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.
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.
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.
The problem is not to persuade conservatives. The problem is to persuade Mother Nature.
Circle jerk or coprophagic daisy chain.
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?
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.
Articles like this are actually instructions, beamed into the brains of anyone who reads the drivel of the hack writers at Vox.
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.
+100. Without exception, you can read what the socialists accuse others of, and know that’s what they themselves do.
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.
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:
Cheers
+ 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.
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.
Every
Single
Day
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.
Paul Blase – November 11, 2017 at 3:27 pm
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:
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.
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
Truth!
sam c – what’s that graph’s
data source….? interesting.
crackers345 – November 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm
This site references the actual source of that graph, to wit:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62
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.
Not just Australia. The history of China was sorely affected by the droughts of the Maunder Minimum:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2005ScienceMeeting/presentations/fri_am/Hameed_China_Drought.pdf
so in addition to AGW from
our ghg emissions, we have
to worry about the sun too.
that just makes everything
worse
Cheer up Crackers.
The classic fairy tales of old still hold good value for society, if the lessons are heeded.
Truly an apt remark – the world today is stunningly full of falsehood.
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.
“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).
“To Change Everything It Takes Everyone”. Communism by any other definition…..
“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.
And those who do not go along with the crowd will be dealt with properly.
“For everything to stay the same, everything must change”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard
A word of truth about revolutions, from the one in Sicily 1860.
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.
And that is what the far left need to change.
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.
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.
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.
It sure does not occur to them that a dissenting opinion might actually be correct.
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.
Damn straight!
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.
Here you go
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
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.
Moa
“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!!!!
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.
Astonerii,
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
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
Mosher,
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!
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.
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.
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. ”
and
“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?
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:
See here for a discussion of the probabilities of this being an honest mistake or a legitimate attempt to correct some error:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
Aaand… a look at how the time series graph for the US used to look in1999, vs how it looks in 2017
menich – adjustments
reduce the long-term
warming trend. are
you aware? you’d like
it to be higher?
astonerii
“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?
Simon – maybe you should be aware of the History of berkley – FWIW – berkley were never true skeptics
Tom13 – the non climate scientist
Really, define a true skeptic?
And Berkley was once all about free speech too …
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.
” 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
Muller: “Call me a converted skeptic.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
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
FAYETTEVILLE EXP STN AR USC00032444 1890 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
BOWLING GREEN WARREN KY USW00093808 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
NEWBERRY CORRECTIONA MI USC00205816 1896 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
KALISPELL GLACIER AP MT USC00244558 1896 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
TUPPER LAKE SUNMOUNT NY USC00308631 1899 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
JAMESTOWN STATE HOSP ND USC00324418 1881 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
PORTSMOUTH-SCIOTOVIL OH USC00336781 1893 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
HEADWORKS PORTLAND W OR USC00353770 1899 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
GREENVILLE KGVL RADI TX USC00413734 1900 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
RICHFIELD RADIO KSVC UT USC00427260 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
STAUNTON WATER TRMTM VA USC00448062 1893 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
YELLOWSTONE PK MAMMO WY USC00489905 1894 2016
all these sites
used the same
thermometer for
all a century? all
read at the same time?
crackers,
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
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
groups.
what do you think muller
et al
did wrong?
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?
ast – so you agree that adjustments
must be made in order
to property correlate
different thermometers?
paq: all these sites
used the same
thermometer for
all a century? all
read at the same time
of the day? take
into account
urbanization?
astonerii commented – “The only thing that matters with the time read is that they are read similarly through their life.”
so were
they?
Muller was not completely honest on his motives. So that was it. I don’t trust the guy.
crackers,
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
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!
Hugs commented – “Muller was not completely honest on his motives.”
in what
way?
astonerii:
“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.
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.
Bald-faced projection. Replace every use of “conservatives” with “so-called progressives” and you’ll be miles closer to the truth.
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.
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.
that’s not my
observation. look at
today’s GOP. herd thinking
governs all of it. don’t
anyone DARE differ
even one iota.
Crackers,
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.
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.
(SNIPPED) MOD
Gabro
“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.
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.
who keeps closing down nuclear plants?
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.
so how do you
explain modern
warming?
Not CO2,
its a myth,
a fallacy,
and unproven
farce.
Sun and
Ocean +
UHI account
for all.
NO CO2
warming
in the whole
satellite temper-
-ature data
AngyG55
“NO CO2
warming
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?
“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.
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
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.
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.
Angry55 – that’s entirely
unscientific. not even worth
a retort.
ps – RSpencer certainly
accepts
that CO2 is a GHG
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.
So, to you “long-term” must mean 300 years or 30 years.
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
recommends.
but we can go longer if
you want.
gabro commented –
“On every possible long-term trend, the planet is cooling. Dangerously so.”
ha ha.
what balderdash.
get serious here.
Phanerozoic temperatures:
are you worried your ancestors
50 M years from now might
have to wear ear muffs?
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.
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.
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.
Me too, to the first part…and me neither to the latter.
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.
Hlaford,
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.
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.
Goldrider
There is nothing more honest than money.
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.
what “natural causes?”
Our elites have had their own way for too long. Finally we are forcing the elites to follow us.
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!”
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?
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.
Crackers,
It’s all about the reality-based evidence. For CACA, there is none.
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”
“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.
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.
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.
https://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/06/14/how-serious-is-bp-about-wind-energy/#704a63b34f23
Sorry, we refuse to be
instructedbrainwashed.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.
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.png
This no doubt is a dumb question, but what is climate justice?
“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.
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
RacistDenier.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.
I disagree with you Eric: There should be two tees in nuttism.
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.
Is that a Coke bottle cap on his nose? I would’ve sworn Mittens could afford better. Is he slumming?
@menicholas Well put on Romney, not to mention nut(t)ism.
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.
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)
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.
“…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.
Yes…to zero %
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.
[snip yes we are tired of seeing it, wildly off-topic -mod]
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.
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.
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.
I’m for climate justice. Up here in cold Toronto, Phoenix owes me.
The climate record in Toronto is the only time frame longer than their Cup drought.
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.
“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.
10-4 Mr. Van Winkle!
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.