by John Siciliano | Sep 15, 2017, 11:00 AM
The Trump administration is looking to create a “red team” to challenge the accepted science on climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the Earth’s temperature, but there is no timeline on when that exercise will occur even though it is “very important,” according to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt.
The EPA administrator sat down with the Washington Examiner for an interview that included discussion of the proposed red team-blue team process that he says will open up a dialogue over the science behind global warming to see what is true and what is not.
“The red team-blue team is still being evaluated,” Pruitt said. “I think it’s very, very important. I think the American people deserve an open, honest dialogue about what do we know, what don’t we know with respect to CO2 and its impact.”
The Trump administration has been criticized in recent weeks by environmentalists and others for ignoring the effects of manmade global warming in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet.
But the Trump administration feels a need to test that. The red team/blue team process Pruitt wants to set up has been widely used by the military to test assumptions when it comes to an enemy’s wartime capability. A red team would challenge the assumptions of the blue team.
In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated.
The Heartland Institute, which actively challenges U.N. climate change findings that the broader scientific community accepts, has been tapped by the Trump administration to recommend who should staff the red team.
But Pruitt wouldn’t give a timeframe for when the exercise would begin. “As far as the timing, that has not been determined. But I think it’s important for the American people to be able to consume that, to see that, to participate in that,” he said.
“I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” Pruitt said.
EPA evaluating ‘red teams’ to challenge climate science despite earthquakes
EPA evaluating ‘red teams’ to challenge climate science despite a record breaking 12y interval without a major hurricane landfall.
EPA evaluating ‘red teams’ to challenge climate science despite a perfect record of failed climate predictions.
Only mentally challenged people think CO2 causes earthquakes
Only fraudsters think CO2 causes hurricanes!
LOL > Paul
Latitude,
Exactly how does the minutely increased CO2 level (1 additional molecule per 10,000) affect an increase in (earthquakes) geologic activity?
His statement was intentionally absurd to mock the absurdity of the headline.
The ‘science’ does not work that way. Works by the magic of numerology. Just find a correlation between CO2 and whatever and claim CO2 is the cause. Example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275539054_Positive_correlation_between_CO2_daily_peaks_and_micro-earthquakes_occurrence_in_deep_fault-caves_an_empirical_model ‘Ergo’ CO2 causes earthquakes! QED 🙂
It doesn’t, unless you’re an educated hollyweird leftist.
“I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” Pruitt said.
A red/blue analysis is not a debate in a room. I don’t think he has looked at how this is used.
The original military use of Red Team/ Blue Team required interaction between the two sides, with each side trying to counter the initiatives of the enemy. What has not been mentioned is the requirement for an independent “Umpire” group to evaluate the results of the engagements and determine the “winning” side. In the case of disagreements in dialog, the best description of this process is the formal “debate”, certainly not to be confused with the political soundbite generators, moderated by the MSM, that have appropriated that term. After 30 years of constant harping on the theme of climate change, it will be most difficult to find a truly objective group to act as Umpire. This is most certainly so among the government decision makers, who are most adamant in their beliefs, one way or the other.
Nice,don’t forget: they lie. Who is going to be around to say they were wrong! False flags everywhere. Have to be somewhere else in their mind.How do they know what temp. Man caused.See the reaction people have when you ask them by how many degrees> There is a lot for the people that r wrong, They will just say in a few more year’s AND ! LIERS
BINGO!
Should it be broadcast live?
“Yes”, …… ABSOLUTELY, ……. it should it be broadcast live ……. and video recorded.
Otherwise, …… the truth will never be set “free”.
Such a “debate” would be pointless. The two teams will just regurgitate all their favourite points and spend the time talking past each other. It would be totally fruitless.
Your referring to such a gathering as being a “debate” appears to me to be a silly attempt on your part to DISCREDIT such an event even before it is held.
As far as I am concerned, “debates” and/or “debating” is little more that “play acting” that provides young people the experience of “public speaking”.
The “winner(s)” of a debate really doesn’t need to know diddly-squat about anything because the primary prerequisites for being judged a “winner” are …. 1) excellent memory recall of memorized subject matter; …… and 2) a smooth talking “velvet” tongue and a “warm” smile when addressing the observers.
Is this a true statement?: “The science held by the MAJORITY of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated.”
Is a climate scientist more related to an astronomer or more related to an astrologer?
If you actually investigate what the consensus position includes, the two near-universally accepted statements are 1) the climate is changing and 2) human activity has some effect upon climate change. Therefore, if you agree that the climate is changing but do not agree that it is the use of fossil fuels, among all human activities that affects climate change, that causes the greatest effect among all human activities, you are also in agreement with 97% of climate scientists.
The vocal minority that insists that the use of fossil fuels is the largest influence on climate change is less than 10%
Plenty of weather..
….. but would someone please explain, that apart from natural, highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, and some temperature ups and downs due to ocean cycles…….
… in what way has the climate changed in the last, say 100 years ??
Seems to have been remarkably stable.
Andy, I, too, have raised just that observation: The climate has not changed in over 100 years!
Stable – it’s got better.
One thing that should never go unchallenged is an assertion that the 97% figure has any validity with respect to anything. The people responsible for inflicting it on us essentially pulled their numbers out their donkeys.
The plateau in world temperatures for a couple of decades is stability writ large and I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with industrial CO2.
AndyG55 & Dave – If we are talking about ‘Climate Change’, here is a thought. Why don’t we breakdown all the areas of the world in to something like 5 main zones and further subdivide these into a total of 30 to 35 Subsections. Then on a map, interpolate onto a 0.5° longitude × 0.5° latitude grid.
Then after 25 or 30 years see where this ‘Climate Change’ is happening and how bad it is. We base the changes as ‘GOOD’ for areas that have More LIfe and ‘BAD’ for for areas that have Less Life. Let’s Call it a Köppen Classification Map, because that is just what Wladimir Köppen did starting in 1884.
Here is the map with Major Köppen type has changed at least once in 30 years during the period 1901-2010. http://hanschen.org/koppen/img/koppen_major_30yr_1901-2010.png
http://hanschen.org/koppen/img/area_major_1901-2010.png
In graph form for the changes. A & C have more life, i.e. Good – B Dry (includes cold dry) is still better than D (Snow) and E (Polar) i.e. Bad.
http://hanschen.org/koppen/img/area_major_1901-2010.png
So Good Areas, less than 1/2 percent and Very Bad Polar down 3.5% vs Just Bad Dry up 3% & Snow down 1.5%. Don’t see much Catastrophic going on.
It’s one of those shell games the progressive love so much – conflating climate change (of course it does) with CO2 (from humans of course) driving catastrophic climate change. Same way the conflate legal immigration with illegal aliens.
since when are climate scientists able to predict climate damage ? they can’t even record temperatures without faking them …
Thomas, it is absolutely true that 24 of the 26 accepted climate scientists agree that current warming is 100% due to man’s contribution to Carbon Dioxide and that it will create disastrous problems after 2100 CE. But what they won’t admit is that 11,221 other Scientists disagree with those beliefs
As this will be mostly a public relations exercise, the success depends on how well that is managed. Challenging the rent-seeking renewables lobby/industry and their green blob NGO enablers should be a major emphasis.
The major problem with the “science” is that it is overblown, not absent. Going full skydragon slayer is a temptation that should be resisted.
Mundia & Modia: The two worlds in which we live
We humans live in two worlds. One world, call it Mundia, is the world of immutable laws, e.g. gravity, electromagnetism, and supply and demand – it is the world that we see when we look out at the natural landscape. The other world, call it Modia, is the world of social relationships, e.g. love, hate, admiration, envy, loyalty, and gratitude – it is the world that we see when we look out at the social landscape.
While supporting the concept of the process, in my opinion there are real practical difficulties concerning the intended audiences for the results. In the military, it is a few commanders. Here, it is more than officials like Pruitt. The 14 agencies putting together the new National Climate Assessment anominrion? Congress (as if Shelton Whitehouse would pay attention)? Gavin Schmidt and Naomi Oreskes and like players? The general public via MSM (as if WaPo’s Chris Mooney could be persuaded) ? A more honest next IPCC (as if a US process could ever influence that regular warmunist lovefest)?
Just another report by Pruitt and the Trump administration will likely have little or no general impact.
Rud, I didn’t recognize your “anominrion.” My spell checker didn’t recognize it. Finally, the latest Merriam-Webster Dictionary didn’t recognize it. What is it?
I did take it in context to mean the upcoming National Climate Assessment would be a pile of misleading nonsense concocted by Obama Administration holdovers.
Red team observations might be used to fight Federal, State and local nonsense regulations in court.
Abomination. My bad, watching football and commenting simultaneously. See essay Credibility Conundrums for my take on chapter 1 of the 2014 NCA. The draft of 2018 is worse.
Rud, who are allowed to comment formally on Assessment drafts? How are they selected? Is it open to anyone at all?
In an early job, I directed Environmental Specialists in properly considering and responding to technical comments on Federal Environmental Assessments and Impact Statements. I likened it at the time as herding turkeys. The field has not improved.
Rud, agreed!
The current nonsense about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming clearly shows that facts have no currency any longer.
I noted that at the beginning (Harvey) there were a few Consensus scientists who were willing to get out there and advise caution in making such a connection; but now that the MSM and politicians have made their “opinions” clear, “establishment science” has suddenly grown very quiet.
One thing that needs to come out of any “Red Team/ Blue Team” meeting is a set of mutually agreed on, supported by science, statements. These statements can be trotted out whenever the MSM starts in with their usual bullshit. And can be shoved down the throat of celebrities, talking heads, pundits, politicians, whoever. It is essential to establish “true” statements of fact. I believe this is why the whole idea will be fought tooth and nail. No one on the alarmist side wants to see accurate, science backed statements floated in front f the public.
This will be the most difficult part of the whole exercise.
Quote
Abomination. My bad,
Unquote
Should read ” Abomination, My mistake”
Shakes head in astonishment
One of the things that troubles me with the R&B team approach is that the public, which generally doesn’t have the ability to judge claims, may simply see this as a spitting contest between two highly polarized groups. Something that might help would be if there were a couple of highly qualified joint-moderators who don’t have a dog in the fight, that could interrupt with questions or offer opinions on the veracity of technical claims. It would be a waste of time and talent if the public was unswayed by either side because they don’t have the ability to critique and reject claims. There has to be an expected outcome and a process for validating the outcome.
We can’t depend on the MSM or ‘celebrity’ scientists like deGrasse-Tyson to be objective. Yet, we need a panel of detached observers to judge the claims, and either already be familiar with the subject, or can come up to speed quickly before the exercise.
This is what the 1970s’ proposals for a “science court” included (Google for). Plus the ability to cross-examine.
I don’t see this happening at all…and if it does happen..I think it would be a disaster
Ask one question: Do you think man has had any effect on the climate?
..even the skeptic side will say yes
Game, set, match…..and that will be the take home
Not at all. The public isn’t that dumb. It’s very sophisticated about sports stats.
The biggest service that the ‘Red Team’ could provide in the described setting is to keep asking how CO2 is supposed to drive temperatures when a third of all human emissions happened as temperatures remained largely flat.
The current fallacious claim is that some other effect that has not been included in the climate models has driven down most of the warming that was predicted. However, the suggestion of such a large effect calls into question both whether CO2 is a dominant driver of temperatures and whether the science really is settled.
Simple.
1. the temperatures were not flat, they never are.
2. The theory maintains that temperature is the result of ALL FORCINGS not just c02.
3. The positive effects of c02 on warming can be counterbalanced in the short term by
a) negative forcing ( aerosols)
b) decrease in solar
c) Natural quasi period cycles.
You don’t address the elephant in the room – whether climate models represent a valid exercise. Most people here recognize the GHE effect. What many struggle with is the excessive degree of warming the models produce – and the way their promoters exaggerate the risk.
I’d be willing to accept the notion that warming over the last 20 years has been suppressed by the factors you mention. But do you accept the notion that the models could be wrong?
I’m not being argumentative. I’m interested in your answer.
SM – thanks for your courteous reply to my comment.
I hope Mann is on the Blue Team.
It might be fun to see him try to defend “The Hockey Stick” when the IPCC no longer uses it.
And when he can’t feed to questions he wants to be to his questioners.
Why do you assume the he, or any other prominent warmists, will agree to be part of this red/blue team approach? Unless the Feds tell them that they’ll lose all their govt funding for refusing.
Not assuming. Just hoping.
But, then again, if he or the other “headliners” of CAGW decline, who’s left? Al Gore? Bill Nye? That speaks again to the “consensus”.
The blue team might be recruited from the persons who assembled the report that the red team will be critiqueing. And those persons might nominate proxies to serve in their place.
“But, then again, if he or the other “headliners” of CAGW decline, who’s left? Al Gore? Bill Nye? That speaks again to the “consensus”.”
The vast majority of atmospheric science do research, publish papers and attend conferences, and don’t seek publicity. Just because you don’t know their names does not mean they are not part of the consensus on AGW.
Chris, is the consensus on AGW or CAGW?
*sigh* (again)
And when he can’t feed the questions he wants to be asked to his questioners.
Great idea. It’s about time some rational voices were heard
Would love to see it splashed all over social media and YouTube (no fair blocking by Zuckerberg, Amazon, and other lefty media titans!)
Red Team should include spokes-people who are calm, personable, unflappable, and prone to gentle humor. Tim Ball is an obvious choice, as well as Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook, Nils Morner, and of course Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford. Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Jennifer Marohasy, Willie Soon, and John Christie would be good additions, with a bit more impish humor. Don’t overlook Marc Morano, Tony Heller, and the like who know their stuff cold and are great at point-counterpoint. Very sad that Bob Carter is no longer with us.
Skeptics have a very deep bench, whereas most of the Blue Team will present themselves as arrogant, know-it-all elitists (they can’t help it – – they were trained that way) who want to control all human activity under the bogus premise of “saving the planet”
Somebody cue up George Carlin’s exquisite comedy routine by that name.
Go get ’em!!
Don’t forget Steve McIntyre. He’s your safety (or cover in Rugby terms)!
Donna Laframboise is/was a journalist and would be good at poking ho0les in the false credibility of IGPOCC.
Jo Nova would be good too–funny and articulate.
By pure coincidence, prospective blue team members will find that they urgent personal matters to attend to and not be able to participate
What could land hit hurricanes possibly do with a serious climate science debate?
There is no serious “science” debate. It’s always populist green drivel as science. Dark age educational system at the root.
There is something to be said for banging folks heads together and not letting them escape into their own echo chambers.
The alarmists use a variety of slippery tricks to convince people about CAGW. I am confident that the alarmists’ case will wither if they can’t escape dealing with its shortcomings. They are proposing drastic solutions to the CO2 ‘problem’. The onus is on them to prove that the ‘problem’ exists and can’t easily be adapted to.
In other words: cage match no escape.
Maybe what is needed for the umpire team is one or two individuals well versed in logic, who could say, “appeal to authority, disallowed,” “straw man argument, disallowed,” “character attack, disallowed.”
Show the alarmist side for what it is.
A “science court” would have that feature.
The Blue team Red team approach – or hypothesis generation and falsification – will need more than just reciting rehearsed opinions and talking points for the venal and gullible. What is required is formal validation, actual experimentation, real world observation – unsullied by ‘adjustments’ and faked averaging (taking the mean of high and low temperature during a day is NOT the average temperature for the day. Then justification of metrics: why do climate ‘scientists’ measuring energy retention in the atmosphere instead measure temperature – which is not a measurement of energy content due to the varying enthalpy of the atmosphere; they should be measuring kilojoules per kilogram of the atmosphere.
There is a distinct probability that the energy content of the atmosphere has not been rising but instead the enthalpy is decreasing due to lower humidity.
The terms hotter, colder, warming, cooling are scientifically meaningless in the atmosphere and should be banned from all papers on climate; instead use real metrics for energy content of the atmosphere.
There are many sites where observation shows temperatures dropping yet which have been adjusted to show temperatures rising. Therefore, all claimed data from the past has been adjusted and therefore has ceased to be data but results of an unvalidated mathematical exercise. Professional metrologists and meteorologists should validate every homogenization and adjustment. If they fail validation they should be removed. If possible, if the climate ‘scientists’ have not destroyed and discarded the original data, then a return to the original data should be made.
It is not so much Red team as bringing in professional engineers to provide formal governance of data and of the formulae and processes to create information.
My old engineer friends would like that. I was recently told a talking point from a younger computer engineer that the reason it was settled because it was like gravity. There ought to be a relatively few simple points like gravity, maybe Feynman aside, is demonstrable both in the lab and the atmosphere, but not so in this case. This is a problem us biologists, as sometimes frustrating to toxicologists, often deal with because controlled conditions are well, controlled. Isn’t laboratory or industrial physical chemical engineering different from atmospheric engineering?
My physics is a bit rusty, but the definition of enthalpy which I found says:
a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume.
You said the enthalpy is decreasing due to lower humidity. So the lower humidity is the result of a change in internal energy or the product of pressure and volume (in which case did pressure or volume decrease or maybe a bit of both?), or maybe a bit of both? This could get complicated…
Or is the definition of enthalpy not correct?
A reasonable definition. You mistake causation. A “lower humidity” if it exists, would result in a lower atmospheric enthalpy, because of the energy retained in water vapor as opposed to its liquid state.
@skorrent1
Thank you, I certainly did mistake causation.
Who would willingly be on the Blue Team? Surely none of the big names. I cannot see any honesty from any Blue Team member no matter who they get. If they put some EPA scientists up there they still will get no honesty. No one who propounds CAGW will ever admit to any uncertainty.
Dubious exercise at best…
My feeling is that this red / blue competition is a mistake. It lends legitimacy to a falsehood. Better to let the argument go away naturally as conditions continue to depart from the narrative. For most people, it already has.
Think of it as a criminal trial if you like.
If done honestly and ethically, it will show that the science is NOT “settled” and there is no “97% consensus”.
That is all just politics to achieve an ideological objective.
“CAGW” is just what stuck against the wall.
No disrespect CBob, but I would think it would have as much credibility on those inclined to believe in CAGW as the recent verdict in St Louis had on those who have a negative opinion of law enforcement.
Unfortunately here in the States emotion and opinion easily trump (no pun intended) facts.
The only path forward that I see is, as Pochas implied, is to take it event by event and respond to specifics; and not get dragged into “do you really deny Arrhenius?” (from my college Prof. son) or “the Science is Settled”. Most of the “broader discussions” cannot be addressed in debate soundbites that would be understandable by the general population.
Pick our battles. They have to defend the whole ball of wax. We can selectively chip away and take the “easy yards”, building on the general trend of the public showing, if not skepticism, indifference.
Don’t let specific and easily demonstrable falsehoods stand when they are uttered. (This means ALL of us have to pound in the science on hurricanes, for example. Write letters or rebuttles to your local editor with facts, and no ad homs.).
If the subject comes up, show that the poly bears are doing quite well, thank you. If the talk is SLR or flooding, dig out the history of Miami Beach, that was laid out below King Tide in 1917 and wiped out completely by a hurricane in 1926, etc etc.
There is a need for a process and conclusion that can provide justification for action. This is a political move by Pruitt and I think he knows what he’s doing. Whether this destroys or minimizes the threat from AGW it should provide cover for the dismantling of federal support for AGW researchers and make the playing field more level.
He can’t act against the climate mafia without reason. This is step one.
Yes.
“”I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” Pruitt said.”
What a brain dead idea.
The way you challenge science is with Better science.
Suppose you are in a room with Me on temperature and I start producing slides and graphs and data you have never seen.. New data from thousands of stations recently recovered from archives.
Data never seen before from south america, africa, and yes the arctic. 10s of thousands of new stations
none of which need to be adjusted. All rural. superb siting. fully calibrated with impecible records.
In this supposed meeting what the hell are you going to do as Red?
Give up?
no. you would ask quite rightly for time to study what I had presented. You would ask for time to evaluate
the research and respond. Science and understanding means YOU DONT HAVE TO BE THERE FACE TO FACE. Good science is indepenent of who did it. I show you my work and walk away. And your job is
to find the errors and improve on the work. They are constructing this thing like theatre. Popper would not agree. Do skeptics really want to limit their case to what can be done in real time, right there? Totally unaware of the new surprise research that might be sprung on them? Will they accept “the result”?
no side should. No side should find this approach acceptable to get to the truth of a matter.
Whatever, I had some hopes that they would fund a Real red team that worked like red teams in DOD.
They produce valuable documents and records of the best the opposition can come up with.
So they will stage this show. And both sides will claim victory and nothing will change. Sad
“Better science?” How are you calling this Science? Scientific Method involves “Homogenizing” Data?
How bold a schemer are you?
Fighting for your so-called Professional Life, going to need to find another one where BS-ing produces income, good luck with that…
Mother thinks that engaging in open debate, face to face is a brain dead idea. Can’t make this stuff up.
Steven Mosher:
You wrote “Good science is independent of who did it. I show my work and walk away. And your job is to find the errors and improve on the work”
Fine.
I offer my work:: Google “Climate Change Deciphered” and “Cause and Timings of El Nino Events, 1850-present”.
Now, do your job.
SM,
Inasmuch as there seems to be good evidence that research outside the accepted box has difficulty getting published in peer-reviewed journals, it would seem more likely that the Blue Team is the one to get surprises with evidence from the Red Team.
One solution to preventing surprises on either side would be to handle evidence in the manner that ‘discovery’ is handled in a court of law and anything not provided ahead of time be inadmissible. The depth of the research is such that not everything can be addressed in a reasonable amount of time, so the point and counterpoint would have to be restricted to a few salient points.
DoD is not a good model to work with. Much of the quasi-published material is either proprietary to the contactors, or classified with a need to know to have access. That is in contrast to basic science where the “…valuable documents and records of the best the opposition can come up with.” already have been published and can be placed in an appendix of a summary.
The important thing is to get positions, held as the Truth by each side, defended openly and not just ignored. The biggest hurdle for the Blue Team will be to get academics to put their research and reputation on public display. They have a history of refusing debate with those they disagree with.
SM’s point is that if you continue to do (good) science, that the truth will emerge over time, and I suppose science has worked this way in the past. Also, the passage of time and accumulation of observational evidence will eventually confirm or falsify climate science’s predictions.
The problem with the above is that it ignores the political realities – i.e. the huge amount of pressure being applied by the climate establishment, right now, to spend large amounts of money to address the “problem”.
Alarmists argue that the “consensus” should be respected and should be given the benefit of the doubt in the policy arena. Skeptics think not, and so here we are. The argument transcends science. We have the fossil fuel interests locking horns with environmentalists. In our system political disputes are usually sorted out by which of the special interests prevails. RIght now, we have pretty much of a stalemate.
How will a red team/blue team exercise help resolve this? Chances are it wouldn’t. Politics, along with the myriad of pressures brought to bear on the debate (including good science), will decide this issue. And it won’t happen overnight. This means SM’s approach will play into the debate more so than a red/blue team.
handle like a court?
cool.
close to 1005 of skeptical evidence will be inadmissable.
100% not 1005..
You know the best thing?
Red team blue team
A) is something I suggested long ago
B) it is a form of POST NORMAL SCIENCE
Now skeptics are approving of a process that recognizes that science and politics cannot be separated.
And what If I countered your new climate data with a talking unicorn, complete with rainbow colored horn, that presented a study conducted by elves, all credentialed by the University of Gaia, showing that Global warming is not caused by humans but is instead caused by troll flatulence. Oh my, what we will do then?
Now that we have that silliness out of the way, please answer a question that was raised by your ‘fantasy’ response; name any climate record, not proxies, that is presented without any adjustment. Even the most advanced instruments we have, Argo and the satellites, were immediately deemed to need adjustment when they provided data that contradicted the CAGW message. As for the rest, the record is continuously adjusted, as needed and with a variety of excuses, to meet the narrative.
By the way, the pronoun ‘me’ is not typically capitalized unless you have an extremely inflated sense of self worth or are simply uneducated. Which is is Steven?
Clyde Spencer writes above:
How True.
The American public is scientifically illiterate.
Somewhat related notes from the field:
1998 – The National Geographic Society gives up on it’s annual Scholastic Geographic Challenge after over half of high school students cannot name Canada and Mexico as the US’s neighbors to the North and South.
Today – Two thirds of Americans cannot name even one branch of the federal government.
This stuff is easy compared to science in any form.
The debate so far:
Carbon dioxide is now a *pollutant*. What was once “the staff of life” is now toxic. The Photosynthesis Equation used to be taught in grade school. Now, most American adults would not recognize it even if you hit them over the head with it. CO2 is also endlessly conflated with soot, and other pollutants.
Steam from cooling towers is routinely photographed and presented with the implication that it is pollution from the unrestricted burning of coal.
Asking the American public to even understand the issues, never mind weigh the evidence, is a reach way too far.
My Prediction:
Based on current trends, the Red Team will be branded as racist and fascist. CO2 pollution hits the poor and minority communities hardest. Even worse than Big Oil which puts profits ahead of people, the Red Team puts pollution ahead of people.
You can not win this debate in the public sphere using science, because the science is incomprehensible to the general public.
Then can we use logic instead?
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
It would seem AGW boils down to models, however, we can’t build an accurate model to either describe or predict current or future climate states because 1) we don’t know the system we’re modeling, 2) even if we did we don’t have the hardware to run the model that could and 3) after overcoming the first two we still need a methodology to determine the accuracy of our models.
There’s no good reason to believe in AGW.
Sy, the short answer is NO.
I live near a major University and have several acquaintances who teach there, some in the sciences.
I’ve tried that approach and it sailed over their heads like summer clouds, while they collectively gave me pitying looks.
Sadly, TonyL, you are on the mark.
Did anybody catch the red and blue ties in the picture?
So, instead of one tax funded program we would have two? If there some means of simply arm twisting journals into unbiased paper acceptance, I think things improve a lot. Unhappily it appears that scientific journals are sliding into the abyss of populism and authoritarianism along with the rest of the media.
Pruit is a clown. he is totally blowing the opportunity to give skeptics funding to do a proper Red team analysis on the weakest links in the AGW case.
I’m stunned that he wont set aside funds for guys like Anthony to do some of the work that SHOULD BE DONE!.
I mean for chrissake.
How long are we gunna argue about something like CRN ratings?
Does everyone here know that the CRN ratings (1-5) have never actually been tested? and documented in a quantified manner?
Or take airports. has anyone ever quantified in a rigorous way how close you can place a thermometer to an airport without impacting the results. I mean REALLY STUDY.. completely.
or parking lots or air conditioners.. Tons of work to do that any good red team would ask for.
Imagine if we could take the work of surface stations BEYOND just taking pictures and actually
quantify the effects of various siting issues.
How about surface stations project for the entire world?
Instead we will get a debate in a room.
Really? FFS.
All these years of fighting on blogs for better Science and we are going to settle for another debate?
All these years of fighting for political power to do the science right and folks will settle for a group discussion
CLUEBIRD! we had one of those in Lisbon years ago. Talbloke, heller, me, Stokes, McIntyre, Curry
Webster, mcKittrick, Von Storch
Yup.. It went nowhere
SM,
While there is merit in studying some things that are crying out for attention, such as you list, one has to be careful that progress isn’t impeded while waiting for those studies to happen.
One important difference between the Lisbon panel and what is proposed by Pruitt, is that there was no way to asses the ‘winner’ of the Lisbon exercise, and there was no one to implement recommendations. In this case, Pruitt and Trump could use a win to justify actually doing some things that are within their power. Who knows, they might even come up with some money to do the studies you recommend, to put the last nails in the coffin.
And just who decides who “wins”.
there are no nails or coffins.
science is never settled
I have to agree with you here, Mr. Mosher. Who knows what we would have discovered had government and academia spent money and effort on such empirical studies, instead of mindless modelturbation over these past decades.
Modelturbation.
Nice.
EPA evaluating ‘red teams’ to challenge climate science despite need of government to control everything and everyone.
Can scientists really determine that the intensity of any given storm has “increased”? If so, how do they do this?
We will watch with interest from New Zealand how the Red Team -Blue Team plays out .We are six days from our parliamentary elections on the 23rd and there is a real possibility that a change of government will cripple our agricultural economy with emission taxes on livestock methane and tax on irrigation water that if it is not stored and used during dry period it runs out to sea.
I CHALLENGE anyone to prove that methane emission from livestock can increase even a tenth of a degree Celsius the planets temperature over any time span from one year to fifty years ,Methane from livestock has a half life in the atmosphere of 8.4 years and it is broken down into CO2 and water vapor in the upper atmosphere .The CO2 is then absorbed by forage plants and is consumed by livestock and the cycle continues as it has done for millions of years as long as there has been ruminant animals on the earth. NO EXTRA SO CALLED GREEN HOUSE GAS IS ADDED to the atmosphere .When coal, oil and gas is extracted from the ground and burnt CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere And also cement manufacturing from limestone .Methane is gradually increasing but the increase cannot be blamed on livestock .There is no science .mathematics or statistics that can prove that methane from livestock warms the world .I am putting this challenge out .Lets see what you scientists and mathematicians come up with.
gwan – Since you indicate that you are from new Zealand -a few questions – my understanding is the the renewable energy / renewable utilities dont receive any subsidies
1)Are the fossil fuels subject to any surtax or carbon based tax? (which the renewables are not subject to?)
2) Is there any government mandates that require a certain percentage of energy to come from renewables?
3) Is there any government mandate that requires the utility companies to take the renewable energy first?
4) any other comments on NZ renewables?
thanks for any insight
Thank you for bringing that bullshit issue up. If you do the arithmetic, at the current rate of increase, methane might run global temperatures up by as much as 0.05°C by 2100. In Other Words: Zilch
The usual claim of methane pound for pound being 86 times more powerful at retaining heat than CO2 is a true statistic and about as useful as knowing that a Piper Cub will fly 86 times further on a gallon of gas than a Jumbo jet.
Yikes! This: “In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated.” will be a disastrous mistake.
Skeptics can supply countering evidence, but should never ever actually be on the Red Team.
Neither the above nor Pruitt’s: “I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” represent a real Red Team exercise.
The only way to have a Red Team exercise is to use only “non-combatants” — disinterested world-class experts not currently involved in the Climate Wars.
What Pruitt describes is like something solving an international war by bringing the opposing Generals into a single room and asking them to decide who should win the war.
Usual mess — politicians acting on half-understood concepts, getting most of it all wrong.
“The only way to have a Red Team exercise is to use only “non-combatants” — disinterested world-class experts not currently involved in the Climate Wars.”
Given the nature of the subject matter, who could be called upon as a “disinterested” world-class expert?
sy ==> Oddly enough, nearly any scientist not currently working in the field. What is needed are Physicists, Ocean experts, statisticians, mathematicians, computer modelers from other areas, atmospheric chemists,
geomorphologists, experts in chaos and dynamical systems…this list extends for some time. There is nothing special about climate or its study — any good mind can grasp the fundamentals.
Almost none of the senior climate scientists today studied climate science in university — there was no such subject and no such specialty. We needs the worlds smartest and sharpest minds.
The REASON fore a Red Team is that the subject known as Climate Science today is very likely simply a reflection of the prevailing bias in the field — the same thing found in many medical specialties.
Bringing in the OTHER side, the opposing BIAS, will not resolve the science.
A few Feynman’s and a few Asimov’s would fairly swiftly sort through the existing pile of knowledge, the major journal papers representing the fundamentals, sort out the chaff, spot the biases, and point out where the field needs to go.
” The REASON fore a Red Team is that the subject known as Climate Science today is very likely simply a reflection of the prevailing bias in the field — the same thing found in many medical specialties.”
Agreed, however, that “prevailing bias” acts more like a swarm of killer bees to an intruder when it’s challenged. Hence my question regarding “disinterested” experts. Whomever accepts the call of the “Red Team” is likely going to be at best ridiculed on the world stage, at worst fired from their present position and black-listed from future ones.
I wonder if you’re rather going to need individuals willing to stand in the heat of King Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, so-to-speak. If they haven’t already shown themselves as such, e.g., Spencer, et al., whom would you nominate as a potential willing participant to self-imposed career destruction?
Kip, that is a really good idea. Especially the part about including mathematicians and statisticians.
sy ==> If universally respected scientists are picked because of their standings in their fields, all tenured at their institutions, beyond reproach of vested interest, the outcome will be accepted with much less rancor.
Because they have not to date taken sides in the squabble — they will be immune from harm, even if attacked for findings the Truths of the matter.
Think Feynman and the Challenger disaster. Outsider, not a Rocket Scientist, not en engineer of rockets, not part of the space program, no connection to NASA, not anti-NASA…….in effect, a one-man Red Team to review “What really happened? What caused it?” His finding did NOT please NASA — but he was not vilified by the “United Rocket Scientists of America” — his report was accepted, perhaps grudgingly, but because it was demonstrably true, he achieved acclaim and fame instead of career-ending attacks.
That’s the goal and the hope of a CliSci Red Team.
A re-hashing of the decades-long battle will achieve nothing more than an airing of the disputes and disagreements — which will have some — but not much – value.
“Because they have not to date taken sides in the squabble — they will be immune from harm, even if attacked for findings the Truths of the matter.”
Respectfully, I suspect “immune from harm” is likely an untenable assumption:
“There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do.”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
This isn’t NASA versus Feynman, at worst a temporary embarrassment to NASA. This is the potential loss oftrillions of dollars of currency from practically every developed nation on the planet flowing a certain direction toward a certain end. This is the ability to centrally micromanage how human beings fundamentally go about their daily existence. It would seem even from my puny vantage point there are extremely powerful individuals, groups and governments who are licking their lips at the opportunities they see before them to raise the human race up in the way that it should go…at least according to them.
Regardless, that even talk such as this is going on at the EPA is an encouraging sign!
They will say bring in the top math and stats guys.
We did that on our red team of temperature.
skeptics still think they know better
KH, yup. Related to my audience concerns above posted. Nice Pruitt idea, but does not fly.
Better to kill the beast with simple garlic and silver stakes. Stuff like the pause, lack of modeled troposphere hotspot, lack of accelerating SLR, survival of Arctic summer sea ice and polar bears, whatever else they have got wrong the past 30 years. They will repond with children’s children and precautionary principles. At which point we break out laughing. Done. Most Deplorables will figure out the belly laufh without having to know the rest. Done.
Yes, the polar bears – thirty years ago there were at least 7,500 polar bears in the world. Today there are only about 25,000 left.
You are confusing the role of Umpire, who should be as objective as possible, with that of the “combatants”, who should be as well equipped with the pro and con arguments as possible so that no significant point bearing on the science will be overlooked.
skorrent1 ==> You might benefit from a quick read on the proper methodology of Red Teams.
Red Team/Blue Team exercises are not games of any sort — they are not contests — they are not debates.
Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet.
About extreme weather, warmist alarmists are as wrong as it is possible to be. It is cooler earth climate, not warmer, that is associated with more storms. This, as Javier has explained recently several times at this site and that of Judith Curry, is because in a colder climate phase the larger temperature gradient between equator and poles imparts more energy to the ocean and atmospheric circulation. Yet another very obvious and basic scientific mistake of the alarmists.
Has any reader of this blog ever been through an estate fight? Whoa, you have not lived life to the fullest until you partake of it. One thing you may discover is that you’ll likely gain a hankering for a knowledge of Middle Ages torture techniques.
It so happens that I’m aware (trying to be diplomatic here) of an estate fight where a non-named (in the Will) beneficiary who happened to be nothing other than just one of fifteen grandchildren, but who happened to be the first born male grandchild (thus viewing himself possessing something way, way, way beyond typical political claims of white male privilege), and therefore viewing himself as somehow entitled to a greater share of the Estate than the actual five ‘named’ beneficiaries.
How does a rank opportunist get their grubby hands on an estate to which they’re not entitled? I know, use the leverage he believed he had because he was the first to be spit out of the uterus (or whatever organ he was slopping around in) of his grandmother’s eldest daughter, and use that leverage (in cahoots with the Executor – also an eldest male) to borrow a heap of money from that 86 year old grandmother with the promise that he was totally completely good for paying it back.
In. The. Future.
Is this now beginning to sound like climate science? Playing on an old lady’s (i.e. the public’s) trust? Heaps of money? Everything’s in the future?
Of course there’s some details that have to be worked out. Yes, I know: Just like climate science – the devil’s in the details.
One of those pesky little details is that if this (not so)grand-child claims the remaining loan is a ‘gift’ it is taxable, and gosh darn it, the gift giver – the grandmother – didn’t pay the required tax on it because, well, in her mind it was a loan (a little like a lot of research grants are really unwitting gifts – from the taxpayers – but are called out as loans to be repaid by work to be done).
Well, why not call it out as a loan and just not pay it back? Well, aside from the fact that fourteen of those fifteen grandchildren are going to think this is bull – which it is – at least a few of the genuine beneficiaries not involved in the scheme (to follow) are going to think this is double, triple, quadruple bull – which it is. (This quadruple bull will resemble the ire of the public when, or if, they realize what it is the’re being told to forfeit on behalf of the opportunists.) But, those are trifling matters. You see, an unpaid loan is considered taxable income by the IRS.
So, here’s what the privileged (a little like an NGO Director, lobbyist, banker, pencil pusher, politician, or elite – almost all far left liberal ‘white males’) will do. A little after probate opens (or, in the case of a politician, an issue is raised) they hire their bestest friend (they’re all bestest friends for a while) as an employee at their small company (or amenable, taxpayer subsidized, University). This bestest friend has no talents worthwhile to the company (a little like Michael Mann and statistics) but, they know a little something about wood; they’re a carpenter.
And, oh so coincidentally, this bestest friend makes an offer, while he’s in the employ of this indebted (not so)grand-child, for the grandmother’s home. And, if you guessed that it was an impossibly low-ball offer you’d be right. In fact, the undercut in value is just about equal to the (not so)grand-child’s debt. Then remodel and flip the home as part of the small business, use the home sale profit to discharge the debt while superficially paying it back (and escaping tax), and pocket the excess along with the partners – including the Executor.
And that’s where the home appraisal comes in.
I’ve become convinced that a Global Average Temperature is the same thing as a Home Appraisal. The numbers on each are fungible, and are derived at by the appraisers, or the climate scientists, with an end towards pleasing the paymasters. In fact, you could claim that the actual numbers are derived at by the paymasters themselves. In the case of the grandmother’s house the devious parties ‘knew’ the value of that home a full six months before they had it appraised by a Climate Scientist, er … duly licensed appraiser (whose last name rhymed with Tony Soprano). Never mind that the bank had a somewhat different appraisal (than the Soprana doppelgänger) that the devious ones deigned not to show the contesting parties.
Unlike the foregoing where, in contrast to the contesting parties, the executor (politician, investor, and tax collector) had the luxury of the substantial executor checking account (tax money) to pay the appraiser (climate scientist), and the probate attorney (maggot encrusted legal parasite looking out for everyone but the taxpayers), the reader here, at least right now, potentially has the money to pay a different set of appraisers.
Repeat: a GAT is an appraisal – nothing more, nothing less. That’s all it is. And, what’s at stake is your future inheritance. The red and blue teams must be formed. And, if anyone – anyone – objects they’d only object for the same reason the (not so)grand-child and his cronies would object.
no.
GAT is a prediction.
I would put Ted Cruz on the skeptical team, as he is not a scientist but a “master-debater” as proven several times in some his anti-CAGW debates on YouTube… I especially like the one against the Sierra Club President Aaron Mair…
I hadn’t seen this one, but this is also a good illustration of Cruz’s grasping of the issue:
In fact, I might just give Cruz all the facts and actual data including charts, graphs and etc., and let him take over the debate. After all, he debated by himself for 22+ hours straight on the senate floor about the effects Obamacare was going to have. I listened/watched much of that “speech” on CSPAN and learned a lot about Obamacare that no one in the media or the opposition would tell us.
He has an enormous capability of remembering the facts of an issue that he is in favor of…He could have some scientist helpers on the side, in case he got stuck or was presented with some opposing facts he didn’t know about.
Who says it was “accepted” ? By whom? On what basis? With what authority?
No politician ever puts something like this together without making sure he knows the outcome in advance. Pruitt knows exactly what he is doing. We think this is about science. It isn’t. It is a twisted Enviro-Socialist political putsh. Science left the building long, long ago. This is Pruitt’s move to kick the blocks out from under AGW. We should support it.
So far only two mentions of Sea Level (SLR)
Sea level rise is probably the biggest scare that the left has. The manipulations of satellite data, the lack of acceleration and the ridiculousness of claims of multi-meter sea level rise by 2100 needs to be brought to the attention of the public.
And the SLR is advancing at about 5 – 8 inches per century globally. (with no noticeable acceleration).
This must be brought into the conversation in the debates with data to back it up (by accredited scientists).
When the AGW alarmists predict flooded coastal cities due to the melting of ice caps, they overlook the HEAT required to melt ice–about 333 kJ/kg, or 333 MJ per cubic meter of water produced.
Ice floating on top of oceans (such as in the Arctic or the oceans surrounding Antarctica) displaces its weight in water, so that melting it would have no effect on sea level. Sea level would only rise due to melting of LAND ice, such as the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland, which have a combined surface area of about 15.7 million square kilometers, or 1.57 x 10^13 square meters.
The total area of the world’s oceans is about 360 million square kilometers, or 3.6 x 10^14 square meters. In order to raise sea level by one meter, 3.6 x 10^14 cubic meters of water would have to be produced from melting land ice. Multiplying that by 333 MJ per cubic meter requires about 1.2 x 10^23 Joules of heat.
AGW alarmists tend to measure the net energy of increased absorption of IR by CO2 in Watts per square meter. From now until the year 2100 is about 2.6 x 10^9 seconds, so that the heat absorption rate over the Antarctica and Greenland ice caps needed to raise the sea level by 1 meter would be
1.2 x 10^23 J / [(1.57 x 10^13 m2)(2.6 x 10^9 s)] = 2.94 W/m2.
This may not sound like much, but Antarctica and Greenland receive sunshine only half the year, at very low angles above the horizon. In addition, in order to melt ice, the air or other surface in contact with the ice must be above 0 Celsius. This occurs only about four months per year along the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland, and since most of the surface of those ice caps are over 1 km thick, the temperature over most of the interior area (at high altitude) remains below freezing year round, and no ice can be melted.
If we assume that only 20% of the area of Antarctica and Greenland goes above freezing four months per year, then the required additional heating by absorption of IR radiation would be 2.94 / [(0.20)(1/3)] = 44 W/m2.
Most of the AGW alarmists talk about heat imbalances of 1 to 4 W/m2 averaged over the entire globe, and nobody would seriously consider heat imbalances of anywhere near 44 W/m2 along the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland with their low sun angles, even in summer.
So that the observed sea level rise rates are about 2 mm/year, or 200 mm (7.9 inches) per century, because the additional CO2 over the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland simply can’t absorb enough heat above zero Celsius during the short melting season to melt more ice. It may look impressive to summer tourists to see calving icebergs crashing into the sea from vertical ice cliffs facing the sun, but most of the ice volume is inland, where air temperatures stay below freezing year round, and the ice doesn’t melt.
Oh! You mean all the other hurricanes were because of climate control? 100’s of years ago?
I’d be satisfied with someone just explaining to me what the heck “average temperature” means for a disequilibrium system.
If you dont get it by now you never will.
“Average temperature” is the temperature average of a one-meter thick layer of air, near Earth’s surface all around the perimeter of the globe. This one-meter thick layer of air is at the bottom of, and ENCASED within (as PART of), a much larger layer (10-12 KILO-meter thick) of air/atmosphere.
Never mind all that air in the 10-12 KILO-meter thickness of this BIG layer, … all we’re focused on is the teeny, weeny 1 meter thin layer. We ignore all the rest of the atmosphere, and focus ONLY on the 1-meter thickness to get our global average temperature.
Clear?
Now explain to me why, again, we obsess so much on this one-meter to define the average of the WHOLE globe.
I want them to discuss the relevance of the term Global! There is no Global Warming …. only regional, and the regions change on a fairly short time scale.
I want them to rename it the … “Global one-meter-thick-layer-that-ignores-most-of-the-other-thickness-of-the-atmosphere average temperature”.
Reply to joe_the non climate scientist .
New Zealand has very good hydro electric power generation backed up with geothermal .We have the Huntly power station which I think has nearly all been converted from coal to natural gas and there are a few gas fired stations around and a short cycle gas powered station has been consented but not yet built near Otorohanga in the North Island .There are numerous wind farms on tops of ranges scattered throughout the country , which are owed by different power company’s who all have hydro stations so that they can usually balance the load when the wind stops blowing . I am no aware of any direct subsidies to the builders of wind farms but power charges have been steadily increasing year by year .Yes we have an emissions tax on all transport fuel and the money raised is paid to foresters as carbon credits as their trees grow..I am not aware of any targets for wind farms but the companies use them for advertising their clean green image. Over 90% of New Zealands electricity comes from renewable s unless we have an extensive drought and our storage dams become low..The power grid is government controlled by TransPower that transmits power to all parts of the country and there is a wholesale market operating .Electricity is transmitted from the lower South Island under Cook Straight and through to Auckland . We have very good conditions for wind generation but I have seen the Te Uku wind farm without a blade turning .I hope this is of some interest to you joe and I am willing to answer any other questions
The most qualified for the Red Team ist the atmospheric physicist Professor
Gerhard Kramm from Fairbanks University. I wish someone well connected
would do the invitation to Professor Kramm…He is the most distinguished
in the field of CO2 – atmosphere, has all calculations right on his finger tips.
He has published on the topic. But someone has to do the invitation, please
someone steps forward, this will help all of us.
Email Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute:
https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
The red/blue teams will be in essence, debating the possible transfer of available money for climate research from one side to the other. The world will run out of popcorn if this is successful!
I’m hoping that the ‘red team/blue team’ exercise will be more than a single debate or short series of debates. Rather it should be a positive force to shape the direction of grants into questions that need to be answered.
Heartland looking for volunteers NOW in five areas of activity including research & writing.
They’re Pruitt’s main go-to so get involved . . . this is your chance to act and make a difference.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/volunteering/index.html
the opposition team to combat climate change beliefs should not be just climate scientists. The same expertise is available at a far higher level in each area of climate science in other professions. The climate scientists are in comparison multi trade jobbing builders trying to design and build a skyscraper.
Engineers can show that the variation in clean air and particle laden air can account for much of the so called climate change as the Stevenson screen is not good enough for sub degree accuracy.
The surrounding environment is not tightly enough controlled for sub zero measurement as gravel and grass let alone tarmac and brick give different answers. Then there is the way response time of the sensor, be it traditional or electronic, varies both with model and historic time even for purely old fashioned mercury devices which again give fractional degree differences of the same order as global warming.
Then there is the question of what is the normal progression. All we can say here is the one used by climate science is utterly facile and over simplistic and certainly wrong. Trend analysis in marketing is far more advanced than climate science which has put little or no effort into ensuring that the profession’s idea of what would be the natural temperature is correct. Also security specialists looking for hidden data are decades if not centuries ahead of climate science in extracting signal from noise correctly as they understand the effect of averaging on losing information which climate scientists clearly do not.
The areas of computer modelling has all the prestige and money so the other areas are sloppy and inaccurate and the results not worth a bean. Also we must recognise that given the near total theoretical training of scientists more than half the work is done by unsuitably selected people who have no training is the practical skills needed.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. Game Over!
The science of the ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been seriously challenged. It doesn’t actually have much to do with real greenhouses.
Still waiting for you to produce a paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
You remain nothing but an EMPTY sack. !!
Hey Griff the person who knows everything about the climate .Can you prove that the methane emissions from farmed livestock can cause the climate to warm .? .The emissions are absolutely neutral as the methane is recycled in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O and these are exactly what fodder needs to grow to feed farmed animals .Come on Griffy show us what you can conjure up
Even Dr. Roy Spenser, a leading climate skeptic, agrees that the greenhouse effect is real. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Chris,Griff.
You mean to say that you didn’t know most skeptics long ago accepted the basic CO2 warm forcing paradigm?
David Archibald, SEVEN years ago talked about the reality of CO2 forcing,right here on WUWT:
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
then FOUR years ago,
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
Just a quick sampling to show that CO2 is recognized as a forcing,here on this blog.
To me this is another example of addled thinking you warmists have to bring here,your ignorance and fallacies is a common feature of alarmist/warmist thinking.
Does Dr. Spenser agree with CAGW, Chris?
Any involvement of Heartland (funded by fossil fuel interests) automatically invalidates this exercise in the eyes of the world outside the US and all climate scientists. If Heartland are involved, it is an industry buying a friendly conclusion off government.
Really, Heartland are independent people with truth their only interest? Science based?
I don’t think so.
Using Griff’s absolute purity standard, nobody qualifies. The AGU conferences have been funded by fossil fuel interests. Let’s disqualify everyone who ever presented at one.
It doesn’t matter who gets recommended (by Heartland or anybody else); it matters who is chosen based on their qualifications.
“Using Griff’s absolute purity standard, nobody qualifies.”
Exactly. And this is by design. Any involvement by any organization or individual that accepts or appears to accept funding (present or past) from the fossil fuel industry is to be considered suspect, while the same standard doesn’t apply to other sources of funding.
But it won’t matter whether they’ve been funded by fossil fuel interests or not. They have violated the air-space of the nation of AGW and this will not, must not be allowed to stand. The pursuit against the individual and his/her family will be relentless and vicious.
His/her background will be thoroughly examined and reported upon daily. Every orifice will have a light shone into it in order to find something, anything, that might be used to discredit them in an ad hominem fashion, just has Griff has already done with Heartland.
Griff, it does not matter if Heartland derives its funding from clubbing baby seals. Ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy?
I see that Griff as usual post another fallacy,how dumb,how BORING!
Still too hard for you fallacious thinkers to address the topic instead?
Or it doesn’t. Let the reader do his/her own research and decide for him/herself.
“Disclosure of funding sources is important in some circumstances, but not in this one. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our total annual receipts, and most give far less than that. And we have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.”
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html
Or they are. Let the reader decide after doing his/her own research.
https://www.heartland.org/donate/policies-regarding-donors-and-lobbying/index.html
Mr. Pruitt, make them debate in public. Let the people and you decide who won
Red Team vs. Blue Team
Richard Lindzen vs. James Hansen
Judith Curry vs. Noemi Oreskes
John Christy vs. Michael Mann
Freeman Dyson vs. Bill Nye
Roy Spencer vs. Gavin Schmidt
Roger Pielke Sr. vs. John Cook
+1. Great matchups.
Any objective evaluation is going to conclude that there is climate change and that it is affecting the US.
I just came across this article on how climate change is affecting US National Parks. I challenge all to read it to the end and then say there isn’t an impact
https://undark.org/article/national-parks-climate-change-trump/
“Any objective evaluation is going to conclude that there is climate change and that it is affecting the US.”
Burn down that Man of Straw!
Does any thinking individual deny the climate changes?
Sy, the earth’s climate has not changed in over 100 years. Any proof beyond minor warming and related statistics?
Um…not as far as I’m aware…?
Undark reference: Mindless speculation!