher than for most of the past several thousand years, at least, although lower than for the Little Ice Age. Nothing the least bit unusual is happening in Earth’s climate system.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:06 pm

Excellent to hear that you know about statistics. Then, since the current level is 2 standard deviations below the average, then you can’t reject the fact that given 100 years of measurements, that today’s level would be below 95 out of 100 of them, correct?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:08 pm

Gabro says: “Do you know that 1979 was probably the highest Arctic sea ice year of the past century?”

Well, if you can provide me with satellite data from 1917 thru the present I might consider evaluating your statement. Otherwise you have to do better than use the word “probably.” What data are you basing this absurd statement on?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:10 pm

Gabro says: “Do you know that Arctic sea ice was just as low in the 1930s as now? ”

I doubt it, because all you are doing is hand waving. They didn’t have satellite data in 1930, so your claim is garbage.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:13 pm

PS Mr. Statistics Teacher:….you compare today’s level with 2012, 2016, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

That’s a total sample space of eight.

Did you ever teach your students about “standard error?”

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:14 pm

I most certainly can and do reject that conclusion.
The trend is your friend until it isn’t. NSIDC “data” are not suitable subjects for application of the statistical operation which you inappropriately use. Trends in climate are sure to reverse, in most cases on about a 30-year interval.
Based upon climate history, Arctic sea ice should soon start growing again. All during the secular decline in Arctic sea ice since 1979, Antarctic sea ice has grown. Hence, CO2 in the air can’t be to “blame” for the beneficial reduction in Arctic sea ice.
This year Antarctic sea ice is below the “normal” range, but that’s a weather event attributable to the super El Nino of 2016. The high in Antarctic sea ice of the dedicated satellite era occurred in 2013, the year after the Arctic sea ice low. Thus, real scientists can be sure that CO2 isn’t the culprit in the Arctic case.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:15 pm

We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:22 pm

1) The only way you can justify rejecting that conclusion is to provide me with an alternative data source. Please provide us with an alternative to NSIDC.
2) “Arctic sea ice should soon start growing again.” Well, if you flip a coin, your choice of result would be right half the time. You need a better word than “should.” Based on the 30 year trend, a betting man would say, “Arctic sea ice should continue to decrease.”
3) Bringing up Antarctic doesn’t mean anything when discussing Arctic sea ice.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:24 pm

“We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.”

OK, show me your tree ring data then.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:26 pm

NSIDC “data” are is extremely suitable for application of statistics. They give you a time series measurement of sea ice area. This number can be averaged. The current measurement can then be compared to this average. Are you sure you taught statistics at the university level?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:38 pm

The mistake you’re making is assuming that the trend observed since the anomalously high year of 1979 will continue. Given the nature of Earth’s climate, science can be sure that the trend won’t continue.
Indeed, the “now” trend is bottoming behavior. Since the then record (since 1979) low of 2007, each three-year average in Arctic sea ice minima has been about the same (2007-09, 2010-12 and 2013-15). The current such interval might end up a little lower than the previous three, given that 2016 was a low year and that this year will also probably be below “normal”. The record low year of 2012 was followed by two years in the normal range, and barring summer cyclones, is liable to remain the record.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 3:54 pm

1) ” anomalously high year of 1979″ …. based on a single proxy at a single location? You are displaying your ignorance of climate.
2) The “nature of Earth’s climate” does not imply the trend will not continue. Based on trends in surface measurments of air temperature, satellite measurements of lower troposphere temps, SST and ocean heat content, it’s a pretty good bet that the trend in Arctic sea ice will continue downward.
3) you don’t have enough data to call what is happening today, “bottoming behavior.” You seem to have a serious problem differentiating the “noise” from the “signal” in data. What you desire to have happen is clouding your analysis of what is actually happening.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:01 pm

We know from every possible source of data that 1979 was high, to include satellite observations from the 1960s and ’70s.
There is no reason to assume that the trend since 1979 will continue. That’s the same mistake made by those in the 1970s who expected the postwar cooling trend to continue, which was more pronounced than was the warming cycle which followed it.
Climate is cyclic on the decadal and centennial scales, as on longer time frames. The bottoming behavior has now gone on for 11 of the 38 years of the dedicated satellite interval. Unless this year should set a new record lower than 2012, it will continue. The effects of the super El Nino should wear off next year.
Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway. Ocean temperature does, as the secular increasing trend, 1979-2013 in Antarctic sea ice shows.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:10 pm

“Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway.” </b

A picture is worth a 1000 words correct:

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:15 pm

Liquid water is not unusual at the North Pole. Air T, as I said, and as your link demonstrates, has little to do with it.
BTW, Arctic sea ice minimum in 2013 was within in the NSIDC’s two SD “normal” range.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:26 pm

The liquid water that you see in the picture is from ice melting. The air temp at the North Pole was high enough to melt the ice. Therefore your statement that “Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway” is demonstratively false.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:34 pm

Please read your own link. As is the case throughout the Arctic, winds move ice around, making shifting polynyas. They can and do form at the Pole.
Nothing in your link supports your contention that it was air temperature rather than sea temperature, currents and winds that produced that instance of liquid water at the Pole, or near it, as the cameras move around.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:41 pm

Gabro, the picture is not a “polynyas”

“Clearly, there still is some ice underneath the water, as is evident from the stakes that have been put into the ice to indicate the depth of surface water.”
What is even funnier is that you claim air temps cannot melt the ice, but when air temps drop below freezing , they sure can freeze the water. Hate to say it, but you can’t have it both ways.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:46 pm

As I said, air temperature has relatively little effect, compared to ocean temperature.
Sunlight all day will indeed cause surface melt ponds on sea ice, which was a problem for satellite observation until ways around it were found. Allegedly. But sea ice primarily melts from the bottom up.
The dirtier the ice is, the more effect sunlight shining on it has, due to lower albedo. I’d recommend your studying up on sea ice before commenting on it.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:46 pm

Please note ice melts when air temp is above freezing.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 4:54 pm

Gabro, I’d recommend your studying up on global ice before making “excuses” for Arctic sea ice. Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, so much so, that GPS measurements of the bedrock show isostatic rebound. Mountain glaciers are retreating, so much so, Glacier National Park may have to change it’s name in a few years. If you widen your view, you’ll notice the earth is getting warmer, and the loss of Arctic sea ice is a symptomatic of that “trend.”

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:14 pm

The average summer T at the North Pole is exactly freezing. It has little effect on melting ice there. For the whole region above 80 degrees N, summer T is just a little above freezing. If there were ice under the water in your link, it’s not because warm air melted the ice.
As I said, you need to study up on ice. Greenland’s ice sheet is growing. Right now its mass balance is above normal for the 30-year reference period. I posted the latest from DMI. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the fresh water on Earth, is also growing. No warming has been observed at the South Pole since records were first kept there. Yet that is precisely where the GHE should be observed, since there is so little water vapor in the dry air there.
Some glaciers are retreating, some are growing and some are staying the same. On balance, glaciers have been retreating since the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, after growing in the preceding centuries from their Medieval Warm Period positions. It’s natural. A fourth molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 dry air molecules has little or nothing to do with glacial advance or retreat.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:15 pm

Gabro: “We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.
Mark S Johnson: “OK, show me your tree ring data then.”
Here you go, Mark:comment image

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:16 pm

And another one:comment image

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:28 pm

Thanks for more inconvenient truth.
Would be funny if not so tragic for humanity that today’s ClimaStalinists are trying to rewrite and disappear climate history recorded and observed by Soviet scientists. Unhistory wiped out by Watermelons.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:29 pm

“Greenland’s ice sheet is growing.” ….and…. ” I posted the latest from DMI. ”
You are very funny Gabro.

From DMI description: “The snow and ice model from one of DMI’s climate models is driven every six hours with snowfall, sunlight and other parameters from a research weather model for Greenland, Hirlam-Newsnow.”


You are mistaking model output for real data.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Gabro, here are direct measurements of the effect of ice loss in Greenland. This is not a “model”

Now if you need more actual measurement, do you want me to post a link to GRACE data?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:41 pm

DMI’s model has been verified and is constantly checked against reality. You can read their methodology. It’s not like the GCMs, based upon false assumptions and lack of important parameters.
DMI also relies upon satellite observation, which shows a tiny loss of ice due to increased iceberg calving, the rate of which of course is due to more snow and ice upstream, confirming the mass balance calculation. DMI estimates recent annual loss at about 200 Gt/yr, ie practically nothing. We have been in a natural warming cycle since the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, so some continued ice loss would be expected.
Antarctic ice mass increase has been directly observed. As noted, the EAIS is what matters. The GIS and WAIS aren’t pimples on the posterior of the EAIS.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:42 pm

TA…..I like how you splice data from two different sources together. Reminds me of Marcott.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 5:46 pm

I already commented on the satellite data, which show tiny loss. Your link on GPS data say that the satellites might have underestimated the loss by 10%. Still nothing, and below average rate of the past 300 years, following growth during the first half of the LIA, which drove the Norse away.
Please do post the GRACE data, which show, as mentioned, that the EAIS is growing. It stopped retreating 3000 years ago. Earth’s climate is in a long-term downtrend, so any slowdown in that tendency should be welcomed. The Current WP is unfortunately a temporary relief, a normal natural cyclic phenomenon.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 6:07 pm

Gabro: “Antarctic ice mass increase has been directly observed.” Did they use a bathroom scale to measure the mass?
Antarctica is losing 125+/-39 Gigatons per year. Where do you think the water for sea level rise is coming from?

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 6:14 pm


Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 6:57 pm

“TA…..I like how you splice data from two different sources together.”
Well, you should thank Mr. Heller for that splice, not me. Splicing doesn’t change the facts in this case. There was a lot less arctic ice in the recent past (the 1930’s for example) when compared to today, splice or no splice. So claiming arctic sea ice is abnormally low today is just wrong. It’s been lower in the past.

Reply to  Gabro
June 25, 2017 11:37 pm

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from
fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas
about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to
a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of
high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface. [..]
. . .
The oceanographic observations have, however, been
even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional.
In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The
expedition all but established a record, sailing as far
north its 81º 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest
north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus. [..]
. . .
He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3º Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15º, and last winter the ocean
not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen. [..]

This was from a NOAA monthly weather review in 1922.

Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 2:14 pm

The glaciers have been retreating since the little ice age, not sure where you get the very broad “snow cover is retreating” thing from and there is very little if any solid evidence that sea lever rise is accelerating.
Any of these things could be due to a naturally warming climate. In fact most people here don’t dispute there is some warming occurring. The point being made is its substantially less than what climate scientists have been forecasting and has been for many years. This despite billions being thrown at them to figure out whats going on.
The amount of money wasted on frivolous science based on catastrophic predictions designed only into scaring people to part with their cash, is a crime. If this money was actually put into actually understanding our climate we might be closer today to understanding our climate a little better, both natural and human causes.

Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 2:22 pm

For sea level rise pleas refer to the longest set of data from the Liverpool tide monitoring group. It is showing an acceleration in the mean sea level rise in Liverpool.

Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 2:24 pm

True the evidence for sea level rise is nor solid it’s liquid

Reply to  Dave
June 25, 2017 5:25 pm

Snow cover has increased markedly in recent years, as has lake ice.