From the “The Stupid, It Burns” Department: “Science denial not limited to political right”

Guest rant by David Middleton

Science denial not limited to political right

September 19, 2017

In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

[…]

UIC Today

That’s like saying in the wake of [insert random words], many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

The article actually gets worse as it goes along.  It’s based on a “publication” by a grad student and psych professor.  Unsurprisingly, the “paper” cites the following “references”…

Lewandowsky S.Oberauer K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217222Link

Lewandowsky S.Oberauer K.Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622633Link

Mooney C. (20119 30). Newt Gingrich deceives on stem cell research, mocks evolution. Retrieved on March 15, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/30/332730/gingrich-deceives-stem-cell-research

Mooney C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—And reality. Hoboken, NJJohn Wiley & SonsMooney C. (20149 11). Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines

The “funny thing” about politically oriented skepticism, is that scientifically literate liberals are more likely to buy into the Gorebal Warming scam than scientifically literate conservatives:

Of course, this divergence could simply be due to the nature of the scientific literacy.  Geoscientists are nearly three times more likely to think that climate change is natural than government employees are.

 

Featured Image

 

Advertisements

464 thoughts on “From the “The Stupid, It Burns” Department: “Science denial not limited to political right”

  1. Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right – and the US political right at that.
    (Australian and UK skepticism is almost entirely driven from US examplars: skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals)

    • And Griff shows up as if he was linked in to demonstrate politically motivated denial of science by a lefty.
      Thanks, Griff!
      You are the gift that keeps on giving.

      • Griff,
        I for one would like to thank you for using the correct term “Climate Skepticism” rather than “Climate Denialism”, it shows a slight increase in respect that you may be developing for the skeptic side of the debate

      • Bryan,

        Are you skeptical of climate? If not, why are you thanking someone for accusing you of such a (to my mind, utterly ridiculous) position?

        I am not at all skeptical of climate, myself (I’m thoroughly convinced it’s a real phenomenon on the planet Earth, I swear ; ) and consider it very unwise to “play along” with self-labeling that denotes one must be extremely ignorant or dense for the label to rightly apply . . Not a good start to any discussion about who has a good handle on a very complex matter . . I feel, anyway. Sort of like agreeing to debate with an *I’m stupid* note pinned to ones chest . . because that’s better than an *I’m insane* note . . ; )

      • . . to one with the arrow pointing down? . . ; )

        Seriously, I think it’s been an ongoing minor victory for the “climate alarmists” that the matching “climate alarm skeptics” was not insisted on by same, long ago . . or other variants that convey something about what the central/pivotal issue is . . Hmm

        *It’s the alarm, stupid*

        ; )

      • Griff’s fellow Brit agrees with him!

        Richard S Courtney September 20, 2017 at 2:02 pm

        Only in the US is support and opposition of the scare aligned with left vs. right politics.

      • Bryan A September 20, 2017 at 9:55 am
        Griff,
        I for one would like to thank you for using the correct term “Climate Skepticism” rather than “Climate Denialism”, it shows a slight increase in respect that you may be developing for the skeptic side of the debat
        ————–
        So Bryan – you think that there is a possibility that:
        AGW is real
        CO2 is possibly a cause of current warming
        That there may be a significant and dangerous temperature rise
        That weather events may be causing more deaths
        That scientists may be correct in their predictions
        That possibly the temperature is not being falsely adjusted
        Etc.
        And that as a true skeptical you chose to ignore all these possibilities.
        And you chose to ignore these possibilities until the prediction becomes fact – by which time of course it will take decades to fix the problem.
        Wow but that is so inhuman

      • not a lefty, Hunter.

        climate science is not a ‘leftist’ invention…

        climate skepticism is though a position embraced almost entirely by the right.

    • Citing Lewandowsky, et. al.

      Griff is so predictable that I am beginning to think he is a bot, not a human.

      • I think Griff is great!….he’s never posted anything that didn’t make liberals look like idiots….or anything that wasn’t so easy to shoot down it make’s him look like an idiot

      • ‘No, he’s a real guy, his name is Ed.’

        Gee, not even honest about his name. Knock me over with a feather.

      • His name is Ed in your version of reality. There are infinite realities; in his favorite version of reality his name is Griff (and he sees all and knows all).

      • Griff holds views that are contrary to ours but one thing is true, he has never uttered an ‘ad hominen’ against anyone on this site regardless of the abuse directed at him. That places him a cut above many.

      • Ray

        Griff is a serial slander and has posted pure lies about multiple scientist that he has disagreed with multiple times and been caught and exposed every time, he is not a good guy he is slime.

      • Griff has never offered an apology either , not too late I’m sure Susan would accept it if it was sincere .

      • bob, I hold to the views expressed by other scientists about some scientists who are paid for their work and/or apparently not experts in the field on which they publish on the net.

        I won’t apologise for that.

      • “No, he’s a real guy, his name is Ed.”

        Correct, Anthony.

        You know, the Internet is a truly wonderful thing…

      • “he has never uttered an ‘ad hominen’ against anyone on this site”

        Not true.

        He deliberately lied about Dr. Susan Crockford’s publication history with the intention of damaging her professional reputation.

    • Skepticism in general correlates well with being right-wing – as it should.

      As any economist or non-climate and non-campaigning scientist will confirm the Left believes all sorts of nonsense, from left-wing “economics” (despite decades of theoretical and real-life debunking) to the ludicrous blank slate through the awful devastation GMOs will bring and ending up with the idea that a few geniuses in government can run the lives of millions of people because they know the way everything should be done. And that’s before we start with the appalling and easily debunked claims made about inequality, carcinogens, pesticides, organic food, neocortinoids and the Ozone Layer.

      When you have the Left swallowing all of that whole, of course the Right are sceptics.

      • New York Governor Cuomo yesterday, at a news conference on emergency preparedness:

        “We never used to have hurricanes in New York. We never used to have tornadoes in New York.”

        Guy on talk radio this morning reads a list of hurricanes impacting New York from the year 1480 to the present; dozens and dozens of them! I propose an interdisciplinary “basic knowledge” test to be passed by anyone seeking public office above the dogcatcher level. These people make themselves unintentionally hilarious objects of fun.

      • The political right are skeptics to add balance to the world 9So that it won’t tip over like Guam)

        With Democrats like these, skepticism is a necessity

      • Way back in about 1991 or so, as a resident of Westport CT, a hurricane crossed over Long Island and passed right over my house. The eye, that is. Forgot the exact year.

      • TJB, that would have been Hurricane Bob. Infamous here in the southeast as evangelicals made a big deal out of praying for it to miss the southeast coast . . . which it did. Then SLAMMED New England. Many New Englanders blamed the evangelicals for causing it to hit them. Rilly.

      • Hmm… I like your summary of the ‘right’ view there… yes, that encapsulates the best of the things the right stands for and why I sometimes consider voting that way.

        Not sure you have the left wing view accurately though.

        all I am saying is that the ‘membership’, if we can put it that way, of the ‘skeptics club’ is almost all of those with righter wing political beliefs. And the idea of ‘less government and control’ may be a large driver in that.

        But it is there, I’m sure.

        On the other side the real left don’t care at all about climate change, let alone advancing it to support their ends. They have other issues they see as important.

    • (Australian and UK skepticism is almost entirely driven from US examplars: skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals)

      You mean a situation where it is much easier to prevent sceptical voices ever being heard?

      • I’m not aware that modern Germany, or Sweden are giving to suppressing viewpoints.

        Germans are overwhelmingly accepting of climate science and renewables (and also anti nuclear to a degree not seen in the UK)

    • Climate skepticism is almost entirely aligned with those who’ve actually cracked a book, are capable of understanding it, and don’t just accept arguments from authority that align with their secular religious worldview. Griff, you act more and more like someone paid to come and troll here.

      • Not paid, not involved in politics or green groups.

        Just interested in climate change.

        I would submit that Anthony is an authority and many here would accept arguments advanced by the good Mr Watts?

        :-)

        climate scientists have assuredly cracked many books. In many cases they wrote them… an awful lot of the skeptic argument depends on freely available evidence climate scientists have assembled and put out there.

      • Thomas.. what an interesting essay…

        I’d say the truth is, is that Mundia is not immutable. Perhaps Modians know that and adapt when the seemingly immutable nature of the world changes, while Mundians double down on what they had before?

    • Errr Griff, the people of the US, UK and Oz all speak English and there is this thing called the internet and another thing called TV and other things too that allow us to communicate with each other and share ideas and opinions etc. For example I don’t particularly think Donald Trump is the ideal person to be POTUS but I think he has a point about Kim Jong Un being a ‘Rocket Man’ kinda loon and a serious threat to world peace, you know letting off H Bombs and firing ballistic missiles over the Japanese for no good reason than to piss off the Japanese and their friends. Similarly I thought Barack Obama was a very presentable, literate and articulate POTUS and had some good ideas but was also a bit of a poseur and a complete dingbat when it came to the CAGW thing. I have voted L, R and Green over the years and am seriously, seriously skeptical about CAGW.

    • I have to agree partly with Griff’s first sentence. In the US, the political right is full of people who think for themselves and are often skeptical of what they are told while the political left is full of people who need someone to think for them and tell them what to do.

      • No, the political right is full of dittoheads that follow folks like Trump. Thinking for yourself gets you a President that promises to help the little guy, then populates his cabinet with billionaires. Tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. Gutting of a health care law that gave 15M people health insurance. No wall. , No real pressure brought to bear on corporate America to bring jobs back.

      • “populates his cabinet with billionaires” As Barrack Hussein Obama did? As William Jefferson Clinton did? As James Earl Carter did? As Lyndon Baines Johnson did? As Franklin Delano Roosevelt did?

      • Yet in my country, the UK, it has as often been the left which has challenged the established order and produced something better.

        In modern terms, are not the fathers of the American revolution ‘leftists’?

    • hmmm so the Griffster admits that the right is on the side of science since science by its very definition is to be skeptical! Wow I don’t think he meant to make that argument!!

      Cheers!

      Joe

    • If that were true, it would be an indictment of the judgment of liberals, but I suspect it is far more complex. We perhaps need to remind some that in science skepticism is a virtue, not a flaw.

      • I am sort of liberal, but I like to have my mind free, and not following some collective thinking. Most times collective thinking is trashy, even if it is lefty. That is why I am skeptical, even in matters that are not connected with politics. Politics often influence scientists to speak out theories for ineffable purposes.

    • Griff:

      “…skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals”

      OMG. Where to begin. First, nearly no one outside the Western liberal democracies holds to anything except what you term ‘skepticism’. This is in part because most of the rest of the world has a better science education than people in the USA (accounting for the coastal bubble believers), and in part because they are more likely to be skeptical of anything said by an official, because of their long experience with baseless propaganda.

      Many governments are profoundly corrupt, but in some countries the population still believes they are not, thinking that mostly they act in the public, not personal or party-interest. If you want to divide the world into believers in CAGW and those skeptical of its catastrophic claims, look at the general level of credulity, not party affiliation in a sagging two-party state. Where a government has a decades-long history of lying to the public about nearly everything and the public knows they are being lied to the public also reject the catastrophism of the alarmists in, for example, most of Asia. Where people still believe that the government would not lie to them so consistently and pervasively because they are ‘the representatives of the people’ there is more credulity and consequently more acceptance on good faith – UK, Germany, Sweden and so on.

      The inveterate enemies of Western democracies are relying on the credulity of a scientifically semi-literate public to drink the AGW Kool-Aid and dismantle their superior energy generating systems while their rivals continue to expand and consolidate their own. When it eventually fails, they will do something else. That is what being an ‘inveterate enemy’ is all about.

      I haven’t any idea what ‘US Republican ideals’ are. They seem to be as corrupt as the Democrat Party to outsiders. The odd thing is that there is presently a president in power who is not steeped in either of their traditions. It is making a very large number of well-connected people uncomfortable. Profiteers, fixers, bagmen and scandal-mongers are very concerned. The comparisons with Rome in decline are unavoidable.

      • Crispin, you are absolutely correct that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is microscopic. We call them the Uniparty as both seem to have been taken over by globalists and crony not (not necessarily different). The Republican side does have members that are a bit more independent and these are the ones that our party leaders, Ryan and McConnell, are currently at war with. The Democrat left is also having problems with identity. Don’t be overly surprised if both the DNC (Democrats) and the GOP (Republicans) end up reformulating into three or four different parties for a short period of time.

      • Well, the Chinese and Indians and the EU are dismantling their fossil fuel systems for renewables, so who exactly is in the ‘beat the democracies by conning them in to doing away with their coal plant’ club?

    • Griff,

      I consider myself a climate skeptic, and I am most assuredly not a Republican. So, I have shown a data point disproving your hypothesis, so it fails.

    • “Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right –”

      Griff, you have that backwards….it’s the left that wants a government sugar tit…so they believe anything that will get them there

      The right wants to be independent…opposite of dependent….and they can smell a rat a mile away.

      Political right thinking IS almost entirely aligned with climate skepticism………

    • Depressingly incorrect and turning things on their head – if anything climate hysteria of your monotypical viewpoint Griff is linked to lack of being well read and being wealthy with lots of money to invest in name any climate subsidies scam you choose.

    • Rather than break skepticism into liberal/conservative or democrat/republican why doesn’t Griff tell us the breakdown between STEM vs non-STEM college graduates? In other words, the folks with a scientific education and the math tools to understand some of the foofoorah being foisted upon the world.

      • Jim, that would fall under the “Inconvenient Truth” category. They don’t even want to contemplate those numbers.

      • Rather than break skepticism into liberal/conservative or democrat/republican why doesn’t Griff tell us the breakdown between STEM vs non-STEM college graduates? In other words, the folks with a scientific education and the math tools to understand some of the foofoorah being foisted upon the world.

        Pshaw! Nonsense Jim. With all due respect what an example of the typical arrogance of the “STEM community”. An arrogance that is freely distributed and visible from the other side, btw.

        I have a undergrad degree in the Liberal Arts, working toward a Master’s in Theology (which, from past experience, a good number of you STEM holders would likely “poo-poo”) and I can destroy the “foofoorah being foisted upon the world” with the IPCC’s own documentation:

        “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

        No one needs a STEM degree to understand the above invalidates the presuppositions of AGW. I don’t need to do any lab experiments. I don’t need to “understand” complex mathematics, physics, climate science, etc.

        All I need to do is look at the religious literature AGW proponents have freely offered for review, which contradicts everything they propose to be true.

      • Well, that would be an interesting stat…

        my family are very largely STEM graduates/scientists/engineers – using them as a sample AGW is the preferred explanation.

    • A great many of the most prominent scientists among CACA skeptics are liberals and/or Democrats, if American, and even Socialists.

      For instance, prominent skeptical theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, heir to Einstein at Princeton, opposed the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. He supported Barack Obama in 2008. The New York Times described him as a “political liberal”. He was among 29 leading US scientists who wrote a strongly supportive letter to Obama regarding his administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

    • So where does that put Graham Stringer MP , condemned by the media for being sceptical of aspects of CAGW and the Climate Change Act. He is a Labour MP for Blackley in North Manchester, which is.,for those ignorant of it , a poor , still largely indigenous -British, suburb where the lives of the young people are dominated by crime and drug taking and dealing.
      His efforts to change that have won the admiration even of his political opponents .
      Would I be contradicting myself , or telling the truth ,if I said that stereotyping is the problem of the political left.

    • It’s more accurate to say that climate alarmism is almost entirely aligned with the political left. Not because of the science, but because it’s yet another excuse to raise taxes and increase the power of government.
      As that guy from the UN said, It doesn’t matter whether global warming is real or not, since it lets us do what we’ve need to do anyway.

      • climate science is not an excuse to raise taxes.

        kick starting renewables has cost money which had to come from somewhere. We’re at the end of that phase.

    • ‘Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right’

      That’s only to those that live in propaganda and stereotypes – Skeptics are CHARACTERIZED as ‘conservatives’ – (which in this context is meant as a smear) but they actually come from all stripes – usually independent-minded folks of open minds, with enough scientific acumen to notice the flaws and contradictions of AGW.

      HOWEVER – warmists are almost exclusively mentally rigid, Progressive ideologues.
      With a few exploitive bean-counters, of course.

    • IF we accept your premise as correct, then for that reason alone, the Republican party is a fantastic institution and despite its failings it is needed for world leadership.

    • Nice work Griff. It takes real comedic talent to give praise by apparent insult. Very entertaining.

      I know you weren’t being serious, but on a serious note I steadfastly maintain that the great divide is not between left and right but between those who think rationally and those who can’t or won’t. That may open up a whole new string of one liners “Alarmists are so dumb that they say …”.

    • Griff – September 20, 2017 at 6:24 am

      skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals

      You are absolutely correct, …… Griff, …….. not only climate skepticism, but also common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deduction ……. is scarce as hen’s teeth in the US Public School System and on most every US College and University campus simply because their administration and curriculum is now being dictated by highly partisan “lefty” liberal Democrats, wackos, weirdos and anarchists that do not agree with, respect, recognize or share any part of US Republican ideals, the Rule of Law or the COTUS.

      Democrat actions and thought was responsible for The Dark Ages ……. whereas Republican actions and thought was responsible for The Age of Enlightenment.

      And the history of The Dark Ages ……. is currently “on track” to repeat itself.

    • Griff of great wisdom who knows all answer this Question .How do methane emissions . from livestock ever warm the planet and I want real proof .Now get to it and don’t come back till you have proof that will stand up to scientific review and statistical analysis .Any one else may help him .

      • If methane is a greenhouse gas, then their methane emission would contribute to a warming atmosphere.

        the scale of contribution by livestock is a matter for debate and research

    • Griff, I am really curious about your beliefs. So I have some questions.

      1) How old do you believe the Earth is?
      2) When do you believe the climate of the Earth started changing? Before or after the discovery of oil by humans?
      3) Do you believe there has been one or more Ice Ages in the history of the Earth?
      4) Do you believe there were dinosaurs at one point on the Earth?
      5) If so, what caused their extinction?
      6) Do you believe that plants grow through a process called photosynthesis?
      7) Do you believe that plants require water, CO2 and sunlight to grow?
      8) Do you believe that there is a level of CO2 concentration below which plants can not grow?
      9) Do you believe there was a Medieval Warming Period?
      10) Do you believe that plants will grow more vigorously at 400 ppm of CO2 or 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      • I accept geological history, including ice ages.

        and of course the climate changes thru that history.

        But climate change always has a driver and after examining the evidence I conclude the prime driver now is AGW and the direction of travel is warmer.

        Plant growth is influenced by CO2 – but increased CO2 and a warming planet are not universally good for plants.

        The dinosaurs are clearly faked…

        (no, not really!)

      • In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

        […]

    • if you could put two and two together griff, without having to take your socks off, it might occur to you that if that is true, its strongly suggest that climate change is an invention of the political left.

    • Quite right it is. The left is about followers; sheep, bees, herd, hive. If these concepts are not foremost in your motivating factors, there’s the right. The right is not a particular thing of its own; it is simply a name for everything not left, which *is* a thing. If you are naturally skeptical and demand proof of things, particularly grand claims, you cannot very well be in the hive or herd unless of course you imagine yourself to be the leader of such a thing.

    • chaamjamal

      It is also demonstrable that large powerful hurricanes form over water that is below average temperature, as well as above. They also form in the Arctic.

      Apart from trying to find some connection between CO2 concentration and SST’s, there is the additional problem of trying to identify a viable mechanism for IR “back-radiation” to heat an ocean. The temperature of the Atlantic is not driven by the temperature of the air above it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      Last night I watched the 2015 documentary on Scientology on Netflix. It demonstrates the way confirmation bias is used to reinforce the value of ‘teachings’ and ‘science’.

      CAGW teaches that a hurricane is positive proof that AGW exists, is going to be catastrophic, and is ‘baked-in’ because of previous emissionary sins. Confirmation bias sells the importance of the emissionary position. Those who do not adopt it are labeled heretics/suppressive persons.

      There is no easy cure for someone lost in confirmation bias. Just be careful not to give them the keys to the car.

  2. A libtard is more apt to simply believe government-approved “concensus” science. They lack both the motivation and the intelligence to investigate on their own. Sad.

    • Get off the ‘libtard’ nonsense. I am an extreme liberal on the vast majority of subjects save the Second Amendment, abortion and climate change due to man.
      I am conservative on those subjects and on the last one do not buy into the whole “Climate change is being caused by man!” lie.

      • Then by definition, you are not a “libtard” – you’re a liberal – probably more of a classical liberal in the Jefferson mold.

        There’s a difference.

    • Unfortunately there exists a good portion of the populace who have no other recourse than to trust the arguments from “more knowledgeable sources”. possess neither the acumen nor wherewithal to make any determination on the validity of any of this. While some of us do have the ability to ascertain the validity or at least plausibility of such claims when presented with the data and studies, many do not. Furthermore many of us “ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) deniers” also rely on claims from trusted sources as well.

    • Enough of the “libtard” crap. I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket. Some of us do. I vote that way because I see the flawed political policies of the right to be more dangerous than the flawed climate policies of the left. I don’t come here to debate those political policies, and find one of the greatest impediments to getting the good science presented here out to a wider audience is the fact that they have to wade through so much right wing vitriol along the way. Put your political bashing aside, and focus on the science.

      • The flawed economic policies of the left have killed way more people than the flawed economic policies of the right.

      • The “climate change” issue is a political issue first and foremost. If you were lucky enough to have the “straight liberal ticket” win then there would be no reason at all for discussion … your opinion would be ignored by policy/lawmakers. Your scientific discussion would do nothing. It wouldn’t matter. At all.

        Some are baffled as to why others don’t understand this (it baffles me as well). Your lack of understanding then leads to the insulting label, “libtard”.

      • Yeah I always scored high on IQ tests too. More than anything they identify people who are really good at IQ tests. Didn’t help much in getting the girls though. Sometimes logic just doesn’t persuade.

      • So braggith: Doug – September 20, 2017 at 9:56 am

        Enough of the “libtard” crap. I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket.

        Oh my, does one have to be capable of passing “Mensa tests” in order to have a really good understanding of “climate science”?

        Must be that most individuals claiming to be Climate Scientists …… are all incapable of “passing Mensa tests” ……. simply because none of them have proven that they “understand climate science very well”.

        And don’t be “funnin” me, ….. anyone that possesses a “strong liberal bias” ….. is incapable of making a non-partisan action or comment.

        Your conscious mind cannot override or disagree with what your subconscious mind was nurtured with and is in total control of access and recall of.

      • Well, the replies demonstrate my point well. As long as MarkW insists on debating politics rather than discussing science, Forest and Samuel resort to ad hominem attacks, this fine forum will simply be preaching to a small choir. It is a shame, because there is a lot of stuff here the liberals ought to read, but they will be run off by the crew that habitually insert some left bashing into the scientific discourse.

      • Doug:

        With all due respect, this particular article seems to focus on the politics of AGW rather than the science.

        On another note, I senseth that you haveth openeth yourself upeth to furthereth commentary frometh the rusty old codger, Mr. Cogar…who, somehow, in some strangely metaphysical fashion I cannot exactly pinpoint, is particularly harmless, and furthermore, with whom is a bottle of scotch and a fishin’ pole a day well spent.

      • Doug

        Your comments are welcome to me at least, though politically I probably wouldn’t agree with you on anything. That being said I am a liberaterian at heart and spent pretty much my whole life having to defend my views in schools and public forum against groups of liberals who attack as a group, demean as a group and try to emotionally embarrass people as a group. People on the right may vehemently disagree with me and get angry with me but when the arguements over it’s over, it’s the difference between 2 grown men fighting, they settle fair and square and then shake hands and move on vs being attacked by a gang of thugs who beat you just because you are not part of the group. The reaction you are receiving is from people like me who have hand enough of being told that just because we disagree we are evil and we are going to kill everyone on the planet.
        Try this experiment, go to a university and talk to a group of kids about climate change not being real and see what happens, discuss wage inequality for women and point out that men take all the dangerous job and have 90%+ of the work related deaths in this country.

      • Doug – September 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        Well, the replies demonstrate my point well. As long as ………. Forest and Samuel resort to ad hominem attacks, this fine forum will simply be preaching to a small choir.

        Doug, your mimicry of BS phrases (“ad hominem attacks”) was little more than an habitual rebuttal act by those persons like yourself who constantly have to respond with a CYA excuse whenever their silly, asinine and oftentimes idiotic comments are questioned by mature, non-partisan, experienced, well-educated individuals …… who truly believe that adolescent minded adults need to be told “where the bear defecates in the buckwheat”.

        Here ya go, Doug, educate yourself, to wit:

        Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

        Now Doug, you can either “GETTA CLUE” or post another CYA simply because my above posting was in fact an act of …… “attacking the substance of the argument itself”, ….. because, ….. silly boy, …… your claimed “credentials” was the subject/substance of the argument, …… to wit:

        So braggith Doug about himself on September 20, 2017 at 9:56 am

        I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket.

        Doug, this forum is not a “school atmosphere”, ……. thus no one really gives a damn about your “hurt feelings”.

      • Doug writes: “passed all my Mensa tests”

        Would that be the puzzles posted in Scientific American? At any rate, it signifies that you are good at passing Mensa tests. It is remotely possible that qualifies you to comment on climate in a more believable way.

        “vote a straight liberal ticket.”

        Naturally. You do not deviate in the hive or herd. It makes life easy when someone else made the ticket.

        “Some of us do.”

        Us? How many of you are in there?

        “I vote that way because I see the flawed political policies of the right to be more dangerous than the flawed climate policies of the left.”

        I would prefer the right not to have climate policies. A similar theme is exploring the right’s national health care program — there isn’t one, because national health care is a socialist theme and simply doesn’t exist on the right. It requires me to pay for you and I cannot find a natural phenomenon to justify that belief. I might *choose* to do that, but it is my choice to make.

        “I don’t come here to debate those political policies”

        Naturally not, and we are not having a debate. The left does not debate. It preaches and expects obedience; seems poorly equipped to argue its beliefs.

        “Put your political bashing aside, and focus on the science.”

        Sounds rather a lot like what comes from the mouth of a preacher who just happens to have “the science” that you are supposed to believe.

      • Thank you, Doug. I feel the same way. I’m a physicist and a liberal. I think the climate always changes, and I also think humanity has a tendency (born out through human history) to over-estimate their role and contribution to the universe. It’s very discouraging to see the amount of liberal-bashing here. I’d rather see the focus trained on what’s wrong with the current state of climate science.

      • Whatever happened to the term leftard? I’m sure I can remember that one before libtard came into use. I always thought that it was strange how leftard stuck when rightard sounds so much like retard and yet it didn’t stick.

        Name calling is such fun and you can make money from it if you are sufficiently skilled to ride it to the top.

    • proglodyte is a less offensive, more accurate term IMO. Progressives are not liberals in the classical sense by any means.

      • While we are into name calling, how about calling those we disagree with climate scientists. It’s about as damning as calling someone a bull artist. It can be used in to put people down by saying things like “yeah, right. You really are a complete and utter climate scientist, aren’t you”.

  3. Rejecting science? Perhaps the European and US non-conservative views on GMO’s should be used as a counterexample. One can make an argument that the opponents are motivated by protectionism on the part of the EU, and the “organic” merchandisers in the US. Most of the claims against GMO’s are demonstrably overblown when not completely false.
    The political left has superstitions about nuclear power, too, with equally heavy breathing commentaries on the health risks.
    Neither has much to do with respecting “science”.

    • I often see abortion used as a counter argument—science indicates life begins at conception, abortion says it magically happens at some point either before or just after birth, depending on the convenience of the timing. Also, the idea of gender is nonsensical—science says there are boys and girls with a few outliars now and then, not retroactive sex assignment via hormones and surgery. Both of these fantasies are considered darlings of the left and both clearly deny science or try an end run around it.

      • Not a really good argument, as both the sperm and egg were “alive” prior to the moment of conception. What you mean is “ensoulment”, which is theology.
        Sexual identity is rather political, and the idea of using surgery to “treat” a psychological condition gives horrid reminders of psychosurgery, lobotomy and the like. Actual intersex persons, like that South African runner, are rare.

      • Sheri, life does begin at birth. However in the real world women should be able to decide (without having to ‘keep their legs shut’) “I am not ready to be a mother! Time to abort this child!” within a reasonable period.
        I am willing to give them up to the end of the first trimester to do that in normal circumstances.

        In extreme circumstances like a severely underage female (under 13) getting pregnant, pregnancy due to a rape reported to the police (last four words are key there) and/or forcible imprisonment so you could not get an abortion when you wanted one in the first trimester?

        You should be allowed to get an abortion up until the third trimester. Past six months of gestation the baby (it meets the qualifications for everyone sane at that point) is too developed to abort without it being infanticide (it would survive if we simply induced labor) and the female in question should be given the option of going through natural birth induced by chemicals or having a C-Section.
        Whichever the female in question chooses. NOT the doctor or some religious moral guardian.

        I am an extreme liberal on sexual morality. I do not think that females should be kept from having sexual relationships if they wish to and I do not think that birth control should not be covered by insurance that should be secular in the real world.
        I.E. even if you are working for the church in some fashion? If you want birth control you should be able to get it even if the church is paying for your birth control just like any other medication or something like Viagra/Cialis.

      • lerianis: You are arguing then that passing through the birth canal or being surgically removed from a woman’s body magically turns a lump of cells that look human into an actual human. That does not seem scientific to me. By what process does this happen?

      • Why stop at birth? Why not declare that nobody is legally alive until they are 18 and graduated from high school? Makes as much sense.

      • Tom: Thank you for clarifying what I meant—except that is NOT what I meant. Let me put this in a light where theology can’t be used as the excuse for dismissing a comment.

        You have a fertilized chicken egg. Inside that egg, there are a bunch of cells growing into a lump of stuff that looks like a chick. Of course, it’s not a chick until it hatches. But how does a lump of stuff that is not a chick peck its way out of the shell? Again, I’m left with the question of “when does the magic occur?”

      • I was making the point that that formulation was not what was really meant, that not all fertilized eggs become persons in an ordinary use of the term. Where to draw the line is arbitrary, and should be recognized as such.

      • Again, I’m left with the question of “when does the magic occur?”

        Indeed, Sheri.

        And the arbitrary lines get drawn in ridiculous fashion don’t they?

        “Such and so is not a human until 13 (or whatever) weeks!”

        Okay, so then at the 11th hour, 59th second of the 12th week of pregnancy, we have nothing but a clump of cells. Just as the clock strikes at the 1st hour of the 13th (or whatever) week, suddenly we have a human?

        Bah.

        Try this “oh it’s not really an [x]” nonsense with a breeder. Say you want to buy some horses (could be cows or dogs or whatever floats your boat, doesn’t matter).

        Assume you’re looking to buy a nice looking mare but that mare is pregnant. Try to convince the owner you don’t owe a premium for that little unborn foal (regardless of where the mare is in the pregnancy) in that mare’s belly on the basis that “it isn’t really a horse until it’s born”.

        Yeah…you’ll be laughed off the property at best, escorted at gunpoint on the basis that you’re bat-sh*t crazy at worst.

        Yet a human isn’t a human until it’s born??

      • Sheri September 20, 2017 at 6:49 am
        I often see abortion used as a counter argument—science indicates life begins at conception, abortion says it magically happens at some point either before or just after birth, depending on the convenience of the timing.

        ‘Independent’ life does not begin at conception, about 15% of confirmed pregnancies spontaneously abort before 20 wks, i.e. the fetus was incapable of life.

        Also, the idea of gender is nonsensical—science says there are boys and girls with a few outliars now and then, not retroactive sex assignment via hormones and surgery. Both of these fantasies are considered darlings of the left and both clearly deny science or try an end run around it.
        Science isn’t as clearcut regarding gender as you appear to think. For example, about 1 in ~20,000 of 43 XY births suffer from Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, i.e. phenotypically female, karyotypically male. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47, XXY) occurs in around 1 in 1000 live male births, overall about 1 or 2 in 1000 live births present with ambiguous genitalia requiring some form of surgery.

      • you’re a bunch of amateurs and will not be able to resolve this until you are able to define ‘rights’ objectively.
        doesn’t the clumsiness bother you? it’s like watching jerry lewis stagger down a hallway full of mop buckets to me.
        once you can define ‘rights’ then it will be clear that a rock can’t own any, a protozoan (even tho it might evolve into H. sapiens in a million years) can not possess rights.
        and you will be able to say, objectively, who can possess rights and how the individual lays claim to them.
        until you pay your dues by actual reasoning from first principles you are babbling nonsense.

      • Phil:

        “‘Independent’ life does not begin at conception, about 15% of confirmed pregnancies spontaneously abort before 20 wks, i.e. the fetus was incapable of life.”

        Could you elaborate further?

        E.g., how does the dependency status of the life at conception make a difference to its existential state as alive? And further what is that existential difference between life that is “independent” versus life that is “dependent”?

      • Tonsils Rights!
        somebody start the meetings so we can keep minutes, incorporate and seek funding!
        think of the human cells!
        and tumors are natural! don’t discriminate! they may self identify as evangelical liberals!
        look out for the mop…lol

      • Sheri, the simplest way to look at is once the sperm enters the egg and the DNA is cast, that new life form is absolutely unique and will never happen again…

      • I was going to use that example, but whilst I know of a few prominent “Liberals” whoa re anti-vaccine, I wasn’t sure if it was a Liberal belief per se?

    • And pesticides, particularly neocortinoids, and the Blank Slate in psychology/sociology, and the “research” done on inequality and of course the whole fantasy that is Left-wing economics.

  4. I recently began watching the HBO series ‘Westworld’, Based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name. It’s about a future with an ‘Old West’ theme park populated by very life-like androids, programed to play their limited roles over and over again in a never ending loop. In one episode, an android finds a photo (dropped by a guest) of a woman standing in Times Square. All he can do is stare at it, perplexed and agitated. He shows it to another android who looks and says “I don’t see anything!”

    At the same time, I was having a lengthy debate on Facebook about climate change with a stranger named Timothy. Timothy believed that the theory of a man-made global warming crisis was already proven, because all the climate models unanimously say so, and that he was much smarter than I was, because he had actually taught climate change to sixth graders. He literally could not respond to my arguments or evidence directly, but could only call me stupid, appeal to the mythical consensus and become more agitated.

    I could not help but notice the striking similarity between Timothy and a Westworld android: pre-programed, scripted responses and an inability to see or comprehend anything outside of their very narrow minded world view.

    The way the show is going, it looks like the androids are starting to wake up to reality. I do not have the same hope for the Timothy’s of this world.

    • Agreed. The Timothy’s of this world are nothing more than programmed creatures not capable of independent thought. They comprise the majority of the troll population on the net, whose only technique for “proving the science” is to call names, insult, claim the commenters are lying (it’s surprising how many of the trolls are mind readers), etc. The more they are challenged, the more the bullying, name calling, denial of the truth of the other person’s credentials, etc increases. Some of these trolls have PhDs (as verified by their web pages on the net…..). To be honest, based on climate change “science”, I’d be very hesitant to hire anyone with an advanced degree. It’s terrifying how totally uneducated and clueless these people are. The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.

      • I agree with most of your statement… However, I would change the last sentence from:

        >The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.

        To:

        “The more schooling, the stronger the belief in pre-determined Authorities and Omniscience.”

        It’s trust in the institutional authority that is the problem. Perhaps many people who have spent so long seeking the approval of institutional authority lack the ability to question it.

      • If you look at it as Theology, it all makes sense. The AGW crowd are ‘Creationists’. They ‘believe’ that Mankind has the power to ‘create’ the climate. And their ‘belief’ is so strong, that no logic shall tempt them to waiver from their ‘faith’.
        We might be able to, in the next century. But it will take orbital mirrors or geological scale civil works, to stop the decline into the next Glacial. (fill in the Islandic Gap, widen the Suez Canal, build a massive Nicaragua Canal at sea level)

        When you ask Catholic priests if they ‘believe’ in the Bible version of Jesus, 97% will say ‘Yes’. Of course… their job depends on it.

        P.S.
        Russian hackers caused Harvey and Irma. Thanks to Global Warming the US had 12 years without major storms. But the Russian Hackers broke the weather control machines. Now the weather is back to normal.

      • Sheri September 20, 2017 at 6:55 am

        … It’s terrifying how totally uneducated and clueless these people are. The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.

        Everyone, especially experts, should have to understand the work of Philip Tetlock. As the result of decades of study, he showed convincingly that experts are unable to predict the outcome of complex systems, (ie. anything that has anything to do with human beings, but not limited to that). link

        If you’re going to prescribe things like government policy, you have to be confident that your prescription will work. The problem with that is obvious.

        The Democrat party has embraced the experts of the liberal elite (and thrown the deplorables under the bus). They should become familiar with Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank. Their arrogance cost them the election. If President Trump’s policies make things better in the rust belt, the arrogant elitist liberal expert class could be consigned to the political backwaters for a very long time.

      • One thing most of the highly “educated” have in common is urban/suburban upbringing, with minimal time ever spent outside, let alone exposure to trades like mining, farming, fishing, ranching, etc. They easily accept arguments from even dubious “authorities” (such as activist dot-orgs) because they have no personal observations or experience which counter such. All most of them know about “weather” is that a rainy day means they need an umbrella to run from the lobby to the subway; they’ve never raised an animal, sprouted a seed, or eaten a meal that didn’t arrive magically on their expensive plate garnished with a sprig of parsley.

      • RLu’s take on “creationist” is an ignorant cheap shot at creationism, or reads like that anyway, and does not deserve to be in this list of thoughtful comments.

      • In reality we all carry around “beliefs” that we have not gone to much trouble to prove to ourselves scientifically. As an example I believe my wife respects me and my kids think I’m smart but for some reason I never thought it worth while checking if that is true. I don’t think this is a special defect of alarmists. I think what is often missing is the insight to recognize when we simply believe something without proof, and the wisdom to look into that belief more rigorously when there is substantial risk if it is wrong. That is what sicence is for. If I believed in astrology it might not matter if I don’t make life decisions based on it. If on the other hand I believe I can change the weather by completely transforming industrial society, then I should have the wisdom to set a very high scientific standard of proof before I sell everything I own that runs on or is made from fossil fuels.

  5. Yes, the belief that humans are causing climate to change is denial of science, which side of a political line they are on is not relevant to, well, anything.

  6. I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘denying science’. I use current astronomical references, the most recent biological and biosystems info I can find, and recent discoveries in genetic anomalies in creating science fiction. That includes current pro- and con-warming/chilling views on planetary systems.

    So how can anyone expect me to accept being told I’m denying science just because I disagree on which way the climate is moving? These people are extraordinarily evangelical in their approach to trying to convince everyone that they’re right, and that Doomsday is at hand.

    Doomsday has been ‘at hand’ since an asteroid fell out of the sky and smashed Gormorra to smithereens, maybe longer. Someone please let me know when Doomsday is over and done with? I have a lot of things to do.

    • Sara: “I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘denying science’.”

      Same here. Do ‘they’ understand that’s it perfectly acceptable to employ/apply/produce science when defending science? If there is no science, what is being denied?

    • Sara,
      Thanks.
      I would live to read some of your SF writing.
      I have lost much of my interest in the genre since the PC crowd took over and relentlessly push reactionary lefty stereotypes.

      • Hunter,

        They had a whole “movement” just for people like you (and me). Google “Sad Puppies” and give Larry Correia a try.

        rip

      • Thank you, Hunter. Until I finish what I’m working on, I can suggest Robert Heinlein’s novels, starting with Red Planet (takes place on Mars) or Glory Road (pure adventure) and maybe the Moon is a Harsh Mistress or even my childhood favorite, Have Spacesuit – Will Travel (yes, the kids save the planet just like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saved the town).
        But there is a wealth of good stuff like Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ or Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. Harlan Ellison, Joan Vinge, Vernor Vinge, Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged), Ben Bova, Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley – these are all good authors, as are H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Samuel Delaney, etc. There’s a wealth of good reading.
        You might also find Katherine Kerr’s Westlands novels (Daggerspell, etc.) entertaining, as she mixes basic science with Celtic theology… or it might not be your cup of tea. She also writes science fiction along with her fantasy fiction.
        I know about the SJW howler monkeys and their odd ideas about what we’re supposed to be like. The denial of reality is painfully obvious. I will not knuckle under to it and they will hate me for it, but there’s that whole thing about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, right? They are in for a rude awakening.

      • and lets not forget Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (sadly, just recently deceased) – excellent for the science & freedom loving crowd.

      • Oh, can’t forget Michael Crichton, his book “State of Fear” is definitely on topic for this post, and kryptonite to the Gorebalists

      • “Have Spacesuit – Will Travel (yes, the kids save the planet just like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saved the town)”

        I loved that story! One of the first science fiction stories I read, way back when..

      • notfubar

        yes, I’m sure many here would like Pournelle’s ‘co dominion’ series, which also formed the backdrop for his collaboration with Larry Niven in ‘a mote in gods eye’

        ‘King David’s spaceship’ is a good one…

        I would also recommend Jack McDevitt – a new novel by him after a long pause out soon.

        There are plenty of good old space operas out there…
        Leviathan Wakes by James S A Corey would be a good start… nothing to offend whatever your politics!

        If you want fantasy ‘The name of the wind’ is the best thing out for ages… just be aware we’ve been waiting for the third volume for a few years now.

    • Wait, are you saying you write science fiction, or you use discoveries from science fiction? I’m confused. And unclear how this demonstrates that you’re not a science denier. (Note, I share your opinion, just am unclear regarding your post.)

      rip

      • Oh, okay, sorry I wasn’t clear. The term ‘science denier’ itself doesn’t make any sense to me. Everything in my house is the result of successful scientific experiment discoveries, from cold storage for food to this computer of mine and toaster on my kitchen countertop. I don’t take any of these things for granted. I may not know much about the physics of my toaster, but I can and do appreciate it.

        Using the term ‘science denier’ for someone with an opposing and skeptical opinion about the direction the climate is taking ignores reality. It smacks of the closed mind when used by these people like those who slavishly follow Gore and Mann and the others in that parade.

        Someone who is a ‘science denier’ is someone whose entire view of the world includes the Flat Earth View and the Earth-centered Universe. The Sun orbits the Earth. Diseases are caused by bad humors in the blood, not by micro-organisms that you can’t see without a microscope. Mental illness is not the result of brain chemistry gone wrong or some physical thing like a tumor. It’s caused by evil spirits. Rocking chairs that start moving by themselves, and furniture that rattles and shakes for no reason, are possessed by evil spirits, instead of simply responding to a microquake on an unrecorded fault.

        I write science fiction and fantasy fiction, but I incorporate as much real science into both as I can, based on current discoveries in science, e.g., astronomy and the recent detection of gravity waves as predicted by Einstein. This includes a nod to planetary weather systems and climate – the user-friendly planets in the Goldilocks zone. I do a lot of speculation at the same time, just because I can.

        So my question: what is meant by ‘denying science’, when I’m surrounded by it and use it, is aimed at people who use that term but don’t seem to understand what it really means. It’s becoming more and more commonly used, which is disturbing. If these loons used the term “climate change skeptic”, it would be less disturbing. They seem to want to turn their nonsense in to a religious order of some kind. This is an indication of mental illness, in my view.

      • Sara and others: It bothers me that people may consider what alarmists and others do a “mental illness”. It’s not a mental illness. It falls under what is called “Locus of Control” and probably other terms.

        People are internally or externally oriented. Internal oriented believe in themselves and that they have control over their lives and many outcomes. External oriented believe they have little to no control and their life is the way it is due to external forces. Most people are a combination of the two sides. I agree that while some people may reach a pathological level of internal or external beliefs, what most people do is well within what would be considered normal ranges. People want to be liked—I have been told that it is more important to be liked than to be right. It’s actually more common that most people realize. (No, I don’t believe it.) It’s the easier “sell” of the two extremes.

        Labelling people mentally ill is not desirable, and the pop psychology I see day after day on the internet is disturbing and counter-productive. Believers in global warming are very often the believers in an external locus of control and they need to be liked and have the approval of others. That can be changed to some degree, but my experience is these two characteristics often seem innate. One has to work within the framework to change a person’s opinion, as in showing them that many others believe global warming is not true and that this view is not a threat to the person.

      • Sara,

        Got it. And agree! It’s a silly label meant to score a cheap political point. Ironically, it’s usually those who are truly scientifically ignorant that are the ones claiming “denier”. I find that those who are more scientific in nature are much more likely to accept skepticism as what it truly is.

        rip

      • Sheri, I understand your viewpoint, but I see behavior that indicates a rapidly-growing denial of reality in many of the people who label a skeptic like me as a ‘science denier’. Their behavior manifests itself as a type of devotion to some sort of cause that has been repeatedly shown to be not just flawed, but deeply flawed. They refuse to consider any other viewpoint, using childish responses when they are confronted with facts that have support and can be doublechecked for accuracy. This is indicative of a personality disorder similar to addiction. One does not have to use drugs to be addicted to something. In some of these people, there is a ecstatic mental state similar to a rhapsody or an epiphany.

        A psychologist studying ISIS converts found the same kind of response and addictive personality disorder in people who had converted to Islam, also accompanied by an ecstatic state and/or an epiphany-like reaction and a refusal to see the deeply-flawed side of that religion.

        Refusal to recognize the “dark” side of something, or refusal to accept the opinions of other people about it, is massive denial of reality, and that is the first stage of mental illness.

        If this is not a form of mental illness, then what is it? They may not be climbing the walls or screaming and drooling, but the responses they manifest are very disturbing.

      • Sara,

        I’m not sure about the not climbing walls, screaming and drooling part. How can we know what Mann, et al, do in the privacy of their lairs?

    • I don’t deny science, except in the sentence “I deny that science has reached a point where we know very much about anything.”

      Science offers us the best way to approach much of the world, but that doesn’t mean I think that in say 100 years, much of what we have in textbooks won’t be replaced by better science.

    • Sara September 20, 2017 at 6:55 am

      I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘denying science’.

      Here’s an example from a discussion I had on LinkedIn:

      How one can make the leap from:

      David Middleton

      The point is that the warming observed in the instrumental temperature record doesn’t significantly deviate from the pre-existing Holocene pattern of climate change…

      Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the northern hemisphere has exceeded natural variability (+/-2 std dev) 3 times: The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the modern warming. Humans didn’t cause at least two of the three and the current one only exceeds natural variability by about 0.2 C. And this is a maximum, because the instrumental data have much higher resolution than the proxy data.

      To:

      Nigel Goodwin

      David, what you have decided to ignore is basic physics and chemistry.

      Defies any logical explanation… And it got worse from there:

      David Middleton

      No. I have not. All other things held equal, the radiative forcing effect of CO2 works out to about 1 C of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2. In Earth Science, the “all other things” are never held equal.

      The catastrophic global warming predictions invoke strong positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. increased water vapor content) to increase the climate sensitivity from 1 to 3-6 C per doubling. This is one of the reasons the climate models fail to demonstrate predictive skill 95-99% of the time. All of the recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity put the transient climate response at about 1.35 C per doubling (ranging from 0.5 to 2.4 C).

      https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/25/updated-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

      1.35 C per doubling won’t yield catastrophic warming. It will stay well below the so-called 2.0 C limit. It won’t even be significantly warmer than what would have happened if humans never discovered how to burn things.

      Which yielded an appeal to emotion fallacy:

      Nigel Goodwin

      Are you willing to bet your future, your children’s’ future, and your grandchildren’s future, on your speculation that it will be within 1.35C? You have absolutely no certainty about that. Do a proper risk analysis.

      At this point, I just stopped replying to his comments.

      • Nigel’s last response is the usual final play of the climate crisis defenders: ‘When all else fails, invoke the Precautionary Principle!’ It has been used to justify all kinds of evil decision-making by the hands of bureaucrats. Of course, it is neither precautionary or even a principle, as it is self-contradicting. Using the Precautionary Principle to supposedly avoid causing harm, usually causes more harm than it prevents! It is an extremely linear concept, that assumes we can accurately determine all future events by simply extending current trends into the future indefinitely. It does not allow for creativity, adaptation and/or non-linearity, so it has no value in reality. The Precautionary Principle is a childish thought.

        (That is my rant on the Precautionary Principle!)

        A proper risk assessment would not only consider the negative impacts of CO2 induced warming (risk), but all of the positive impacts as well (rewards). It would take into account the very high cost of trying to mitigate CO2 emissions (trillions), with the very low rewards of doing so (small fractions of a degree). It would acknowledge the great likelihood that science and technology will improve over the next 100 years, taking care of the problems that look insurmountable today, with far more easy and efficient solutions than we can conceive of now.

        So, do I have any certainty that man-made global warming will be less than 1.35C? No. All I have is the science, which indicates that it will. And I am humble enough to admit that my ability to solve future problems is extremely small, compared to the ability of the people of the future. If they are not mucj more capable than I am, then something horrible must have happened, and global warming will be the least of their problems.

      • That’s exactly what I meant – how can they say such things? And then when they are losing, well, you’re a traitor to someone, some undefined person, or your family, or the entire human species and butterflies and small green lizards.

        This is where it becomes disturbingly like a neo-religious order in the making. And that is scary.

      • The purpose of the Precautionary Principle is to say that ignorance (which we all have) is no obstacle to practical faith. Uncertainty should not prevent action.

        It is not basic science. It is basic theology. Pascal’s Wager was the first expression of the idea. Cardinal Newman expanded on it. It is sound with the right caveats.

        The main caveat is that the cost of the practical faith has to be practical.

      • But David,
        Doesn’t it create a form of confirmation to Nigel that it is the proper arguement to put forward if it is the arguement that you go quiet on?

      • Time = Money. There are people who are worth a lot of my time. Then there are people who weren’t worth the time I spent on them.

      • One example of the “Precautionary Principle” is “Pascal’s Wager”. Pascal’s argument could also apply to a belief in Odin, or Ahura Mazda.
        One response could be, “Are you willing to bet your future, your children’s’ future, and your grandchildren’s future, on your speculation that going pure green energy is beneficial ? It could lead to a collapse of civilization. You have absolutely no certainty about that. Do a proper risk analysis.”

      • To those who go the “are you willing to bet your children’s future” path, I like to point out that in the history of life on Earth, the vast majority of the time, CO2 levels have been above 2000 ppm going as high as 5000 to 7000 ppm at times. Not only did life not end, it flourished during those times.
        This fact alone is sufficient to tell me that we have nothing to worry about when CO2 levels go from a mere 250ppm to a meager 500ppm.

      • I love the precautionary principle. When in doubt, do nothing.
        When doing something is as likely to be as good as doing nothing?

        Oddly enough civilization flourished on the general principle that doing what your ancestors did is not a bad place to begin.

        Its called conservatism.

      • Leo Smith,
        Progress is neither linear nor regular. If conservatism was the way to make things better then that would not be the case.

        The best that can be said for conservatism is that it does not make things worse. Which is a good argument (I must admit) – if progress is slowed then so is regress and the ratchet effect of people avoiding mistakes will therefore also avoid disaster.

        But that is also cowardice. A weak, immoral society.
        My empirical evidence for this moral judgement is that Confucianism describes the Golden Rule in its negative form; “Do not do unto others as you would not have done to yourself”.

        History shows that China has steadily grown in size and power, often exceeding the West, but it has not had the great breakthroughs of those progressives who were willing to nail their principles to the door,

      • “Progress is neither linear nor regular” Oop, there it is! A point far too many people are FAR too ignorant of. Until very recently, historically, “progress” moved in exceedingly unpredictable fits and starts. The last 300 or so years are the exception, and even then it has not been a smooth and steady progression.

      • M Courtney September 21, 2017 at 12:57 pm

        China has suffered horribly under progressive regimes, most recently when the Communist Party practiced socialism rather than capitalism, 1949-76. In its long history, China has endured other episodes of statism and socialism, but has always been forced by reality to snap out of them, after huge cost in lives and treasure.

        Its latest progressive catastrophe did however borrow so-called “scientific socialism” from its anti-human originators in Europe.

      • M Courtney:

        “The best that can be said for conservatism is that it does not make things worse. Which is a good argument (I must admit) – if progress is slowed then so is regress and the ratchet effect of people avoiding mistakes will therefore also avoid disaster.”

        You seem to presuppose that conservatism impedes progress in some way. Why is this true? How is progress impeded if certain ideas/methods/assumptions which have been tested over time and shown to be true are retained without impeding the free flow of ideas in other areas? E.g., there would be no need to return to the practice of bloodletting for those ailments that are unaffected by the method. Neither would conservatism necessarily prevent ex ante new ideas from being empirically tested.

        “History shows that China has steadily grown in size and power, often exceeding the West, but it has not had the great breakthroughs of those progressives who were willing to nail their principles to the door,”

        If your premise is that “progress” is defined as growing “in size and power”, perhaps your definition of “progress” should be revised. It would seem you’ve implicitly argued such a definition to be false.

      • Yeah, I hate when they get to the save “your children’s future” argument. It’s basically an appeal to extreme recourse at any cost just in case a hypothetical catastrophe occurs. Frankly, a proper risk analysis at this point in time would support the case for doing nothing.

    • Anybody arguing that “transgenderism” is a thing hasn’t even one leg to stand on regarding “science.”

    • Sara,

      Don’t forget Poul Anderson, Roger Zelazny, and Fred Saberhagen (especially
      his Beserker series) as enjoyable mindfillers.

    • Legend: Divine judgment by God . . . Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities were consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was spared.

      Sara says “asteroid.” But, then, what spared Zoar?

      Isaac Asimov, in his Guide to the Bible, argued that ancient meanings of such things meant one tribe’s folks destroyed another tribe’s villages. I do not recall his examples, but here is one:
      They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.” [Numbers 31:7-18 NLT]

      Asteroid or angry men — take your pick, Regardless, the village is toast.

      • In regard to an asteroid plonking Gomorra, there is an engraving on a bronze disc of an astronomical object moving rapidly across the sky in the general area of Gomorra. The site of what is believed to be Gomorra is being excavated. It shows a series of occupied layers, and then a gap of an extended time period of 700++ years of zero occupation, and subsequently, short periods of occupation. Some disaster took place there. I will find the link and post it, but if you read the description of Lot being warned to leave quickly and don’t look back, in the primitive mind a mile-long boat-shaped object impacting on that site would be the Hand of God smacking Gomorra for its sins.
        Likewise, read the legend that Lot’s wife stopped and looked back and was turned to ash. If the refugees were still close enough to be hit by the shock wave, it’s very possible that the heat could have hit her hard enough to drive every molecule of water out of her body in the blink of an eye, and Lot witnessed it from the safety of a cave or sheltering rocks. We do that with microwaves all the time: water is driven out of something when exposed to the microwave. If I cook bacon in the microwave, I get about two tablespoons of water out of the cooking rack from it.
        Sometimes, you have to consider a myth or ancient story from the viewpoint of an uneducated observer and his primitive mindset. This impact appears to have happened around 3700 BC, based on what the article said.
        I’ll see if I can find the link to that archaeological report. It’s somewhere on the net.

      • Sara at 6:28

        People make up stories, for example, go to the following site and scroll down to a photo of a sign of the “Ant & Yellowjacket.” The stone arch beyond the sign was reason enough to create a legend.
        Among the Nez Perce

        RE: Lot’s wife – – – a rock pillar (salt?) begat a story. Geologists might claim a different means of creation.
        As for destruction by fire and brimstone, consider a vent eruption.
        Example: Holuhraun

        And again, what spared Zoar from an asteroid that took out nearby places?

      • I found the link to a Daily Mail article from 2015, regarding the excavation of a site that the Mail refers to as Sodom, but in the original article (which I may find, also) the site is referred to as Gomorrah.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3270999/Has-Biblical-city-Sodom-Monstrous-site-Jordan-matches-descriptions-area-destroyed-God.html

        The excavation site is in Jordan and is called Tall el Hammam. The disc (I said it was bronze – my bad, it is clay) is an astronomical record of a mile-wide “stone bowl” moving across the night sky. There are the usual arguments against the site being the location of Sodom or Gomorrah, but the timing is correct and the city was abandoned and unoccupied for over 700 years. If you’re interested, there’s a link to the project’s website here: http://www.tallelhammam.com/

        Of course, the only way to find out for sure is to build a time machine and go back to that period.

    • Sara,
      In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, the supporters of CAGW don’t really “mean” anything by the meme “denier.” I think that it was chosen purposely as a pejorative term associated with racists who deny the holocaust. The intent is to defame anyone that disagrees with them, using what is essentially an ad hominem attack. Some in the comments section of The Conversation have called me both a denier and a fanatic. They apparently don’t realize that it makes them look bad when their best come back is to call me names.

      • Oh, I agree. It’s use as a trigger word (one of their complaints) is obvious, but using it makes them look extremely foolish. Foolish and not very bright. :)

  7. The manipulators like to simply conflate d*nial with right wing politics without any attempt at further disaggregation. In the actual ‘debate’, there are scientific illiterates who do break down along political lines as described. There is nothing mysterious about this.

    The right is for greatest freedoms, smallest government and a more self reliant existence (we know best what to do with our money – individualism ). The left is for big governments, heavy intervention in markets, big “taking care” of people budgets, and lately global governance because people don’t know best how to manage their own affairs and how they affect the “greater good”. The latter leads to collectivity, political correctness, questioning democracy and free enterprise (individualism ) and (don’t you know) consensus thinking!

    Regarding science, the neoleft’s (elitist) world view (and plans for us all), needs the rigors of science to support their enterprise. This has given rise to selection of a hypothetical world catastrophe that logically points to the need for their plan to succeed.

    It is a cynical employment of science and the world leaders of the neoleft unabashedly (UN’s Figures for example) stating the end justifies the means. Most scientists inveigled into this are largely ignorant of what their real employment is. A generation of them have been ‘educated’ away from the rigorous norms of science as Feynman saw them and it would appear from the quality of their work that the best were not attracted into the consensus science.

    • The Left operates on the principle that if you scream something loud enough, often enough, consistently enough, it becomes “truthiness.” Or, enough Useful Idiots will believe it to shift the political landscape. So if you CONSTANTLY pair “climate skeptic” with “big oil” or “right wing,” that becomes a knee-jerk assumption.
      Truth has no currency here.

      • Goldrider: online you will find, in Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ in the chapter entitled ‘The Hunting of Kaa’ a description of the Bandar Log – the Monkey People.

        A more accurate description of the educated liberal left has never been penned.

        ….. They were always just going to have a leader, and laws and customs of their own, but they never did, because their memories would not hold over from day to day, and so they compromised things by making up a saying, “What the Bandar-log think now the jungle will think later,” and that comforted them a great deal.
        ….

        …This time, they said, they were really going to have a leader and become the wisest people in the jungle –so wise that everyone else would notice and envy them….

        ….Mowgli could not help laughing when the Bandar-log began, twenty at a time, to tell him how great and wise and strong and gentle they were, and how foolish he was to wish to leave them. “We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true,” they shouted….

        We all say so , so it must be true….

      • Kipling, the man was a genius who has never truly been acknowledged. He so often saw through to the real heart of matters that most people simply step over or around without ever even perceiving they exist.

  8. Although there a few people, as Lenin called them ‘Useful Idiots’, that truly believe that there is catastrophic human caused global warming. But most of smart ones truly know that AGW would not be catastrophic, but they see this as an opportunity to use AGW as an excuse to move toward globalism. To that end they are happy to lie, mislead, and exaggerate. The Science Denier meme is simply a Saul Alinsky type tool to minimize opponents.
    The interesting element about dealing with people the believe that the ‘Ends Justify the Means’, is not only that they are comfortable with lying and deception, but they also assume that you are also.

  9. Once upon a time there was natural science, or pure science. Once a proces was understood and quantified the outcome was predictable and repeatable. Like where will a cannon ball land given its initial velocity and angle of launch. Then along came a whole bunch of folk wanting their fields of study to be granted the prestigeous label of science. They studied things that were hard to quantify, and whose outcomes were unpredictable and therefore unrepeatable. They didn’t want their fields of study to be called impure or unnaturaral science; they should have been called scientology but that label had already been taken. So we got the Social Sciences; Political Science, Environmental Science etc. all of which rely on probability to forecast the likelihood of an outcome…!
    The distinction will disappear when Faith and Reason converge!

    • What distinguishes science from dogma is that science does not seek what is exactly true. Rather it seeks to exclude what is exactly false. The “truth” must lie in what is left behind.

      But even when we think we have excluded something as false, we may have to revisit. For example, Young’s double-slit experiment of 1802 seemed to exclude Newton’s particle theory of light in favour of Huygens’ wave theory. Maxwell’s synthesis of electromagnetism was great confirmation. Then, in 1905, Einstein wrote a paper on the photo-electric effect, and we had to consider the quantum nature of light.

  10. It all comes down to considering a subject intellectually, using logic and reason [the political right], …. or considering a subject emotionally, using feelings, compassion, abstract “ifs”, etc. [political left]

    This is why “data”, reality, science, etc has no impact on leftists. NOW .. if you could drive home the message that the proposed measures to combat global warming would increase inequality, impact starving children, would negatively impact any group other than white males, lead to increased death and destruction, impact a woman’s right to an abortion, hurt minorities, etc …. you might would gain a little traction.

  11. Big assumption with emphasis on the first three letters of that A-word that anyone who challenges climate change DUE TO MAN (key terms in uppercase) is a ‘science denier’. I have great respect for science and technology which is why I went out of my way to get educated on the issue of Anthropomorphic/Man-Made Climate Change.
    After reading all the evidence for and against I had to say that although there was more QUANTITY of evidence on the side of Anthropomorphic Climate Change most of that quantity was researchers agreeing with each other while giving little evidence of man causing undue warming effects other than “We have seen a small temperature increase since the 1900’s to today! PANIC!”

    The QUALITY was on the side of the people who were speaking out against Anthropomorphic Climate Change who pointed out as this website does that “Wait a damned minute! Past a certain level CO2 stops acting as a greenhouse gas according to various laboratory tests and the warming curve of that gas levels off to near a flatline! Stop with the hyperbole! Man is NOT causing the little bit of climate change today! It is natural warming when coming out of a period when the planet was cooler than it should have been called “The Little Ice Age!”

    • Perfectly said. May I add another blessed fact to tour comment.

      CO2 is a global plant fertilise. At a tiny 0.04 ppm spread out in our atmosphere CO2 is gobbled up by vegetation increasing the mass of the biosphere even in the face of the massive deforestation in some abusive countries while feeding the 7 billion people inhabiting this planet at this moment in the geological timescale. (The famines and hunger in some countries are due to corruption and utter abandonment by the UN)

      A century ago CO2 level at 270 ppm was critically low for the planet’s vegetation which was suffering from CO2 starvation. At 200ppm, vegetation starts to die. I wonder where humanity would be today if CO2 levels had fallen instead of risen.

      • Pete said, “CO2 is a global plant fertilise.” Right. Carbon is a scarce resource. That makes “mitigation” technologies that “scrub” and “bury” not only a waste of energy, but a criminal waste of an essential resource.

  12. I’m just waiting for someone in that bunch of ignorant loons to raise the ghost of Trofim Lysenko, so that we can abandon agriculture that keeps people fed and let millions – maybe even billions! – starve to death again.

  13. It is really a pity that you Americans daily have to cope with a fully brainwashed Alinsky-scholar .
    This was , is and will be Russian meddling at its best .

  14. It is really a pity that you Americans daily have to cope with a fully brainwashed Alinsky-scholar .
    This was , is and will be Russian meddling at its best .

  15. It would be helpful to go back to first principles and ask questions like these:

    Is it possible to measure an average annual temperature of the earth?

    What meaning does average temperature of a large planet have in relation to energy transfers which have a daily cycle with inherent chaotic variability?

    Is it correct to consider a body which radiates e.m. in the i.r. which is immersed in a conductive fluid and therefore also loses energy via conduction and convection as simply a black body radiator?

    Can one add radiative flux intensities mathematically and use the result to derive temperature?

    Can heat energy be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter one?

    What experiments have been conducted to confirm the basic assumptions relating to the physical processes assumed to operate in the atmosphere in connection with AGW?

    What relationship does the atmospheric temperature around 1 – 2 m above the surface have to the actual surface temperature?

    What experiments have been done to confirm or refute the existence of so called “back radiation” as an actual physical process which can transfer heat energy?

    I am sure we can think of lots more like these. I suggest that as some of the early and basic foundations for AGW are either nonsensical or have no supporting experimental evidence or testing that the rest of the more complicated stuff built upon it will be absolute BS. (as we know). Therefore the focus of our arguments / attacks should be on the very fundamental bits , the faulty foundation.

    I favour concentrating on the erroneous concept of “back radiation” and the transfer of heat energy from cold thing to hot thing as 2 of the most fundamental errors here.

    • “What experiments have been done to confirm or refute the existence of so called “back radiation” as an actual physical process which can transfer heat energy?”

      Roy Spencer describes an acutal experiment here:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

      “Can heat energy be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter one?”

      Again skeptic Roy Spencer addressed that question here:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

      • The experimental work of Dr.Spencer deserves very careful study. The two examples cited are excellent for considering the various issues involved. Good arguments and counter arguments on his related blog too which should get your mind working when searching for the particular scientific truth here.

        Here are a few hints for those interested in going the distance:

        1. What is the spectrum of the e.m. radiation entering the IR thermometer when it is pointed at a)A whitehot piece of steel b)The brick wall of your house c)The sky?

        2. How is the IR thermometer calibrated in order to show K or C temperature?

        3. Does proving the existence of I.R. radiation prove that heat energy can be/is transferred?

        4. Where does the word “net” come from in connection with hot/cold objects?

        5. What is the actual physical mechanism which causes heat energy to be transferred between objects and how does that mechanism change with time, as one heats up and the other cools, as equilibrium is reached?

        6. When designing an experiment to test an assumption what principles should be employed to avoid fooling oneself?

    • Badger,
      Related to your question, “Is it possible to measure an average annual temperature of the earth?”, there is the question “What does the supposed average annual temperature actually mean?” It has a standard deviation of some tens of degrees, varies from year to year, and is different for land, air, and water. It is an abstraction that is probably best cited to the nearest order of magnitude, rather than to a thousandth of a degree. Accurate long-term values are of most importance only around the freezing point of water.

  16. Over the last couple years, I am amazed how many conversations I have heard where people blindly accept commentary as true because a “scientist” said it. In the case of climate ( and other interpretive science), there are many abusing the public trust. Pretty much anyone who would label someone a “science denier” is abusing the public trust by implying there is no room for discussion of the subject. That is never true in science, only true for politics and religion. As such, they are turning science into politics &/or religion & the public doesn’t even understand that they are mascarading politics / religion as science. As such, since the public doesn’t realize this, they are abusing the public trust of science.

    As such, I would suggest that all of these folks henceforth be labeled as “science abusers”.

  17. Denial of science? How about the failures of socialism?
    Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law. And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw.

  18. Clearly, qualified Geoscientists are science deniers.

    /sarc

    If you’re a Climate Scientist and discover that Geoscientists disagree with your climate change hypothesis, there should be cause for concern. Largely because your fields are so closely interconnected that you probably shared 85% of your college classes with them.

  19. What do the climate catastrophists have to say about the 10-year hurricane hiatus? Was that due to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change too?

    • MY view is that a warmer climate would result in a smaller equator- pole temperature gradient, leading to a DROP in hurricanes. Conversely, a cooling world would result in a steeper pole- temperature gradient, leading to MORE hurricanes. One might argue that the 10 year hiatus in hurricanes hitting the U.S. was due to a slight warming, and the recent flux of hurricanes is due to global COOLING! This paper supports my hypothesis:

      http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E6856142F91047B940E743AA3BD95576?doi=10.1.1.724.7759&rep=rep1&type=pdf

      “. . Interestingly, the partial correlation between PDI and GT controlling
      for both year and SST is –0.24, consistent with
      the hypothesis that additional tropospheric warming
      decreases hurricane intensity (Shen et al. 2000). “

  20. David
    Your mention of a “picture is worth 1,000 words”, reminds of an old one.
    Helen of Troy was so beautiful, that her’s was “The face that launched a thousand ships”.
    From which we can derive the unit of female beauty. The “Milli-Helen”.
    Which is beauty sufficient to launch one ship.

  21. … that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right…

    Enlighten me, as I can’t see a problem in there.
    Scepticism is a problem? Not for me.

    • Skeptics don’t have a problem, it’s the alarmists who have the problem: They can’t sell their phony CAGW narrative anymore. Their numbers don’t add up and that is not the fault of skeptics.

    • the denialist sare the people who use that term to describe sceptics

      Denialists are the people they warned you about.

  22. When you increase the temperature more at the high latitudes, you decrease the meridional temperature gradient. This is what global warming has featured.

    Meteorology 101 tells us that the atmosphere does not need to work as hard to balance the disparity between excessive heat accumulating in the lower latitudes from a high angled powerful sun and less heat coming in from a low angled to no sun at the highest latitudes.

    This decreases the energy and many types of extreme weather.

    Imagine if our planet had a uniform temperature…….same temperature everywhere?
    Helps you to imagine what path the atmosphere is taking right now with modest warming, more so at the higher latitudes(especially the coldest places in the coldest times of year).

    Global cooling(in the highest latitudes) is what increases extreme weather the most.
    There are exceptions based on the region or type of weather(pattern) but this idea that warming the planet increases the energy for weather systems is exactly wrong.

  23. So, conflation of logical domains, extrapolations from isolated observations to global proportions, and assertions about process and character outside the solar system, to the edge of the universe, and beyond are a common fault?

    And babies are not delivered by stork at the time of viability?

  24. Oh, and a model is a hypothesis, and its skill is only as good as its underlying characterization and ability to manage the data at the requisite resolution?

    Perhaps we can also acknowledge that the [soft] boundary of the scientific logical domain is defined by the self-evident conclusion that accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from an established frame of reference.

  25. Another way to distinguish between “believers” and “deniers/skeptics” is education…. Those who were taught WHAT to think versus those who were taught HOW to think. Sadly it seems modern education is heavily tilted in favour of the former.

  26. Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right . . . My scepticism is a much simpler thing altogether. It cuts both ways. I’m not a CAGW believer because the logic and evidence don’t convince me – primarily because it seems to me that the problem is too hard for us to solve with our current tools and wit. But I have to admit that they could be right, by chance or because they might actually be right to place so much emphasis on the power of a single element. All the same, climate history and the simple fact that we don’t know what the climate would have done through this period without the addition of some extra Co2 and all the other factors in the equation we’ve amended by tilling the soil and chopping down trees etc., lead me to suspect that we really don’t know nearly enough to reach firm conclusions . . .

    As for political position and scepticism, real sceptics won’t be firmly or blindly committed to any of the common political or even religious beliefs for obvious reasons. As someone else on here once said, humans are belief machines and want to believe what they hear and read, but experience in some cases helps immunise us against unjustified beliefs.

    I’m kinda libertarian left but pro market economics to a degree, because the market mostly works, and because I care that not all people are born with the same abilities or chances and think that the state should do something about evening out the playing field – without killing some to carry others, though those who are strong and are possessed of compassion will surely be glad to help those who are weak and/or disadvantaged and don’t seek to exploit them, and those same strong people surely don’t want to exploit anyone, weak or strong.

    Some politicians lie, exploit, and seek to serve themselves, and some CEOs do the same. Dishonesty, the urge to exploit, the tendency to be corrupt, and narcissism and psychopathy are not exclusive to politicians (of whatever stamp). They are just as common in other walks of life away from the corridors of government. Humans are the problem. Some of us are good and some of us are not so good. Some are vulnerable to ideologies and false beliefs and some are impervious to them and some are in between.

    Too often though, we see what we want to see, and that usually boils down to believing that people like us and who have similar beliefs to us are good, and that those with different beliefs or who oppose us are evil, unworthy, dangerous or liars or scum, or mainly stupid . . . Human nature. . . . it’s all in there. We really try harder to work together as none of us knows all the answers . . .

    • This is very interesting but to a large degree irrelevant to those who are interested in understanding how things really work. And if you are of a true scientific bent I suggest that understanding the workings, i.e. deriving the physical “truth” of interesting things like the atmosphere and the climate will be high in your sights. For those like me who seek such “scientific truth” it matters not how many friends, enemies or politicians of whatever persuasion “believe” in X , y or z. what we are interested in is the scientific evidence, the experimental evidence and the pros and cons of the various theories. We want to weigh things up objectively and scientifically. We want to see if we can come to a conclusion or whether we need to design some new experiments, test some theory or make some special observations to help us decide.

      Lets us therefore focus our attention away from others point of view, away from the left-right politics and instead concentrate on what we need to test. What are the experiments we need to do to get a better understanding of how the sun warms the earth? What are the experiments we need to do to test the actual physical function of 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere?

    • Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right . . . My scepticism is a much simpler thing altogether.

      Don’t you contradict yourself, Jim?

      I would argue my skepticism of AGW to be much simpler than yours. You seem to unnecessarily complicate the matter.

      For example you argue:

      “It cuts both ways. I’m not a CAGW believer because the logic and evidence don’t convince me – primarily because it seems to me that the problem is too hard for us to solve with our current tools and wit.”

      Here you’ve correctly identified the problem with AGW and the reason to reject its claims. This is where my brand of skepticism stops because there’s no logical requirement to go further.

      You, however, unnecessarily complicate the matter with a second premise that, while not explicitlycontradicting the first, certainly brings it into question as well as introduces a useless truth value (NULL) to the real world in your belief system:

      “But I have to admit that they could be right, by chance or because they might actually be right to place so much emphasis on the power of a single element.”

      Adding such a possibility to your first premise in effect negates the first premise and therefore causes you to appear to contradict yourself at worst, and at best seem “squishy” in your thinking.

      “I don’t believe in AGW because the evidence doesn’t support it. But it might be true.”

      These two premises contradict themselves and therefore so does your argument. Either you believe in AGW (T) or you’re not sure (NULL), but not both.

      ” … real sceptics won’t be firmly or blindly committed to any of the common political or even religious beliefs for obvious reasons.”

      Does this also apply to Skepticism itself? If not, why not?

      In other words, shouldn’t you also be philosophically skeptical of the Philosophy of Skepticism? If so, don’t you contradict yourself?

      I’m always curious about how the Agnostic gets on in life. It would seem impossible that he/she could actually apply their philosophical beliefs to the real world. The logical paradoxes would drive me crazy.

      • Douglas Adams (of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy fame) called himself ‘Radical Atheist’ for fear of being mistaken for an agnostic….

      • He did have a way with words… The Vogon constructor ship “hung in the air exactly like a brick doesn’t.”

      • Agnostics are Null, there is no evidence one way or the other so move on, what will happen will happen, belief is irrelevant and has no effect on the outcome. Don’t see the paradox and don’t have to waste time arguing with either side, just say you might be right who the hell am I to tell you that you are wrong.
        CAGW there is evidence and it all points to no C after that the AGW part is irrelevant what will happen will happen so move on. Since the actual arguement is about imposing socialism and statism on everyone there is a reason to be engaged.

    • Jim states “Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right…”. You are wrong with your assumption. Most of those who are sceptical of the AGW story have valid scientific reasons for not accepting the premise that CO2 is a major driver of the climate of this planet. Also, note that a percentage of sceptics agree that there could be some small effect on the total climate system from increased levels of CO2, but that it is only a very small effect.

    • “Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right”

      What skeptics are right about is they say there is no evidence that humans and CO2 are causing the Earth’s climate to change in any way. You could prove us skeptics wrong by providing concrete evidence that humans are causing the climate to do things it would not otherwise do.

      All the alarmists are doing is speculating, speculating, speculatng. Speculation is not evidence of anything.

    • jim: here’s a picture for you.

      There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science, but not in the claims of climate scientists pushing the alarmist agenda. They have been quite specific and so are the models they used.

      And those claims and those models have been shown to be wrong to a 97% certainty that their models have no use as a scientific hypothesis.

      That is, whilst anthropogenic climate change is a maybe, the actual claims and models of the climate scientists have been utterly refuted.

      What laws govern climate are yet to be established, but it is clear that they are not as climate scientists portray them.

      The map is not the territory. Maps partially describe the territory. In the case of climate science they are not even close.

      Climate scientists claimed science. Science has refuted them. This is because in the end natural philosophy, or science, is about predicting what the natural world will do, and the climate scientists have completely failed to predict what the natural word has in fact done.

      They haven’t failed by sceptics definitions, they have failed by the terms of the science they invoked to make their argument.

      Tough titties.

  27. Just when you think the left couldn’t get anymore stupid

    Yes climate change now causes Earthquakes. Griff believes any random article on the internet so long as it links climate change to bad things, so he will be on this one next.

  28. Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing— and irony was the percentage of people who though the moon landing was faked was higher for AGW proponents than AGW skeptics . Lou’s ‘paper ‘ proved supporters of his own outlook are more likely to see ‘conspiracy’ behind ever door than others , which given the constant claims of ‘evil fossil fuel conspiracy ‘ and skeptics ‘being the pay of big oil ‘ is no surprise at all.

    • Funny thing… This guy landed on the Moon, arguably the last man to set foot on the Moon, is a geologist, has a PhD…. And is an AGW skeptic…

      I wonder how the psychtard squares this with is moronic hypothesis.

  29. Another fine study from the University of Illinois at Chicago (used to be the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle; the only university in the USA named after a traffic interchange).

    This is the same school that gave us the original 97% study based on a survey by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser Peter T. Doran.

  30. The alarmists admit they were wrong.
    The warming is natural after coming out of a little ice age ending just 175 years ago.
    There has been much warmer periods in relatively very recent history.

    But it’s not too late to save the planet.

    All the poor has to do is go without affordable electricity so we can be granted the billions of dollars to save it for their grandchildren.

  31. Yes. It’s what I keep saying about space aliens. People are so “sure” they don’t exist and aren’t planning to take over our planet. I myself don’t believe it, but what if they are? We just don’t know enough about space aliens yet to know.

    • Bruce,
      If you want to learn more about space aliens, just ask someone who has been abducted. If you gain their trust, they are probably willing to tell you more than you even want to know!

  32. Over the many years of trying to understand people’s points of view, I have become aware that there are (at least) two very distinct styles of “thinking” – and this leads to much of the liberal versus conservative points of view on climate change. Now I am simply reflecting on observations, but it is helpful once you are aware of the differences.

    Liberals (not all but most) tend to approach problems on the basis of how they feel about the issue. If the issue seems to be aligned with their preexisting beliefs, they begin to filter out any data or discussion that causes cognitive discourse. This is not a conscious decision, but a human trait. It doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence is presented, they will not change their “feelings” easily. Liberals are more likely to adopt popular beliefs, and tend to attack anyone outside of their belief system (again, because it is emotional to them). This makes their actions seem like that of a priesthood reacting to heresy rather than a scientific disagreement.

    This is especially true of the mentality of the herd – which I mean the tendency to surround oneself with people who agree, and to put distance between those that disagree. Herds are much more likely to act aggressively and extreme egged on bu its members.

    Skeptics more often tend to be so-called conservatives, which can mean almost anything depending on the context. Weeding out the nut cases (and there are always some of those in any group of humans), skeptics tend to rely on a data-driven belief system. They will tend to change points of view only as long as the data supporting that new belief is available and reliable (again, in their own minds). Skeptics don’t care how people “feel” about the issue, they only care on getting at a the underlying truth based on the data. Skeptics are much more likely to rebuff herd mentality, don’t care if their beliefs makes them less popular, and have a difficult time understanding why others cannot see the same conclusions (because it isn’t an emotional issue to them).

    People don’t actually come in black&white – they are shades of gray when considering these thinking styles. Young people are much more likely to think emotionally than older people, so there is some plasticity to this thinking style. I also think that universities are acting as “enablers” in teaching young people its good to think with your emotions rather than using logic and discipline.

    Assuming my conclusions are correct, the war over AGW will not end suddenly, but instead slowly wither out as the herd moves on to a new emotional objective. As the herd stops talking about AGW, their membership will slowly become uninterested. Skeptics will not have won anything except for perhaps some well deserved peace of mind. Science will have taken a beating, but given the state of how many published papers seem to fail attempts at reproducing the results, maybe this too is a good thing.

    • Or, as Pirsig’s Phaedrus would say, it has to do with the Classic/Romantic division. People tend tend to fall in one camp or the other in terms of thought process, but as you say, it isn’t all black and white. We Skeptics tend to be much more of the Classic style, thus think more logically and less emotionally than the Believers. Most of us, in fact, originally believed to some extent, but only because it was all we heard. Once presented with the facts, it isn’t that difficult to determine who is being truthful and who is telling porkies to beat the band.

  33. Sorry, stopped reading at “psych professor”. Has about as much expertise in the topic of climate change as, say, an actor. Probably less, when I think about how many people I know in the psychiatric professions, and how many of THEM should avail themselves more of their own treatment.

  34. David Middleton:

    The BBC has recently been forced to withdraw the campaign mounted by one of its journalists against Graham Stringer MP because Stringer – like me – opposes the global warming scare; see https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-reprimands-science-presenter-for-campaign-against-labour-mp-graham-stringer/

    Graham Stringer and I are Members of the same socialist political party.

    Only in the US is support and opposition of the scare aligned with left vs. right politics.

    Richard

    • Hello Richard,

      I tried to email you recently and the email bounced – I was concerned about your health.

      I am glad to see you are well enough to participate in this discussion – you have always been one of the most intelligent and informed contributors to this site.

      Best personal regards, Allan

      • Dear Allan:

        Please be assured that I have not avoided you.

        My health is not good.
        I seem to have turned into a Weable; I did not choose to be a toy that comes back up when knocked down but it seems The Boss may have wanted one (joke).

        It all stated three years ago when I suffered multiple organ failure (heart, lungs and liver). I was not expected to last until the following Christmas but I am still here! My heart diagnosis and my heart treatment were then changed and I made such good recovery that I thought I would make a near complete recovery. The emphysema would still get me eventually but not for many years.

        Then in August last year I had a stroke that paralysed my right arm. I told The Boss I thought that was not fare but, of course, I was wrong about that because, “Why not me?”, and He ignored my hubris. I again made good recovery: my arm now works again although it does do things on its own and I cannot write my signature (which is surprisingly inconvenient).

        Then, three months ago I was diagnosed with malignant prostate cancer at State 3++ which means it is too far gone to be operable. I had coped with all the other stuff so I thought I would cope with that until I was told three weeks later that the cancer has gone to my bones and there is no way back from that.
        However, three years ago I was told that by now I would have been gone long ago so I live in hope that the present prognosis has similar accuracy.

        I am receiving chemotherapy and hormone treatment which seems to be intended to turn me into a woman. My testosterone production is being suppressed and my oestrogen production enhanced with a result that I get hot flushes and am warned I may grow breasts. The main problem is that the pain relief inhibits my ability to think, but I soldier on as best I can. And I try yo point out reality when confronted with stupidity which attempts to portray the global warming scare as being a political left vs, right issue.

        WE CANNOT DEFEAT THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE BY ALLOWING POLITICAL ACTIVISTS OF LEFT OR RIGHT TO USE THE SCARE AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK THEIR OPPONENTS. ALLOWING THAT ASSISTS THE SCARE CONTINUING.

        Richard

    • Richard;
      In the US it is a right left issue on many fronts, but that is not because of the right. The left in the US is using AGW as a scare tactic to balkanize this country as they are with race relations, health care, feminism and abortion. It is no longer a question of civil discourse it is now either you agree or you are evil and should be silenced or worse. I am neither right or left, but i can tell you which side is out to force me to do conform and in this country it is the left much more so than the right.
      I too am happy to see you posting again by the way, I have always considered what you have to say, whether I disagree with you or not, respect to you sir and be healthy!

  35. I really don’t see what David is complaining about here? The linked article states that in general people disagree with established scientific beliefs when the said beliefs disagree with their own personal beliefs and political opinions. The article makes the point that this is true for both people with both left wing and right wing beliefs. Different people appear to choose which bits of science to believe in based on their political opinions something which is abundantly clear from many studies.

    • In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

      […]

      • Again what is your point? The subtitle of the article is “Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science”. It is pointing out that science denial is a problem across the entire political spectrum, the only difference is that liberals and conservatives choose different bits of established science to disbelieve.

    • Germinio,
      You said, “… the only difference is that liberals and conservatives choose different bits of established science to disbelieve.” Were that the case, there would be no hope for humanity. I, personally, work very hard at being objective and I demand higher levels of assurance than most CAGW supporters I debate with require. So, while the Left attempts to hold the moral high ground by characterizing conservatives as irrational ‘Dnyers,’ and painting themselves as the opposite, it is my opinion that it is all sophistry intended to make liberals feel good about themselves.

      • Hi Clyde,
        Unfortunately then it would appear that there is no hope for humanity. All studies show that most people choose which bits of science to believe in depending on their beliefs. We all have inbuilt cognative biases that causes us to believe/doubt different bits of scientific evidence. And it is a failing of both left and right but on different issues.

        And if you don’t believe me look at the comments under the recent post “Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?”. If the same level of evidence (i.e. none just a couple of pictures) had been used to “prove” that the glaciers where melting the article would have been ripped to shreds and rightly so. But here since the claims of the article agree with the beliefs of the audience it gets a free ride.

      • Germinio,

        You said, “And if you don’t believe me look at the comments under the recent post “Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?”. If the same level of evidence (i.e. none just a couple of pictures) had been used to “prove” that the glaciers where melting the article would have been ripped to shreds and rightly so.”

        I hope you aren’t including Esterbrook’s or my comments along with the pictures. Perhaps you would care to critique my comments since Griff and others have not responded. If you have some substantive criticism of my comments, I’d like to hear them.

      • Clyde,
        As far as I can tell you made two comments about glaciers neither of which directly address the quality of the “science” that the post was about. I am not qualified to address your comments but I will add that glaciers exist within microclimates and any statements are average temperatures will not apply to any particular glacier. In NZ for example some glaciers are growing while the majority are retreating.

        My point is that a statement about one single glacier made by someone who appears to be a con-man on the basis of a couple of un-verified pictures is accepted without question by the vast majority of readers on this blog. If I founded a university and was the only faculty member and took a couple of pictures of glaciers and used this as evidence that glaciers were retreating I would be shot down in flames and called a crank and rightly so.

      • I really don’t see what David is complaining about here? The linked article states that in general people disagree with established scientific beliefs when the said beliefs disagree with their own personal beliefs and political opinions.

        Germinio. The concept of scientific beliefs has become outdated since the 17th century through the development of modern scientific methods. Based on your contributions so far you can disagree with it if you like.

        However, Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. and Mooney C. don’t have an excuse. If they are trying to sell their papers as science, they have to respect the modern scientific method. But using science for defaming political adversaries violates UN declaration of human rights. To give an idea the first paragraphs of the preamble:

        Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

        Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
        people,

        Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ….

      • Germinio,

        You said, “…any statements are average temperatures will not apply to any particular glacier.” That is reasonable; however, those who are frantic about the apparent worldwide retreat of glaciers, invariably appeal to the rise in the average global temperature to explain it. They then attribute the increase in average temperature to an increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels and advocate abandoning a ‘carbon-based’ energy system. Personally, I tend to view things as being more complex than the official liberal meme.

        You also said, “If I … took a couple of pictures of glaciers and used this as evidence that glaciers were retreating I would be shot down in flames and called a crank and rightly so.” I should note that the US Geological Survey has had a program of documenting the retreat of glaciers for a number of years. Granted that the author does not present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the situation; however, photographic documentation has its place to measure rates and changes. If I show you a picture of a Tasmanian Tiger in an apparently natural habitat, it doesn’t provide conclusive proof that they still exist, but it does provide anecdotal evidence that probably warrants a more thorough investigation. I think that these “couple of pictures” are in the same category — not conclusive, but interesting nevertheless.

        Inasmuch as no formal survey has been conducted of the readers of the article, it would seem that you are projecting your beliefs that the claims made in the article are generally accepted by the readership. You suggest that the article should have been “ripped to shreds.” Lack of evidence for or against something is not evidence for it.
        [ https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance ]

  36. I’m a climate change denier
    I believet for 4.5 billion years that that the climate has never changed isn’t changing or ever will change.

    But I’m a climate denier believing that there is no such thing as a climate so the first paragraph is null and void.

  37. Im a lifelong left Democrat.I stay in the closet as much as possible because all of my friends are believers.
    The left believes whatever the NYT and PBS relay from the liar activist scientists.The left is brainwashed unwittingly.
    When I do have a confrontation about climate with a leftist believer ,Im astounded that they know next to zero information about climate science.Other than poles melting.polar bears extinct.sea rising.
    One friend thought Monoxide was what the issue was about.Another actually put his hands over his ears rather than learn climate facts.
    Believers need deprogramming.
    As much as I despise the orange IL Douche,I hoped he would enlighten the climate issue.Instead he made his entire reality a lie ,so no leftest would believe anything he espoused.

    • Mojomojo,
      Is it true that liberals have secret catechism classes where they read from the NYT and the Atlantic?

  38. Has anyone ever observed Griff do anything other than make an asinine comment and then disappear into the sunset while a flurry of activity attempts to desperately rebut whatever inanity has been spouted? Is it really worth the energy? Is anything from that source ever an actual attempt to engage in conversation or debate?

      • ” Is it really worth the energy?”

        In my view, it’s worth just as much energy as it is to answer you.

        All truth is valuable truth. As a layman, I wish more Griffs and Nick Stokes’ would come here so I could learn more about why I don’t believe their side from their own arguments/evidence.

  39. Hey Griff and Nick Stokes and any one else who believes that carbon dioxide controls the climate .I am putting this challenge to you to just prove one little bit of your beliefs about global warming .Prove to me that the methane emissions from livestock can warm the planet more than .ooo5 degrees C in say the next ten years . When you have come up with some proof I will debate it with you .Rice paddies produce large amounts of methane but that is called natural and ignored Methane emissions from livestock was snuk into the Kyoto accord by activists and the scientific community has ignored this instead of throwing it out and concentrating on fossil fuel emissions which are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.The warmists are counting on positive feed backs to enhance warming to fulfill their agenda but this is an unproven theory.

  40. The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say.

    I have two engineering degrees in earth sciences and have studied this subject since 1985, and I have found NO evidence of dangerous humanmade global warming, and ample evidence that it does NOT exist.

    The debate on global warming alarmism concerns one parameter – the climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”). Global warming alarmists falsely suggest that ECS is high, yet their estimates of ECS have been declining for the past decade and are still far too high to be credible. There is ample evidence that ECS is low, probably <=1C/(2*CO2) and possibly much less than 1C.

    Here is just one of many lines of evidence that ECS is low:

    The ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940, even as fossil fuel consumption sharply increased, adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures, as atmospheric CO2 continued to increase.

    That is why the global warming alarmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.

    There was a ~22 year period of global warming starting about 1975, but much of that warming period was a natural recovery from two major volcanos, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. Real global warming probably did occur after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, circa 1977.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2613373

    Conclusion:
    Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.

    Regards, Allan

  41. It IS frustrating to see politicians make really foolish decisions about energy. Most politicians are far too uneducated to even opine on the subject, let alone formulate energy policy. For example, it was obvious from the start that hydrogen-as-fuel was a dead end, because of very low energy density. Corn ethanol is also a poor and destructive idea, as are most food-to-fuel schemes, which have contributed to excessive drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer in the USA and widespread rainforest clearcutting in the tropics. . It was also obvious that grid-connected wind and solar power schemes were costly and ineffective, primarily due to intermittency.

    In general, green energy policies have been a costly disaster for society, causing great environmental damage, increasing energy cost and reducing grid reliability. This damage has been high in the developed world but even higher in the developing world, where green energy nonsense has denied struggling populations access to cheap, abundant, reliable energy systems.

    Fossil fuels comprise about 85% of global primary energy, whereas green energy provides less than 2%, despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies. Imagine how much better the world’s poor would be if these vast sums had been spent intelligently on clean water, sanitation and efficient energy systems.

    Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple. When politicians fool with energy policy, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of global warming alarmism.

    Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

    • Your thesis rests on the assumption that CO2 pollution has no harmful effect on future generations— an assumption contradicted by the research of every scientific institution in the world.

      • Nonsense Sam Best.

        !. Your “appeal to authority” has no validity in science.

        2. Your appeal to proven corrupted authority has negative credibility – for example, see the Climategate emails, Mann’s hokey stick, data tampering, etc., etc.

        3. Your appeal to the authority of groups that have a proven negative predictive track record, and thus proven negative scientific credibility, is further evidence of your error.

        Regards, Allan

      • Sam B,
        You should be careful in your use of superlative or all encompassing claims, such as “every scientific institution in the world.” Your statement can be disproven if even one institution can be found to disagree. Such sloppy assertions suggests to me that you were not trained as a scientist and therefore you are relying on what you read in the MSM for your world view. All too often, those who don’t have the education, skills, or experience to understand the complexities of climatology resort to authority or supposed consensus as their justification for alarm. If you want to convince others that you have good reasons for your belief, present the evidence, not some easily dismissed claim of universal consensus.

      • Sam,

        That was the best you can come up with?

        You posted the following:

        Scientific error
        Fallacy
        No counterpoint

        Got anything better?

  42. Thank you David Middleton for publishing this. Social psychology professor Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Brian Flood also from UIC are worthy naming here now.

    The validity of Linda’s psychological study conclusions are resting solely on the assumption she knows the truth in scientific disciplines beyond her competency. For this reason the title “science denial not limited to political right” sounded initially like a concession, but then they decided to quote Linda at the end as follows:

    “Before assuming that one group of people or another are anti-science because they disagree with one scientific conclusion, we should make an effort to consider different motivations that are likely at play, which might have nothing to do with science per se,” she said.”

    Presumably these psychology experts can interpret my glance at them, resembling the following.

    • In fairness to the authots, the “stupid it burns” bit was directed at the UIC article about the paper…

      In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

      Conflating Harvey and Irma with climate change is so stupid, it burns.

      That said, the survey of APEGA, the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, kind of shoots a big hole in the political attribution for skepticism.

      It appears that competence is most likely to drive skepticism.

      Climate change is overwhelmingly natural:
      Geoscientists 40%
      Oil & Gas Industry 30%
      Government 16%

  43. [snip . . . try writing it again but this time leave out calling everyone who disagrees with your views a denier. . . mod]

  44. Re political persuasion and climate skepticism only in the US – no.

    A Populus / PR Week poll in 2014 found only 30% of Conservative MP’s in the UK believe “it has been conclusively proven” that man is the main source of climate change. Meanwhile 73% of Labour and 67% of LibDem MP’s are convinced it has been proven.

  45. Perhaps also Labor and LibDem majority have been regaining senses since Keith.

    If not, it has potential to occupy alarmist minority with something genuinely anthropogenic. Hopefully conservative majority resists the temptation of running their own preferences though the existing hockey stick consensus producing computer models, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  46. In the minds of believers proof of global warming has been materialized with the advent of recent hurricanes and fires.
    These catastrophes are what climate science predicted.(sarc)
    20 year olds havent experienced bad weather in their lives.Its obviously due to climate change.

  47. Do those who support the authors thesis — that Science Denial is a problem of both the Left and the Right — consider the rejection of Anthropogenic Climate Change, as represented by the IPCC 5th Assessment, to be an example of right wing science denial?

    • Do those who support the authors thesis — that Science Denial is a problem of both the Left and the Right — consider the rejection of Anthropogenic Climate Change, as represented by the IPCC 5th Assessment, to be an example of right wing science denial?

      IPCC is not an academia, but a political round table. So, no.

      In addition, the political initiative of IPCC was inspired by right-wing politician, prime minister and chemist Margaret Thatcher in the UN General Assembly on 8 November 1989. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg

      So, the answer to your question on that account is also negative. She know what she was doing. While not considering Margaret Thatcher as a stereotype of anything, she may have even predicted her political adversaries painting themselves in the cAGW corner at the end. And that’s where politicians such as Al Gore are now arriving.

      • Since the IPCC 5th Assessment is 1) a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and 2) is supported by the conclusions of every one of the 80 National Science Academies of the industrialized world, its rejection must be, by definition, an example of science denial.

      • Rejecting politically motivate lies is not denial of science. What is really sad is the fact these “National Science Academies” have sold their collective soul for a little bit of stolen money. They have no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone.

      • “Rejecting politically motivate lies is not denial of science. What is really sad is the fact these “National Science Academies” have sold their collective soul for a little bit of stolen money. They have no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone.”
        So your claim is that every national science academy ON THE PLANET, and thousands of researching climate scientists from all over the industrialized world, and 10s of thousands pf peer reviewed papers, ‘have sold their soul”? Who enforces this worldwide conspiracy of fraud?
        Presumably an unsupported claim by a non publishing non researcher is to be trusted instead?

      • “So your claim is that every national science academy ON THE PLANET” Yes. They are all socialists/communists/leftists. They are all enemies of the human race, science and technology. You defend them, that makes you one of them. Case closed.

      • James Ardmore,
        You said, “Who enforces this worldwide conspiracy of fraud?” It is self-enforced. Follow the money.

      • James, barely a third of the referenced material in the 5th Assessment has crossed the desk of anyone doing peer review. A lot of it is just propaganda from grant-seeking NGO’s. Remember the disappearing Himalayan glaciers from an earlier edition?

      • @2hotel9
        You say in effect ‘all scientists are communists/leftists’.
        Presumably you are not a communist. Therefore you don’t consider yourself a scientist. Based on the scientific content (or lack thereof) of your posts, neither do I.

    • Climate changes, constantly, humans do not cause it and can not stop it. There. Now you can move on and do something useful. My useful deed for the day? Going to pick corn for 8 hours or so, thanks to all that lovely CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • Same point. You need to explain why we should trust your unsupported claim, vs that of thousands of researching scientists around the world. Data, or your publication, please.

      • Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! So, lets us get this straight, reality is an “unsupported claim” to you?!?!?!?! Wow, the stupid is strong in you. Let me clear this up, cupcake, climate changes, humans don’t cause it and can not stop it. Period. Full stop. Believe whatever fantastical religious fantasy floats your boat. Oh, and don’t get your panties in a twist because all us real human beings do not accept your religious fantasy bullshit. You sound an awful lot like a muslim throwing homosexuals off highrise roofs.

      • Here’s an excellent reason (bold mine):

        “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

        As I understand the situation, computer models are the sole source of evidence for AGW. If they are not, what evidence is used?

        But according to the above:

        1) We don’t understand the system we’re trying to model, therefore, prediction of future climate states is impossible
        2) Even if we understood the system we don’t have the hardware to run a model that could approximate it.
        3) Even if we had 1) and 2), we don’t know how to diagnose the model that we’ve built to ensure its accuracy.

        The objectively verifiable, empirical evidence (i.e., the “data”) that all of the above is true is readily available to you with very little research required.

      • @sy computing
        Models are never evidence;. They are merely the mathematical expressions of the physics of the atmosphere and climate. The evidence is in the DATA: rising global temperatures, increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, melting global ice packs, rising sea levels, decreasing ph of the oceans, rising temperature of the seas, and so on. For which the only explanation of physics is the increasing atmospheric greenhouse effect caused (primarily) by Man’s burning of fossil fuels.

      • James:

        “Models are never evidence;. They are merely the mathematical expressions of the physics of the atmosphere and climate.”

        If the models “are never evidence”, then I submit that you have no evidence. The software model ensembles with their coded assumptions of the effects of CO2 and other GHG’s on the climate are critical to the theory of AGW. Without them AGW proponents have nothing.

        Note carefully the following sentence from the IPCC section I quoted above:

        “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.

        Thus, the idea of AGW depends exclusively upon software models and these are coded with largely unproved assumptions regarding the physics of the atmosphere and climate.

        ” The evidence is in the DATA: rising global temperatures, increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, melting global ice packs, rising sea levels, decreasing ph of the oceans, rising temperature of the seas, and so on.”

        Here you have offered evidence (with which I agree) that the climate is changing, but that’s all. You’ve not identified why. We already know and can prove that the scenario above has happened before without Man’s intervention.

        “For which the only explanation of physics is the increasing atmospheric greenhouse effect caused (primarily) by Man’s burning of fossil fuels.”

        I categorically deny this assumption and now challenge you to prove it up to this group.

        In so doing, however, since you’ve already agreed that models “are never evidence”, you may not use any atmospheric model, nor a paper utilizing the same to do so.

        I think if you do more research you’ll find yourself becoming more and more skeptical of the theory of AGW.

      • @sy computing
        “I categorically deny this assumption and now challenge you to prove it up to this group.” Arrhenius proved the physics of the greenhouse effect, and it’s operation has been confirmed by thousands of Antarctic ice core samples taken at Vostok and other locations. The Effect is the only confirmed physics phenomenon that fits the data. Got another?

      • What I have is reality. Climate changes constantly. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Prove that reality does not exist. Go for it.

      • Sam:

        ” Got another?”

        I personally do not. But then I don’t really need one either, Sam.

        If Arrhenius’ conclusions were conclusive regarding AGW there wouldn’t be any more need for debate. There would be no more studies, no more commissions, no more papers, etc. But there are more studies. There are more commissions. There are a plethora of papers published every day.

        The IPCC doesn’t mention Arrhenius at all in it’s assessment of the state of climate science. Rather, it states this (bold mine):

        “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.”

        Regardless of Arrhenius, the long term prediction of future climate states is impossible.

        And this:

        “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.”

        Which culminates in this most important conclusion:

        “This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.”

        The sum total description of the theory of AGW is reduced to a prediction of a future climate state based upon an as yet undeveloped software model of a system we don’t understand.

        By “as yet undeveloped”, I mean because it is impossible to develop an accurate model of a system one cannot describe.

        Thus, the solutions proposed by those in the AGW camp to “cure” climate change are akin to bloodletting as a cure for cancer.

    • Sam says, “Arrhenius proved the physics of the greenhouse effect.”

      But, NASA says, “As Arrhenius predicted, both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures increased from 1900–1999. However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased much more quickly than he expected, but the Earth hasn’t warmed as much as he thought it would.”

      Thus, Arrhenius hypothesis was incomplete at best, certainly not “proved.”

      Sam goes on to say, “The Effect is the only confirmed physics phenomenon that fits the data. Got another?”

      That is science back-a$$ward. First, one hypothesizes that Arrhenius’ work describes some phenomena in nature, then you collect data and, then (this is the hard part), it is the scientists job to prove that the only plausible explanation is that Arrhenius was correct; that no other plausible explanation could result in the same data (e.g., that it could not be natural variability, or some confounding additional condition creating correlation without causation).

  48. In reply to James Ardmore .The theory of global warming depends on a tropical hot spot and this has never been located..The worlds climate was warmer in the 1930’s and 1940’s than it is now but the warm temperatures in the past have been tampered with. to make the present temperatures to be abnormal . there are many historical temperature records on individual sites around the world that show no warming or very little in the last 100 years . Why do we Question the science? Here in New Zealand we see the greatest advocates for global warming James Renwick and Jim Salinger write that the medieval warm period and the global optimum are inconvenient and they would like to erase them from the climate record .The IPCC is not a scientific body but it is a politically l driven activist ridden organization. There are many examples of this but one that comes to mind is that Ben Santer was a lead author and the scientists that were submitting papers for the 4th assessment stated that they could not find any human fingerprint of riing temperatures but Santer ignored this and wrote that the human signal was identified and that it would cause dangerous warming .And then we have Mikey Mans hockey stick which has been dbusted .I could go on for a week but the deeper you dig the more it smells .

      • The vaiidity of the AGW hypothesis requires that they nail down a climate sensitivity value and produce climate models that demonstrate predictive skill.

      • @David Middleton
        “The vaiidity of the AGW hypothesis requires that they nail down a climate sensitivity value and produce climate models that demonstrate predictive skill.”
        No it does not. All science is about error bars, and climate sensitivity estimates have a range of values, as all such parameters must have. And models are never evidence. The evidence for AGW is in the DATA.

      • Yes. All science has error bars. For the AGW hypothesis to be valid, the observations would track near the middle of the error range over a climate-relevant period of time, not near the bottom of the range over both climate-relevant time periods…

        AGW fails even on weather-relevant time periods…

        If the CMIP5 model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P50, half the runs should predict more warming and half less than is actually observed. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50.

        Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55. El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.

        The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.

        The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.

        In any other field of science CAGW would be a long-discarded falsified hypothesis.

        AGW fails because the models yield a climate sensitivity that is about three times as large as the observations do.

        If they produced a model ensemble that faithfully yielded a real-world climate sensitivity, they would confirm the AGW hypothesis and demonstrate that “business as usual” would stay just below the 1.5 C “limit.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/

      • “The validity of the AGW theory does not require the observation of a ‘hot spot’.” CORRECT!!!!!!! It requires people to believe in a fake religious dogma. You are proof that simple minded “people” will believe any simple minded shiite that comes toddling along.

      • “The evidence for AGW is in the DATA” The data you “people” keep getting caught falsifying? That data?

      • James, the “hot spot” is one of the specific predictions made based on the AGW conjecture. But that doesn’t matter anyway since they have always been wrong on their PER DECADE warming predictions.

        It takes only one failed prediction to render the conjecture into the dustbin.

  49. NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!

    Unlike the deeply flawed computer climate models cited by the IPCC, Bill Illis has created a temperature model that actually works in the short-term (multi-decades). It shows global temperatures correlate primarily with NIno3.4 area temperatures – an area of the Pacific Ocean that is about 1% of global surface area. There are only four input parameters, with Nino3.4 being the most influential. CO2 has almost no influence. So what drives the Nino3.4 temperatures? Short term, the ENSO. Longer term, probably the integral of solar activity – see Dan Pangburn’s work.

    Bill’s post is here.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066

    Bill’s equation is:
    Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant

    Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!

    My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
    UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
    Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

    It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.

    Here is the plot of my equation:

    I added the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index (h/t Bill Illis) to compensate for the cooling impact of major volcanoes, so the equation changes to:
    UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex

    The “Sato Index” is factored by about -8 and here is the result – the Orange calculated global temperature line follows the Red actual UAH global LT temperature line reasonably well, with one brief deviation at the time of the Pinatubo eruption.

    Here is the plot of my new equation, with the “Sato” index:

    I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
    THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

    Regards, Allan

    • The only problem with your thesis is that it is wrong– as shown by scientists since Arrhenius in 1896, and confirmed by the Vostok ice core samples going back 400,000 years, and other Antarctic ice cores from 800,000 to 400,000 years before present.

      • So, all you have is your “feelings”, much the same as Jim Jones did at Jonestown. How many people you willing to see dead to justify your “feelings”?

      • James Ardmore – you are utterly ignorant on this subject.

        You clearly fail to grasp the key elements of the scientific method and are merely repeating sound bytes from those as ignorant as yourself.

      • James, Arrhenius updated with a new paper in 1906,greatly reducing the postulated CO2 warm forcing effect. He also wasn’t worried out it either.

        What was confirmed by Ice cores?

        You are so vague.

      • “Sam Best
        September 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm Edit

        @Allan Macrae
        Do you find personal attack your only tool when you have no science based response?”

        James made NO such science based reply.

        Meanwhile Allan made a long post using real data and charts to make case. That was NEVER addressed at all, by Jimmy.

        You have anything better to offer?

      • @sunsettommy
        ‘You are so vague’.
        If you don’t understand the Vostok ice core core data, that Would explain why you don’t understand the connection between atmospheric CO2 and climate. Back to first year physics, sunsettommy..

  50. James Ardmore Griffy and other believers ,.extend your knowledge and read very carefully a more recent post on WUWT . A presentation by Dr W C Rusty Riese to the Houston Geological Society in May 2014.This is essential reading for all that have been hoodwinked into believing that CO 2 controls the climate

    • The fact that atmospheric CO2 controls the climate has been known since Arrhenius discovered the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect in 1896.

      • @David Middleton
        “The atmosphere is not air in a bottle.”. No kidding. That’s supposed to disprove the work of hundreds of scientists since Arrhenius?

      • It just demonsteates the irrelevance of Arhenius. The failure to model the climate with predictive skill falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

      • Once again, Ignorant Jimmy fails to know that Arrhenius changed his position with his 1906 science paper,that greatly dialed back the CO2 effect.

        Meanwhile you have yet to notice a massive AGW based failure from 1990 on wards.

      • David Middleton September 21, 2017 at 4:52 pm
        The atmosphere is not air in a bottle.

        And that’s not the Law Dome CO2 either. Perhaps you’ve used ‘Mike’s trick’, although unlike him you’ve not indicated that you spliced data or said where the data you’ve spliced came from?

      • You are correct. MLO is spliced onto the end of the graph. I just happened to grab that one because it clearly and simply demonstrated the lack of pre-industrial correlation between CO2 and temperature.

        Here is a more clearly and accuratly annotated graph…

        And… Mann 2008 did not clearly indicate that the instrumental data were spliced in. You had to dig through the SI to figure that out… Which was an improvement over MBH 98/99.

      • David Middleton September 22, 2017 at 6:35 am
        You are correct. MLO is spliced onto the end of the graph. I just happened to grab that one because it clearly and simply demonstrated the lack of pre-industrial correlation between CO2 and temperature.

        I’m sure you’re aware that the expectation is that T would correlate with log(CO2) but since that’s inconvenient for your narrative you plot [CO2], if you were honest about it you would at least plot vs log([CO2]).
        For future reference perhaps you could use a graph which clearly indicates the source of the data:

        and include the legend:
        Figure 5: 1000 years of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from various Antarctic ice cores (DML, South Pole, Law Dome and Siple Dome) and the direct measurements in Mauna Loa Observatory [Credit: Ashleigh Massam, compiled from open access data sources]

        And… Mann 2008 did not clearly indicate that the instrumental data were spliced in. You had to dig through the SI to figure that out… Which was an improvement over MBH 98/99.

        Only if you can’t read! You can’t get much clearer than a label on the graph (MBH 98) which says; “Actual Data (1902-1995)” and a legend which says: “Time reconstructions (solid lines) along with raw data (dashed lines)”. Similarly in MBH99: “Instrumental Data (1902-1998).
        In the 2008 paper the reconstruction was plotted against “decadally smoothed CRU NH land mean series (thick black curve)” which was clearly indicated in the figure legend and in the figure title “NH EIV vs CRU series”. There was certainly no need to “dig through the SI” as you incorrectly assert.

      • In the pre-DE08 Law Dome cores, which covers the Medieval Warm Period, there is no correlation. In the higher resolution DE08 core (since 1833), there is a fair correlation…

      • If you download any of the Mann 2008 reconstructions, you get a tine series that does not differentiate the proxy from the instrumental data.

        To see an example of “Mike’s Nature Trick,” go here… Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

        Click this… EIV Temperature Reconstructions

        Open up any of the **cru_eiv_composite.csv or **had_eiv_composite.csv files. All of them splice the high frequency instrumental data into the low frequency proxy data. To Mann’s credit, unlike his previous “tricks,” he at least documents this one enough to sort it out in the SI.

        This statement from their PNAS paper is totally unsupported by proxy reconstructions… “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years.”

        The anomalous nature of the “recent warmth” is entirely dependent on the “tricky” use of the instrumental data. He didn’t use any proxy data post-1855.

        This image from Mann’s 2008 paper falsely implies that all of the reconstructions are in general agreement regarding the claim that the “recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years”…

        By cluttering up the image with many reconstructions and plastering the instrumental record onto end of the graph, it’s impossible to see any details.

        Here are Mann (Had_EIV), Moberg and Ljungqvist without the clutter…

        Zoomed in on post-1800…

        And Mike’s Nature Trick…

        The Modern Warming appears anomalous because of the higher resolution of the instrumental record, it’s position at the tail-end of the time series and the negative deflection of the Little Ice Age trough (ca 1600 AD)…

        If the Modern Warming is directly compared to the Medieval Warm Period, it appears to be far less anomalous, despite ithe better resolution of the instrumental record…

        Particularly if you clutter the image with multiple reconstructions…

        The Modern Warming might be 0.2-0.4°C warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. This would be consistent with a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1.0°C per doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level (as opposed to ~3.5°C). Although the difference between the modern warming and MWP is well within the margins of error of the proxy and instrumental reconstructions and could easily be explained by the higher resolution of the instrumental record.

      • David Middleton September 22, 2017 at 9:24 am
        If you download any of the Mann 2008 reconstructions, you get a tine series that does not differentiate the proxy from the instrumental data.

        Whereas if you actually read the papers rather than downloading improperly annotated graphs you’d see that your statement is incorrect!
        For example from the PNAS2008 paper the legend for Fig 2 says: “NH reconstructions (colored curves; 95% confidence intervals shown by lightly shaded regions of similar color) with decadally smoothed CRU NH land mean series (thick black curve)”

        Open up any of the **cru_eiv_composite.csv or **had_eiv_composite.csv files. All of them splice the high frequency instrumental data into the low frequency proxy data. To Mann’s credit, unlike his previous “tricks,” he at least documents this one enough to sort it out in the SI.

        As pointed out previously and above this is not true, perhaps you should try reading the papers!

        This statement from their PNAS paper is totally unsupported by proxy reconstructions… “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years.”

        The anomalous nature of the “recent warmth” is entirely dependent on the “tricky” use of the instrumental data. He didn’t use any proxy data post-1855.

        Again read the ‘damned paper’, you clearly misunderstand the proxy data, he used plenty of proxy data post-1855, you failed to understand that the date 1855 refers to the starting years for the proxy data set.

        This image from Mann’s 2008 paper falsely implies that all of the reconstructions are in general agreement regarding the claim that the “recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years”…

        If you had read the paper instead of just the abstract you’d find this in the discussion of those results:
        “Although the EIV and CPS reconstructions essentially agree within uncertainties back to A.D. 1000 (Fig. 3B), there are nonetheless some significant systematic differences in the implied long- term temperature histories over that time frame. The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly. By contrast, the CPS reconstructions indicate more uniformly colder conditions, with peak Medieval warmth that does not breach the mean warmth of modern reference period (1961–1990), and a long-term, more steady decline in temperatures before 20th century warming.”

        “Before A.D. 1000, there is somewhat less agreement between the various reconstructions. In particular, reconstructions based on variants of the CPS method tend to be significantly cooler than (and outside the uncertainties of) the EIV reconstruction. Investigating the sources of these differences, we first established that the removal of the seven proxy series in our database identified a priori as having potentially spurious features, has no significant impact on the CPS (or EIV) reconstructions (SI Text and Fig. S8). However, we observed that the pronounced cooling between approximately A.D. 750 and A.D. 1000 in the current CPS reconstruction is based on prominent excursions in a relatively small number (see Fig. S9) of the 15 NH proxy series available in the screened network back through the 9th century and that the amplitude of the cooling is somewhat sensitive to the removal of individual proxy records”

        “Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH. Given the uncertainties, the SH and global reconstructions are compatible with the possibility of warmth similar to the most recent decade during brief intervals of the past 1,500 years.”

  51. James,make clear he is a profound science illiterate:

    “The atmosphere is not air in a bottle.”. No kidding. That’s supposed to disprove the work of hundreds of scientists since Arrhenius?”

    The fallacies and ignorance is obvious here on Jimmy,who has never caught up with that 1906 paper.

  52. James Ardmore,

    still has not realized that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with the 1896 Arrhenius paper either. His 1906 paper showed that he reduced the CO2 warm forcing effect by more than 50%.

    You are poor at this.

    • You seem unable to rationalize the findings of thousands of climate scientists (i.e., AGW) with the non published critiques of a few amateurs who have no consistent physics- based explanation for industrial age planetary warming.
      In short, you publish nothing in peer reviewed journals, you have no chance consistent hypothesis, and your explanations for this situation vary from fraud to conspiracy to critiques that change from day to day, yet gain zero traction among real scientists.
      This is no contribution to science. Or to humanity.

      [In the event you wish to change people’s minds to suit your own view on here your time would be better spent using arguments rather than just appealing to authority. There are a lot of smart, published, folk who contribute and comment on WUWT. Tell them why they are wrong . . . mod]

      • @mod
        Have you really read the personal attacks (‘ignorant’ is typical) and snide comments about ‘true believers’ and ‘alarmists’ lodged against me and others who argue in favor or peer reviewed science? How about a more even handed approach to moderating?

      • @mod’.
        ‘Appeal to authority? “Appeal to authority ‘ as you are using it means appealing to those IN AUTHORITY — which I do not do. I appeal to the opinion of experts — those doing the research. Expert opinion is exactly what is needed on this forum.

      • JA, you do not seem to understand what “appeal to authority” is. Stating that something is settled because Doctor Doofus says so, without actually using Doofus’ evidence or arguments.
        Flatly stating that the IPCC has a direct line to Truth is only slightly parodying your fallacy, and you are acting like a Jehovah’ Witness or a Marxist in your style.

      • James:

        “Have you really read the personal attacks (‘ignorant’ is typical)…”

        Bah. Mr. Macrae offered you evidence from his own work. He did it. Notice his name in one of the graphs. That took his time and expertise and was done for your edification as well others who read here.

        And what do you do???

        Your response was the intellectual equivalent of saying, “That’s just bullsh*t”.

        Therefore, he rightly reproved you for being ignorant. The term is not a “personal attack”, the term denotes a state of being. If he’d said something like, “You idiotic, stupid, pathetic, MORON…” well that would have been an ad hominem attack.

        Rather, he spared you the mockery that you certainly deserved and rather called you out for what you are: Ignorant of the subject matter about which you’re trying to speak.

        Why are you here, dude? You seem to have made up your mind already. You don’t ask questions. You make ignorant claims you can’t substantiate. You ignore contrary arguments.

        What benefits you in coming here and getting your clock cleaned?

        Would you not be better served by trying to learn something?

  53. Mr. Best,

    you are vague too since you never explained why you bring up the ice cores,quoting James:

    “The only problem with your thesis is that it is wrong– as shown by scientists since Arrhenius in 1896, and confirmed by the Vostok ice core samples going back 400,000 years, and other Antarctic ice cores from 800,000 to 400,000 years before present.”

    I asked the question which NEITHER you or James have answered,

    “What was confirmed by Ice cores?”

    LOL

    • Read the context. The connection between atmospheric CO2 ppmv and temperature was confirmed. Did you not know this?

      • James, there are a number of published science papers showing CO2 lags temperature. Not only that most skeptics accept the basic CO2/temperature relationship. The connection hasn’t been disputed for a long time now,thus your statement is either out of date or just plain wrong.

        Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

        “Abstract

        The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.full

        I have known about this paper since 2006.

  54. James, this is an appeal to consensus and Authority when you make blanket statements like this:

    “The only problem with your thesis is that it is wrong– as shown by scientists since Arrhenius in 1896,…”

    and,

    “The fact that atmospheric CO2 controls the climate has been known since Arrhenius discovered the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect in 1896.”

    and,

    ” No kidding. That’s supposed to disprove the work of hundreds of scientists since Arrhenius?”

    You said NOTHING of scientific value in your silly fallacious statements.

    • You’re the one saying nothing of value. My appeal is to the EXPERTs, not to anyone in ‘authority’, about which you seem to have your shorts in a knot. You are not an expert, nor do you accept the decades of peer reviewed research by the experts. That’s not just ignorance, it’s purposeful no-nothingism

      • Sam does it again, ignores this statement I made to James,

        “still has not realized that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with the 1896 Arrhenius paper either. His 1906 paper showed that he reduced the CO2 warm forcing effect by more than 50%.”

        Never gives a detailed reply to Allan or David either. Just fallacies and he STILL employs a fallacy,

        “….My appeal is to the EXPERTs, not to anyone in ‘authority’, about which you seem to have your shorts in a knot. You are not an expert, nor do you accept the decades of peer reviewed research by the experts….”

        You are sinking deep into Troll land. You are stupid as hell since you STILL offer no debate at all,still do not answer science based statements and charts either.

      • By the way Sam, you have been asked by a Moderator to drop your Fallacies,provide an argument instead.

        “[In the event you wish to change people’s minds to suit your own view on here your time would be better spent using arguments rather than just appealing to authority. There are a lot of smart, published, folk who contribute and comment on WUWT. Tell them why they are wrong . . . mod]”

        When are you going to DEBATE?

      • An appeal to “experts” is an appeal to authority. It’s not an appeal to those in power. Argumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to a person who is an authority in a subject. Citing a peer reviewed paper is not an appeal to authority. Citing an otherwise upsupported quote from the author is an appeal to authority.

    • Thank you Sunsettommy for taking the time to dissect the latest nonsense from the tag team of Ardmore and Best.

      I was reluctant to respond further to either of them on grounds of principle – “I decline to engage in an intellectual duel with a unarmed man”. :-)

      I wrote in 2015 how I think the alleged global warming crisis will end – with global cooling – which I (we) originally predicted in a 2002 article to commence by 2020-2030. I now think mild global cooling will start by about 2020 or sooner, although this timing is very difficult to predict with accuracy.

      I hope to be wrong about this prediction, because society is unprepared for a global cooling cycle, and energy systems have been compromised by global warming alarmist nonsense and dysfunctional green energy schemes.

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1847733

      Hypothesis:

      1. The next act of this farce will be characterized by global cooling starting by about 2020 or sooner, cooling that may be mild or severe. Global cooling will demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be insignificant. The scientific credibility of the warmist gang will be shattered and some may face lawsuits and/or go to jail.

      2. The scientific community will gradually accept the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and that temperature (among other factors) drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

      3. The foolish green energy schemes to “stop global warming” will be shelved and dismantled, but not before they contribute to a significant increase in Excess Winter Mortality, especially in Europe and to a lesser extent in North America, where energy costs are much lower (thanks to shale fracking).

      4. The warmist thugs will still be bleating about a warmer world, wilder weather, etc., all caused by the sins of mankind, but nobody will listen.

      Regards to all, Allan

      • Your ‘prediction’ of global cooling has no supporting science or evidence. Worthless.

        James Hansen seems to believe it does:

        “Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen. From Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous p3774;”

        … Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

        Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

        Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/02/are-scientists-preparing-for-a-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/

      • @sy computing
        Hansen…who was never and is not now an advocate of global cooling…in the passage you quote, writes about REGIONAL cooling in the oceans, due to mixing effects. In the same paragraphs, he refers to heat imbalance …the excess of energy inflow over outflow from the earths system….which drives global temperature RISE.

      • Ardmore wrote: “Your ‘prediction’ of global cooling has no supporting science or evidence. Worthless.”

        Kindly search “global cooling” on this (wattsupwiththat) website and you will find plenty of evidence.

        The notable thing about my (our) 2002 prediction is it was one of the earliest, and hence one of the most controversial. Since then, solar activity has crashed in SC24 and SC25 is also looking weak.

        Time will tell, and I hope to be wrong on this prediction.

      • James:

        Well you wouldn’t expect him to do a complete about-face right off the bat would you? That would be embarrassing.

        But compare the conditions he admits will occur with the paper listed in the article:

        First the paper (bold mine):

        The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.

        And then from Hansen (bold mine):

        The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and on-going observations together imply that 2◦C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions.

        I might be misreading things but it appears that according to the Henry, et al., paper, a slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation indicates a cooler global climate. Hansen seems more than willing to admit at least the entirety of Europe is going to cool because of the same. Furthermore, he’s also suspiciously squishy regarding how his assessment differs “fundamentally from existing climate change assessments”, presumably because according to AGW the world is supposed to catch on fire soon.

        Sounds to me like Mr. Hansen could be prepping for a CYA moment should he need it.

      • @sy computing
        You’re still hunting for confirmation in the writings of Jim Hansen..that he predicts world COOLING, not warming. Well, you haven’t found it in his writings, including the one you quoted, and never will. He refers to REGIONAL cooling, not Global.youve missed the entire point, again….that the earths thermal energy inflows exceed energy outflows, driving a net global avg temperature RISE.
        ‘Worthless’ remains an apt description of global cooling predictions.
        It also seems you’ve attempted an appeal to authority, not realizing that the authority contradicts your very proposition.

      • “It also seems you’ve attempted an appeal to authority, not realizing that the authority contradicts your very proposition.”

        Oh dear. My mistake.

      • @Allan Macrae
        ‘Since then solar activity has crashed’
        You should compare the magnitude of greenhouse climate forcing with solar. Solar irradiance changes are insignificant.

      • Ardmore, your last comment is contradicted by the above post on this page, among other evidence.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/20/from-the-the-stupid-it-burns-department-science-denial-not-limited-to-political-right/comment-page-1/#comment-2615837

        Your comments are nonsense – sound bites from the warmist dictionary, unsupported by evidence.

        The warmist argument is based on an ASSUMED high value of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”), which is THE key falsehood in the warmist scam. The overwhelming evidence is that ECS is low, about 1C/{2xCO2) and probably less, and increasing atmospheric CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming. Other warmist falsehoods such as wilder weather, etc. are also unsupported by the evidence.

        The fact that NONE of the warmists’ scary predictions have materialized in the 30+ years of this debate is further evidence that they have negative scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything they say.

        Global warming alarmism is a multi-trillion dollar scam that has caused enormous harm to humanity and the environment.

        Global warming alarmism has driven up energy costs and reduced grid reliability in the developed world, and denied access to cheap reliable energy in the developing world. This scam has increased excess winter mortality worldwide and has also increased illness and death due to energy poverty in the developing world.

        It is the obligation of responsible, competent professionals to blow-the-whistle on this scam, and to encourage the availability of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems for humanity. This is especially true for the elderly and the poor, and for the struggling peoples of the developing world.

  55. Once again,Sam exposes his lack of understanding on what Science research really is,

    “You seem unable to rationalize the findings of thousands of climate scientists (i.e., AGW) with the non published critiques of a few amateurs who have no consistent physics- based explanation for industrial age planetary warming.”

    Appeal to consensus and Authority. Two Fallacies,oh my……

    Congratulations!

    By the way there are THOUSANDS of published science papers that doesn’t agree with the AGW conjecture:

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    It is NOT settled science!

    Sam goes on,

    “In short, you publish nothing in peer reviewed journals, you have no chance consistent hypothesis, and your explanations for this situation vary from fraud to conspiracy to critiques that change from day to day, yet gain zero traction among real scientists.”

    Another worthless statement,since you have yet to answer a simple question I asked James. Not only that you and Jimmy have yet to answer to the charts and science behind it,posted by Allan and David or anyone else who post something of science.

    Snicker…..

    More silly Sam,

    “This is no contribution to science. Or to humanity.”

    You and James have yet to address anything others have posted here,including Allan and Davids charts presentation. You have contributed NOTHING of value here……

    So far you are in Troll land, as you have avoided a real debate,just fallacies and whining to the Mods.

    You need to dig in with something of real science stuff.

  56. Neither has Sam or James responded to my statements about the Arrhenius papers at all.

    I posted several different times these comments,that they avoid so far:

    “James, Arrhenius updated with a new paper in 1906,greatly reducing the postulated CO2 warm forcing effect. He also wasn’t worried out it either.”

    and,

    “Once again, Ignorant Jimmy fails to know that Arrhenius changed his position with his 1906 science paper,that greatly dialed back the CO2 effect.”

    and,

    “The fallacies and ignorance is obvious here on Jimmy,who has never caught up with that 1906 paper.”

    and,

    “still has not realized that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with the 1896 Arrhenius paper either. His 1906 paper showed that he reduced the CO2 warm forcing effect by more than 50%.”

    after all these comment about Arrhenius, James chose to ignore them completely. He whines about me instead,

    “@mod
    Have you really read the personal attacks (‘ignorant’ is typical) and snide comments about ‘true believers’ and ‘alarmists’ lodged against me and others who argue in favor or peer reviewed science? How about a more even handed approach to moderating?”

    YOU show profound ignorance on how good science research works. You make fallacious statements with ZERO science details,avoid simple questions and statements that indicate that you have NOTHING beyond fallacies to offer.

    Several people here made clear statements that could be addressed in detail,but you chose not too,just write fallacies which are WORTHLESS!

    When are you going to actually debate something?

    • Science is about standing on the shoulders of previous researchers and adding your own research, pushing the frontiers forward. You dismiss the peer reviewed science, and claim your simple posts trump the work of actively researching climate scientists. Ignorance is not a sin. Purposeful ignoring of peer reviewed research is.

      • My gosh, James doesn’t know when to stop avoiding the debate. Just another stupid statement is all you can drag up,avoiding my inviting you to debate what Arrhenius said in 1896 and 1906. You avoid it completely, because you have no idea what he wrote.

        Most warmists don’t even know he updated his research,published it in 1906.They always talk about the 1896 paper,as if that was his only paper on the subject. This is a typical example of warmist ignorance.

        I made a specific statement about the CHANGE in his later 1906 paper that showed he UPDATED his research by reducing the postulated warm forcing of CO2 by over 50%. He had responded to several scientists of the day,which means he was receptive to constructive criticism,which is why his 1906 was an UPDATE over his older one.

        I wrote,

        ““still has not realized that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with the 1896 Arrhenius paper either. His 1906 paper showed that he reduced the CO2 warm forcing effect by more than 50%.”

        Have you ever seen his 1906 paper,Jimmy? Do you know what the IPCC now say about warm forcing?

        You are so IGNORANT,that you can’t even realize that you made clear you have no freaking idea what Dr. Arrhenius ever said in the first place! Your latest statement is so dumb,that I am wondering if this is the best you can come up with,since you keep avoiding discussing actual science details.

        I have seen the papers,have you Jimmy?

        Do you know what his warm forcing number were in 1896 and the change to a different number in 1906?

        Do you know what Arrhenius said about the small CO2 warm forcing effect?

        Can you answer the simple questions,Jimmy?

  57. “James Ardmore
    September 22, 2017 at 9:30 am Edit

    Your ‘prediction’ of global cooling has no supporting science or evidence. Worthless.”

    Your statement is worthless since you didn’t provide anything called a counterpoint to his presentation. You didn’t address anything he wrote in detail either

  58. James,wrote this howler:

    “You dismiss the peer reviewed science…”

    Somehow this non science,troll completely missed my comment of a list of 1350+ number of peer reviewed science papers. I wrote just a 4 hours ago and only a few comments above this one.

    “By the way there are THOUSANDS of published science papers that doesn’t agree with the AGW conjecture:

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    It is NOT settled science!”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/20/from-the-the-stupid-it-burns-department-science-denial-not-limited-to-political-right/comment-page-1/#comment-2617184

    This is a troll posting from the Twilight Zone.

      • James, do you realize how stupid you are?

        The papers are PUBLISHED in science journals,which means they do exist. There are at least 1350 papers published,that doesn’t support the AGW conjecture.

        12 years ago Oreskes was exposed for that stupid,dishonest paper since she ADMITTED she made a mistake in her search parameters. She left out 11,000 published papers in the process.

        Naomi Oreskes & her study: errata

        “Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 – 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

        These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change” (3).:

        https://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html

        The was TWELVE years ago!

        You and other warmists are so out of date,it is funny.

      • @sunsettommy
        So you Don’t know the difference between published papers..which can and often do include comic books…and peer reviewed journal papers…..

      • So you Don’t know the difference between published papers…which can and often do include comic books

        Uh huh…I tawt I taw a Brad Keyes-ian

  59. @sy computing
    Do you now acknowledge your error in claiming Jim Hansen was postulating global cooling in his paper (where he discussed regional cooling effects)?

      • @Tom Halla
        You assert CO2 tracks temperature in neither the instrumental nor proxy record.
        It’s one thing to argue about minor details. It’s another to argue against basic facts. The Vostok ice core data shows CO2 ppmv rising after an initial warming due to the beginning of a Milankovitch warming cycle. Then there is a much larger warming upsurge caused by the increased greenhouse effect from increased CO2 ppmv. Twisting the facts to deny the greenhouse effect may work in your echo chamber, but not in the world of science. Not even the lukewarmers buy what your selling.

      • @sy computing
        Jim Hansen would be amused to learn you cite him as an advocate of global cooling,but would not be surprised to find out you don’t understand the difference between regional and global temperature change.

  60. What a fun thread! Lets us sum it up. All these science deniers advocating the false religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining are on the left of the political spectrum(side note, to a man they want to use the armed force of government to punish any who refuse to submit to their false religion) and they steadfastly refuse to accept reality, to wit, climate changes constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it.

  61. It appears that James Ardmore will not address my questions about Arrhenius papers at all,despite that he was the one who kept bringing him up in his comments.

    Here is what I posted,that he is avoiding:

    “Have you ever seen his 1906 paper,Jimmy? Do you know what the IPCC now say about warm forcing?

    You are so IGNORANT,that you can’t even realize that you made clear you have no freaking idea what Dr. Arrhenius ever said in the first place! Your latest statement is so dumb,that I am wondering if this is the best you can come up with,since you keep avoiding discussing actual science details.

    I have seen the papers,have you Jimmy?

    Do you know what his warm forcing number were in 1896 and the change to a different number in 1906?

    Do you know what Arrhenius said about the small CO2 warm forcing effect?

    Can you answer the simple questions,Jimmy?”

    He earlier said,

    “James Ardmore
    September 21, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    The only problem with your thesis is that it is wrong– as shown by scientists since Arrhenius in 1896, and confirmed by the Vostok ice core samples going back 400,000 years, and other Antarctic ice cores from 800,000 to 400,000 years before present.”

    and,

    ” James Ardmore
    September 21, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    The fact that atmospheric CO2 controls the climate has been known since Arrhenius discovered the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect in 1896.”

    This is a classic dodge on your part James, since it is clear you have no idea what Arrhenius said in the two papers.

    • Arrhenius discovered the effect in 1896, and its scientific understanding was refined during the 20th and 21st century and is well understood by the science community, but not by junk science advocates who are devoted to its dismissal and still believe they can achieve scientific competence without educational attainment or reading of the peer reviewed literature

      • James, it is now clear you have no idea what Dr. Arrhenius stated in his two papers. His second paper warm forcing effect statement is actually much lower than his original estimate ,but you don’t know since you NEVER read it!

        Your IGNORANCE is well displayed here,you have destroyed your credibility with YOUR ignorance of what Dr. Svante Arrhenius actually stated about the CO2 warm forcing effect,in his two papers.

        You are just another miserable warmist troll,who is clearly illiterate on science issues. You run on Consensus run on Fallacies,ignore the many predictive AGW failures,reply on non validated far into the future climate models and so on……. You are incoherent as well.

      • Only a small minority of posters on this site who consider themselves skeptics claim there is no GHG effect, with the much more common conclusion that the effect is much less of an effect on current temperatures than the IPCC and similar modelers insist. You are tending towards a false dichotomy.
        GHG’s act on a curve, with fairly small amounts saturating the absorption bands. Remember the controversy is stated in the sensitivity of doubling the amount of CO2. The IPCC has not improved its WAG of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C since 1990 in any real way, while the evidence cited by posters on this site conclude it is from less than 1 to about a maximum of 1.5.

      • @Tom Halls
        The consensus of peer reviewed research has a CS center point of 3C and an upper bound of 6C. Fringe estimates of a 1.5C center point have no standing in the peer reviewed research

      • The doubling is to 560 ppm,which is around 60 years into the FUTURE.

        You are dumb as hell,since you can’t know for sure it doesn’t run hot far into the future. What is running hot model wise is from 1990 to 2017,which I just showed you with satellite data.

        That is what Tom and many others are talking about.

      • And JA does not care that temperature tracks CO2 levels in neither the instrumental or proxy record. While CO2 probably has some effect, at current or historic levels, other factors are so much larger it gets lost in the “noise”.

      • @sunsettommy
        You did not show any such thing, since rss v4 shows a warming rate of 0.2 per decade, right at the lower end of the IPCC range. Time for you to give it up.

      • @Tom Halla
        You say ‘CO2 tracks temperature in neither the instrumental nor proxy record.’
        It’s one thing to argue about minor details. It’s another to argue against basic facts. The Vostok ice core data shows CO2 ppmv rising after an initial warming due to the beginning of a Milankovitch warming cycle. Then there is a much larger warming upsurge caused by the increased greenhouse effect from increased CO2 ppmv. Twisting the facts to deny the greenhouse effect may work in your echo chamber, but not in the world of science. Not even the lukewarmers buy what your selling.

      • The only “fact” is that the CO2 rise lags behind the temperature rise. The degree to which the CO2 amplifies the warming is 100% interpretation.

        The CO2 decline into glacial stages also lags behind the fall in temperature.

        If CO2 was a primary driver of climate change, the current interglacial stage would be consireably warmer than Late Pleistocene glacial stages…

      • Mr Ardmore, you are probably both using “adjusted” temperatures and cut-off graphs in your claim. If one uses pre-2000 records for temperature, there were rises, plateaus, and declines in temperature since 1850 with steadily rising CO2 levels. Similarly, in the paleo proxies, there is little correspondence between CO2 levels and temperature. There is a relationship since the start of the ice ages, but not in older proxies.
        JA, as you evidently conclude essentially all the “adjustments” made by people like Mann, Gavin Schmitt and Phil Jones were entirely justified, you should post why you think those alterations to raw data were correct, and not a case of pious deception in a noble cause.

  62. Oh my!

    I wrote PER DECADE,based on the 1990 IPCC warming prediction,you come back with something else entirely,which means you are a terrible reader!

    Here is what the 1990 IPCC report says:

    “Based on current model results, we predict:
    • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025….”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

    Once again I caught you as being IGNORANT!

    • @sunsettommy
      The rate per decade doesn’t mean 0.3C EACH decade, a common error among the skeptics . As near as I can tell, the year is 2017, and 2025 is still in the future, as is the end of the century. When the future arrives, you can look back and comment.

    • @Sunsettommy
      Based on RSS v4, the rate of warming since 1990 is 0.2C per decade, right at the lower end of the IPCC range. Looks like I caught you.

      • You didn’t count very well,since the total increase in 27 years is .40C which mean the rate is well below .20C per decade.

        True the .30C per decade is the AVERAGE as mentioned in the Report,but you have no idea how bad it really is since the 1990 Emission Scenario was less at the time than now,yet the temperature increase didn’t speed up at all.

        The table and the graph show annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates for Mauna Loa.

        1990 1.16

        Here is the 2001 IPCC report showing an updated Business as usual scenario with increased emissions behind it. They more specifically state a MINIMUM.30C per decade,no more averaging this time around. It is .30C per decade or more now.

        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

        “Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels”

        But the emission rate at 2000 is much less than it is at 2015:

        The table and the graph show annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates for Mauna Loa.

        2000 1.61
        2015 3.03

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

        This means .30C per decade is now too low,it is more like .40C per decade to account for the increased CO2 emission flow into the atmosphere.

        2001 to now:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

        .15C increase total in 15+ years. That is .10C per Decade rate.

        You have no case here, Jimmy.

  63. What I don’t get is the fixation on CO2, whose effect is probably saturated.

    If you want to consider human factors contributing to climate, what about changes in land use? Lowering the albedo by, for example, plowing a field will definitely convert extra sunlight into surface heat. Ever flown over a plowed field in a light aircraft on a sunny day? You will definitely experience a strong updraft.

    • @David Barnett, P.H.D.
      It’s a logarithmic relationship, fully accounted for in the models. Other human factors, such as the ones you cite, indeed do have an impact, but climate forcing from the increasing greenhouse effect is dominant.

    • David Barnett, you see the problem clearly. They try hard to make CO2 the god of climate driver,despite it being a trace gas with a tiny absorption range.

      What I am surprised is how FEW skeptics know that the outgoing energy flow into space increase is ALWAYS greater than any additional warm forcing effect of CO2 can create.

      John Kehr brings this up:

      “A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

      If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

      The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

      http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/

      CO2 effect was set in around a BILLION years ago,there has been very little to add ever since. That is why the entire warm forcing effect paradigm in modern times is absurd.

      Here is a simple Logarithmic chart of CO2 from 20 ppm upward:

      As you can see at the 280 ppm level, 95% of all warm forcing of CO2 has already occurred,there is so little left to add on.

      • David Middletons chart,shows that many other factors can explain the increased warming and outflow of energy from the planet.

        CO2 by itself doesn’t promote enough warming to the system to increase the “temperature”,that is why their unverified Positive Feedback argument is so critical to the few silly warmist scientists,such as Stefan Rahmstorf,David Mann,Ken Trenberth, and other like them.

        They KNOW CO2 by itself will never drive the catastrophic warming trend, they cry so much over.

  64. This link,shows a number of links to published papers all saying there is a significant lag of CO2 FOLLOWING temperature change:

    The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed

    “In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

    It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

    Her replies to warmist illiterate comments is a treat!

      • Bwahahahahahahahaha,

        That paper has been torn apart by Willis using the same exact data Shakun used,but Willis use ALL the rest of the CO2 data for the time period,while Shakun stopped it at 6,000 BC.

        Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

        “When I left off in that post of mine, I had investigated each of the 80 proxies used in Shakun2012. I plotted them all, and I compared them to the CO2 record used in their paper. I showed there was no way that the proxies could support the title of the paper. Figure 1 recaps that result, showing the difficulty of establishing whether CO2 leads or lags the warming.”

        “Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

        I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/#more-60932/

        Shakun,was caught red handed because he stopped the CO2 data right when it was about to go up a lot,while temperature was going down slowly. Willis added the rest of the CO2 data that Shakun omitted.

        His paper was refuted long ago.

      • While Shakun’s paper was quickly exposed as statistical trickery, these papers I gave you link too are still regarded as good science:

        REFERENCES

        Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
        Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
        Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
        Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
        Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

        http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

        You never did show that….. “Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

        In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.”

        is wrong since you never addressed it at all,just run to a bad paper that was destroyed 5 years ago. You also ignored a number of papers listed here completely,despite that they are accepted science today,while Shakun is not.

        Do you know what a debate is Jimmy?

  65. James,getting desperate tries a link to a site that doesn’t address the Sensitivity topic well and waaaay out of date as it is 8 years old!:

    “@sunsettommy
    All your posting and hugging and puffing is for naught. Comparison of forcings is basic science, showing that nothing else approaches the magnitude of climate forcing from an increasing greenhouse effect. This issue is an outstanding example of how the skeptics get it wrong, in spades: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

    This is an EIGHT year old post,that doesn’t have the updated CO2 sensitivity estimates,which even the latest IPCC admits to be going down.

    David posted THIS link to Climate Audit discussing Sensitivity,it is clear you didn’t read it since you continue on to post Cooks way out of date crap:

    Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 2

    https://climateaudit.org/2015/04/13/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-2/

    Me and David posted to you many dozens of lowering CO2 Sensitivity papers,which are backed the Satellite data showing NO increase in the Per Decade warming trend. This means CO2 isn’t the climate driver you idiotically think it is.

    No increase in Hurricanes,Tornadoes,Droughts,warming trend and more either.

    HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THIS OBVIOUS REALITY?

    You keep ignoring reality around you. You have been shown the following from official data,

    The Per decade warming rate since 2001 is well over 50% LOWER than the IPCC prediction. The IPCC says .30C Per decade,we are getting .10C per decade instead and appears to be about to go down with the looming La Nina.

    Since 2001 there is a DECREASE in the Per decade warming trend by the official satellite data. You have been SHOWN this,it can’t be dismissed!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

    That CO2 warm forcing is way down the list from calculated forcings is ignored by you,John Cook and many other dishonest warmists.

    The following is based on the Keven Trenberth models,

    “Evaporation: 80.0 W/m^2
    Water vapor (GHG): 18.1 W/m^2
    Convection: 17.0 W/m^2
    CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2
    Ozone (GHG): 1.0 W/m^2
    Other (GHG): 0.7 W/m^2”

    translates to,

    “Evaporation: 22.0 °C
    Water vapor (GHG): 5.0 °C
    Convection: 4.7 °C
    CO2 (GHG): 0.9 °C
    Ozone (GHG): 0.3 °C
    Other (GHG): 0.2 °C

    If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.”

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

    CO2 is waaay down the list of warm forcing and with the the known Logarithmic effect has little more warm forcing left to work with. You have been shown this repeatedly,but you ignore it over and over because you are so idiotically wedded to a trace gas is going to kill us mania.

    Your ignorance was once again shown when you used that link to Cooks laughable site. Even John admits that CO2 by itself will not promote a catastrophic warming trend,most warmist scientists knows this.

    I have left something out all this time that you seem completely unaware of,that will prove once for all that you are an ignorant warmist troll parroting an idiotic belief. Something that warmist scientists hope shows up since the failure of it will doom everything they have babbled about for many years. They know it since they KNOW CO2 by itself doesn’t do what idiots like you think it will do.

    I keep waiting for it from you,have not seen it yet,David I am sure understand what I am talking about here.

    • @sunsettommy
      ‘Willis’ added data that changed the conclusions? You mean the ‘Great’ Willis Eschenbach? Scam artist of the junk science blogs. Non peer reviewed. Shakun’s work confirmed operation of the greenhouse effect in proxy data and has only been debunked in your dreams, because his conclusions are An anathema to those who can’t countenance the universal findings of modern science.

      • Mr Ardmore, the mannerly procedure would be to explain why you conclude Shakun is still valid, despite the critique. Instead, you just reaffirm Shakun, with no reason given other than you agree with the conclusions.

      • LOL.

        Once again you prove to be a troll,since you just employed the personal attack fallacy on Willis,who went to great length to post his research. He told you how he created that chart too.

        Personal attacks on the author is always a sign that the attacker (You) knows he can’t address Willis’s conclusions about Shakun’s flawed paper.

        It is clear you have NOTHING here since you didn’t explain why you think Willis is wrong. Shakun has been exposed wrong by other people too,but chose Willis because his presentation is very easy to follow,who honestly used the same data Shakun used,with more to get from 6,000 BC to now.

        You failed once again.

      • Tom,

        Jimmy is unaware of OTHER problems with the paper. Shakun NEVER even plotted out ALL of the 80 proxies in his paper,which would have showed him why his conclusions are not valid:

        “Now, there’s plenty of things of interest in there. It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age. The median value for the warming is 4.3°C, although the range is quite wide.

        But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming?

        I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.

        Final Conclusion

        The reviewers should have taken the time to plot the proxies … but then, the authors should have taken the time to plot the proxies.”

        And then there is this problem too:

        “Note the difference in the underlying shapes of the different types of proxies, and the differences in their timing with respect to the rise of CO2.

        Next, note that the CO2 record they are using is from Antarctica. That is the reason for the good fit with the single “ice core ∂18O and dD” proxy (left graph, second row) and the “ice core dD” (center graph, second row). Both of those are Antarctic records as well.

        Also, as you can see, even within each proxy type there is no unanimity regarding the timing of either the onset or the end of the warming from the last ice age.

        CO2 is the blue line … so was the warming before or after the blue line?”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy/

        Jimmy, can you figure out what Shakun’s big mistake was?

      • @If Eschenbach had a modicum of integrity, he would publish his so called debunking in a peer reviewed journal. Shakun’s work remains a ground breaker, while Eschenbach remains unknown, (except in junk science circles)

      • Here is some thoughts for the closeminded troll:

        Willis in a comment states,

        ” Willis Eschenbach
        April 6, 2012 at 11:03 am Edit

        Oakwood says:
        April 6, 2012 at 9:42 am

        I submit another vote to overlay the CO2 data on the final plot. Please.

        I didn’t overlay it for several reasons.

        One is that they have released their temperature data, but not their CO2 data, so I was unwilling to mix apples and oranges.

        The second is that, no matter where you put the CO2 in that pile of nonsense, it won’t make a difference.

        The third is that, as near as I can tell, they’ve looked at eighty temperature records and are comparing them to a single CO2 record. This is an ice core record from the EPICA ice core, which they say has “recently been placed on a more accurate timescale.” That seemed curious, they are averaging 80 proxies for historical temperature, but they’ve taken a single proxy for CO2.

        In any case, I’ll do the overlay when I get a few moments. I’ll have to digitize the CO2 data they used, so it may be a day or so.

        w.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy/#comment-947433

        You get it yet,Jimmy?

    • @Sunsettommy
      Willis Eschenbach has a California Massage Certificate, and a BA in Psychology!! And you rely on him to debunk peer reviewed scientific journal papers. Unbelievable. .

  66. Here is the chart about declining CO2 sensitivity numbers over the years:

    https://landshape.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/climate_sensitivity.pdf

    Here is the link that talks about it:

    Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining

    “Scientists made numerous estimates of climate sensitivity over the last few decades and have yet to determine the correct value. The figure shows the change in published climate sensitivity measurements over the past 15 years (from here). The ECS and TCR estimates have both declined in the last 15 years, with the ECS declining from 6C to less than 2C. While one cannot extrapolate from past results, it is likely that the true figure is below 2C, and may continue to decline. Based on this historic pattern we should reject the studies that falsely exaggerated the climate sensitivity in the past and remember that global warming is not the most serious issue facing the world today.”

    https://landshape.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/6921/

  67. Now James, shows why he has no credibility here,doesn’t even try to address Willis research at all,it is FALLACIES all the way now.

    ” James Ardmore
    September 24, 2017 at 12:31 pm Edit

    @If Eschenbach had a modicum of integrity, he would publish his so called debunking in a peer reviewed journal. Shakun’s work remains a ground breaker, while Eschenbach remains unknown, (except in junk science circles)

    and,

    James Ardmore
    September 24, 2017 at 12:39 pm Edit

    @Sunsettommy
    Willis Eschenbach has a California Massage Certificate, and a BA in Psychology!! And you rely on him to debunk peer reviewed scientific journal papers. Unbelievable. .”

    It is clear you have no idea why Willis easily destroyed Shakun’s paper. He found several OBVIOUS holes in it, You don’t try to defend Shakun at all,not even discuss anything surrounding it either.

    Meanwhile he continues to ignore my comment about a number of published papers that doesn’t agree with Shakun at all:

    “REFERENCES

    Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
    Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
    Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
    Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
    Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

    you also continue to ignore this too:

    “You never did show that….. “Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

    In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.”

    is wrong since you never addressed it at all,just run to a bad paper that was destroyed 5 years ago. You also ignored a number of papers listed here completely,despite that they are accepted science today,while Shakun is not.”

    You are below the gutter quality troll. You have no demonstrated debate skill to show here. You never stop trying to talk down to me.

    You are pathetic.

      • He he,

        short,simple and to the point.

        But I am never this simple,like to pile it on someone who gets so absurd,unreasonable. I hate it when people like him avoid a real debate,pile on personal attacks on authors and push fallacies that doesn’t address the persons arguments.

        He does do one thing well,he shows how feeble his replies have been to the world, who wants to read an honest debate on anything,have to give him that.

      • The great Emmy Noether was never allowed any official position (because she was a woman), but it is hard to imagine modern physics without her insights into symmetries and conservation laws. Were it not for enlightened supporters like David Hilbert, her work might have remained unknown.

      • A useful response to you is: “When amateur scientists cite the comments of someone with a California Massage Certificate as an expert critique of peer reviewed Science, we have the blind leading the blind”.
        A new low for even wwwt.

      • @charles the moderator
        A useful reply to you is: “When amateur scientists cite the comments of someone with a California Massage Certificate as an expert critique of peer reviewed Science, we have the blind leading the blind”.
        A new low, even for wwwt

      • James Ardmore, aka Warren Beeton…

        Willis has an IQ of about 170, and unlike many of the people who have such high IQ’s, he’s a genuine person who doesn’t give a whit about titles or diplomas. He’s a polymath. And if you’d ever met him, you’d understand.

        See here’s the thing, and I’m pretty sure I speak for Charles when I say this, we don’t give a shit what you think, especially when you create fake names to get your comments published.

        Meanwhile, you lecture Willis about “integrity”. Say hello to the troll bin.

      • I’ve never met Willis in person… But, if I wanted someone to look over my shoulder and check my work, in any subject, Willis would top the list.

      • Anthony you are mistaken,

        I live every moment for approval from Mr. Ardmore. I am devastated by his negative feelings toward me. I cannot eat or sleep. I’m not sure what I’m going to do moving forward. Sigh.

  68. This would be one of the longest blog posts ever on WUWT .It looks like it has come to a stop as the moderator has tipped a couple of trolls into the bin .I posted a challenge back 10 days ago ago on this thread to J A , Griffy and Sam Best and anyone else to prove that the methane from farmed livestock will warm the world by .05C in the next ten years .I would need proof that will stand up to scientific and statistical scrutiny. No one has attempted to even try yet the these emissions could be included in an emissions trading scheme in New Zealand and other country.s imposing further costs on the agricultural sector when absolutely no proof exists that these emissions cause warming.Methane from livestock is cyclic and the methane is broken down in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O and then reabsorbed by plants .

Comments are closed.