Vox: Conservatives Can’t be Persuaded About Climate Change

‘The social sciences know a lot and we know what to do next to help with the climate and energy problems,’ said Michigan State University professor Thomas Dietz. ‘But so far there is almost no funding. One estimate is that the United States invests less than 3 percent of the funds it puts into energy hardware research into social science energy research. But if technologies don’t get adopted and used, they don’t have any impact.’ CREDIT South Bend Voice/Flickr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Vox reporter David Roberts thinks Conservatives can’t be persuaded to change their minds about climate change because we’ve been instructed to ignore climate facts by our “elites”.

Conservatives probably can’t be persuaded on climate change. So now what?

One more round of “messaging” won’t do it.

Updated by David Roberts Nov 10, 2017, 8:40am EST

When it comes to climate change, US conservatives inhabit a unique position, as part of the only major political party in the democratic world to reject the legitimacy of climate science and any domestic policy or international agreement meant to address it. Instead, the GOP is working actively to increase production and consumption of fossil fuels and to slow the transition to renewable energy.

How can conservatives be moved on climate change?

Core values, not science, are what drive conservative opposition, Dixon tells Grossman, and “free markets” are a core value for conservatives. They view climate policy as a threat to free markets, which is the real reason they reject climate science, so messaging should assuage those fears.

This is wrong.

Elites shape opinion, only elites can change it

Say we accept that the majority of hardcore conservatives have negative opinions on climate change, and they see those opinions as reflective of deep ideological values. What should be done about it?

There are two hidden premises that typically inform such discussions.

The first is that the only sensible response is to persuade all those conservatives. That’s why the focus inevitably turns to messaging and “framing,” the endless search for the right tone of voice, the right combination of arguments, the right mix of facts, stories, and imagery, to move the conservative mind. That’s what so many thousands of hours of effort have gone toward over the last decades.

But it’s backward, as Mullin says. Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.

And how are political opinions shaped in the real world?

Well, as I’ve written many times, public opinion is not some great enduring mystery. There’s a decent consensus in the social sciences on what most moves public opinion: elite cues.

Conservatives think climate change is a communist plot because that’s what the right’s elites have told them.

Reality still matters. What we have in the US is not a “difference of opinion” about climate change, it’s conservatives being mistaken about some very basic facts. They’re mistaken because they’ve been lied to and misled by leaders and influencers within their own tribe.

That’s the situation. But it’s not stable. The weather is only getting worse, young people are only getting more engaged, and clean energy is only getting cheaper. Climate change and clean energy will be winning issues in the long term.

Why not claim and own them while it’s still possible? Then the GOP’s motto in the 2020s can be: “Hey, We Like Clean Energy Too!”

In reality, Democrats probably don’t have the wherewithal to mount that kind of fight. But that’s the only thing that has a chance of breaking the stalemate. The quest to persuade US conservatives on climate change has been extraordinarily long, vigorous, and well-documented. It has also been largely fruitless. Perhaps it’s time for a little agonism.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/10/16627256/conservatives-climate-change-persuasion

David has apparently moved on from advocating trying to buy off our leaders; he now he wants more “agonism”, more political aggression from his fellow travellers to try to take ownership of the climate issue.

I always find it entertaining to read green analysis of Conservative thinking. Such analysis tend to reveal far more about the way the green left thinks, than any deep insight into the thought processes of Conservatives.

We don’t follow our elites.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kokoda - AZEK (Deck Boards) doesn't stand behind its product
November 11, 2017 8:06 am

As a youngster, I always thought the Pied Piper illustrations were a bunch of malarkey; humanity was smarter than that. The world has proven me wrong.


This was on “Vox.” ‘Nuff said? Vox is part of the deep-blue circle jerk of HuffPo, NYT, WashPo, New York, The Atlantic, The Guardian and NPR. Who only listen to or read, and quote, each other. At this point they live in a world all their own, wholly constructed of the Narrative they all agree upon. Since they have no contact with the rest of us (as witness their minions’ recent “safari” trips to Red State America!) and think we’re much, much dumber than they are, they make up stuff about us that fits their (alternate universe) worldview.

Curious George
Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 10:15 am

The problem is not to persuade conservatives. The problem is to persuade Mother Nature.

Neil Watson
Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 11:22 am

Circle jerk or coprophagic daisy chain.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 11:35 am

Very concise post, AGW/green fascism became the globalist arm chair Communist religion of choice after the Soviet fell.

Without central planning, the taxes and mandates associated to their existence, what would they doing anyway if the climate fraud didn’t exist?

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 1:11 pm

Like everything from these lot, this is a perfectly textbook case of psychological projection.
Liberals will literally never change their minds about anything, ever, or buck any orthodoxy imposed upon their minds by their “thought leaders”.
They are the most perfectly servile pack of lackwit lackeys I have ever even heard of in all of my born days.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 1:13 pm

Articles like this are actually instructions, beamed into the brains of anyone who reads the drivel of the hack writers at Vox.

Bill Powers

Liberalism is socialistic politics. It is populated with group think, collectivist, sheeple.
Group think requires leadership and said leaders require motivating issues to move the groups in unison. These issues are mostly hobgoblins, as H.L. Mencken referred to them to frighten the sheeple to clamor for government salvation. They have special interest Pied Pipers “fearsayers” who move the group to act against their own self interest and against those trying to prevent them from marching into the deep dark cold river that will drown them.

Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, gravitate toward individual liberty, personal responsibility and limited government. As such they try to elect people to represent their interest by protect their liberties and to guard against autocratic rule. They don’t need or want leaders to tell them what they need to do.

It makes me laugh that the Propaganda Ministry of the left, have themselves become so brainwashed, that they think the right has Leaders that can convince us to abandon all reason and logic and redirect us into their raging river of fear and guilt.

As a footnote: both the Democrat and Republican Parties have let conservatives and libertarians down. The two party system has become corrupted and most politicians have sold their souls for wealth and privilege to the very elites that the propagandists want you to believe are politically split. Elites have no politics only interests that serve themselves the wealth holders They own both parties (bought and paid for) and deploy political wrangling as a magician misdirection trick. Those who think that either party represents the little guy or liberty are either idiots or liars.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 10:34 am

+100. Without exception, you can read what the socialists accuse others of, and know that’s what they themselves do.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 11:44 am

What I predicted years ago has come to pass. WUWT years ago filled its pages with spaghetti charts on ice sheets and every technical topic imaginable to debate endless on green blobs terms. The corrupt central planning agenda now plainly obvious to the mainstream debate was distant secondary focus.

It was always politically motivated and board consensus and the society have moved forward. The Vox article is angry capitulation and back to the war drum of “settled science” as the fraud of AGW has become common knowledge.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 12:04 pm

Bill P, a lot of truth in what you wrote.

And for more “obvious truths”‘, here is my 2 cents worth, to wit:

After enjoying a fairly successful “run” during the past 221 years (1796-2017), according to Harry Rubenstein, the American Democracy, or Constitutional Republic iffen you prefer, …… is repeating the History of the Roman Empire by being “on track” to self-implosion and total collapse and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it from happening ……… because it is impossible to “re-nurture” and/or ”re-educate” the past three (3) generations of the American populace to respect and abide by the COTUS and the Rule of Law.

And thus the written words of Flavius Josephus (37- 100 AD) are still true today, in the 21st Century, to wit:

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.


John G.
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 12:18 pm

+ 100 Leave it to the left to project their own lemming instincts, i.e to group together and follow the leader wherever he leads, even into oblivion, onto conservatives and libertarians whose instincts are to to be independent, exercise individual responsibility and get government out of the way. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a perfect ruse for the government, no matter who is in charge, to force everyone into communitarian conformance mode and so to obey their orders to save the world. Liberals love it and readily join up. Conservatives and libertarians ask does it make sense, then they look at the history of the world and the science and see it doesn’t make sense. A little thought convinces them they’re being played like the liberal patsies who have already joined up to save the planet. They reject it. Louder arguments have little effect on well thought out skepticism.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 1:40 pm

John G,
Yes indeed, and right you are.
But there is a simpler and more direct way to say it: CAGW is a pack of lies, and once a person sees through the lies they are being told, it is impossible to persuade them that that shit is shinola.

Articles like this are a desperate attempt to instruct people not to look at evidence, just think what you are told to think.
Look at these two statements from the article:
“Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.”
“Elites shape opinion, only elites can change it”

Unlike the rest of the article, these statements are presented as obvious truisms. Liberals know, or ought to, that these statements are true, in the carefully designed misdirection of the writer (If it is not deliberate misdirection, but an actual conviction, that is even worse).
Being asserted as fundamental truths are two statements that are as wrong as wrong can be.
This guy is stating plainly that, in his worldview, political thought decides what is scientifically true, and that only our betters have valid ideas, and we all think only what they tell us to think.

There seems to be some vague awareness on the writers part that some people are not following this script, that reality is not matching up with the lies. To a liberal, the only solution is to reject reality in favor of the lies.
And this is exactly what we see from warmistas.

Paul Blase
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Samuel C Cogar: see https://www.amazon.com/How-Civilizations-Die-Islam-Dying/dp/159698273X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484409629&sr=8-1&keywords=how+civilizations+die+and+why+islam+is+dying+too+by+david+goldman
“How Civilizations Die”by David Goldman. It’s all happened before, at least 3 times: the Minoan, Classical Greek, and Roman collapses, and for pretty much the same reasons.

To make it pertinent to WUWT, I remember a while back an article, or a comment on one, that mentioned a correlation between the peaks of Western Civ and warming periods, and between their falls and cooling periods. It would be interesting to study that further, especially if things are going to start cooling off now.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 12, 2017 4:16 am

Paul Blase – November 11, 2017 at 3:27 pm

that mentioned a correlation between the peaks of Western Civ and warming periods, and between their falls and cooling periods. It would be interesting to study that further, especially if things are going to start cooling off now.

Thanks, Paul, ….. the correlation between the “rise” of Western Civilizations and noted warm periods has always been a “given” for me ……. but I never thought much about the correlation between the “fall” of those civilizations and the cooling of the climate, …… which is obviously also a “given” as denoted by this graph, to wit:
comment image

It appears, via the above graph, that the denoted “culture” that arose the quickest and improved the most during the “warming of the climate” ……. is also the culture” that fell the fastest and landed the hardest when the “cooling of the climate” began.

Which appears to be another obvious “fact”, simply because, the vast numbers of “troughfeeding” citizens of the “top-dog” culture have not been nurtured, educated and/or trained to “survive” a cooling of the climate, …… thus they will destroy themselves and their culture in a futile attempt to survive.

“HA”, to be consistent, they surely should change the names of the Medieval Warm Period and the Late 20th Century Warm Period …… to ……. the Western European Warm Period and the American Warm Period.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 12, 2017 6:36 am

The quote:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-HL Mencken

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 12, 2017 10:39 am


Reply to  Bill Powers
November 13, 2017 10:15 pm

sam c – what’s that graph’s
data source….? interesting.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 14, 2017 6:24 am

crackers345 – November 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

This site references the actual source of that graph, to wit:

There are other similar graphs that denote the Warm Periods, …. use Google “Image” to find them.


Perhaps this will help those whom believe in carbon dioxide is a miracle gas—– http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/146416825/17316249

Basically droughts in Australia were predicted by sunspot minima. Also seems like in my school years it was our star that controlled the weather on this planet. Now it’s man and he needs to be taxed to death, for his sins.

Reply to  Larry
November 11, 2017 5:16 pm

Not just Australia. The history of China was sorely affected by the droughts of the Maunder Minimum:


Reply to  Larry
November 11, 2017 5:36 pm

so in addition to AGW from
our ghg emissions, we have
to worry about the sun too.
that just makes everything

Reply to  Larry
November 11, 2017 10:17 pm

Cheer up Crackers.

The classic fairy tales of old still hold good value for society, if the lessons are heeded.

Shawn Marshall

Truly an apt remark – the world today is stunningly full of falsehood.

Joel Snider

Think how many presumptions and predetermined opinions must be in place for ANYONE to hold the opinion advanced in this article.
And then think how riigidly close-minded you would have to be.

November 11, 2017 8:07 am

“To Change Everything It Takes Everyone”

And if you disagree with what we say must be changed and how it should be changed, you must be pushed aside (metaphorically… at first).

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 9:54 am

“To Change Everything It Takes Everyone”. Communism by any other definition…..

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 12:13 pm

“To Change Everything It Takes Everyone”.

Yup, shur nuff, ……. just like …… “It takes a village to raise a child”.

“Tripe n’ piffle” ……. is “brain food” for the lefty liberals and politically corrupt.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 2:40 pm

And those who do not go along with the crowd will be dealt with properly.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 12:34 pm

“For everything to stay the same, everything must change”


A word of truth about revolutions, from the one in Sicily 1860.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 5:13 pm

What is so horrible that needs changing?

Humanity has never had it so good, and more of whatever we’re doing now is liable to be even better.

Reply to  Gabro
November 12, 2017 10:42 pm

And that is what the far left need to change.

Russ R.
November 11, 2017 8:11 am

Conservatives are a herd of cats. But we know where the mice are, and we know where the wolves are. And all the propaganda in the world does not change the bottom line. If the data supported the claim, we would be leading the charge, dragging the whining Liberals as they waffle. Since the data does not, no amount of “elites” saying it does, or “will at some future point” really matters to us.

Reply to  Russ R.
November 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Hear! Hear! If it is appealing regardless of its veracity and/or reality and it can be taken to the level of applied simplism then it can be dogmatized and made into a profitable political issue.

Paul Blase
Reply to  Russ R.
November 11, 2017 3:29 pm

Yes. The possibility of error on the part of the “elite” never enters the mind of the Vox writers! It simply never occurs to them that a dissenting opinion could be honestly held.

Reply to  Paul Blase
November 12, 2017 3:04 am

It sure does not occur to them that a dissenting opinion might actually be correct.

Reply to  Paul Blase
November 12, 2017 3:57 am

What the collectivists will never understand is that individualists never take marching orders. We cooperate and join together after coming to the same reasoned conclusions by ourselves — and then only to the limits of reason. We naturally are suspicious of “elites” and will nitpick even the ones who mostly agree with us.

Reply to  Russ R.
November 12, 2017 10:33 am

Damn straight!

November 11, 2017 8:16 am

I could be persuaded.
Give me raw data that shows the changes.
Give me actual scientific data that shows it is caused by CO2.

So far for raw, I have adjusted, readjusted, rereajusted… to re^20000adjusted data where the completely impossible situation of every single past reading was too high and every single recent reading was too low, so you had to cool the past temperature readings and raise the recent temperature readings. That is not science, that is fraud. Neutral and cooling trends around the world in raw data have been converted to sharply increasing trends. I call that lies, not science.
As for whether or not CO2 warms the atmosphere, there are competing actions, and the reality tends to be that CO2 does not in fact warm, but rather simply spreads the warmth around the globe. My personal unvalidated view is that unless the surface area of the planet increases, there are not more photons being introduced into the atmosphere, and since that spectrum is very much completely saturated already, no warming can occur. This energy travels at the speed of light, so even if it is slowed down, it is trivial at best. If CO2 was such a great insulator for keeping places warm, why exactly are deserts so cold at night? That is where the greatest growth in night time temperatures would be.

In closing. If you can come up with factual data and a robust tie to CO2 showing that CO2 will in fact cause a problem, I am persuadable. But if all you have is lies in data and a loose tie to CO2 and even that does not point to a problem since the rate of warming shown is not significant, do not expect me to jump on the destroy the economy at all costs bandwagon that human hating people want me on.

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 11:55 am

Here you go

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 12:03 pm

Simon, why is the Transient Climate Response currently around 1 K and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity currently around 2 K, with both descending as a function of time ? this is the core of the UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis and their predicted value was originally up to 9 K and is now 3.2 K.

You are wrong by a factor of around 2 – 3 ! That is a HUGE error. And as time goes on your hypothesis becomes more and more falsified. It is currently faslified at the 95% level according to the IPCC’s own error bars.

Now tell me, why is a TCR of 1 K and a ECS of 2 K, or less, a problem that requires the transfer of sovereignty from the citizens to an unelected, anti-democratic globalist ‘elite’ who can use coercion against the citizens of the World ?

The science is against you. Even worse, morality and liberty are against you. History will judge you as the bad guy.

These are the facts.

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 12:33 pm

“The science is against you. Even worse, morality and liberty are against you. History will judge you as the bad guy”
What sort of drivel is this?
But I have to hand it to you, you seemed to have nailed it with your” Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity ” theory. Who would have thought it would be that simple? Maybe the next step is to write a paper and submit it. After it’s peer reviewed we can all go home for a sleep. Hurrah!!!!

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 12:56 pm

I am pretty certain that I made my request for evidence exceptionally clear.

Give me raw data that shows the changes.

Berkley is not using raw data, but the same corrupted data every other liar group is using to push their agenda.

Give me actual scientific data that shows it is caused by CO2.

Correlation does not demonstrate causation. It has clearly been proven through Ice Cores that CO2 levels follow warming, not the other way around. Since the Earth has been warming since the irrefutable event of the little ice age, it is the most likely cause of rising CO2. This is further proven by many other scientific facts. Cold water can hold more CO2 dissolved in it than warm water can. This is a scientific fact that is irrefutable.

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:05 pm

There is no reason to suppose that CO2 controls the temperature of the surface of the Earth.
If this were the case the paleo and historical evidence would show it.
But when we examine these records of past trends, we see nothing like that.
I do not know what information from newly collected data could do to erase that knowledge from our minds.
If it is true, it was true in the past, and is true now, and will always be true.
It is not true.

So, there is more going on, plainly.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that a warming planet is a dangerous place.
In fact the available historic and paleo records show exactly the opposite…warmer is good, colder is bad.
Warmer is wetter and more clement and more stable and thus more conducive to life and to prosperity.
Cold is exactly the opposite.

On top of that is the benefit of the CO2 molecule itself to literally the entire biosphere.
It, along with water, is what is converted to all of the molecules that are part of a living organism on our planet (Yeah, yeah… deep sea vent stuff aside) Our entire biosphere is constructed from carbon dioxide, reduced into glucose by the energy from the sun inside the cells of green plants.
And this molecule, the molecule of life, is in dangerously short supply in the reservoir of our atmosphere.

Add it all up, and we are not missing a key piece of data or one good argument away from the truth of CAGW.
Far from it, and in fact the opposite is closer to the truth.
Every word of it is a patchwork of lies, a web of deceit, a huge steaming load of ripe stinky garbage.
It needs to go into the trash bin of history where it belongs

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:33 pm

Sorry Berkeley DOES USE RAW DATA.

Other providers use monthly data which can be adjusted ( even if it says unadjusted in the metadata)
That’s Why we use daily data. There isnt any adjustment proceedure for daily data. Using daily data we construct raw monthly data. Sorry.

The bottom line however is this. if you only use raw data for both SST and Land then you get a record that is COOLER than the adjusted record. Yes, the net effect of ALL ADJUSTMENTS to ALL RECORDS is to
Cool the record, not warm it.

To find warming adjustments here is how you have to cherry pick.

read that slowly, to FIND warming adjustments you HAVE to CHERRY PICK

1. Ignore 70% of the surface — the ocean adjustments cool
2. Ignore Africa 20% of the surface, adjustments cool
3. Ignore Europe , Neutral adjustments

And Focus on the 1-8% of surface area where the adjustments warm the record.

And if you really want to cherry pick select 1/20th of the stations in the us (USHCN) and parade those adjustments while you ignore the 15000 stationsa that are no adjusted

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 3:00 pm

You are getting close to convincing everyone that you are the honest car salesman in the room.
Do not pay attention to this article…one or two more long winded ranting bullshit stories and you will win us over.
Good luck!

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 3:23 pm

àSimon and Nick
sorry, but this doen’t show any link whatsoever.
show us a model tuned to fit temperature 1850-1920 (with NO data past 1920), show us that this model works 1920-1970, i.e., is able to explain the warming 1920-1940 and the cooling 1940-1970, show us what this model says the temperature would have been 1970-2010 without human CO2.
Then you would have something to hint at (just hint at, not prove!) a link…
But you have no such thing. All you have is a dogma, as solid as the link between jews and medieval black plague, or Salem event and witchcraft.

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 3:36 pm

Yep Mosh, If they data shows sufficient UHI or airport effect, it will not be adjusted by WORST. !!

You are probably one of the WORST used car salesmen in the world.

You have sold so many lemons, that people just aren’t buying anything you are trying to sell any more.

You denigrate Muller and his AGW troughers. A race to see who can drag who to the very bottom of the swamp.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 10:43 pm

Steve Mosher: Your statements
“The bottom line however is this. if you only use raw data for both SST and Land then you get a record that is COOLER than the adjusted record. ”
“Yes, the net effect of ALL ADJUSTMENTS to ALL RECORDS is to Cool the record, not warm it.”
appear to be in conflict with one another. Do we get a COOLER record with the raw data, or is the COOLER record the effect of ALL ADJUSTMENTS?

Reply to  Simon
November 12, 2017 3:53 pm

The adjustments mostly cool the past to create a steady trend over time when there has been no overall steady trend over time.
In order to make the present seem like it is hotter than any time in the past, the records from past years have been adjusted down.
And not randomly adjusted down, scattershot like…but in a certain over all pattern.
By some very odd coincidence, the pattern of all of all of the adjustments is the exact same shape as the curve of CO2 over time.
Mr. Mosher is repeating (sloppily, as it turns out) a very old and tired heap of misdirection.
No one says or has ever asserted that the fr@udulent adjustments warm the overall record.
What they do is manufacture a fake long term trend, and remove long periods of cooling temps, like from roughly 1950 to about 1980, as well as reducing previous very hot periods, such as the 1930s, because those periods are very inconvenient and wreck CO2 alarmist propaganda.
Hard to say it is hotter than ever when it was hotter in the 1930s.
Hard to say it is hotter than ever when their own graphs showed, in the late 1990s, that there had been no net warming for over a hundred years.
It becomes much easier to scare people when you lie like hell and make fake graphs that look very scary.
Long winded babbling about the direction of the fake adjustments are just silly. Straw man arguments do not get any more transparent.

The sum total of all adjustments, plotting CO2 concentration vs adjustments to data:
comment image

See here for a discussion of the probabilities of this being an honest mistake or a legitimate attempt to correct some error:


Aaand… a look at how the time series graph for the US used to look in1999, vs how it looks in 2017
comment image

Reply to  Simon
November 13, 2017 10:01 pm

menich – adjustments
reduce the long-term
warming trend. are
you aware? you’d like
it to be higher?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 1:22 pm

“liar group ” that’s interesting. You are aware of the history behind Berkley? They were the true skeptics who were going to do the in depth study and sort the whole corrupted data out once and for all. Hell, even Anthony Watts was happy…”I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.”

But it seems their results weren’t quite what the skeptic team were hoping for, and sadly many who were happy to go with the results no matter Watt, seemed to reverse there original enthusiasm when the final results were released. Anyway, the graph above, which shows a clear link between CO2 and temperature (something AW accepts) is not what you want to believe, so you ignore it. Then you cry you want the raw data. Well if the raw data is so good, why has no one been able to use it to disprove what the skeptics are desperate for? In fact, as far as I am aware there has not been a study done that supports what you assert. The Global Warming Policy Foundation were on for it a year or two ago. They asked for submissions, but nothing came of it. One can only assume it was because they got nothing they could use to support what you are saying.

So … if you think the data is corrupt, then prove it. If you are a true skeptic then provide the evidence to support that what you say is correct. Lets see what you have?

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:12 pm

Simon – maybe you should be aware of the History of berkley – FWIW – berkley were never true skeptics

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:27 pm

Tom13 – the non climate scientist
Really, define a true skeptic?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:34 pm

And Berkley was once all about free speech too …

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 2:54 pm

The truth is that these people did not try and remove any of the corruption. In the end, they used the corrupted data as it was and unsurprisingly came up with the same conclusions. Math kind of works like that. Same garbage in, same garbage out. Sure, they said that was what they were going to do. That was their stated goal, and sure Anthony jumped in on it believing them. He was scammed.
Berkley is not using pristine sited high quality data. Instead, they are using the same corrupted data that is used everywhere else. They did not put any efforts into changing methodology, instead, they used the same methods as the rest of the corrupted data was getting.
Here is a clue for you. When you have an instrument at an expanding airport, and instrument in the middle of a rapidly growing city, and an instrument out in the countryside in a more or less unchanging environment, how do you homogenize these three data sets? I can tell you how I would not homogenize them. I would not leave the airport and city numbers alone and change the pristine countryside data to match those other two.

I understand there are a large number of stations and millions upon millions of measurements, and that there are dependencies between the data that need to be made to make them compatible to tell the story. That is all fine and good. I understand that all of these things cannot be singularly changed and have reasonable data and results in a reasonable time. So, there will be automation, and assumptions, and some mistakes will be made, but using averaging, there would be as many positive changes as there are negative ones, which in the end would settle out to an acceptable result.

But, that is the thing, if these are mistakes, errors, and average run of the mill changes to homogenize things, approximately half the changes would be positive and half would be negative, and for every big positive change there would be a likely positive negative change. If every bank error is always in favor of the bank, that is not errors, it is fraud. Same goes with climate records. If every single adjustment to the record goes to the favor of one outcome, it is not the correction of errors that is happening. It is fraud.

Recently Australia was found to be deleting new record low temperatures, no such deletion of record highs was happening. It also is found to be taking thermometer temperatures against accepted practice of averaging over a period of time, rather taking instantaneous recording, which can vary as much as several degrees over a period of a minute. Revisions to the record there have been shown to take declining or neutral trends and change them to significant increases.
New Zealand had the same thing, and they refused to give the reasons behind the revisions.
Everywhere you look on the world map where there are few to no thermometer records, you find significant increasing temperature trends. Those are great places to show warming, because who can refute you? No one lives there to tell you otherwise. Why is that?

Like I said, provide me raw data that shows that the globe is warming at a rate that is concerning. RAW DATA.

Then show me the science that proves that the warming is caused by CO2 concentration in the Atmosphere.

For pointers, the Earth temperature did not cause a flaming hot atmosphere at 12,000 ppm concentration in the past. That tells me that it will not cause it in the future.
For pointers, the Earth temperature has fluctuated wildly, with ice ages being the predominant global climate.
For pointers, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. The Roman Climate Optimum was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, and before that the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer still. Showing that trend for climate is towards the next ice age and away from catastrophic global warming.

The reason that conservatives are not persuadable by lies is that many of us actually paid attention in school and know more about the past of this planet and are thus immune to lies about it.

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 4:18 pm

” They were the true skeptics ”

Utter and complete BULLS**T

Muller was NEVER a skeptic of any sort.

A con-artist, yes, but never a skeptic,

and his daughter… a MANIC AGW cultist

Reply to  Simon
November 11, 2017 4:26 pm
Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 3:41 pm

For those of you who want to argue but, but, but Berkley Earth!

By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

That there is the guy who heads up Berkley Earth. The supposed neutral guy who was going to provide us with an unbiased assessment of the Earth’s climate.
I will admit, when i first heard about Berkley Earth and BEST, it sounded promising. Unfortunately, what they said before and what they did were not the same. It was a scam intended to give Berkley Earth false credibility by getting Anthony Watts and the other skeptics to support it. Then through the same smoke and mirrors used by the rest of the liars Berkley reproduced and in fact showed greater warming than even NASA was showing.

Here are the stations that have over 100 years continuous operation in the United States of America. That is raw data. Pure, unadulterated raw data.

Years Active
Station State ID First Last
GREENSBORO AL USC00013511 1890 2016
SCOTTSBORO AL USC00017304 1891 2016
SELMA AL USC00017366 1895 2016
TALLADEGA AL USC00018024 1888 2016
UNION SPRINGS 9 S AL USC00018438 1892 2016
VALLEY HEAD AL USC00018469 1893 2016
PARKER AZ USC00026250 1893 2016
PRESCOTT AZ USC00026796 1898 2016
TOMBSTONE AZ USC00028619 1893 2016
BRINKLEY AR USC00030936 1883 2016
CONWAY AR USC00031596 1890 2016
CORNING AR USC00031632 1893 2016
GRAVETTE AR USC00032930 1898 2016
MENA AR USC00034756 1890 2016
NEWPORT AR USC00035186 1884 2016
PINE BLUFF AR USC00035754 1884 2016
POCAHONTAS 1 AR USC00035820 1894 2016
PRESCOTT 2 NNW AR USC00035908 1890 2016
BERKELEY CA USC00040693 1893 2016
CEDARVILLE CA USC00041614 1894 2016
CUYAMACA CA USC00042239 1899 2016
HANFORD 1 S CA USC00043747 1899 2016
INDEPENDENCE CA USC00044232 1893 2016
MERCED CA USC00045532 1899 2016
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL CA USC00046074 1893 2016
PASO ROBLES CA USC00046730 1894 2016
QUINCY CA USC00047195 1895 2016
SANTA BARBARA CA USC00047902 1893 2016
SANTA CRUZ CA USC00047916 1893 2016
SUSANVILLE 2SW CA USC00048702 1893 2016
TEJON RANCHO CA USC00048839 1895 2016
YREKA CA USC00049866 1893 2016
BOULDER CO USC00050848 1893 2016
CANON CITY CO USC00051294 1893 2016
CHEYENNE WELLS CO USC00051564 1893 2016
FT COLLINS CO USC00053005 1893 2016
FT MORGAN CO USC00053038 1896 2016
GUNNISON 3SW CO USC00053662 1893 2016
HOLLY CO USC00054076 1894 2016
LAMAR CO USC00054770 1893 2016
LAS ANIMAS CO USC00054834 1893 2016
ROCKY FORD 2 SE CO USC00057167 1893 2016
TELLURIDE 4WNW CO USC00058204 1900 2016
TRINIDAD CO USC00058429 1898 2016
WRAY CO USC00059243 1893 2016
ARCADIA FL USC00080228 1899 2016
BARTOW FL USC00080478 1892 2016
FEDERAL POINT FL USC00082915 1892 2016
LAKE CITY 2 E FL USC00084731 1892 2016
OCALA FL USC00086414 1892 2016
SAINT LEO FL USC00087851 1895 2016
TARPON SPGS SEWAGE P FL USC00088824 1892 2016
ALBANY 3 SE GA USC00090140 1891 2016
GAINESVILLE GA USC00093621 1891 2016
NEWNAN 5N GA USC00096335 1891 2016
ROME GA USC00097600 1893 2016
TALBOTTON GA USC00098535 1893 2016
TOCCOA GA USC00098740 1891 2016
ASHTON 1N ID USC00100470 1897 2016
CAMBRIDGE ID USC00101408 1894 2016
COEUR D’ALENE ID USC00101956 1895 2016
MOSCOW U OF I ID USC00106152 1893 2016
OAKLEY ID USC00106542 1893 2016
PAYETTE ID USC00106891 1892 2016
PORTHILL ID USC00107264 1892 2016
PRIEST RIVER EXP STN ID USC00107386 1898 2016
AURORA IL USC00110338 1893 2016
CHARLESTON IL USC00111436 1896 2016
DANVILLE IL USC00112140 1895 2016
DECATUR WTP IL USC00112193 1893 2016
DIXON 1 NW IL USC00112348 1893 2016
DU QUOIN 4 SE IL USC00112483 1893 2016
GALVA IL USC00113335 1893 2016
HILLSBORO IL USC00114108 1895 2016
LA HARPE IL USC00114823 1895 2016
MARENGO IL USC00115326 1893 2016
MINONK IL USC00115712 1895 2016
MONMOUTH IL USC00115768 1893 2016
MORRISON IL USC00115833 1895 2016
MT CARROLL IL USC00115901 1895 2016
MT VERNON 3 NE IL USC00115943 1895 2016
OLNEY 2S IL USC00116446 1893 2016
OTTAWA 5SW IL USC00116526 1892 2016
PALESTINE IL USC00116558 1893 2016
PANA IL USC00116579 1893 2016
PARIS STP IL USC00116610 1893 2016
RUSHVILLE 4NE IL USC00117551 1893 2016
WALNUT IL USC00118916 1893 2016
ANDERSON SEWAGE PLT IN USC00120177 1895 2016
ANGOLA IN USC00120200 1893 2016
BLOOMINGTON IN UNIV IN USC00120784 1895 2016
COLUMBUS IN USC00121747 1893 2016
LAPORTE IN USC00124837 1897 2016
MARION 2 N IN USC00125337 1893 2016
MT VERNON IN USC00126001 1888 2016
OOLITIC PURDUE EX FR IN USC00126580 1893 2016
PAOLI IN USC00126705 1898 2016
PRINCETON 1 W IN USC00127125 1893 2016
ROCKVILLE IN USC00127522 1893 2016
WASHINGTON 1 W IN USC00129253 1896 2016
WINAMAC 2SSE IN USC00129670 1897 2016
ALBIA 3 NNE IA USC00130112 1894 2016
ALGONA 3 W IA USC00130133 1893 2016
BELLE PLAINE IA USC00130600 1893 2016
CLARINDA IA USC00131533 1893 2016
CLINTON #1 IA USC00131635 1893 2016
ESTHERVILLE 4E IA USC00132724 1893 2016
FAIRFIELD IA USC00132789 1893 2016
FAYETTE IA USC00132864 1893 2016
FOREST CITY 2 NNE IA USC00132977 1894 2016
FT DODGE 5NNW IA USC00132999 1899 2016
INDIANOLA 2W IA USC00134063 1893 2016
IOWA FALLS IA USC00134142 1893 2016
LE MARS IA USC00134735 1896 2016
LOGAN IA USC00134894 1893 2016
MT AYR IA USC00135769 1893 2016
MT PLEASANT 1 SSW IA USC00135796 1893 2016
NEW HAMPTON IA USC00135952 1897 2016
ROCKWELL CITY IA USC00137161 1894 2016
STORM LAKE IA USC00137979 1893 2016
TOLEDO 3N IA USC00138296 1894 2016
WASHINGTON IA USC00138688 1893 2016
ASHLAND KS USC00140365 1900 2016
COLUMBUS KS USC00141740 1892 2016
FT SCOTT KS USC00142835 1895 2016
HAYS 1 S KS USC00143527 1892 2016
HORTON KS USC00143810 1891 2016
INDEPENDENCE KS USC00143954 1893 2016
LAKIN KS USC00144464 1893 2016
MANHATTAN KS USC00144972 1893 2016
MCPHERSON KS USC00145152 1893 2016
MINNEAPOLIS KS USC00145363 1892 2016
OTTAWA KS USC00146128 1895 2016
SCOTT CITY KS USC00147271 1895 2016
SEDAN KS USC00147305 1893 2016
GREENSBURG KY USC00153430 1889 2016
HENDERSON 8 SSW KY USC00153762 1894 2016
HOPKINSVILLE KY USC00153994 1896 2016
LEITCHFIELD 2 N KY USC00154703 1895 2016
ALEXANDRIA LA USC00160098 1892 2016
CALHOUN RSCH STN LA USC00161411 1892 2016
DONALDSONVILLE 4 SW LA USC00162534 1893 2016
FRANKLIN 3 NW LA USC00163313 1893 2016
GRAND COTEAU LA USC00163800 1893 2016
JENNINGS LA USC00164700 1897 2016
LAFAYETTE RGNL AP LA USW00013976 1893 2016
NEW ORLEANS AUDUBON LA USW00012930 1893 2016
FARMINGTON ME USC00172765 1893 2016
GARDINER ME USC00173046 1886 2016
PRINCESS ANNE MD USC00187330 1894 2016
AMHERST MA USC00190120 1893 2016
BLUE HILL MA USC00190736 1893 2016
LAWRENCE MA USC00194105 1893 2016
ADRIAN 2 NNE MI USC00200032 1887 2016
ALMA MI USC00200146 1887 2016
ANN ARBOR U OF MICH MI USC00200230 1891 2016
BIG RAPIDS WTR WKS MI USC00200779 1896 2016
CHEBOYGAN MI USC00201492 1891 2016
COLDWATER ST SCHOOL MI USC00201675 1897 2016
EAST TAWAS MI USC00202423 1890 2016
HART 3 WSW MI USC00203632 1893 2016
HILLSDALE MI USC00203823 1891 2016
IRON MT KINGSFORD WW MI USC00204090 1899 2016
MT CLEMENS ANG BASE MI USW00014804 1896 2016
MT PLEASANT UNIV MI USC00205662 1895 2016
OWOSSO WWTP MI USC00206300 1896 2016
SOUTH HAVEN MI USC00207690 1895 2016
ADA MN USC00210018 1893 2016
ALBERT LEA 3 SE MN USC00210075 1893 2016
CLOQUET MN USC00211630 1900 2016
DETROIT LAKES 1 NNE MN USC00212142 1895 2016
GRAND MEADOW MN USC00213290 1893 2016
LEECH LAKE MN USC00214652 1893 2016
MILAN 1 NW MN USC00215400 1893 2016
MONTEVIDEO 1 SW MN USC00215563 1893 2016
MORRIS WC EXP STN MN USC00215638 1886 2016
PARK RAPIDS MUNI AP MN USW00094967 1893 2016
PINE RIVER DAM MN USC00216547 1893 2016
PIPESTONE MN USC00216565 1877 2016
SANDY LAKE DAM LIBBY MN USC00217460 1893 2016
ST PETER MN USC00217405 1893 2016
TWO HARBORS MN USC00218419 1894 2016
WINNEBAGO MN USC00219046 1898 2016
ABERDEEN MS USC00220021 1892 2016
BATESVILLE 2 SW MS USC00220488 1891 2016
BOONEVILLE MS USC00220955 1892 2016
BROOKHAVEN CITY MS USC00221094 1893 2016
CANTON 4N MS USC00221389 1892 2016
CORINTH 7 SW MS USC00221962 1895 2016
HATTIESBURG 5SW MS USC00223887 1893 2016
HERNANDO MS USC00223975 1893 2016
KOSCIUSKO MS USC00224776 1893 2016
LOUISVILLE MS USC00225247 1891 2016
NATCHEZ MS USC00226177 1892 2016
PORT GIBSON 1 NE MS USC00227132 1893 2016
STATE UNIV MS USC00228374 1891 2016
UNIVERSITY MS USC00229079 1893 2016
WATER VALLEY MS USC00229400 1893 2016
WAYNESBORO 2 W MS USC00229439 1892 2016
APPLETON CITY MO USC00230204 1893 2016
BRUNSWICK MO USC00231037 1893 2016
CONCEPTION MO USC00231822 1893 2016
JEFFERSON CITY WTP MO USC00234271 1893 2016
LAMAR 2W MO USC00234705 1893 2016
MARBLE HILL MO USC00235253 1893 2016
NEOSHO MO USC00235976 1893 2016
STEFFENVILLE MO USC00238051 1893 2016
UNIONVILLE MO USC00238523 1893 2016
WARRENTON 1 N MO USC00238725 1893 2016
BIG TIMBER MT USC00240780 1894 2016
BOZEMAN MONTANA ST U MT USC00241044 1892 2016
CHINOOK MT USC00241722 1895 2016
DILLION U OF MONTANA MT USC00242409 1895 2016
EKALAKA MT USC00242689 1896 2016
GLENDIVE MT USC00243581 1893 2016
HAMILTON MT USC00243885 1895 2016
RED LODGE MT USC00246918 1894 2016
ALBION NE USC00250070 1893 2016
ALLIANCE 1WNW NE USC00250130 1894 2016
ASHLAND NO 2 NE USC00250375 1893 2016
AUBURN 5 ESE NE USC00250435 1893 2016
BEAVER CITY NE USC00250640 1893 2016
BRIDGEPORT NE USC00251145 1897 2016
BROKEN BOW 2 W NE USC00251200 1894 2016
CRETE NE USC00252020 1893 2016
CURTIS 3NNE NE USC00252100 1893 2016
DAVID CITY NE USC00252205 1889 2016
FAIRBURY 5S NE USC00252820 1893 2016
GENEVA NE USC00253175 1893 2016
GENOA 2 W NE USC00253185 1893 2016
HARTINGTON NE USC00253630 1893 2016
HEBRON NE USC00253735 1893 2016
IMPERIAL NE USC00254110 1893 2016
KIMBALL 2NE NE USC00254440 1893 2016
LODGEPOLE NE USC00254900 1894 2016
OAKDALE NE USC00256135 1893 2016
SEWARD NE USC00257715 1893 2016
SYRACUSE NE USC00258395 1893 2016
TECUMSEH 1S NE USC00258465 1893 2016
TEKAMAH NE USC00258480 1893 2016
WAKEFIELD NE USC00258915 1894 2016
AUSTIN #2 NV USC00260507 1887 2016
ELKO RGNL AP NV USW00024121 1888 2016
MINA NV USC00265168 1896 2016
WINNEMUCCA MUNI AP NV USW00024128 1877 2016
DURHAM NH USC00272174 1893 2016
HANOVER NH USC00273850 1884 2016
KEENE NH USC00274399 1893 2016
ATLANTIC CITY NJ USW00013724 1874 2016
BOONTON 1 SE NJ USC00280907 1893 2016
FLEMINGTON 5 NNW NJ USC00283029 1898 2016
HIGHTSTOWN 2 W NJ USC00283951 1893 2016
AZTEC RUINS NM NM USC00290692 1895 2016
CARLSBAD NM USC00291469 1900 2016
SOCORRO NM USC00298387 1893 2016
ADDISON NY USC00300023 1893 2016
ALFRED NY USC00300085 1893 2016
ANGELICA NY USC00300183 1893 2016
AUBURN NY USC00300321 1897 2016
BROCKPORT NY USC00300937 1893 2016
CANTON 4 SE NY USW00014743 1893 2016
COOPERSTOWN NY USC00301752 1893 2016
ELMIRA NY USC00302610 1893 2016
HEMLOCK NY USC00303773 1898 2016
INDIAN LAKE 2SW NY USC00304102 1899 2016
ITHACA CORNELL UNIV NY USC00304174 1893 2016
LOCKPORT 3 S NY USC00304844 1893 2016
LOWVILLE NY USC00304912 1891 2016
MOHONK LAKE NY USC00305426 1896 2016
NEW YORK CNTRL PK TW NY USW00094728 1876 2016
OGDENSBURG 4 NE NY USC00306164 1893 2016
PORT JERVIS NY USC00306774 1893 2016
SETAUKET STRONG NY USC00307633 1885 2016
WATERTOWN NY USC00309000 1893 2016
CHAPEL HILL 2 W NC USC00311677 1891 2016
EDENTON NC USC00312635 1872 2016
FAYETTEVILLE PWC NC USC00313017 1871 2016
HENDERSON 2 NNW NC USC00313969 1893 2016
HENDERSONVILLE 1 NE NC USC00313976 1898 2016
HIGHLANDS NC USC00314055 1877 2016
KINSTON 7 SE NC USC00314684 1899 2016
LENOIR NC USC00314938 1871 2016
LOUISBURG NC USC00315123 1893 2016
MARION 2 NW NC USC00315340 1893 2016
MARSHALL NC USC00315356 1898 2016
MONROE 2 SE NC USC00315771 1896 2016
MORGANTON NC USC00315838 1880 2016
MT AIRY 2 W NC USC00315890 1893 2016
SALISBURY NC USC00317615 1893 2016
SOUTHPORT 5 N NC USC00318113 1892 2016
TARBORO 1 S NC USC00318500 1870 2016
WAYNESVILLE 1 E NC USC00319147 1894 2016
BOTTINEAU ND USC00320941 1893 2016
FULLERTON 1 ESE ND USC00323287 1898 2016
GRAND FORKS UNIV NWS ND USC00323621 1893 2016
NAPOLEON ND USC00326255 1893 2016
NEW ENGLAND ND USC00326315 1894 2016
PEMBINA ND USW00014924 1898 2016
TOWNER 2 NE ND USC00328792 1896 2016
WILLOW CITY ND USC00329445 1893 2016
BUCYRUS OH USC00331072 1893 2016
CIRCLEVILLE OH USC00331592 1894 2016
DEFIANCE OH USC00332098 1893 2016
FINDLAY WPCC OH USC00332791 1893 2016
GREENVILLE WTP OH USC00333375 1893 2016
HILLSBORO OH USC00333758 1893 2016
HIRAM OH USC00333780 1893 2016
NORWALK WWTP OH USC00336118 1894 2016
URBANA WWTP OH USC00338552 1895 2016
WAUSEON WTP OH USC00338822 1893 2016
WAVERLY OH USC00338830 1893 2016
WOOSTER EXP STATION OH USC00339312 1893 2016
BEAVER OK USC00340593 1896 2016
CLAREMORE 2 ENE OK USC00341828 1900 2016
ENID OK USC00342912 1894 2016
MEEKER 5 W OK USC00345779 1894 2016
PAWHUSKA OK USC00346935 1898 2016
ASHLAND OR USC00350304 1892 2016
FOREST GROVE OR USC00352997 1893 2016
GRANTS PASS OR USC00353445 1893 2016
HEPPNER OR USC00353827 1893 2016
HOOD RIVER EXP STN OR USC00354003 1893 2016
PRINEVILLE OR USC00356883 1897 2016
CHAMBERSBURG 1 ESE PA USC00361354 1894 2016
FRANKLIN PA USC00363028 1897 2016
SELINSGROVE 2 S PA USC00367931 1893 2016
STATE COLLEGE PA USC00368449 1893 2016
TOWANDA 1 S PA USC00368905 1894 2016
UNIONTOWN 1 NE PA USC00369050 1894 2016
WARREN PA USC00369298 1893 2016
WEST CHESTER 2 NW PA USC00369464 1893 2016
YORK 3 SSW PUMP STN PA USC00369933 1894 2016
KINGSTON RI USC00374266 1893 2016
CHARLESTON CITY SC USW00013782 1893 2016
CHERAW SC USC00381588 1893 2016
LITTLE MTN SC USC00385200 1893 2016
NEWBERRY SC USC00386209 1893 2016
SANTUCK SC USC00387722 1893 2016
SUMMERVILLE 4W SC USC00388426 1898 2016
WALHALLA SC USC00388887 1896 2016
WINNSBORO SC USC00389327 1896 2016
WINTHROP UNIV SC USC00389350 1899 2016
YEMASSEE SC USC00389469 1899 2016
ABERDEEN SD USW00014929 1893 2016
ACADEMY 2NE SD USC00390043 1898 2016
ALEXANDRIA SD USC00390128 1893 2016
CANTON SD USC00391392 1896 2016
FAULKTON 1 NW SD USC00392927 1893 2016
FORESTBURG 4 NNE SD USC00393029 1893 2016
HIGHMORE 1 W SD USC00393832 1893 2016
HOT SPRINGS SD USC00394007 1894 2016
HOWARD SD USC00394037 1893 2016
KENNEBEC SD USC00394516 1893 2016
MELLETTE 4 W SD USC00395456 1893 2016
MENNO SD USC00395481 1896 2016
VERMILLION 2 SE SD USC00398622 1893 2016
WATERTOWN RGNL AP SD USW00014946 1893 2016
CLARKSVILLE WWTP TN USC00401790 1890 2016
COVINGTON 3 SW TN USC00402108 1890 2016
DOVER 1 W TN USC00402589 1897 2016
JACKSON EXP STN TN USC00404561 1891 2016
LEWISBURG EXP STN TN USC00405187 1890 2016
MURFREESBORO 5 N TN USC00406371 1890 2016
NEWPORT 1 NW TN USC00406534 1891 2016
ROGERSVILLE 1 NE TN USC00407884 1889 2016
TULLAHOMA TN USC00409155 1893 2016
UNION CITY TN USC00409219 1891 2016
WAYNESBORO TN USC00409502 1891 2016
ALPINE TX USC00410174 1900 2016
BALLINGER 2 NW TX USC00410493 1897 2016
BLANCO TX USC00410832 1896 2016
BROWNWOOD 2ENE TX USC00411138 1893 2016
CROSBYTON TX USC00412121 1893 2016
DANEVANG 1 W TX USC00412266 1896 2016
EAGLE PASS 3N TX USC00412679 1891 2016
HASKELL TX USC00413992 1893 2016
NEW BRAUNFELS TX USC00416276 1893 2016
PARIS TX USC00416794 1896 2016
RIO GRANDE CITY TX USC00417622 1892 2016
DESERET UT USC00422101 1893 2016
FILLMORE UT USC00422828 1893 2016
LAKETOWN UT USC00424856 1900 2016
LEVAN UT USC00425065 1893 2016
LOGAN UTAH ST UNIV UT USC00425186 1893 2016
MOAB UT USC00425733 1893 2016
SCIPIO UT USC00427714 1895 2016
ST GEORGE UT USC00427516 1893 2016
TOOELE UT USC00428771 1896 2016
VERNAL 2SW UT USC00429111 1894 2016
WOODRUFF UT USC00429595 1897 2016
CORNWALL VT USC00431580 1893 2016
ENOSBURG FALLS VT USC00432769 1891 2016
SAINT JOHNSBURY VT USC00437054 1894 2016
BURKES GARDEN VA USC00441209 1896 2016
CHARLOTTESVILLE 2W VA USC00441593 1893 2016
DALE ENTERPRISE VA USC00442208 1893 2016
FARMVILLE 2 N VA USC00442941 1897 2016
HOT SPRINGS VA USC00444128 1893 2016
LEXINGTON VA USC00444876 1889 2016
LINCOLN VA USC00444909 1900 2016
ROCKY MT VA USC00447338 1894 2016
WOODSTOCK 2 NE VA USC00449263 1889 2016
ABERDEEN WA USC00450008 1891 2016
CLE ELUM WA USC00451504 1899 2016
COLVILLE WA USC00451630 1899 2016
CONCONULLY WA USC00451666 1894 2016
DAYTON 1 WSW WA USC00452030 1893 2016
ELLENSBURG WA USC00452505 1893 2016
KENNEWICK WA USC00454154 1894 2016
NORTHPORT WA USC00455946 1899 2016
OLGA 2 SE WA USC00456096 1891 2016
POMEROY WA USC00456610 1891 2016
SEDRO WOOLLEY WA USC00457507 1896 2016
SPOKANE INTL AP WA USW00024157 1889 2016
VANCOUVER 4 NNE WA USC00458773 1856 2016
WATERVILLE WA USC00459012 1893 2016
WILBUR WA USC00459238 1892 2016
BUCKHANNON WV USC00461220 1888 2016
GLENVILLE WV USC00463544 1888 2016
LEWISBURG 3 N WV USC00465224 1851 2016
PARSONS 1 NE WV USC00466867 1899 2016
SPENCER WV USC00468384 1892 2016
FOND DU LAC WI USC00472839 1893 2016
LANCASTER 4 WSW WI USC00474546 1893 2016
MANITOWOC WI USC00475017 1893 2016
MEDFORD WI USC00475255 1889 2016
NEILLSVILLE 3ESE WI USC00475808 1893 2016
NEW LONDON WI USC00475932 1896 2016
OCONTO 4 W WI USC00476208 1893 2016
OSHKOSH WI USC00476330 1893 2016
PORTAGE WI USC00476718 1889 2016
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN WI USC00476827 1893 2016
RACINE WI USC00476922 1896 2016
SPOONER AG RES STN WI USC00478027 1894 2016
VIROQUA WI USC00478827 1893 2016
WATERTOWN WI USC00478919 1893 2016
BASIN WY USC00480540 1898 2016
CHUGWATER WY USC00481730 1900 2016
EVANSTON 1 E WY USC00483100 1890 2016

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 5:01 pm

all these sites
used the same
thermometer for
all a century? all
read at the same time?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 5:53 pm

what are you doing? Are you endorsing the old (but solid !) skeptic argument that there are not enough reliable data about weather and climate to assert to what extent climate change is real?
if you don’t even trust these, what will you trust? a treemometer? A man that comes and say “oh, i looked at this data, i add [whatever] to make it better, because, I KNOW, because, i am a climate scientist, with a bigger DICK(*) than them who produced the data and you” ?

(*) Doom Inference Computer Kludge

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 6:07 pm

paq: Muller did a very very
deep dive into the data.
had a nobel laureate on his team.
funded by koch. found the
same results as all other

what do you think muller
et al
did wrong?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 6:08 pm

Not sure why Crackers345 does not have the option to reply to him….
Does not matter if they use the same thermometer throughout. Step changes can be identified easily enough.
The only thing that matters with the time read is that they are read similarly through their life. We are looking for trends of temperatures, not exact temperatures. And the trends are quite interesting. Lets just say that the trend is not one of increasing temperatures…
If we took this list and stripped it of airport and city thermometers, I am guess that trend would be even more significant.
Its is all great and well to want to massage data such that you can compare apples to apples. It is altogether different to change oranges into manure in the process.
Here you have raw data, which you can evaluate directly and easily see trends. If there were global warming, you would clearly see it in the trend lines regardless of thermometer changes or even time of day changes.
The trick for the scammers is to hide their tricks in the complexity of project. To make the process from raw data to final product so convoluted, so filled with twists and turns that no one can replicate and thus critic their work and final product.
It works, most people do not have decades on their hands, like I do not, to rebuild their faulty work. But reality easily discredits them when you do just little things.
The first little thing is to look at the raw data and see what it shows. There is no credible rational for changing a perpetually declining trend into a perpetually significant increasing trend. Thermometers do not degrade slowly like that. There is no credible argument that all errors of the past are errors that erroneously showed too high of a temperature. Errors just simply do not work like that. And considering that the goal of capturing temperatures is to try and find the highest and the lowest temperature, how is it possible to argue that their timing was so flawed that they were catching too high of a temperature and that we need to cool it down to be more accurate?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 6:28 pm

ast – so you agree that adjustments
must be made in order
to property correlate
different thermometers?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 6:29 pm

paq: all these sites
used the same
thermometer for
all a century? all
read at the same time
of the day? take
into account

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 6:30 pm

astonerii commented – “The only thing that matters with the time read is that they are read similarly through their life.”

so were

Reply to  astonerii
November 12, 2017 2:58 am

Muller was not completely honest on his motives. So that was it. I don’t trust the guy.

Reply to  astonerii
November 12, 2017 6:57 am

you miss my point. Or at least you pretend, as you don’t look honnest
So i ask again:
Are you endorsing the old (but solid !) skeptic argument that there are not enough reliable data about weather and climate to assert to what extent climate change is real?
if you don’t even trust these, what will you trust? a treemometer? A man that comes and say “oh, i looked at this data, i add [whatever] to make it better, because, I KNOW, because, i am a climate scientist, with a bigger DICK(*) than them who produced the data and you” ?

(*) Doom Inference Computer Kludge

Reply to  astonerii
November 12, 2017 4:03 pm

Crackerhead said:

“all these sites
used the same
thermometer ”

Yes, they sure did!
And, I tell you what, it was a real pain in the you-know-what to run that baby from one place to another every day for all of those years…but it was worth it!

Reply to  astonerii
November 13, 2017 10:00 pm

Hugs commented – “Muller was not completely honest on his motives.”

in what

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:52 pm

“This energy travels at the speed of light”
i love that – logical proof that any radiative transfer by atmospheric gas must immediately equalize around the entire globe.

Reply to  gnomish
November 11, 2017 5:53 pm

I did not intend to make that the proof. I made that an argument that at best, any warming effect from CO2 would be extremely minimal.

I made the argument “My personal unvalidated view is” I am not a scientist and am not going to wast my time fixing other peoples stupidity. You cannot fix stupid, particularly when the stupid is deliberate fraud.

What makes CO2 cause heat to transfer around the globe and tend towards equalizing temperatures is that it radiates in all directions. So, it might start going up, but each transaction sends it in a different direction. The heat that just escaped from from downtown may instead be transferred to the countryside. It scatters. More scattering means more equalizing. But in ALL cases, the same amount of heat escapes to outer space at the end of the trip.

November 11, 2017 8:18 am

Bald-faced projection. Replace every use of “conservatives” with “so-called progressives” and you’ll be miles closer to the truth.

Reply to  drednicolson
November 11, 2017 8:49 am

Doesn’t Russ mean that conservatives are less of a herd mentality than so-called Progressives? Progressives seem to monolithically parrot whatever is the latest handed-down orthodoxy from the Priests and Priestesses of Culture and Stuff You Must Believe. Or is my own observation actually projection itself.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 2:13 pm

Piper Paul,
Stated in the article as truisms:
“Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.”
“Elites shape opinion, only elites can change it”
There is your answer.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 5:15 pm

that’s not my
observation. look at
today’s GOP. herd thinking
governs all of it. don’t
anyone DARE differ
even one iota.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 5:17 pm


Clearly you have not been paying attention. The GOP is riven by differences, while the Dumpocraps engage in rigorous herdthink, else you will be expunged into outer darkness.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 5:19 pm

Expelled, the expunged.

Compare and contrast with the GOP, in which the neocon or noncon Establishment is complicit in trying to destroy the life and reputation of apostate true, paleoconservative Roy Moore.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 5:34 pm


Reply to  PiperPaul
November 12, 2017 9:54 am

“complicit in trying to destroy the life and reputation of apostate true, paleoconservative Roy Moore”
Are you serious? They guy is doing a fine job of ruining his own reputation in a complete and final fashion. And good job… pure evil.

Reply to  drednicolson
November 11, 2017 8:56 am

Agreed. The left are too stupid to evaluate the data for them selves and so rely on their leaders to tell them what to think. They then assume that everybody is like them, just following a different leader.

November 11, 2017 8:23 am

who keeps closing down nuclear plants?

F. Leghorn
November 11, 2017 8:27 am

When it comes to climate change, US conservatives inhabit a unique position, as part of the only major political party in the democratic world to see it for the scam it is.

Fixed it for him.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 11, 2017 5:16 pm

so how do you
explain modern

Reply to  crackers345
November 11, 2017 7:26 pm

Not CO2,
its a myth,
a fallacy,
and unproven
Sun and
Ocean +
UHI account
for all.
in the whole
satellite temper-
-ature data

Reply to  crackers345
November 12, 2017 9:56 am

in the whole
satellite temper-
-ature data”
I think Roy Spencer would disagree with you on that. Do you think by saying something false a number of times, it suddenly becomes true?

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 2:25 pm

“so how do you explain modern warming?”

I don’t explain it. Some years are warmer than others, some cooler. Been around that block a couple of times in my lifetime. A few people are paid to explain it, offering vastly different explanations depending at least somewhat on who is paying.

The left goes to huge lengths to assert who is paying for denial but for every finger pointing at me there’s three more pointing back at you. Who is paying for the AGW scare? A piece of green comes to mind; plenty of others.

The phenomenon of “elite” is confined to the socialist left; it is the very essence of being social to have leaders and (mostly) followers.

That’s the simple reason that (IMO) most twitter and facebook users are People of the Left; measuring and measured by followers.

I respect some people but I doubt that I “follow” anyone; and I’m pretty sure no one follows me.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 8:49 pm

Mike2 – the planet has a long-term warming trend,
surface, troposphere, and ocean.

that requires an explanation. the only
one know are man’s ghgs

Tom Halla
Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:03 pm

crackers, that is a classic argument from ignorance, an ad ignoratium argument. That no one can prove otherwise, the GHG gasses are the cause? Try to account for the Medieval Warm, Roman Warm, etc, unless one does a full Mann and removes the Medieval Warm from the record.

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:00 pm

crackers345 wrote “Mike2 – the planet has a long-term warming trend, surface, troposphere, and ocean.”

Maybe. It seems fairly certain that the northern hemisphere is not in its normal glaciated state.

“that requires an explanation.”

Who is placing that requirement on you?

“the only one I know are man’s ghgs”

Thank you for making explanation. You have perhaps noticed that not many people argue against the existence of a changing climate.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 8:51 pm

Angry55 – that’s entirely
unscientific. not even worth
a retort.

ps – RSpencer certainly
that CO2 is a GHG

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:00 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 8:49 pm

“Mike2 – the planet has a long-term warming trend,
surface, troposphere, and ocean.

“that requires an explanation. the only
one know are man’s ghgs”

So much howlingly wrong in so few words.

On every possible long-term trend, the planet is cooling. Dangerously so.

Man-made GHGs obviously cannot explain the fact that over the whole course of the Phanerozoic Eon, Earth is in a cooling trend (541 million years). Nor can the explain the cooling trend since the Creataceous and Eocene extreme warm intervals, 100 and 50 million years ago. Nor can they explain the fact of the coolings since 34 Ma and 2.6 Ma, the onsets or SH and NH glaciations. Nor can they explain the cooling of the past 3000 years at least during the Holocene.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:01 pm

So, to you “long-term” must mean 300 years or 30 years.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:37 pm

gabro, yes, 30 years, as you know, is
generally considered a long-enough
interval for data to reveal trends in climate.

that’s what the WMO

but we can go longer if
you want.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:39 pm

gabro commented –
“On every possible long-term trend, the planet is cooling. Dangerously so.”

ha ha.
what balderdash.

get serious here.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:41 pm

Phanerozoic temperatures:
comment image

are you worried your ancestors
50 M years from now might
have to wear ear muffs?

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 12:52 pm

crackers345 wrote “are you worried your ancestors 50 M years from now might have to wear ear muffs?”

That’s a strange combination of past and future tenses. As it happens I am not worried about my ancestors OR descendants 50 M years in the past or in the future. A better question is to ask whether you had ancestors 50 M years ago.

Reply to  crackers345
November 13, 2017 9:46 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm

It is hilariously ludicrous to claim 30 years as long term. That is the absolutely shortest possible term unit of climate.

Yes, Earth is dangerously cold by Phanerozoic standards. Only the Carboniferous ice age can come close to present temperatures.

Your complete, total and utter ignorance is not even funny. Just sad and pathetic.

November 11, 2017 8:28 am

I’m conservative and an engineer. The science on global warming too me is not convincing. The science on the natural causes side make more sense to me. I follow the science and want the truth. The left wants to convince me that tribalism and collectivism should be above science and personal opinion. That won’t work with me and hasn’t worked for the human populations over the centuries.

Reply to  jjs
November 11, 2017 8:42 am

Me too, to the first part…and me neither to the latter.

Reply to  John
November 11, 2017 8:54 am

Funny, but prior to the political stratification in America, I thought of myself as a left leaning dude with work ethics and intellectual honesty. Boy was I wrong! In my country, formerly a Communist one, both left and right parties are a part of the same kleptocracy, and I couldn’t identify with either. I loath them equally. But now… my views, although not changed a bit, are now strictly conservative.
I’d say conservatives turned slightly more liberal, but liberals turned completely fruit cake. That’s my explanation.

Reply to  John
November 11, 2017 2:17 pm

I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Conservatives have had to pick their battles, and abandon some of the stuff around the edges…basically giving up some ground to strategically consolidate our positions.
With so much at stake, one cannot fight every battle, or be distracted by trivialities.
In fact, that is part of the game the liberals play with their minions…keep them distracted with a thousand here today and gone tomorrow diversions.

Reply to  jjs
November 11, 2017 8:48 am

I want the truth so I know where I’ll get a good return on my dollars. Dollars and sense tend to follow each other, and have a gravitational pull far exceeding that of a few neck-bearded “activists” carrying signs. In fact, I would posit that street demonstrations have become so commonplace, so banal, and so irrelevant that they have now been relegated to background noise–like mosquitoes and carrying about as much weight. Most of us are now familiar with terms like “astroturfing,” “sock puppeting,” and “bots,” as well.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 9:51 am


There is nothing more honest than money.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 2:21 pm

Like the jackass on the street corner with the sandwich board, after a while it becomes unnoticeable.
Part of the scenery.
But it would not be wise to let down one’s guard where this ilk are concerned.
There are some bad dudes marching down the streets of the US these days.

Reply to  jjs
November 11, 2017 5:16 pm

what “natural causes?”

Mike Bryant
November 11, 2017 8:31 am

Our elites have had their own way for too long. Finally we are forcing the elites to follow us.

Leo Smith
November 11, 2017 8:33 am

In every sphere where they haven’t ‘won’, the left is claiming that the right has been lied to by – well almost anyone.

They are in complete denial of the fact that it’s they who have been lied to, and done the lying.

“My lies are better than your lies!”

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 11, 2017 8:55 am

The left’s meltdown began with the 2016 election, but the unhinged behavior has escalated over the past year to the point where for anyone outside their indoctrinated bubble (read, anyone who can think for themselves) these people now have ZERO moral or intellectual authority. H. Clinton’s lies and extreme grifting are now in daylight, her Hollywood flying monkeys have been exposed (literally!) for the amoral and hypocritical nuts they are, and the Democrat party has no message beyond doubling down on their failed and divisive identity politics. Meanwhile, the economy is roaring, the President is enjoying far more prestige and respect overseas than his predecessor ever received, and I guarantee you that people making money have NO COMPLAINTS.

If you took away the MSM’s bias toward the perspectives of statistically small groups of perennial malcontents and attention-seekers, what would the “problem” be really?

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 5:18 pm

goldrider – your comment & rhetoric
is more evidence for
david roberts — conservatives choose
to be against AGW because of their
pre-existing ideology, not
because of any evidence.

Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 5:23 pm


It’s all about the reality-based evidence. For CACA, there is none.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Goldrider
November 11, 2017 6:27 pm

Many of the folks here, including myself, at one time believed in dangerous Human-caused climate change at the global level. Then came climategate. Have you studied that?
It appears to me from the numbers here at this site and other sceptic blogs, that folks are waking up more and more to the political charade of the watermelons.
When it comes to it this whole diversion over the weather of the future is about implementing despotic socialism on the global level through a drummed up necessity to “save the planet from our selfish plundering and pollution”

November 11, 2017 8:34 am

“Conservatives probably can’t be persuaded on climate change. So now what?”

I have a novel suggestion. How about presenting your scientific evidence (notice I didn’t mention the CAGW fear mongering you typically put forth as scientific evidence) that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the cause of any change in the climate.

November 11, 2017 8:49 am

This author’s thesis (the elites are leading conservative views on climate change) would carry more weight with some examples. Who exactly are these skeptical ‘elites’ he talks of? Almost all ‘elites’ i.e. billionaires that see in regular news cycle are pro-catastrophic-climate-change believers. Almost all politicians are believers. The conservative ‘base’ is skeptical of climate change despite it’s leaders, not because of them. If anything this article seems like pure projection.

Reply to  Kassandra
November 11, 2017 10:38 am

WHAT! Not many Elites or Billionaires leading the great denial of the Climate Crisis Consensus? Right Wingers not mindless and brainless sheeple who believe anything told to them by someone claiming Authority? Preposterous!

Why, next you’ll be telling me that the Oil Companies are actually funding Climate Alarmism and profiting off of Renewables mandates, instead of secretly funding the Climate Denial Machine

… Oh, wait.



November 11, 2017 8:49 am

we’ve been instructed to ignore climate facts by our “elites”.

Sorry, we refuse to be instructed brainwashed.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  lb
November 11, 2017 6:03 pm

Who would be the elite skeptics? Drs Christy,Spencer, and Curry? Freeman Dyson, John Coleman,Patrick Moore? How about LaMar Smith, or Ted Cruz? I can’t think of any instructions coming from them, only verifiable climate facts.

Eric Simpson
November 11, 2017 8:52 am

“We don’t follow our elites.”

Exactly. It’s the elitists in the GOP like Mitt Romney that actually support the leftists on climate change. So this author is totally confused.

See: Mitt Romney: Climate change is real, human-induced, and we must tackle it: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/22/mitt-romney-climate-change-is-real-human-induced-a/

Here’s a shot of Mitt Romney protesting climate with the leftist loons:
http://i.bnet.com/blogs/screen-shot-2012-08-31-at-24730-am.pngcomment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
November 11, 2017 10:13 am

This no doubt is a dumb question, but what is climate justice?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 11, 2017 10:21 am

“Climate justice” is the rationale for whatever aid or welfare program the user want to set up to purportedly benefit third world or poor or minority groups purportedly harmed by climate change, to be run by the associates of the user of the term.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 11, 2017 10:45 am

Climate Justice, like Social Justice, is whatever it’s proponents want it to be at the time. And if you don’t agree with them then it proves you are a Racist Denier.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 11, 2017 11:57 am

Climate justice is disbelievers shall be thrown in prison. Romney of course would be spared. In fact the Righteous Romney would supervise the incarcerations.

More on Romney’s climate nutism here:
The New Progressive Mitt Romney is the Same as the Old Progressive Mitt Romney http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/23/the-new-progressive-mitt-romney-is-the-s

This is important because some consider Romney to be “the elder sage” of the Republican party. Not!

Here’s an excerpt from that Reason article:

“Romney, apparently seeing the error of his ‘severely conservative’ ways, has become a progressive crusader,” Corn writes.. But this is less a body snatching and more of a reawakening … During his first year and a half as governor of Massachusetts, for example, Romney worked on a major climate change proposal, one that, much like President Obama’s recent executive order, would have included measures to power plants relying on coal and ramp up reliance on alternative energy sources. Whenever the topic came up, Romney insisted that climate change was both real and caused by human activity. “Romney was the radical in the room” on climate change, one aide told the Los Angeles Times in 2012.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 11, 2017 2:55 pm

I disagree with you Eric: There should be two tees in nuttism.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 11, 2017 3:09 pm

BTW, I do not know anyone who considers Romney a sage, elder or otherwise.
Rather, we all remember him vividly as the guy who stood up several times, when he was not even running, and denounced Trump is favor of someone who had zero chance of winning a national election.
Oh, and then got down on his hands and knees to beg Trump for a j-o-b last November.
Of course, Trump was way to smart for this jackass, and just played him for laughs and a little pity.
We also recall when Romney had the 2012 election well in hand…right in his grasp, and then failed to press any advantage in the last debate, let Candy Crowley interrupt him and lie, and dummied up instead of pushing back against the collusion (“Get the tape, Candy”).
He then, conveniently for obummer, disappeared from view for the critical last few days of the campaign…just dropped out of site, while Hurricane Sandy tore up the East coast and Chris Christie got down and kissed Obama’ ring.
Yup…lot’s of people consider him the old sage of the Republican party.
Luckily, Trump disposed of every one of them handily.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Eric Simpson
November 11, 2017 10:48 am

Is that a Coke bottle cap on his nose? I would’ve sworn Mittens could afford better. Is he slumming?

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Eric Simpson
November 11, 2017 7:42 pm

@menicholas Well put on Romney, not to mention nut(t)ism.

Tom Halla
November 11, 2017 8:53 am

My family has been rabidly political, with a range from some of my father’s cousins being Birchers to one of my mother’s grandparents being Socialist Labor Party. Economics, which was the major dispute of my childhood, is every bit as contentious as environmentalism, and about as well settled. Of course, the two fields interconnect.
The writer for Vox does not realize that the socialist/statist elements of the green blob he finds attractive are what gives conservatives a prejudice against it. Realizing with a bit of study that the claims are about as real as those of a late-night liability lawyer’s claims of dread effects from talcum powder only reinforces that snap judgement.
I do agree with drednicholson, that much of what is going on is projection as far as why Vox is a tool of the greens.

Kaiser Derden
November 11, 2017 8:59 am

its a clear cut case of projection … because if anyone simply “follows their elites” its the left … look at almost any subject in the left sphere … climate change, same sex marriage, genders, gun control taxes and you won’t find any debates on the left … there is never a broad range of opinions expressed and any subject (well maybe its because if you don’t toe the company line they excommunicate you quickly)

November 11, 2017 9:00 am

If you took away the MSM’s bias toward statistically small numbers of the perennially disaffected, what would the “problem” be, exactly? The Left’s precious moral authority has blown up, from the Hollywood exposes to the demonstrated hypocrisy of the likes of Hillary and Al Gore. Their sole platform is the divisive identity politics that crashed and burned last time.

Michael Jankowski
November 11, 2017 9:06 am

“…One estimate is that the United States invests less than 3 percent of the funds it puts into energy hardware research into social science energy research…”

Social science energy research? Dafuq? And it gets something over 2% of US energy hardware research? That needs to go way down.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 11, 2017 3:13 pm

Yes…to zero %

Mark from the Midwest
November 11, 2017 9:09 am

Part of the problem with liberal thought is the emphasis on change, so they rally around change. But there’s no clear identification of changing to what, or even an agreement on what needs to be changed. So you end up with laundry lists, instead of clear identification of systemic improvement. If you ask a liberal about their vision of the future it’s all a bunch of adjectives and adverbs, there are very few concrete nouns and verbs in the explanation.

November 11, 2017 9:11 am

[snip yes we are tired of seeing it, wildly off-topic -mod]

November 11, 2017 9:11 am

Really? Our elites? Actually it is their elites who influence us politically and scientifically. Quotes from Strong, Edenhofer, Figueres and Schneider (about honesty) clearly identify the real endgame. Climategate (their “scientific” elites) clearly revealed the complicity of “scientists”. I wish Trump/Pruitt/Perry would beat this drum when they have the stage. Obama hammered the other side home every chance he had. With Harper gone, we have no voice to represent us on the big stage in Canada.

Reply to  R2Dtoo
November 12, 2017 1:29 am

This elites talk is rubbish. Trump is more of an elitist than any climate scientist. He’s from a wealthy family, grew up in NYC, went to the best schools. His apartment is decorated to look like Louis IV lives there, and he is worth several billion $. And yet he is not an elite, but a PhD who works in atmospheric sciences, who makes $70K a year after racking up $250K in debt going through 4 years of undergrad plus 5 years of grad school, is.

Reply to  Chris
November 12, 2017 4:53 am

Congratulations, you have proved that Mr. Trump has more wealth than the average climate scientist. And nothing else.

Elitism is a question of attitudes, not money.

November 11, 2017 9:12 am

I’m for climate justice. Up here in cold Toronto, Phoenix owes me.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  BallBounces
November 12, 2017 8:15 am

The climate record in Toronto is the only time frame longer than their Cup drought.

Roger Bournival
November 11, 2017 9:14 am

I’m a conservative and I have no problem acknowledging legitimate climate change. It is the leftist’s notion of ‘climate change’, formerly known as ‘global cooling’ and ‘global warming’ that they say need to be solved by massive tax hikes and more layers of government and is shoved down my throat on a daily basis that I object to, To hell with Vox.

November 11, 2017 9:17 am

“and clean energy is only getting cheaper. ”
Wake me up when it becomes profitable and reliable. In fact, just let me know when you can manufacture clean energy devices without using fossil fuels.

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
November 12, 2017 4:17 pm

10-4 Mr. Van Winkle!

November 11, 2017 9:21 am

Another article showing that the real concern of the progressives is not the science but how to persuade people. And that’s the problem that they don’t understand. They are far more worried about politics than data and good science because “Climate change” Is THE political issue that offers a path to the kind of overriding government control of all aspects of the lives of the citizens they believe it should have. The government controlling everything from energy, to transportation, to land use and ownership, etc can be justified using environmental/climate change arguments.

Conservatives intuitively understand this, and thus will resist.

November 11, 2017 9:27 am

What an idiot Roberts is. As you say, we dont follow elites. The Trump win showed that. We have no respect for the elite. The opposite of what he said. I challenged him on this on twitter but of course he did not respond.

Bruce Cobb
November 11, 2017 9:29 am

Well, there’s always the red button “solution”.

Russ R.
November 11, 2017 9:55 am

Perhaps it’s time for a little agonism.

Agonistic Behaviour, survivalist animal behaviour that includes aggression, defense, and avoidance.

So vox thinks that animalistic behavior between Conservatives and Liberals will advance their agenda? Conservatives are people that will fight to defend the Second Amendment.
Liberals think that people “texting while walking” need to be regulated, because they might trip and fall.

Which group is more in touch with “survivalist animal behavior”?

Clyde Spencer
November 11, 2017 9:56 am

“Such analysis tend to reveal far more about the way the green left thinks…”

Liberals in general seem to live in a fantasy world where they put more credence in what they think things should be like than what they actually are. Many can’t seem to imagine that anyone can be an honest skeptic, and must therefore be shills in the employ of the fossil fuel industry. It is ironic that they have chosen to refer to skeptics as D-Nye-ers, because they are in D-Nye-al of reality, apparently as a way of coping with a reality that doesn’t make sense to them. It would seem that they are dysfunctional and have to create a fantasy world to inhabit.

November 11, 2017 9:56 am

There’s a reason you can’t convince Conservatives…they think.
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

OBEY, Don’t Think

November 11, 2017 9:57 am

Never heard of ‘VOX’, certainly know now that I didn’t miss anything by never hearing of them.

Reply to  stevekeohane
November 11, 2017 10:44 am

I think one of the Oreskes gang works (or worked) there (Vox). Perhaps the Oreskeseses are keeping a low profile these days for some reason…

F. Leghorn
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 11, 2017 11:12 am

Oreskeseses makes me see Hobbitses. And giggle for some unfathomable reason.

Bill Illis
November 11, 2017 9:59 am

It was really us, … Anthony and Steve McIntyre that convinced leading Conservatives that the global warming theory is just vastly exaggerated.

It was NOT the conservative politicians that made us skeptical, it was the skeptics who brought the politicians along. We were here first.

Left-wing politicians can maintain internal support if they switch to the skeptical side so they just keep their mouths shut and/or play along with the game.

This is the real story and, as usual, the left just does not have the internal awareness in order to figure out what the real facts are.

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 12, 2017 5:03 am

More between those who consider big-R Reason a principle, and those who consider it a mere tool, to be used when it supports the goal and discarded when it does not.

November 11, 2017 10:00 am

My Climate Skepticism WAS formed by what I was taught by my ‘Elites’. Specifically what I was taught by my Leftist teachers in school, what I learned from reading Popular Science, and what I saw in my games and entertainment.

All through the 70’s and 80’s as I was growing up, I was bombarded by the twin scares of Overpopulation and the coming End of Oil. The predictions were based on clear scientific principles and statistics, and were undeniable. The solutions were equally clear, and presented as the coming waves of Clean Energy and UN/Socialist control of society. I spent hundreds of hours reading about Wind and Solar Power, the Hydrogen economy, and how the UN would soon lead us into a United Federation of Planets style of utopia.

But something odd happened as the 80’s gave way to the 90’s. Or several things, to be honest. None of the prediction of collapse or shortage came to pass. And the clean energy revolution that was just around, well, STAYED just around the corner. Then one by one the Communist ‘Command’ economies that we were supposed to start emulating for their ‘efficiency’ started collapsing.

And the strangest thing of all? Despite all the failures of the predictions and solutions and GOVERNMENTS, the Left kept right on saying the same things. In fact, they just doubled down.

By the time Global Warming (aka Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Global Weirding, Climate Crisis, Extreme Weather, etc) became a major component of the Eternal Scare, I had stopped believing anything they said. The fact that 2 decades of further failure still hasn’t caused them to reevaluate their beliefs isn’t exactly likely to change my mind on that, and seeing just how dishonest many of them are willing to be (Climategate, Mann, Gleick, Lew, etc, etc) has left me highly unlikely to change my mind.

At this point, NOTHING they might find of discover would, because I would just assume it was wrong… or FAKE.


Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  schitzree
November 11, 2017 11:33 pm

Same here, although it has been a long process. In addition to Overpopulation and the coming End of Oil scares, I remember also man-made Nuclear Winter, Acid Rain and Ozone Hole scares.

The modern version of the Domesday Book, CACA, has made so many weep (the number 12 in the Negative Confessions of Papyrus of Ani) on both sides of the debate, draining the swamp sounds worth a try.

November 11, 2017 10:05 am

Another real LOL is near the end where Roberts says:
They are mistaken because they’ve been lied to by people within their own tribe.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
November 11, 2017 10:47 am

Yes, it’s yet more intentional, malignant projection from the groupthink left.

CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 10:08 am

“…..How can conservatives be moved on climate change?…..”.

Easy, just demonstrate convincing scientific evidence that the climate’s sensitivity to the GHGE of CO2 is high enough that is is a cause for worry.

Also show convincing evidence that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily the result of human activity.

Also show convincing evidence that the logarithmic effect of CO2 on the climate does not apply to the CAGW theory.

Also show convincing paleoclimatic evidence from the Earth’s prehistoric past that CO2 change drives climate change and doesn’t trail it.

Also show convincing evidence of the “hot spot” that is supposed to exist due to climate change.

This isn’t asking too much, is it? Naaaahhhhh…..

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 10:23 am

“…..Core values, not science, are what drive conservative opposition, Dixon tells Grossman, and “free markets” are a core value for conservatives…..”

That’s a rather odd statement considering the issues I posted above seem scientific to me.

November 11, 2017 10:10 am

You don’t have to be a conservative to be skeptical about the many claims made under the heading of climate change. The progressive left has a particular arrogance whenever someone disagrees with one of their positions. Instead of trying to understand and maybe even empathize, progressives tend to automatically assume that critics are not only wrong but stupid. This leads them to think they are dealing with childlike minds… that if they just lie, exaggerate consequences, or recast arguments, they have a good shot at winning over the simpletons. While this kind of chicanery has worked on the progressive sheeple (Millennials and Baby Boomers in particular), because most are, in freeman Dyson’s words, naturalists instead of humanists, it cannot work with skeptics who want to be convinced by the science. It’s a pathetic disconnect.

J Mac
November 11, 2017 10:13 am

I’m an engineer and a conservative. I’m skeptical of ‘elites’, ‘climate alarmists’, ‘social justice warriors’, and similar low science, emotional appeal purveyors.

An in-depth evaluation of data and analyses on both sides of the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis illustrates great uncertainty in the supporting analyses, uncalibrated and uncertified climate models of no predictive value, and hence no informed reason for ‘consensus’ support. Until convincing evidence is presented, adherents of the scientific method must conclude the null hypothesis holds. There is no convincing evidence of current climate variability exceeding historical natural climate cycle ranges.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  J Mac
November 11, 2017 11:21 am

Try explaining “null hypothesis” to a leftist. But only if you really want to see a human explode.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 11, 2017 3:32 pm

To them “believing in science” is a catchphrase…a talking point.
They think science is a pair of pants or something.
They do not know or care what the word even means…they use words to tell lies, not to inform or educate.

Walter Sobchak
November 11, 2017 10:16 am

If conservatives cared about elite opinion, Donald Trump would have not won the GOP nomination.

Bruce Cobb
November 11, 2017 10:17 am

“The only way Democrats can achieve progress on this is to intensify the fight.”
Uh-oh, no more Mr. Nice Guy. We’re doomed. They really mean it now. We may as well give up and go home.

J Mac
November 11, 2017 10:23 am

As for Vox reporter David Roberts proposal “Perhaps it’s time for a little agonism.”, I’ll just offer this:
If you open the door to violence, don’t complain when it gets too rough for you….

Reply to  J Mac
November 11, 2017 1:11 pm

“A war begins whenever you will, but does not end whenever you please.” -Niccolo Machiavelli

November 11, 2017 10:38 am

“Reality still matters. What we have in the US is not a “difference of opinion” about climate change, it’s conservatives being mistaken about some very basic facts. They’re mistaken because they’ve been lied to and misled by leaders and influencers within their own tribe.”

Are these people even self-aware? This author is projecting liberal think onto conservatives and doesn’t even realize it. Just because I don’t automatically believe everything climate scientists and their computer models predict about future climate disasters doesn’t mean I am “mistaken” or being misled by the elites within my own “tribe.” Computer models are only as good as the programmer who implemented them. Programmers and scientists are just as human as the rest of us. It makes no sense to believe they are infallible just because of the title before their name. And to assume that climate scientists do not have a vested interest in climate alarmism is naive at best. Their job security, financial futures, and government grants depend on it.

Liberals are the ones who seem to buy into group think and blindly follow everything they hear from leftist leaders and celebrities. You really have to be a “useful idiot” to think celebrities know the “basic facts” about climate science. What they really want is for everyone to join their “tribe” so they can spend public money on whatever boondoggles are in vogue today. Conservatives serve as a governor to slowdown runaway spending on the latest fads.

If the weather actually does get worse, which it hasn’t, and clean energy gets cheaper than fossil fuels, which it hasn’t, there will be no problem convincing most conservatives to support clean energy. But we’re not there yet. And until we are, I see no reason to panic and join the rest of the mob in their destructive group think. That’s because the solution the left offers is more likely to make things worse than if we did nothing. When the cure is worse than the disease, it makes more sense to adapt to living with the disease until a better cure can be found.

Tom Judd
November 11, 2017 10:39 am

No, no, no. David Roberts is 180 degrees wrong here. It’s not conservatives who can’t be persuaded on climate change. No, it’s liberals who can’t. I mean, wasn’t Barack Obama sufficiently attuned to the perils of fossil fuel consumption to dissuade him from gulping up thousands of gallons of the stuff to fly – on a jet airplane – to a thoroughly unnecessary trip to Tahiti shortly after a rather lavish lifestyle – for a community organizer – in the Whitehouse: you know those yearly holiday trips to Hawaii on the world’s largest private jet; Air Force Onewholeheckuvabigmotha’. And, while I’ll exhibit the courtesy not to mention that it was Weinstein’s yacht that Barack cavorted on in Tahiti (oops, I just did), one would think he would’ve at least scolded Weinstein (oops, there I go again) for attempting to glide that yacht through Gaia’s uninvited seas (I think I’m going to have to work on that description) and slurping up gobs of fuel the whole way down to Tahiti.

Speaking of yachts, didn’t that trusty ole’ liberal, Barack, find himself a short time later on Branson’s yacht in the Bahamas. Another unnecessary carbon belching trip? And, speaking of Branson, wasn’t he organizing some sort of outer space flight in the form of Virgin Galactica or something? (Better not tell Weinstein about that.)

And, didn’t another CAGW true believer, liberal, Leonardo DiCaprio, make reservations on that totally, thoroughly, completely unnecessary, carbon-vomiting-on-steroids, Virgin Galactica space thrill ride. Oh, and let’s not forget Leo’s propensity for yachts as well.

Or what about John Podesta, Obama’s climate aid who’s lobby group brother, Tony, in deference to CAGW apparently doesn’t own any yachts, but then makes it up with mansions; one in Australia, one in Italy, and two in DC. Of course that’s one less than another CAGW maven; John Kerry. Although, sorta, kinda, maybe in his defense Kerry’s mansions are all in the US so his fossil fuel sucking private jet flights are probably a little bit shorter.

No, convince our elites, our betters, those human beings who exist on a higher (jet) plain than us mere mortals that human burning of fossil fuels is causing CAGW and to clean up their act before preaching to me.

And, I don’t need anybody to tell me I’m uninformed, scientifically illiterate, conservative (actually libertarian), or incapable of being convinced when the people attempting to persuade are clearly, by their very own actions, not quite convinced themselves.

Evan Jones
November 11, 2017 10:43 am

Conservatives think climate change is a communist plot because that’s what the right’s elites have told them.

Dang. I’m busted.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 11, 2017 11:06 am

They’re out to pollute our precious bodily fluids!


Reply to  schitzree
November 11, 2017 3:39 pm

Strangely enough, this is for real the mantra of our econuts, fighting against everything from fracking to pesticide, eating organic, etc. And also believe Russian tempered US election, and believe extrem actions are to be taken. But they still do not recognize Jack D. Ripper in their mirror in the morning…

Reply to  schitzree
November 12, 2017 5:10 am

Whether they suck blood or taxpayer dollars, vampires are incapable of seeing their own reflections.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 11, 2017 4:27 pm

You don’t have to listen to the “elites on the right” to get the idea that climate change is some kind of plot. It’s more convincing to get it straight from the horse’s mouth:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
— Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader and IPCC creator

“Accepting that by-products of industrial civilization were irreparably damaging the global environment was to accept the reality of market failure. It was to acknowledge the limits of free market capitalism.”
― Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”
— David Foreman, Earth First!

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
— Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Cold in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 10:49 am

“Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.”

That says it all, but true on the liberal side as well as conservative.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 11, 2017 12:43 pm

Yes! There’s a lot of pith in that short sentence.

Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 10:51 am

There is a similarity between the way the election went a year ago and the ham-fisted proposals regarding ‘changing the minds of conservatives’: serious misunderstanding of the audience.

First is the error of thinking that skeptics about catastrophic globally increased temperatures are ‘conservatives’ who are not as fully committed to Truth with a capital T as the promoters of such eschatological claims about the future.

Second is the error of assuming they know ‘how someone else thinks’.

Third is the error of assuming they know why skeptics make choices about which narrative, or portion thereof, to accept as representing reality.

Fourth is the error of thinking that the tools they have for analysing outcomes of ‘interventions’ are capable of capturing a true picture of the above.

I watched today the season 10, episode 2 of South Park which addresses the suffocating cloud of smug pollution that blankets San Francisco. Talk about hilarious! Reading the article above was like listening to a meeting of missionaries planning how to convert the heathen to save them, respectfully of course, from their ignorant false gods of conservatism. The parallels are remarkable (hence the remark).

The hybrid car in the South Park episode was called the ‘Pious’. The risk to mental health was ‘smug’, a form of pollution found aplenty in the article.

The content was consistent, I suppose, it its complete lack of personal reflection. All alarming claims are accepted at face value and the focus is shifted not to the facts collated by skeptics, but to a plea for much more funding of ‘social science’ based ways to convince ‘conservatives’ that hard facts are in error and obvious errors are facts.

I don’t think that is what ‘liberalism’ is about. What could be more liberal than holding open consultation and what could be more conservative than refusing to consider new facts in evidence? Yet we see CAGW proponents refuse the consultations and oppose facts in evidence if they contradict their prevailing prejudices. For me, the whole matter is about what is true and provable, not social vs physical science-based ways of putting better social lipstick on a modeled climate pig.

November 11, 2017 11:14 am

Climate sceptics need to start getting real about the long-term financial costs of climate change. Ongoing events like the flooding of Houston will eventually force the Republican Party to start getting real about what spending needs to be made to prepare the US for what lies in store.

Putting ‘social lipstick on a modeled climate pig’ really had me laughing out loud and shows the complete lack of will on the part of the GOP and its sceptic supporter base to start reacting in a proactive manner to events happening right in their own back yard.

What is true and provable? Well, take a look at this article to find one example of what is true and provable in terms of the lives – turned completely upside down – of many Houston residents:


Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 11:22 am

What did hurricane Harvey have to do with “climate change”?

Reply to  RAH
November 11, 2017 11:46 am


Reply to  RAH
November 11, 2017 12:18 pm

Nothing but a leftist rant.

Reply to  RAH
November 12, 2017 5:15 pm

This is your problem…you think reading the New York Times adds information to your brain.
The truth is exactly the opposite.
It is a propagandist rag, a worthless compendium of lies, half truths and fake news, written by hack writers and published under the banner of what was, at one time long ago, an actual news source.
It is impossible to learn anything from the NYT that is truthful. The act of directing your eyeballs at that sort of yellow journalistic malfeasance has been causing you to have information sucked out of your grey matter faster than Mexican food through a Canadian goose.
But, it may not be too late, and here is what to do: Take your New York Times and use it to line your kitty litter pan, like it was intended to be used for, make Watts Up With That the Home page on your computer, and spend some time reading about what is real and true.
There are no guarantees though, sorry to say…if you have been absorbing that twaddle for too long, the information dampers it has installed into your soul will be very difficult to overcome.
All the best to you, good luck.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 11:35 am

The utter brain-washed stupidity of linking hurricanes , (first big one or two in like 12 years, isn’t it) is the same anti-science NONSENSE that conservatives LAUGH at.

People like you, Ivan , with your twerpish attempts to link NATURAL events to the CO2 NON-EVENT is why the AGW has stumbles so , so badly.

Please keep going, you will only drive more and more RATIONAL thinking people to realise what a FARCE the AGW agenda is. 🙂

I BET you are still in your inner city ghetto, relying on FOSSIL FUEL energy to drive your greenie lifestyle.

I DARE you to forgo all the benefits that modern FOSSIL FUEL supported society has brought to you.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 11, 2017 11:45 am


Reply to  AndyG55
November 11, 2017 1:34 pm

Just a typical old town, badly designed.

Absolutely nothing to do with climate change except in the mind of the architect writing it, you panders to the climate change meme… probably making a lot of money from joining the scám and fleecing witless AGW sheeple.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 12:02 pm

In other words you have no use whatsoever for anything or anyone that disagrees with your beliefs. Have you stocked up on torches and pitchforks yet?

Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 11, 2017 12:16 pm


Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 12:11 pm

Ivan, you really are blinkered. Huricanes are normal on the Gulf Coast and not increasing in either frequency or severity. Houston has almost no zoning and allowed massive building in known flood plains. Harvey damage was inevitable, the only questions were when and how bad. The how bad part was weather, not climate, which stalled Harvey for 4 days right over Houston where it could continue to draw in Gulf moisture.
Your example is not even a nice try. It is a collossal fail at a basic factual level. Reminds me of Derocher and Stirling on polar bears.

Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:19 pm

Climate change did not cause this. The article described exactly What you are saying – did you even bother to read it? Climate change is exacerbating rather than causing hurricanes – everyone knows this now so why are you talking about it causing hurricanes? Who the he’ll is saying this except You?

Curious George
Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:41 pm

Exacerbating means “not increasing in frequency or severity”. Ivan is right!

Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:44 pm

“Climate change is exacerbating rather than causing hurricanes”


The author is an architect who has figured out how to tap into the sheep-like gullibility of the general population.

This is just a classic tale of a badly designed city, not taking properly into account the NATURAL climate extremes. And the public who showed no awareness of that fact.

Why you think it belongs anywhere in a topic about climate change propaganda not being accept by educated conservatives, is beyond me.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 12:20 pm


Are you suggesting that the damage from a hurricane was literally caused or made worse by CO2, by an increase in the average temperature of the world, by a climate changing at a faster rate, or by a weather event?

One flaw I see in the current version of the ‘climate change’ narrative is that people foresee ‘climate change’ and then deduce that it will lead to weather that is ‘worse’ (implying stronger storms, colder colds, hotter hots, floodier floods and so forth).

The error is that the ‘climate’ is the average of ‘weather’. In order to claim that the sum of, or average of, weather events and temperatures will evolve in a particular direction, one literally must be able to demonstrate that specific causes have specific results for weather events.

This of course is far beyond our abilities at the moment. An inability to predict weather for any meaningfully relevant length of time means an inability to predict the climate consequences as well, as climate is the sum of weather. Weather is not the subdivision of climate. If it is, no one has demonstrated it.

I will use as a practical example the Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes. It is said that a warmer sea temperature necessarily means a more powerful and therefore more destructive hurricane. There are two problems with this.

First, sea temperature is a poor indicator of hurricane strength. Temperature difference between north and south is, and that difference is dropping as the world warms. Do you disagree with this fact?

Second: the damage wrought by a hurricane is entirely dependent on the preparations made for it and the local building codes such as those applied in Florida post-Andrew. The same risk applies with earthquakes. That is why there are earthquake resistant requirements in Vancouver and other major population centres.

My sister-in-law has a mobile home in SW Florida and the eye went directly over her home. The total damage was about $20, a piece of roof trim blew off, well…part of it.

The sheer stupidity of not building dikes around New Orleans – something the Dutch had the good sense to do starting 500 years ago – led directly to the horrific consequences, both material and social, wrought by a not-particularly-large or powerful storm. The foolishness of trying to blame flooding in Texas on the oil companies processing fuel there, as CNN did, is evident to anyone who can think clearly. In Ontario, believe it or not, we are not allowed to build on flood plains. The flood plain is marked by Hurricane Hazel’s effects. You think there is a lesson there to share?

In impoverished Cambodia and middle income Barbados, people build their homes on concrete stilts and inevitable ‘flooding rains’ have no effect at all: zero losses. It seems they know something still to be learned on the Caribbean Coast.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 12:30 pm

I agree with all this except sea temperature rises that do affect the strength of hurricanes.

In terms of building on flood plains the NYT article makes this point exactly and links it to the ineffective and politicised land planning.

Sceptics write off modelling completely which just shows how blinkered they are. Nothing predicting the future is perfect – even 50% however is better than 0%.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 12:58 pm

“Sceptics write off modelling completely ”

Again, more arrant and complete BS.

When are you going to stop jabbering your mindless rubbish,Ivan ??

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 1:00 pm

You are probably DUMB enough to think that flood modelling and climate modelling are much the same thing.

Ignorance seems to be your only redeeming feature.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 4:20 pm

well let’s see….climate change is exacerbating hurricanes

The great hurricane of 1935 went directly over us with 200 mph winds…
…Irma went over us with 75 mph winds

a 0.7 degrees increase in temperature did that

Ivan, there were 3 hurricanes…..why are you focusing on just one

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 11, 2017 5:38 pm


While there is a minimum supposed water temperature for a hurricane to form, the relationship between sea temperature and hurricane strength is associational at best. You will not sell the ‘global warming caused by GHG’s will increase hurricane strength’ story successfully for two reasons, both based on physics:

The enthalpy of a hurricane is not the determinant of delivered power, it is determined by Delta T. If the whole atmosphere is warmer, the hurricane’s deliverable energy is not increased by the increase in enthalpy (total energy). Second, oceans are not warmed by the atmosphere. If an ocean is warmer than before, it cannot be attributed to GHG’s, in spite of idiotic and non-physical claims repeated in the New York Times by writers who haven’t a clue how GHG’s work.

An atmospheric mass containing relatively more total energy than historically, can’t deliver more of that energy onto land or sea unless the surroundings are at the same old historical temperature. That a mechanical engineering fact. Even James Watt was aware of it. If the entire system is ‘globally warmed’ then so is the ‘cold side’ and the deliverable energy is exactly the same as it would have been before. If the alarmists had checked with any competent high school physics student or engineering freshman they would have had that particular hurricane balloon popped.

The simple proof of this is that as the globe has warmed, the enthalpy of hurricanes has tended to rise slightly and the deliverable energy has dropped because the Arctic has warmed more than the tropical zone.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 12:24 pm

In 1963 Hurricane Flora dropped 103 inches of rain on Santiago de Cuba. The hurricane stalled over eastern Cuba for several days, just like Harvey did. It’s evident building codes need to be improved and the Houston area needs better flood control, given the amount of construction that goes on. Such moves have nothing to do with global warming. I don’t consider the ny times to be a reliable source for anything ever since they cooperated with the government to peddle the Iraq WMD baloney in 2002-2003.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 11, 2017 4:13 pm

Or since they cooperated with Stalin to cover up the Holodomor in Ukraine in the 1930s.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 12:26 pm

I learned EVERYTHING I needed to know about Houston’s flooding by watching a post-storm helicopter fly-over of the devastation. What I observed were NEW housing tracts sitting high and dry, next to OLD housing tracts flooded. It is simply down to the “elevation” of buildings, the “contours” of construction. We know exactly how to build safely. We have updated FEMA maps across the entire nation, which have increased the BFE (basic flood elevation) everywhere. We constantly improve building codes (local and national) usually every 3-years. That’s why our buildings get safer and safer, year after year. It’s what our culture and society does … we LEARN and we ADAPT. The famous Shirtwaist Co. fire and deaths of children taught us about the need for building FIRE safety … like FIRE ESCAPES, and FIRE sprinklers. So we wrote (and enforced) new building codes. And we know EXACTLY how to build at SAFE flood elevations, and how EACH PROJECT must provide detention/retention basins to control flooding (we absolutely DO NOT pave everything over). This is especially true in regions of our country that are subject to DELUGE Rains … such as the Gulf Coast and (ironically) desert regions subject to flash flooding. Guess what? After every BIG earthquake in CA … there are hundreds of old buildings erected on unreinforced masonry foundations that get destroyed. The new(er) homes … nope. They have been built with shear walls and rigid steel frames required by updated building codes. This article … yes, I read it … is nothing more than eco-political garbage. It is astounding to me just how LITTLE these pompous “journalists” actually know about the REAL world. REAL building codes and regulations. They just want to splooge-out their leftist political tripe. Their actual “research” time was all spent watching a Tom Steyer anti-Trump advertisement.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 3:53 pm

are you seriously taking NYT for some sort of peer-reviewded science journal?
Well, peer-reviewed it is indeed: the sceintific illetarate like of yourself, who studied psycho, journalism, languages, politics, community managment or whatever with zero science content, applaud and buy it.
Read it as you would read a novel (for fun) or “Mein kampf” (to learn about the agenda of the writer) , or don’t read it at all.
But to pretend we can learn something about the world from it, is just eyeroller, and make a fool of yourself.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 11, 2017 4:14 pm

“(to learn about the agenda of the writer)”

Yep, blatantly obvious. !

Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 11, 2017 11:35 pm

That is complete rubbish and you know it. The science underpinning climate change has even been accepted by Syria now – only sceptics in the US still keep on spouting out their “it’s all a hoax” babble. Articles like this inform the reader in layman’s language what the consequences will be.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 12, 2017 12:28 am

Poor Ivan,

so “simple” that he doesn’t realise that most countries are in it for the MONEY.

Do you really think Syria wouldn’t jump for the chance of a new coal fired power station.

1600 of them being built around the world.. did you know that..

All in accordance with the Paris loo-paper.

Still can’t used to the FACT that there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite temperature, can you, small-minded one…. only NATURAL EL Nino and ocean effects.

There is NO CO2 warming signal anywhere.

If you really “believed” CO2 was causing a problem , you would divest from ALL things that require fossil fuel power. (you know, like Al Gore has 😉 )

I dare you to NOT be a monumental HYPOCRITE.

Turn off all your power. Eat no delivered using fossil fuels

Go and live “Carbon Free”

Come on, Ivan.. do the right thing, you know you want to !

Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 12, 2017 7:24 am

LOL ivan
“The science underpinning climate change has even been accepted by Syria now – ”
Ye, Syria is known for it’s expertise in climate science. Or is it political mongering and ruthless disregard of its people, even killing them ?

“only sceptics in the US still keep on spouting out their “it’s all a hoax” babble.”
I am not in the US, and i know it is not an hoax. it is a political move toward global socialist government, as plainly said by its promoters, backed by kleptocrates who benefit hugely selling toys (bird-chopper, EV, solar panel, indulgence…) , and non scientists (including self labeled “climate scientists” ; the only one writing sensible things beeing Lorenz, and “deniers” like Jo Nova).

Articles like this inform the reader in layman’s language that the writer is a journalist. A storyteller of whatever sells more (and doom sells more that truth), ready to throw away any real fact that hinder the story. Ye, sure, a storm hurts. You need a journalist to know that, really?

Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 12, 2017 5:39 pm

Meanwhile, in the US we have reduced carbon dioxide emissions through free market efforts like fracking and burning more natural gas because it is a cheaper fuel per btu than coal or oil, and can also be transported and utilized more efficiently for power generation.
But the places where CO2 output is increasing, places like India and China, get a free pass until 2030 to emit as much as they want.
China is already emitting more CO2 per year than the US ever did, and not by a little but by over twice as much.
We do not hear much about this though, do we?
The barrage of graphs from years past showing total CO2 emissions per country are now nowhere to be found, dropped off the radar, and not even a dedicated internet search for them will turn up updated versions of what we used to see virtually everyday in rags like the NYT.
But anyone being honest knows the truth…this has nothing to do with CO2 or environmentalism.
Every single place one looks for evidence we can find it, enough to disprove this nonsense many times over.
If renewables are such a success, why is Germany emitting as much as ever, while the only country with a major political to reject global warming has lowered emissions back to levels last seen in the 1990s?
If CO2 is so bad, where are all the new hydro and nuclear plants, which are the only non fossil fuel sources of reliable base load power?
None of these questions can be answered without admitting that everything the warmistas are saying is complete and utter nonsense…and just plain wrong.
So stop lying Ivan, read and learn yourself, and quit being one of the stupid sheeple.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 11, 2017 4:26 pm

“What is true and provable? “…

none of it……..that’s why this blog is so popular

If the science was “settled” why are so many scientists constantly trying to prove it?

November 11, 2017 11:19 am

If these groups, as a whole, stopped using all the things that modern use of fossil fuels has brought to western civilisation, ..

.world CO2 emissions would drop substantially

but they won’t do that. They like the niceties that modern society has to offer.

It would be interesting to investigate the “carbon footprint” of the most of these yapping hypocritical morons.

Bruce Cobb
November 11, 2017 11:25 am

Your view of reality is so badly distorted, it’s as if you are from another planet. Nothing you say rings true in the slightest. Maybe you should lay off the Klimate Koolade. Perhaps a 10-step program called Kooladeholics Anonymous would help.

November 11, 2017 11:37 am

“Conservatives can’t be persuaded to change their minds about climate change because we’ve been instructed to ignore climate facts by our “elites”. First off I am not aware of any individual or group that I listening to on a regualar basis. That would be my definition of elite. Secondly my “values” are not the deciding factor on things scientific. In the case of global warming I read the science from both sides and make my own opinion. The ongoing weak answers to critical flaws in the modeling demonstrates the bias of those scientists. As more and more scientists publicly question the science as well as the obvious political partisanship of the whole issue, the science will eventually be shown as a major hoax. Who wants to be on board when that comes down.

Reply to  JohninRedding
November 11, 2017 12:00 pm

The world’s surface is getting warmer. CO2 helps keep the world warmer than it would be without CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 atmospheric concentration is increasing. Therefore it’s reasonable to expect that humanity’s CO2 emissions do keep the world warmer than it would be without such emissions. It is within the realm of possibility that our emissions are going to delay the onset of the next ice age. The fossil fuels we use are being depleted, sometime in the future we won’t be able to produce oil and gas at the rates we produce today. Therefore using non fossil sources of energy help stretch out our reserves. It’s not wise to advocate today’s nuclear energy as a solution for unstable nations, therefore it is wiser to develop much safer nuclear and other energy sources. Most of adverse impact from co2 emissions is based on exaggerated atmospheric concentrations we can’t reach, this is shown by the difference between actual emissions and predicted emissions for the “business as usual” case used in propaganda (RCP8.5). We are more likely to be harmed by future artificial intelligences than by global warming. Running out of oil and gas will be a much bigger problem within the next 50 years. Just in case we ought to research geoengineering to remove CO2 if it does get a lot warmer. And I bet there’s no political party willing to support my ideas.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 11, 2017 2:19 pm

How much of the warming, since coming out of the Little Ice Age, is due to natural cycles and how much to increasing CO2 is still up for debate. But even if it is all due to CO2, there is no concrete evidence that the warming has been more harmful than beneficial. Why panic over something that might prove to be more good than bad for the majority of the planet?

Even if you are right about fossil fuels being depleted over the next 50 years, it won’t happen overnight. As fossil fuels become more scarce, the cost of energy will go up. This will make other forms of energy more competitive. The switch to alternate energy sources will occur gradually and naturally. Oil and gas wells will not all suddenly dry up at the same time. Again, there’s no need to panic.

No one is stopping anyone from researching or developing solutions to possible problems that may arise. Also, no one is stopping you from switching from fossil fuels to alternate forms of energy. Knock yourself out. Just don’t force me to adopt your views of the future just because they “might” come true. I would like to see some proof, or at least some strong evidence, first.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 11, 2017 4:16 pm

fernandoleanme: Do you have any idea of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Is there any reason to think that a gas in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer? If so how much and by surface do you mean land or water?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 11, 2017 8:17 pm


“…the “business as usual” case used in propaganda (RCP8.5)…”

RCP8.5 is NOT the business as usual case. Don’t let the incompetent, or the illiterate mislead you. 8.5 is far above the Model mean. All the “8.5” means is a doubling of CO2 might lead to an 8.5 C rise in global temperature. Most scientists think that is preposterous. Need proof? Find one who thinks it is realistic.

Even the ‘scientist’ who is now a British Columbia Green Party politician who ran the ridiculous 6.2 degree model at U Vic didn’t believe it could be as high as 8.5 and he is in the tin foil hat brigade. Most recent papers are looking at the 0.5-1.2 degree range, ‘most’ meaning more than half.

Imagine it: a sensible calculation based on inputs from observations is 0.5, which is 1/17th of RCP8.5. Ridiculous exaggerations abound in the arena of ‘climate science’.

The bottom line is that the term ‘business as usual’ doesn’t apply to the sensitivity. It is used when the sensitivity is applied to an estimate of warming based on estimates of emissions over the coming 83 years that one gets a ‘temperature rise forecast’. That forecast is given for various emission scenarios, one of which is ‘business as usual’.

So far emissions have exceeded all scenarios expected in the late 80’s and the global temperature is not at anything close to the ‘best case scenario’. This demonstrates the fundamental inadequacy of the methods used to make those predictions about temperature.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 12, 2017 2:08 pm

Louis, Ive been in the oil and gas business since 1975. I’m not in a panic. Prices are going up, I bought a bunch of oil stocks when prices were low, and I’m quite happy with the investment. The market can take really hard swings when supply and demand are out of whack by 5 %. Right now OPEC has very little spare capacity. And the decline for non OPEC is climbing towards the 6-7% per year range. We lack large mega projects to fill the gap, the light tight oil is getting drilled out, exploration isn’t doing well. I stand by my comments.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 12, 2017 2:17 pm

Crispin: rcp8.5 was designated business as usual by an IPCC official a few years ago, and this trick worked for them. Most scientists doing impact studies have used RCP8.5 as the main case in their work. It has been used for the bulk of the propaganda. Lately they switched to a mix of rcp6 and lower. I’ve been hammering at this issue for four years, and explained that using rcp8.5 for impacts or economic runs was fraud. So maybe I’m having a little impact? I also write quite often about the EPA climate model, used to back up their económics findings for the clean power plan. That model is fed RCP8.5 on steroids. Which means all the EPA work is garbage. I keep mentioning this hoping somebody will catch on. Maybe you do understand?

November 11, 2017 11:43 am

I strongly recommend two books by Dr. Robert Conquest, a conservative historian. The first, and read them in this order, is “Reflections on a Ravaged Century.” He details how various forms of radical socialism came to power and what happened once in power. It is not about the wars specifically, hot or cold. It is as much about the failures of the West and the group think of the time as anything. The second is a bit more philosophical, “Dragons of Expectations: Reality and Delusions in the Course of History.” He set forth where we are today after the Ravaged Century and how the same elitism and group think are taking use down very dangerous roads. Conquest was attacked vehemently during much of his career by most of liberal academia because he kept pointed out, with data, the horrors and failures of socialism. He clearly demonstrates that the denial by useful idiots and fellow travelers still affects much of our society today. For example how we have a larger percentage of millennials that believe socialism (actually fascism) is better than capitalism. I am certain he would not be surprised with the VOX item.

November 11, 2017 11:58 am

It is … politically incorrect … to question AGW. Speaking of being persuaded toward a “belief”. Enough said.

J Mac
November 11, 2017 11:59 am

Whoo Boy! You have to love the chutzpah of ‘ivanskinsman’ offering emotional appeal weather anecdotes to sway conservatives and skeptics that climate change is not a communist plot! Hurricanes are normal weather events on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States of America, Comrade!

It’s just such a typical and hilarious climate alarmist ‘FAIL’!

November 11, 2017 12:01 pm

The Vox piece vividly demonstrates what is wrong with warmunists (who are mostly also leftists). Assume what they learned from their elites (IPCC) is true and that skeptics are know nothings mislead by conservative elites. Many skeptics are not conservatives. What skeptics mainly have in common is an examination of the climate data and facts, which leads them to challenge the IPCC core: models inherently wrong because parameterization drags in attribution, no accelerating SLR, polar bears thriving because their biology was misrepresented, greening,…
VOX is pure psychological projection by warmunists, revealing their true Achilles heel—reality. Why warmunists won’t debate skeptics. They would lose on the facts. Why Koonin’s red team proposal will be so powerful. Why Mann is desparately avoiding Steyn discovery. Why Pruitt will be able to undo the endangerment finding.

Curious George
Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:10 pm

A True Believer won’t be persuaded by mere facts.

Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:14 pm

You nailed it. To me it seems he is saying “the other side does not have the correct herd mentality! Hence they make very poor ‘useful idiots’. We must have their elites program them in the correct way like we have been programmed!”

Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 12:26 pm

I follow the Vox dude on Twitter, he’s not educated to understand 80% of the material he pontificates about.

Reply to  ristvan
November 11, 2017 4:02 pm

VOX is pure psychological projection by warmunists, revealing their true Achilles heel—reality.

BUT – the left controls a disproportionate percentage of pop culture media, so they are able to continue the illusion that presents itself as reality.

November 11, 2017 12:06 pm

Again, what i get out of this “Vox’s” rather repetitive lack of argument is that Vox cannot distinguish between weather, which is the short-term, and climate, which is the long term. I have doubts that Vox, and with whom he associates, will ever acknowledge those differences, or want to, for that matter.
The advantage to living in the USA is that we who disagree with the Voxian view of things don’t get punished for it. That seems to be more disturbing to him than anything else. It’s that old chestnut: “it IS if I say it IS’, and then you look out the window and it’s snowing with enough drifting snow to block the roads toward home.

Russ R.
November 11, 2017 12:15 pm

Younger people have always fallen victim to the appeal of socialism. It is the equivalent of the “liberal is a conservative that hasn’t been mugged, yet”. The hard knocks of life, raising a family, and watching as your friends and family are motivated (or not) by the incentives in the economic system available to them.
The great fallacy of the socialist system is the distortion of the incentives in controlling economic decisions. Adam Smith understood those incentives, yet so many are still trying to improve on what cannot be improved on. And every system that tries to improve on it, must become a parasite to the system and an impediment to improving the human condition. Do the young people in your life a favor, and help them understand the work of Milton Friedman. It is guaranteed they will not learn about him in any public school. And any mention of his name is immediately shouted down on any campus in CA or NY. There is a good reason they have spent so much time and effort demonizing him.

John Robertson
November 11, 2017 12:48 pm

That posting is great.
Was belly laughing by second paragraph.
Gang Green is impossible to parody.
Social Science Eh?
Strange how little is new with these re-inventors of the wheel.
Seeing as how their method of operation is lovingly detailed in our folk tales, such as Chicken Little, The Emperors New Clothes, The Golden Goose…
So people who think, attempt to apply the tools of reason,logic and past experience can be so easily “convinced” by our “elites”.
I suspect the author is too thick to understand a simple request for evidence.
Give me the evidence and I will take it from there.
Your elite esteemed opinion is sure to be an irritant and distraction until I find time to do so.

On CAGW the fad has peaked, conviction does not trump evidence, especially as money starved bureaucracies and their trained seals impose taxes on carbon dioxide.
This is where the tax paying citizen starts to pay attention.
And if past weather cycles are indication of future, the carpetbaggers timing could not be better.
Colder winters and a tax on the substance of life, may just convince the happy voter to educate our “elites”.
For any kleptocrat so arrogant as to tax life ,is too stupid to allow any authority, anywhere.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 11, 2017 1:10 pm

“Social Science ”

Cookin’ ‘n’ Cleanin’

Roger Knights
November 11, 2017 1:11 pm

“…..How can conservatives be moved on climate change?…..”.

How about requesting that PBS host a series of debates on the topic? Or how about accepting Heartland’s open invitation to present at its annual conference?

Roger Knights
November 11, 2017 1:17 pm

“Reality still matters. What we have in the US is not a “difference of opinion” about climate change, it’s conservatives being mistaken about some very basic facts.

He may be so uninformed that he thinks that most leading skeptics deny that it’s getting warmer and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s the strawman version of our position asserted or insinuated by warmists. It’s a mistaken version.

Reply to  Roger Knights
November 11, 2017 3:26 pm

There are no greenhouse gases. Greenhouses work by preventing convection. Not trapping radiation.
As for whether it is getting warmer or not. I am not convinced the United States is as hot as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Is it warmer than the 1960s and 1970s when the impending ice age was upon us? Sure, it is warmer than then. I also believe in the Medieval Warm Period and that is was warmer on average globally than today.

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:04 pm

While you are of course exactly correct per physics, your observation will carry no weight in the political debate. Better to explain very simply the analogy (greenhouses prevent convective cooling, greenhouse gasses prevent radiative cooling),then move on to more substantive political points. And make them simple, short, irrefutable soundbites of the sort spinkled here since years:
Models irretrievably wrong (no tropical troposhere hotspot, pause) because unavoidable parameterization drags in attribution, observational ECS half of modeled, no accelerating SLR, polar bears thriving, greening,…
Practice killer sound bites, please. Itnis a political not a scientific debate at heart.

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:09 pm

Practice killer sound bites, please.

– CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past and there was no “runaway effect”
– Planetary vegetation starts dying at about half of the current CO2 concentration

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:20 pm

“greenhouse gasses prevent radiative cooling”

Except that they don’t !!

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:28 pm

AndyG55, H2O is a greenhouse gas.

It prevents radiative cooling.

If you doubt this, I suggest you spend the night in a desert.

Have you ever gone camping in a desert?

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 4:29 pm

ghgs obviously do prevent
cooling, regardless
of your flippant (as always)

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 7:47 pm

NO, the only reason H2O is up there, is because it has ALREADY DONE its cooling job.

Because it has huge latent heat capacity, it often overdoes the transfer of energy.

Do you really NOT understand this ??

Reply to  astonerii
November 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Seems that crackpot
does not have
the slightest idea
how H2O operates
in our atmosphere.
sadly lacking.

Reply to  astonerii
November 12, 2017 6:49 pm

Crackerhead, the
you write your p
osts is ver
y annoying and I
wish you wou
ld give us all a frea
king break and cu
t it out.

November 11, 2017 1:34 pm

The climate fanatics are ever nearer to finding an “elite opinion leader” who will propose a “final solution” to deal with us.

November 11, 2017 1:36 pm

Looking at the “parade” we see ALL the trapping of modern FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENT society, that the greenie sheeple so love to lap up.
comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
November 11, 2017 3:01 pm

“To change everything, it takes everyone”

Count me out. Why would I want to change “everything”? These spoiled brats don’t know how good they have it compared to the history of the world. So don’t ask me to help change anything until you can show me that it will make things better rather than worse. That is hard enough to do for small changes. Change “everything,” and I can guarantee disaster.

Reply to  Louis
November 11, 2017 5:20 pm

we need energy — its source doesn’t matter.
unless you want to leave a vastly different
world for your grandchildren, you should care

Reply to  Louis
November 11, 2017 5:25 pm

I hope that my grandkids can enjoy a lush, balmy world of 1200 ppm CO2. But alas, that goal is unattainable, given frigid climate of the earth for the past 34 million years, and getting worse.

Reply to  Louis
November 11, 2017 5:33 pm

will any of your grandkids live
in the tropics? (3B/7.3B do.) The
Arctic? Near a coast? All are/will
be drastically affected by
AGW. Do you care?

Reply to  Louis
November 11, 2017 7:30 pm

“All are/will
be drastically affected by

You are
just mindless AGW
Your comments are

Reply to  Louis
November 12, 2017 12:55 am

“we need energy — its source doesn’t matter.”

And the cheapest, most reliable of sources are coal and gas.

With the extra HUGE benefit of adding much needed CO2 to the atmosphere.

Why do you want to DEPRIVE the future of plant life?

What sort EVIL, despicable sort of cretin are you ?

November 11, 2017 1:38 pm

It is not the Conservatives who are driven to deny CAGW, it is the Left which is driven by its Elites to ignore rational investigation and Science, in order that they believe in the policies which bring great wealth to the Elite of the Left.

“’Conservatives’ probably can’t be persuaded on climate change. So now what?”

How about presenting some scientific evidence in favour of CAGW if you can find it? They could start by demonstrating some convincing scientific evidence that the climate is sensitive enough to the ‘Greenhouse’ effects of CO2 that it is a cause for any worry.

“They’re mistaken because they’ve been lied to and misled by leaders and influencers within their own tribe.”

I cannot see that this applies to the ‘Conservatives’ but I can certainly see that it applies to the Left in Spades. If ‘Conservatives” listened to their Elites like Leftists do, Trump would not have been elected.

Reply to  ntesdorf
November 11, 2017 5:04 pm

“They could start by demonstrating some convincing scientific evidence that the climate is sensitive enough to the ‘Greenhouse’ effects of CO2 that it is a cause for any worry.”

did you read the 5AR by any
chance? Even just the SMP?

Reply to  crackers345
November 11, 2017 5:07 pm

I did.

No such evidence there.

If you imagine such exist, please cite it here.


Reply to  crackers345
November 12, 2017 12:53 am

“SMP” ?

You mean the
That many
writers refuse
to have a bar of?
You obviously
haven’t read
otherwise you
would know
that there is
in it !

John Robertson
November 11, 2017 2:00 pm

Actually I listen to my self appointed elites and usually reject their emotional twaddle for what it is.
Political correctness is their only defence, once you push past that they revert to shrieking and flinging filth.Opposing points of view are heresy.

November 11, 2017 2:08 pm

To me, nobody special, this looks like excuse making, intended to disguise the low level of enthusiasm among people in general, as evidenced by the consistently low ranking of “climate change” indicated by surveys including long lists of potential concerns (and hence no significant campaigning on the “climate change” issue in the recent US election).

The illusion of some sort of widespread enthusiasm on a “side” (that is being counteracted by obstinate “conservatives” on the other side), is critical to maintain in the minds of those relatively few that have actually been convinced that we face a grave climate crisis, it seems to me, or there will be no cover at all for this (to my mind) “elitist” power-play . .

Freedom of speech is the prime target now, I believe, and that’s where the “agonism” comes in, for building the case/cover for internet censorship . .

Gunga Din
November 11, 2017 2:25 pm

Conservatives Can’t be Persuaded About Climate Change

Maybe they just can’t be persuaded to jump in bed with the political science promoting CAGW?
Who was it that said that CAGW was the opportunity for “first time in history” to change the world’s economics?
(Guess she likes poverty.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 11, 2017 2:28 pm

“(Guess she likes poverty.)”

Just not for herself. !!

Russ R.
Reply to  AndyG55