Good news about climate change from an unexpected source

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: Today we have several pieces of good news about our changing climate. It is good news from an amazing source.

Climate Good News

 

How soon will the ‘ice apocalypse’ come?

By Tamsin Edwards at The Guardian.

The bien pensants at The Guardian are credulous consumers of climate doomster stories. So this science news story is extraordinary. It debunks a long-time favorite story of the Left about the coming end times, when Antarctica slides into the sea. See this excerpt of the opening and closing (red emphasis added).

“An emotive article on the ‘ice apocalypse’ by Eric Holthaus describes a terrifying vision of catastrophic sea level rise this century caused by climate change and the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet. But how likely is this – and how soon could such a future be here? …

“I was particularly concerned about some of the implied time scales and impacts. That ‘slowly burying every shoreline …creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees …could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years’ (it could begin then, but would take far longer). That ‘the full 11 feet’ could be unlocked by 2100 (Rob and Dave predicted the middle of next century). That cities will be ‘wiped off the map’ (we will adapt, because the costs of protecting coastlines are predicted to be far less than those of flooding). We absolutely should be concerned about climate risks, and reduce them. But black-and-white thinking and over-simplification don’t help with risk management, they hinder.

“Is ‘the entire scientific community [in] emergency mode’? We are cautious, and trying to learn more. Climate prediction is a strange game. It takes decades to test our predictions, so society must make decisions with the best evidence but always under uncertainty. I understand why a US-based climate scientist would feel particularly pessimistic. But we have to take care not to talk about the apocalypse as if it were inevitable.

Tamsin Edwards is a lecturer in environmental sciences at the Open University (profile here). She blogs at the PLOS website, All Models Are Wrong.

What does this mean?

For three decades the Left has given confident predictions increasingly dire scenarios about our ever-changing climate.

The latest: the end of humanity and devastation of the Earth — predictions with little support in the peer-reviewed literature or work of the IPCC. For example, the 10 July 2017 issue of NY Magazine featured “Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells — “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.” This was the most-read article it its history.

Equally exciting is “Will humans be extinct by 2026?” at Arctic News, and “Are we headed for near-term human extinction?” by Zach Ruiter at Toronto Now — “Recent studies suggest it is irresponsible to rule out the possibility after last week’s “warning to humanity” from more than 15,000 climate change scientists.”

Most exciting is journalist Peter Brannen’s new book, The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth’s Past Mass Extinctions (see this excerpt in The Guardian).

This campaign to influence US public policy — the largest in our history — has been almost totally ineffective. Has the Left realized this and returned to relying on science to inform to public — rather than exaggerations and partial truths to terrify people? That would mean using the work of the IPCC and major climate agencies (rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces), and above all looking at the full range of scenarios used in IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.

That would be a radical change from their past. For example, manufacturing nightmares by misrepresenting its worst-case scenario (RCP8.5) as the result of business-as-usual trends. For example, RCP8.5 makes the unlikely assumption that coal becomes the major fuel of the late 21st century, as it was of the late 19th century.

Another example: see the news misreporting a big GAO report about climate change.

Good News

More good news!

One of the countless climate “tipping points” we passed was in 2007 — “Scientists: ‘Arctic Is Screaming,’ Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point” (AP).

“Greenland’s ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer’s end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.

“‘The Arctic is screaming,’ said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. …

“This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions. …The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming. Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died.’ …”

For an update see “Tricky Sea Ice Predictions Call for Scientists to Open Their Data” by Alexis Madrigal at Wired.

“In 2007, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic declined rapidly. The drop from the previous year was so precipitous that it garnered worldwide attention and media coverage. In the last couple of years, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic, measured by the amount of square miles it covers, has recovered. This series of events, which underscored the year-to-year variability of the measurement, has made researchers cautious about describing events in the Arctic.

“’In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,’ Serreze said. ‘There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.’ …”

Average arctic sea ice area in September 2017 was the seventh smallest on record (since 1979). It has been flattish during 2007-2017.

More good news, from Vencore Weather: “Impressive cold continues on Greenland with high snow/ice buildup” by meteorologist Paul Dorian — “Significant growth in the Petermann Glacier during the last five years.”

Lessons learned from this.

First, it means the alarmists have been proven wrong yet again. Likewise, their claims that the IPCC and climate agencies are “too conservative.” Second, that journalists lust for clickbait stories produces unreliable news. Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.

The works cited in these articles

As always, we start with Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 (2014).

“In the Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is projected with low confidence for the end of the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises.”

(1) Widely misreported so that “Pine Island Glacier” became “Antarctic”: “Retreat of Pine Island Glacier controlled by marine ice-sheet instability” by L. Favier et al. in Nature Climate Change, February 2014.

(2) Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica” by Ian Joughi et al. in Science, 16 May 2014 (gated).

(3) Changes to Circumpolar Deep Water” by Bethan Davies at AntarticGlaciers.org, 15 September 2014.

(4) Mass loss of the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica from four independent techniques” by Tyler C. Sutterley et al. in Geophysical Research Letters, 16 December 2014 — “During the common period 2003–2009, the mass loss is 84 ± 10 Gt/yr with an acceleration of 16.3 ± 5.6 Gt/yr2, nearly 3 times the acceleration over 1992–2013.”

(5) Potential sea-level rise from Antarctic ice-sheet instability constrained by observations” by Catherine Ritz et al. in Nature, 3 December 2015 (gated; open copy here) — “Our assessment suggests that upper-bound estimates from low-resolution models and physical arguments (up to a metre by 2100 and around one and a half by 2200) are implausible under current understanding of physical mechanisms and potential triggers.”

(6) Contribution of Antarctica to past and. future sea-level rise” by Robert M. DeConto and David Pollard in Nature, 31 March 2016 — “Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated.” Note the wild alarmism of that. There are no reliable estimates of fossil fuel resources that allow “unabated” burning in the 22nd century, let alone through to the 25th century.

(7) On the Short-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica” by Pietro Milillo el al. in Geophysical Research Letters, 28 March 2017 (gated) — “…we estimate a retreat rate for 2011–2015 of 0.3 km/yr at the glacier center…, which is 3 times slower than for 1994–2011…. We attribute the decrease in retreat rate to colder ocean conditions in 2012–2013 relative to 2000–2011.”

(8) Edwards described this paper as “less pessimistic”: “Widespread movement of meltwater onto and across Antarctic ice shelves” by Jonathan Kingslake et al. in Nature, 20 April 2017.

(9) Also seeHot News from the Antarctic Underground“, the NASA press release about volcanic heating of Antarctic sea ice. Here is the study: “Influence of a West Antarctic mantle plume on ice sheet basal conditions” by Helene Serouss et al. in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, September 2017.

Advertisements

243 thoughts on “Good news about climate change from an unexpected source

  1. Seems that some of the rats are getting nervous ……
    the smart ones are leaving before they get wet …

    • And the story on “the science being settled” seems to be jettisoned as well:
      “Is ‘the entire scientific community [in] emergency mode’? We are cautious, and trying to learn more. Climate prediction is a strange game. It takes decades to test our predictions, so society must make decisions with the best evidence but always under uncertainty.”

      Sounds like he doesn’t trust the models either…

  2. Shock! Horror!

    Is the Guardian changing tack? Just ever so slightly?

    Now publishing lukewarm climate predictions.

    How can this possibly be true?

    Does this mean they are beginning to agree with Donald Trumps assertion that the Paris Accord is so much hogwash?

    Will George Monbiot’s column be reduced to a mere few lines of his usual gibberish?

    The biggest question of all is, will this shut up the dribbling CIF contributor Rocky Rex, who stalks the corridors of the comments section wielding his biased little database of puerile, distorted AGW ‘facts’. No?

    Didn’t think so. The doddering old fool is too set in his ways.

    • Monbiot spends so much time looking for roadkills and cooking them for his dinners, it’s doubtfull he has any time left writing, not that he could write anything other than green garbarge.

    • Monbat has long moved on, hard to believe it but now CIF environment is now worse. They effectively handing it over to Cook and the 97% BS gang to write what they like with loyal , and unquestioning, followers acting as gatekeepers.

    • Let’s give some credit to Dr. Edwards for her honesty and ability to maintain an audience for messages that don’t feed the panic mill. Though she supports the global warming theories she has always been driven more by evidence than opinion and has usually been a more sober voice in a room full of chicken littles. I feel that among all the CAGW pundits she is the most likely to acknowledge uncertainty and to admit when wrong conclusions have been reached.

  3. I’ve said this before, “low confidence” estimates should be read as “no confidence” in what follows. Any statement(s) after that term is used should be ignored as simply psychological propaganda.

    This “low confidence” conditioning is common ploy in persuasion. The reader only remembers the alarmist statements, but not remembering they were made with effectively no confidence.

  4. When I read these topical articles, I can’t help think of what Dr Michael Crichton said of the Precautionary Principle.
    First, the Wiki definition of the Precautionary Principle:

    “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

    Dr Crichton said of the Precautionary Principle:

    “The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.”

    Source: Author’s Message as an addendum to his novel “State of Fear,” 2004.

    The best example I can think of how wrong the Precautionary Principle is, is when hucksters like Al Gore insist the developing world must not use fossil fuels to strengthen their economic positions to be able to deal with natural calamities that have always, and will in the future, strike. Al Gore and other CO2 alarmists almost invariably invoke the Precautionary Principle as justification to force the world to be carbon-energy free in the near future. Hurricanes, typhoons, floods, droughts, all have always happened throughout human history.

    An example of why the Precautionary Principle must be ignored:
    Take for instance the US and Bangladesh. Both have river delta coastlines (US via New Orleans, Mississippi Delta and Dhaka, Bangladesh, Padma-Meghna River Delta) with large populations that are also in real threat of tropical cyclones bringing disastrous flooding, tidal surges, and infrastructure destruction.

    Which country-city is better able to deal with the flooding, river rise, evacuations, and rebuilding from a major TC strike on their coastline-river delta? The US-New Orleans, or Bangladesh-Dhaka?

    Of course the economically richer US is with its financial resources. The US better able to deal today with a TC strike – pre strike, during, post, and the rebuilding — all phases. Why? Of course because we have used fossil fuels for 120 years to build a resilient economy. The US has a fossil fuel economy that can evacuate people, that can build resilient structures, can afford to rebuild that which is destroyed.

    It is economic development that ensures resilience. So proper application of the precautionary principle demands we encourage Bangladesh to use all resources (fossil fuel and otherwise) to strengthen its economy for the sake of its people and their environment. Which is to say, we must ignore the climate alarmist’s misuse of the Precautionary Principle.

    • If we are to follow the precautionary principle to a logical reduction of risk, then we should all be walking around in Faraday cages to avoid the potential lightening strikes. Of course driving in a car makes a good alternative, but think of the CO2!

    • actually Precautionary Principle is either self-contradictory or truism. In any case it is a dictatorship principle, that allow for any decision you like when in power (or that you dislike when not in power)

  5. I prefer that their claims continue to be outlandish and unbelievable even for the average Joe to figure out.
    Are they now going to be more deceptive since the Gross exaggerations did not sell? I hope not.

    • barryjo…………….that line also caught my eye; Maybe – made me laugh.

  6. Tamsin Edwards has sounded sensible before; but she always adheres to the side that is paying her salary.

    Tamsin’s new employment at “The Open University” and “Environment, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences” does not appear to change that basic circumstance.

    Rereading Tamsin’s Guardian article in that light, positions Tamsin as attempting to reign in the irrational “over the top” alarmist claims and predictions; not refusing any of IPCC’s extreme or outlandish scenarios or predictions.

    Yes, all models are wrong.

    • at least she’s a physicist. A particle physicist. At least she understands EM radiative transfer and the 2nd Law. That is unlike so many of today’s climateer scientists who make-up fake proxy models and bias-tuned climate models.

      • Remember a scientist is not much different from a layman when opinionating on things that are not belonging to her professional scope. This is exactly what makes GHE very difficult to assess. It required a Homo Universalis which is no longer available.

      • Yes she was a particle physicist, but that subject is the polar opposite of climate, all nasty complexity is stripped out to yield simplicity, the interaction of two particles. It would be easy for a particle physicist to be seduced by its success into believing that climate is simple.

      • Homo Universalis would look at this geothermal heat flux map that shows the melting Thwaites glacier (that climate change bedwetters keep wailing about) in close proximity to one of the largest geothermal heat fluxes in Antarctica and say, “We need to look closer at this”. Climate scientists pretend it doesn’t exist and go back to playing with their computers.

      • Tamsin is relatively new to the fray. When she first came on the scene she was willing to engage skeptical views on Andrew Monfort’s site. She certainly leans toward the AGW view, but even her own blog indicates some skepticism.
        If there is ever to be a dialogue, we will need the Dr Edwards and Dr Currys to help start the conversation.

      • No argument there at all, joelobryan.

        Tamsin is quite intelligent and well educated. Nor do I believe she would directly support fake models of any sort.

        Did Tamsin manage to keep her code pristine in that murky world of climate science? It’s possible and likely; though possibly damaging to her programming career.
        Not that a physicist moving on to better pastures, honestly considers their programming career damaged by staying honest. Especially, since neither the internet or science forgets.

  7. It appears the Climate Alarmists have lost the information war.

    The war is not over!

    The Alarmist will become active Terrorists and commit mass murder and sabotage to achieve their religious beliefs.

    • Meanwhile the Alarmists have their Soros-paid Antifa brigade thugs. But I have the 2nd Amendment on my side.
      Come and Take it.
      I’m waiting.

      • I have been wondering who all the Fa(scists) are that the Antifa is Anti. I suppose there likely are a few around the USA, a couple hundred or so, but that sure doesn’t seem like something worth staging violent protests about.

      • Jeff, I don’t know about other nations, but here in the US “Fascist” means anyone the left doesn’t like. It is synonymous with racist and militia.

      • Goodness!
        A preening Scibo as Prime Minister?
        Less qualified than – say – May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major.
        You could argue Callaghan, but he – uniquely at the time – had been Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not Always with huge success, some believe; but he had had those posts – so knew the pressures..
        Thatcher was a scientist, had been various ministers – and had defeated the Traitor Heath (who took the UK into the EU – Common Market then, [now sometimes called the eUSSR])

        Bria Cox could be an effective Defence Minister – if he believed in Defence of the Realm as the Government’s highest duty.
        [In the UK, it is not clear that the PM and the Chancellor do believe that – but open to persuasion through committing REAL money.]

        Auto

  8. The Left is slowly beginning to realize the very deep and inescapable hole they’ve dug for themselves..

    For the past 30 years, Leftist High Priests have been preaching the gospel of inevitable Warmageddon to their acolytes, with salvation only possible by surrendering $76 TRILLION in penance to Leftist governments (2008 UN estimate) for their terrible sin of burning “evil” fossil fuels…

    In return for the $76 trillion, Leftist disciples received social dispensation and got to virtue signal their imaginary belief of “saving the planet” from….more plant food… and allowed them to burn all heretics that didn’t worship the CAGW orthodoxy…

    The faux Leftist CAGW religion has finally been exposed as the biggest and most expensive ho@x in human history:

    1) No discernible warming trend since mid-1996, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 made over the last 21 years.
    2) Antarctic Land Ice growing at 100 billion tons/year since 1992.
    3) No increasing trends of severe weather incidence/severity in 50~100 years.
    4) Arctic Sea Ice Extents recovering since 2007.
    5) CH4 concentrations stuck at 1.7ppm for the past 25 years.
    6) Sea Level Rise stuck at 7 INCHES/century since 1800.
    7) Crop yields almost TRIPLING since 1960.
    8) The disparity between CAGW’s global warming projections vs. observations exceeding 2 standard deviations for 21+ years.
    9) CO2 forcing can only account for about 0.3C of the total 0.85C of beneficial global warming recovery we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
    10) Since CO2 forcing is logarithmic, each incremental CO2 increase will have less and less and less of a warming effect. Oh, my…

    The CAGW religion will soon have to be burned at the stake because: both the PDO and AMO will soon to be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, the current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906, the next one from 2021 will be the weakest since 1790, the one from 2032 being the weakest since 1645, and the start of a 50~75-year Grand Solar Minimum event…

    Accordingly, global temps will soon start falling for the next 80~100 years, rather than increasing by 3C~4.5C by 2100 as the CAGW dogma once prophosized…

    Poor Lefties… CAGW is so screwed.

    • Crispin in Waterloo

      I’m not educated, so I never did get the Low/Medium/High confidence, confidence trick. I thought it was just me being my usual thick self, but it seems I might not be quite as thick as I believe I am, just by the tiniest bit though.

      I also note that UK criminal law, one of the best, and oldest criminal justice systems in the world, demands that the circumstances of a conviction must be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not high/medium/low confidence, sleight of hand, to secure a conviction.

      However, demonstrating criminal culpability for an offence is beyond reasonable doubt takes a great deal of hard work and dedication by the prosecution as all the defence must introduce is an element of reasonable doubt to frustrate a conviction.

      As a layman observer, it seems to me, the alarmist’s have fallen well short of demonstrating CO2 as the culprit for global warming, and even less that man’s contribution is meaningful, beyond reasonable doubt.

      Indeed, the sceptical community have highlighted numerous, considerable doubts as to the security of man’s conviction as an environmental criminal.

      On that basis, and by the standards of the precautionary principle as well, mankind should be absolved of all accusations of culpability, and business as usual should be pursued.

      It is in many ways, the question of where the burden of proof resides amongst scientists, which damages their credibility amongst we, the great unwashed. Furthermore, it is the lack of scientist’s willingness to police themselves which further engenders mistrust.

      Sceptical scientists are largely excluded from this criticism as they are merely doing the job they are employed to do (or not employed in many cases) which is to introduce reasonable doubt into the case of Man Vs Climate Change. In the main, they do an extremely good job.

      • HotScot,
        You must be aware of the Scottish “Not Proven” verdict. In my opinion if CO2 went to trial in Scotland as the perpetrator of the crime of Climate Change then the worst case scenario would be Not Proven.

  9. Now for the bad news. Cold is coming. The changes in the annual growing season are beginning to effect crop production. Keep an eye on food prices in the supermarkets. If the price hasn’t gone up the portion size has gone down.

    • Richard, that has been happening for years now. Look at your thee-pound chicken in the grocery store- $12 (Canadian). They used to be half that. My wife and I raise our own chicken for 30 cents a pound.

      • ClimateOtter

        And I believe supermarket meat is injected with water to increase it’s weight, hence the white scum when I fry bacon.

        But of course the anti Brexit mob are wailing about importing chlorine washed chickens from the US once we leave.

    • The Original Mike M

      Other than to prove a point, it’s not.

      But we’ll be saving the warmist’s grandchildren, until they figure it all out, by which time it’ll be too late.

      • “Other than to prove a point, ”

        Well I disagree, why should we have to continue to add more new “points” when the dishonest alarmists never gave any “credit” for prior ones? For examples, where is their acknowledgement of the “hiatus” or their explanation for a 12 year drought of Atlantic strong hurricane landfalls despite a record high SST or their concession that SLR is showing no threat to reef islands or their recognition of a growing preponderance of evidence that the MWP was global and slightly warmer than now, etc.?

        There are already dozens of prior “points” like those that slap down CAGW theory but the alarmists can be guaranteed to ignore new ones as easily as they ignored the prior ones because, to them, it isn’t about science at all anymore – it’s a matter of belief.

      • The Original Mike M

        If the planet cools, we don’t add another point, the planet does, quite convincingly.

        And why would you expect acknowledgement of anything from well paid scientists reliant for their jobs on CAGW, and the media who want to sell papers, which is best served by promoting catastrophe?

        Personally, I’d rather not have the gradual acknowledgement that they’re wrong, well, it would be constructive but, their past behaviour (persecuting sceptical scientists, promoting bad science, distorting science, fiddling numbers, Climategate etc. etc.) deserves their most humiliating crash from the heights of arrogance.

        And the true believers will be left marooned in a sea of obscurity, screaming “Just you wait”.

        Revenge is a dish best served cold. Perhaps in more ways than one, although I’d prefer it was in the metaphoric rather than the physical sense.

    • “How is a return to more ice and cold “good news”?”
      It is actually really bad news. Lower crop yields, crop failures etc are never good, think about wide spread famine. Not something anyone looks forward to.

  10. What this mostly means is that there is a healthy debate in the scientific side. As opposed to the bizarre political stuff posted on this website.

    Cheers
    Ben

    • Come on benben you just haven’t got the mob on him and tarred and feather as a denier yet. That is the typical healthy debate isn’t it.

      • benben

        One can only flog a dead horse for so long. The scientific debate goes round and round, reliant on ever more obscure minutiae.

        If there is a meaningful scientific study that finds there is a positive aspect of, for example, increasing CO2, it’s never acknowledged by the alarmist community or the alarmist media. A prime example being the 14% increase in earth’s vegetation in 30 years. Incredibly positive, with no observed negative aspects of climate change even approaching it, yet the alarmist position continues to revolve around climate models and predictions rather than reality.

        That in itself reveals a political agenda to the debate which almost overrides the subject itself. Exemplified by Obama exclaiming “the science is settled” and Trump replying “no it effing well ain’t”.

        So if you’re looking for an entirely scientific debate, you would probably be better starting your own blog and banning political comments, because I haven’t’ found a climate site yet that isn’t up to it’s elbows in the politics. Nor is it their fault, that’s just the way the debate has moved.

      • HotScot, there is plenty of research on the positive aspects of CO2. For one it’s used in all the greenhouses. It’s also included in many of current generation of integrated assessment models. So… honestly, I don’t really know how to argue with people that can’t be bothered to do their homework.

      • One of the main ensemble of climate models is available online, so you can check out the documentation yourself, instead of relying on the words of WUWT. Hey, perhaps you’ll learn something see why the famous 97% of all scientists is fine with they science behind global warming ;)

        https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/

      • “the famous 97% of all scientists ”

        Now we KNOW that you are no scientist.

        Falling for that piece of propaganda garbage.

        May someone help your poor brain-washed little mind. !!!

      • Hey, I’m here aren’t I? It’s just that the level of debate in the comments section is terrible. Nothing to engage with but blind fury about who knows what.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • (Points finger at BenBen) Oh, hahaha, now that is hilarious. Stop. You’re killing me. That’s so funny……Oh. wait, you’re being serious aren’t you?

      • “It’s just that the level of debate in the comments section is terrible”

        Yes, you desperately need to come up with some actual content.

        Baseless empty rhetoric is all I’ve ever seen from you.

      • hmmm Andy, there is some merit to that comment. It’s just very difficult to talk with people about science if they never put in the tiniest bit of effort into learning the basics. See the link to the textbook below. Again, you’re free to disagree, but if you don’t put in the effort to read it there is no use in debating.

      • “if they never put in the tiniest bit of effort into learning the basics”

        We are waiting for proof of very basis of AGW farce..

        So far , you are sadly lacking.

      • Man, I’m a scientist, I never read any of the crap politicians say or do. But the science is as solid as it is going to get, and what passes for scientific discussion on this site is laughable.

      • benben: “But the science is as solid as it is going to get”

        That’s quite an acknowledgement.

        We’re left with a theory that has no laws, no axioms, no postulates, no equations, no formulae, and no chance for advancement?

      • benben

        I’m not a scientist, so this ought to be easy for you.

        Would you be kind enough to direct me to a recent, credible, empirical study, which demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm. And then perhaps to a few more over the last 40 years that demonstrate the concept beyond all reasonable doubt?

        Thanks.

      • benben … you are never a scientist.. stop lying.

        That you even pretend to be, is laughable !!

        The science behind the AGW Agenda is a load of anti-science propaganda pap.

        Show us empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

      • BenBen, you may be a scientist, but you do pretty serious damage to your credibility when you make some of the statements that you do on here.

        “The science is as solid as it’s going to get.” Really. Really. That is a poorly thought out statement, indicating to me that you may be a ‘scientist’ but you don’t have a scientist’s mind.

        So, I am curious. What part is so solid that new information won’t change your theory?

      • Hi Andrew, a lot of the fundamentals of atmospheric physics and chemistry are just that. Physics and chemistry. The first book talking about the dangers of increasing CO2 levels came out in 1896 I believe.

        If you’re interested in actually seeing what we work with in science, rather than follow the random BS posted on blogs like this website, please take a look at the following textbook. Obviously you’re free to disagree, but only after you actually put in the effort to read it. Cheers!

      • It is noted that you slime around producing any evidence that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.

  11. Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate” – by Larry Kumer, March 2016

    “Forecast: Clinton will crush Trump in November” – by Larry Kumer, March 2016

    Red Alert: the Saudi Princes have announced the arrival of Peak Oil” – Larry Kumer, July 2008

    “Where were you during the peak oil hysteria? It began in 2005 and died in 2013.. – Larry “no humble pie for me” Kumer, Feb 2016

    • khwarizmi,

      Wow. That wins the “weirdest comment” award for this thread!

      (1) Why do you believe the climate policy debate is over? My prediction is that weather (not climate) will end it, when a period of extreme weather — blamed, of course, on climate change — panics the US public. The reaction of the US public to the weather in 2016-17 supports that theory. Time will tell if it is correct.

      (2) Predictions about elections are just fun, especially when made so early in the campaign. Note that Hillary did win the popular vote by 2.9 million votes (a 2.1% margin), so this prediction was not outlandishly wrong.

      (3) You seem unfamiliar with the concept of “news”. The Saudi Princes did announce the arrival of Peak Oil. They were wrong, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t news at the time.

      Not being an expert in minerals or geology, I did make predictions. However, during the past decade I repeatedly suggested that people listen to two experts.

      First, Sir Ronald Prain’s 1975 explanation of what geologists have known for generations: Good news: here’s why we won’t run out of minerals (including oil)..

      Second, to Robert Hirsch — former head of the US fusion program and (until his retirement) one of America’s top energy experts. This is still the best guide to energy policy: “Peaking of World Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management” (aka “Mitigations”), commissioned by the Dept of Energy, Co-authors are the economists Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, February 2005. It says that we lack the data to reliably forecast the date of peak oil, but best estimates are over 20 years in the future (i.e., at or beyond the edge of the foreseeable future).

      Also, Hersh was skeptical about the use of solar and wind (aka interruptables) as sources of baseload electrical power. He was one of the first (perhaps the first) to note that the cost of providing back-up capacity was a cost to interruptable sources, especially when their contribution to the grid exceeds 5%.

      See links to his articles here: https://fabiusmaximus.com/peak-oil/peak-oil-other/ (some of the links have died).

  12. “We absolutely should be concerned about climate risks, and reduce them. But black-and-white thinking and over-simplification don’t help with risk management, they hinder.”

    This is something some of us on the left have been banging on about for many years. While believing that humanity is effecting a degree of climate change, continuous exaggeration of the impact undermines climate science like no other factor. Thats why some of us read this page. You get the odd right wing loonies, but the point is that there are also gems of information which challenge accepted beliefs, and that is invaluable in making an informed decision. Incidentally, well done Guardian ; maybe we can now hope that the Daily Mail will accept that humanity is influencing the climate in some way ?

    • ‘…..humanity is influencing the climate in some way ?’

      Too bad CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, at the end of the Holocene it would have been a bonus.

    • “that humanity is influencing the climate in some way ”

      Not via CO2, NO warming signature from CO2 in the whole satellite data.

      Sure, local effects of urban/airport warming, and maybe some small irrigation effects…

      So, please enlighten us all to these effects.

      In what way are humans influencing the climate?

      And please use provable fact, NOT model/agenda based fantasy.

    • “You get the odd right wing loonies”

      I haven’t seen any….

      Several guys like you pushing the AGW socialist agenda, though.

    • Gareth (I’m not sure this went in the right place the first time, so I’ll repeat it. Forgive me if you did get it the first time).

      “You get the odd right wing loonies”

      Sorry, I’m as right wing as one can get, but it wasn’t my side H*tler emerged from, nor Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini or Kim, amongst many other despotic criminals of the 20th Century. Extreme racism, with the Klu Klux Klan emerging from the lefty Democrats, and the Republican’s fighting against slavery.

      That is the left wing sleight of hand; to incite the gullible into believe the right wing invest’s in wholesale violence and genocide.

      The reality is we would far rather spend it all on ‘stuff’, made by paid, working people. Which is a damn site more humane than murdering millions upon millions of them for an ideology!

      If I then qualify as a right wing loony, I’ll accept the brand, with considerable gratitude.

      • Hotscot
        Strange I always thought that despite socialism in the name the Nazis were right wing, because they allied themselves with other right wingers like Mussolini and Franco. But then they say when the politics gets so extreme right and left wings become the same. Strange parallel between CAGW and anti CAGW

      • Gerontius

        “Strange I always thought that despite socialism in the name the Nazis were right wing,………”

        Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Alrbeiterpartei; NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party)

        So the party identified itself as a socialist organisation. To attract right wing voters?

        How very cunning.

        Mussolini was kicked out of the socialist party of the time, then after a brief flirtation with right wing politics he virtually invented fascism, a concept, dismissed by all as a very bad idea. If it could be defined by any flavour of politics, it would be by his background as a socialist.

        However, the semantics are barely worth debating as he was one of the minor left wing animals populating the planet at the time, H*tler, Stalin and Mao were streets ahead of him in terms of left wing brutality.

      • HotScot

        Maybe we can leave overblown political labeling out of this. Gareth said nothing to deserve this over the top response.

        C’mon Anthony. This is pitifully off-topic and a rant of the first magnitude.

      • scraft1

        Gareth made comments entirely at odds with the reality of socialism, which goes hand in hand with CAGW. All I did was point out the reality.

        Don’t whine to Anthony for Censorship, I’m certain the mods are watching and I’ll be given a sharp slap on the wrist if I’m out of order, without your appeal.

      • Scraft said”
        “Maybe we can leave overblown political labeling out of this. Gareth said nothing to deserve this over the top response”

        I appreciate your support mate, though I’m a fairly used to the stick I get for being honest about my left of centre political beliefs. I mentioned ‘Right wing loonies’ because you can :
        1) Guarantee they will announce themselves.
        2) Make some daft claim that Hitler was a Socialist
        3) Claim that Climate change science is all a socialist plot.
        They duly obliged so I am grateful for that.
        The rest of my posting regarding why I as a traditional leftie read and contributes to the blog is hopefully acceptable to all !
        Cheers a Nadolaig Llawen i chi.

      • Gareth

        1) My right wing comments litter this blog. I announced myself long before your feeble efforts to ‘expose’ me. So don’t present yourself as some sort of socialist campaigner, you’re just not at all observant.

        2) If you are in denial about H*tler being a left wing, extreme socialist, then you are beyond help. The very sight of tens of thousands of troops performing the H*tlergruß in unison exhibits a high degree of servitude and worship.

        3) I don’t believe I said anything about climate change being a socialist plot.

        Clearly, you can’t conduct a debate with realism and honesty so resort to puerile excuses for your behaviour.

      • @scraft1

        Yep, gareths’s comment about “right wing loonies” was well out of line.

        He brought up the politics, erroneously….. why should he not be corrected.

    • “continuous exaggeration of the impact undermines climate science like no other factor”

      That’s a very big and frustrating problem. Eventually, liars aren’t believed even when they tell the truth. That’s bad because reasoned and honest discussion breaks down and can easily become just two camps throwing darts at each other..But honestly, that is the whole point of identity politics. Those on the left have to decide if that is really what they are all about.

  13. Gareth

    “You get the odd right wing loonies”

    Sorry, I’m as right wing as one can get, but it wasn’t my side H*tler emerged from, nor Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini or Kim, amongst many other despotic criminals of the 20th Century. Extreme racism, with the Klu Klux Klan emerging from the lefty Democrats, and the Republican’s fighting against slavery.

    That is the left wing sleight of hand; to incite the gullible into believe the right wing invest’s in wholesale violence and genocide.

    The reality is we would far rather spend it all on ‘stuff’, made by paid, working people. Which is a damn site more humane than murdering millions upon millions of them for an ideology!

    If I then qualify as a right wing loony, I’ll accept the brand, with considerable gratitude.

    • The majority of scholars regard Nazism as an ideology of the far right. And although Mussolini started out a socialist he ended up fascist – not fitting neatly into either left nor right.

      • “We are socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

        ~Adolph Hitler, May 1st 1927

      • The free market economy in Fascist countries is severely restricted and guided by central government. The “corporate” identity was not that of companies/corporations as we use those terms today. The corporates were groupings of industries, workers, trade groups, professional institutions and the like.

        These groupings were managed by the government representatives in those councils using all of the methods gatekeepers use everywhere. In other words the fascist government is no friend of the individual free enterprise companies, they were abused to achieve the ends of the fascists who were indeed socialists.

      • Tony Mcleod

        Spinning the facts again, but dishonesty is a hard habit to break isn’t it.

        Tony Mcleod
        Why would anyone discuss anything with you? You are a dishonest person, “facts” from you are meaningless. Heres your dishonesty on display for everyone.
        Cut from WUWT on March 3rd, the bet. This bet was discussed and reaffirmed on multiple occasions after with no retraction ever made or implied at any time. Tony lost and then welched.
        “UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

        Bob boder
        March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am
        Tony
        i’ll make a bet with you.
        if the geographical North Pole is ice free this year I will never post here on WUWT again. If it isn’t you never post here again.
        will you take the bet?

        tony mcleod
        March 3, 2017 at 3:56 am
        Your on Bob.

        Bob boder
        March 3, 2017 at 8:38 am
        Tony
        It’s a bet.
        Koodos to you for being willing to stand behind your prediction.”

      • Keitho, what ? Hitler was a socialist? I guess you also believe the People Democratic Republic of North Korea is also Democratic. Don’t trust titles, look at actions and end results.

      • “Hitler was a socialist? I guess you also believe the People Democratic Republic of North Korea is also Democratic. Don’t trust titles, look at actions and end results.”

        Gareth, your comment at November 28, 2017 at 1:28 am had me fooled that you were more intellectually honest than this comment indicates.

      • Gareth

        You do realise that is a direct quote from Hitler?
        Nazi’s where absolutely socialists, just look at the policy’s Hitler enacted very “progressive” in almost every action he took.

      • @Tony

        The majority of scholars regard Nazism as an ideology of the far right.

        Would those be, ummm, left-wing scholars? Drop a couple of names and publications, why don’t you?

      • “The majority of LEFTIST scholars regard Nazism as an ideology of the far right”
        There, i got it fixed for you.

        Mussolini wasn’t just a socialist, he once said “i know socialists, i taught socialism to all of them leaders”. And he did, as head of internal socialist party school as well as director of the socialist newspaper. Fascism perfectly fit in the left were it came from, and so did nazism, headed by a fierce anti-capitalist Hitler, with a fully socialist in charge of propaganda (Goebbels and Hitler got along in full accord all the way to the end in 1945). http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm
        The only difference is that socialism sacks owners of economic assets and give direct control to party-appointed people, while Nazism and Fascism had rather capitalists to work for them through carrot and stick (which was obviously smarter).

      • Tony mcleod

        The majority of scholars [incorrectly] regard Nazism as an ideology of the far right.

        Mussolini largely invented Fascism, from a background of socialism. He was kicked out of the socialist movement, joined the right wing with little more success, then turned an unacceptable fascist theory into reality.

        Vitally, his formative years were as a socialist.

      • McLoud blather-ed:
        “The majority of scholars regard Nazism as an ideology of the far right.”

        My Response:
        The far right does NOT want a strong central government, like the Nazis had.

        Therefore Nazism has nothing to do with the far right (or far left).

        There are two spectrums worth considering:
        (1) Statism:
        From a strong central government
        ………. to weak government.

        (2) Capitalism vs. Socialism:
        From maximum private ownership of the means of production
        ……… to maximum government ownership.

        The Nazis believed in a strong central government
        with strong control, but not ownership,
        of the means of production and the resulting profits.

        Probably because they wanted their best people
        managing the manufacturing of weapons
        rather than government bureaucrats
        trying to manage their factories.

        The Nazis were also the leading believers of the “fake science” of eugenics,
        which was actually a consensus position in the world … until after WWII when
        former believers “never heard of it”.

      • Here is another party of thugs in the US who claim to be something they are not. They are in fact white supremacists which any right thinking person on the right or left and in between would look at with horror. Guess what they call themselves?
        ” Traditionalist Worker Party”
        I bet they have some pretty weird ideas on climate as well. I wonder how they view Climate change ?
        I also wonder if any particular groups are blamed? Whatever people are on this site, I have never seen anyone blame any particular ethnic group, or non-ethnic group for climate change, or the sceptical movement. That is great and well done everyone.
        And that is the difference between normal politics and Fascism. Fascists would be blaming one group of people, regardless of evidence or their political stance. Thats why Hitler was not a Socialist or extreme Conservative. He was outside politics, he was a Fascist.

      • Gerontius

        Franco was without doubt right wing. A fascist, borne from the right wing, amongst a sea of murderous left wing organisations such as H*tler (death toll 17 to 20 million people) Stalin (death toll 40 to 62 million people) Lenin (death toll: 4 million) Mao (death toll from 45 to 75 million) Pol Pot (death toll 1.7 to 2.4 million) Castro, Kim, Ho Chi Minh, Mussolini, Tito etc etc.

        And whilst I’m at it, Franco also presided over the ‘Spanish miracle’ which saw growth from 1959, with an economic boom until 1974. He largely abandoned his fascist principles and launched Spain into late 20th Century success.

        I don”t see any mitigating qualities of any of the left wing leaders I have mentioned.

        Sorry mod, but I’m really fed up with the right being tarred with the brush of everything evil in the world, including climate change.

    • I really appreciate you putting forward yourself as a right wing loony HotScot. It is very kind of you. But as you say, you are not quite right wing enough, but fair play, you are trying ! There are of course left wing and right wing voters, then again there are left wing and right wing loonies. Generally the right loonies say daft things like :
      “That is the left wing sleight of hand; to incite the gullible into believe the right wing invest’s in wholesale violence and genocide” And left wing Loonies tend to side with any despotic government as long as they are anti-Western. But there we are, there tends to more Right wing loonies on this site than left wing, but trust me, if I ever spot any, they’ll get the same treatment.
      Nadolig Llaw i chi a Tuelu. Merry
      Christmas to both you and the family :)

      • Gareth

        I couldn’t be much more right wing. I’m a member of the UK Libertarian Party. An entirely peaceful political organisation that believes in small governments, limited taxation, free trade, and the necessity for the individual to stand on their own two feet. i.e. the basis of Capitalism.

        “And left wing Loonies tend to side with any despotic government as long as they are anti-Western.”

        You said it, not me.

        The evidence of left wing violence as a means to a political end is a matter of historical record. I was witness to it’s distasteful tactics first hand during the miners strike in the UK. The President of the National Union of Mineworkers, Arthur Scargill, organised flying pickets with the stated intention of disrupting peaceful picket lines across the country, turning them into violent confrontations with the police, for no other reason than to present the police as an oppressive authoritarian government agency.

        Even most local miners hated Scargill and his thugs because they knew he was promoting a campaign of violence they wanted no part of.

        I was a cop at the time and many of my mates were miners.

      • Gareth

        “Keitho, what ? Hitler was a socialist? I guess you also believe the People Democratic Republic of North Korea is also Democratic. Don’t trust titles, look at actions and end results.”

        Yes, look at the actions and end results; oppression, warmongering, genocide, murder, persecution.

        Funny that, it sounds much like the USSR and China in the 20th Century, as well as N. Korea.

        It’s all very well arguing the case for socialism based on the welfare state, our (UK) NHS etc. but to try to deny the vicious nature of middling (Germany) and extreme (USSR and China) left wing politics is to identify yourself as politically, socially and humanitarianly blind.

        In other words, a slavish, cultist, follower, blind to reality. Nor is that meant with any malice, it is just a plain fact.

    • Hot Scot
      You’re not right wing, or left wing.
      You are obviously libertarian — minimum government = maximum freedom.
      I’ve been a libertarian since the mid-1970s.

      The lefties are really into choosing their words carefully, as propaganda.
      Tipping point used to have real meaning in the old days, but they’ve stolen it.
      (Tipping Point used to mean the moment when too many drinks changed the
      drinker’s position from vertical, to horizontal)

      The righties are really into their bibles.
      The lefties wanted a religion so they invented the Co2 is evil religion.
      Everyone wants to predict the future.
      In the good old days no one cared about the future climate.
      We knew winters were cold, and summers were warm.
      During a summer no one worried whether the next summer
      would be warmer or cooler.

      • Richard

        I came to politics very late. I was around 50 years old, 10 years ago before I took any meaningful interest.

        So as a relative virgin to the subject, I had to do a fair amount of research, and it very rapidly became evident to me that socialism is little more than a monster restrained only by people willing to fight against it.

        Our youth are being seduced into it by the left presenting ‘far right’ and ‘alt right’ politics as representative of genuine right wing politics.

        There is one single predominant feature of Capitalism that I like; Capitalists would rather work to make money than fight to deprive others of it.

        If Capitalism were uncorrupted by religion, class, status and distorted left wing politics, everyone in the world would have a job, everyone would have the opportunity to be wealthy. Welfare and health would be well provisioned for by wealthy philanthropist like Andrew Carnegie (a Scot from a family of weavers). “During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away about $350 million to charities, foundations, and universities—almost 90 percent of his fortune. His 1889 article proclaiming “The Gospel of Wealth” called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, and stimulated a wave of philanthropy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie.

        So the generosity of Capitalism isn’t a myth, it has been demonstrated as a workable policy Bill Gates and others practise to this day.

    • Skeptics are not right. Nor wrong. They just stand by the motto
      “in God we trust. All other bring proof. Theories or Models not accepted”

      • paqyfelyc

        Agnostic libertarian here, saying you have zero clue what you are talking about. It’s all about the science for skeptics, unlike the true believers who it’s all about the politics. The science clearly points to no C in AGW, in fact it is probably a B, as in Beneficial if anything. So maybe it should BAGW.

  14. I don’t see any good news here. Every year for the climate summit we are bombarded with alarmist articles and this year was no exception. When temperature goes up it makes the news, when it goes down is not mentioned. When Arctic sea ice goes down it makes the news, when it goes up is not mentioned. When CO₂ goes up it makes the news, when it goes down is not mentioned. When sea level goes up it makes the news, when it doesn’t change is not mentioned. Everything that goes wrong from illegal immigration to a lower frequency of sexual acts is blamed on global warming. Most people in the world are convinced the Arctic is fast melting, global temperature is increasing nearly every year, and sea level is rising faster every year.

    This debate isn’t becoming less entrenched. Very few people crosses the lines and the division is in great part political, which is a bad thing. When temperature is going down, sea level isn’t rising, sea ice is increasing, and CO₂ isn’t rising, like now, the alarmists get louder and more aggressive, because they are angry the data isn’t going their way. And the media follows them, not the skeptics.

    This type of debate is never solved with the victory of one side. Eventually people move on and the interest dwindles, and both sides claim victory. Then people have a false memory of it. “Global warming? Yes we solved that, as we did with acid rain and the ozone hole.”

    • As a WWII german once said:
      “I knew we were losing when I observed that our crushing victories happened closer and closer to homeland”.
      The same is happening for CAGW believers.

      Don’t expect people to cross line. In real life, they don’t. The losing side just lose old members (because of death, disengagement, etc.) more than he gains new members, while the opposite happens for the winning side. CAGW is losing, because even its members have other higher priority (like: fighting Trump, supporting BLM or whatever), and even them can see Elon Musk and those rich enough to afford his toys profit much more of the CAGW scheme than they do, and it fix just nothing.

      • You’ve got to be kidding. The new generations are all being educated in CAGW dogma. Even if some resist the indoctrination, I call that losing, not winning.

      • Javier

        Don’t be so despondent. Things will change, they always have.

        Look at it this way. If, as is predicted by a number of credible scientists, we are literally on the precipice of a period of cooling (from around 2019/2020) the whole CAGW edifice will crumble. Our indoctrinated youth will feel betrayed and lied to, and the politics of the whole thing will be laid bare.

        On the other hand, if these scientists are wrong and temperatures do rise, then we will spend the world’s wealth on mitigation, which will do absolutely no good whatsoever. And I’ll cite Monckton here:

        “Humankind produces ~30Bn tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per year, which equates to ~15Bn tons of CO2 per ~1ppm.

        The UN states that unless we do something about increasing atmospheric CO2, it will be at ~468ppm by ~2100.

        Multiply 15Bn tons by 468ppm = ~7Tn tons of atmospheric CO2 humans will have added to the atmosphere by ~2100.

        The UN maintains those 7Tn tons are expected to cause 7°F of warming by ~2100.

        So, to mitigate for 1°F of warming, humankind must eliminate 1Tn tons of CO2 production.

        Dividing 1Tn tons of CO2 by our annual output of 30Bn tons, it will take ~33 years to mitigate for 1°F of temperature rise and ~231 years for all 7°F.

        But that means no energy use whatsoever; no coal, gas, bio mass or even windfarm produced energy (it takes CO2 emissions to produce wind turbines). No hospitals, schools, housebuilding, factories or transport. Absolutely no CO2 production whatsoever.”

        (I transcribed this from a presentation of his so the numbers may not be quite what they should be.)

        Our youth of today will put up with destitution for only so long, before they realise the objective is futile, at which point, belief or not in the principle becomes academic.

        It’s not the climate we need to worry about. It the concept of population control because if the world becomes hotter, humans will be blamed, and if it becomes colder, the need to feed the worlds population will be targeted as the next scare, fulfilling, amongst others, The Club of Rome’s aspirations.

        And by the way, I crossed over from the dark side, lock stock and barrel.

    • Javier,

      “I don’t see any good news here.”

      Think of it as the first green leaves after winter. They are small. They might be premature, and destroyed by the next frost. But they are still good news.

      The news is mostly the “same old, same old.” The most important news, the key news to look for, are inflection points. They are usually small, at first.

      • Larry,

        “This campaign to influence US public policy — the largest in our history — has been almost totally ineffective. Has the Left realized this and returned to relying on science to inform to public — rather than exaggerations and partial truths to terrify people?”

        So, you believe there is a coherent group of some sort (you call the “Left”) that mounted a “campaign to influence US public policy”, but may have realized it was ineffective . . and may have “returned to relying on science to inform to public — rather than exaggerations and partial truths to terrify people” ? Fascinating . .

        “That would mean using the work of the IPCC and major climate agencies (rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces), and above all looking at the full range of scenarios used in IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.”

        Oh . . back to the same old browbeating by the same coherent group, based on the same old scientific authoritarianism we’ve been subjected to for decades . . What a wonderful thing ; )

  15. The really good news, which Skeptics/Climate Realists have known all along, is that the slight warming we’ve experienced has been a boon to mankind, as has been the increase in CO2. This “concern” about the warming has been idiotic to the nth degree. Indeed, as has been mentioned here, and many times before, evidence suggests we may actually be heading into a period of cooling in the coming decades, possibly beginning in 2019. The idiocy of worrying about warming, when it is actually cooling that we should be concerned about is mind boggling.

    • “The idiocy of worrying about warming, when it is actually cooling that we should be concerned about is mind boggling.”

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. What is truly amazing is how the alarmist camp talks about warming that has occurred since the LITTLE ICE AGE, a period marked (as were most cold periods before) by famine, disease and death, like it is “bad.” If you COULD “blame” humanity for the warming that has occurred since that time, then humanity deserves a pat on the back, not a guilt trip, for its “contribution” to that “climate change.”

    • Bruce Cobb

      As far as I can gather, the planet has only ever been as cold as it is now, without actually descending into an ice age, twice. Neither time, from my recollection, has it coincided with the almost calamitously low levels of atmospheric CO2 we have now.

      What will happen if the planet warms? Well we know from historical fact that the Medieval Warm Period was fantastic for, at least, Europe. Whether or not it was localised is entirely beside the point, the fact is, the European population flourished. Almost all the meaningful Cathedrals in the UK, and most of Europe, were built then when people could afford to be employed as the crops in the fields were abundant and people didn’t have to spend their lives grubbing around for scraps.

      So it’s not only survivable, it’s profitable.

      But what if it gets even warmer? Well, it would seem increased atmospheric CO2 increases crops drought resistance and makes them more able to resist pests. We also have, of course, the ability to genetically modify crops now to vastly improve harvest’s. We also have evidence that increasing temperatures do not promote natural disasters, indeed there is evidence that it actually decreases the warmer the planet gets.

      So a warmer future will undoubtedly present problems, but we know it’s survivable, of that there is no doubt.

      What we also know is that a cooling climate brings the absolute certainty of misery as croplands reduce in size, growing season shorten, and irrigation becomes impossible because the water freezes. The prospect of worsening natural disasters also must be considered. Not to mention the pressure on energy providers who’s renewable generation will itself be affected by bad weather. Turbines unable to turn in high winds, solar panels not functioning well because of cloud cover or snow conditions.

      Fuel poverty then becomes a real problem. People will end up deforesting regions in search of supplementary heating sources. This is very well illustrated in sub tropical regions where rain forests are being cut down by ‘illegal loggers’ who are only meeting the demand of villages, towns and cities for for firewood they need because they have no reliable electricity or gas supplies. They are branded illegal by environmentalists who care more for forests than they do for people. But when your family rely on timber for heat, loggers represent a knight in shining armour.

      I won’t go on. Bored you enough.

    • Help What ??? There is NO PROBLEM.

      There has been a small amount of highly beneficial natural warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

      • I’d agree that some warming can be useful, but where I live it results in more rain in an areas already one of the wettest in the world. Would you like to buy some? Excellent stuff when diluted with a single malt.

      • I highly doubt that Gareth, but even if true, first of all, we are talking about the whole of mankind, so if some places happen to experience a bit more rain, that is just the nature of climate, and really, of weather. Secondly, historically, it is cooling which is harmful to man and nature, not warming. With cooling, there is a drying effect, and we know that drying is far more detrimental. The really laughable thing about Warmists is that they try to claim both more rain as well as more drought as the effects of warming, in addition to both more snow and less snow, and a whole host of incongruencies. That’s the nature of the Warmist ideology.

      • @Bruce Cobb, spot on. The Warmist ideology is chameleon-like, morphing to match whatever the weather is currently doing. When we were having mild winters with little snow, they wailed about how the “children wouldn’t know what snow was” because of human-induced global warming. Then, when we started to have winters where we were getting BURIED with snow, we were THEN told that heavier snow was “consistent with” global warming.

        When the catastrophe-du-jour about faces 180 degrees depending on what’s going on outside your windows, you know they don’t have a goddamn clue about what they’re talking about.

      • “it results in more rain in an areas already one of the wettest in the world”

        Long term rainfall data please….

        Seen that sort of claim all too often in one way or another… Usually unverifiable.

      • Gareth

        “Excellent stuff when diluted with a single malt.”

        The answer being, of course, drink more whisky.

      • AndyG55 asked for evidence that my geographical area has high rainfall.
        He was provided with the data, but in usual sceptic fashion he deftly moved the goal posts and now asks for evidence of increasing rainfall. He states:
        “Absolutely nothing there that backs up your claim of increasing rainfall.Try again.”
        So, I point out again, a number of stout limestone walls which had stood since medieval times were swept away in last weeks floods. This suggests to me, though I accept there will be howls of rage from the usual suspects, that the water which fell in that area in a short time is unusual, and in fact the worst flooding those old mediaeval walls have experienced in their extensive existence. It may be that over an extensive area, they all suddenly weakened and fell during the same storm, but I doubt it. A wave of floodwater also crashed through our local market town and the main road out from our end of the island was washed into the sea.
        I suspect what is happening is that while overall rainfall may not that much higher, at present when we get a flood event, it is worse and more frequent than recorded in local history. If anyone has data for Ynys Môn that negates that conclusion, i’d be more than pleased to read it. Thanks in advance.
        (160 mm’s Average for November, but things are changing, we have to adapt)

      • “The Warmist ideology is chameleon-like, morphing to match whatever the weather is currently doing. … When the catastrophe-du-jour about faces 180 degrees depending on what’s going on outside your windows, you know they don’t have a goddamn clue about what they’re talking about.”
        Well, not this you ; ) This you thinks “they” know damn well what they’re talking about, as in “they” are con artists . . Literally.
        (I realize this is a shocking concept to some, who for reasons I can’t begin to understand, believe that ruthless people don’t really exist . . or if they do exist, they have a very hard time “conspiring” to get what they want (despite many thousands of people being in jail for doing just that, and the obvious existence of gangs, mafias, cartels, crime syndicates and so forth . . and history being replete with conquering, revolutions, and coups and such, which seem to me to require much conspiring . .???)

      • Come on Gareth,

        You made an unsupported statement about warming giving increased rainfall in your area..

        I’ve shown that with a few hundred km radius of you, there has been no increase.. basically zero trend

        WAITING !!

  16. Greenland is colder–good news! Colder climate is always good news, as long as it happens to someone else. It’s just like higher taxes.

  17. “the coming end times, when Antarctica slides into the sea” – I think that’s been my personal favorite bit of panicky prose for some time now. You just wonder if the people who say those things have any idea how big Antarctica really is, or how glaciers actualy work.

    Greenland has a history of being ice-free and covered with forests, back in the long ago, when it was discovered and settled, and none of the Vikings thought there was anything wrong with it being that way. Then it got cold, their harbors froze and they began to starve to death, and now people go into panic attacks over a natural process.

    Every now and then, I see an ad for insurance with an announcer and a woman who is running around in a panic, finally slamming into the wall. It’s really a cartoon sort of thing, but it’s close to how the Greenbeans and Warmians act.

    Me: I’m hoping for a rather mild winter this time, again. It’s nice to not have to wait for the roads to be plowed so that you can use them. Birds are still ignoring my food offerings.

    • OK, Gerontius – ” The Norse “damaged their environment” as they had done in Iceland, Diamond asserted, based on analyses of dust that suggested erosion caused by felling trees, agriculture, and turf cutting. While foolishly building churches with costly bronze bells, Diamond said, Greenland’s Norse “refused to learn” Arctic hunting techniques from the Inuit, who hunted seals and fish year-round.” (See linkie thingie below.)

      Note the ‘felling trees’ in that paragraph. There are remnants left of what they did, but the organic stuff is rapidly deteriorating as it is uncovered by ice-melt. I was NOT just referring to the forests that occupied Greenland at various intervals 350,000 to 800,000 years ago.

      Here’s a link to the article: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/why-did-greenland-s-vikings-disappear

      • The Little Ice Age was bad for everybody up North. Not only the Norse succumbed, so did the Inuits in Northern and Eastern Greenland and in many parts of Arctic Canada (Ellesmere Land, Prince William Island, Coats Island etc)

    • No, the last time most of Greenland was forested was 2.4 million years ago. When the Norse settled it was however slightly warmer than now (the East Coast was completely ice-free in summer up to at least 65 degrees N, and it was (just) possible to grow barley in south-western Greenland)

    • Salvatore del Prete’ish. No, the warming will continue, but the 30 year trend will keep down to 0.5K.

      GISS will have a problem with adjustments going out of bounds.

    • Solar Cycle Points to a Coming Global Cooling

      When exactly is this cooling supposed to take place? It’s just that when we look at actual temperature
      records there isn’t much evidence of cooling immediately following the Dalton cycles. The CET record does show a dip BEFORE the cycles but is largely flat for the decades after that.

      • Isn’t it funny how Gareth, John Finn and Benben always seem to comment on the same topics, they appear all at one time on a particular post and then don’t show up again for weeks.

      • Bob Boser says
        “Isn’t it funny how Gareth, John Finn and Benben always seem to comment on the same topics, they appear all at one time on a particular post and then don’t show up again for weeks”

        Maybe you would like to check out how long I have been posting on the site? Somewhat longer than you eh !
        Some people post anything that comes to mind. They put the hands in drive before their brains are in gear.
        I would imagine you may recall Mr.Ed.
        He never spoke unless he had something to say.
        He was good example you may reflect on.
        Nadolig Llawen i chi !

        [The mods would like to point point out that Gareth has been posting since 2009, and Bob Boder has been posting since 2014. Although there exists a disparity in length of time these posters have been active here, the total volume of comments of each is similar-ish. No value judgement is being made or implied on the value of each commenter or their individual posts. -mod]

      • Gareth

        “Some people post anything that comes to mind. They put the hands in drive before their brains are in gear.”

        Ahem.

      • Bob Boder,
        I believe we were discussing the frequency of some posters contributions?
        Having established that we are in fact long term members of this page, you turn your attention to my grammar.
        Well done, you spotted the typo (I must disable autocorrect). Does that mean that you were correct and your original assertion that our contributions are somehow strange, and the idea that we only post on climate change issues when they take our interest is invalid?
        We don’t actually need your approval, If we did, we would avoid posting on sites where we knew there would be vehement opposition. But we, ( at least I am) are open minded enough to debate.
        Tell me, which consensus sites do you debate on? Or do you only hang out in safe areas, ones that you agree with? Echo chambers are very comfortable, but you don’t learn much.

    • “When exactly is this cooling supposed to take place?”

      Seems like a reasonable question to me. Also, the degree of certitude about something that’s supposed to happen in the future reminds me of alarmist statements that turned out not to be true. Want a few examples?

      Absolute predictions of cooling have nothing to do with skepticism. Remember the things you called Jim Hansen and the IPCC when they made alarmist predictions based on climate models, and make sure those things don’t apply to you also when you claim predictive abilities.

  18. It means that Jerry Brown needs to refund the U.S. Treasury for the last segment of high speed rail funding based on this sleaze ploy.

  19. Well ….when the sheeple are being herded …it is usually for for one or two purposes :
    1. To be sheered.
    2. To be slaughtered .

    • Sheep are normally herded to move on to richer pasture. Shearing is just a human aid to the natural shedding of their coats to account for warming.

      • Ah , but sheeple aren’t sheep …and sheep are led to pasture , water etc ….
        Sheeple are driven , frequently by fear .
        The thing they share is being docile…..usually .

      • A lot of the sheeple SOB is talking about actually believe they’re being led to richer pastures. Unfortunately we’re all being fleeced.

  20. “’In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,’ Serreze said. ‘There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.’ …”
    What Serreze should have said was:
    In hindsight the climate science deniers were right.

  21. “There were so many of us…” will be the beginning cry of so-called “climate scientists” within a decade, followed by “who were fooled/got it wrong/misjudged the data/etc. etc.”. Sorry, but the excuses don’t fly now, and they certainly won’t then. You’re supposed to be scientists.

    • I think you will find that most of them choose to live in warmish climates, and/or have plenty of access to fossil fuel powered heating when it gets cold.

  22. The very first sentence of the article is wrong. Our climate is not only not changing, it’s conditions have been etched in stone for nearly a hundred years as the ”International Standard Atmosphere.

    Anyone knowledgeable about climate is supposed to know that the International Standard Atmosphere records critical elements of our global atmosphere including the pressure, temperature, etc, and that Standard hasn’t been altered or changed for over a hundred years. (It was adopted in the early 1900s, but the foundational parameters making mountaineering and ballooning safer have been around since the middle 1800s.)

    It would certainly seem like a site dedicated to weather and climate would have extensive remarks on this.

    The International physical and regulatory, and calibration standard, hasn’t changed at all.

    If ”our climate is changing” then everyone who took any kind of course related to gases would know about this change. Welders would have to be able to discuss it, pilots would have to be able to discuss it, sea captains and anyone related to space travel would be thoroughly familiar with these ”changes.”

    If you’re going to publish and claim you’re discussing science, discuss science. It’s a lot more respectable to tell the truth.

    Nathaniel M

    • I’ve asked several time….

      Apart from a highly beneficial natural warming of around 1ºC since the coldest period in 10,000 years..

      In what way has the “climate” changed ?

  23. Tamsin Edwards. Well educated in environmental sciences I see. Could be the reason that he sees through some of the crap environmental activists have been spreading. Yet he missed the real elephant in the room: the belief that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It just emanates from burning of fossil fuels and belief in its power weas enough for James Hanson to demand that burning of fossil fuels should be completely forbidden. He is now ensconced in a a kushy job at Columbia and is still pushing this fantasy. Group think is bdlief, not science. It is how activist group think, uncritically accepted by the likes of Hansen and other so-called “climate scientists” without any scientific proof. Not that there aren’t any observatios of what carbon dioxide does. There are, but they are all negative and well hidden, My personal experience involves a small book I wrote called “What Warming?” It has been availabl for seven years on mazon but hudging by the bibliographies no climate worker has heard of it Pollutes the mind of all right-thinking warmists, I guess. Fortunately, we do have sources like the Google Scholar that cite all the science without prejudice. So let’s take look now at some observations that have been kept from us. Miskolczi’s work is another case where bibliographies attached to climate articles ignore it, For example, in 2006 Miskolczi examined the a 61 years long radiosonde record from NOAA that included the carbon diuoxide and the global temperature values for the entire period. He discovered that during these 61 years the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the air had increased by more than 20 percent. This was not a surprise to him bit the next observation really was. Hjs analysis of radiosonde data showed that despite a twenty percent increase of carbon dioxide there was no increase of global temperature at all. This is reported in his paper “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospherick Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thicknress.” It appeared in Energy and Environment of 2010, p. 246. If correct, this is sufficient to declare the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide null and void. This is experimental observation and has nothimg to do with the theory invplved, only with its predictions. But climate literature has been absolutely silent about it, And if you don’t know about it you obvioudly cannot check it either. to trhe extent that none of their acolytes even know who Miskolczi is. Hansen and his followers don’t even know that it exists and still believe a purely hypothetical version of greenhouse warming taught to them. Hansen simply lacks understanding of the fact that support for the existence of greenhouse effect must be experimental, not purely theoretical. Miskolczi’s work is experimental and proves that the greenhouse effect cannot be observed. The results of his analysis were shown as a poster display at the EGU meeting in Vienna in 2011. Hansen also demanded a halt to burning fossil fuels but luckily did not get his way, His climate “scenarios”, B and C he introduced in his famous lecture in 1988 were worthless or even contradicted his argument against burning fossil fuels. First of all, his scenarios B and C did not have anything to do with the real world because he injected hypothetical carbon dioxide values into them that do not exist. That made both of them imaginary and impossible to use for anything in our world. But his scenario A was different – it was called “business as usual.” He had the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in thecoming years calculated and used this to predict the corresponding global temperature for each year until 2019. Thi. As the real temperatures kept coming in we could compare each real value to Hansen’s predicted value. And guess what? All his predicted values, starting with 1989, the first year after his talk, were higher than the observed real values. And the gap was widening as the time went on. Clearly these predictions show an incompetent science. But there is more to it than mere incompetence I believe. The figures may well have been lifted higher to scare the bpublic who were not expected to know how to check them. After all, they are not going to look at that stuff ten or fiftteen years later. Ten or fifteen years later there was no doubt at all that Hansen’s prediction for the next twenty years were badly off, just completely wrong. The climate catastrophe he was preaching was nowhere in sight and getting more remote each year. But all this was been hidden, buried by the global warming movement, and the Hansen scenarios spoken of as though they supported his claim

    • Arno, very good post. Tx for adding yet one more hard-data-based study to my arsenal showing that proof of the CO2/warming link is nonexistent. As far as I can tell before reading it, Miskolcz’s results concur with those of my own study, as reported in my book “In Praise Of Carbon.” CO2’s IR emissions are just too weak and too cold to influence Earth’s surface temperatures, and that’s a major reason why climate scientists are so aggressive about pushing their agenda. They know, or at least somehow suspect, that they haven’t got a leg to stand on. As we continue to bumble on, however, with the essentially flat temperatures of the “global warming hiatus,” what though the debate will get more acrimonious, the perpetrators of the “demon carbon” nonsense will have a harder and harder time convincing the world at large that the “hiatus” really doesn’t exist and that their silly claims have any credibility whatsoever.

Comments are closed.