Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

President Trump did the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It was a bad deal for the United States. Despite this, polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Scott Pruitt is trying to take what appears to be a more balanced political and legal approach by allowing a debate presenting both sides of the science. It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesn’t understand the science. The big problem is it begs the question; Why is it necessary to provide a forum for balance? Why does the global warming story not go away after exposure to the corrupted science of the major players behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through leaked emails, exposure of bureaucrats deliberately adjusting the historic record, and worst of all, the failed forecasts?

The answer is simple and therefore profound and makes an answer essential. I know from experience that after you explain to an audience what and how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was achieved the next question is inevitable. What was the motive? Unless you answer that question, people become a little more skeptical but remain, at best, undecided. They can’t and don’t want to believe that scientists would be involved in anything nefarious or even misleading. They can’t believe that so many of them were misled, which is why the 97% consensus claim was so effective.

Attacks on people who try to explain the motive indicate how threatening it is to the perpetrators of the deception. It intensified as the challenges grew. For example, the charge of “global warming skeptic” is far less vindictive and isolating than “climate change denier” with all the holocaust connotations. Similar nastiness is inferred in calling people who identified the motive conspiracy theorists. Definitions of conspiracy indicate why that term causes problems.

  • An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
  • An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

There is nothing illegal about the objective of proving AGW, so it was not a conspiracy. However, there was illegality in what some of those involved did, as the emails exposed. For example, a definition of conspiracy as a noun says

“A conspiracy to manipulate the results: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge;”

They even introduced a semblance of a conspiracy by calling themselves “The Team.”

Hoax was another term incorrectly applied to what happened, partly because nobody wants to talk about the motive. It is not a hoax because although it may have a malicious effect, it is primarily a humorous pricking of pomposity. There is nothing humorous about the AGW story.

An appropriate appellation for the AGW deception is a cabal.

A small group of intriguers, especially one formed for political purposes.

In the case of AGW, the cabal was the Club of Rome (COR). There is nothing wrong with a political view or agenda, but the difference with the COR agenda was the misuse of science to promote it. Misused science is not science or even pseudoscience. Science and its practice must be apolitical and fact based. As a result, scientists prefer to avoid politics. Similarly, most politicians avoid science precisely because it is about facts.

An intriguing and telling part of the AGW war was that it quickly became political and a person was labelled based on their view. If you questioned the AGW claim, you were right wing, if you accepted it you were left wing, regardless of your actual political views. Ironically, the way to take the politics out of the scientific and debate is to identify the political motive. Here is a summary of what that is:

  • COR expanded the Malthusian idea that overpopulation would exhaust food supply to all resources.
  • They claimed each person used resources and the number of people was increasing so the demand would increase.
  • Those who achieved development used resources at a greater rate and more nations were developing. They had to be stopped, and development curtailed overall.
  • Development was achieved by use of fossil fuels and must be eliminated.
  • A parallel population reduction program was essential, hence the Cairo conference in 1994.
  • Beyond potential resource exhaustion (Limits to Growth), they needed a vehicle to manipulate people toward their agenda: a fear factor with a global threat.
  • Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.

The global impact transcended nations that only a global government could resolve. Elaine Dewar summarized by Strong’s actions at the UN: “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Their motive is acceptable as a form of socialism with which you can agree or disagree. The problem is they made it virtually impossible for people to make that choice by misusing the science and silencing those who challenged that misuse. A measure of that dilemma is a socialist scientist who doesn’t accept AGW.

It is quite straightforward. Scott Pruitt should abandon his attempts to present the other side and explain why only one side was presented. To do this, he must explain the motive and only then can people properly decide what the truth is about AGW.

Advertisements

198 thoughts on “Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues

  1. I think it is a bit oversimplified to blame the Club of Rome. The post is persuasive as to why the socialists attached themselves to the CAGW storyline, but the green movement is rather more complex and diffuse.
    One could attach Malthus himself to the origins of the movement, or just attribute it to the secular versions of apocalyptic movements in general. Then there are the origins of current socialist politics about the same time as Malthus at the end of the 18th Century, with secular in addition to religious mass movements.
    That is not to condemn outright such movements, but as Theodore Roosevelt stated about his own more zealous followers, they attract a “lunatic fringe”. With the Marxists and the German socialists, the lunatic fringe took over.
    Arguably, CAGW is one of the fringe beliefs of the environmental movement, and has had rather too much influence.

    • Good points, but I certainly agree with Dr Ball that it’s probably a waste of time for Sec Pruitt to try and do the Red Team/Blue Team thing. What needs to be made clear to the public, and very loudly, is that there has been no debate from the beginning. That is as unscientific as it gets.

      • T.Fry – I can’t agree with you or Tim Ball when you say Scott Pruitt should abandon the red-blue thingy. This goes deeper than making it clear to the public that there has been no debate – most of the public don’t even know that there’s an issue. A red team would open some eyes, and that’s enough to make a difference. Yes, by all means do the other things too, but please, let’s get the red team going and all join in. Noisily.

      • ” What needs to be made clear to the public, and very loudly, is that there has been no debate from the beginning. That is as unscientific as it gets.”

        You’re right, that is about as unscientific as you can get.

    • Tom,

      I think Dr. Ball is pointing out the root of the AGW scam rather than blaming the COR for everything that happened since.

      Personally, I’m of the opinion that the case of AGW should be heard in the British courts. Unlike the US court system, British courts are non political, indeed, they frequently tell our governments what to do.

      That case should be prosecuted on the basis that there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that CO2 causes global warming. There ought to be hundreds, if not thousands of papers demonstrating it by now, but there are none.

      How can a scientific hypothesis exist whilst the underlying science has never been proven.

      Have that exposed in open court and the UK government would be forced to abandon it’s insane spending on CO2 mitigation, Trump’s withdrawal from Paris would be independently justified and the rest of the worlds governments would revolt against their unwitting(?) Participation in the scam.

      • Sorry………In short, there is no need to provide a motive. Concede it was all just a big mistake and let AGW die a death of a thousand discredited studies, overnight.

      • ‘How can a scientific hypothesis exist whilst the underlying science has never been proven.’ Spot on.

      • Dannz – it’s the old horse and proximity to water problem. The science has been proven over and over again. The physical chemistry of carbon compounds and their effect on climate is well understood.
        Some people just will not recognise fact.

      • Jack Davis

        So if the “The science has been proven over and over again.”

        Why doesn’t it manifest itself in the field?

        There is not one single credible study which has demonstrated CO2 causes global warming. Ever.

      • Jack,

        you say: “The science has been proven over and over again.”

        Yet the science has NEVER been proven.

        There is no credible, empirical (observational) study, in field (in other words, in the real world) which demonstrates CO2 causes global warming. Lots of laboratory studies examining the individual properties of various elements, but that just doesn’t work when there is so much to consider.

        Go and Google it, there is a single study (there should be hundreds, if not thousands by now to justify the world spending trillions on mitigation) which has been roundly discredited because the author measured global temperature change from the depths of an La Ninia to the heights of an El Ninio and claimed that was the way science was done.

        As it is, the planet has operated for 80% of it’s existence with no polar ice whatsoever. The human race is operating in abnormal times, not the planet. Adaptation, therefore, would appear the most sensible option.

        And if all the sea ice melted, what possible difference would it make to humanity? Absolutely none, other than depriving a few polar explorers ice for their Gin and Tonics. Sea level wouldn’t rise, because it’s sea ice. Oh, and of course their reason for funding to examine ice cores. Not that Michael Mann even bothered with those historical records, he used tree rings and pine cones. So what use are they anyway if the worlds climate future can be determined by Mann’s methods?

        And if the fear is that Antartica and Greenland were to thaw, we would all be under water. Don’t worry pal. Even at the most extreme global heating predicted it would take thousands of years for that to happen. Plenty of time to adapt.

        There will be no instantaneous, cataclysmic, dystopian event, as frequently dramatised by Hollywood. Indeed, I would point you to a video presentation of a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates what’s more likely to happen, but I don’t think you would have the courage to watch it.

        The only meaningful manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is, according to NASA, that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years of satellite observations. That’s truly extraordinary, especially considering the alarmist scientific studies before it maintained the opposite would happen.

        Let me put that to you another way. The only thing the alarmists din’t predict over the last 40 years relative to the ‘pollutant’ CO2, is positive. All the other disasters have failed to materialise; hurricane frequency and intensity have decreased, as have tornadoes, droughts and floods, but we were all assured that by now, they would all be ravaging the planet.

        Whichever way you cut it, climate prediction, by whatever means, has been a dismal failure.

    • “I think it is a bit oversimplified to blame the Club of Rome”

      Of course…then again of course not
      First you start with a group of “professionals” that can’t predict that afternoons weather..that morning.
      Elevate and qualify them…by stretching out their predictions and calling them “scientists”
      Go from laughing stock…..to scientists with an unending stream of grants and money

      • Latitude,

        Mate, I think it’s far more sinister than that.

        This is a group of people, steeped in the diktat of the Roman Catholic Church that contraception, of any type, is unacceptable. A religion up to it’s elbows in child abuse scandals across the globe.

        The COR is a group perhaps rebelling against the idiotic philosophy that contraception is evil, but going one step further to promote artificial population control. They are only a generation apart from Mussolini himself and his obvious collusion with Hitler.

        We can, and should laugh at them, but always be aware that these are manipulative, well connected people who seek to serve only themselves.

      • I think a large part begins with Paul Erlich in the late 60’s with ‘The Population Bomb’ and the seemingly inevitable and oh so mathematical exponential growth in population. With this entrenched belief among the left, many things are possible including reversion to the ‘good ole days’ or keeping the world’s poor locked in those bygone years.
        Turning the argument requires a knowledge of the present population increase, which far from exponential is levelling off and even dropping in wealthier countries. Yes, there will be a continued increase, projections (dare I say models) indicate a levelling at 12 or so billion although much of this increase will occur in poorer countries of Africa and Asia. The solution would appear to be to bring these countries forward, increasing their energy, wealth and education and allowing them to make their own decisions on reproduction.

    • I do not believe in AGW but I believe that fossil fuels eventually would get exhausted, and we would not have any means to use a comparable source of energy. I am not counting that the next glacial age is not too far off awaiting us.
      Have we any reasonable project for those depressing perspectives? No. We have not. Even if we stop making babies, the present population of the planet is so high, that we are doomed anyway. We can do nothing, but to continue living as if nothing wrong is going to happen in the near future.
      Human beings do not plan so farther ahead for the future. Evolution made us to confront the present, that was often hard, and we never had any reason to make plans other than for the present, or a few years forward.

      • We do not know the future and neither did our ancestors. Progress is improving the present. In the Netherlands, wood was already scarce in the Middle-Ages. Later peat was replaced by coal etc.
        It was innovation that came to the rescue. Using finite resources, we are “doomed to innovation” but until now this works fine. The fossil fuel era will last for centuries or less if better technology emerges. In time only nuclear may generate enough energy to maintain our lifestyle. Most likely after 2100 thorium molten salt reactors will power our cities. No grids needed. Mimimal impact on nature. Life is more sustainable then ever before in history. Later, compact fusion reactors will power transportation.

      • Disagree completely. With us,. nature way over shot the imagination requirement. We can contemplate the far off end of the universe – we ought to make good use of that accidental facility.

    • Perhaps the reason for this deception is that some investors and politicians conspired to invest in those “alternative sources of energy” and they needed to invent this bogus theory to justify the money invested to produce those artifacts, electric cars, windmil-generators, solar panels or other. They needed to lobby the thing and this was a bipartisan decision anyway, for the Republican party was dominant in the US Congress for many decades into the past. This cannot be a conspiracy of a bunch of leftists lunatic students that have not any political clout anyway.
      By the way, I never was able to agree with those leftist people on anything. But I am not a natural conservative, for I was born in a very poor family. Then, why I never was become a leftist? Because this people are not rational, but a bunch of lunatic ideologues.

      • The Republican party was dominant for many decades into the past? Seriously? Why do you say that when it’s so obviously counter-factual?

        I suppose you think that the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, the famous segregationists (Fulbright, Byrd, Gore Sr., et al), Bull Connor, George Wallace were all products of the Republican party as well, right? (Hint: Democrat).

        As much as today’s communists and totalitarians (who have overtaken the Democrat party) try to erase or rewrite history, the facts are the facts.

        The Democrat party is by far the largest source of the corruption and “racism” of the past — they still venerate Robert Byrd, Grand Klingon or whatever of the KKK today.

      • The GOP has rarely been dominant in the House of Representatives in the past nine decades.

        It was from 1861 to 1933, but not since then. Republicans controlled the House in 1953-57, then again from 1995-2007, and from 2011 until now. So, the GOP has been in control for only 22 of the past 84 years, however 18 of the past 22.

        Senate control since the Depression has been similar.

    • True that the history of this is lengthy and begins long before COR. It does seem however that COR and Maurice Strong through the UN were the beginning of most of the policy push and the eventual CAGW mythology peddeled by the IPCC. The roots of what is primarily socialist ideology related to environmentalism go back to early 20th century and became linked to other socialist goals in pre WW2 Germany under the national socialists. In turn they took a lot of their cues on some of their most anti-humanistic thinking and criminal behavior from the American eugenics movement which had broad support from a number of Democratic politicians and thinkers. The relics of this found their way even into the last Administration with Obama’s selection of science advisor. I believe Tim Ball is correct however that, at its roots, this movement is about what I call humophobia, the belief that humans are an evil destructive influence on Earth and that industrialization is the epitome of environmental degradation.

      All of this seems in contrast to the evidence (as with most things in the climate change debates), which shows that as the human population grows and industrialization proceeds we have created a safer and more prosperous world, and one in which our ability to preserve and protect natural systems is expanding every decade. Those parts of the planet that have the worst environmental issues are those where people still have serious needs in terms of food, shelter, education, democratic governance and cheap available energy. Rather than going backwards as the COR, radical environmentalists and many far left socialists would ask us to do, we should move forward and bring the entire human population up to the highest possible levels of development. The other direction would be devastating for eveyrone and for every environment on Earth as 7.5 billion people try to survive without all the systems we depend on every day.

      At the very least all people deserve to understand these choices and have some say in how we as a species respond.

    • @Tom Halla,

      I quite agree. I think the motive was pretty simple. Hubris. The environmental movement wants to improve the quality of the environment but like all of these types of movements it never stops.

      The original purpose was to help the environment, but now it is help the environment at all cost. It is the same way with progressives. Now that most of the heavy lifting is done and there are no publicly supported bigotry, there is an enormous focus on smaller issues and fabricated issues.

      People want to help make the world a better place, but extremists don’t know when to stop. They all morph into monsters.

      From a science perspective, Hubris is also part of it. CS was always a backwater science until CC became the rage. Scientists like to see their work as being important so they overplay it. Once they have set their path it is hard to get off. Saving the world is a pretty big task. How many people invest so much effort only to eventually say “Nope, I was wrong all this time and my research shows there is nothing to worry about”

      The motivation is hubris. They all want to be able to say they were key instruments in saving the world and deniers are the Nazi scum they need to beat.

  2. Fully agreed! This is always the comeback – what’s the motive & what’s the point of such an elaborate deception? Most people haven’t read Christopher Booker or know ANY of the history of the environmental movement and the prelude to the founding of the IPCC. Such information needs to be more widely disseminated. In the meantime, I think a straightforward effort to promote the evidence that disproves the fundamental hypothesis of CAGW should be undertaken (rather than a debate to give the CAGW Prima donnas more airtime). Also, economic arguments on the true cost of renewable energy and our dependence on hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future need to be better communicated so that people understand their choices. Both efforts require some people who can really get the message across to the lay public! That’s where we often fall down!

    • A true, demonstrated accounting of the costs associated with a 50% or 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and what that would mean, along with a list of the benefits provide by current (and higher) levels of CO2 would properly convince the voting public the all marshal themselves over to the most beneficial side of the room. People are quite good at making choices that help, not hurt, when the obfuscation is cleared up. So far the alarmists have been allowed to make their recommendations without having to describe the true costs of what they are prescribing.

      • Best idea I’ve heard in a long time pstevens2. It will be very difficult to do because most of the informations sources will not allow it to happen. I think that if our US President would use his sate of the union time to do what you suggested it would be very difficult for our MSM to not cover it. Our greatest enemy is our own main stream news media (MSM) and our film makers.

      • To abandon the fossil fuels, it must be a lot worse than coming back to the start of the 19th century, for in that time, the planet had only 1 billion people. Now we are 7 billion. And the fossil fuels had spared us a lot Global War Wars to keep the population at one billion more or less. Then, the present population is so high, because “we are eating oil”. This is a metaphor. If oil or coal would had not existed, we would had exterminated all the forest of the planet just to run the steam locomotives. In fact, the industrial revolution was a miracle of the coal. Just imagine no one had coal in the planet, we would get stopped in the 18th century. No any industrial revolution would had been possible. Then, the present humanity is a gift of the fossil fuels. And this is similar saying to the one of Herodotus wrote, “Egypt is a gift of the Nile”.

      • Exactly! In time the science will sort itself out and the people will know. However the damage that can occur in the meantime, if the anti-Capitalists prevail, needs to be understood ASAP.

    • AGW theory has nothing to do with “the environmental movement” other than being a source of concern. The theory is soundly grounded in physics and supported by volumes of empirical evidence.

      • Such as the 100 plus computer models that have never come even remotely close to an accurate prediction using said “volumes of empirical evidence”?
        Or the 20+ year pause in warming? Oh yeah- the missing heat is hiding in the oceans” right?
        The whole cult of climate change is full of lies, half truths and obfuscation- including the 97%
        “consensus” lie.
        The theory is not soundly grounded in anything other than a steaming pile of male bovine excrement.

  3. All the public have to remember is that hubris and stupidity go hand in hand, and this is more than mere correlation. In ‘climate science™’ upon inspecting all the available evidence, statistical indications strongly show, intelligent people are full of doubts, while the hubristically stupid are bursting with confidence.

    Though, umm.., thinking about it, I may be proved wrong about this.

    • Absolutely. If you want to be King of The World you need to make the World a kingdom first. You do this by creating global laws and controlling global needs from the centre.

      The political logic behind AGW is clear and obvious. The methods used to prop it up are as ancient as mankind. Threats and money working together keep us all in line.

      Judging by the many risible articles linking Harvey to Man Made Climate Change found all over the serious media and even more so the totally silly comments they attract it is obvious our tertiary education system has failed to inculcate any critical thinking skills in the younger generation. The leap from CO2 being a radiative molecule with a warming ability to we are all going to die from Climageddon is just absurd but that is the accepted narrative.

      AGW is a means to an end. The end is what it always is, power over mankind. Even Pinky & The Brain know that.

    • And that power is absolute in the sense that those wielding it cannot be voted out of office by the people that are paying because it is the hands of the UN or, if you prefer, ‘one world government’.

      Here in the EUSSR we are already partway there and look how well that is working!

      Now Imagine the EU on a global scale!

      (I’m in the UK so perhaps we can escape but I’m not holding my breath …)

      There’s a lot more to this than ‘carbon’. I see this as a fight between democracy and industrial strength totalitarianism on a global scale.

      It’s not the stockade that we, the voting cattle, are being herded into by Big Al and the global warming cowboys that should concern us most, it’s the abattoir behind the stockade.

  4. There are other reasons that lead to other people joining the collusion:
    * power. $10Trillion/year is spent on energy. Control that and have immense wealth and power.
    * Gaia worship. Some people just hate humans. They hate them all and anything that punishes humans pleases Gaia.
    * greed. Al Gore and Elon Musk make millions off the scam. GE, bureaucrats, and climate researchers do well too.
    * statists. What a great way to grow government and control all aspects of peoples lives.

    • But to prove collusion one must prove there was active communication to deceive between all parties. Now whilst that may be demonstrated with Climategate, that was between a select few. No one would believe the touchy feely greens would hate anyone and Elon Musk is seen as an environmental saviour so attacking him directly is a non starter.

      You are right on every point but just too many excuses to make, too many loopholes for the perpetrators to slip through and far to big a case for the public to consider.

      • You’re out of date, try this.

        Replacement Migration:
        Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

        United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

        Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

        http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

        Straight from the horse’s mouth.

      • Agenda 21 will not go away just because AGW fails. Our local governments have been infiltrated and Agenda21 policies are now considered normal by many – especially leftist mayors and councils as well as gullible public.
        My city is no exception, – in my blog I show that a series of earthquakes gave our national government and local government the excuse to carry out many Agenda21 policies including throwing people out of their homes.

        https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations/

        And there is more!

        Cheers

        Roger

  5. Those scientists who question global warming could do many things if the money was more evenly directed. People criticise sceptics for not creating global models that might find results different to the official ones. But these models cost a packet; no sceptical scientist I know of has had access to that type of funding and computing.
    To correct the funding imbalance, one has to look at who provides the $$$ and who distributes them. This varies from nation to nation, but the funds are dominantly through national governments from the taxpayer. Much of the allocation of this national funding is influenced by the collective whims of scientists, particularly those like National Science Foundations – and the thinking is influenced by the opinions of Learned Societies. The latter have been persuasive, but IMHO, mostly wrong through failure to address the topic in depth.
    If I were a Scott Pruitt (and I am not) then my attention would be on the Societies. I would invite them in for a cuppa, one at a time, explain to them that their advice was influential, then ask them to do a thorough review of how members actually regarded the science. Steve Koonin went through an exercise like this but got rumbled by fellow officials without much input from members. It is partly a matter of identification of key people of influence. To make their lips move, you might need to mention there will be audits of their incomes to see there was no irregularity.
    All of this takes planning and it takes time. Be fair to the President and his key staff. Do not expect the Earth to move overnight.
    De Ball, your historic account is close to how I remember it. Thank you for expressing it once more. Geoff.

    • Geoff – At present, no-one can make a decent model of the climate, because not enough is known about how the climate works. Also, the current crop of climate models are all bottom-up, and that can never work. Some very primitive models have been made, and have outperformed the expensive ones, but no-one’s listening. One day, something will come from left field and turn everything on its head, but it is taking a long time.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      “If I were a Scott Pruitt (and I am not)”.

      Damn, another illusion shattered.

      Unless this is a cunning bluff……..Hmmmmmmmm

  6. “CO2 is the exhaust of Capitalism, surely it is our duty to destroy it” . Maurice Strong.

    All you need to know really.

  7. Excellent analysis of “why AGW” Dr. Ball. Too many people are afraid of being labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to address the underlying issue of ‘why’. The AGW narrative was well crafted to make the social/moral implications a greater threat than reality….. and so it endures. One would think the complete failure of all AGW prognostications after decades of announcing them would be enough to convince even the least scientific minds that something is amiss.

  8. “the motive:”
    COR expanded the Malthusian idea that overpopulation would exhaust food supply to all resources.
    They claimed each person used resources and the number of people was increasing so the demand would increase.
    Those who achieved development used resources at a greater rate and more nations were developing. They had to be stopped, and development curtailed overall.
    Development was achieved by use of fossil fuels and must be eliminated.
    A parallel population reduction program was essential, hence the Cairo conference in 1994.
    Beyond potential resource exhaustion (Limits to Growth), they needed a vehicle to manipulate people toward their agenda: a fear factor with a global threat.
    Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.

    Most scientists don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

    But conspiracy theories need their conspiracies.

    Do you have any idea how silly you sound?

    • Unless you lived thru it, it is hard to understand the real fear people felt over the population explosion. That fear drives many policies we see today. What has been forgotten is how they came about.

    • It sounds unbelievable but it is sadly and amazingly true. You’ve obviously never heard of Maurice Strong. Look up his biography and Google his destroy capitalism and western civilization quotes and note the the organizations he created.

      If you have the capacity for introspection after this, you will realize you hadn’t the education to comment with any depth or authority on a REAL sceptical site. And look you deserve accolades for coming here. Most young people do not resist and transcend the designer-brained education that they’ve been given during the last two generations.

      Question a lot more. It won’t harm you and you’ll discover that thinking for yourself is the beginning of real education.

    • “The common enemy of humanity is man.
      In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
      with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
      water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
      dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
      changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
      The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
      – Club of Rome,

      “The Earth has cancer
      and the cancer is Man.”
      – Club of Rome,

      • and what are people doing that generate these messages? Lowering their footprints? Accepting a humble life ? Minimizing consumption? I see the opposite. I see a revolt of (a new) elite. The formation of a new class of landlords.

      • Unfortunately reality doesn’t seem to agree with COR. The lives of ordinary people have increased dramatically for the better in the last 200 years. Less people are dying from natural disasters and famine than ever before.

        It’s weird that it’s bad if humans “pollute”, but it’s completely fine if nature herself does it. Nature can wipe out most of the species with an asteroid or pollute with a volcano, and no one gives a shit. In reality we don’t live in a “paradise”. We live in a world which is naturally dangerous and, just like any other animal, we have to fight for our survival. Earth is not a self-aware creature, it doesn’t have a mind. It doesn’t give anything freely. It doesn’t care about “morality” or “ethics” which are purely human inventions. It couldn’t care less about us or any other animals. If Mother Nature would be real person, she should stand on trial for crimes against life. But then again, “crime” and “justice” are also human inventions. Enough with this superstitious nonsense. In my opinion we wil never advance as a species unless drop these pointless feelings of guilt.

      • fredar,
        Sounds like you have read “A Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. If not, you should; I think you will enjoy it. In fact, I suggest everybody read that book. It will really give the rational side of your brain some food.

    • It is not a theory, the conspiracy is real and ongoing. The network is enormous and you can discover it if you choose to look. The rise of climate institutes, with the same common names on the advisory boards, the editorial boards of the major journals, a who’s who of IPCC authors, the government departments infiltrated by NGO’s, the list goes on. The agenda is described here:

      Lisa Jackson, USEPA Administrator, 20th January 2012

      “Keynote Remarks at the National Council for Science and the Environment’s “National Conference on Environment and Security”

      “We have reached a point in human history where everyday activities – from our commerce to our transportation to our recreation – are affecting the health of our entire planet.

      As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet.

      It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people.”

      Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General, 14 February 2012

      Remarks to KPMG Summit: “Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth”

      “Through the Joint Initiative we’re turning to leading private sector innovators, city planners, academics, environmental experts, urban developers, investors and financial institutions to spark enduring change.

      The world’s population now exceeds 7 billion people – all of whom must share the earth’s limited natural resources. Sustainable development is the top priority of the United Nations and for my second term as Secretary-General.

      Most of the world’s ecosystems are in decline. We are nearing the point of no return on climate change. You all understand the high stakes — for jobs, for social justice, for the Millennium Development Goals, for the health of the planet.”

      Gro Harlem Brundtland, Socialist International 15 -17 September 1992. Putative author of The Brundtland Report, which led to Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030.

      XIX Congress of the Socialist International “Social Democracy in a Changing World”

      “At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course.

      Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security.

      In an increasingly interdependent world, we must find new ways to live – both within our own countries and on a global level – that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.

      What we need is a new social contract. Monetary stability will not suffice. And just as democracy originated in Europe some 2500 years ago, just as social democracy developed in Europe over the past 100 years, so must we again take the lead.

      We must curb population growth and reinforce the links between population, poverty-alleviation and the rights of women.

      A new social contract must be based on our overriding principles – freedom, solidarity and justice. To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties.

      There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies.”

      The same message continues now:
      http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/02/07/unfccc-only-way-to-save-planet-from-agw-is-to-reorganize-global-economy-under-unfccc/

      Former UNFCCC executive secretary, Christiana Figueres:

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

      It was never about climate.

    • ReallySkeptical

      Extract from a WT article in 2012

      “The seminal scriptures of modern-day environmentalism were Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” Paul R. Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” and the publications of the Club of Rome. While stylistically quite different, these books all served to rally the public around a core anti-human philosophy. As the Club of Rome put it, “The Earth has cancer, and the cancer is man.” Such misanthropic views could only have the most horrific consequences.

      Some of the worst atrocities can be laid at the feet of Mr. Ehrlich and his co-thinkers who argued – in direct contradiction to historical fact – that human well-being is inversely proportional to human numbers. As a result of their agitation, U.S. foreign aid and World Bank loans to Third World countries were made contingent upon those nations implementing population-control programs. In consequence, over the past four decades, in scores of countries spanning the globe from India to Peru, tens of millions of women have been rounded up and subjected to involuntary sterilizations or abortions, often under very unsafe conditions, with innumerable victims suffering severe health effects or dying afterward.”

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/20/earth-days-dark-side/

      The facts have been out there for many years, you just haven’t bothered to take any notice or ask any questions.

      Why is there no credible empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming? After 40 years of research there ought to be hundreds, if not thousands of studies proving it beyond reasonable doubt, yet there is not one.

      So, where did the myth that CO2 causes global warming come from, if not by design?

    • More than a century ago St. Pius X prophesized this future:

      “…that the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. […] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”

    • Most “scientists” (as in pseudoscientists) probably do know, but that’s a red herring argument. They have their own fish to fry.
      Do you know how moronic you sound?

    • The theory of Malthus is correct . He was wrong, because being a philosopher he had not connections with the people developing the steam engine. But as soon as the fossil fuels would get exhausted, we would see that the theory was right. Unless we would make a miracle and invent the perpetuum mobile.

    • ReallySkeptical August 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm: “Do you have any idea how silly you sound?”

      Oh dear, self-awareness really isn’t your strong suit, is it?

  9. Why it continues? The answer is pretty simple and way different. Well of course the apologetics are organzied, they have plenty of money, but most of all, they have a narrative!
    This is what the opposition is missing. It is like a small group of villains entering a small village, shooting around, while the good people run and hide. If they fail to organize, they will lose, despite outnumbering the villains. You are all about critizising the IPCC and its affiliates, but you failed in bringing up a better alternative. That is ONE better alternative.
    I am proud to say that I have it, exclusively. I have mastered the whole science of climatology. Nobody needs to believe me, rather I am willing to proudly present my results and defend my findings against every critical thinker.
    However that will not work! The whole scene is so unorganized, that you can not even have a reasonable discussion. Without constructive work, you will not build anything. I mean, there is not even a message board to sort out the good from the bad ideas. Not that it would be sufficient. As it is, there is simply nothing.
    I can provide the wisdom. But if there are no structures, just panic, nothing will get off the ground. And well, it may be all about money. But it is just as much about ideas, to collect the funds. And it is about will, which is simply not existing. So I guess we are doomed by the science of doom after all.

  10. Why the global crusade against economic development? The case is even more general than Dr. Ball says, and understates: Globalism – the cabal to rule the world top down and anti-democratically, by subverting national sovereignty and by turning the UN (or an analog) into a world-wide European Union. This comparative Illustration drives home the point: https://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/globalism.jpg

    The global historian John Fonte has written a lengthy and detailed book on the subject, “Sovereignty Or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves Or Be Ruled By Others?” Here is the Foreword, by a former speechwriter for PM Margaret Thatcher, John O’Sullivan:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/fonte-on-global-governance-john-o-sullivan-s-foreword-to-sovereignty-or-submission-will-ame

    I hope Dr. Ball will acquaint himself with some of the details, which dovetail very precisely with the case he’s made, above.

  11. Speaking of confusion and misinformation, on November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

    Can’t really say he has added anything helpful to the discussion.

    • Screw that tweet. He pulled us out of the Paris Accord. The longer he is in office, the faster their economic scam is going to fall apart, whether or not it puts an end to AGW stupidity. I call that pretty Damned helpful!

    • President Trump claims he was joking when he said that. His tongue was firmly in his cheek apparently.

    • Obviously, AGW was not created by the Chines, but it has been exploited by them.

      The Chinese are no suckers. Just look at the Paris Accord, which favours the Chinese at the expense of the US.

      An examination of the Paris Accord does more than anything else to demonstrate, in simple and understandable terms, what a con this all is.

  12. While I don’t think Dr. Ball is wrong per se, I think things are a lot more complicated than that. They are a combination of what another commenter on this site called a “confluence of interests”:

    1. Governments buy into the narrative both because it is a dead simple way to introduce new taxes (which governments of all kinds are heavily addicted to)
    2. Large corporations buy into the narrative because as suppliers of solar panels, wind mills and bio-fuels it is an easy way to separate governments from their money.
    3. Researchers piled on also because it is an easy way to separate governments from their money. Getting funding to study the Amazonian Three Toed Tree Frog is pretty tough. Getting funding to study the effects of global warming on the Amazonian Three Toed Tree Frog as a Proxy for Effects on Civilization is much easier even though it is the exact same study with a paragraph about global warming thrown in at the beginning and another at the end (along with the plea for more money).
    4. Third world governments piled on because they saw it as an easy way to separate first world governments from their money.
    5. “Environmentalists” jumped on the bandwagon because it was a way to separate governments from their money and fit with their core belief system that everything human beings do is bad for the environment.
    6. Self promoters like Al Gore and Bill Nye jumped on board because they could advance their celebrity AND make money at it.

    I could go on, but that should be enough to make my point. There are a great many different influencers out there, some of them genuinely misguided and some just driven by greed, but they all benefit from the buckets of cash generated by a story that plays on our primal instincts that there is something bad out there in the dark that we need our fiercest fighters and leaders to protect us from.

    There’s just little to no profit in pointing out that there is no monster hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and kill us all. There’s no instinctual response that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about.

      • Not only governments, churches as well. And everybody wants a better world by applying own knowledge. Bureaucrats are specialized shifting other peoples money around. Their problem is that this requires justification and accountability. The ultimate bureaucrats’ dream is reallocating unlimited amounts of money without being accounted. Governments welcomed Al Gore because he offered this chance. “Saving the planet ” is beyond questioning. COP21 needed no justification either economical or technological because it was in fact a religious council.

    • davidmhoffer on August 28, 2017 at 9:55 pm

      While I don’t think Dr. Ball is wrong per se, I think things are a lot more complicated than that. They are a combination of what another commenter on this site called a “confluence of interests”:

      I think Dr Ball was going for the conspiracy at the core. All the others jumped on board for their various reasons after it got underway.

      • Precisely,and you can add that Maurice Strong designed it so they had little choice but to jump on board by using the bureaucrats at national weather offices as members of the World Meteorological Orgampnizarion (WMO).

      • Geneva Environment Network, Geneva, Switzerland, Est.1999

        A network coordinated by UNEP.

        http://www.environmenthouse.ch

        Select Network > Network Members. Click on each Network Member for information on any Network Member > Member website link.

        Then there are the inter-connections among Network Members.

        Many of these UNEP Network trails and/or inter-connecting trails lead right to Canada and the U.S.

        One reason why it is difficult to track these UNEP Member organizations.

        IPCC is there too and plays a role in and among these Network Member organizations.

      • From the above GEN website:

        1961-2007: Historical Background of GEN / Geneva Environment Network

        1983 Brundtland Commission est.
        1988 IPCC est.
        1992 Rio Earth Summit
        1999 GEN est.

        And more.

    • DavidMHoffer…excellent summary of motives to which I would add a very important:

      7.Journalists trumpeted and parroted the doomsayers to keep readers scared and tuning in and also to feel part of a noble cause.

  13. The problem is there isn’t one all encompassing motive. There are/were diverse motives driving the scientist. I remember reading through the team emails while they were discussing the models. It revolved around which paleo group would be most influential for input to the models, they obviously wanted it to be them. Prestige with some people is a powerful motivator. This appears to be especially true with academics. Throw in that you are absolutely certain of your beliefs and the truth starts to get stretched. It eventually evolves into religion for the advocates of the so called science.

    Pat Frank has run into the same issue with the modelers failure to propagate errors. He can’t get them to see the error of their ways because they would have to admit the models are useless. They can’t accept it because it would make all the work they have done they had done for not. Pride simply prevents them from moving forward in a positive direction. It is hard enough for us as humans to admit to small errors, big errors don’t get any easier. Scientist, like everybody else, are just human.

    New scientist, with the youthful desire to ‘change the world’, enter the field because they believe in the ‘science’. It becomes a case of self selection. Instead of attempting to falsify what they believe they seek to add to that which confirms their beliefs. As Thomas Gold pointed out the whole field starts acting like a herd. No one dares drift to far from the herd. It’s comfortable, like being part of a tribe. Aspiring scientist that are skeptical of the ‘science’ go into other fields.

    Then there are the snake oil salesman, the con men. Those that don’t necessarily believe but see an opportunity to advance their own selfish interests. Less devious are those who’s income depends on the faulty science. Not driven by greed but rather by financial survival. They blind themselves to the science that would falsify the science to protect their conscious.

    What gives this train the momentum is the lay person that simply believes. They believe because the ‘science is settled’, or so they have been told. They have an unending faith in the scientist. They operate under the myth that scientist are somehow immune to the same failings every other human is prone to. They believe that institutions somehow reflect the combined wisdom of their members when in fact those institutions are controlled by a very small group who’s views dominate.

    The moral superiority people. We all know about them. They are the religious fanatics. The prohibitionist. The nanny stater’s. Their motivation is their own self worth gained at other peoples expense.

    People can fall into one or more category. They may even move from one to another over time. Motives are complex, and in combination, can look like a conspiracy when there is none. Eugenics was a example of science gone south. It became the unquestioned truth without any mass conspiracy. Perhaps history is tool to open peoples minds that because everybody believes something doesn’t make it true.

  14. “…is a socialist scientist who doesn’t accept AGW.”
    I didn’t know that there were any socialist scientists that didn’t accept AGW?
    Dr Ball do you have an example of some?

    • Richard S Courtney for one.

      At one time a frequent commenter on this site, an avowed socialist who resigned from IPCC AR4 (IIRC) in protest over the science. There have been others, but they don’t drop in like they did in the early years because the left/right theme has become a lot more pervasive than it once was.

    • There are numerous strong leftwingers who reject CAGW. One that springs to mind is Denis Rancourt (several presentations on YouTube). For that matter I have heard Steve McIntyre say he dissents from the political views of so many skeptics (though he probably wouldn’t call himself a socialist, the context indicated he was to the left of them).

    • There simply isn’t any logical contradiction between rejecting AGW and supporting free healthcare and universal basic income or whatever left-wing agenda you might fancy. So, it would be very surprising if people who do both could not be found.

  15. Fifty percent won’t listen, won’t debate and will just follow an obstructive line. Everyone already knows the country is in need of an infrastructure rebuild and knows it would create jobs bigtime, but if Trump proposes it, the Dems will obstruct. I think Pruitt should just do what he thinks needs to be done (he is doing a lot of that already). If you want a rationale, then state that the country can’t afford it, state its been studied to death and predictions are 300% higher than observations. I think a good approach to cooling fervour is to get on with prosecutions of the obvious law breakers:

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/congressman-alleges-illicit-payments-for-scientist-behind-climate-rico-push/

    The CAGW junk is not even on life support and will dry up and blow away. My concern is there should be no mercy for these guys. We could see already where things were headed before Trump cancelled AGW. There would soon would have been laws in place to jail dissenters under the rationale that the risk to the world couldn’t be tolerated. Europe has already passed laws that don’t allow you to complain about immigration policy, multiculturalism, identifying the religion of a terrorist, etc. An Italian woman writer was indicted for publishing a book critical of immigration policy – she fled to New York
    and can’t return home or she will be jailed. I don’t have the link. No, jailing dissenters wasn’t far off here.

    • What would be the outcome if the US govt simply stopped all climate science funding as currently done, took the flak using the line that the science is settled so no more funding is needed, and then quietly funded real climate science.

  16. I think this essay is also worth reading:
    The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics

    An alternative title for that essay could have been:
    Everything wrong with IPCC – unwittingly told by a proponent!
    A few quotes:

    “The IPCC, although exceptional in the scope of its mission and effort, is not unique in its methods and outcome. In particular, a requirement for consensus, and the procedures and norms that make it workable, are found in the decision-making of many other international regimes that employ scientific research to address environmental problems.”

    “…intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order.”

    “A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences”

  17. The public may grow wary of ever forecasted doom, but they also have a short memory.

    Unfortunately, some unscrupulous types use weather events to peddle their agenda. Equally unfortunate is that every year the weather will be doing something funky.

    Also, one side is in control of the temperature records and the amount of the globe reliant on infilling or adjustments is increasing each year, rather than increasing. The game is rigged.

  18. “It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesn’t understand the science.”
    That conclusion is supported by the following paper: Who falls for fake news? The roles of analytic thinking, motivated reasoning, political ideology, and bullshit receptivity Main conclusion:
    «The present results indicate that analytic thinking plays an important role in people’s self-inoculation against political disinformation. Contrary to the popular motivated reasoning account of political cognition, our evidence indicates that people fall for fake news because they fail to think; not because they think in a motivated or identity-protective way.»

    Apparently – many scientists don’t have a proper understanding of science either. That is no wonder – believe it or not, the scientific enterprises have failed to identify clearly the principles of science, and failed to establish proper ethical guidelines for science. As an example of that failure, skepticism has even been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,” a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science:
    What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?

    In my opinion, the scientific enterprises have failed to equip scientist, and the public, with the analytical tools that are required to distinguish – exactly – science from fiction. That is the reason behind my work on that issue: Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct (v8.0) I will be happy to discuss that work in order to develop it further.

  19. “…..a majority of Americans opposed his action” That’s BS. I would like to read the the poll questions and who did they polled. “The survey had a sample of 527 adults and a margin of error of 1.4 percent.” All between the ages of 18 – 24. Better yet, 527 EPA employees.

    • Given that this was one of President’s Trump’s campaign promises, I find it difficult to accept that a clear majority opposed his action.

      The election itself is the best guide to public opinion on an en mass basis.

  20. Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.

    Incorrect.

    The IPCC was not set up and has never been concerned in proving that CO2 would cause runaway global warming.

    Its terms of reference (if you can find them) assume this as a priori truth. The role of the IPCC is to advise governments on what to do about it.

    • Leo – you are correct. The IPCC reports do not explain how CO2 warms the planet. That is a given.

  21. The answer to the headline question is tangentially answered by Terry Pratchett in his Discworld novel “Small Gods” and explains why climate sceptics have difficulty in presenting their case.
    ” ‘He’s muffed it,’ said Simony. He just told them a lot of facts. You can’t inspire people with facts. They need a cause. They need a symbol.”
    That is where Gore, the greens et al have scored – and, indeed, all the world’s religions. They created a cause and a symbol, the end of the earth by boiling or whatever. All those of us on the sceptic side can do is present facts. We don’t have a cause, a symbol, a religion.

  22. Here’s another example of recent scientific fraud.

    Ancel Keys, an economist, started the theory that heart attacks were caused by fat consumption. He and his buddies managed to squelch sugar and all other probable causes. The science was bad and maybe fraudulent. It’s very much like CAGW. link

    What was the motive? Ancel Keys had a wonderful career with much public and professional acclaim. His motive is clear, it was personal aggrandizement. What’s Al Gore’s motive? It’s made him a billionaire. He has a clear motive to continue. How about James Hansen? Much the same as Keys.

    A single person, or a small group of people, can turn science if they are sufficiently aggressive. The science will follow the accepted bias.

    … for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. link

  23. Many people have tried to understand the global warming alarmism.
    First:
    I think humans should be considered “religious animals” . As a result of our consciensness we realize what we don’t know (such as the origin of the universe…) these questions require answers to suppress “existential fears” . The church supplies these answers about unknown phenonema. Religious theses cannot be proofed, do not need proof. They become true by authority and consenses, that’s why heretics have to be silenced.
    second:
    there is a general tendency in societies to form elites. A successfull group secures it’s wealth at the cost of others. Communism was a revolt of the elites, also the Club of Rome, socialism in Europa after 1975 and yes: climate alarmism is . In all cases, strong propaganda is needed to manipulate the masses.
    third:
    recently the church was replaced by the environmental movements. (Green Peace etc) God became (wild) nature. To live means to exploit the earth, but now, Earth being God, there is no other way then to live in deep sin. A strong business model indeed.
    Traditionally the church legitimates social inequalities. Now the Green Church requires enormous sacrifices. (windfarms, solar panels) to compensate for our guilts to Mother Earth.
    fourth:
    evolution is amoral. Things happen because they are profitable. Nature is full of parasites.
    Opportunists (banks, contractors…) are attracted by subsidies supplied without rational arguments (which religion does not need )
    Consider:
    – mostly higher educated people (and Holliwood artists) embrace climate alarmism.
    – windmills and solar panels are promoted but this technology will fail to generate enough energy for all.
    – nuclear may (in time) supply enough energy for all but is rejected.
    – the cost of energy transition is socialized, which hits the lower income classes most creating more inequality.
    To read more: http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html

  24. I think we need better explanations of what is happening with the climate. What happens to the 10Gt CO2 we put into the atmosphere each year? What became of the 1100 Gt fossil C incinerated during the past 250 years? To that end I just promised myself to write a model/game/interactive video for the masses. Because I think this is the main sticking point. The masses know we burn fossil fuel. They know it makes CO2. They do not know that only 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere has a fossil fuel signature. They think the 400 ppm CO2 is mostly due to our emissions, rather than ocean out-gassing because of warming.

    • 5 percent of 400 ppm is 20 ppm. CO2 from human fossil fuel burning does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
      Atmospheric CO2 is one small part of the rapidly flowing biogeochemical cycle between much larger pools on and below the surface.

  25. The public may disagree with the Paris treaty withdrawal because most don’t understand it, but unless they make this known to their representatives, it probably means little. Let us hope so.

  26. If WUWT had a shop, its most popular products would probably be those emblazoned with the Royal Society’s motto: Nullius in verba.

    How about a mug or t-shirt with “Nullius in verba” on one side, and “Be skeptical” on the other?

  27. Tim, some of us ‘Energy Matters’ readers suspect you post there via moniker ‘songhees’. Is this you? If not, okay, but if, maybe, perhaps, youl’d care to comment?

    • All my (late) uncles and aunts were socialists. (Netherlands 1900- 2000) They worked hard and invested in education with a strong sense for the general interest. Somewhere after 1975 however socialism became the art of passing the bill to your neighbours. Academics took over the party and so socialism became a vehicle to built a new elite. History repeats.

  28. Let’s just think of the cloud feedback in the theory. Cloud feedback takes global warming from a minor effect to a potentially significant effect. Without the assumption that cloud feedback amplifies the warming, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this now.

    In the theory, you put more vapor in the atmosphere and you get less clouds.

    You put less water vapor in the atmosphere and you get more clouds.

    Think about that. It is wrong on its face.

    Why are we here talking about global warming then. Because some scientists did the math early on in the development of the theory and realized there wouldn’t be significant warming with cloud feedback amplifying the warming at a certain rate. They decided to just use the “wrong on its face” assumption and never test the assumption or talk about it much. They did this on purpose to keep the movement going and they are still doing it today.

  29. I think there may be a simpler reason for this delusion:
    * Nuclear power for electrical generation was implemented in the West from the 1960’s.
    * Nuclear power became a politically unacceptable means of generating power for Greens and lefties sometime in the 80’s because of its association with nuclear weapons.
    * ‘Peak Oil’ was forecast and politicians were faced with the challenge of how to keep the lights on.
    * Nuclear power is relatively low in carbon output (no exhaust gasses after a plant is constructed).
    * So, nuclear power ( and ‘renewables’) were made acceptable to Greens and lefties by demonising oil: a lesser of two evils argument.

  30. I’m with Dr. Ball in recognizing the specific contribution of the Club of Rome… but even though the group itself is creepy in its presumptuous way, which is why so much Illuminati crap is written about them on the Internet… but the truth is somewhat more pedestrian.

    Club of Rome re-branded the Generic Malthusian Warning to a wider audience, and pioneered (along with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb) DOOMSDAY THINKING. After centuries of implicit ‘manifest destiny’, the idea that human progress should and will continue and no one should try to arrest it because even if they did, their neighbors would not, the idea that the world could come together and deliberately begin to steer its course, that was intellectually interesting and was the genesis of the ‘feel-good scientist’. It was also the genesis of the ‘jack-boot globalist’ who is morally eager and prepared to break a few sovereign eggs to make a One World Governance omelet.

    But that is now. In 1972 the UN Club of Rome commissioned a report from MIT, “Limits to Growth” (full text) that became a best-selling book of its time. It was a monumental piece of work! The first work to use as its centerpiece computerized models, and these were not the massively parallel models of today, think of them as essentially spreadsheet macros with simple feedbacks and tons of assumptions. But the models were presented convincingly enough that the layman (and laywomen such as Jane Fonda) honestly perceived the lines on the graphs into the future as fact. Our progress would kill us soon, the world would be overrun by pure-equation Malthusian population graphs (it doesn’t and hasn’t).

    Limits to Growth also presented the idea that human cities are perilous as emitters of heat as if humankind were liberating a hundred thousand times more ergs and we are all living inside a Dyson sphere. A similar model appeared for nuclear waste, which completely overstated its hazard. LTG was a bazaar of presumtive science: If you could model it with a spreadsheet and it looked bad, and could plot a spooky graph, your work was featured.

    Yes, there had been a crude optimism that technological progress was positive. But it has been replaced with an equally crude assumption that it is negative and must be tempered with the wisdom of the UN (like those weird Soviet central planners) to avoid catastrophe. In the sciences honest researchers are well aware when their models exceed reality. Limits to Growth was the first all-in-one publication to blur the line between fact and model, deliberately to achieve this end IMO.

  31. President Trump did the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It was a bad deal for the United States. Despite this, polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action.

    Actually, unless you prompt them to think about the climate, it isn’t even on most Americans’ radar. When you ask them:

    What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?

    Climate doesn’t even make the list. link

  32. The motive was MONEY.

    The global warming industry was a gravy train if you were on the team. The “saving the planet” and “greater good” arguments made the industry seem altruistic but money was the motivator for science/climate departments around the world.

  33. The big problem is it begs the question; Why is it necessary to provide a forum for balance?
    ====================================================================

    Mainly, because that is what we have been asking for the whole time. That is what they have been doing to us and we would be just as guilty as them if we did so.

    I am amazed and a little shamed that any of ours would suggest that, to be honest.

    TomRWorcMaUSA

  34. Overreach fought Integrity, and overreach won hands down. Many still put integrity in pole position, but they tend not to be very influential, maybe those who favour overreach are also the ones who tend to better climb the greasy pole, in order to better promote the overreach.

    I can’t see Integrity ever making a major comeback, the whole world seems to be embracing overreach, not just in science, but also in areas such as education, medicine, the media, religion, and art.

  35. I think AGW theory has come about through gentle but unintended evolution. To have explicitly designed it perfectly from scratch to where it is today – undoubtedly the most successful s**m in scientific history, would be impossible.
    Disenchanted left-wingers filled their lost purpose caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union by attaching instead to the Green God, via CND and ‘Peace and Love’ ideologues pushing extreme environmentalism, which led to it being adopted by politicians on the career make and chancers on the financial take.
    Blaming CO2 – a normal product of human economic activity, progress, success and ultimately of capitalism, was the absolute stroke of genius. It enabled a starting position of ‘we’re all guilty’, which was paradise to interfering busy bodies with agendas to push.
    Adherents have since recognised it provides a vehicle for whatever career or path they choose, from moral grandstanding to media, politics, business and beyond. Everyone wants to Save The Planet and hell have no fury like that which awaits those who question climate orthodoxy. Literally every person, animal, plant and country is impacted by the planets atmosphere so it’s the perfect coat of many colours that fits all-comers. ‘Roll up, roll up, folks, the great climate c*n is here to be whatever you want it to be. All you have to do is put it on’.

  36. I don’t doubt that COR exists, but to me this is bigger. It is the elitists (of all stripes) not wanting the great unwashed masses using up all the stuff (planetary resources) because they (elitists) believe they have a greater claim on them (the stuff). What they don’t seem to realize is that the greatest resource we have is human ingenuity, and that the more people we have, the more ingenuity. In trying to limit the population, they are limiting our future possibilities.

  37. Pay attention to carbon cap-and-trade systems and the potentially enormous sums of money and political control over economies and development.
    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/13157/kyoto-conspiracy/

    As more and diverse interest groups were persuaded that CO2 is a pollutant, especially when the idea supported their own interests (political control, population growth, environmentalism, poverty, racial inequality – pick a cause), greater grew the movement. What might have started as a money-making, market protection or political power scheme then took on a life of its own, well exceeding its original size. There need not be any conspiracy as such to propel and maintain the movement. At some point, it reaches critical mass and is self sustaining. It becomes a religion, requiring no foundation in evidence.

    Here’s a Canadian cheerleader for such a system, convinced that CO2 is a pollutant, plain and simple.
    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-solutions/carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/

    The carbon industry can be easy to hate, as it has been directly involved or implicated in a hundred years of war, worker and population suffering, monopoly, economic battles, pollution, lying and more. Cap-and-trade systems seduce hoi polloi into believing they are Davids winning battles against these Goliaths, while also thinking globally and acting locally. Everyone wants to do their part to help.

    So, it is possible that AGW movement finds its origins in carbon trading and an alignment of shared causes in relation to CO2 as a pollutant would lead to religion.

    • I don’t know that it’s origins lie in that direction, but it’s certainly one of the ways it’s been exploited.

      • Posit an origin, or set of origins. Some group seized on the idea of CO2 as a pollutant and promoted it for some reason.

        By this point, it might not really matter how it all began, except to not let another such one begin.

  38. ‘polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action.’

    Bull****
    Pretty much strictly Progressives.

  39. If humans cause climate change then humans can stop climate change … if they buy my product, vote for my candidate, increase my agency’s budget, donate to my organization, fund my research, etc. This is how climate alarmism became a public relations juggernaut.

  40. The global warming story doesn’t go away because the “corrupted science” exists only in the minds of those who will not see. The evidence that the science is founded in reality is all about us, and grows stronger every day. Rational people who are shown the science understand it. You can argue the future is not as dire as some predict, you cannot argue rationally that we are not heating the troposphere at an alarming rate.

    • …you cannot argue rationally that we are not heating the troposphere at an alarming rate.

      Surely you can provide evidence of the “alarming rate”???

    • Well, Jack Davis, would care to comment on the so-called Climategate scandal?

      What kind of scientists refuse to respond to freedom of information requests for data? Scientists who, in fact, present a reality that no one else can observe. That is about as far removed from science as it gets.

  41. It would appear that the discussion has returned to “cause” and apart from pstevens2 there would seem to be no plan to inform and educate the public in order to regain the balance and construction as opposite to destruction.
    I wish I was more adequate point the way because it needs to be done.
    Fear makes people listen – e.g. AGW
    Can we use that “fear” in a positive way?

  42. Fear of the unknown. People obsess over supposed threats, real or manufactured, that they don’t understand, leaving them open to deception, especially if there is money to be made.

  43. Don’t forget the Rockefeller influences… They are using their vast wealth to NGOize the world into a collective interdependent one world socialist hell. They are also hugely (and probably, mostly) responsible for getting the environmental movement going:

    From page 21 of the link at the bottom:
    E. SUPPORT FOR TRANSNATIONAL REGIMES
    Through support for state and non-state actors, foundations have played key roles in advancing regimes to address global problems with practical and positive effect. In the 1960s, foundations supported the environmental and anti-nuclear movements, which led to the Clean Air Act and the Limited Test Ban Treaty. In the 1980s, philanthropic attention turned to the Nuclear Weapons Freeze campaign, which led to strategic arms reductions (START) and the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). More recently, foundations have supported groups that have promoted the advancement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Global Climate Change (FCCC), and the Montreal Protocol.

    http://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/Advancing_Stability_in_Era_of_Change.pdf

    Also, Rockefeller money helped fund the COR.

  44. Having debated those on the Left much of my life I believe we are beating around the proverbial bush here. Before AGW the socioeconomic left and the environmental left had a hard time coming together for very long. Nothing could rally them together. There was no unifying force. With AGW they could see a tool to attack what they believe is the evil in the world, capitalism and the USA as the primary representative of capitalism. I shouldn’t need to detail what the various supporters of socialism want. For environmentalists it is a different story. They see corporations as the destroyers of the environment while paradoxically at the same time some of their biggest funder. How do you destroy capitalism, reduce, raise the cost of or eliminate entirely cheap energy. As they see it that is fossil fuels in its many forms. Carbon dioxide and other human caused greenhouse emissions are the perfect stick. The AGW crowd HATES it when the true cost of renewables is detailed anywhere. The bigger question for me as a trained scientist is why has this so corrupted science and been so responsible for suppress good honest scientific debate?

  45. Unfortunately this kind of debate falls flat as soon as you hold both sides accountable to bad evidence and deceptive behaviour. When you do that, those vying to convince us that global warming is not human caused have far more to answer for. So much in fact it paints a very clear picture and begs a question. What was their motivation. Yes, you can ask that question both ways you know.
    Example A, Exxon. Vested interests. Exposed cover up.
    Let me know how many more you want and we will keep them rolling.

      • Perhaps you meant to use a different word. We have tons of empirical evidence for human caused climate change. It is actually the main type of evidence we have. It is a change of evidence that supports the case. We do not have a way to test it, as we do not have another earth to conduct tests on.

        Do you think smoking is a cause for lung related diseases? If you do, you accept the evidence in the case. You accept the strong correlations. Yet nobody has conducted clinical trials to prove that smoking causes lung disease. Do we need to?

        The main claim of this post is framing an issue based on a failure in presentation of facts. Yet this is happening in far greater frequency and to much greater extremes on the side of those rejecting the case for human caused warming.

      • “….We have tons of empirical evidence for human caused climate change…..” then give me one gram of such “evidence”.

      • “give me one gram of such “evidence”.”

        In simple terms, using various tools and methods we have observed an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We have also observed an increase in population and activities that directly contribute to CO2 emissions. There is a well established and accepted result of what this does to the earth.

        For reference, meaning of the word ‘Emprical’

        “Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.”

        If you have a specific contention in the chain of evidence, lets discuss this one point at a time. This is what I did when investigating this issue for myself as I was once not convinced of the claims either.

      • David:

        “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment” is a property of a model for which there is an underlying statistical population. For the global warming models of the United Nations IPCC there is no underlying statistical population. Therefore, the claims that are made by these models are not verifiable or provable.

        Needed in support of the public policy on global warming is a model for which there is an underlying statistical population. Currently, such a model does not exist. With political pressure from concerned citizens such as yourself we might succeed in coaxing the government of the U.S. to produce one.. This, then would provide the scientific basis for making public policy on global warming that does not currently exist..

      • Terry – “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment” is a definition for the word Empirical. This was addressing the claim “there is no empirical evidence”. Yet there are many forms of evidence that meet this definition.

        Making the case for climate change is about collection of such evidence and presenting as a case. It is not ‘dependent’ on models. These are only a part of chain evidence. However, the way models are tested and verified is by checking that they work in hindcasting. We can validate as best possible that models match what has happened in the past. But as you would know, modeling climate is an extremely complex task.

        We have public polices on smoking. Did we need to have causality proven? What was used? Yet we claim to have a scientific basis for making such policies based off the observations and correlations that clearly show a pattern that is worth acting on.

      • David:

        Thank you for taking the time to respond. You argue that
        Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment” is a definition for the word Empirical. Yet
        there are many forms of evidence that meet this definition.
        This argument is an example of an “equivocation,” that is, an argument in which one or more terms change meaning in the midst of the argument. The terms that change meaning are “empirical” and “evidence.”

        To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.”aka “bait and switch fallacy.” You draw such a conclusion when you assert that “…there are many forms of evidence that meet this definition.” If you wished you could avoid application of the equivocation fallacy by disambiguation of the language in which your argument is written such that each term has a single meaning. It would then be impossible for this argument to apply the equivocation fallacy.

      • Terry

        What I said is written above and it is clear.

        There was challenge that there is no “empirical evidence” made by Markl. Based on the definition of ‘Emprical’, we certainly do have this kind of evidence, that much is very clear. However it is something that gets said a lot and often by mistake. What is correct to say is that we cannot provide an experimental example to support the claims. And there is good reason for this as you know. We only have one earth.

        You want to dance around the use of words here, though it is actually quite clear. ‘Empircal’ has no default state implying that an experiment must be carried out. I actually made a point of saying in a previous reply that perhaps a better word should be used to describe the issue Markl has since using a word.

        There is nothing corrupt or deceptive about how I am using the word Empirical in this case.

        If you have some contention about the issue at large, something on point with what we have been discussing such as the use of models, the evidence or particular claims in the climate debate lets look at them one by one. I would be happy to discuss them with a view to finding the best understanding. However, jumping around to new points and semantics is not going to be very productive.

      • David:

        The question under discussion is not whether what you have written is “clear” but rather is whether terms of the argument that you make are ambiguous. By the definition of “ambiguous” some of these terms are ambiguous. Do you oppose disambiguation of these terms?

      • Terry: I think my last reply covers any sense of ambiguity. The definition of the word ’empirical’ is written out for all to see. I made clear in my reply that what I provided as evidence fits the definition.

        Here is another definition from a different source.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

        1: originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
        2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
        3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
        4: of or relating to empiricism

        In what way is the example evidence I gave NOT empirical?

      • Terry:

        I should add. That in the case for climate change, the evidence does include experiments that validate the claims. Things such as what green house gas does and how it works to warm things. That HAS been tested and proven through experiments.

      • David:
        That Earth’s climate changes follows from the definition of terms thus being at issue only among mental defectives. At best, what greenhouse gas does and how it works is not a fact but rather is a theory. This theory cannot be tested unless and until the statistical population underlying this theory is identified. That it is identified is not currently the case.

      • Terry: There are experiments though.

        Such as using an Infrared thermometer outside. When pointing straight up, you will get a cooler reading than when you point it towards the horizon. It is in line with more greenhouse gases when you point toward the horizon and so it will be warmer. That is a test that has been performed and you can do yourself. As such, this would meet your terms of it being a fact.

        Please also watch this experiment on how CO2 (a greenhouse gas) effects temperature

    • Moderator:
      In my previous post, the following text should be indented, minus the quotation marks::
      “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment” is a definition for the word Empirical. Yet
      there are many forms of evidence that meet this definition”

      [sorry, can’t make that indented formatting work in comments -mod]

      • David:

        When you say that “the evidence does include experiments that validate the claim” the terms “evidence” and “validate” have multiple meanings. This property of the two terms makes of your argument an example of an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks like a syllogism but while the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the conclusion of an equivocaion is false or unproved. Thus, while it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism, it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.” In concluding that “the evidence does include experiments that validate the claims” you are guilty of application of the equivocation fallacy.

        In the language of global warming climatology, the term “validate” has two meanings. This ambiguity of meaning has been eliminated by the IPCC by the disambiguation in which the term “validate” is used in reference to testing in a sample drawn from a statistical population and the term “evaluate” is used in reference to testing in a global warming time series. Currently, in every case in which a model has been tested this has been in a times series and not in a population but it is testing in a population that imparts to a model the property of falsifiability. Currently, no model can be tested in a population as there is no such population. Thus, no model can have the property of falsifiability. It follows that no model supplies a regulatory agency such as the EPA with information about the outcomes of events and that such an agency is incapable of regulating Earth’s climate though many such agencies pretend to do so.

      • Terry: You clearly rejected that there was an experiment that proved what happens with greenhouse gases.
        “At best, what greenhouse gas does and how it works is not a fact but rather is a theory” – Wrong here Terry. I gave two examples.

        Are you rejecting that there is evidence for how greenhouse gases affect temperature? If so, see the experiments given. If you are rejecting something about those experiments, state your case.

        Regardless of the IPCC use a term in a specific case, the context in which I used the term applies the chain of evidence and an example of an experiment that validates the claim of the evidence it provides. If you want to dance around the correct use of words here, no problem. This however will not remove the relevance of the experiment or that it is evidence or that it is a “fact” that we know how greenhouse gases work. Which you claim we don’t.

        If you have some specific quibble with the chain of evidence for climate change, state it clearly and we will address it, point by point. You don’t seem to want to do this.

        We do not need to rely on models to support the claim that climate change is being caused by CO2 levels. Nor do we need models to support the claim that human caused CO2 is increasing. Nor do we need models to support the claim that other variables besides CO2, like the sun, also cause warming in the past but currently are in decline.

      • David:

        You have raised a semantic issue. In this case, the issue is resolved by usage.

        In scientific usage a “theory” is a procedure for making inferences under incomplete information for a conclusion to be reached deductively. A “theorem,” on the other hand, is a procedure for making inferences under complete information for a conclusion to be reached deductively. When information is gained via repeated trials of an experiment laws of probability theory and statistics tell us that this information is incomplete; thus in scientifically proper usage a procedure for making inferences when the information is gained by repeated trials of an experiment is called a “theory” rather than being called a “theorem.”

      • Terry (Slow reply as I have been at work)

        You said “In scientific usage a “theory” is a procedure for making inferences under incomplete information for a conclusion to be reached deductively.”

        This is not correct.

        In scientific terms a theory can be a few things, but in a formal sense it is: “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:”

        In science, you start with a hypothesis. When carefully observed facts prove the hypothesis, it becomes known as a ‘Theory’. The ‘Theory’ explains the facts. Such as the theory of gravity

        You said previously “At best, what greenhouse gas does and how it works is not a fact but rather is a theory”. This is wrong. The facts are the tested observations. The observed temperature change from CO2 is a fact.

        Lets not confuse maths based terms with terms relating to the science to physics.

        Yet again Terry it seems to me you are more interested in debate on its own than debating the validity of claims around climate change and the evidence.

        So I will ask again. Is there is a specific point you can identify that changes the outcome of the science supporting climate change? If so, what is it?

        If you cannot reply with a point of contention that you want to honestly examine, I will assume you are just here for debate sports and I will leave your replies alone. It is a waste of time and nothing will be learned from either of us. As I have stated already. I am happy to change my views based on evidence. an objective debate is welcomed.

      • David:

        By stating that “You said ‘in scientific usage a ‘theory’ is a procedure for making inferences under incomplete information for a conclusion to be reached deductively'” and responding to the contrary that “a ‘theory’ is ‘a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena'” you make of ‘theory’ a polysemic term in relation to our debate. That this term is “polysemic” means that ‘theory’ has more than one meaning. In the philosophical literature, when a term is polysemic and changes meaning in the midst of the argument as ‘theory” does in the midst of your argument this argument is an example of an “equivocation.” Though an equivocation looks like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, while a conclusion can logically be drawn from a syllogism an argument cannot be logically drawn from an an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.” In your response to me I note that you draw a conclusion from an equivocation thus being guilty of application of the equivocation fallacy. Thus you fail to prove whatever conclusion that it is your purpose to prove making our debate a waste of my time and yours.

  46. Polls are not science. They are the product of special interest groups, rife with unreliable sampling, if not dry-labbed, and strongly biased analyses. For the most part they are an output of mainstream media. They are fillers purchased to fill slow news days and propaganda spots disguised as news. Example: Hillary to win by a landslide.

  47. People are skeptical that scientists and politicians would possibly be motivated to support a such a poorly supported theory. Nonetheless this appears to be the case. Dr. Ball has initiated an excellent discussion proposing (identifying) some of the motivations. It seems incredible – but, then, who would have thought that the German people and the Lutheran and Catholic Churches of that time would fall in line with Hitler ‘s crazy theories.

  48. The title should be “Continued Failure to Explain … ”
    Much easier to read that way.

    Get Attention

    Get Money – grants & subsidies & activist salaries

    Get Power — more government power is always the “solution”

    It’s always about attention money and power … and sometimes girls

  49. My Dad was a great believer in Malthus. I would point to education and the expansion of Western culture into the third world as being strong influences that could check or postpone such a catastrophe.

    However, he would rather see his children be able to take advantage of ever increasing commodity futures than concede that shortages of raw and recycled materials would never materialize in his lifetime, much less systemic shortages due to population growth.

    Pruitt can avoid offending the religious sensibilities of the followers of Malthus, while leaving unmolested the minds of the more productive members of society at large, by focusing on photosynthesis as being an active component of earth’s energy budget, rather than focusing on the diminishing, asymptotic contribution, if any, of greenhouse gasses, Radiative energy budget reveals high photosynthetic efficiency in symbiont-bearing corals, linked with Rising carbon dioxide is making the Earth GREENER: Extra plant growth caused by greenhouse gases could cover the USA twice and with Rising carbon dioxide is making the world’s plants more water-wise, for example.

    Such is analogous to the dance that some Catholics feel obliged to do: A Catholic can believe in human evolution, so long as the Catholic also believes that God imbued man with spirit at some point in time, to satisfy the Pope, agruably the head Malthusian. See Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man.

    Similarly, it would not be stretch for Pruitt to retain full confidence that CO2 does not cause global warming, so long as he entertains the notion that Malthus might be right at some horrific moment in the future.

    In this way, Pruitt could become a card-carrying member of the Club of Rome, and at the same time, denounce climate hysteria.

  50. Two points: First, Malthus was the Climatologist of his day, albeit computer-less. Regardless, both encourage belief systems, and neither demonstrates an iota of predictive power, the requirement of science.

    Second, atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming as sure as thermodynamics and radiation theory have predictive power. What no one, from commenters and Dr. Ball to the whole of IPCC, realizes is that man has no power to alter the atmospheric concentration of CO2. That concentration is regulated by Henry’s Law (IPCC has yet to admit that it discovered Henry’s Law, and which time IPCC promptly concealed it). If man could actually sequester an appreciable amount of CO2, the ocean would just put it back.

    Oh, man CAN change the rate of change of atmospheric concentration. He can do so in the ratio of his CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., to the concentration in sea water (~6 parts in 31,000 per year) in the near term of a few millennia, or in the ratio of those emissions to the total sequestered in ocean sediment (6 parts in 121,000,000 per year) in the long run.

    What the warmists need to do is figure out how man might change the ocean temperature. That would work.

    Oh again, except for the fact that global warming from any cause, including especially the blanket effect of long wave radiation resistance, is mitigated by cloud cover. An increase in average surface temperature causes an increase in humidity (courtesy of Clausius & Clapeyron), followed by an increase in cloud cover (the atmosphere always has an excess of condensation nuclei), increasing cloud albedo (the dominant albedo, which IPCC models as a constant and not a feedback), and turning down TSI. And vice versa.

    The ocean regulates atmospheric CO2 concentration and cloud cover regulates surface and lower atmospheric temperature. These are feedbacks missing from the warmists’ model.

    Malthus had a similar problem with missing feedbacks, but feedbacks he never could have predicted. Man produces a surplus of food (of questionable quality: too digestible and too sugary), resulting in gluttony in a big chunk of the world, followed with a few decades lag by obesity and diabetes, and a rising death rate from both. Food production doesn’t remove the death rate from starvation, it gradually replaces it with disease.

    The socialists have a plan to fix all surpluses in the long run: drive the producers of everything into extinction, including babies, and drive themselves into power. It’s a naturally occurring fatal disease of democracy.

    • The lack of predictive power of global warming models is guaranteed by the lack of the statistical populations underlying these models. Is the lack of the underlying statistical population characteristic of Malthus’s model?

      • Terry Oldberg, 9/2/2017 @ 8:33pm said The lack of predictive power of global warming models is guaranteed by the lack of the statistical populations underlying these models. Is the lack of the underlying statistical population characteristic of Malthus’s model?

        IPCC pedicts/projects/forecasts, take your pick, a change-our-world-as-we-know-it rise in Global Average Surface Temperature in one century (t – 100 years and holding).

        The ultimate aim is, of course, to model as much as possible of the whole of the Earth’s climate system so that all the components can interact and, thus, the predictions of climate change will continuously take into account the effect of feedbacks among components. Bold added, TAR, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, Box 3: Climate Models : How are they build and how are they applied, p. 48.

        IPCC assesses that rise from model runs as the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) parameter:

        The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely [P > 66%] to be in the range 2ºC to 4.5ºC with a best estimate of about 3ºC, and is very unlikely [P < 10%] to be less than 1.5ºC. Values substantially higher than 4.5ºC cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. AR4, SPM, p. 12.

        An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT [Surface Air Temperature] warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. AR4, Ch. 10, Executive Summary, p. 749.

        IPCC prefers to call its catastrophic forecasts projections to indicate that they are scenario dependent. The ECS is not scenario dependent. It is the result in models of doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2, predicted for any scenario. ECS is an immediately available prediction; we don’t have to wait a century to check the validity of its model.

        Enough data have been available for a while now to estimate the ECS at 0.7ºC/2xCO2. Lindzen & Choi (2011). IPCC’s estimates (guesses) of 1.5º (10%), 2º (17%), 3º (50%), and 4.5º (83%) form a straight line on a logarithmic chart, so 0.7º has a confidence value of 2.2%. In other words, we have enough in the “statistical population” to be 97.8% confident that the AGW model is invalid.

        It’s time for IPCC to melt and re-pour its Greenhouse Effect/radiation balance model, based on available data and IPCC statistics.

        Previously the Greenhouse Effect, a misnomer, was called the Callendar Effect. Weart, S., Discovery of Global Warming: Guy Stewart Callendar. The name came from the work of this “little known pioneer”, specifically The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature, 1938. Callendar put the ECS at 2ºC. In the discussion section of that paper, reviewer Sir George Simpson [1878-1965], Director, Meteorological Office [1920-1938] snarkily offered this constructive criticism, per the editor’s interpretation:

        Sir GEORGE SIMPSON expressed his admiration of the amount of work which Mr. Callendar had put into this paper. It was excellent work. It was difficult to criticise it, but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. Callendar (1938) p. 237.

        In short, no amount of augmentation for “the lack of the statistical populations” is likely to fix the AGW model, and certainly not in Simpson’s view. It’s toast.

        Re Malthus, his work was a social narrative based on little more than the mathematical fact that any positive growth rate will exceed some carrying capacity on its route to infinity. Terry Oldberg’s model seems to assert the dubious proposition that enough data will fix any failed conjecture.

      • Jeff Glassman
        You imply that predict, project and forecast should be treated as synonyms. I disagree.
        Predict and forecast should be treated as synonyms but project has a distinct meaning.
        Vincent Gray provides a history of the usage of these and related words in the paper that is entitled “Spinning the Climate.” Early in its existence the IPCC claimed its climate models to be “validated.” From his studies of mathematical statistics Gray know that “validate”aka “cross validate” had a precise meaning in the terminology of mathematical statistics and that the models could not have been validated because the statistical population underlying the model that was required for validation did not exist. When he reported his findings to IPCC management they indicated that they understood what he was saying for they changed the word “validate” to the word “evaluate” in subsequent versions of their assessment reports. In an evaluation, a global temperature time series was plotted on X-Y coordinates and compared to the time-global temperature relations that were the output from selected climate models. No statistical population was required or useful.
        A controversy erupted over whether the models made “predictions” or “projections.” In a post to the blog of “Nature,” Kevin Trenberth” insisted that the models did not make “predictions” but rather made “projections.” Over time professional climatologists accepted the IPCC/Trenberth disambiguation of the related terms. Under this disambiguation, in an “evaluation,” “projections” were compared to a global warming time series. “Predictions” could not be made by the climate models as this required the existence of the underlying statistical population and there wasn’t one.
        Of interest to me is a conclusion from information theory under which it is impossible to build a model for which the mutual information is non-nil absent the statistical population underlying this model. It follows that for the IPCC climate models the mutual information is nil. Non-nil mutual information is, however, required by a regulatory agency if it is to regulate Earth’s climate system.. The important conclusion emerges from this argument that a regulatory agency cannot regulate Earth’s climate system while the statistical populations underlying the models remain non-existent.

  51. Re Terry Oldberg, 9/5/2017 @ 8:07 am:

    IPCC has taken command of the AGW movement that says a climate catastrophe is coming in 100 years, close enough to scare the policymakers, but hopefully far enough in the future to avoid validation before trillions are committed. IPCC’s Third Assessment Report said its models make predictions; the Fourth Assessment Report upgrades them to projections. Mox nix. What these upcoming events are called, or who makes the call, is quite irrelevant because the model is invalid. That model derives the ECS as part of its output, an upcoming parameter for which data are available. The analyses of those data happen to be wrong, but they err on the conservative side. The situation is far worse than reported.

    What Lindzen & Choi, like others since, measure is the rise in CO2 following a rise in temperature. ECS is a rise in temperature following a doubling of CO2. AR4 Glossary, p. 943. It works that way in the models, of course. But both good and bad earth scientists have yet to come to grips with science: a cause must precede each of its effects. The definition does; it is OK. It shows the requisite causality, a principle of science, that is baked into the movement.

    What L&C measured is “minus ECS”. No one in the climate community seems to be estimating leads and lags among its parameters. What L&C are estimating is actually an ECS of -0.7ºC. Fortunately for the public, ECS in nature isn’t, say, -3ºC or -4ºC, because then what climatologists measure would have confirmed the movement’s ersatz model.

    AGW warrants the label “junk science”. I predict its downfall — in 4 or 5 election cycles.

    • Jeff Glassman

      Thank you for taking the time to reply and for sharing your ideas. By stating the proposition “mox nix” (“there is no difference” in German) you imply that that there is not a meaningful difference between “prediction” and “projection.”. There is, however, a meaningful difference. The difference is that underlying a set of predictions is a statistical population but underlying a set of projections is no statistical population. Consequently the predictions can be cross validated but not the projections. A model that makes predictions has the scientifically significant property of falsifiability but not a model that makes projections. According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is the mark of a theory that is “scientific.”

      In this way, you make of your argument an example of an equivocation, that is, an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of an argument. The term that changes meaning is the word-pair “prediction/projection.” From this equivocation you draw a conclusion; The conclusion is “mox nix.” In doing so your argument is guilty of application of the equivocation fallacy. As it makes application of a fallacy this argument is illogical.

  52. Re Terry Oldberg, 9/6/2017 @ 1:22 pm, takes two proper synonyms I used, interprets them to have different meanings, then accuses me of equivocation. Cute. Here are those same words in ordinary English senses from en.oxforddictionaries.com, bold added:

    projection : noun : 1. An estimate or forecast of a future situation based on a study of present trends.

    prediction : noun : 1. A thing predicted; a forecast.

    Now IPCC makes a distinction between these words for its purposes, which offends no principles. It inserts:

    Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions by their dependence on the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which is in turn based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realized. AR5 Glossary, p. 1451

    In IPCC usage, a climate projection is a subclass of climate prediction. That is, a climate projection is a climate prediction with an added element. So when writing about the ECS, which is not a projection, ECS is a scenario-free forecast by IPCC models. Like any scenario-independent output of an IPCC model, ECS is a prediction.
    ++++++++++++++

    • Jeff Glassman:

      Thank you for taking the time to reply and for sharing your views.

      Your attempt at proof of your conclusion is not true to the nature of the equivocation fallacy. Did you read up on this nature of this fallacy before replying? If not I recommend that you do so at your earliest convenience.

      In a description of this fallacy, the terms “monosemic” and “polysemic” play key roles. A term that is “monosemic” has one meaning. A term that is “polysemic” has more than one meaning. An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of the argument. Note that the term that changes meaning is necessarily polysemic. Thus, disambiguation of terms in the language of an argument is preventative of application of the equivocation fallacy by this argument. Under this fallacy, a term changes meaning in the midst of an argument and a conclusion is drawn from this argument.

      In your argument of Sept. 6 you draw the conclusion “Mox nix” from your argument. In this way you conclude that whether or not a statistical population underlies a climate model does not matter. In doing so, you draw a conclusion from an argument in which a term designating the output of a climate model possessing no underlying statistical population and a term designating the output of a climate model possessing an underlying statistical population are treated as synonyms. To treat them as synonyms in making a global warming argument is to apply the equivocation fallacy. To cite examples of ambiguous terms in the IPCC reports, Oxford dictionaries or English vernacular is not to prove that the distinction is unimportant between a climate model possessing no underlying statistical population and a climate model possessing such a population but to make this distinction is quite obviously important. If it sounds unimportant the apparent unimportance results from application by your argument of the equivocation fallacy.

      Regarding ECS, it is the proportionality constant in a purportedly linear functional relation. This relation relates the logarithm of the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the change in the global surface air change at equilibrium aka steady state. As the latter change is not observable, the underlying statistical population cannot exist, the model provides the EPA with no information and this model cannot be cross validated. As the EPA has no information it cannot regulate but this does not prevent it from preventing it from pretending to regulate. To pretend to regulate is accomplished through applications by the EPA and IPCC of the equivocation and reification fallacies.

  53. Terry Oldberg, 9/6/2017 @ 1:22 pm relies on Popper as authority —Karl Raimund Popper [KRP] (1902 – 1994), generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century [SEP 2/5/2013].

    Popper was an irrational metaphysician. As to irrational, Prof. David Stove, Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists (1982), is sufficient. As to metaphysician, note for example that KRP found Darwin’s natural selection to be of great scientific interest, a most successful metaphysical research program. Or, for example, My criterion of demarcation thus seems to agree here quite well with the general use of the word ‘metaphysical’. Or Popper placing metaphysics alongside mathematics and logic: The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’ systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation. Popper LSD (1934/1959) pp. 10-11.

    As Popper confessed, he was neither a scientist nor a historian, yet he cast himself as a scientist to write about the practice of science in the first person plural.

    Popper was uneasy about definitions, explicitly to dislike them. They were either unnecessary or unconscious conventional dogmas. Thus he embraced equivocation as a valid tenet of his reasoning.

    KRP, once Professor of Scientific Method, London School of Economics, wrote, and wrote principally, about empirical science, yet was expressly opposed to pragmatism. He appeared to believe, and his notorious student, Paul Feyerabend, made explicit, that the Scientific Method was a serial recipe, when it was a logical organization They both taught that the method was a myth. Bacon’s … myth of a scientific method … .

    Popper excluded causation from his model of science. He was correct that causation was a deductive principle, but then concluded it was metaphysical, and at odds with KRP’s strictly inductive-3 (en.oxforddictinaries.com) model of science. He determined that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter subjectively tested, where inter-subjective testing refers to the triad of subjective criteria comprising peer-review, publication in professional media, and consensus support, each within a cloistered, certified, professional community.

    KRP taught that all the statements of empirical science (or all ‘meaningful’ statements) must be capable of being finally decided, with respect to their truth and falsity; we shall say that they must be ‘conclusively decidable’. Scientific propositions to Popper were not simply logic statements, but at least equivalent to Universal Generalizations. His hallmark phrase, All Ravens Are Black, illustrates. UGs do occur in science, but only as definitions, and no scientist worthy of the title ever proposed such a model for the real world. Since Aristotle, the reason has always been that affirming UGs requires infinite regression, a fact Popper, too, recognized. Aristotle employed infinite regression, while simultaneously rationalized it away. As used by Aristotle, induction is reasoning from particulars to the universal, chaining causes and effects back to first causes, ending eventually in his indefinable essentials of the real world.

    The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction. [¶] The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. Popper LogSciDisc (1934/1959) p. 4.

    Just two pages later (693 words) later, Popper announced his decision:

    My own view is that the various difficulties of inductive logic here sketched are insurmountable. So also, I fear, are those inherent in the doctrine, so widely current today, that inductive inference, although not ‘strictly valid’, can attain some degree of ‘reliability’ or of ‘probability’. According to this doctrine, inductive inferences are ‘probable inferences’. … Popper LogSciDisc (1934/1959) p. 6.

    Before completing this paragraph of finality, note Popper’s use of quotation marks around strictly valid, reliability, probability, and probable inferences. These are so-called quotes, used in argument by the less-than-particular to brand opposing language as implausible, to deprive the opponent of vocabulary control. It is one of two Prof. Stove’s hallmarks of irrationality, which he calls the method neutralizing success words.

    Popper continues, employing now ordinary marks of quotation:

    ‘We have described’, says Reichenbach, ‘the principle of induction as the means whereby science decides upon truth. To be more exact, we should say that it serves to decide upon probability. For it is not given to science to reach either truth or falsity … but scientific statements can only attain continuous degrees of probability whose unattainable upper and lower limits are truth and falsity’. Footnotes deleted, id.

    Popper relies on Causality and Probability (1930), Prof. Hans Reichenbach (1891 – 1953) UCLA since 1938, to support KRP’s conclusion that inductive logic cannot possible apply to science. Reichenbach would have agreed — up to that point. But Reichenbach wasn’t finished. His imbuement of induction with a probabilistic output was a conditional, a necessity which would have derived from the fact that scientific propositions are real valued – probabilistic – not truth valued. Or, as Popper would write, ‘probabilistic’.

    Reichenbach was still not finished. He suggests that in the unattainable limits of probability, a correspondence exists between 1 and true and between 0 and false. If that were so, Popper would have a fifth version of truth to add to his expositions on truth. Reichenbach wrote three years before Kolmogorov published the first axiomatic basis for probability theory. Reichenbach’s hypothetical equivalence between numerals and truth values requires the invention of an axiomatic theory of probability that encompasses what is called the truth predicate. That is an open area of study by modern logicians and mathematicians, and apparently as yet an elusive goal.

    In his autobiography, Popper says,

    I understood why the mistaken theory of science which had ruled since Bacon — that the natural sciences were the inductive sciences, and that induction was a process of establishing or justifying theories by repeated observations or experiments—was so deeply entrenched. The reason was that scientists had to demarcate their activities from pseudoscience as well as from theology and metaphysics, and they had taken over from Bacon the inductive method as their criterion of demarcation. … But I had held in my hands for many years a better criterion of demarcation: testability or falsifiability. …

    The parts in bold are wrong. Bacon’s model was not mistaken (see Kant, below), and what scientists could take from crispy Bacon was successful predictions from candidate Cause & Effect propositions. Valid predictions are the proof of the pudding between science and nonscience. Continuing Popper’s nebulous narrative,

    Thus I could discard induction without getting into trouble over demarcation. And I could apply my results concerning the method of trial and error in such a way as to replace the whole inductive methodology by a deductive one. …This view implied that scientific theories, if they are not falsified, for ever remain hypotheses or conjectures. Bold added, Popper Unended Quest (1992) p. 88.

    Thus Popper, claiming that science was forever doomed to hypotheticals, denied four centuries of scientific progress. That fulfills the other tine of Stove’s two-pronged criteria for irrationalism. And Popper could discard induction from science, while keeping it for his falsification conjecture.

    As to the role of Bacon, Kant was of a much different opinion:

    Natural science was very much longer [than mathematics, post logic] in entering upon the highway of science. It is, indeed, only about a century and a half since Bacon [1620], by his ingenious proposals, partly initiated this discovery, partly inspired fresh vigour in those who were already on the way to it [citing Galileo, among others]. In this case also the discovery can be explained as being the sudden outcome of an intellectual revolution. In my present remarks I am referring to natural science only in so far as it is founded on empirical principles. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), pp. 19-20.

    Thus Kant erected a statue of Bacon to honor his role in the development of science, a monument for Popper to pull down. Bacon may not have created Modern Science (he wasn’t much of an experimentalist), but his Novum Organum is the initial description and enduring development of Modern Science.

    In Novum Organum, Bacon called Aristotle’s induction silly and childish, all to soften his reader for its replacement with true induction. Bacon’s true induction is no more than deduction, an embryonic word in the 17th Century. Bacon’s distinction fits the Oxford Dictionaries online definition of induction. Aristotle’s version is induction-3 and Bacon’s replacement is induction-2.

    Popper’s model of science rests on several core misconceptions. Not only are scientific propositions never Universal Generalizations, scientific propositions are never truth valued. Modern Science maps existing facts onto future facts. Demarcation is a universal requirement of definitions, found in modern linguistics and logic, and dating from Aristotle (diaphora). Popper omitted demarcations from his definitions of both definitions and science, to create a pair of vacuums he could fill with falsification He explained falsification as a criterion of demarcation, but not of meaning, but then couldn’t define meaning. Popper overlooked that induction has two meanings in ordinary English, one of which is infinite regression and other is deduction, and then overlooked Bacon’s usage and distinction. Popper overlooked the principles of Modern Science which assure objectivity in its propositions: sufficient description of the experiment to maximize its reproducibility, and reliance on facts, observations reduced to measurements and compared to standards.

    Holding that the product of empirical science was truth-valued propositions, Popper failed to recognize that what science actually produces are predictions for validation with fresh experiments. Further in the belief that no single scientist could be objective, even in the environment of the scientific method, he created a new model for science. In this model, Popper replaced objective standards and model validation with testing by his triad of group subjectivity. In the new science, successful models no longer had to work, predictions and validations were gone. In fine philosophical fettle, Popper deconstructed Bacon’s Modern Science into Popper’s Post Modern Science. Of course, PMS was ignored in industry where trade secrets trump publicity, and where science is driven by the profits that flow from success. But it thrived in the publish or perish environment of academia.

    E.g.: climatology and the AGW movement.

    • Jeff Glassman:

      Your claim that “Terry Oldberg relies on Popper as an authority” is not supported by the evidence. All that I said about Popper is contained in one proposition. The proposition is that “According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is the mark of a theory that is “scientific.” This proposition is true, is it not?

      By falsely claiming that I rely on Popper as an authority you set up a strawman argument. Subsequently you knock this strawman down.

      • Re Terry Oldberg ; September 10, 2017 at 5:48 pm:

        (1) In answer to Terry Oldberg’s question, the proposition is true – Popper did make that claim. For what it’s worth, though, it’s the claim that’s nonsense:

        1.1 Popper never showed how any nonscience could not produce falsifiable propositions.

        1.2 Scientific models are real valued —they possess accuracy, not truth, so are immune to falsification.

        1.3 Definitions require definienda (diaphora to Aristotle).

        Popper defined science as a set of Universal Generalizations (e.g., All Ravens … ) but omitting any definienda. He didn’t abide definitions, making it difficult for him to make any good ones. But with the two features he inserted, he could kill two birds with one stone — discover falsification, the common solution to the two problems purely of his own making: an empirical test of UGs (the only one logically possible), and demarcation (silently assuming nonscience couldn’t be falsified).

        (2) Terry Oldberg’s 3d sentence quotes the exact evidence he claims is missing in his 1st sentence.

        (3) Taking another page from Popper, Terry Oldberg sets up an incomplete narrative so that he can invent a solution. And to boot, he quotes from Popper! Prophetic, eh? On the other hand, maybe not, maybe just predictable. AND

        (4) Terry Oldberg thinks yours truly set up a strawman!

      • Re: Your claim that “Scientific models are real valued —they possess accuracy, not truth, so are immune to falsification.”

        “Science” is polysemic. thus failing to support meaningful debate absent disambiguation..

    • Jeff,

      Popper changed his mind about natural selection, which is what he meant by “evolution” in your citation. After he learned more about it, he concluded that it was indeed testable and falsifiable:

      “The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as “almost tautological,” and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, “Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind.” Dialectica, 32:339-355 (1978), p. 344]

      “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]”

      • Sixto, 9/11/17 @9:48 am

        Please note that I only cited the positive and enduring part of Popper’s opinion on natural selection:

        As to metaphysician, note for example that KRP found Darwin’s natural selection to be of great scientific interest, a most successful metaphysical research program.

        As your citation shows, what Popper recanted were irrelevant parts about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection. My citation was strictly for Popper’s metaphysical connections.

        And I didn’t mention evolution at all in my essay.

        Darwin’s exposition on natural selection can appear superficially tautological. But read more particularly, it reveals a much more serious aspect. Natural Selection is a misnomer — Darwin’s version should be called Supernatural Selection. That’s because he made it a sentient being, possessing a purpose and a plan for every species, giving small changes a positive cumulative effect, having foresight to know what is going to be needed for survival in a changing environment, and able to coordinate acquired changes with genetic changes. It’s all in the Book. No, no. Not the Good Book! On the Origin of the Species.

        Some years later, Darwin compounded the problem when he adopted Spencer’s label of survival of the fittest, as if the natural world could measure fitness and grade progress according to standards.

        On the most elementary level, Darwin rankled religious fundamentalists simply by positing a theory contrary to scripture. His offense, though, was far greater than that. His natural selection was a god with a lower case G. That should have been enough to rankle scientists, too, but the biologists to a man (person, sorry) bought into Darwin’s sub-theory to the theory of evolution.

        Popper was close to the truth before he changed his mind. Just as his conjecture for scientific propositions cannot be affirmed experimentally, being Universal Generalizations, Darwin’s Natural Selection could never be affirmed, being supernatural. Now that IS untestable. That property places Darwin’s version of NS outside Modern Science, which admits no supernatural elements. The solution is the Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion. Once a niche fills, extinction begins. Within a few generations the species with the greatest net population growth rate in the niche will become the sole occupant. Extinction and speciation are mathematical, requiring few assumptions more than the niche and viability. It’s the survival of the most prolific.

        These observations take little from Darwin’s great contributions. It’s just past time to recognize Darwin 2.0.

        And to get Popper completely off the stage and out of the theater.

Comments are closed.