By Dr. S. Fred Singer

An essay in the current issue [Oct 2017] of Eos [house-organ & newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)] is titled “Red, Blue – and Peer-Review PR].”

The essay asserts that p-r is superior to a debate between a [red] team of climate skeptics and a [blue] team of alarmists. I disagree strongly, and will point to prominent cases where PR is misused to keep contrary opinions and facts from being published, thereby trying to enforce a “consensus.” A classic case is described by Douglass and Christy at

D&C are my coauthors; we published a research paper in the International Journal of Climatology [IJC] in 2007, showing a vast difference between climate models and actual observations. Based on leaked emails, Based on available Climategate emails, D&C recount the conspiracy of nearly 20 members of an alarmist “team,” led by Dr Ben Santer, trying to nullify our paper – with the shameful cooperation of the IJC editor.

I can cite many more examples — assuming that IPCC [UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] represents a kind of PR – as constantly claimed by alarmist IPCC proponents.

I have shown, and convinced many others, that the “evidential facts” in support of anthropogenic global warming [AGW], cited by the first three Assessment Reports [AR] of 1990, 1996 and 2001 are based on spurious analyses and data.

Recently, I discovered that the evidence used by AR4 [2007] and AR5 [2013] does not really exist; it is fake, an artifact of incomplete data analyses. I refer here to the reported surface warming of 1978-1997 [for details, see].

There I show that during the 1980s and 1990s, data-gathering instruments underwent drastic changes: ocean temperatures from floating buoys went from zero to 60%; land temperatures from stations at airports went from 30 to 85%; both of these changes coincided by chance—and both produced a fictitious warming.

But publication of such a result is very difficult. It involves finding a sympathetic and courageous journal editor who will not send the manuscript to unfriendly, biased reviewers.

Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies – or at least, bring them to light. Thus one understands why consensus enforcers try to keep out inconvenient facts, avoid debates, and prefer Peer-Review.


The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. He earlier served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, now in NOAA.

195 thoughts on “RED TEAM- BLUE TEAM DEBATE —

    • Nothing wrong with the physics of the so called greenhouse effect.

      If you think you can prove otherwise, you can claim your Nobel prize.

      Nothing wrong with the surface temp data either: the only serious skeptic funded review, Berkley Earth, showed that.

      • In my opinion Dr. Muller pulled off a successful scam. In a well broadcast U-tube video he criticized both Michael Mann and Phil Jones saying in effect those are two scientists whose papers I will never read again. There was nothing in his (or his daughter’s) past or in his ongoing work to justify a “skeptic” label.
        For example where are his criticisms of Michael Manns statements over the last few years?

      • Nothing wrong with the physics of the so called greenhouse effect.

        Which representation of the physics might you be referring to?

        If you think you can prove otherwise, you can claim your Nobel prize.

        I don’t think that there is a Nobel Committee in the business of trying legal cases, as this would be a jury decision about the faithful application of EXISTING physics, rather than an assessment of any NEW physics. It’s NOT the physics. It’s HOW the physics is being misunderstood, mistakenly referred to, and misapplied in absurd convolutions.

        Nothing wrong with the surface temp data either: the only serious skeptic funded review, Berkley Earth, showed that.

        Those are some pretty dense blinders you’re wearing there. (^_^)

      • What physics? If you mean the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so freaking what. It’s a weak GHG, the few frequencies it impacts are mostly saturated by water vapor already. The few frequencies where it doesn’t overlap with water vapor are almost saturated and in regions where the earth doesn’t emit much energy anyway.

        To get the big scary numbers the alarmists have to assume large positive feedbacks. Feedbacks that have been fully refuted by real world science.

        The problems with the temperature data are thoroughly documented, here as well as elsewhere.

        It is a complete lie that BEST was “skeptic” funded. Mueller has a long record as being an alarmist.

      • I hope Griff is a leader on the pro CAGW team.

        Actually public debate by real scientist is required if the general public is to ever wake up to the gaping flaws of CAGW.
        Of course public debate is exactly what the political post normal field of activists desperately wish to avoid.

      • Pretty sure it’s a complete lie that BEST showed that there was nothing wrong with the surface temperature data, too. After they finished slicing and dicing it into a large number of very small pieces, the best they can say is that there may be nothing wrong with those tiny pieces individually. But you can’t learn anything about the overall trends after you remove all the information about how the pieces were joined, and then pretend that the joints are all flat.

      • Nobel prizes are peer review circle jerks like the Emmy awards. Case in point: Obama received the peace prize.

      • “Nothing wrong with the surface temp data either: the only serious skeptic funded review, Berkley Earth, showed that.”

        That’s the BEST you can do? Griff, you need to “adjust for bias” rather than “bias adjustments.”

      • Griff,
        I have shown many times how the claimed sensitivity is at least 3 times larger than the physics allows. You fail to understand because your perception is horribly skewed by the many canonized errors, incompetence and levels of obfuscation inserted between the physics and reality.

        Here’s are some simple questions that you will not be able to answer without violating Conservation of Energy or denying the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW.

        The nominal sensitivity is claimed to be 0.8C per W/m^2 corresponding to an increase in surface emissions of about 4.3 W/m^2 between an average of 287.5K (387.4 W/m^2) and 288.3K (391.7 W/m^2).

        The surface must receive energy equal to its emissions.otherwise it will cool. 1 W/m^2 of the 4.3 W/m^2 comes from the forcing. For 100% positive feedback, COE limits the feedback power from 1 W/m^2 to only 1 W/m^2. Including the maximum possible feedback, only 2 W/m^2 of the 4.3 W/m^2 required is accounted for.

        Where are the other 2.3 W/m^2 coming from?

        If you think this extra power is also from feedback, what laws of physics allows you to violate COE?

        If you are brave enough to reply, please stick to the laws of physics.

      • Robert,
        There’s nothing wrong with the relatively well known physics of the greenhouse effect. The problem is with everything else the IPCC has layered upon it, starting with the incompetent application of Bode’s feedback analysis by Hansen. The feedback fubar (google ‘feedbak fubar’ for more info) is at the root of the broken science as it provided the theoretical plausibility in AR1 for a climate sensitivity as high as the IPCC required in order to justify its agenda of redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations.

      • Typical giffiepooed bluff and nonsense. It managed a comment without a single true fact; instead it’s all ad hominem, bluff and blatant falsehood.

        The burden of proof is still upon those claiming amazing powers for CO2.
        To date, all CO2 claims are unproven. Nor did Arrhenius prove what alarmists like giffiepooed claim he did.
        All CO2 predictions, unproven or just plain falsified.

        Dr. Singer provides proof of false temperature manipulation and Racketeering collusion against “Natural Variation” papers.
        Both are prosecutable offenses, if and when DOJ is de-corrupted.

  1. EROS admits that AGW is bunk because there isn’t one paper trying prove the nigh on impossible task of proving the theory certainly not with the Peer Reviewed label.

    • cloa5132013,
      AGW itself is not bunk, but CAGW is the bunkiest of all bunk. The effect of incremental CO2 on the surface temperature is finite (non zero), but is far too small to be obsessing about. When combined with the beneficial effects to agriculture, the accumulated magnitude of their errors and misrepresentations is massive and represents the difference between an effect that might be inconvenient for some (overhyped claims of doom notwithstanding) and an effect that in the worst case is only somewhat beneficial to all.

      You are correct though that there is not one single peer reviewed paper that proves the claimed sensitivity or even validates it with the known laws of physics. It’s only support comes from hearsay, fudging and arm twisting.

  2. I will be first out of the blocks ,A news story on New Zealand TV and in today’s news papers c papers sponsored by Greenpeace claims that 2016 had the highest increase ever for one year since records began . The claim is that CO2 rose by 3.3 p p million the 2016 year .
    I checked the site at Mauna Loa and it showed about 2.5 p p million increase and in the last 12 months till 30th October about 2.16 pp million increase and the present level on the 30th October was 404.16.
    I understood that Mauna Loa was the gold standard for measuring CO2
    Could some of you smart people have a look please .

    • gwan,

      It appears that the reported increase in CO2 is real. However, what is interesting is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been flat for about the last three years. So, the possibility is that, while humans may be contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increases may be driven by something else, such as warming unrelated to CO2 increases, causing increased outgassing from the oceans. The science is certainly not settled.

      • I assume the Greenpeace report described is this one. It doesn’t say the increase in 2016 was a record. It says the level was a record – no surprise there. And it does say that it has “surged at ‘record-breaking speed'”, but it isn’t clear what numbers they have in mind.

      • Clyde,

        Human emissions indeed are already some 5 years flat, but the sinks for CO2 are not influenced by human emissions of one year, they are influenced by the total CO2 pressure above the dynamic equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere. That is currently above 110 ppmv pCO2 difference (290 ppmv for the current ocean surface temperature).
        The sinks are also rapidly reacting on fast temperature changes like El Niño and Pinatubo, but that levels off to near zero within a few years. If a La Niña sets in, the CO2 increase during 2018 will be much lower.

      • davidmhoffer – October 31, 2017 at 9:52 pm

        I checked myself

        It shows 2016 as 2.98, and 2015 as 3.03 respectively.

        HA, those are different figures than what I copied from this source, to wit:

        NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base

        year mth “Max” __ yearly increase ____ mth “Min”
        2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
        2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
        2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
        2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 _El Niño __ 9 … 401.03

        So “Yes”, 2016 was the highest “yearly increase”, …… and it was caused by that Super El Nino that “heated up” the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere …. which caused less ingassing of CO2 during the SH wintertime and more outgassing of CO2 during the SH summertime. Aka: Henry’s Law.

      • In my view Samuel’s numbers are more meaningful as they reflect the rise over a single annual cycle. I do find it odd that NOAA presents its summary chart using a calendar year basis, which “smears” the rise over two partial cycles. Adding the 2017 numbers to Samuel’s comment, the May 2016 to May 2017 increase was only 1.95 ppm, and that was without a La Niña.

      • Jim Ross – November 1, 2017 at 7:16 am

        Adding the 2017 numbers to Samuel’s comment, the May 2016 to May 2017 increase was only 1.95 ppm, and that was without a La Niña.

        Thanks, Jim R, ……. I would have included the 2017 May (5) and September (9) CO2 ppm data in my above post but for some weird reason this new Dell PC running “System10” and “Cortana” will not allow me to access NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base …. via this url link ….

        Or by “clicking” on the hyper-links listed under “DATA” at this web site ……

        Either that data base is currently inoperable, ……. my System10 and/or “Cortana” is PO’ed at me …. or I’ve been prohibited from accessing it.

      • Nick Stokes

        What does “surged at ‘record-breaking speed’” mean.

        Is that accelerated? In which case, how quickly did it accelerate? And what was the previous ‘record’?

      • “… but it isn’t clear what numbers they have in mind.”

        Yes Nick, once more you are noticing some of the fudging behind the claims. Too bad you can’t comprehend the malfeasance behind what you’re observing.

      • Greg,

        short term variability in atm CO2 is dominated by SST.

        Not that simple… an increase in SST gives the initial boost and a little extra CO2, but as gymnosperm already said downwards, the tropical forests at the same time show a drying out due to changed rain patterns, with as result less CO2 uptake and more plant debris / soil decay.

        Which of the two, sea or land dominates can be known by looking at the synchronous change in δ13C. If δ13C goes up with CO2, then the extra CO2 is mostly from the oceans. If δ13C goes down while CO2 goes up, then the extra CO2 is mostly from vegetation decay and in both case the reverse is true for a drop in CO2.

        In this case it is clear that most of the changes in CO2 follow the temperature changes, while δ13C goes the other way out. Thus the temperature influence on (tropical) vegetation is the main cause of the year by year variability in the CO2 rate of change:

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

        I can wait to see what happens. A few more data points should flesh things out a little better.

      • Samuel C Cogar,
        I have been quite unhappy with Windows 10 for a number of reasons. I have recently reverted back to using my old Windows XP system to take advantage of Outlook as my mail server. It is more sophisticated and useful than the mail program that came with W10.

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen,
        You said, “…the tropical forests at the same time show a drying out due to changed rain patterns,…” That is likely to be the result of logging and burning as documented upwind of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

        You said, “If δ13C goes down while CO2 goes up, then the extra CO2 is mostly from vegetation decay and in both case the reverse is true for a drop in CO2.”

        There was a program on PBS NOVA tonight about Killer Hurricanes. Someone studying isotopic fractionation of oxygen in stalagmites made the claim that humidity affected the oxygen diffusion in rain drops so that she could tell whether the water was from regular rain or rain associated with hurricanes. I can’t help but wonder if things aren’t a little more complex than what you present above.

      • Clyde,

        Just be aware that what Ferdinand says about CO2 going up and δ13C going down (and vice versa) is fine, but note that his graph does not show this. It shows the derivatives. If you plot the CO2 values and associated δ13C content, you will see that the δ13C does generally decrease as CO2 increases, but sometimes is flat or even increasing while CO2 is also increasing.

        All sites show similar δ13C trends:

      • Clyde Spencer,

        More data points will follow, as the 2015-2016 strong El Niño should show similar results as the 1998 El Niño. δ13C results always follow later than CO2, as these are not continuous, taken by flasks and measured much later in series.

        That is likely to be the result of logging

        In part, yes, but continuous logging gives a (small) trend while the huge synchronous opposite ups and downs are the result of temperature variability (with a lag of ~6 months after temperature).

        A shift in oxygen isotopes indeed is a good indication of temperatures of both the origin of the water vapor and where it condenses back to water (rain) or snow.
        CO2 also shows similar shifts, but these are small compared to the influence of CO2 uptake and release by vegetation.

      • Jim Ross,

        I used the derivatives, as the discussion was why there was such a huge (short term) increase in CO2. That is mainly from the reaction of vegetation to short term higher temperatures. With a little help from warmer oceans. The latter still remain a sink for CO2, even if (tropical) vegetation may be a temporal source of extra CO2.

        For the long-term trend, the oceans again are not the cause of the CO2 trend: that is again from vegetation, in this case fossil vegetation… Most of the “noise” you see around the trend is temperature related, but other natural influences can have a much larger impact on isotopes than on quantities…

    • Mauna Loa is very high altitude and reports on the well-mixed atmosphere. It is thus good for long term trends. Lower altitude and less well mixed stations will show seasonal and daily variance.

      • Not so… As long as stations are not over a large land mass they are just as good as MLO

        (wp will not let me log on with video for some reason; will try and post after this comment)

      • @ozonebust
        Could you please name one less well mixed stations.
        Perhaps you are confusing well mixed with diluted.

        It is well known that CO2 at low altitude, say below a few thousand feet, is very poorly mixed. CO2 is not a well mixed gas at low altitude, and that is why the IPCC rejected the findings of the Ernst Beck reanalyse. Ferdinand Engelbeen (who has commented above) has a page on this reanalyse. See:

        By way of illustration of the poor mixing of CO2 at low altitudes, Ferdinand Engelbeen also has details of CO2 measurements taken at Giessen in Germany in 2005, see:

        You will note that CO2 varies from around 380 to about 500 ppm. Below, I set out another set showing variations in CO2 between 350 to 550 ppm.

        I have seen data of local measurements far exceeding the 500 ppm and showing a variation of almost double!

      • Lower altitude air sampling for determining CO2 ppm quantities will get you FUBAR results most every time.

        The following commentary (my bold text) was excerpted from this source, to wit:

        A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two.

        Charles David (Dave) Keeling held a different view. As he pursued local measurements of the gas in California, he saw that it might be possible to hunt down and remove the sources of noise. Taking advantage of that, however, would require many costly and exceedingly meticulous measurements, carried out someplace far from disturbances.

        Keeling did much better than that with his new instruments. With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        And the source of that noise, ……. in the different air masses, ….. was nothing other than water (H2O) vapor, otherwise known as “humidity”.

        Whenever the water (H2O) vapor ppm increases in a particular locale, ………. the CO2 ppm decrease proportionally. And vice versa.

      • afonzarelli – October 31, 2017 at 11:23 pm

        Not so… As long as stations are not over a large land mass they are just as good as MLO

        HA, large land masses ….. matters not one twit, …… one way or the other.

        DUH, …… Antarctica is a large land mass.

        Near-surface or lower altitude air “sampling” for CO2 ppm measurements, ….. except in pristine desert conditions, …… usually result in FUBAR results simply because the vegetation itself is outgassing CO2, …… microbial decomposition of dead biomass is outgassing CO2 …….. and last but not least, the humidity (water [H2O] vapor) in the air is constantly changing which directly affects the CO2 ppm quantity.

      • Richard Verney,

        Thanks for publishing my graphs!

        One correction:
        The first chart is from Diekirch, Luxemburg, from an experiment at the MeteoLCD (meteo courses at the lyceum of Diekirch) led by Francis Massen:
        That is a school where -rare these days- students are educated to think for themselves:
        Diekirch is a small town with forests and a busy highway in the main wind direction.

        The second chart is from Linden/Giessen, Germany, some 300 km SE from Diekirch, semi-rural, little forests and traffic in the neighborhood, compared to the uncorrected hourly data of Mauna Loa, Barrow and South Pole on the same days as in Diekirch.

        Indeed, any measurements over land in the neighborhood of vegetation or other strong sources/sinks are unreliable for long-term trends. Measurements in (ice) deserts, on mountain tops, on barren islands or coastal with wind from the seaside are far less fluctuating…

      • Samuel,

        Water vapor plays zero role in CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa or other stations: CO2 is measured after leading the air over a cold trap at -70ºC. Almost all water is freezed out and the remaining water vapor doesn’t interfere with the measurements. All measurements are expressed as CO2 in dry air…

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen – November 1, 2017 at 2:05 pm


        Water vapor plays zero role in CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa or other stations: CO2 is measured after leading the air over a cold trap at -70ºC. Almost all water is freezed out and the remaining water vapor doesn’t interfere with the measurements. All measurements are expressed as CO2 in dry air…


        Of course H2O vapor plays zero role in CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa and in Antarctica simply because the Mauna Loa Observatory is situate at 11,135 feet elevation and it too damn cold in Antarctica.

        And Ferdinand, iffen the H2O vapor doesn’t affect the CO2 ppm count ….. why in ell do they “freeze” it out?

        And iffen they “freeze” out the H2O vapor molecules …… doesn’t that cause an increase in the CO2 ppm count in the air sample being tested, ….. thus negating the results of the CO2 measurement?

        A handful of H2O molecules in a one (1) cubic foot container of air …… is akin to having …… a handful of glass marbles in a one (1) cubic foot container of air.

        If you remove any of the H2O molecules or any of the glass marbles …… the quantity of air in the container will increase.

        “Nature abhors a vacuum”, …. ya know.

      • Samuel,

        If you include water vapor, that makes that the measurement detects more CO2 than there is in reality, as there are (small) overlapping bands in the IR spectrum. That is the first reason.
        The second reason is that the same air at sea level may contain 3% water and 0.01% at the South Pole, while both may contain the same CO2 level in ratio to the rest of the air without water vapor. As we are interested in the CO2/air volume ratio as ppmv, water vapor is only a highly variable extra.

        Where it plays a role is for the CO2 transfer between ocean surface and atmosphere: then the real pCO2, including water vapor is important. That may be 3% lower than ppmv, due to 3% water vapor.

      • Michael 2,
        As Ferdinand and I have discussed previously, what Mauna Loa is probably measuring is air from the sea brought by orographic uplift to the top of Mauna Loa in relatively short time. It is probably not representative of high altitude air in places that are not immediately confounded by mountains, let alone CO2 emissions near the measuring station.

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen – November 1, 2017 at 4:29 pm


        If you include water vapor, that makes that the measurement detects more CO2 than there is in reality, as there are (small) overlapping bands in the IR spectrum. That is the first reason.

        YUP, and if you remove the H2O vapor then the molecular density of the air sample changes and the pressure increases, to wit:

        The Effect of Temperature and Pressure on CO2 Measurement

        Most gas sensors give out a signal proportional to the molecular density (molecules/volume of gas), even
        though the reading is expressed in parts per million (volume/volume). As the pressure and/or temperature
        changes, the molecular density of the gas changes according to the ideal gas law. The effect is seen in the ppm reading of the sensor.

        The following illustrations visualize how an increase in pressure or temperature changes the state of the gas and how it affects CO2 measurement.

        See illustrations @

        Ferdinand, like the temperature records and the average temperature calculation, which are highly questionable and extremely unreliable, ……. I am really, really highly skeptical of all the different proxy studies and atmospheric CO2 ppm measurements, both past and present ….. but I do trust the Mauna Loa CO2 Record because it began in 1958 which was quite a few years prior to the advent of the fear mongering crisis being touted by the proponents of CAGW.

    • Mauna Loa is the gold standard, as that is the station with the longest continuous record. In fact the South Pole started a year earlier, but had a few years with only flask measurements.

      For “global” CO2 levels, not the Mauna Loa data are used, but the average of several sea level stations. These react faster than Mauna Loa on near-surface temperatures which are heavily influenced by El Niño and volcanic eruptions. That gives a noise of 4-5 ppmv/K around a trend of 90 ppmv. In general the noise levels off to near zero after a few years.

      • Ferdi, CO2 change due to changes in SST or oceanic carbon content are not “noise” they are part of signal. If you want to develop scientific understanding of the system you explore and attempt to understand all aspects of they physical system. You do not dismiss some of the signal as noise.

      • Greg, I am not sure Ferdi is correct about the noise and signal part of the small changes in CO2 shown by either Mauna Loa or an average of several surface changes. However, I think your comments about noise and signal are not exactly correct. For instance, in the physical world noise is recurring change between upper and lower values. We are in an Ice Age for about 5 million years and are cycling between Glacial events and inter-Glacial events so temperature and CO2 (and human habitation of Greenland, etc) have large variations. Detecting a signal against this noise is not generally possible, so some AGW enthusiasts try for rate-of-change signal detection. The Hockey Stick was an attempt to show a rate-of-change signal, except it was assembled out of several different body parts. Detecting an actual signal is the key and one has not been detected to date.

      • Greg,

        Temperature itself has a small trend on long term and a lot of noise on short term: seasonal and year by year.
        Seasonal it is rather fixed at +/- 5 ppmv/K global amplitude, double that in the NH and very small in the SH.
        Year by year it is very variable at 4-5 ppmv/K mainly as result of seasaws (El Niño) and volcanic eruptions.
        The seasonal changes level off to near zero after a full cycle.
        The year by year changes level off to near zero after 2-5 years.
        In both cases, the CO2 reaction to temperature is mostly by vegetation and in direction opposite for seasonal en year by year.

        Then we have a much slower reaction of CO2 to long-term temperature changes at about 16 ppmv/K, as seen over the past 800,000 years in ice cores. That is mainly caused by the (deep) oceans.
        That gives a theoretical increase of ~13 ppmv since the LIA, while there is a 110+ increase measured.

        Thus indeed, besides the noise, there is a small temperature caused signal caused by warmer oceans but the bulk of the trend is from human emissions.

      • If you treat sunlight as being equal over the land and ocean, the ocean/atmosphere equlibrium for CO2 is controlled primarily by temperature (both relative and absolute). On land the same equilibrium is controlled by temperature AND moisture.

        The effect of ENSO is very complicated because it allows warm water mechanically stored at depth to spread across large areas of the ocean surface (and by some mysterious means increase mean sea level). This surface warming stimulates both photosynthesis and respiration in the plankton, and temporarily (until the air above is warmed) increases ocean outgassing.

        On land, Ninos cause drought. This reduces photosynthesis and respiration and skews soil respiration aerobic, depleting Oxygen. This drying effect works against the increased photosynthesis and respiration from the higher air temperature.

        By far, the largest wild card is soil respiration, at some 60 GtC/year, with a high sensitivity to both temperature and moisture.

      • gymnosperm,

        Your explanation of the impact of ENSO seems to be at odds with most of the literature. My understanding is that phytoplankton die off (followed by much of the east Pacific oceanic food chain) during an El NIño due to lack of nutrients which are prevented from reaching the surface due to the warm waters extending eastwards and reducing the upwelling of the deep cold (and nutrient rich) waters from upwelling to the surface.

        Regarding the “land” responnse, can you point me to any data that support the view that atmospheric oxygen is more depleted during an El Niño than during a La Niña. Thanks.

      • Jim Ross – November 1, 2017 at 1:29 pm


        Regarding the “land” responnse, can you point me to any data that support the view that atmospheric oxygen is more depleted during an El Niño than during a La Niña. Thanks.

        Jim R, assuming that gymnosperm is correct with this claim, to wit:

        On land, Ninos cause drought. This reduces photosynthesis and respiration and skews soil respiration aerobic, depleting Oxygen.

        Then his claim is self-supporting.

        In times of drought, both plant photosynthesis and respiration activities on land are reduced due to lack of water. And any reduction in photosynthesis results in a reduction in the ingassing of CO2 and the outgasing of O2, thus atmospheric oxygen is more depleted …. but not by very much and only in the near vicinity of the vegetation.

        And ps, Jim R, it was my System10’s “Microsoft Edge” causing my problem, I used Internet Explorer and those links worked fine.

        • from Jim R

          “On land, Ninos cause drought.

          Depends. California is the “reference” state here, isn’t it? No El Nino’s anywhere affecting areas with lots of broadcasters and enviro-extremists, no other place on earth so eager to exploit any claim that can possibly be made about CAGW, right?
          Most of CA is a desert, was a desert, will be a desert subject to periodic droughts. CA is affected by El Nino’s and La Nina’s.
          Most of TX, OK, NM, AZ is a desert, was a desert, will be a desert subject to periodic droughts. But the TX area inverts CA’s El Nino/La Nina “droughts”. When one is wet, the other often dry. And vice versa.

          But the CAGW propaganda exploits BOTH drought cycles to blame CAGW on the droughts.
          Then blames the rainy cycle (wet seasons) in BOTH areas on … CAGW!

          Result? Constant “good news” for the CAGW propaganda machine.

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen – November 1, 2017 at 7:10 am

        Thus indeed, besides the noise, there is a small temperature caused signal caused by warmer oceans but the bulk of the trend is from human emissions.

        When one employs “fuzzy math calculation” and estimated/guesstimated emission quantities …. one can accuse humanity of all sorts of dastardly deeds.

      • Samuel C Cogar – November 2, 2017 at 5:18 am

        Sorry, I should have said “global atmospheric oxygen”. The problem is that the published data on atmospheric O2/N2 are rather noisy due to the difficulty in obtaining accurate measurements. The values are fine for longer term trends, but a bit dodgy for annual depletion and ENSO-related variations, hence my interest in the statement by gymnosperm.

      • Thanks, Jim.

        I just tried it again to be sure, …..and after a delay of about 4 minutes ….. it returned with an error message stating …… “Hmmm…can’t reach this page”.

        I guess I’ll hafta call Dell Tech.

    • Exactly! Then defund the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the FDA.

      Getting rid of those corrupt organizations would be an even greater boost to the US economy than Trump’s tax reforms/cuts.

  3. One of the functions of red team/blue team debates is to consider policies that depend on the science. This is not the same as a debate about the science alone.

    • A red-blue debate is a debate of all the data on a topic. Politics is not data, it is opinions. Peer review is a review just of one paper for obvious errors, and so is very limited in scope. Reviews I have received are often political. A paper unpublishable because the reviewer claimed I called a colleague stupid. Wait, a major university international scholar agrees with the paper. Oh oops, editor says that scholar backs the paper, it will be published. It appears the editor studied under the scholar. Small world. Scholar wanted me to read back to him all the emails. Okay. What changed in the paper? Nothing. Those who say peer review is not a mine field of politics is a bonehead.

      • A colleague and myself sent a paper for publication, a new method of seismic data inversion. Two reviewers rejected it. The first reviewer said the method was not sufficiently novel to merit publication, several other published methods were similar. The second reviewer rejected it on the grounds that the method we proposed was invalid! Go figure eh? I suspect the first reviewer worked for a company with a commercial product based on those similar principals and the second reviewer worked for a company with a complete different methodology. Perhaps the two reviewers could have a chat sometime….

  4. Wow, they really are RUNNING SCARED, aren’t they !!!

    They KNOW that the non-science of the AGW farce will not hold up under proper realist scrutiny,

    and like Mickey Mann, will do everything they can come up with to try avoid this happening.

    • No, it’s just a stupid idea. It’s about as effective as political debates are at deciding between different schools of thought on economic growth, education, health care, etc.

    • The local change of opinion in some parts of US politics is having exactly no effect on the science or the rest of the world outside the US.

      Well, except for countries increasing their efforts beyond their Paris commitments, in response to President Trump

      • except for countries increasing their efforts beyond their Paris commitments, in response to President Trump

        Except that the UN has just stated that countries are failing to meet their efforts.

        Not one country will comply with its Paris Accord commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. The US will reduce its emissions more effectively than any of the other top 7 emitters.

        Of course, China and India will comply with their commitments to substantially increase CO2 emissions, China will probably double its emissions, and India will triple its emissions.

        The Paris Accord is a farce.

      • Griff

        “The local change of opinion in some parts of US politics is having exactly no effect on the science or the rest of the world outside the US.

        Well, except for countries increasing their efforts beyond their Paris commitments, in response to President Trump”

        And you have evidence for this? Other than the Guardian.

      • “Good for them.
        The US will welcome the companies forced out by these new regulations.”

        Name me 5 companies that are moving major operations to the US due to these regulations.

      • @Chris
        The world’s largest BMW plant is a few miles from my South Carolina home and it is expanding. There is no doubt the reason is the very restrictive German regulations. Mercedes Benz has also warned Merkel about the unfavorable regulatory environment for heavy industry in that country..
        I’m sure others can supply a few more examples.

      • “Name me 5 companies that are moving major operations to the US due to these regulations.”

        A year or so ago I read that European chemical companies are building plants in the U.S. because the cost of natural gas is so low here.

      • Griff wrote: “The local change of opinion in some parts of US politics is having exactly no effect on the science or the rest of the world outside the US.

        Well, except for countries increasing their efforts beyond their Paris commitments, in response to President Trump.”

        This article seems to contradict you, Griff.

        BBC Discover Paris Agreement Was Worthless After All!

        “The Paris agreement boosted climate action, but momentum is clearly faltering,” said Dr Edgar E Gutiérrez-Espeleta, Costa Rica’s minister for environment and president of the 2017 UN Environment Assembly.”

        end excerpt

      • “Name me 5 companies that are moving major operations to the US due to these regulations.”

        I’ll give you two.

        First, BMW are building their largest ever plant in South Carolina, having already moved both their composite fabrication plant and light alloy foundries to the USA, and Mercedes Benz are moving production to the USA and Mexico too – in both cases due to the cost of energy in Germany.

    • George, BMW has been expanding their mfg presence in the US for decades, long before the Paris accord. They did it for several reasons – 1) concern about tariffs back when the US auto industry was hurting and there were complaints about job losses 2) a way to avoid currency exchange rate issues as the cars would be made where they are sold 3) labor costs in the US are lower. If you can find me articles that say that the cost of energy in Germany was a major factor in BMW’s decision, please share them.
      Oh, and BMW is committed to go to 100% renewable energy, so they would applaud Germany’s RE efforts.

      • Chris, please provide links to any material that shows BMW’s firm plans for converting its manufacturing and product distribution to 100% renewables. Also, any of their plans for producing only EV’s.

        Since the U.S. has no plans for 100% renewables, please show how BMW plants here will be powered by 100% renewables. Are they getting into large-scale renewable electric generation in the U.S. soon?

    • Or to put it another way, red-blue would be totally impractical for ordinary science. Teams debating for every paper? It’s really hard just to get reviewers to write a review.

      And how would red-blue be better at actually resolving? Why would it lead to better decisions? Or decisions at all?

      • Just start at the basics, Nick,

        Show that there is NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite data

        There is NO CO2 warming signal in sea level data,

        There is NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE. !!

        Then take the AGW farce apart from there.

      • Poor Nick, you really are PATHETIC.

        You KNOW its the truth.

        There is NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite data

        There is NO CO2 warming signal in sea level data,

        There is NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE. !!

        GET OVER IT !!!

      • This is NOT ordinary science, AGW is science which is politicised, career driven, profit driven, and secretive to an order much higher than any other scientific topic in human history. Even Galileo’s trials so to speak were limited to relatively small group of people and the daily effect on the masses were trivial to say the least. Did the peasants of the days care or were they affected by Galileo’s science?

        AGW science is being used as justification to modify the daily behavior of everyone on this planet.

        It needs to questioned and questioned hard, in public, with all the facts (manufactured or not) on the table.

        A proper Red/Blue will rip a new one in every AGW acolyte out there. There are scared cause they do have something to hide. You know it, I know it, they know it, everyone knows it. You just won’t admit it, it’s so hard to break faith.

      • “Ordinary science” has produced a situation in which skeptical views are effectively being
        suppressed. A debate is the proper method of investigation – this is what our justice system is all about. One must ensure that both sides of the debate are represented by competent participants and there must be more than just a single debate. Science is continual and so should be the debates. P-R has proven itself to foster practically junk science, susceptable of all manner of corruption and manipulation. EVERYONE knows that. Or should.

      • “You say the same thing every time”.

        It is duly noted that little nick has no come back, and no response except a child-minded ad-hom.

      • Nick : “And how would red-blue be better at actually resolving? Why would it lead to better decisions? Or decisions at all?”

        Well, let’s the inquiry happen and we’ll have the answers to your questions.
        After all, leftists have demanded an vast witch hunt, err… inquiry against Trump about a fabled Russian collusion based on a fabricated dossier and without a single shred of evidence, and still demand it even after months of cavity searching by 2 congressional committees and a special prosecutor and finding nothing.

      • Andy, Nick does not want the public to hear that…
        The IPCC models are very wrong and overestimate warming.
        The benefits of CO2.
        The lack of a CO2 signal in global tide guages adjusted for land movement.
        The lack of a CO-2 signal in global extreme weather, hurricanes droughts. Floods tornadoes, severe weather.
        The missing hotspot and very low level of observed trophspheric warming vs the models.
        The many problems with the global surface T record.
        The failed disaster predictions by prominent CAGW scientists.
        The confessed political agenda of CAGW UN personnel.

        So Nick calls these facts spam.

      • Repeating true statements does not reduce their truthfulness. And repeating false statements does not reduce their falsity.

      • There is no science at work here. It is 100% politics. Eco-loonies and Socialists. So if Red -Blue is a good tactical or practical evaluation method then it is probably perfect. |hat is needed is a great big shovel!

      • NS,
        It strikes me that an adversary team approach is better than suing for libel and slander to suppress opposing views.

  5. It does look as if Peer review has become equivalent to a Nihil Obstat by the official church, excuse me, the consensus on climate change, that the paper contains nothing considered heretical.

    • In most fields peer review is certainly nothing like a proper review. In a past life I did a few of them, you don’t get paid for them, you get no credit for doing them (as you are anonymous) , you get little time to do them, and you still have your own work to do. All you can do is a quick check that there is nothing obviously wrong, no way can you say that the results are correct.

      In fields such as climate science/religion there is the obvious option of basing your quick review on political correctness.

  6. My copy of Scott Adams Win Bigly, Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter arrives tomorrow from Amazon.

    Both teams should read it I suspect.

  7. CAGW is imploding…

    None of CAGW’s doom and gloom projections (global temps, sea level rise, severe weather incidence/severity, ocean “acidification”, Climate “refugees”, collapsing crop harvests, rapid Antarctic land ice loss, etc., come close to reflecting reality.

    It has become abundantly clear that most of the global warming RECOVERY we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age (1280~1850) can be attributed to natural phenomena: El Nino/Super El Nino spikes, PDO/AMO 30-yr warm cycle, strong solar cycle events, Little Ice Age recovery and natural variation.

    In any other branch of science, if hypothetical projections were so divergent from empirical reality, the hypothesis would have already been disconfirmed, but, alas…

    CAGW advocates refuse to accept reality, so they try to alter it by “correcting/adjusting/modifying” the empirical evidence to match hypothetical projections… That’s not how real science works… In real scientific discovery, hypotheses are revised to match reality…..not the other way around…

    From 2021, major natural climatic events converge that will finally put an end to the CAGW hypothesis: the PDO/AMO will both be in their respective 30-year cool cycles and the weakest Solar Cycle (SC) since 1790 will begin, followed by the weakest SC since 1645, and the start of a new 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event…

    CAGW is the Harvey Weinstein of science… Everyone knows deplorable acts are occurring, but the intimidation factor and potential financial/career costs are sufficient to keep the deception alive… As soon as CAGW becomes a political and economic liability, it’ll collapse quickly as we all witnessed with Harvey Weinstein scandal.

    “Truth is the daughter of time.”~ Sir Francis Bacon.

    • The coming cold decade of the 20’s will do in the CAGW scammers. Trenberth’s El Nino step rise is about to meet it’s sibling on a declining solar cycle.

      The La Nina that is setting-up to step drop global temps is just the beginning.

      Calling Bob Tisdale….

    • CAGW is the Harvey Weinstein of science…

      Well put.

      We are just getting beyond the bad heart science being pushed by Ancel Keys. link He and his buddies promoted the idea that fat is bad for your heart and they suppressed the good science that carbohydrates are the culprit.

      Keys’ bad science wasn’t an accident. The evidence is that he cherry picked his data.

      It was career suicide to contradict Keys and his cabal.

      The parallels between dietary science and CAGW are striking. Anyone clinging to the notion that science and scientists are pure and trustworthy should have to explain the ongoing scandal foisted on us by Keys, his buddies, and the American Heart Association.

      • CommieBob-san:

        Yes. It’s terrible. So many of US government’s policies, analyses and public health announcements are politically driven rather than evidential.

        For example, U.S. corn subsides and policies have led to a 10-fold increase in diabetes since the 1960’s (from 1% of the population to 10%), with HFCS per capita annual consumption increasing from near zero lbs/yr in the 60’s to currently 50 lbs/yr. This high HFCS consumption has also contributed to an obesity epidemic (33% of all Americans vs. 10% in 1960) and all the accompanying health risks: heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, renal failure, heart attacks, etc.

        Drain The Swamp!

      • @ SAMURAI
        If you think the “science” used to make health and dietary policies (and tons of subsequent regulations) is bad, wait to see how worse is the science behind pollution and energy policies.

      • commieBob,
        There is an old saying that “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Putting good intentions and emotions above the rigor of the Scientific Method has led to mistakes in many disciplines.

  8. Dr. Singer is absolutely correct. The only way that PR would rise to a level of reliability is if it followed something like the CPA model. There the CPA risks liabilities and license by reviewing in accordance with promulgated standards to cover all issues. Thats probably not feasible in science as it would be very expensive. No scientist would accept the job of peer review without being handsomely paid to jump through all those hoops at risk of his financial welfare and in some cases his freedom. So the only answer is to not elevate science that has not been subjected to open and transparent debate by at least persons knowledgeable of the topics. Then and only then can the public and their representatives make an informed decision. As it is science in trying to avoid debate and claim instead that the science is settled, appears to the public much like a slow speed white Bronco chase. No doubt there is genuine disagreement on the science but admitting that doesn’t achieve the political objectives and that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

    • Warning! Sc@m Alert! Charging $49 for a course in Making Sense of Climate Science Denial. Comes complete with autographed Diploma. Link redirects to web page begging for $49.

    • The linked webpage is worth conserving for the upcoming, leftist history rewriting operating procedure.

      For this reason sticking to the exact terms is paramount i.e. catastrophic anthropogenic X. X=global warming, climate change, climate disruption, climate shock etc. We could sum it up as catastrophic anthropogenic climate apocalypse, CACA.

      “Climate denial” is not the same as ‘denial of climate science as a consensus on manmade climate change’. Doubtfully anyone literate denies the existence of climate. Similarly, since the collapse of phlogiston hypothesis in the 1780s, science has no longer been defined by consensus. The theories are submitted to the uncompromising test of the modern scientific methods. This is where CACA repeatedly fails.

    • Without taking the course I’m pretty sure I know what they will be teaching.
      Anyone who disagrees with the official “consensus” is either suffering from some form of psychological malady, or in the pay of big oil.

    • “social and psychological factors driving climate denial”

      I notice there’s no mention of the science of the subject.

      Just voodoo rubbish from social and psychological navel gazers.

      And at only $49 there wont be much content either.

    • Dr. John Cook…PHD in the important fields of Meterology, Physics, Chemistry and the like ? Not Quite..
      Ta Da
      “Cognitive Psychology “

  9. peer review is anonymous and as such lacks transparency. r-b debate is fully transparent and thus serves a completely different but complementary function.

    think of salt and pepper. both can be used to season food. some will argue that salt is better than pepper. others will prefer pepper. however the reality is that using both gives a better result than only using one or the other.

  10. where is the science that determines how much climate changes naturally.

    until this is quantified there is no way to determine if what we are observing is caused by humans or by nature.

    • ferdberple

      As there is no credible, empirical evidence that CO2 contributes to climate change at all, we are left to assume that all climate change is natural.

  11. Do both Peer Review and Red-Blue debates over a year, and the science will be ‘settled’.

    The Reds don’t want a debate because they know their hypothesis has holes in it, and they won’t allow anyone who has a different point of view or data set be peer reviewed for the same reason.

    The Blues want both, because they know in a series of debates, the truth will become evident and will set everyone free of the disease of CAGW, and a fair representation of peer reviewed evidence will forever nullify the hypothesis that CAGW is any threat to humanity.

    The study and interpretation of climate is almost more art, than it is pure science, at least in tying together all of the relevant information into an accurate assessment of anthropogenic climate. With so many disciplines, it takes great wisdom to thread all this together into a widely accepted position. The data trumps all in the end anyway, as it is now beginning to show.

    • The blue side has a problem presenting any credible scientists (being paid by think tanks etc opposed to climate science ought to disqualify you) or any credible evidence.

      RSS, Berkley Earth… all the skeptic inspired or previously cited evidence by skeptic is coming down on side of the accepte science.

      • The blue team being alarmists, indeed, they’ve worked hard to discredit themselves in my eyes.

        Despite of Macron proving evidence on the alarmists to be for sale across borders, many alarmists behave more like ‘useful idiots’. A term coined by Vladimir Lenin to those his country had successfully manipulated.

      • Hoist yourself on your own petard… By your rule, every non-skeptic should be disqualified if they receive any remuneration that depends on CAGW being right for monetary gain. So NOAA, IPCC, the lot of them… Sorry you cannot play. Scienceyists supported on the teat of the Big Green/Red cannot be considered neutral.

      • In Griff’s world, the definition of a credible scientist, is one that agrees with him.
        As to the claim that BEST was done by skeptics, like the rest Griff’s lies, that has been refuted so many times that only the terminally clueless could possibly still hold to it.

      • MLG, but you don’t understand, the alarmists are pure and uncorruptible. Therefore it doesn’t matter where their money comes from. Even when it is revealed that they get more money from Big Oil than the skeptics do.

      • Muller stated before BEST that he believed climate change to be 100% natural, and afterwards he proclaimed climate change 100% manmade, so unequivocally the guy is a pseudoscience attention seeking maroon.

      • Poor little Chris, HotScot’s comment was only partially correct..

        Griff uses a variation of the Grimm Bros fairy stories, some sort of hallucinogenic imaginings.

        So Hotscot’s comment about the Guardian, is not that far from the truth.

      • All one needs to do is to go to Berkely Earth. org, for facts on their funding, Agendas, etc. and their founder, Mueller and his daughter. Maybe HE created the Hockey Stick..?

      • Griffie, RSS shows that the basis of CAGW, models, are wrong, way wrong, and not even wrong.

        Go back to your masters (pay masters) and point out to them at least one of their talking points is laughable; the atmosphere is not acting as desired. Even RSS can’t adjust that away, and putting in a hot spot is impossible.


  12. …An essay in the current issue [Oct 2017] of Eos [house-organ & newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)] is titled “Red, Blue – and Peer-Review PR].” The essay asserts that p-r is superior to a debate between a [red] team of climate skeptics and a [blue] team of alarmists….

    It would be useful to have a link to it. Here it is.

    Basically, the argument appears to be that Peer Review is a long-tried, trusted process operated by sceptical scientists, and has come to the conclusion that AGW is a real danger after much deliberation. All the evidence clearly points to dangerous AGW, a Red-Blue team exercise is unnecessary, and it would be very difficult to set up a better balanced process than the already existing one. Indeed, the suggestions is likely to end up as an unbalanced superficial publicity stunt.

      • …the modern scientific methods place the bar higher you do Dodgy Geezer….

        I am not sure what your point is.
        You have displayed a graphic explaining the Scientific method, and then suggest that I ‘place a bar’ lower than would be normal. I assume that by ‘bar’ you mean ‘level of acceptability’?

        1 – The graphic you enclose has no indication of any ‘bar’ whatsoever.
        2 – I have said nothing about such a ‘bar’.
        3 – I have paraphrased my understanding of the opinion piece’s argument in Eos. I have not stated whether I support this position or not. So how do you conclude ANYTHING about the level at which I would place a bar?

        I suspect from your language that you disagree with me, but, for the life of me, I cannot see what you are disagreeing about. I cannot even tell if you support or disagree with the item in Eos. Perhaps if you explained yourself a bit better I could understand what you were talking about…?

      • The EOS opinion piece implies peer review is enough and, in my understanding of your message above, you agreed with it. Feel free to clarify it.

        In my opinion peer review shouldn’t, cannot and doesn’t replace the modern scientific methods (e.g. objectively verifiable measurements, falsifiable theory and reliable predictions).

        In the human history peers have defended mainstream consensus erroneously e.g. geocentrism, bloodletting, craniology, lysenkoism and phlogiston. And fought against scientists, such as, Copernicus, Lavoisier, Lomonosov and, even more recently, Einstein. I have little reason to trust “the peers” performed any better this time.

      • …and, in my understanding of your message above, you agreed with it. Feel free to clarify it….

        I can see nothing to clarify. Your ‘understanding’ is deeply flawed in this regard, as a glance at any of my other posts would immediately indicate, and I suggest that you follow Willis Eschenbach useful dictum of citing the precise words of mine with which you disagree.

        The fact that I provided a link to the Eos opinion piece and paraphrased its contents for the benefit of WUWT readers does NOT mean that I support the opinion in any way.

        if you want a good example of group-think in science I recommend the Piltdown Man episode. This has many parallels with the current Climate fiasco – in particular establishment organisations, such as the Smithsonian and the Royal Society immediately endorsed the discovery and suppressed contrary evidence, disagreeing anthropologists had their careers ruined, and the fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution for many decades. And modern apologists now try to minimise the impact and provide it as an example of the self-correcting capabilities of science!

      • Dodgy Geezer. The bar is “consistent with data”. Consensus (which is a purely political construct) has nothing to do with science. Einstein, when confronted by a paper signed by 100 prominent scientist refuting his theory of relativity, said “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”

        Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. The philosophy of science is devoid of consensus. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. What the evidence is.

      • The fact that I provided a link to the Eos opinion piece and paraphrased its contents for the benefit of WUWT readers does NOT mean that I support the opinion in any way.

        Well, that was the problem right there, you see? Next time you paraphrase BS, identify it a such.

    • Dodgy Geezer

      Without wanting to be confrontational, and from a layman’s perspective, I too interpreted from your post that you supported EOS.

      It wasn’t clear you were paraphrasing.

      I do, however, agree, that if the Red Team/Blue Team exercise isn’t handled well it will turn into a publicity stunt. But I suspect Pruitt et al are clever enough to have figured that out for themselves long before we did.

      • “Without wanting to be confrontational, and from a layman’s perspective, I too interpreted from your post that you supported EOS.

        It wasn’t clear you were paraphrasing.”

        That was my impression, too, although I have read enough of Dodgy Geezer’s posts to know he is a confirmed skeptic, so I did not assume he was agreeing with the link he posted.

  13. “Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies – or at least, bring them to light.”

    I can only agree with the second part of that sentence. But I doubt many controversies get settled this way. In practice the people with the power, usually ‘the establishment’, decide for themselves which set of evidence they are going to accept as being decisive. Thus if EPA and politicians decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant to be regulated, then they accept the home-made evidence that says so, however bad that evidence is. Which is what happened. The cure for this situation is going to have to be equally political. It just needs the politicians with good sense and the fortitude to make the decisions and stand by them.

    • Clearly peer review is inadequate to settle controversies.
      I suggest Red-Blue teams would also be inconclusive as Michael Hart suggests.

      I have never participated in such an exercise but I suspect that it would only be effective if both teams respected each other; an adversarial situation would doom the effort.

      Consider the situations where R-B Teams have been effective; in the military where a group of generals are plotting a campaign and utilize another viewpoint to see where they may go wrong; or in rocket science where a mistake would likewise be fatal and someone pointing out flaws in the plan would be welcome.

      I can just imagine Dr Mann saying “Oh Gee, I never thought of it that way.”

  14. We should not lose sight of the fact that the IPCC’s purpose is to achieve consensus. Paragraph 10 of the ‘Procedures Guiding IPCC Work’, for example, states that “In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus”.

    In contrast, science uses ‘all best endeavors’ to determine the truth. Consensus should be a side-effect of such endeavour, not its purpose. Unfortunately, because of the IPCC’s approach, levels of agreement cannot be trusted as a metric for measuring scientific certainty, since they are also a metric for the extent to which the IPCC has succeeded in its purpose.

  15. A necessary – it may not be sufficient – part of the solution is total separation of state and science, as in the American manner for state and religion:

    [government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of science, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

  16. I think their may be some misunderstanding about ‘red team – blue team’. This is not a debate, at least not in the ordinary sense. In wargaming, and other usages, a blue team sets up a scenario, or is given a situation, and a red team is formed to analyze, probe fore weaknesses and formulate various attacks. The blue team responds to the attacks, or shows how the red team analysis/approach is flawed or defeated. If they can’t do that successfully, then they must revise their position or strategy and the process can repeat, either by rerunning the original red team attack, or creating a new attack to the revised blue team position.

    This approach is not uncommon in cybersecurity, where ‘friendly’ red teams try to attack networks to find vulnerabilities.

    To use this approach for climate science, it seems to me that you need to pick a target that is quantifiable and tangible (so the process can be straightforward) and also important to the overall controversy (so the result will make a difference). For that reason, I have previously contended that the GSM models should be the initial red team/blue team target. The other advantage with targeting the GSMs is that computer scientists that are experienced simulation gurus but without climate science credentials could be teamed with physicists, skeptical climate scientists, etc. to really dig deep into the models. If some of the models are good, they’ll find them, and if some are garbage, they’ll expose those and hopefully clean up the ensembles.

    • Taylor, to add to your point, as I indicated in a separate post, for the R-B team concept to work, the two teams must have respect for each other and be willing to “revise their position or strategy..” iteratively.

      I do not think that is possible in the current polarization (and politization) of the topic.

      • Agree that’s an issue. I think finding a red team would be easy, finding blue team members might be tougher. Alarmists have been typically reluctant to debate/defend against competent skeptics.

        In a true debate, however, each team must be prepared to take either side. I’ve been involved in debates where the position for the teams is not determined until just before the start.

        Ahh, that sort of intellectually pure environment would be a great breakthrough in climate science, but don’t hold your breath…

      • Maybe a neutral party from the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) since it’s computer models. It must be a high profile individual with no real connection to climate wars. Frankly, someone like Bob Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet, founder of 3COM, prof now at UT-Austin, and with moderate political views. He would be a great choice.

      • Taylor

        Fair comment, but I meant generally.

        And I wonder if a red/blue team in the conventional sense, have a united objective, for example to win a battle or to achieve a complicated computing objective for their mutual protection, profit or job prospects.

        The problem I see with the re/blue climate debate is there are polar opposite objectives. One with the zealous desire to safe the planet by active intervention, the other being that the planet isn’t at risk in the first place.

        There are numerous sub plots to the first group, personal success, the natural desire to interfere irrespective of the outcome, ego, financial gain, job prospects, personal agenda’s, politics, revenge etc. Mixing those people with the second, fairly benign group, would be a recipe for disaster, they would inevitably use the opportunity of being on their rival team to feather their own nest.

  17. I would like to make one point in regards to this. A potential red team- blue team exercise must focus on the policy-related science to be of value. The control policy hypothesis is that GHG emission reductions will reduce global warming enough to warrant the investments necessary and to out-weigh the benefits fossil fueled energy could to provide those without any or reliable electricity. Therefore, the IPCC statement that humans are the “main cause” of the current global warming is not the statement to test because it does not differentiate between GHG effects and all the other human factors.

    • Exactly! The science can be endlessly debated, and leads to lots of ‘eye rolls’ in the public who aren’t fascinated with the details. It’s the policies that drive laws and regulations, which is why I said (above) that the climate models should be the focus. It’s not the ECS figure that drives the policy debate, it’s the models that say the earth is going to burn up in 50 or 100 years. Prove those unfit for purpose, and you make the policies and the regulations impossible to defend. Arguing over station sitings and measurement error may be fun, but it’s what the models do with the data that’s important.

      • ECS and TCR (based on CO2 forcing and assumed feedbacks) drive the models, Taylor. Since the dastardly Russian models have lower ECS and TCR, they more faithfully follow actual atmospheric temperature measurements.

      • Yes, I understand about ECS and TCS. They are model-drivers, and thus subject to question and confirmation in the team exercise. However, they are not the political drivers. Politically, any proposed actions are driven by the climate consequences spelled out by the models. Prove the models wrong, you defeat the political agenda.

        Your point about the Russian models with lower TCS is well taken, however. The outcome of the team exercise should be an ensemble that better reflects reality, both in hindcasting, and in match to satellite records, as well as a realistic RCP scenario. The result is almost certainly a non-alarmist forecast.

  18. “land temperatures from stations at airports went from 30 to 85%; ”

    sorry wrong. Man, he used ghcn version 2!!!! jesus.

    The first thing you need to realize is that the station metadata is not the best source of indicating whether a station is at an airport or not. Especially not GHCN monthly metadata, and never version 2!!!. OMG that’s so out of date. His chart shows less than 500 stations. CLUE BIRD !! there are nearly 20000 GHCN DAILY stations that he should have looked at. You can do a whole series of Non airport stations around the world,

    Instead of simply TRUSTING the ghcn v2 metadata, like fred did, You can actually CHECK IT !
    Imagine that!
    There is a huge open source database compiled by actual pilots who record the position of runways with incredible accuracy. landing you know. Further they record whether the airport is small ( often dirt) medium, or large.
    In addition you can use 30 meter land surface type to actually tell how much is runway and how much is grass, if you want to check the acuracy of their description. And the database tells if the airport is opened or closed.
    Its simple to write a program to check the closed ones. You use R and google earth and spit out google earth views of all the airports. takes a while to page through hundreds and thousands of pictures, but hey its fun.
    Anyway, what you will find is that you should not trust the metadata that comes with temperature files. You gotta check. Also, before there used to be a detailed FAA database of airports and locations, but that got taken down.. terror threat. Either way, if yiu were lucky enough to have that FAA dataset or the open source one, you can compare.

    If you do that then you can really compare these two series

    A) only airport stations
    B) no airport stations.

    What will you find?

    no difference.

    why is simple.

    • Your lemon has no wheels and a rusty hole in the floor , Mosh..

      Its not going to sell to anyone, so just keep sucking on it.

    • Since the atmosphere drives the surface temperature, according to AGW physics, how come the atmosphere is not responding to the “physics,” Mr. Mosher. Is that a Weed Patch in which you don’t want to Wander aimlessly?

      Could it be that the surface temperature estimates are fatally flawed and not fit for fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems? Could historical temperature gathering, adjusting and combining into averages be flawed? They don’t comport with more accurate radiosonde and satellite estimates.

    • Mosh,
      No difference in trend? In anomaly? In value? Be specific for once. For example, rural stations are generally cooler in absolute terms than urban stations. If you want an exercise, try infilling urban areas with high quality corresponding rural stations and then infilling rural areas with urban stations. Which approach shows the most warming over the last 100 years?

  19. The manic focus on CO2 is a huge waste of time and resources. This pittance of a gas [0.06% of the weight of the atmosphere] just goes along for the ride on convection currents that involve or relate to the other 99.64% of the atmospheric mass.

  20. The existence of such a debate would be proof in itself that the “climate science” is not settled. I can see then why those supporting AGW/CAGW would not want the Red team/Blue team process to continue.

    Further, the idea also highlights the problems with “climate science” peer review, again something the AGW/CAGW folks would like to see suppressed.

    • JohnWho

      Expect Obama to have his grubby digits buried deep in the Red/Blue debate. After all it was that idiot who stood up in front of the world and proclaimed the science settled.

      He won’t want that contradicted.

  21. “…land temperatures from stations at airports went from 30 to 85%…”

    Actually, according to the article cited as the source of this statistic, it went from 35% to 80%. Always check original sources!

  22. where is the quality control in P-R? how can one be sure that two different papers were given the same level of scrutiny?

    the process itself is flawed by secrecy and lack of accountability. in those sciences that cannot be confirmed by replication Peer Review is little more than Political Correctness wearing a lab coat.

    Try and publish a study that contradicts Political Correctness. It cannot be done in the modern Academic environment. your results will be greeted by a lynch mob.

    even r-b debate is held hostage. self censorship is inevitable when certain truths are held to be true without proof. science quickly descends to the level of religious intolerance.

    • ferdberple

      There was a paper questioning the vilification of colonialisation written in 2017.

      It was peer reviewed and destined for publication before the editor received death threats.

      The author withdrew the paper so the editor and his family remained safe.

      It seems trying to publish any controversial study these days is fraught with peril.

      Coincidentally, I happened to be debating the case for colonialisation some weeks before with my daughters boyfriend before I knew of the paper.

      The paper is here if it’s of any interest.

    • The reason it is flawed, is Reward, either by money , or Power, or both. Many of the Warmists are already rich beyond their current or future needs, so what is left is Power and Perception of Power (Obama, Gore, Steyer, Mann, Mueller, etc.) Notice how they first get into the Universities, funded by unlimited amounts of vague Tax Payer dollars, then use that influence to funnel State and Federal dollars (It’s a State, or National Emergency) into Grants and the like, pile thousands of paid “Research Associates” onto the “Dole”, to do the leg work (Guess which way they are as I say, or no pay, and we take out the wrungs of your Scholastic/ future Degree ladder). I remember doing Marine Biology research and finding out the only reward was getting a mention, along with a hundred others, at the back of the paper, which was “AUTHORED by…” ….., who was often away on far flung conferences, data collecting expeditions, and the like. If the final research aligned with the purported purpose of his current and future funding, then it was good, if not, went into growing mushrooms. Damn the Science..

  23. The Red-Blue debate needs to be at least tried. Egos may doom the particular format, but in starting somewhere and pushing forward, the process may lead to other/better revelations in presenting the data. In the meantime, I believe alarmist will have an improved opportunity to review the other-side science and who exactly backs it (non-fossil fuel or political sources); especially laymen who tend to be led around by their noses. Certainly science will benefit from this effort to take back the industry that has been corrupted beyond belief.

  24. The graphs of CO2 & temperature and CO2 & wind given by Richard Verney (and used by Ferdinand Engelbeen) do not come from Giessen (Germany) but from meteoLCD, our meteorological station in Diekirch, Luxembourg (of which I am the manager). This is a semi-rural station located in a valley at about 218m asl. The CO2 pattern given are the raw measured data (for standard conditions, 25°C and 1013 hPa), and clearly show the effect of mixing: usually a considerable peak in the morning when ground air has not yet been heated by the sun (or even when an inversion happens), and much lower reading in the afternoon when the convection uplifts and dilutes ground air.
    The live measurement data are here:
    You may read this older 2007 paper which contains the above mentioned graphs:

    • Francis,

      Nice to hear from you!
      Just put the same remark as yours under Richard’s contribution.
      The second graph is from Giessen, Mauna Loa, Barrow and South Pole at the same days as the graph from Diekirch…
      That shows that you need stations far away from contaminants to give the right CO2 concentrations and trends…

  25. I don’t know how many times Lucy needs to pull the climate football out from in front of those scientists who actually believe that a red-blue debate or peer review will ever go anywhere. The mantra of the alarmists is the ends justify the means. Facts are incidental to the discussion and, if inconvenient, are ignored. To compromise is not an option. Period. The game is hard ball. The CAGW movement can only be dismantled by legislation, by fiat, by massive efforts to inform the public, by changing regulations, by redirecting research funding, by litigation and by stimulating the development of oil and gas resources. The time for discourse is over. Gore and other opportunists have run out the string on their global warming fantasy.

  26. I hate using these political, emotional and cultural colors!
    Of course the skeptics get red. I’m sure it wasn’t a drawing of lots.
    Of course the greenies get blue, I’m sure it wasn’t a drawing of lots.
    Can’t use green either. Allegations of pandering and slandering!
    Yellow means danger, orange you glad, purple means dinosaur.
    Brown is cultural appropriation, because one can’t be too careful.
    Black has been appropriated by a race of odd color-blind brown people.
    Featureless white is taken too, it’s the universal color of Javascript.turned off.

    GRAY vs. GREY

  27. What commonly goes by the name of “peer review” is actually a form of gate keeping that insures the publishers that they don’t lose their reputations (and ability to charge high subscription fees) from publishing material that is of no scientific value. It doesn’t really provide a thorough vetting of the content. The real peer review takes place after research is published and the peers of the research team get a chance to look it over carefully and comment on it publicly, in the same journal. Ideally, replication should be attempted and reported on. In that vein, WUWT provides a more thorough evaluation than an anonymous gate keeper pressed for time. Similarly, any kind of red/blue team review would be more thorough than simple gate keeping. For something as important (and with such a politically high profile) as climate change, public vetting is very much needed! That is exactly why alarmists are not in favor of the public laundering of their reputations. If they were as confident of their claims as they try to appear to be, they would welcome verification.

Comments are closed.