Previous Identification of Groupthink: Part of Why the Public Doesn't Believe in Global Warming

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I published the following article on Canada Free Press (CFP) in 2010. I also posted it to my web site in 2012. This posting was required because CFP withdrew all my articles from their archive at my request. I did this because CFP published an apology written by Roger McConchie, lawyer for IPCC author and Green Party leader in British Columbia, Andrew Weaver. I was not aware of this action but in the three lawsuits filed against me by McConchie he also files against the outlet for the article. I pursued a “not guilty” defense against the lawsuit and as was reported here, the judge dismissed the case.

The article is republished here to illustrate that many are starting to realize what I realized years ago, the extent and manner of the deception. As I explained in court and elsewhere, most people can’t believe that a small group of people could deceive the world. But as I also wrote before, Anthropologist Margaret Mead,

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

The entire story is available in my book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science,” or you can get a synopsis in Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History.

IPCC/CRU Self-Deception Through Groupthink

March 2010, Dr. Timothy Ball

Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming. A.W.Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science is a litany of refusals to disclose information. They all work to prevent other scientists carrying out the most basic test namely, replication of results.

In his report on the hockey stick debacle for the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee Professor Wegman wrote; Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

People identified in the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were primarily responsible through the Physical Science Basis Report of Working Group I of the IPCC and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Politics is clearly the motive for some scientists like James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and others, but this is not so clear for most at the CRU. Which begs the question how and why supposedly intelligent people became involved and continued to participate in such corruption?

The Group

Irving Janis developed the concept of Groupthink, which requires unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. “Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making.”

The CRU/IPCC pattern is a classic example.

Groupthink

Here’s a list of some symptoms of groupthink with examples from CRU/IPCC emails and actions.

· Having an illusion of invulnerability. Content of the emails has many examples of arrogant invulnerability. In a backhanded way, Overpeck provides support for this position because he advised them on Sep 9, 2009, to “Please write all emails as though they will be made public.” They didn’t listen because they believed they were invulnerable. Others within the general community reinforced CRU invulnerability. On October 2003 Ray Bradley, who had published the original hockey stick with Michael Mann, wrote. “Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M (McIntyre and McKitrick) effort is truly an “audit”, and if they sis it right, I think would go a long way to defusing the issue. If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control.”

· Rationalizing poor decisions. Jones rationalized the decision to withhold Freedom of Information (FOI) to the University of East Anglia staff on December 3, 2008 as follows, “Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.”

· Believing in the group’s morality. The entire body of emails supports this claim. Rob Wilson wrote on 21 February 2006 “I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike’s work in any way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially.” On 6 May 1999, Mann wrote to Phil Jones, “Trust that I’m certainly on board w/you that we’re all working towards a common goal” and later “I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.” So do I!

Conversely, Keith Briffa, who I believe was the whistleblower, battled with Mann and became increasingly alienated from the group.

On 17 June 2002, he wrote,

“I have just read this letter and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series.”

· Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision. This takes the form of unethical comments of practice going without challenge because they were all doing it. On 19 September 1996 Funkhouser wrote, “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

· Exercising direct pressure on others. On 24 April 2003, Wigley wrote, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” They also got James Saiers, editor of Geophysical Research Letters, fired.

· Not expressing your true feelings. On the 14 October 2009, Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

· Maintaining an illusion of unanimity. Briffa struggles to maintain the illusion when he writes to Mann on April 29 2007, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.”

· Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information.The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.” This was Mann’s comment to the group about establishment of Realclimate to act as “mindguards”.

Some of the negative outcomes of groupthink also fit the actions of the CRU/IPCC group.

· Examining few alternatives. They narrowed the options by the definition of climate change to only those caused by human activities. Of the three greenhouse gases almost all the focus is on CO2.

· Not being critical of each other’s ideas. Not only were they not critical, but they peer reviewed each other’s work and controlled who they recommended to editors for reviewers. Mann to Jones 4 June 2003 “I’d like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the “official keeper” of the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn’t in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave.” On August 5, 2009 Jones wrote to Grant Foster in response to his request for reviewers for an article, “I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling. To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe. So Neville Nicholls and David Parker. All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

· Not examining early alternatives. There was a graph of temperatures drawn by Lamb showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and used in the first IPCC Report. It was correct but contradicted their claim of modern warming. As Mann said to Jones on 4 June 2003, “it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.” They chose to rewrite history.

· Not seeking expert opinion. Professor Wegman spoke directly to this problem in his report for the US Senate on the infamous hockey stick graph. “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.”

· Being highly selective in gathering information. Apart from only looking at human causes, the CRU emails have many examples of data selected to prove their point. Tim Osborn to the group on 5 October 1999 speaks of the issue McIntyre identified of truncated records.

They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. On the 19 March 2009 Santer wrote to Jones about the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) asking for data used for a publication. “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.” On 27 September 2009 Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones about a problem with Sea Surface Temperatures (SST), “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

· Not having contingency plans. They never expected they would be exposed. Maybe Benjamin Santer’s comment on April 25 counts.

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.

But they were exposed. Now most can’t believe scientists could ignore or deliberately manipulate data, distort procedures and not have more of them speak out. As Janis explains groupthink, “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.” The relatively small group involved with the machinations of proving fossil fuels was producing CO2 that was causing warming or climate change appears to be a classic example of Groupthink. Professor Wegman in his report identified 43 people all linked in various ways, but especially publishing together and apparently peer-reviewing each other’s work that apparently constituted this group. They controlled the CRU, the critical roles of the IPCC and therefore world climate science and the resulting policies.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Consider how far airplanes have evolved over 100 years.
Now imagine the same for psychological warfare.

commieBob

Things progress at different rates.
In computers there is Moore’s Law which sees performance doubling every eighteen months.
In medical research we have Eroom’s Law which observes that drug discovery is becoming slower and more expensive over time.
In climate science I propose Nnam’s Law … (I leave the rest to you as an exercise)
As for psychological warfare, I’d like to see any evidence of progress or lack thereof.

D. Cohen

Nnam’s law: The more a group of scientists are supported by government funds, the more they will disregard and attack those whose views could interfere with the government funding — and the more they will promote those whose views would tend to increase said funding.

Doug S

D. Cohen +1

Robertvd

And who is funding (in power of) government ? Not the taxpayer. So who is providing the blood for this cancer? Who can print all the money it needs?
It has never been about climate but always has been about power, absolute power and climate is just ONE OF THE MANY TOOLS used so you (We The People) voluntarily give away our rights.

JohnKnight

commieBob,
“As for psychological warfare, I’d like to see any evidence of progress or lack thereof.”
Trump/Russia collusion, Antifa, the gender pay gap, Climate Change. etc, etc. Evidence is all over the place . . Did you mean proof?

CommieBob, at a minimum there have been discoveries over the past century of many cognitive and emotional biases.
These are exploited.

PiperPaul

Imagine the glee of the propagandists when they first discovered the internet. Virtually anonymous, untraceable, worldwide, light speed communications able to send text, sounds and images to one individual or many (or even different information sent to different individuals/group subsets so as to cause the most confusion, disruption or conflict possible).

markl

What made it all work is the support of the MSM. And who supported the MSM?

Alan Tomalty

Are the initials Militant Socialist Movement?

billw1984

Yes! 🙂

paqyfelyc

bingo.
MSM must have customers. Customers who ask other what to think, or confirmation that what they think is right. Faithful (sic!) customers, who will discard contradicting views.
They need group-thinkers. Group-thinkers need them. Mutual benefits. They co-evolved and fit well together.

Well, on the bright side, few people believe the MSM anymore.

Thank you Tim.
Anybody reading your paper should have no illusions about the dishonesty of the global warming conspirators.
Their unethical tactics were obvious prior to the Climategate emails, and were absolutely incontrovertible after the publication of those emails.
Anyone who still supports the global warming conspiracy is either an utter imbecile, or is part of the conspiracy.

Shawn Marshall

…but they have all the kids. The young believe this crap – just as they hate God and love Socialism.

s-t

You know what they (parents, so called adults) say:
– Kids, don’t do drugs; even if all your friends are smoking, just don’t. After all, you don’t want to jump from a bridge just because your friends do.
also:
– Donald Trump wants the US out of a deal that treats CO2 as a polluant. Countries all around the world want CO2 to be treated as a polluant (and the correlative indemnification for the CO2 that Western countries emit). Obviously Donald Trump is the irresponsible crazy person because general trend, the latest fad, and generally the consensus cannot be wrong.
Summary: Kids, don’t ever copy the bad choices of your friends. You should always follow the general trend, the latest fad, and generally the consensus of your buddies. Deal with so called “adults”‘s explicit advice and implicit influence and examples. Please don’t become crazy.

DiggerUK

The AGW mob have the attention of public, MSM, and TPTB.
They all have a groupspeak that we recognise. Problem is, many who argue against the concept of an environmental disaster in the making also have a groupspeak.
Before this thread turns into a denier groupspeak gobfest, can I make a request. Stick to the science, shouting louder and longer than the other side won’t win this debate…_
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

Kristi Silber

DiggerUK – What science? This isn’t about science at all. You didn’t bring up any science.

paqyfelyc

Well, the point is, “climate scientists” didn’t bring up any science (as evidenced by those words of THEM), while this was supposedly their job.
Now, if you are interested in the climate science, here is a fair short sum-up.
1) first order GHG effect is calculable, at roughly 1K/pCO2 doubling, at most. This would be the effect in a simple linear climate system, like the non-rotating flat homogeneous Earth of “climate science”.
2) unfortunately (as far as calculators are concerned), climate is not controlled by a simple linear calculator, but by a chaotic black-box routinely experiencing wild variations (but in a quite narrow band, so there are strong negative feedbacks). Climate changed, changes, and will change, whether you like it or not.
3) in such system there just no way to prove, or unprove, even a several °C variation happens because of GHG. This is math as solid as 2+2=4. No arguing. Anyone pretending otherwise is either a genius, Field medal and several Nobel worthy, future richest man on Earth if he cares… or a dumb ignorant of mathematical truth. We don’t know, and never will. Period. You may believe as much as you want, but this not science.
4) Weather may have ill effect, not climate. Trying to fix the climate will change nothing at all, weather will continue to wildly swing as it ever did.

MarkW

I notice that once again Kristi completely ignores the issue in order to attack those who don’t worship as she does.

Komrade Kuma

Digger, I take what you are saying and yest the extremes of ‘Skeptical’ ‘groupspeak’ are not that much better than the AGW groupspeakers but then the sheer volume of the AGW mob is what dominates the msm and certain feftard polliticians and all the AGW hangers on and that cacophany is what the general public increasingly see for what they are. You must remember that in the west we have had a biased MSM for over 50 years now and people are inured, inocculated against it.
They see it for what it is, a self centred, self promoting, self important pack of dribbledick and twinkletwat wannabes whio think it is they who run the joint. They disparage and discredit politicians cos they are easy targets and so many of them play the stupid media game but ultimately Joe and Joanna Public know damn well what is what. QED: Brexit.

DiggerUK

Yes, the AGW mob is a bit like ‘buy one, get more than you dreamed possible for free’
In climate arguments, I make no distinction between a right wing, or left wing nut job, they get nobody anywhere.
Whilst we sit here agreeing that AGW is bad science, we just end up agreeing with each other. We need to march towards the other side in this argument, and put our position in a way that will win converts. In that debate, facts and an explanation of what the scientific method is all we need.
Chris Bookers neat appraisal of the science involved could have stood on its own. But all he did was provide ground on which a stronger debate could have taken place, but was taken off course with his road to Damascus moment reading a bit of behavioural theories.
We need to stick to the argument given us by a rationed and reasonable examination of the facts, and take a civil approach with the other side.
Nobody out there comes here first, because most people have already been persuaded we are crazy, and to be avoided. Were are the AGW sites we can cautiously intervene on for instance…_

TA

“Nobody out there comes here first, because most people have already been persuaded we are crazy, and to be avoided.”
Really? Most people? I think that is a little overstated.

MarkW

Once you have decided to believe lies over reality, what’s one more lie for them to believe in.
They have already decided to believe whatever their chosen leaders say, without independent verification, so when their chosen leaders also tell them that we are crazy, they believe that as well.

Gary Pearse

Digger, if you have spent much time on this site, you would notice something different than the other side folk. There are incisive analyses and debunking of the outrageous extremes daily here. Perhaps you don’t read them and just cruise the comments. It may surprise you to know that prior to about 2007, climate science never gave a thought to natural variations, basically dismissing them as a very minor player. Since, they have discovered the Decadal temperature Oscillations in sea surfaces of the Pacific and Atlantic that correlate very well with the global temperature record. Mann’s Hockey Stick was debunked by the sceptic blog “Climate Audit” using proper, professional statistics. Steve McIntyre showed that the homemade statistics Mann used always made a hockey stick out of “white noise” with no underlying trend!! I showed recently (using volcanic rock dust on farmland to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere) that the “solution” would cost upwards of $50trillion. And what about this thread you are on now? Here is an author that has been sued three times by climateers to shut him up. If he was just an empty-headed jerk, they wouldn’t care. Digger, you yourself are a handwaver with not information.

Why did academic departments, government agencies, and scientific associations permit the funding of the dozens of climate models all based on the same GHG premise of AGW due to CO2 emissions, all projecting similar increasing global temps, without formally testing and rejecting the null hypothesis that GHG do not affect GAST independent of natural variations? Climate models by definition can not reject an incorrect null hypothesis (H0) that GAST’s are unaffected by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations because to do so requires accurate global temperature measurements over long time intervals and climate models do not provide any empirical data of global temperatures over time for hypothesis testing. Climate models no matter how sophisticed the mathematics of the fluid dynamics of air and water currents can not be said to have any experimental statistical power to reject an incorrect null hypothesis and thus permit the consideration of the alternative hypothesis (H1) that GAST are affected and in what direction they are affected by rising GHG concentrations in general and CO2 in particular. Climate models may be hypothesis generating but they are useless in hypothesis testing because they do not provide empirical evidence of rising temperatures to accept or reject the null hypothesis. Could a scientific consensus be reached on that point with the warmist physicists and other climatologists? More over could consensus be reached with politicians that $Billions in grants should not be paid to fund climate model variations all based on the same alternative hypothesis without empirically rejecting the null hypothesis in the first place?

DiggerUK

“you yourself are a hand waver with not information”
I’ll take it as read that a typo has occurred . It does sound like a throw away put down though.
I struggle with the science, “Decadal temperature Oscilations” is not a normal narrative I utilise at dinner parties, and I do prefer the articles that put a scientific feedback on work that has been done.
However, that being said, the MSM and TPTB will not be defeated unless you enter into a dialogue with the deplorables. A bitching between left and right does not help, but hinders. Make the science user friendly, not politically biased…_

Lawrie Ayres

I would really like some of our politicians to read this so they might (highly unlikely though it may be) realise they have been hoodwinked and that they in turn have hoodwinked their constituents as well as costing them billions. Jo Nova has a graph showing Eastern Australian electricity prices going from very low to very high in lockstep with the introduction of “renewables”. We had one politician who understood the fraud but he was backstabbed by a total incompetent who was gullible enough to believe the AGW rubbish. Thankfully your President is not so stupid and may yet be the saviour of common sense.comment image

These are not mechanisms of scientific groupthink. These are mechanisms of propaganda and cult control of populations.

Edwin

You are not entirely correct. “Scientificish Groupthink” has been used in other supposed scientific endeavors. A lot of the endanger species “science” is nothing more than Groupthink. I managed, or I should say tried to manage, two endangered species programs. Both were based far more on Groupthink, with well financed NGOs supporting them, than science. They often dressed events up as if they were science for the MSM. Until several of us came along the administrators thought nothing of declaring something “science” when it was little more than mythology. Both groups total ignored reality. Oddly enough as both species began to recover, one fairly dramatically, they fought tooth and nail against down listing. They attacked bosses and outside skeptics in the most vicious manner. I also dealt with NOAA/ NMFS who tried more than several times to use Groupthink strategies to accomplish their goals. Many portions of the scientific community went off the rails in and around the time that AGW became the issue de jour.

in the early 80s a square mile of property in Tokyo was worth more than all the property in the continental US. the Japanese economy has never recovered from this delusion.
in the 17th century the dutch believed tulips were worth a kings ransom. the dutch economy collapsed as a result.
if AGW is real, those states that take action will prosper. however if it is an illusion then those states that take action will suffer irreparable harm.
this observation provides a simple test to judge AGW. are those states taking action prospering as a result?

Germonio

Ferd – there are two things wrong with your test. Firstly it will take about 100 years to tell whether they are
prospering. And secondly the whole issue is that global warming is global and requires a global response so one country doing something will not prosper while if most countries do something then those that don’t will gain doubly first by not cutting emissions and then again by the efforts of the rest of the world to fix the climate.

Alan Tomalty

Tell that to China a totalitarian militaristic state whose stated goals are to subvert the rest of the world China will never shackle their industry even if AGW was real. However the Chinese arent stupid they know it isnt real and they just pretend to go along while the rest of the world goes down the tubes because of pricing CO2. The Chinese put 30% of CO2 into the global atmoshere. double that of the 2nd place country the US (who are now declining in their contribution because of more natural gas use). The Chinese communist party owns 67% of the Chinese economy. Carbon trading or carbon taxing a subsidiary of the CCP is a joke It means that you are paying yourself so you can continue business as usual. CO2 went up 2PPM in 2017 most because of China. Actually I am happy about this cause I know we need more CO2 not less.But those who think that China will stop are deluding themselves. Meanwhile we sink our economies with quadruped electricity prices that show no signs of leveling off and carbon taxes that will bankrupt us all.

Extreme Hiatus

Germonio – Did you read this article? Did you read what these ‘scientists’ you seem to believe were and are up to? And you still swallow the whole story and parrot the Team talking points? Based on what?
Did you see this article was about groupthink? Look in the mirror.

Sun cycles 24-27 will in the next decade deal a very cold blow to warming…

Trebla

Geronimo: if we buy into the AGW conjecture and we eliminate the production of CO2, will the climate settle down and stop changing? If not, will the global average temperature go up or down as a result of non AGW (i.e., natural) forces?

Latitude

” then those that don’t will gain doubly first by not cutting emissions and then again by the efforts of the rest of the world to fix the climate.”
…and this is why it will never work

MarkW

Most socialists don’t care whether or not CAGW is true. It’s the hobby horse that they can ride to get force their preferred fantasy onto the rest of the world.

David Cage

We herein the UK are f**king freezing considering they have taxed us so highly and pushed the price of heating up by renewable energy taxation so we cannot afford heat on UK incomes and pension levels so global warming it certainly is NOT.
They changed the name and hoodwinked our severely numerically challenged( i.e. thick in old parlance) political and media classes who control all information. No one thought to ask how if on average there was not global warming, as tested by non a mix of believers and non believers who both get to put their case with total freedom to slate the other’s work, the mechanism which essentially was supposed to be a blanket trapping heat could trigger climate change. Also no one thought to get a sworn statement that if the science was beyond question no past data has been altered since that statement was first made. By any definition of fraud I can think of any change has to be fraudulent.
Peer review of any climate issue can no longer be remotely considered a valid mechanism as a generation of scientists has grown up with non belief in the man made CO2 based climate change CO2 as a killer entry requirement for the profession.
As for not engaging the statistical community what about engaging the people trained to analyse signals and use that to understand the historical pattern , particularly cyclic ones, to create a plausible projection of normal future temperature patterns. The cyclic elements detected by even amateur low level skills say 720 years or two cycles is the minimum time to be sure if anything worked. I understand that more advanced methods detect more complex patterns so the cycle duration is twelve times this.

Science is typically not so much as control, but rather,it often runs in fads. So rather than external control factors, individuals have personal reasons to follow.

joelobryan

Today’s science runs to where the politicians hang out money/fodder for the scientist-cows to follow and get fat.

Well, it is a bit more mutual – some well-connected scientists manage to get through to the politicians and tell them where to hang the fodder. So it would seem in this case also.

Ian Cooper

They make you sick! Tax payers the world over pay for these people to often get their credentials and this is how they repay us? I was just thinking as I read this, “who was that?” that leaked the CRU e-mails when you came up with Briffas name. I remember a pair of photos of Keith Briffa posted here at WUWT showing Keith as a bright young, smiling thing, and next to it was a more recent shot of a somewhat more haggard figure. A much troubled conscience exerting itself on to his forlorn exterior. He must be a contender, perhaps with some help from a sympathetic IT expert? Whoever it was we should be eternally grateful no matter what whitewash so called authority investigations came up with under pressure at the time to exonerate the perpetrators! The ‘old boy network’ at the time made sure of that!

joelobryan

The CRU emails should make real scientists sick. They show a disease of no-ethics in climate science that is at least a decade old.
That those emails do not (make sick) at AAAS Science mag and Nature mag, that should also make every real scientist sick. The editorial staffs at those publications are deeply corrupted.

South River Independent

I think the official response has been: “Nothing to see hear. Please move along.”

David Cage

It was a bungle not a deliberate leak from my info which is similar cases traceable have been 100% accurate.

joelobryan

In the last few months I have come to a new appreciation of the complexity of the behavioral aspects of the Left.
I used to think they were all hypocrisy and simple dishonesty. That was naive on my part.
Now I realize (like everything that involves humanity and biology) it is far more complex than a simple statement of hypocrisy can grasp or encompass.
The Left’s dishonesty on climate, culture, racial diversity, etc, is not dishonesty to them. It is an extreme avoidance of the pain that cognitive dissonance imparts on their world-view when realizing everything you thought was true … is not. It causes hallucinations.
(cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that occurs when clear evidence is presented that conflicts with one’s deeply held views. The only path to avoiding this discomfort is by a hallucinations that something was else was actually said to alleviate the discomfort.)
The cognitively dissonant hallucinatory person then imagines the expert speaker they are interviewing as having said something they did not. Then that speaker corrects them, and they still do not properly process that cognitive dissonance causing information. They continue to hallucinate that something else was said that affirms their belief.
On a similar thread, I have recently come to realize the Left’s hypocrisy on Climate Change solutions is not really hypocrisy… it is DoubleThink. DoubleThink is a much more complex, deeper human psychology issue that simple hypocrisy.
I refer you to the Wiki definition of DoubleThink.

“Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.”

GroupThink is realted to Double Think in that both require a disconnection of individual critical thought. The individual must be suppressed in both GroupThink and in DoubleThink, else conflicts arise that, if not suppressed, cause a collapse of both “Thinks.”
Such is where we are with Skepticism on Climate Change. The Left can not tolerate individual Think on Climate. The Left requires conformity of thought. That is GroupThink, And the Left also a requires Double Think to hold both ideas that the Earth’s climate can get warmer and colder without contradiction under their so-called climate change.
Such is their Socialism, …come the next phase…. neo-Marxism

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

For how much longer can they hold out against such damning evidence? They’re corralled into every smaller pens, bleating louder and louder in hopes some gullible fool will listen to them, not realizing that the more strident they become in their alarmist proclamations, the more their credibility suffers.
With the latest round of NOAA data-tampering erasing a cold period as it happened, the only people who still believe in AGW are either dullards or socialists who believe they still stand a chance of carrying out their depopulation / deindustrialization / wealth redistribution schemes via the AGW scam (in other words, dullards).
But far from giving up, shutting their gobs and slinking away into the shadows, they’ll move the goal-posts, slithering away just long enough for people to forget the scam, then releasing a new rash of alarmist blather based upon some other confabulated fairy tale of an impending catastrophe.
So my question is… when can we start chopping heads? Do we wait until people are starving to death as the world plunges unprepared into another protracted cold period that causes crop failures?

Alan Tomalty

I am starting to do research on 2 individuals David Battisti and his protege Aaron Donohue who seem to be extremely important to AGW. Battisti has connections all over the world in AGW and he was the Chairman on the committee that awarded Donohue’s PhD. Battisti is chairman of the Atmospheric Science faculty at the University of Washington in Seattle. I have looked at both Battisti and Donohue’ s web sites Battisti has over 150 publications. Donohue has an astonishing number also; given that he was only awarded his PhD by Battisti (via the university of course ) in 2011. Battisti’s projects have run the gamut of Atmospheric science but since 1988 he met his cash cow in AGW.
The master hoaxer and his protege have collaborated on a number of projects some of which are epic in scale within AGW. These 2 are truly dangerous. Due to Battisti’s worldwide connections,it seems he will push Donohue to great heights in the AGW community. There is an obvious generation difference between the two and a close affinty, however Donohue has now worked on many projects without Battisti therefore Donohue is carving his own path but with Battisti’s connections Donohue will stay close until he develops his own worldwide network. These guys truly live in their own world. Imagine trying to debate against a PhD in Atospheric Science when you know that He really is a PhD in AGW science. What a bizarre world. Never in the history of mankind has a small group like this ( those Phds in Atmospheric Science who believe in AGW) had so much impact. If anyone wants to help investigate these guys and their bizarre addiction to climate models email me korner@rogers.com

gwan

Thankyou Tim,
How long before our friend Nick Stokes puts his oar in and tries to defend the indefensible.
It looks very much that Kieth Briffa became so frustrated with his dishonest colleagues that he blew the whistle and leaked the emails ..The whole climate change saga is a murky pond with lots of slimey characters with there own agendas .We have some in New Zealand James Renwick and his mate Jim Salinger trying to hide the MWP and changing temperatures of climate stations that were shifted and then would not release their methodology,It is just as well that we have some honest scientists to tell the truth ,
Thank You again Tim Ball

Alan Tomalty

I know I am replying to my own posting but here is the 1st of many riduculous statements that Dr.Battisti makes in one of his studies., Before I go on I am astonished that noone seems to read these climate science reports. Battisti makes them freely available on his web site. I am sure that other AGM scientists read them and laugh to themselves about how bad this reports truly are. I have no background in science yet these reports are so bad that it is easy to pick them apart. When I say pick them apart I dont only mean beacuse they are using computer models but they also can be picked apart based only on their illogical assumptions
and contradictory conclusions from 1 report to another. If battisti’s work is representative of the rest then then this is so comical to be in the theatre of theabsurd. Dont forget that these studies are all peer reviwed. The problem with that though is all the peeers are AGW people. It is impossible anywhere in the world to sit on a climate peer review committee unless you believe in AGW. So “scientists like Battisti have lost all reason and logic because they think that they are above any criticism. They are beyond careless. They seriously need psychological help. What has happened to science when a PhD can get away with saying the following in a scientific report. Here is just 1 example of many to come. The following is from a report where Battisti’s name is 2nd out of 3 authors. The report’s name is “Impacts of Surface Moisture on Surface Temperature Variability published in 2015. I quote:
“The calculated
general features and spatial patterns in temperature and moisture variances
are consistent with those in climate model outputs and in observations, although
temperature variance is generally somewhat under predicted by our
model. A striking finding is that globally, all land areas belong to one of two
regimes, defined by the role of surface moisture on temperature variability. In
’dry’ regions variations in moisture enhance the impacts of forcing anomalies
on temperature, whereas in ’wet’ regions, surface moisture variations, acting
by a somewhat different mechanism, damp the temperature fluctuations.”
This is absolutely unbelievably illogical. The earth doesn’t have 2 types of land areas unless you are talking about the 1)oceans and the 2) land themselves. The authors of that report are not referring to the exception that I noted above . The proof of that is this quote from 2 sentences later in the report.
“The model also suggests that temperature variance will rise
most strongly in those regions of the globe where warming causes a climatological
shift from the moist regime to the dry regime.”
The reason that the authors say this is that it makes it easy to program the computer model when you are dealing with only 2 types of regions, but notice that in the 1st quote they say “A striking finding is…….”
So they are trying to make the reader believe that the earth can be divided up between 1) wet areas and 2) dry areas in regards to surface moisture variations. . Again we are not referring to the ocean vs nonocean here. If this was given in a talk to other non AGW scientists they would laugh these authors out of the room.
How do they get away with not being laughed out of their profession? As I said before more of this to follow. The investigation continues.

NorwegianSceptic

‘… and then he went on to prove that white is black and black is white and got himself killed in the next zebra crossing….’ (HGTTG – D. Adams).

Sara

No, Alan, it’s not dividing the earth into wet and dry areas. it’s an attempt to turn the planet into Flat Earth.
I found in digging around that IPCC’s modeling software fails to account for variations in topography, but rather, smooths everything flat, therefore giving false and/or inaccurate results. This was because one researcher studying a specific range in the Himalayas could not get the results she expected based on her on-site readings. She tried a different software which does account for topographical variations such as ridges, valleys and peaks, and got more accurate results.
That quote you provided indicates quite clearly that these people want a Flat Earth to be accepted, even though it is an obvious falsehood.

Alan Tomalty

well Sara what you say may well also be true but if you read that report that contained those 2 quotes you will understand that they indeed are trying to label the land areas as just 2 types in relation to surface moisture.

Alan Tomalty

Sara I should also add that I refuse to believe that any PhD belongs to the Flat Earth Society.

Sara

I accept that, Alan, but it still presents a ‘flat Earth’ view.

MarkW

The one time I checked into the flat earth society, it looked more like an excuse to party than an actual position statement.

Kristi Silber

Wow, I had no idea there were so many official permutations to groupthink! Fascinating. And it is literally defined by a bunch of emails, which proves beyond doubt the 1000s of scientists worldwide involved in climate change science are also victims of groupthink. How else would they ever agree (unless they do good science, but that’s a ridiculous idea!)?

Ed Zuiderwijk

One of the defining characteristics of tribal thinking is the utter inability to recognise, acknowledge and correct the failings inside the own tribe. You are a good example.

Kristi Silber

Ed – Everyone’s like that. It’s always easier finding fault in others.
But you are making a gross (and false) assumption in your belief that I don’t find fault or failings in my tribe. It’s not even a logical assertion to say you find a lack of something (such as an ability) in me when you don’t even know me. I don’t reveal my whole self here. But hey, think what you want.
I can’t correct the failings of my tribe any more than I can the tribes of others. I suppose I could hang out at liberal sites (I assume they’re out there) but it would drive me crazy. It’s hard being disappointed with one’s own tribe.

MarkW

You can’t correct them, but you are an expert at ignoring them.

Crispin in Waterloo

Kristi
The motivation is simple: money.
Look how easily millions of scientists, engineers, social scientists and academics in general accepted and promote the ideas of Western materialism including:
Man fully grasps how the world works.
Morality is arbitrary, or can be, and we can invent our own perfect society with new morals.
Man, left to his own devices, is self-perfecting.
All that a person is and knows is contained within the brain, like a computer storage medium.
Western materialist thought, which denies the spiritual world and the higher nature of Man, concentrates on ideas for meeting the material needs of populations such as innovative distribution and access, based on the foundational belief that if the material conditions are set ‘right’, good people will result because they are no longer struggling in a condition of material want. Yet we admire those who sacrifice all for the benefit of others. Classic doublethink.
Capitalism and Communism are not ‘opposites’ they are both in essence promising that material wants will be eliminated by various mechanisms. Morality is held by both to be something that can be set, adjusted and enforced by committee decisions in service of material goals.
The corruption of climate science is an aspect of this greater societal corruption. All the signs are the same: arbitrary rules of engagement, arbitrarily changed morality, a focus on funding and especially control of the narrative, the elevation of Man above and in complete control of nature, the corruption of the review process that would have, in normal circumstances, exposed incompetent and nefarious methodologies, arrogating to themselves the power to forgive sins (the end justifies any means) and assuming the mantle of Judge over who is and is not an AGW apostate.
Groupthink claims it’s own morality is validated by the ‘ad populum’ adherence to it. ‘Whatever the group decides is right.’ Groupthink arises in conditions of ignorance and multiple social ills. In reality the group does not know the nature of those ills nor the appropriate cure.
While it’s deleterious effects are immediately clear, we have a larger problem than battling the corrupters of climate science. We must have a coherent plan for the restitution of the moral environment within which the search for truth is conducted. In short, better people come first, and moral behaviour, right living, the correct balance in the economy, derives from it, not the reverse. This reality contradicts the central theme of the materialist solutions.
The true environmentalist does not worship the Earth. The Earth is not sacred. Principles are. Our discussion must be about the principles, not only the unprincipled.

MarkW

Allowing two people to trade freely, is hardly being “materialistic”.

Alan Tomalty

Crispin
“Man fully grasps how the world works.
Morality is arbitrary, or can be, and we can invent our own perfect society with new morals.
Man, left to his own devices, is self-perfecting.
All that a person is and knows is contained within the brain, like a computer storage medium.”
********************************************************8888
Crispin you are all wet on this one
Scientific men do not believe your 1st point
Religion does not have a monopoly on morals as your 2nd point implies
Nobody believes your 3rd point
As to your 4th point all recent scientific research has pointed to the fact that the self is an illusion.
Let us stick to the topic of trying to overturn this AGW hoax.

MarkW

“Let us stick to the topic of trying to overturn this AGW hoax.”
Says the man who very recently openly attacked anyone who believes in anything other than atheism.

Joel Snider

‘The motivation is simple: money.’
There’s that for sure, but I honestly think the largest part is pre-determined opinion, based on ideology. It shapes the all-important element of perspective. Please see my reply to Kristi, below.

Kristi Silber

Crispin – I agree with just about all of what you said until you came to the part about climate science.
In one sense scientists are like everyone else, capable of being corrupted. And certainly there is ego involved, desire for prominent reputation, job at a top lab or school, etc. – all the things one encounters in other professions. But I believe there’s an inherent difference between science and other fields: the whole of science is centered on finding the Truth. That’s its sole function, and every secondary function is dependent on that. Once you start bending the truth, all your work is worthless, meaningless.
No one would go into climate science for the money. My uncle has worked for NOAA for decades (was chief of the Mauna Loa Observatory), is now semi-retired at NOAA in Boulder and can’t even afford to live there. Avg. salary for a researcher is about $50,000 (career sites say, though that seems low to me), and that’s after 6-10 years of school and usually couple years post doc. And research is HARD. It’s often very tedious. It sucks relying on grants to be able to do your research, but it helps if you are doing something that is viewed as important. It’s not surprising if more funding goes to those who are working on consensus climate science than those working against it unless the latter have a truly new, plausible direction to research. That’s the problem – too often they don’t. AGW research has been going on for over 50 years; if a better way of looking at AGW hasn’t come up yet, it’s not likely to do so now. (Another worthy contribution is valid criticism of the way science is practiced or reported, but they must carry weight. Personal attacks and those that are not constructive should not be published or otherwise publicly aired.)
The “core” of vocal contrarian scientists have helped lead much of the public to believe that consensus science is corrupt. That has not been demonstrated at all to me, and I’ve been open to considering the evidence. Dr. Ball’s quotes taken out of context look damning, but that’s easy when you can pick little bits out of 1000s of emails. It’s obvious that most are parts of conversations. I think Jones may not have been entirely ethical, but even that I can’t judge, not knowing the full story. What Dr. Ball’s essay says to me more than anything is the depths he will go to in his efforts to discredit climate science. The list of “symptoms of groupthink” doesn’t even make sense – several of them are true in the context of any group. Besides, even if he did show that the CRU group had “groupthink,” that doesn’t mean it extends to all the climate scientists in the world.
“The corruption of climate science is an aspect of this greater societal corruption. All the signs are the same: arbitrary rules of engagement, arbitrarily changed morality, a focus on funding and especially control of the narrative, … the corruption of the review process that would have, in normal circumstances, exposed incompetent and nefarious methodologies, arrogating to themselves the power to forgive sins (the end justifies any means) and assuming the mantle of Judge over who is and is not an AGW apostate.”
I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that these are typical of climate science. The review process (and other issues associated with publication) has problems in science generally, but two of the best examples of its corruption involve contrarians, resulting in major staff changes of two journals.
“the elevation of Man above and in complete control of nature,” This an idea of climate science? If you really believe that, it shows just how little you know about the scientific community – but to me that’s obvious anyway. No shame in that; the problem is that you think you know far more than you do.
You have a million allegations. It’s extremely frustrating for me seeing these over and over and finding so little validity in them, even though I try to figure out how you came to have such a terrible view of climate scientists (apart from contrarians, who can do no wrong). I know I have my own biases, but I try to go beyond them.
Instead what I have discovered is more reason to believe that Americans’ minds have been manipulated without their knowing. This has happened on both “sides,” but the contrarian propaganda has caused mass distrust of science, and that is destructive and irresponsible.
…Huh – just made a connection. People around here aren’t just against renewables, but very supportive of fossil fuels – the answer to poverty, a step toward sustainable development (!), etc. That message must have been sent along with the one saying consensus climate science is useless.

MarkW

He can’t afford to live in Boulder? The same can be said for about 95% of the population.

MarkW

Kristi, the e-mails listed prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate science has been corrupted.

Kristi Silber

MarkW – “Kristi, the e-mails listed prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate science has been corrupted.” Nonsense. This is what you see of thousands of criminally-gotten emails. Cherry-picking and pulling things out of context, giving meaning to words that wasn’t there to begin with, is a slimy way to convey a message about others.
But your insulting posts are too empty of any compelling interest to bother with, and deserve only to be ignored.
(I read all of his comments to here, not one was insulting, your comments are all OPINION only, which is why you are not convincing anyone) MOD

MarkW

Kristi, would you care to detail how the quotes are cherry picked or taken out of context?
The entirety of the email collection is available for public viewing, for free.
I’m waiting for you analysis.
I fully expect that you will come up with some excuse as to why it once again, isn’t necessary for you to know what you are talking about.

Alan Tomalty

I cant prove that a pink elephant doesnt exist. Anybody that wants to believe in pink elephants will have to prove it to me or show me one. I believe in testable hypothesis. Science and mathematics are the only way to have a rational conversation. The problem is that when humans stray away from the scientific method of the null hypothesis which has to be testable. Climate science strayed with the invention of global warming without any provable tests. Cosmology has strayed with the persistent adoption of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. My faith in science will never waiver because it is rooted in rational thought not a Belief system like too many humans have. I question everything as you should if you apply the scientific method. My faith in other humans applying the scientific method is faltering. AGW is shaking the very foundations of science. Until this hoax is fully exposed we are entering another Dark Age with dire consequences. At least your belief in a deity doesn’t cost me money except for the fact that church lands are tax exempt.

Crispin in Waterloo

Alan Tomalty
I am not sure you got my point. Those were points are a list of ‘misguidings’, not my positions. The materialist view is that man is no more than the sum of his physical parts. The obsession with a computer ‘becoming aware’ reflects an underlying belief that humans have/are a smart computer. Atheism is an expression of the materialist view. I realise some will find this challenging. Dawkins went to extremes to sell his views using a string of strawmen and an unwillingness to undertake a scientific investigation into a religion.
Perhaps I can restate my points above in a clearer manner, but I will still reject the materialistic interpretation of why the economy is in crisis and what to do about it. Groupthink exists in many places. Climate eschatology is one and ‘you are what you own’ is another. Suggesting that the western atheist view is defective causes strong reactions because that view does not countenance information from ‘outside’.
The Wikipedia entry for groupthink is excellent and one can become alarmed to realise how common it is and how much it affects. I suggest that ‘climate catastrophism’ will be added to the two main classic examples of the Bay of Pigs and Pearl Harbour.

Trebla

Kristi Silber: if you define science as the postulation of a falsifiable hypothesis, then I would agree with you. If on the other hand, you start out with an untestable conjecture (atmospheric CO2 increased, the world got a little warmer, therefore CO2 is the cause) then you lost me. By the way, I’m a trained scientist.

Kristi Silber

Trebla: Postulation of a falsifiable hypothesis is the bare bones (testing the hypothesis is also important!) but it’s a start. Of course science isn’t untestable conjecture. I’m a trained scientists, too.

CD in Wisconsin

@Kristi Silver: Kristi, you are STILL treating your AGW belief system as infallible and unquestionable. This treatment of it is characteristic of religious and political doctrines, not science. You STILL don’t understand how scientific discourse works. In science, one is supposed to question. That is how science gets to the truth. Only religious and political doctrines are treated as unquestionable and infallible by their believers.
I explained all of this to you in a previous post. It apparently didn’t register with you, so perhaps you are beyond hope.

Kristi Silber

CD – How tiresome it is when people make such foolish assumptions about me.
AGW science has been questioned. It’s been around for 50 years and has withstood much debate — it still does. Science is always fallible, can always be improved and always leaves opportunity for a better explanation to come along. But at some point an idea gains enough supporting evidence from enough difference lines of research that it becomes theory, the closest it will come to being “proved.”
The main tenets of consensus climate science are very well-supported, so that’s what I’m going with as a theory. I’ve seen and considered many, many arguments against, and they aren’t compelling enough to make me change my mind.
You can explain what you want, your condescencion doesn’t faze me.

MarkW

If climate science is able to withstand debate, then why do climate scientists refuse to debate anyone who doesn’t already agree with them?
The main tenets of climate science have never been supported, much less proven.
Models are not science.
The best you can do is point to the off and on again warming over the last 200 years and proclaim, it’s CO2 whut done it.

CD in Wisconsin

@Kristi Silber: You say: “…..The main tenets of consensus climate science are very well-supported, so that’s what I’m going with as a theory. I’ve seen and considered many, many arguments against, and they aren’t compelling enough to make me change my mind…..”.
Kristi, have the alarmists shown you any evidence from the paleoclimatic history of the Earth that shows CO2 and its GHG effect driving climate to a degree or extent that is a cause for concern? Don’t bother looking for it in the Greenland and Antarctic ice core samples, because the evidence isn’t there. Those samples cover millions of years of the Earth’s history.
Have the alarmists shown you evidence that the Earth’s sensitivity to the GHG effect of CO2 is high enough that it is a cause for concern? Don’t feed me any lines about the climate models, because they have been debunked here at WUWT quite a lot. They have quite a few problems. Many of the models already do not seem to align with what the satellites are showing us. For one thing, the models didn’t predict the 18+ year Pause in temperatures from 1998 onward.
Have you looked at how quiet the Sun is on the right side of this website? Few or no sunspots. The lack of sunspots have been associated with an inactive Sun. This in turn has been associated with Grand Solar Minimum cooling events here on Earth. The Dalton Solar Minimum is one of the them. If in fact the Earth starts cooling due to the inactive Sun in the years ahead, the alarmist camp is going to get a rude awakening. The alarmists tend to discount the Sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate, and that MIGHT turn out to be a rather large mistake IF what some believe about the Sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate is correct. Premature conclusions.
How long have you been following this website Kristi? I ask because evidence that refutes your “compelling” conclusions of the alarmists has been getting presented at this website for 10+ years now. I for one have been following it many of those years, and the refuting evidence has been quite voluminous.
The years ahead might very well tell us which one one of us is right and which one is wrong. I sincerely hope that you do not want the alarmists to be right about an overheating planet. Or do you?

Kristi Silber

CD – I have been around here consistently for only a month or so, but came sporadically in the past. I was very active in climate issues on Breitbart for months.
I’ve seen many, many arguments. If they were compelling, I investigated them. I go to original literature when I can, or NASA or NOAA. I look at BOTH sides of the argument.
Take Anthony’s recording station data…I read that (the first paper), and I was concerned. I thought it could be a problem. But there was no analysis, and I was pretty sure NOAA would have considered these things – station siting is pretty basic. I don’t know how much time passed, but I stumbled on a study done by NOAA that looked at Anthony’s data, did an analysis, and found that it wasn’t a problem. And I was glad to see that, it set my mind at ease because I took Anthony’s work seriously. (I know about the 2nd paper, too.)
I’ve seen the sort of evidence that is presented here. I haven’t found it convincing, I’m afraid. There have been interesting articles, but there is such a strong bias in both the content and in the reporting that there is no way anyone who relies on this site for their information could make an informed decision. Often I find that quotes are taken out of context, or important sections edited out. The commentary is sometimes insulting to “alarmists,” which seems to encompass anyone who’s concerned about the future. Any evidence of climate change already being a problem (e.g. wildfires in CA) is automatically dismissed. Any suggestion climate change is positive is posted. And it’s assumed that consensus scientists are subject to corruption, while contrarians aren’t. In short, the site sends a message: don’t support policy to lower FF consumption or increase regulation. That’s what it all boils down to, taken as a whole.
I still think the site is valuable. It offer different views and news one might not get elsewhere, and provides a forum for discussion. in general it seems like playing at science. It’s not put in context of past research, it’s oversimplified, it’s hard to know if the data are the appropriate set…but the killer is that people set out to demonstrate something and there’s no way to control for bias. How often do skeptics publish their own evidence supporting of what the “alarmists” say? The people who publish here are almost all skeptics. Some are probably trained scientists (I don’t know all) and I’m sure there are exceptions to my complaints, but I’m giving you my honest opinion.
I’m not a troll, I’m not an alarmist, I support some use of FF, I figure the planet and humans will adjust to whatever happens, but I’m glad I won’t have to see much of it and don’t have kids.
What I don’t like is that the scientific community has been discredited. It’s not just.
“paleoclimatic history of the Earth that shows CO2 and its GHG effect driving climate”
This is not relevant. The past is not a good representation of today. It’s been at least 800,000 years since the CO2 has been this high, and the increase is accelerating. The sun is cooler now than it was in the past. The continents are in different places. Comparing the deep past with today is educational only if you look at the interactions and patterns, not just the numbers. Organisms survived in very different environments, I know, but they had time to evolve and migrate.
YES, I’m aware we are going into a solar minimum and so are the scientists. They will not be surprised if the rate of warming slows or even reverses. The Earth will get a reprieve, and they the minimum will be over, CO2 will be sky-high, and warming will more or less track the rising energy of the sun, probably with a lag (apart from the other oscillations, which will always be in the background). That’s my guess, anyway.
I don’t know and don’t care what the alarmists know or say – you would know far better than I. I despise Al Gore, btw. Alarmists are no friends of mine. The media have been terrible, but you have to keep in mind that looming catastrophe sells.
It’s extremely important to not get the alarmists confused with the scientists, and not to underestimate the intelligence and integrity of the latter. It often seems to be assumed that scientists hadn’t thought of something, when the fact is it’s been refuted or used or found to be irrelevant long ago. This topic has been studied for 50 years, with 1000s of scientists contributing. I’ve more to say about that, but this is already to long.
You have been getting a lot of information from this site. Unless you use it as a starting point to delve a little deeper, or go to other sites for balance, you are going to get a biased view. That’s my opinion, of course, but just think – how often do you read support for the consensus climate scientist community or climate models? There is another side to the story.

gator69

Kristi, can you please provide a list of the “1000s of scientists worldwide involved in climate change science” who all agree? From my reading there are more skeptics than believers.

MarkW

But you don’t understand. Only people who believe as Kristi does count as scientists.
Therefore, by definition, there are no scientists who disagree with Kristi.

Kristi Silber

gator – no, I don’t have a list of names handy.
You need to widen your reading horizons. Even Dr. Curry said in congressional testimony that skeptic science lacked intellectual resources. The published lists of skeptic scientists includes not just climate scientists, and on some lists the signers aren’t scientists at all.
The core skeptic scientists are very vocal, so it seems like there are a lot of them – and even some of those aren’t climate scientists.

gator69

Kristi, you don’t have a list if thousands, because no such list exists.
As for my reading, I was a climatology student over 30 years ago, and I have followed the “science” closely ever since. You have no idea of what you speak. Natural variability has never been disproven, and can explain every “global climate” change we have seen.
Looks like you have more reading to do Ms Kristi.

MarkW

The skeptics lack resources because the alarmists refuse to allow anyone who doesn’t agree with them access to grants.
As to your inability to name names, I’m not surprised.

gator69

Rob, the Earth warms and cools, just as the Sun rises and sets.

MarkW

Sometimes “we don’t know” is the correct answer.

Gator

Sometimes “we don’t know” is the correct answer.
And this time that is absolutely the correct answer, anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, fraud, idiot, or a combination of these.

Kristi Silber

Gator – “Natural variability has never been disproven, and can explain every “global climate” change we have seen.”
No one wants to disprove natural variability, that is expected. I don’t understand how you can not understand that if you’ve been following the science. Or for that matter, how you can say that natural variability accounts for the current change.
People are always saying they won’t believe something unless it’s tested with a falsifiable hypothesis. So how are you going to demonstrate using the same criteria that current changes are the result of natural variation? (And variation in what? There is nothing to explain it! The skeptic Richard Muller tried to find something and ended up convincing himself that it was CO2.)
And you are right that no list of the consensus scientists exists, which you knew before. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Gator

Kristi, I don’t have to present any defense of NV, as it is the null hypothesis.
Again, you do not know what you are speaking of, CAGW is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. Let me know when you have completed your Climatology courses, and when you have used that knowledge, reading every related peer reviewed paper for three decades to come to an intelligent conclusion.

MarkW

In other words, it doesn’t matter how the leading figures in the CAGW scam act, because others who’s livelyhood depends on keeping the scam going also agree with them.

TA

The problem with all those 1000’s of scientists and their science studies is that they are basing their results on a foundation of lies.
They have been duped by the Climate Change Charlatans into believing that CAGW is real and so they go off and do their science studies based on a false assumption.
Many of these scientists are just as much victims of the CCC and their lies as anyone else.

gator69

The problem with all those 1000’s of scientists, is that they do not exist. Like the 97% claim, it is a fake number meant to sway the ignorant.

Alan Tomalty

Kristi
“I avoid liberal blogs and media, preferring to go to original literature or NOAA and NASA, whom I trust.”
That is the core of the problem Kristi. There are millions like you that accept that those 2 government agencies are playing fair ball. The problem is that not only the university Atmospheric Science faculties have become corrupted, but also the government agencies as well. Governments hire their top people from universities. If you are hiring someone that has to have expertise in environmental matters who else but someone with a PhD degree in Atmospheric Science. The problem is that ALL Atmospheric science departments at EVERY university that has that department have become corrupted. YES I AM SAYING IT IS THAT BAD. I never thought we would see the day that I would have to say that. I can scarcely believe it myself. There are individuals on this blog that have told us this because they worked for these agencies for many years and have seen the corruption of science. I know that questioning the integrity of these agencies is questioning the core of your very being but unfortunately it has come to pass. Science is in a real mess right now because of this. Google the fact that 50% of scientific papers are frauds. Did you ever think in your lifetime that that would be possible? And 99% of climate papers are worthless because they use computer models that have never had a correct prediction yet. I look forward to the day that we get out of this mess but ignoring that we are in a mess does not get us out of it.

Joel Snider

Kristi – your knee-jerk response is the exactly the sort of thing that I find so depressing (and no, I’m not ‘suffering from depression’ as I believe you expressed kindly concern for in the thread that got canceled last week – I’m from the generation where people had ‘personalities’ and ‘moods’ as opposed to ‘disorders and complexes’ that needed to be medicated away… but I digress). This is just old-fashioned, weary exasperation.
An example: several years ago, I had a woman friend – great gal, smart, funny – one of my favorite people – a real character too (someday I’ll tell the story about how she got the name ‘Long Island Leanne’ out of Anchorage… and I hope she doesn’t surf here, because she’d probably skin me alive for letting THAT cat out of the bag). But anyway, we got into the whole Climate Change argument, and she was just as implacable as you. So, I gave her a copy of ‘State of Fear’ – a book which basically described the shenanigans at the highest level that would later be conclusively demonstrated in the Climategate scandal – and it was a nice, easy-to-digest popular-fiction format.
I called her a couple weeks later and asked her what she thought. She said she was almost finished and really hoped Peter and Jennifer would get together at the end.
That was my deep-sigh moment. I think I said something to the effect of ‘yeah, let’s root for those two.”
So perhaps that’s why I’m trying to reach you. You’re HERE. That means you’ve taken the first step. Now, if you’re here simply to push an agenda and be contentious, then this will be lost on you, and that in itself will be all that you get here.
But maybe not.
All I want from you is to ask yourself an honest question – don’t answer it here – just give it some time, let it cook and really think about it.
Have you ever really questioned your presumptions? Have you ever really considered the possibility that what you believe might be wrong?
It’s a very difficult thing for most people to look at the world from another perspective. I’ve made a lifetime of it.
I’ve also taken note of the sorts of social dynamics that pit human beings at each other’s throats… too often in the name of one supposedly good cause or another. ANY belief system can be corrupted, exploited, or used to justify atrocities – the words of Jesus have been used to justify burning people at the stake.
If you can simply accept one thing, it might help. No one here is trying to trick you. And no one here is saying anything they don’t believe. And it’s worth remembering that lot of people here have experienced a lot of foulness on account of their honest beliefs for a very long time – to the point that it’s become expected, leaving not a few people a little touchy.
This was one of the reasons for my cautionary post last week about not falling victim to the sort of knee-jerk reactions that are simply a natural human response. I’ve said, arguing with the rigidly close-minded, always threatens to close your own mind as well. It’s an easy thing to do. And it’s easy to get angry.
But I’ll also remind everybody here that it’s hard to blame people for what they’re taught.
Far be it for me to be the voice of reason – times must truly be at their darkest. But every now and then, I suffer from bouts of unreasoning optimism.

TA

Good post, Joel.

Kristi Silber

Joel – your post is friendly enough, but the “knee-jerk response” kind of ruins it.
Yes, I have questioned my ideas. At great length and depth. I also questioned where I got them, and that, I think, is very important. You see, I don’t watch TV, don’t get a paper and have spent long periods of time without any media input (living in the wilderness). I avoid liberal blogs and media, preferring to go to original literature or NOAA and NASA, whom I trust. I know far more about liberal propaganda through what I see on conservative sites than from the liberals themselves. I’ve always been a devil’s advocate.
It’s not just about questioning ideas, it’s about accruing knowledge of what is already happening because of climate change.
I come here with an agenda, sure, although it’s a lost cause and I’m not very good at it. I would like people to question how they get their ideas. You see, there is unquestionable evidence (e.g., original paperwork) that the Right has been the target of propaganda for decades. The messages it was meant to convey are exactly the main messages I see around here.
The other message I have is that science is not full of fraud and corruption, but it’s hopeless to try to get anyone to believe that who wants to believe otherwise.
In short, any desires I have to changes anyone’s ideas are futile and I waste an enormous amount of time here. But I also learn more about the science and the debate in the process.

South River Independent

Ms Silber – Knowledge is not enough. One needs understanding. People who do not have the same understanding, even if they have the same knowledge, will not agree. And understanding is harder to achieve than it is to gather knowledge. They are different things. If you stick with this site, you will discover those who understand and those who do not. And none of us is able to understand everything.

Joel Snider

You realize that NOAA and NASA are just institutions, which are only as good as those who populate them – people who surround themselves with like-minded people – natural enough, but one of the primary mechanisms that create bias. These institutions are also implicated in many of the jury-rigging scandals, including Climategate.
Second, ‘science’ is not immune to fraud and corruption any more than any other discipline. We live in a world where members of the Catholic church are guilty of child-abuse – theoretically, one of the most moral institutions there is – so why would you assume that a discipline that has traded ‘morality’ for ‘ethic’ be any better?
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And regulation of C02 – Integral in every single activity involving organic life – is power that belongs to no one. And it’s worth pointing out that the corruption in climate science that has become visible is at the highest levels – their importance cannot be over-emphasized, because it colors opinion (and information) all the way down.
Then question what you’re really after: is it based on the idea that you can micromanage the climate, by micromanaging one species’ fractional contribution to a trace gas? Even if the ‘extreme weather’ claims were true (and near as I can tell, it’s not), it seems to me the simple solution would be to modernize – NOT try to control the Earth’s temperature. Look at the difference where hurricanes last year struck the states, versus Cuba – in the states, they just turned the power back – in Cuba there are places where it’s still off.
I continue to reach out because, as opposed to political and financial opportunists, I THINK you fall into the category of someone who is simply trying to be a good person and to DO good in the way you have been taught. This is what I meant by ‘knee-jerk’ response.
This is the change in perspective I’ve asked from you, and while I believe you have made a study of the subject up until now, I also believe – by your reference to ‘trust’ that you are not quite yet perceiving the entire picture.
One man held what he thought was a leaf, Another thought he had a tree trunk. A third thought he had a snake.
They had an elephant. As in the elephant in the room.
Anyway, like I said… and ‘unlearn, young padawan.’
Okay, that last bit was corny. But it was there…. I had to use it.

… just a partial response to Kristi Silber February 22, 2018 at 3:53 pm
. . . the whole of science is centered on finding the Truth. That’s its sole function, and every secondary function is dependent on that. Once you start bending the truth, all your work is worthless, meaningless.
I agree, but apparently you think that climate science IS following this philosophy. Everything that I have seen indicates that it is NOT.
No one would go into climate science for the money.
One WOULD go into climate science for a career, however, and this involves seeking financial support for research, building one’s reputation, publishing, and associated activities that enhance one’s position in the field. The “money” in climate science supports all this, even though an individual climate scientist might not enjoy a large chunk of this money. That doesn’t matter — a career is a valuable thing too, and when this thing is built on a highly questionable foundation, then legitimate questions can threaten the career, threaten the income-earning job, the reputation, … threaten the whole network that gives the climate scientist’s life meaning.
When the comfort level in this chosen career path reaches such status where further scientific scrutiny threatens this career path, and OTHER, less scientific stances are cleverly substituted for the scientific method, then climate science, as a career path has ceased to be what it claims.
It’s not surprising if more funding goes to those who are working on consensus climate science than those working against it unless the latter have a truly new, plausible direction to research. That’s the problem – too often they don’t.
Just in the way you write, you establish a “for vs. against consensus climate science”, and I think that right there captures the problem. There should NOT be any “for vs. against”, and yet this seems precisely to be the case, which means the very pursuit of research itself has become politicized. The even bigger problem is that the very definition of “truly new, plausible direction to research” is DEFINED by the biases and entrenched dogma of the so called “consensus”. Folks that DO have a “truly new, plausible direction to research”, thus, have little hope. “New” can also mean looking AGAIN at the old, re-evaluating it, coming to new conclusions based on upgraded insights of the REsearch — note the “RE” in “research”, as in “to search again” for the truth.
AGW research has been going on for over 50 years; if a better way of looking at AGW hasn’t come up yet, it’s not likely to do so now. (Another worthy contribution is valid criticism of the way science is practiced or reported, but they must carry weight. Personal attacks and those that are not constructive should not be published or otherwise publicly aired.)
This statement encases some pretty circular reasoning, … namely, AGW research, which is predominately founded on the premise of a human causation, has been going on for over 50 years; if a better way of looking at human causation (the founding principle of AGW) hasn’t come up yet, it’s not likely to do so now. See? — if human causation is the guiding motivation, the fundamental assumption, the base axiom, the money line in grant applications, then how, pray tell, is any door really open for a “better way”, in more general terms?
By questioning the “A” in “AGW”, a person is challenging a paradigm upon which jobs, careers, reputations, etc. have comfortably settled, seemingly beyond the point of being challenged, because if challenged, the whole edifice stands to crumble. I do NOT think that a situation quite like this has ever existed before in history, and it is a situation that has been created by a synthesis of activism, politics, and marketing that humans have never been capable of achieving until fairly recently.

eyesonu

Thank you for publishing this excellent paper by Dr. Tim Ball.
While many of those here today were around during the time of the release of the Climategate emails (released in 2009) there are many that have come on board since that time and need to see just how important that revelation was. It revealed the groupthink, self deception and outright perversion of ethics and scientific methods. Fraud is an appropriate term that I don’t want to use here but is hard to avoid.
Dr. Ball is but one of many that were ruthlessly attacked by those exposed (the Team) in the emails as well as many other players outside those explicitly caught by Climategate. It revealed a sad day in the history of science and academia. That only a few could create the corruption they did is astonishing and when you consider that the resultant corruption and groupthink is still ongoing today makes it even worse.
It would be good to revisit the Climategate email release from time to time as this was a turning point in what I hope will be the salvation of the scientific method. It is also important for those not engaged at the time but are interested today to see how it began. But it needs to be said that Climategate revealed what had been going on for more than a decade prior to the email release.
Hopefully history will eventually reward the good guys and rightfully tarnish the bad ones. Their legacy, both good and bad, will live far longer than their lives.

dennisambler

The process of climate group think is described here:comment image
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/rise-and-fall-of-cagw/

J Murphy

Once again, in the interest of openness and to provide some background about Dr Ball, the recent comments about his veracity and reliability from a Canadian judge should be displayed, especially as Dr Ball states that “the judge dismissed the case”, without admitting some of the comments made within the judgement, e.g.:
“… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”
“…the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views… ”
“…Dr. Ball’s approach to gathering facts in support of his opinion or thesis is less than rigorous.”
“…vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references to Dr. Weaver…”
“…even as an opinion piece, the Article presents as poorly written and it provides little in the way of credible support for Dr. Ball’s thesis.”
“These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent.”
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
It is also worth noting that Dr Ball has already previously apologised for the claims he made in the original article, as shown in the judgement – e.g.: “I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the
embarrassment and distress caused by my article.”
And, bizarrely, because the Canada Free Press (the original platform for the fantasy article) withdrew the article and apologised in the virtually exactly the same way as he did (e.g.: “On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver,
CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.” https://www.webcitation.org/5vuFWzOy5), he decided to “withdrew all my articles from their archive”!
As the judge stated “reasonably thoughtful and informed person(s)” wouldn’t “place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views”. Is that why this website continues to treat him as an ‘expert’ and thinks his views are credible?

I do not need Dr Ball to inform me that Weaver is unreliable.. I bought his book in about 2008 and it was some years before I was able to understand how that book mislead me. I trusted him as a “scientist”, but he played me by omitting inconvenient facts. I also previously did not like Dr Balls opinions, but have over time learned that he was to be trusted.

Bruce Cobb

It appears that Weaver doth protest too much, and is simply displaying crybully tactics.

cerescokid

What part of the Climategate quotes don’t you get? I don’t need to place any credence in Ball’s views to appreciate the fundamental message of the Climategate quotes. In this post he was only a conduit for the uninformed to see what sleazy behavior some have engaged in.
I never would have begun to doubt CAGW 8 years ago if I had not noticed such a prevalence of the warmist cultists engaging in playing the man instead of the ball. Attack the science instead of the messenger. One only needs to do some intensive research to see how thin the CAGW narrative is. Ball doesn’t need to help me with that. Anyone with critical thinking skills can do it solo.

TA

“One only needs to do some intensive research to see how thin the CAGW narrative is. Ball doesn’t need to help me with that. Anyone with critical thinking skills can do it solo.”
That’s exactly right. It’s not that hard to tell whether someone has proven something or not.
The Alarmists can’t prove CAGW is real and that’s why they are having such a hard time selling it. And they won’t admit this to themselves.

MarkW

We agree, that according to the incrowd, any statement that they don’t like is automatically wrong.
Regardless, I notice that you attack the messenger rather than dealing with the factual issues that he has brought up.
Why is that?

Jan Christoffersen

Murph,
In his last ten years at the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver and his colleagues managed to produce just about the worst climate model in existence, CANESM2. It runs waaaay too hot and cost Canadian taxpayers $tens of millions. Weaver, now the leader of the British Columbia Green party and a small minority partner in the current provincial government, rabbits on continually and tediously about the dangers of climate change based on his deeply flawed climate model. His solutions to the “climate problem” (no gas, no oil, no coal development) would be economic suicide for the province. And the public pays for policy folly yet again.
I share Dr. Ball’s opinion about widespread corruption in the field of climate research. The judgement of a non-scientific judge regarding the quality of Dr. Ball’s “poorly written” article is the unqualified judge’s personal opinion.
Dr. Ball won the case. Enough said.

gwan

Reply to J Murphy,
Just get over it Murph .
Weaver brought a law suite against Tim Ball and the Judge threw it out
.End of story ,
Climb back under your rock Murph..
Weaver is a slimey lying green politician and the law suit was launched against Tim Ball to silence him .These people like Weaver and Mann are bullies and they think that they can silence people who disagree with them by talking them to court and wasting the courts time .There science is wrong and they will not debate and rely on consensus which proves nothing ..Read what Tim Ball has posted here on the climate gate emails .
These are not fakes .

Bruce Cobb

“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
David Roberts, for Grist Magazine, Sept. 19, 2006.
Substitue “global warming/climate change ideology” for the above “global warming”, and, yes, please.
Hoist by their own petard much?

dh-mtl

The question is what is the reason for the Global Warming Conspiracy.
My theory is that the underlying objective is ‘Globalization’, the transfer of political power from nation-states to ‘Global Institutions’.
These ‘Global Institutions’ are controlled by a small clique of very wealthy people (the Davos gang) who control many of the worlds international banks and multi-national companies. These people control the MSM (Mainstream Media) as well the network of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that are actively pushing the conspiracy.
Why Global Warming. Firstly, it is a ‘Global’ problem that only ‘Global Institutions’ can solve. Secondly, ‘saving the world’ is a noble objective that can easily attract the support of young (and not so young) naive and uninformed people. Such support is necessary for the larger project, the transfer of political power from nation-states to the dictatorship of ‘Global Institutions’, to succeed.

TA

“The question is what is the reason for the Global Warming Conspiracy.
My theory is that the underlying objective is ‘Globalization’, the transfer of political power from nation-states to ‘Global Institutions’.”
I think some of the early leaders at the IPCC came out and said just that. The scientists at the IPCC were not thinking that way but the bureaucrats certainly were.

Sara

So, dh, what you believe is that there is a massive conspiracy to take over every government in the world? Just trying to understand your tangent here.
Have you considered that there exists a large number of governments NOT conforming to this ideology, and that “global institutions” have a lifespan, like any other organisation or organism? I’ll give you a couple of good example, e.g., the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the 19th century British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, etc. There are many others. You’re referring to empiricism, but in this age of electronic communications, it’s more likely to fail than to succeed.

dh-mtl

Yes, Sara, I believe that there is a definite link between people that are pushing ‘Global Warming’ and those that are pushing a ‘Rules Based International Order’.
The NGOs that push Global Warming have links to the ‘Open Society Foundation’ and its network of NGOs that have pushed the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe, the Regime Change operations in the Middle East, and are pushing the effort to topple President Trump. In short to overthrow any government that does not go along with the Globalist agenda.
The ‘clique of very wealthy people’, to which I referred, have used their wealth and power to co-opt much of the U.S. government, as well as the European Union institutions, and prominent politicians throughout the Western ‘Democracies’.
Sara, you are right that they are more likely to fail than to succeed, and this is why we are seeing political revolts (such as Brexit, the Trump Election, the rise of nationalism in Europe). But that doesn’t mean that the Globalists will stop trying to impose their agenda. And as they fail they become increasingly desperate. Witness the the ‘Russiagate’ fiasco, or the increasing desperation to silence ‘Climate Deniers’.

Kristi Silber

dh-mtl: The “conspiracy” has been going consistently since the 1960s – does that fit your picture? Even the researchers from fossil fuels were saying by 1980 the same basic things scientists are saying now – though not always publicly – and with surprising confidence.

MarkW

1) Everything found by the fossil fuel researchers was published at the time.
2) All they said was that CO2 is a potential greenhouse gas, and given the complexities of the climate it is impossible to say how much warming it will cause.

MarkW

Which, by the way, is exactly what everyone who isn’t paid to think otherwise has been saying for years.

Extreme Hiatus

Here’s the famous 1991 quote from ‘The Club of Rome’ globalists:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
That pretty much explains why we have the CAGW scare, etc. It was always a political agenda and the so called ‘science’ supporting it is just modern Lysenkoism employing useful idiots at all levels.
Have to admit, they’ve done a good job on the political part. Too bad about the actual evidence and the existence (while it lasts) of the internet to communicate outside of the propaganda machine.

hunter

And of course Wegman was attacked and his reputation injured for his efforts.
The problem is that the climate social mania is a symptom of larger problems and nit only a cause.

J Murphy

“And of course Wegman was attacked and his reputation injured for his efforts.”
Is this the same Wegman who was described as “the most prominent statistician to have repeatedly published material written by others without attribution”? (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/to-throw-away-data-plagiarism-as-a-statistical-crime)
The same Wegman who received an official letter of reprimand from his own university, for plagiarism? (http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/science-fair/2012/02/22/GMU-STATEMENT-WALSCHx-large.jpg)
The same Wegman whose published article based on his report to Congress was later retracted?
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947307002861?via%3Dihub)
Well, this website and its followers sure do have a thing for unreliable, non credible ‘experts’!

Bruce Cobb

Murphy, your smear tactics and use of ad hominem arguments are noted. We have seen your type of trolling here before.

Kristi Silber

Bruce – smear tactics? Are you kidding? He provides evidence, and little else. Yours is a smear tactic, a groundless comment specifically meant to discredit all that J Murphy said or linked to.

JohnWho

Here in the United States, I believe one of the primary reasons why “global warming/climate change” isn’t widely accepted is – Al Gore. Back in 2006 when he was making the rounds on late night television talking about his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, I remember having two reactions: first, if what he is saying is true, this is a serious problem and second, he is a very polarizing figure here in the US and clearly not a good choice to be its messenger. Briefly stated, many people will not believe him simply because he is who he is. Once the movie was released and information regarding its half-truths, misleading statements, and deceptions, that polarization became somewhat confirmed since those who liked him didn’t care that he wasn’t truthful while those that didn’t like him had their opinions confirmed by his actions.
I believe many people, like myself, when finding out that Gore’s “settled science” was not so settled, then went to the “skeptical side”.

Kristi Silber

That’s very perceptive of you. I REALLY wish he had kept his mouth shut. What a complete A** There are so many things that came together to totally mess up the whole subject. It’s eye-opening to see that the “climategate” emails are still a big issue.

ResourceGuy

Alongside groupthink we also have to deal with misdirection plays such as GE promoting Ecosmart power systems for Obama appearances while plowing huge investments into the fossil fuel power plant equipment business. Then there was the case of Richard Branson jumping through hoops with Al Gore and Obama while expanding his jet business and buying a low lying island retreat among the rising seas scare.

William Astley

I totally agree with the above comments that this is not an example of group think. This is an example of a group of ‘scientists’ who obviously (based on the emails and subsequence independent analysis) worked actively together to create sciency propaganda to push an agenda and who actively worked to stop the publishing of papers that completely refute CAGW.
This is an example of nefarious activities which in private industry would result in loss of job.
An example, of one of the dozens of independent fundamental analysis results that completely refutes CAGW is this 2018 published paper that analyzes atmospheric CO2 levels Vs planetary temperature for the last 420 years.
The below paper result is supported by other papers.

…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.
Marginal radiative forcing (DRFCO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, was computed using MODTRAN.
The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2….
…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

MarkW

The group think is amply demonstrated by Kristi and several of our other trolls.

TA

Yes, and they seem to be concentrating on trying to destroy the credibility of the WUWT website.
Attack the messenger is a familiar tactic, when you don’t have any other valid argument to make.

MarkW

Ah yes, the standard troll response when challenged.
You don’t agree with me therefore you have no credibility.
One of these days I will meet a troll that can actually think.
Kristi and Rob can’t.

MarkW

BTW, WUWT has well over 10 times the traffic of even the most popular alarmist site.
So obviously there are a lot of people who don’t agree with Rob.

DiggerUK

Do you not believe that visitors to WUWT don’t realise that? Just read what they have to say, say nothing, and move on…_

MarkW

Rob bends over backwards to prove how clueless he is.
If I had claimed that WUWT was correct because lots of people visit here, then your comment would have merit. Since I didn’t, as usual you wiff it.
People don’t visit and revisit sites they don’t believe have credibility.
Do you want to try again, or are you finally through embarrassing yourself?

MarkW

Poor Rob, he has yet to learn the first rule of holes.
The claim is about credibility. Such a claim can easily be proven by examining the behavior of people.
People do not go to sites they don’t find credible.

MarkW

CNN and Huffington post are news sites, they cater to a different audience.
What is it with you alarmist trolls and your unwillingness to compare like to like?

MarkW

Rob, there is no need to lie based on posts that are just a few posts above yours.
I compared WUWT against other climate blogs.

I did not view Kristi as a troll. That label is all too often employed to designate someone who does not abide by a discussion board’s consensus, which, I think, one could say exists here at WUWT.
A person should be able to drop in and drop some points of view without being labeled “troll”. I speak as one who has been so labelled on occasion. (^_^)
Off to troll Skepticalscience.com now.

MarkW

A troll is someone who just echos talking points that they clearly do not understand.
A troll rarely engages in debate other than to whine that people aren’t willing to agree with her once she has explained how stupid and corrupt they are.

Kristi Silber

It is well-known to climate scientists that past CO2 levels were not always associated with temperature change, and this in no way refutes AGW. This is a very basic idea, and scientists are not dumb.
This is also why examination of the past helps little for prediction of modern climate changes. Today’s circumstances are unique.

MarkW

Temperature isn’t always associated with CO2, but trust us, this time it is.
Why are today’s circumstances unique? Because this time we have broken models that we can substitute for science?

It is well-known to climate scientists that past CO2 levels were not always associated with temperature change, and this in no way refutes AGW. This is a very basic idea, and scientists are not dumb.
Help me out, then, because I’m a little confused about how you stand where you appear to stand on this issue. AGW is based on the premise that CO2 primarily produced by humans is a primary cause of AGW, yes? Given the apparent disconnect between CO2 and temperature on geological time scales, then, what other indicators are you looking at to incriminate human-produced CO2 ?
This is also why examination of the past helps little for prediction of modern climate changes. Today’s circumstances are unique.
How do we determine that “today’s circumstances are unique”, unless we have something with which to COMPARE them? How would we judge “unique”, unless we compared to past times? Earth’s atmosphere is still primarily oxygen and nitrogen. The sun still shines pretty much as it always has. The laws of physics apply the same seemingly. With what, then, are you comparing “today’s circumstances” to determine the baseline from which we should judge “unique”? If not the past atmosphere, the past sun, application of same physics to past, then what?

Kristi Silber

ROBERT
Thank you for saying you don’t think of me as a troll.
” Given the apparent disconnect between CO2 and temperature on geological time scales, then, what other indicators are you looking at to incriminate human-produced CO2 ?”
– Theory and experiment going back to the 19th C and their predictions coming true
– It can be demonstrated that CO2 from fossil fuel is in the atm. (and oceans, I believe)
– It is to my mind well demonstrated that global temps are rising along with CO2, but with natural, expected variability
– There is nothing else to explain it. I know that’s not much of a reason. Although I know some people here think the models are worthless, when run to look at different forcing on temp, CO2 is what explains the data. Nothing else does. They’ve looked at the sun, of course. They’ve looked at the past in quite a lot of detail, as much as they can – from huge long sediment cores under the sea to fossil stomate indices.
“How do we determine that “today’s circumstances are unique”, unless we have something with which to COMPARE them?”
Oh, sorry. I think after I posted I kind of regretted saying what I did. I should have said that it is important to look at the past and compare, and explore…but that it has been and is being done, and I don’t think there’s much more we can learn from it. I could be very wrong, of course. In fact, that’s a very silly statement! But I doubt we will find any evidence for a period that is like ours. If it was there, it’s too far back in the record to give enough detail for us to know. A huge factor in this is the rate of change. We can adapt, but some organisms won’t be able to. No one knows, but with a big enough, rapid enough change there could be mass extinctions, aggravated by habitat destruction and overpopulation. That’s one thing we know (or presume) from the past – the mass extinctions start with rapid climate change. But it’s gotten cooler rather than warmer. I rarely think about that, though. That’s alarmist stuff.
“The sun still shines pretty much as it always has.”
Pretty much. It’s getting weaker.
“The laws of physics apply the same seemingly. With what, then, are you comparing “today’s circumstances” to determine the baseline from which we should judge “unique”?”
As I said to CD above,
– It’s been at least 800,000 years since the CO2 has been this high, and the increase is accelerating. – The sun is cooler now than it was in the past.
– The continents are in different places.
I should have added that the biota is different…(Oh, how could I have forgotten this?) and land use has been drastically altered by humans, with has an impact on climate.
But mostly it’s different because we are pouring CO2 (and other GHG) into the atmosphere at a phenomenal rate.

I asked Kristi, “… what other indicators are you looking at to incriminate human-produced CO2 ?”
She replied:
– Theory and experiment going back to the 19th C and their predictions coming true
Can you be more specific ? — which theory? , by whom ?, which predictions ?, which ones specifically came true ?
– It can be demonstrated that CO2 from fossil fuel is in the atm. (and oceans, I believe)
Yes, CO2 from fossil fuel is definitely in the air — I do NOT doubt that, of course, because to doubt that would be blind. BUT merely being there and being proven to cause catastrophic effects are two entirely different claims. I see NO proof of catastrophic effects from human-produced CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Where is such proof ?
Consider the reality: Of Earth’s entire atmosphere, CO2 composes 0.04% of that. This means that 99.96% of Earth’s atmospheric, fluid dynamic mass is made of CO2. NOW, multiply this 0.04% CO2 by 5%, which is roughly the HUMAN CO2 percentage (5% x 0.04%, in other words):
5% x 0.04% = 0.00002%,
which means that 0.00002% of Earth’s entire atmosphere is human-produced CO2,
while 99.99998% of Earth’s entire atmosphere is composed of other gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen.
Your concern, then is that 0.00002% of Earth’s atmosphere poses catastrophic threats to the other 99.99998% of Earth’s atmosphere. Your fear seems to be that sub-atomic, radiative properties of 0.00002% of a fluid dynamic mass significantly controls gross molecular, fluid dynamic properties of the other 99.99998% of Earth’s atmospheric gases.
Now you can, of course, talk in terms of gigatons of CO2, and, for us humans, gigatons sounds HUGE, but Earth is so much “huger”. All our gigatons of CO2 amount to a mere 0.00002% of Earth’s entire fluid dynamic atmospheric mass, which operates largely through fluid overturning, rising and falling, in a gravitational field, where ginormous amounts of energy, far in excess of what CO2 might contribute via its puny atomic radiative behavior, flow about the planet’s solid/liquid surface.
– It is to my mind well demonstrated that global temps are rising along with CO2, but with natural, expected variability
In this era of human existence, yes, a person might say that temps are rising along with CO2, but (and I emphasize) this is NOT unique to this era, if we trust paleoclimate science, which shows numerous times that CO2 has BOTH risen AND fallen with temps.
The correlation of two quantities in one era does NOT prove that one causes an effect on the other. Again, if we trust paleoclimate science, there have been times when CO2 did NOT rise with temps, but FELL with temps. This alone seems to raise doubts about a causative relationship between the two quantities. And again, we have to be cautious about bias due to our small human size, our relatively short life spans, and our relatively short historical perspectives — these biases can make us seem bigger and more important than we are in comparison to a planet or to the whole universe.
– There is nothing else to explain it. I know that’s not much of a reason.
Explain what ? I’m not clear on what you are saying here.
Although I know some people here think the models are worthless, when run to look at different forcing on temp, CO2 is what explains the data. Nothing else does.
As I understand it, models themselves have been built on particular biases in favor of CO2. So, of course, you get an expected relationship, if the model is essentially constructed on the foregone conclusion of finding this relationship. That’s why you’ll find lots of people here saying, “Garbage in, garbage out.” If models consistently fail to jive with reality, then why put faith in them, just because they find a relationship that they were designed to find ? It’s a circular-logic affair. When the real world says something different than the models, then the models begin to look like rich-boy toys to keep the kiddies occupied. Look at the real world. Look at the models. Something isn’t right.
But I doubt we will find any evidence for a period that is like ours. If it was there, it’s too far back in the record to give enough detail for us to know. A huge factor in this is the rate of change. We can adapt, but some organisms won’t be able to. No one knows, but with a big enough, rapid enough change there could be mass extinctions, aggravated by habitat destruction and overpopulation. That’s one thing we know (or presume) from the past – the mass extinctions start with rapid climate change. But it’s gotten cooler rather than warmer. I rarely think about that, though. That’s alarmist stuff.
I see unfounded fears here and incorrect assumptions. What “rate of change” might you be referring to ? Change in what ? I see you mushing together unfounded fears and mass extinctions now, but I don’t see how fossil fuels have any proven relationship to the potential cause of such events. Do I see the precautionary principle here? Where is evidence of impending “rapid climate change” that you fear might precede the next mass extinction? Do you think worrying about cooler eras is more alarmist than worrying about warmer eras? — I think the greater worry should go to the possibility of cooler eras, since cold kills more surely than hot, where climate is concerned.
– It’s been at least 800,000 years since the CO2 has been this high, and the increase is accelerating. – The sun is cooler now than it was in the past.
– The continents are in different places.
I should have added that the biota is different…(Oh, how could I have forgotten this?) and land use has been drastically altered by humans, with has an impact on climate.
But mostly it’s different because we are pouring CO2 (and other GHG) into the atmosphere at a phenomenal rate.

You are still focused simply on the level of CO2, and you are not tuning in to the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and temperature. In those 800,000 years, temperature has NEVER been as LOW as it is now in RELATION to CO2. If CO2 were the cause, then today’s temp would be astronomically greater, and it is NOT. Take a look:comment image
See over there to the right how high CO2 is in RELATIONSHIP to temp? THAT raises some serious questions in my mind.

Kristi Silber

NOTE: There is no point in discussion of climate with those who give no credence to organizations like NASA and NOAA, since there can be no common reference.
ROBERT
“– Theory and experiment going back to the 19th C and their predictions coming true
Can you be more specific ? — which theory? , by whom ?, which predictions ?, which ones specifically came true ?”
Ekhoms is who I first learned about when studying global warming around 1990, but he built on the work of others. Apparently he was first to use the word “greenhouse” to describe the effect of atmospheric gases..
Below are excerpts from an essay since the original article is 60 pages.
http://nsdl.library.cornell.edu/websites/wiki/index.php/PALE_ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article5.html
‘In 1901 the Swedish meteorologist Nils Gustaf Ekholm (1848-1923) examined the causes of changes in the Earth’s temperature over geological and historical time scales. His comprehensive review included astronomical factors such as changes in the sun and in the Earth’s orbit, and atmospheric factors such as changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and volcanic emissions….Ekholm regarded variations of the carbon dioxide concentration as the principal cause of climatic variations, citing the “elaborate inquiry on this complicated phenomenon” made by his colleague Svante Arrhenius. He explained how carbon dioxide is a key player in the greenhouse effect and how this conclusion is based on the earlier work of Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, and others. By the most reliable estimates, a tripling of carbon dioxide levels will raise global temperatures 7 to 9 degrees Celcius . An increase in carbon dioxide will heat high latitudes more than the tropics and will create a warmer more uniform climate over the entire Earth….Ekholm pointed out that over the course of a millennium the accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 (carbonic acid) from the burning of pit coal will “undoubtedly cause a very obvious rise of the mean temperature of the Earth.’
……………………
“Consider the reality: Of Earth’s entire atmosphere, CO2 composes 0.04% of that. This means that 99.96% of Earth’s atmospheric, fluid dynamic mass is made of CO2. NOW, multiply this 0.04% CO2 by 5%, which is roughly the HUMAN CO2 percentage (5% x 0.04%, in other words):
5% x 0.04% = 0.00002%,
which means that 0.00002% of Earth’s entire atmosphere is human-produced CO2,
while 99.99998% of Earth’s entire atmosphere is composed of other gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen.”
Where to you come up with human contribution being 5%? Is that cumulative or annual? If we contribute only 5% overall, how do you explain the 25% rise in CO2 in the past 150 years?
I’m not sure what “fluid dynamic mass” is, but are you sure you don’t mean volume?
I think this 99.99998% is for all but the human CO2 you got, right? So this also includes naturally-sourced CO2, as well as other trace gases, and water vapor. Despite the fact that these gases together make up a small fraction of the volume, they are responsible for ensuring the planet retains any heat. Oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb it.
I’m not a physicist. But I’m willing to trust what physicists have been saying for over 100 years, and they say that changes in CO2 can change Earth’s energy balance. That makes graphs like you provide rather worrisome.
That’s the way the world works these days: we cannot see or understand everything and have to choose proxies – “authorities” and experts – for evidence and guidance.
“All our gigatons of CO2 amount to a mere 0.00002% of Earth’s entire fluid dynamic atmospheric mass, which operates largely through fluid overturning, rising and falling, in a gravitational field, where ginormous amounts of energy, far in excess of what CO2 might contribute via its puny atomic radiative behavior, flow about the planet’s solid/liquid surface.”
What energy are you talking about here, with all the fluidity? Kinetic energy? I don’t understand what you mean. Only the troposphere is so turbulent. It’s the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit
energy that is important; I don’t know what you mean by “puny atomic radiative behavior.” I don’t understand what you would propose to contain Earth’s heat if not its atmospheric gases.
We cannot rely on the paleoclimate record to fully explain what is happening today, though we can look to it for clues. Sometimes temp tracked CO2 quite well. But there were always, and will always be, other factors involved, from predictable cycles (solar and geo-solar relationships) to sporadic cycles (ENSO) to stochastic factors (volcanic eruptions). Now we also have effects of human change, such as deforestation. Because of all the different factors, modeling is really the only way to look at the whole.
Some predictive models are tuned to assume increase in CO2 in order to explore different scenarios. But regardless, models can also be constructed to specifically to test the various potential forcing factors to see what best accounts for observed changes in climate. There are 4 different types of GCM, used for different purposes. Simpler ones can be run more often to look at particular components of the system. There are now models that don’t rely on any flux adjustments for stability, and they produce results similar to ones that do. Other (non-global) models are used to explore the interaction of components of ecosystems based on different climate scenarios.
I don’t really know, but are you perhaps taking it on trust that the climate models are as filled with circularity as you say? This would be a very serious error, one that would be obvious to many, and it’s hard to believe that scientists would just ignore it. I would need very good evidence to believe that. Again, it seems like the AGW science community is being underestimated.
………………………………………………..
“I see you mushing together unfounded fears and mass extinctions now, but I don’t see how fossil fuels have any proven relationship to the potential cause of such events. Do I see the precautionary principle here? Where is evidence of impending “rapid climate change” that you fear might precede the next mass extinction? Do you think worrying about cooler eras is more alarmist than worrying about warmer eras? IRRELEVANT — I think the greater worry should go to the possibility of cooler eras, since cold kills more surely than hot, where climate is concerned.” YET WE SURVIVED COLD, SO WHY IS HOT BETTER? HEAT KILLS, TOO, NOT ONLY DIRECTLY BUT THROUGH ITS EFFECTS ON DISEASES AND THEIR VECTORS. TECHNOLOGY WILL ALWAYS FIND WAYS TO COMBAT EXTREMES, BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN MAKE USE OF IT. (SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS!!!)
Fear doesn’t come into it. I’m talking about POSSIBILITIES based on my knowledge of ecology and evolution as well as the observed rate of change and the evidence of its effects so far. For example, the top layer of ocean water is becoming more “acidic” (less alkaline). There are at least 2 examples I know of in which there is in situ evidence that this is having an effect on the ability of organisms to grow shells (including the economically important Pacific oyster). If this becomes a widespread problem for plankton, that could cause major effects up the food chain (web), possibly leading to extinctions. Plankton are extremely important to the ocean community. (The bleaching of coral is another major issue, with potential for widespread effects.)
Some species will be able to evolve and migrate in response to change. Others are much less adaptable, especially because humans have destroyed and divided so much habitat.
……………………………………………..
“I don’t see how fossil fuels have any proven relationship to the potential cause of such events”
Well, this is an issue! The majority of climate scientists believe this is very highly likely (it’s never “proved” in science). Others choose to focus on the uncertainty and believe it’s too high to say anything about the relationship. Personally, in my opinion, I believe that this is an artifact of a political and economic agenda, just as others think my beliefs are. I don’t know how to get past this deadlock.
There has been propaganda on both sides. I dislike all of it, and I recognize that I’m not immune to it. I try very hard to search for info that isn’t biased, or I try to take the bias into account. (Like Judith Curry, but not in order to cast doubt on scientific integrity) I have incidentally done quite extensive reading about bias, cognitive error, and the ways people can be manipulated, and it has been eye-opening and scary. It makes me view my own reactions differently – and I know I have them! Prejudice is hard to get rid of, so it’s important to be aware of it.
Whether I explain myself or not, I’m not simply repeating what is said in the media or on blogs. My knowledge of the science certainly isn’t comprehensive, but I try to understand what I talk about.
Some say that scientists began with the greenhouse effect idea and went with it, not exploring alternatives. I don’t believe this. The basics were so well supported in theory and observation, by researchers working independently, that they became provisionally accepted and the basis for further study. This is the normal process in science. I think alternatives have been and continue to be explored. Solar variation has attracted a lot of attention, for example. And there is much debate over the role of water vapor flux and clouds (as the IPCC points out). And again I suggest that modelling is the only way to study climate. It’s not perfect, but to say it’s not testable is untrue, even if it can’t be tested in the way the typical controlled experiment can. We have only one planet, one past and one present, and we are constrained in the types of experimentation we can do. Just getting a model to fairly accurately represent current conditions based on past data is one test every GCM model must pass.
Oy, that’s enough for now.
This is my current understanding. It would take me much time to find the sources to back up my statements, though they are there. If people want evidence, I encourage your to search for it yourself before asking me to back up everything I say (though I’m willing to help). That is typically what I do, and it”s very informative.

s-t

“scientists are not dumb”
Another evidence free claim.
Academia is where I met the dumbest people.

Brian

Good stuff, Tim. I read a similar piece way back in the ’90s by Anthony Pratkanis entitled “How to Sell a Pseudoscience.” http://tinyurl.com/yaznu9zb

Ian L. McQueen

Apologies if this has been printed before, but I don’t have the time to go through 75 previous postings right now. I listened to the following (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/kentucky-fried-rats-exploding-kids-other-urban-brand-myths-1.4546328) and found that it largely mirrored my (and our???) views on “climate change”, that one person is parroting the views of another without checking if it is correct. If you have the time it is worth the nearly 30 minutes of listening time.

kim

Groupthink, ya think?
Gropethink, brokethink,
Ropethinka Dope think.
=================

s-t

““Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with”
Exactly like when dealing with … “antivaxxers”. These people are dirty. They are evil and even more terrible, they don’t accept our adjusted data, statistics where we get to exclude any unwanted data and they don’t take “proxies” as replacements for the real thing.
But even on the uber-mainstream, uber-corporate, uber-predictable and uber-pro-Big Pharma news channel Fox News, a host (Tucker Carlson) has described the vaccine skepticism a “no go zone”, which is perfect description.

Kristi Silber

Ach! There are so many people to reply to, I have to make a group reply.
First, for the sake of expedience, I’ll term the general groups, “skeptics”/”believers” (non-climate scientists) and “contrarian”/”consensus.” (climate scientists). I know they are poor terms.
It seems there is one fundamental difference between me and most others here: I believe that overall there is integrity in the consensus. My uncle has worked for NOAA for decades. He was Chief of the Mauna Loa Observatory for most of that. He now works in Boulder, and he took me to work when I visited a couple weeks ago. It’s HUGE. A rat warren of offices, and posters of current research on the walls everywhere.
This is just one place. There are people working all around the globe on climate change – not just the models, of course, but doing experiments to see how increased CO2 affects plants in nature, looking at organisms in the ocean that are showing problems building their shells…they are measuring tree heights by satellite! Imagine. They can track growth rates.
The idea that all these people are corrupted by an ideology or anything else is simply absurd. There is absolutely no way. It would be logistically unfeasible, if nothing else. How would you get that many people to look the other way when wrong is done? Not a single whistleblower that isn’t also a skeptic? Does that make any sense at all? Why are you so sure that the contrarians aren’t corrupt, especially considering the ties to FF?
You want corruption? How about this?
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/2001-memo-from-exxonmobil-lobbyist-randy-randol-to-white-house-on-ipcc-team/
ExxonMobil memo to Bush administration asking for the head of the IPCC, Robert Watson, to be replaced, and asks whether two others can be. It asks a couple dozen questions about the IPCC, including whether its release can be delayed for further input. Obviously Exxon knows Bush is on their team. The Bush administration used to edit the reports of its scientists before they were released to the public. The editor had no scientific background; his sole purpose was to change the message. (Sorry, don’t have the link handy)
On the climatefiles site are dozens of original documents looking at how much was known by FF/industry, what the said to the public, the propaganda campaigns they planned (with budgets, timetables, names, everything), propagandist ads. (I should define propaganda; information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.)
One of the campaigns had as its primary goal to “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” “Reposition”! See? It had become accepted, and they had to make to questionable. If you look at the ads here, they are conveying exactly what skeptics say now http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/.
1965. LBJ’s Science Advisory Committee:
“By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”
Will continue in another post…

Extreme Hiatus

“First, for the sake of expedience, I’ll term the general groups, “skeptics”/”believers” (non-climate scientists) and “contrarian”/”consensus.” (climate scientists). I know they are poor terms.”
Not poor. False, misleading and grossly oversimplified. For one thing there are many ‘climate scientists’ who are skeptical of the CAGW consensus view.
Interesting about your uncle. That explains a lot about what you post.
P.S. Back in 1965 they were getting ready to blame CO2 for the imminent Ice Age.

s-t

“The idea that all these people are corrupted by an ideology or anything else is simply absurd. There is absolutely no way. It would be logistically unfeasible, if nothing else.”
OK, first you misrepresent what’s happening: it isn’t about NASA faking the Moon landing with ten of thousands of engineers conspiring together, it isn’t about a secret society either. Nobody says that there was explicit James Bond vilain like conspiracy in a remote location. (Although Climategate emails come close.)
Second, these people in “climate science” are very few (mostly incompetent “scientist” who would have had to find a real job if it wasn’t for this gig).
A lot more people lied about what was happening in Soviet Union, which was a complete disaster from the beginning to the end. People could travel, see what was happening then come back to West and lie about it. It’s an immense cover up and anyone who says “conspiration are impossible” is simply grossly denying the most documented facts of history. That’s denial on steroids.
And it’s standard denial. Even today, historians (who are almost all closeted Marxists) deny or hide that denial.
Anyone who says many people cannot lie together is simply in denial of basic facts he cannot handle psychologically. People lie with lies transparent to a 12 years old all the time (we can rely on wind to sustain a country, men have more s-x partners than women…). One of the reasons children have issues.
MANY PEOPLE GO ALONG WITH TRANSPARENT LIES ALL THE TIME, PERIOD.

Kristi S. said:
The idea that all these people are corrupted by an ideology or anything else is simply absurd. There is absolutely no way. It would be logistically unfeasible, if nothing else. How would you get that many people to look the other way when wrong is done? Not a single whistleblower that isn’t also a skeptic? Does that make any sense at all? Why are you so sure that the contrarians aren’t corrupt, especially considering the ties to FF?
MY RESPONSE:
I tend to be cautious about how the word, “corruption”, is used. There is corruption spawned of intentional fraud, and there is corruption that is a consequence of simply not having a coherent, logical understanding of the facts. I honestly am not sure how many people are involved with intentional corruption and how many are involved through more innocent corruption, as a consequence of their own personal idealism and tendency to avoid facts that go against this.
When the momentum of an ideology reaches commanding proportions in people who control the journals, educational institutions, and grant-funding organizations, it’s easy to see how many scientists whom these “controlers” oversee could be led in the same direction, because their reputations and jobs depend on it. THERE IS A WAY, in other words. We are seeing it.
As I said earlier, the one way this era IS different than any other is the melding of politics, economics, idealism, activism, and marketing in a way that was impossible before the recent information revolution.
By “FF”, I assume you mean “fossil fuels”. Your implied certainty about the given association of contrarians to fossil fuels is misplaced certainty. I have NO ties to fossil fuels, for example. At one point in my younger life, I gave up a car for a whole year, and used primarily a bicycle for longer-range transportation about town. I once spent three or so months in Sourthern California too, and during this time, during the day, I used a bicycle to get about much of the time. I was even once like you in my beliefs, but a very smart person started pointing me towards some conflicting facts. One thing led to another, and I came to view the CO2 fear as everything that you now consider to be impossible — more akin to a religion, in other words.
As for that memo you pointed out, where’s the corruption in IT. My first impression of it, on a quick read, is that it is a response to suspected corruption in the IPCC.

Kristi Silber

I wrote a long reply to your other post, but it did not post. Fortunately I copied it first, and will attach at the end, in sections. Some of this post is addressed there.
Yes, “corruption” is often not well-defined.
You call a belief in AGW in ideology. I don’t think of it that way. Is a belief in the theory of relativity also an ideology? Or belief in the scientific understanding of the history of the universe? How would this ideology have gotten started, or when did it turn from science into ideology?
Why is this a partisan issue?
“Your implied certainty about the given association of contrarians to fossil fuels is misplaced certainty.”
No, I obviously wasn’t clear. There need be no direct association. In some cases it’s closer than others. There does seem to be a relationship between think tanks that receive funds from FF and a core of vocal skeptics, some of whom are climate scientists, some in other fields. Some of these think tanks have also done “education” and “outreach” about climate change, preaching uncertainty and the wonders of FF. Then there are the advertising campaigns, the op/eds by contrarian scientists, the media outreach …there have been campaigns to reach school kids and their teachers.
‘As for that memo you pointed out, where’s the corruption in IT. My first impression of it, on a quick read, is that it is a response to suspected corruption in the IPCC.”
Wow. That’s remarkable, and fascinating. So you think that the IPCC was stacked with people lacking scientific integrity (or overcome by bias), and Exxon wanted to set things right? For the public benefit, or what? Do you not see any conflict of interest here? Is there any evidence given of “corruption”? Do you think it’s appropriate for industry to ask the government to change international scientific reports? Do you think Bush was unbiased when it came to oil producers?
Do you think it’s more likely that science has become driven to push an idea than for industry to have manipulated public opinion? (There are, btw, links between the public relations for tobacco and oil)
I don’t know how much we can change the future. It depends on many things, including how much people are willing to sacrifice, but also how much they are willing to change their habits and the way they see energy and consumption. That alone could make a substantial difference, without any taxation or regulations. I suspect (and it seems to be supported by polls) that many people in developing countries are more aware of climate change than Americans, and that may influence the way they develop their energy resources.
The primary aim should be to slow the change. Stopping it altogether will be much more difficult. With luck some natural process may kick in, some negative feedback, or maybe we will figure out how to fix it technologically, or maybe we’ll stop emitting so much…I don’t know. No one does.
What happens in the future isn’t my biggest concern. There’s the reputation of scientists I go on and on about, but there’s also for me a matter of patriotism. I don’t like the position America is in. We have contributed more CO2 to the atm than any country, yet we aren’t willing to be responsible for it. We couldn’t contribute less than $10/person to join the Paris Accord when the Swedes are contributing over $60/person. I don’t like looking so selfish as a country, even if it’s appropriate.
And there’s the moral angle: What if the scientists are right? What if our actions are going add misery to the lives of millions, as storms become more and more damaging to low-lying areas with the rise in sea level, widespread droughts and massive floods? Have you been following the drought in South Africa? Cape Town is running out of water. I know, one event can’t be attributed to climate change, but there are trends. Here’s an interesting paper, though I’ve only just read the abstract:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1474.full
There is a lot of research about forest and climate change. The wonderful greening everyone talks about is very simplistic. It matters a lot where the greening is, what is greening, and what the secondary effects of the greening might be. A flush of green in the spring may be unsustainable in the summer. Some suggest the extra greening could lower water tables; just because a plant’s water use efficiency is greater doesn’t mean it will use less water, when it’s putting on more leaf tissue. Since my area of expertise is invasive plants, I think about the fact that they are typically much better able to make use of changed conditions – they are adaptive, opportunistic, have mechanisms to disperse to favorable habitat, etc. – and my become even more competitive against natives and crops. Response to increased CO2 could influence plant (and therefore animal) communities in unforeseen ways, regardless of climate change.
The effects of CO2 apart from any climate change are enough to warrant consideration.
Then there are the economic aspects. China is becoming the world leader in renewable energy. To put tariffs on solar panels in order to supposedly support our practically non-existent solar panel industry AT THE SAME TIME we deny AGW and end support for renewable research can only be seen as an attempt to crush the industry, and I think that’s crazy considering the global market. Some say the Chinese can produce panels so cheaply that solar is competitive with coal.
I think alarmism about the catastrophic is a less powerful force than the uncertainty of what might happen. This becomes more powerful as one finds out how many changes there are already, and realizes that the people studying this go far beyond the physicists and modelers to foresters and agronomists and evolutionary biologists, and on and on. That’s why I say it would be impossible for even innocent corruption to be a big stretch of the imagination. What about all the Chinese climate scientists, are they part of it, too? Climate science is not a discrete bunch, it’s multidisciplinary, international, an integrated web of researchers. The “groupthink” thing becomes much less plausible, at least if discussing science. Many would simply say that it’s all a part of global socialist campaign for wealth redistribution. Is that part of the “ideology” you referred to? To me that idea is baffling and sad that Americans could see each other this way. There’s such a gulf in understanding.

s-t

“So you think that the IPCC was stacked with people lacking scientific integrity”
My guess is that almost everybody in academia does.

gator69

Ms Kristi believes so much that is wrong, that I simply do not have time to correct each and every unfounded parroted claim. But this is one I enjoy smashing each time I see it.
Richard Muller was never a skeptic.
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.
Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review 11/03/11
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic
“Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism”
Less than a year after announcing that he was never a skeptic, he announced that he was a converted skeptic.
“The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic”
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012
CALL me a converted skeptic.
“The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic” – NYTimes.com
Why does Ms Kristi parrot liars and fr*uds? Why is she okey dokey with proven serial data abusers and kangaroo courts? Why does she deny science and natural variability? Surely there is a driving agenda that allows her to look the other way as catastrophic damage is done to climate science, and science in general is dragged into the gutter of politics.
So funny that she believes that Muller was a skeptic, and that Occams Razor does not apply to the null hypothesis. But then she is just chock full of knowledge about things that just aren’t so.

Kristi Silber

Congratulations, Gator, you found an error! I took someone at his word on youtube, silly me – I should remember that only contrarian scientists are honest and only skeptics unbiased. What fun for you — you can take the opportunity to insult me, how grand! Go for it, Gator! Do your best!

Gator

Ms Kristi, mocking me is a poor and pathetic substitute for admitting you are wrong.
More hand waving from Ms Kristi in 3, 2, 1…

zazove

Chess playing pigeons, all the way down Kristi.

Kristi Silber

Gator says, “Ms Kristi, mocking me is a poor and pathetic substitute for admitting you are wrong.”
(Does anyone else see the irony in this?)
I don’t have a problem admitting I’m wrong. In this case especially. The important thing is that he found CO2 as the only thing that worked to recreate recent climate change. But if he’s not a contrarian, I guess that becomes tainted testimony.
I’m sure you were just testing me, but I know natural variation can’t be the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is, we don’t see an effect of A (human-emitted CO2) on B (climate change). Absence of effect cannot be a driver in climate, of course.
Furthermore, “natural variation” is not an alternative to CO2 as a forcing mechanism. How can variation cause anything? There has to be something physical driving the pattern. It has to take into account the phases of the solar and oceanic cycles, the effect of volcanoes like Pinatubo, and change in land use. And it has to explain the increase in global average temp – surface and ocean – as well as the drop in sea water pH, increase in sea level, and all the rest, as well as where all the carbon from FF is going and what its effects are, with numbers – how much is going into each sink, and where’s the rest? It won’t suffice to just say the planet is greening. (Pretty tough to do that without modeling, eh?) Give me references to original literature supporting your idea. Once you find an explanation for all that, we can converse.
Until then, I’m going with Occam’s Razor.
If you want to play Who’s the Better Scientist, it’s your move. Until you have the answer, leave me alone. Don’t waste your time, mine, or that of the moderators.

Gator

Mr Kristi, natural variability, or the Null Hypothesis, is what Occam’s Razor would suggest. Claiming that man now controls climate with his minuscule contribution to the atmospheric CO2 budget is an extraordinary new claim that requires extraordinary new evidence.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

s-t

““Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with”
Like Cliven Bundy, his family, Mormons, and other supporters the FBI and BLM were “dealing” with?
(Was social “racism” at play?)

Kristi Silber

Just found this: a prediction based on a model run in 1988 by James Hansen (I know many of you dislike him – is he an advocate?) https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141
It seems to run pretty well, even at that early stage in modeling.
There ARE ways of testing models. Some have asserted that modeling isn’t falsifiable, so it isn’t science. In a way, what a model is doing is testing a bunch of hypotheses and associating outcomes with probabilities, which just what experiments do. If we run an experiment testing whether a drug works better than a placebo and reject the null hypothesis at p=0.05, that doesn’t necessarily mean it works. There’s a 1 in 20 chance that the result is through chance. So we can’t predict with 100% accuracy that the drug will do it’s thing, just like we can’t predict that the surface of the planet will warm 1.989 C by 2100. Science is fallible, yet we rely on it every day. There is no good reason not to when it comes to climate – at least those bits that are of high certainty.
CLIMATEGATE. I know the excerpts sound incriminating. They are taken from over 1000 emails. I can’t figure where to find them, but I will and I’ll read the context. But even without doing so I’ve heard some of the story, and I can easily see how some of the quotes could be misconstrued. For example,
“One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” They also got James Saiers, editor of Geophysical Research Letters, fired.
This was out of genuine concern that the journal was not following scientific editorial protocol. They made a complaint, and the editorial board of the journal supported it. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas were publishing papers that shouldn’t have been published. (And as you surely know, Soon was funded by FF and didn’t disclose it.) (James Saiers himself says they didn’t get him fired; he left when his term was up.) This gives a pretty balanced report, in spite of being in the Guardian (there’s another that’s clearly biased; I can tell the difference) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
I read some more of the “damning” emails. I think Jones toed or maybe crossed the line sometimes. It’s hard to tell. The group was careless about what they said, but they never expected to be hacked. Ball suggests there was a whistleblower, but that makes no sense – there’s not enough there to do anything but give skeptics ammunition. No, it was malicious.
It would have taken just one whistle blower on all those investigative committees that supposedly colluded to say something and ruin all their careers. You think they are going to risk that for these guys? When they don’t know who will investigate later?
One report on the investigation of the incident ended like this:
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
CONTINUED

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

We are now in a situation whereby matching the 20th century historic temperatures
is no longer a good metric for determining which models are good or bad. The implication
is that models that match 20th century data as a result of model calibration/
tuning using the same 20th century data are of dubious use for determining the
causes of 20th century climate variability.

Kristi Silber

I will keep reading, keep exploring. I will try to keep an open mind. There is much, much more to my convictions than I’ve talked about here. The evidence of change, for example,
Science generally assumes the principle of Occam’s Razor: that the most obvious, simplest explanation is usually true. To believe that there a global conspiracy among scientists, publishers, gov’t and private funding bodies, universities, etc. is a greater stretch for me than to believe that humans are changing the atmosphere and the climate, as has been predicted for 50 years.
(I’ve read some of Dr. Ball’s work, and the work of other contrarians.)
I don’t think this is the site for me, at least for discussion. I messed up when I came. I should have shown more humility, should have asked more questions. It would have ended up the same either way, though
A lot of condescension has been shown me. I don’t mind debating something, but I do mind being told over and over that I have to educate myself. You all are educated in your narrative, and I am educated in both mine and yours. There was one argument I hadn’t heard before, and that was about stomates being a proxy for CO2 levels, suggesting higher levels in the past 10000 years or something . That was new! Very weak evidence, though, as was clear from the research paper.
None of you people know me or my background, but some of you sure make a lot of assumptions. I’m not up to trying to change anyone’s mind about me or anything else. Ir really bothers me knowing that so many people think the consensus are corrupt, but I can’t do anything about it. Maybe I’ll just stay quiet or go elsewhere, I don’t know.

gator69

Ms Kristi, are your arms tired yet? Your hand waving woukld win gold in P’yŏngyang.
Let’s get to the basics, shall we? It really is very simple.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

Kristi Silber

ROBERT, part 1
ROBERT
“– Theory and experiment going back to the 19th C and their predictions coming true
Can you be more specific ? — which theory? , by whom ?, which predictions ?, which ones specifically came true ?”
Ekhoms is who I first learned about when studying global warming around 1990, but he built on the work of others. Apparently he was first to use the word “greenhouse” to describe the effect of atmospheric gases..
Below are excerpts from an essay since the original article is 60 pages.
http://nsdl.library.cornell.edu/websites/wiki/index.php/PALE_ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article5.html
‘In 1901 the Swedish meteorologist Nils Gustaf Ekholm (1848-1923) examined the causes of changes in the Earth’s temperature over geological and historical time scales. His comprehensive review included astronomical factors such as changes in the sun and in the Earth’s orbit, and atmospheric factors such as changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and volcanic emissions….Ekholm regarded variations of the carbon dioxide concentration as the principal cause of climatic variations, citing the “elaborate inquiry on this complicated phenomenon” made by his colleague Svante Arrhenius. He explained how carbon dioxide is a key player in the greenhouse effect and how this conclusion is based on the earlier work of Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, and others. By the most reliable estimates, a tripling of carbon dioxide levels will raise global temperatures 7 to 9 degrees Celcius . An increase in carbon dioxide will heat high latitudes more than the tropics and will create a warmer more uniform climate over the entire Earth….Ekholm pointed out that over the course of a millennium the accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 (carbonic acid) from the burning of pit coal will “undoubtedly cause a very obvious rise of the mean temperature of the Earth.’
……………………

Kristi S.,
I fear that Ekhoms , along with the greenhouse giants on whose shoulders he stood, were all complicit in initiating and perpetuating a chain of errors that has caused the myopic focus on radiation underlying the “radiative greenhouse theory” of today.
Even though Ekhoms seems to have acknowledged wind as a component of climate dynamics, he chose (I think) a rather limited view of radiation — seemingly fragmenting it to such a degree as to make it more important than it is. Sure, the sun is the main source of energy, but radiation is NOT the only means by which the atmosphere deals with this energy. To view radiation only in terms of how we think of it traveling through outer space (photons or waves dissociated from a fluid dynamic air medium that they penetrate) seems to ignore the true primary focus, which is the dynamics of this fluid mass of air itself.
What does the fluid dynamic mass of the atmosphere, under the force of a gravitational field, do to the energy of photons/waves from the sun AFTER this energy penetrates ? It’s NOT just radiation physics anymore. It’s NOT just the application of Stefan’s law of perfect black bodies to bodies that are imperfect. There’s more going on that mere radiation calculations cannot account for, and if this is the only way you TREAT this solar energy, then this is the only way you might SEE this solar energy, and, alas, a shortsighted way of seeing this solar energy, because you are not allowing yourself a full view of the other components, weighted in their proper proportions.
Lots of pictures illustrating the greenhouse effect represent a rather static looking ball, just sitting there, NOT spinning, NO representations of vast motions of a fluid atmosphere, … with ONLY the lines of photons zipping through this non-moving, non-rotating ball. But here’s some of what such pictures are missing:comment image
You see, other arrows need to be in there, showing fluid motions of the rising/falling/circulating air mass, … possibly even other arrows showing phase changes in water and ocean currents, possibly to some depth.
The “greenhouse theory” just seems so flat on so many levels, … as contradictory as this sounds. (^_^)
You’ve got over 70% of Earth’s surface composed of a fluid dynamic liquid and over 98% of Earth’s atmosphere composed of a fluid dynamic mass of gases OTHER THAN “greenhouse gases” — two massive, intertwined, fluid, chaotic systems — , and you want to insist that the radiative behavior of 0.04% of just ONE of these massive systems critically controls the WHOLE coupled system.
Hopefully, you might get some clue as to how I have come to seriously doubt this.

Kristi Silber

I imagine the complexity of the atmosphere is why it’s treated as multiple layers by models. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. How does the turbulence alter the ability of CO2 to act as they say it does?
“Two massive, intertwined, fluid, chaotic systems — , and you want to insist that the radiative behavior of 0.04% of just ONE of these massive systems critically controls the WHOLE coupled system.”
No, of course no. No one believes that. Geez, you really underestimate the state of the science!
I believe it’s highly unlikely that so many people would have mindlessly accepted greenhouse theory for 120 years.
What holds in heat if not the GHG?
It’s phenomenal that people think scientists are such brainless sheep. I have little patience for this. Maybe I’m wrong, just an idealist, and have a completely false sense of the profession, but I’m certainly not going to learn I’m wrong through a site or documents filled with prejudice. That would make no more sense than learning all my views from Al Gore. In both cases there might be some facts and interesting information, but it comes with so much hyperbole it has to be taken with skepticism.

Kristi Silber

What your diagram doesn’t depict are the layer of atmosphere around the troposphere that are also a part of the energy balance. And you diagram doesn’t show the E balance at all, so I don’t know how it’s an improvement. Seems to me when those pictures take the atm. as a single body, that’s a fair estimation for the sake of what they are trying to communicate, simplified as it is. I really don’t understand.
I don’t have a clue why you doubt, no.
Are you/were you a meteorologist?

My point, Kristi, was NOT to provide a complete, perfect diagram, but to illustrate how common diagrams have a narrow focus, and that a more reasonable diagram could not possibly show (in pictures) the vast complexity involved, for which we place trust in climate models to forecast policies for human destiny.
I am not and have never been a meteorologist. Are you? (^_^) … I’m just some guy trying to talk to you about this subject and how I have come to believe what I believe.
I will now answer your previous post here [probably all I have time for now, so bye]:
imagine the complexity of the atmosphere is why it’s treated as multiple layers by models. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. How does the turbulence alter the ability of CO2 to act as they say it does?
Mathematically, specifically, I do not know how models might under represent fluid turbulence. I have to look at the reality outside of the model to ascertain that I suspect that the models DO. My understanding, for example, is that one class of models requires approximations concerning the Navier Stokes equation of fluid flow, and here in these approximations, I might suspect some incorrect assumptions as to how a chaotic fluid system might distribute its energy. Also, it is my understanding that models have some built-in assumptions about the forcing power of CO2, and these assumptions themselves might be driving the models in the wrong directions.
Models have to be “tuned” too, and, as I understand it, this is done by taking climate information from previous and present time steps to extrapolate forwards to the next time. This seems to pose a potential bias towards particular times. If the CO2 assumptions are based on specific times where CO2 appears to follow temperature, then I could see this sort of “tuning” as being flat-out wrong, because there have been other times when CO2 does NOT have the same relationship with temperature.
Imagine trying to divide up the human body into many cubes, stacked in many layers, and then trying to work out equations that captured the actions WITHIN each of these cubes, as well as the actions BETWEEN each of those cubes, and then integrating all these divided actions into the gross movement of the whole organism. This is a fool’s task. This is NOT how to study human movement. This is the wrong way to go about it, … placing way too much trust in the wrong approach. A fun toy to play with, maybe, but, reality modeling? — I don’t think so.

“Two massive, intertwined, fluid, chaotic systems — , and you want to insist that the radiative behavior of 0.04% of just ONE of these massive systems critically controls the WHOLE coupled system.”
No, of course no. No one believes that. Geez, you really underestimate the state of the science!

“No one believes that”, you say? Well, from what I see, this is EXACTLY what many people believe, including you. If not, then why the crucial focus on 0.04% of atmospheric gases as the problem? Even more specific, why the crucial focus on the minascule human component — 0.00002% — of atmospheric gases?
If you say that CO2 is the problem, or, specifically, that 0.00002% of atmospheric gases created by humans is the proboem, then you are saying that 0.04% of all atmospheric gases is a problem and that 0.00002% created by humans is the specific problem. By “problem”, you mean “CO2 controls the WHOLE coupled atmospheric/ocean system, and human-produced CO2 controls the WHOLE coupled atmospheric/ocean system towards catastrophe .” What else are you believing, if not what I just wrote?
I believe it’s highly unlikely that so many people would have mindlessly accepted greenhouse theory for 120 years.
Unlikely, perhaps. “Amazing” is the word that I would use. I still cannot believe that I myself believed it as long as I did. When those who control the flow of information are in the public schools, universities, publishing industries, etc., a totally wrong paradigm can most certainly control the beliefs of “so many people”.
You think that you are living in times where this cannot happen anymore — that there is no place where this is possible — that this is Dark Ages stuff — that it went out ot style with Copernicus or Kepler or with any other person who challenged an existing paradigm. This is what is probably amazing to you — that you yourself could be living in a time when climate science could be held sway by these same social forces that you thought were out of style.
What holds in heat if not the GHG?
Even GHG (“green house gases”) do NOT “hold in heat”. “Greenhouse gases” absorb infrared RADIATION and then EMIT. If anything “holds in heat”, then it is the massive, OTHER 98% of the mass of the atmosphere. The heat capacity and heat-regulatory capacity of this mass (along with the heat capacity and heat-regulatory capacity of the world’s water) is what keeps Earth in the habitable zone — (generally) just cool enough on the day side, and just warm enough on the night side for life to thrive.
It’s phenomenal that people think scientists are such brainless sheep.
I think you mischaracterize what “people” think. Scientists can make some extremely brilliant errors. Writers, educators, and marketeers can then make some brilliant enthronements of those errors. Culture can hold onto belief in the errors for a long time, because reflexive patterns of life, society, its infrastructure and functioning all are based on these errors. Momentum of the errors can build to a point that people face great discommfort mentally, physically, and, most importantly, ECONOMICALLY, to consider overhauling beliefs spawned by these errors.
I have little patience for this. Maybe I’m wrong, just an idealist, and have a completely false sense of the profession, but I’m certainly not going to learn I’m wrong through a site or documents filled with prejudice.
I’m not sure which documents you might be reading, to make the judgement that you just made. And I think that you might be unfair, if you characterize all the people at WUWT as “filled with prejudice”. Unfortunately, considering alternatives takes patience and time. I hope that you will read broadly, and not be put off by ideas that challenge your current ones. I’ve been where you are.
Waking up to reality can be uncomfortable.
Best wishes. I’m out.