The Major Change in the Global Warming Groupthink Between 1990 and 1995

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Somebody said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. This puts them in the same league as climate scientists trying to predict the climate by measuring one variable, CO2. It is no surprise that an amalgam of the two, climate and economics, produces even worse results, but that is what happened early in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception.

The 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report was, under the circumstances, a reasonable document within the bounds of what it set out to achieve. Yes, it was limited to only human causes of climate change by the definition given to it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Yes, it was bureaucratically controlled by its creation through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Yes, it was built on a system that seemed to predetermine the outcome. Still, the overall Report provides a reasonable attempt to create an historical context for the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming.

It was more in the vein and context of Margaret Thatcher’s earlier use of climatology for a political agenda. Thatcher wanted to replace coal with nuclear power. Identifying CO2 as a problem because it was causing global warming was central to that plan. Thatcher also had the added incentive that the great bane in her political life and goals for economic development were blocked by the dominance and disruption of the coal miners union led by its leader Arthur Scargill. The Union held the country to ransom and almost brought it to its economic knees. A measure of this intransigence was Scargill’s election as Union President for life.

The best measure of the relatively benign nature of the 1990 Report was the action it triggered in the 1995 Report. Sir John Houghton was the primary connection between Thatcher’s goals and the 1990 IPCC Report. He was Director-General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) from 1983 to 1991. Thatcher was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. Houghton was disposed to support anything that was in line with his belief that was a blend of religion and science. As one blog headline asked, “Sir John Houghton: Objective scientist or driven ideologue.” He was appointed Co-Chair of the IPCC in 1988 and was listed as a lead editor of the 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).

The Report was unique because it included a reasonable representation of the last approximately 1000 years of temperature for the Northern Hemisphere. H. H. Lamb’s research that identified the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) was shown in the now infamous Figure 7 c (Figure 1). The Report also included temperature forecasts. This is important because those forecasts were wrong, thus raising some questions about the validity of their work.

They were not grievous enough alone to trigger the dramatic change that occurred between the 1990 and 1995 Reports, but a series of other events did.


Figure 1. Figure 7c in the 1990 IPCC Report.

The original basis for the formation of the IPCC was the claim by the Club of Rome (COR) that the world was overpopulated and outgrowing the resources. They made three major assumptions.

· The demand for resources would increase every year because the population is increasing every year.

· Developed nations increase the demand by each individual using resources at a much greater rate than those in developing nations.

· More nations are changing from developing to developed and accelerating demand.

From this, they determined that, as Maurice Strong speculated in Elaine Dewar’s book The Cloak of Green, that the industrialized nations were the problem for the planet. They determined that these nations achieved their dangerous status by building economies using fossil fuels to drive their industries. Of course, there was the added benefit that if you punished these nations for their sin, as Houghton saw it, then you could transfer wealth on a global scale. That was an idea that appealed to their socialist bent, especially people like Maurice Strong, who said,

“I am a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”

This parallels China that practices State Capitalism. No wonder he fled there to die when sought by the US government for his role in the “food for oil” scandal. The IPCC and organizers determined to isolate the byproduct of burning fossil fuels, CO2, scientifically. Strong orchestrated all of that through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) that he created. The IPCC was formed under that umbrella and produced the first Report in 1990. Notice the apparent Maurice Strong influence because it was printed in Canada.

I recall, because of graduate seminars on the topic and participation in a Canadian inter-disciplinary group organized by the National Museum of Canada, about the growing mistrust in the science. This group, formed by the late paleontologist Dr. C. R. Harington, of which I was proud to be a participant, met annually under the auspices of the National Museum of Natural Sciences on a Project on Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 Years. We met every year and presented papers on a different topic at a symposium. An example of the concerns was a personal conversation I had with glaciologist the late Dr. Fritz Koerner. He was one of the few people to drill ice cores in Antarctica and on Baffin and Ellesmere Islands in the Arctic. He told me in the late 1980s that his preliminary Arctic results showed temperature changing before CO2.

I was elected Chair of the Project in 1993 and in my acceptance remarks suggested we should not rush to judgment on the AGW issue. My reference was the extensive work we produced showing how much the climate changed naturally in the 20,000 years. I chaired one more meeting then Environment Canada who was the major funder of the project withdrew their money, and the Museum could not sustain it alone. I understand the person behind this move was Professor Gordon McBean who chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in 1985 and then became Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada.

These questions of the validity of the work on global warming created concern among the proponents of overpopulation but also the IPCC. They were amplified and accelerated by challenges to the ‘scientific’ support for the other claim of the COR, set out in their 1972 seminal work Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. This was another pseudo-scientific study that sets the pattern for the simplistic use of computer models. They listed many resources. They took the estimate of the reserve of each resource and the estimated annual rate of consumption of the resource. This is laughable in itself. The first project my students were assigned in my Political Geography course was to determine the amount of oil in the world and in Canada. They discovered many things, including that Saudi Arabia has never disclosed the amount of its reserve. They learn that oil companies and countries determine the amount of reserve based on market price. If the price goes up, they have more reserve. This is because the cost of recovery determines what is available. The limits to growth approach then applied a simple linear trend to determine when the resource would be exhausted. This is where the term “peak oil” originated.

In 1990, the Limits to Growth was dealt a crushing blow by economist Julian Simon.

He argued that,

“…humans are not only mouths to feed, but also hands to work and brains to think up new solutions.  Prior to the emergence of humanity, Simon and others had long pointed out, the Earth was replete with fertile soils and hydrocarbon and mineral deposits, but there were no resources. It was human action that turned otherwise useless physical stuff into valuable things, a process that could go on forever as it was ultimately powered by the always renewable and expanding human intellect.”

He challenged Ehrlich to a bet that he believed,

“…Ehrlich couldn’t refuse by offering to bet $10,000 over a period of at least one year that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials would not rise in the long run. Ehrlich and his regular collaborators John P. Holdren and John Harte quickly agreed to [theoretically] buy $2,000 each of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten on September 29, 1980 and to pay Simon the price difference (adjusted for inflation) on September 29, 1990 if the prices had gone down. Simon, on the other hand, would cover the difference if the prices had gone up.”

Simon won the bet. Notice the involvement of John Holdren, whom Ehrlich assigned to pick the resources and name the period of time. Holdren was very involved with the COR and later became the Science Advisor in Obama’s White House.

Other problems for the IPCC were that credible scientists, like Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Governor of the state of Washington and a legitimate winner of the United Nations Peace Prize, was challenging the wider context of environmentalism. Her 1993 book, “Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?” offset some of the emotionalism of environmentalism and provided others the courage to ask questions.

It was clear by 1992 that the attempt to deceive the world with the AGW hypothesis was in trouble. The claim that global temperatures were the warmest ever was challenged by Figure 7c. The climate forecast failures were problematic because most people knew weather forecasts were often wrong and of little value beyond 72 hours. John Daly published a monograph titled The Greenhouse Trap, that was the prelude to the most successful climate website in the early days, Still Waiting for Greenhouse that appeared in 1995. Global warming skepticism was alive and growing more visible.

The 1995 IPCC Report structure was dictated by the format adopted for the 1990 Report. The Reports are cumulative, which is why any meaningful change requires scrapping everything and starting over. They chose to change the 1995 Report in ways that deflected the criticisms, removed any precision, and gave them greater control over the important variables, like, temperature data, and CO2 levels. Most important, they stopped making forecasts.

The greatest obfuscation was the introduction of economics into the forecasting portion. Forecasts were replaced by projections that presented three scenarios, Low, Medium, and High. These were calculated in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. It allowed the IPCC to guarantee a constant increase in the temperature, almost independent of all other variables. This was exposed later.

“About two years ago Ian Castles became interested in the statistical techniques which had been used by the IPCC to predict the course of CO2 emissions for the next century and he was later joined by David Henderson who was curious to find out why the IPCC’s procedures had imparted an upward bias to the projections of output and emissions of developing countries.”

“These two economists have shown that the calculations carried out by the IPCC concerning per capita income, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions in different regions are fundamentally flawed, and substantially overstate the likely growth in developing countries. The results are therefore unsuitable as a starting point for the next IPCC assessment report, which is due to be published in 2007. Unfortunately, this is precisely how the IPCC now intends to use its emissions projections.”

As Henderson explained,

“At the beginning, projections of global warming are largely based on projected atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which in turn are based on the projections of CO2 emissions which emerge from the SRES; and the emissions figures themselves are linked to SRES projections of world output, world energy use, and the carbon-intensity of different energy sources. In these latter projections economic factors are central.”

The IPCC paid little attention to these warnings other than publishing a weak 15 – author rebuttal. They produced the 1995 and 2001 Reports using these economic techniques. Castles and Henderson wrote a 2003 article titled “Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the work of the IPCC. ,

We show how the mistaken use of MER-based comparisons, together with questionable assumptions about ‘closing the gap’ between rich countries and poor, have imparted an upward bias to projections of economic growth in developing countries, and hence to projections of total world emissions.

Eventually, the IPCC gave up defending SRES, but they could not give up the economic component without exposing the failure of the atmospheric component. They brought in a replacement called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) well explained by Judith Curry. It didn’t change anything because it guaranteed what they wanted, namely that human CO2 production would increase because of economic factors. In 2016 David Middleton examined the issue in an article titled, “Part Deux: “The stuff nightmares are made from.As Nick Breeze explained in his article,

“These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.”


The IPCC was set up to produce a desired result. This required that they control as much of the input information as possible. It began with the definition of climate change, through the computer models, to the structure of preparing the Reports. After just one Report in 1990, the limitations of the weather and climate data to achieve that result became apparent. They controlled most of the information about the human production of CO2, as they explained in their Inventory Guidelines Q and A.

How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines?

Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.


No, it doesn’t. This is another example of the circular arguments that are endemic throughout the deception. They choose the people, set the procedures, determine the data used, verify the results before you use them, then claim it is independent work. However, despite all this, they could not guarantee a continuously increasing CO2 figure. They decided to incorporate an economic measure that indirectly incorporated the assumptions the COR made for its overpopulation claims (above); more people, using or producing more every year, guarantees a constant growth trend.

Between 1990 and 1995 the IPCC saw its premeditated deception of AGW failing and challenged. Instead of acknowledging the limitations of its work, it doubled down by adding failed economic practices to the failed climatology practices. It anticipated their reaction to the problem after 1998 when global temperatures stopped rising while atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, in complete contradiction to their hypothesis and assumptions. They moved the goalposts; global warming became climate change.

299 thoughts on “The Major Change in the Global Warming Groupthink Between 1990 and 1995

  1. “This puts them in the same league as climate scientists trying to predict the climate by measuring one variable, CO2”

    Except that there are many forcings or a variety of strengths and directions. This is not new or hidden, and the other forcings are in fact used to model climate.

    Forcing and feedbacks (also forcings) and the way to go.

    “The IPCC was set up to produce a desired result.”

    Hardly. That’s just wrong.

    • Gosh, let’s see. Who shall I believe?

      A. Some anonymous troll named Alley that makes no citations whatsoever and only exists here as a spoil, saying only “Hardly. That’s just wrong.” aka an opinion.

      B. A man who has followed and studied the issued for decades, and in fact does provide citations.

      I’ll go with B.

      So Alley, if you want to be more believable, who are you and what’s your background?

      • Alley is more credible that a wanna-be climatologist that hasn’t published anything on climate. Even worse, the person in option “B” spins conspiracy theories that lack any real evidence. Lastly the only place Mr. “B” gets anything published is here. Why is that?

        [so says the “senior architectural intern” – soooo much climate credibility there. BTW if you are referring to Mr. Watts in the former, here’s his climate publications list. And here;s is Dr. Ball’s I’m sure you’ll be right along with yours. -mod]

        • Once again, the troll brigade declares that only those who are members of the sacred inner circle are permitted to have opinions on climate science.
          All others must genuflect and hand over their wallets.

        • Remy Mermelstein,
          Au contraire! Ball provides names, dates, quotations, and citations. Alley just states his personal opinion, as do you! Why should anyone give credence to your unsupported opinions? The best you can do is criticize Ball’s supposed lack of publications, which is inherently an ad hominem attack! In the same vein, where are your publications?

          • Criticizing his lack of relevant publications is not an ad hominem attack. What amazes me here on WUWT is the unquestioning acceptance of posts by climate skeptics – all that matters is that they hold a skeptical position regarding AGW. Tell me, Clyde, if you needed heart surgery done, would it matter to you whether or not the doctor had relevant experience? Of course it would.

          • What amazes me is your unquestioning rejection of posts by climate skeptics – all that matters is that they hold a skeptical position regarding AGW.

          • ‘What amazes me is your unquestioning rejection of posts by climate skeptics – all that matters is that they hold a skeptical position regarding AGW.’

            And note THAT’s what he accuses the opposition of.

          • That ”may be” good enough for you chris sophistry ‘talk” opinion”.

            What ””really”’ matters is how many patients he opens up die on the table.
            Higher or lower than the expected outcomes………data.

          • For some reason, Chris only gets upset about “relevant experience” when the scientist dares to disagree with him.

          • False, Mark. On any topic – autism research, crop research, etc, I pay more attention to research from people who have prior peer reviewed work that is highly cited. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer random stuff posted by folks on blogs. Or is that only true regarding AGW skeptic articles?

          • In other words, you would believe a person with highly cited peer-reviewed work who says the sky is purple with pink polka dots, and would disbelieve a random blogger who says the sky is blue. Gotcha.

          • As always, Chis is proud of the fact that he only listens to the people he considers to be experts.
            Everyone else is ignored.
            PS: None of the people who Chris listens to regarding climate change have the credentials that he claims are vital.

            PPS: Once again, Chris uses any excuse, in this case pal review to ignore any science that doesn’t support his political causes.

          • Mark – prove that none of the people I listen to about climate change have relevant credentials.

            Your “political causes” comment is rubbish.

          • ‘What amazes me here on WUWT is the unquestioning acceptance of posts by climate skeptics.’

            Utter crap – issues are argued here regularly.
            You do, however, demonstrate the classic tactic of establishing the strawman and then arguing that.

          • Chris,

            You said, “Criticizing his lack of relevant publications is not an ad hominem attack.” It certainly is! When you put his publication record above the facts and logic of his argument, you are saying you don’t care about facts, only that the person meet your definition of an authority. You need to read the definition of an ‘ad hom.’:


            There are lots of brilliant people who have contributed much to technology and society who were either born at a time when degrees were of little importance, or when journals such as we have now did not exist. That doesn’t diminish the value of their work.

            We aren’t talking about experience. You are demanding that they demonstrate the interest in, or the ability to get published. I’d prefer a surgeon that wanted to spend his or her time perfecting their skills, over one anxious to get notoriety through publishing!

            An argument needs to stand on its own merit, not on the authority of the person making it. It is people like you, who don’t really understand science, who are giving science a bad name.

          • Clyde, your characterization of my example is incorrect. A practicing surgeon would be judged on the number of surgeries and successful outcomes. That is not the same as a medical researcher, such as someone researching new cancer vaccines. For the latter, they would both publish papers as well as participate in trials.

            Perhaps you can give me an example of a brilliant contribution to scientific research in climatology that did not follow the usual publication model.

          • Chris,
            It is silly to try to equate the quality of work of a specialist surgeon with that of a climate scientist.
            The surgeon is presented with ongoing tests that must be passed before inclusion into necessary societies. The surgeon works with the knowledge that success and failures are counted, with the knowledge that for some failures, jail can be the remedy. The surgeon can be disbarred for many reasons, ones that are stated in public. Commonly, there are State or national laws governing the conduct of the surgeon, who in tern can be granted permission do do certain acts to other people that, without that permission, could find a jail term. The surgeon is usually accountable and held accountable.
            OTOH, any rag doll can be called a climate scientist. There seems to be no minimum level of qualification. There are no strong learned societies of climate scientists, none with the ability to censure and censure severely. The mistakes of climate scientists are seldom examined, seldom admitted and seemingly never even the topic of an apology. Climate scientists do not seem to get disbarred from further work in the field, even for example when caught forging the material of others. There seem to be no cases of punishment of a climate scientist who did harm. Maybe one can argue that harm has not yet been demonstrated, but it is not uncommon to read accusations that climate workers sensu latto have caused many deaths by enforcement of policies on poor countries, like prohibiting bank funds destined for fossil fuel electricity plants.

            So you see, Chris, it is really, really dumb to make the comparison that you have. Now apologize, please. Geoff.

          • Completely untrue. My father was diagnosed with brain cancer and my mother insisted on seeing”the best” surgeon. Turned out that regardless of his posh office, the man had made his reputation by botching a surgery on a famous person. People knew he operated on someone during famous circumstances, and that launched his career. His peers however knew he was a hack. Beware of “reputations”. They are mostly held by people who don’t have a clue. It’s true in medicine as it is anywhere else.

          • If you had to fly in a plane, would it matter to you whether the air traffic controllers had relevant experience?


            The court recently ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

            The left has deliberately sought to destroy all objectivity and measures of competence and truth to achieve its ‘social justice’ aims. It’s not a secret. That’s the GAME! So how can you possibly claim that post normal ‘science’, and the all documented corruption of circumventing reality and empirical evidence, all the cronyism, has any credibility? The underlying premise of the postmodern left is that there IS no truth, only power, and the means justifies the ends.

            As for the doctor reference; perhaps you should read this…


        • I don’t think Alley is more “credible,” but Dr. Ball is so obviously biased that his arguments aren’t credible, either. Anyone can find old blog posts, articles and books to support an opinion; Dr. Ball’s credentials and rambling articles do not inspire confidence in any but those who want to believe him. Nor does the fact that he retired years ago to write countless articles and give talks – evidently he is either independently wealthy and EXTREMELY committed to his cause, or he is paid to push an agenda.

          • You’re so obviously biased against Dr. Ball that your arguments aren’t credible, either. 😉 And don’t you get really indignant when others make assumptions about you, the same way you’re making them about him?

            In any case, the truth value of a statement is not affected by who states it. If Tim Ball says the sky is blue, it’s not going to suddenly be purple with pink polka dots. All this negative attention you’re heaping on him personally is bald-faced deflection. Why not refute what he claims, instead of wringing your hands over who is claiming it?

          • Yes, I’m biased against Dr. Ball. I’ve read his posts. He writes so poorly his arguments don’t make sense. He throws around accusations and assertions as if they are a given. For example, “The original basis for the formation of the IPCC was the claim by the Club of Rome (COR) that the world was overpopulated and outgrowing the resources.” Where’s the evidence for this? Why bring up the anecdote about Ehrlich? How is a bet relevant?

            “The Report was unique because it included a reasonable representation of the last approximately 1000 years of temperature for the Northern Hemisphere. H. H. Lamb’s research that identified the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) was shown in the now infamous Figure 7″
            Why bring up this figure at all? It is not temperature of the N.H., it is from one location in England, and it’s a hand-drawn graph from 1965. It doesn’t even have a scale! But how is it relevant to the article at all?

            ” It anticipated their reaction to the problem after 1998 when global temperatures stopped rising while atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, in complete contradiction to their hypothesis and assumptions. They moved the goalposts; global warming became climate change.”

            I see. So global temperatures have not risen since 1999? And if the climate does something that wasn’t predicted, it’s in complete contradiction to the hypothesis? Gee, that proves it – those scientists really are stupid! Dr. Ball thinks natural variation would go away if AGW were real. Furthermore, the change from “global warming” to “climate change” was a nefarious way to hide scientific error. Yep, that’s the only possible explanation.

            You want me to refute his claims. Why is that never demanded of those who trash scientific research that supports AGW?

          • Kristi Kristi Kristi even more quiver.
            Once again, you fall under “group thinking”. The IPCC and its so-called “scientists” do not have to prove any scientific when they have such as you to fight for themselves. There have been many new reports proving that the MWP was global, but when the IPCC says something, probably no new (or old) proof will satisfy you. You set yourself in the front to defend their struggle to clean M. Mann’s “hockey stick.”
            This has already gone so far that he (M. Mann) actually used this (this long ago rejected and ridiculous) graph in a recent debate between him and the climate realists Curry and Moore.
            Are you proud?
            Dr. Ball obviously knows that natural climate variations far outweigh Co2’s low climate sensitivity, but IPCC reduced natural variation almost equal to 0, in the beginning of the last Hiatus. But you have clearly forgotten everything that was said in the first years of the Hiatus from the IPCC and again, their so-called “experts”. Brief summary: 5 years is a blimp, it does not last for 10, but if it lasts for 15 we will have to discuss. Mail climategate revealed that they themselves thought it was at risk if it lasted for 15 years. but you’ve forgotten this too. Easy to forget when you both need to and want to.
            This can be said about the ice in the arctic as well. They predicted that this would disappear in 2008 so in 2012, then 13, 14, 15 certainly in 16 and in all cases it was gone in 2018. So remember, Kristi sea ice in the Arctic should definitely be gone this year. They have very little time left to get their last prediction right.

            Hope I write understandably English, difficult when this is not my language and has dyslexia.

          • So why did Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming morph into climate change Kristi?
            Answer: Because it covers all the drivel emanating from those who don’t give a fig about science and the scientific method.

          • I don’t know who you’re talking about, but I give a fig about science and the scientific method. I care when research is condemned for no other reason than it has something to do with climate change. I think it’s wrong that scientists are accused of doing research just to get grant money, or of fraudulently altering data. I think it’s arrogant that laymen think they know more about climate change and modeling than those who have spent their careers studying it.

            “Global warming” as a term still exists, but it doesn’t capture all the outcomes, as “climate change” does. Simple as that.

          • Once again, the warmist demonstrates that hypocrisy is at the heart of their position.
            In this case an “obvious bias” disqualifies the person. On the other hand, those with even more obvious biases are accepted without question because they are saying what Kristi wants to hear.

            By the way, a proper scientist refutes the data, they don’t look for reasons to ignore it. Another reason why none of the warmists are scientists.

          • Kristi consistently misses the difference between bias and a long-term response to bias.
            I find this a lot in otherwise intelligent twenty-somethings who are a little late to the party.
            The ‘bias’ expressed here is hard-earned.

          • ‘evidently he is either independently wealthy and EXTREMELY committed to his cause, or he is paid to push an agenda.’

            … and she also apparently unable to attribute motives other than what progressive stereotypes dictate must be there.

          • Kristi Kristi Kristi, just insinuations without any explanation. Paid by who, big oil then, or.
            A blog he refers to is from the alarmist of best (your eyes) worst type (my eyes). It is he who writes, IPCC’s solutions are Sci Fi. Touch “Nick Breeze” and read yourself.
            You do not write here to argue, but to quiver.

          • Kristi S,
            Don’t guess outcomes without data. Does Dr Ball have inordinate wealth? Yes or No. Is he paid to push an agenda? Yes or No.
            If you do not have both answers, just shut up. Geoff.

        • ‘spins conspiracy theories that lack any real evidence.’

          Gee, anybody remember when Climategate was shoved back up the horse by a coordinated effort of the worldwide press, academia, and multiple governments?

          Not a ‘theory’.

      • I have two science degrees and read a lot of the work from climate scientists.

        And you? What’s your background?

          • All true. Why did you ask if you were going to pretend I was lying? Very strange. Not as though I pad my resume, because there is simply no need.

            I have read a lot of work from respected climate scientists, and know a good deal about the IPCC. Ball’s opinions on the IPCC are simply that, and are duly noted.

            You failed to answer my request for your background.

          • For all I know your “science degrees” could be in biology and psychology. Hardly relevant for climate.

            “You failed to answer my request for your background.”

            Why should I? You haven’t been forthcoming on the question I asked first, choosing to stay in the shadows while telling us how wrong Dr. Ball is. Coward. Classical deflection.

          • ” You haven’t been forthcoming on the question I asked first”

            Two science degrees. Would it matter if they were Bio and Psych? At least I would have two science degrees.

            One in Math, a minor in Computer Science, and a PA teaching degree, Mathematics.

            Why are you pretending that I am lying? Do you have any science degree(s)?

          • “Why are you pretending that I am lying?” Your words, not mine. Problem is, being an anonymous coward, everything you say is unverifiable. There’s no getting around that.

            You’re still at troll level 1. Perhaps your are somebody who has been previously banned here?

          • Even if true, by your own claims, neither of those degrees gives you a right to have an opinion on the subject of climate change.
            So not only are you a troll, you’re a hypocrite.

            PS: Math is not a science, and computer science requires no knowledge of the real world.
            So once again, you reveal yourself to be a liar.

          • ” neither of those degrees gives you a right to have an opinion on the subject of climate change.”

            What gives someone the “right” to have an opinion on the subject of climate change?

          • Kristi,
            He said, by her own claims. You shouldn’t quote only part of a sentence. That’s just wrong.

          • I read it that the claims apply to whether it’s true or not. I must have lost the train of discussion, sorry.

            People quote part of a sentence all the time.

          • Once again Kristi demonstrates that she has no intention of arguing intelligently or honestly.

            I was pointing out that Alley declared that not having degrees in science prevented one from having opinions on this subject. I was pointing out that neither of Alley’s alleged degrees are in science, so by the rules HE SET OUT, he is prevented from having an opinion.

          • No, Mark. YOU set them out. Alley was talking about Ball’s credibility, not whether someone had the right to express an opinion. You said, “Once again, the troll brigade declares that only those who are members of the sacred inner circle are permitted to have opinions on climate science.” …and it went from there, but that’s not what Alley was saying. You put words in his mouth.

            MarkW talks about arguing intelligently! All he does is attack.

          • Oops, sorry, missed this. You are in the right, by Alley’s rules, Kristi has no right to an opinion. Cheers.

          • ‘What gives someone the “right” to have an opinion on the subject of climate change?’

            Well, one of the most common methods establishment warmists have used to discredit dissenting opinion is to separate their area of expertise from ‘Climate Science’ – for example, astrophysicist, a statistician, a paleontologist, or even a meteorologist.

            For me, credentials are less important than whether what they said was right or not.

          • I don’t even think the issue needs to be argued from a technical basis. Pure logic and reason devastates the theory. Common sense destroys the idea that climate scientists can see that far into the future to predict the effects of global warming, and can account for other unknown, complex variations to climate, as the IPCC itself has stated. They were unable to predict 10 years into the future; we still have ice caps! The whole thing is so moronic! It all assumes a steady state. Add in the documented corruption, the failed models, the lies being spun by the media, and the stated political aims of the theory from the get go, and a lay person can see that it’s all dodgy. So dodgy!!! I can’t stand the lies.

          • Joel, who are “establishment warmists”? Climate science is cross-disciplinary. That’s why there are few degrees offered in climatology. People in any of those fields can focus on climate science, of course, but just being in one of those fields doesn’t give one an expertise in climate science. .

          • MarkW has no relevant degrees whatsoever, never posts links supporting his assertions, yet has the arrogance to pass judgement on others.

          • MarkW – haha. Yeah, in the 10 or so times I have posted links in a discussion with you, you have responded exactly zero times with links to refute my points.

          • So if you post a link to a webpage that says only “I’m right. You’re wrong.”, and MarkW posts no links, you automatically win the argument? Gotcha.

          • I agree with you about everything except this “neither of those degrees gives you a right to have an opinion on the subject of climate change”. Nah, if an ignorant ambulance chaser like Al Gore has a right to an opinion, an anonymous troll can have one too. Now, whether we have any reason to listen or respond to said troll…

          • Isaac Newton at Trinity Colege, Cambridge
            Matric. 1661;
            Scholar, 1664
            B.A. 1664-5
            M.A. 1668.
            Fellow, 1667.
            Lucasian Professor, 1669-1702.
            F.R.S., 1672.
            Warden of the Mint, 1696
            Master of the Mint, 1699
            President of the Royal Society 1703; re-elected annually for 25 years.
            M.P. for Cambridge University, 1689-90 and 1701-2.
            Knighted, Apr. 15, 1705.

            The Principia was published in 1687, the completion and publication of this work being due to Halley, who paid all expenses and corrected the proofs.


          • Tesla did not complete university in Austria, but Newton earned a BA from Cambridge, later upgraded to MA, as was and remains the custom. He eventually was elevated to an endowed chair as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.

          • I’ve got a maths degree and I teach maths. It makes me sort of good with numbers – hence I realise the data used by the alarmists is complete rubbish. I’m surprised that as a maths teacher yourself you haven’t realised the same.

          • Isn’t that cute, the troll wants to criticize spelling.

            [Well, technically, it was a grammatical error, not a spelling error. .mod]

          • They *could* still be two different people working or studying at the same institution. My university routes all internet traffic through one IP address. So Koontz and Alley *could* be colleagues or friends.

          • Betty Pfeiffer

            I don’t have a degree, but I know there’s no empirical evidence demonstrating CO2 causes climate change.

            Don’t presume a claim of having a degree makes one any less an arsehole than one without one.

          • Betty,

            Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the history of science.

            It’s a close run thing between those without any degree or with non-science or math degrees and those with, as to which group has most advanced science.

            Among the former are Leeuwenhoek, Franklin, Lavoisier, Herschel, Faraday, Anning, Goodyear, Darwin (undergrad theology degree), Huxley, Joule, Mendel and Leakey, to name but a few from a wide range of disciplines.

          • My favorite scientists without college degree:

            1) Oliver Heaviside – co-founder of vector analysis, a branch of math widely used in physics and engineering. Maxwell’s equations as known today were actually formulated by Heaviside. Maxwell’s original electromagnetic theory had 20 equations and used quaternions, not vectors.

            2) Konstantin Tsiolkovsky – founder of astronautics and rocket science. In 1903 before the Wright Bros. made the first airplane flight, Tsiolkovsky had already published a book on the scientific study of space flights, rockets and space stations.

            3) Wright Brothers – inventors of first airplane. They were pioneers in aerodynamics, an important branch of physics (fluid dynamics)

          • Translation: I only read the work of people who agree with me.
            However I refuse to do anything to prove my claims.

          • Alley- left of center, far left, clearly.
            Left favors groupthink, group above individual, don’t veer away from the group narrative or ELSE!
            what do the left love? Appeal to authority. the simpleton’s logical fallacy. It’s basic projection.

            Dr. Tim Ball is a world treasure, and Anthony, David, Eric, etc.
            Thank you all!

          • The IPCC have already admitted a few years back that Climate Change is not about the environment, but merely a device to create the conditions to establish a Global Guvment that will “own” all the World’s resources, & meter them out as they see fit!

          • Alan, don’t you know, in this post truth world of neo Marxism… Those quotes mean the exact opposite of what the real world understands because of patriarchal, misogynist, racist .. White people Feelings!

            Brainwashed automatons such at Kristy are so well insulated from reason, so perfectly indoctrinated they don’t even know the depths of their pavlovian conditioning.

            It is a shame humans are so easily manipulated, although 15,000 hours of state indoctrination before college, where it’s really bad, isn’t a small item to dismiss

            Actually, it takes the state that long and it still can’t muster significant results

          • Honest Liberty,
            A lot of people get the same indoctrination, and yet remain unindoctrinated.
            This proves it is really just a matter of having a weak mind to be part of the leftist herd.

          • Alley,
            Like Dr Ball, I lived and worked through those early times that he recounts, those times when comparatively very little was recorded for history. I remember the arguments for global cooling and how seriously the public took them, that is the public of my acquaintance, those who wrote letters to newspapers for example, to firm up the expression of their opinions.
            There are few times when Dr Ball’s recollections are much different to mine. I wrote several hundred newspaper letters and had about 80% of them published in major national newspapers, 1975-1990 say.
            Now, unless you can lay claim to currency in those years, say through being under 60 years old now, you should tread with care. What you read today as being correct back then can be way off the mark through the efforts of revisionists, of whom we are never short. Geoff.

          • Still waiting for Alley to explain to us all how math is a science degree?
            Or computer science for that matter?
            The relevant subjects are the natural sciences.
            Many tens of thousands of the smartest and most qualified people to offer opinions on it, all agree that CAGW is a load of horseshit.
            You are outvoted Alley.

        • Alley, it’s not the number of degrees, or even that you ‘read a lot’. The problem is with your attitude. If you read like a compliant believer of warmist propaganda, you shouldn’t be surprised by the result. I am a skeptic, which comes from the Greek, ‘thinker’. Skeptics tend to be more resistant to the various forms of propaganda that appears in the MSM and ‘approved’ academic sources.

          Things the ‘approved’ academic sources have never acknowledged (and their slavish promoters in the MSM) include the fact that the Earth was much warmer in the past without any harm. Look at the MWP and the HCO for a start.

          A second thing is that the Earth’s temperature has always gone up before the CO2 levels. By cherrypicking the start dates, the IPCCCP and others have made it look as if it worked the other way round, but that just shows how very bad the science behind global warming is.

          A final issue is the many changes of name behind that magic molecule, CO2. First we had global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, weather wierding and now extreme weather. Whenever the public noticed that the predicted effects didn’t happen, the name was changed.

          • “Skeptics tend to be more resistant to the various forms of propaganda that appears in the MSM and ‘approved’ academic sources.”

            Why aren’t they more resistant to all forms of propaganda? The whole idea that “skeptics” is an appropriate general term is belied by the fact that so many are willing to accept information that supports their ideas and reject what doesn’t regardless of its scientific merit.

          • Like you? 😉

            And don’t try to claim high-minded neutrality about this, we all know that’s a copious amount of equine fecal matter.

          • I thought it was bovine fecal matter.
            Equine fecal matter is what would filling up the streets of NYC had they not introduced cars.

          • Of course I’m not neutral. Skepticism is HARD. I’m biased and I acknowledge it. I’m also a devil’s advocate and like to debate. It’s my nature. I learn a lot that way.

            But I try to take science on its own merits, and not make assumptions. Some science posted on WHWT is rightly disdained, but a lot of it is just because it’s “climate science.” That, to me, is a good sign of indoctrination. People will accept an assertion that something is dumb just because it’s posted that way, without reading the paper. Not everyone does things like that, but it’s pretty common.

            If the knee-jerk reaction to all AGW climate science is to dismiss it, that’s as bad as mindlessly accepting all press releases at face value. In both cases there is no skepticism, no questioning, and therefore no learning.

          • Why aren’t they more resistant to all forms of propaganda?

            Because, just like you believe things by faith, a “global warming skeptic” holds certain presuppositions about the world they believe to be true as well.

            The whole idea that “skeptics” is an appropriate general term is belied by the fact that so many are willing to…

            It’s just stupid to be skeptical of every little thing, as you well (or should) know. A certain amount of skepticism is rational; skepticism about everything is irrational.

            What’s with building the Straw Man and burning him down, Kristi? This sort of logic doesn’t edify you.

          • Kristi, dissidents in the Soviet Union probably numbered about 3% with 97 % going along and even reporting their neighbors. That seems about right as a general societal indicator. Believe me, it is far more honorable and difficult a position to take on all issues until you can be convinced. Logically it is sound. Actually it’s a major part of the scientific method, don’t you know?

            The things you have turned your eyes away from is telling. I have never seen you agree with a contrary point on any thread. Are these folk you fight for always right? I dont think so. I do argue against garbage that comes out of the sceptical side often. I am a scientist and engineer I even studied paleoclimatology!

          • It is telling Kristi’s comment got voted down here when all she is saying is a skeptic should be skeptical all the time, not selectively so.

          • drednicolson – sure, that’s a valid argument. However, questioning things does not mean one can’t form opinions based on what one finds. I opine that if one is searching for truth, one should evaluate all evidence according to its intrinsic merit, not according to its implications supporting a particular argument or policy. It’s difficult to do in practice, which is why a good graduate program in science places so much stress on elimination of bias (and why many of the best scientists are skeptical by nature).

          • MarkW. So do you not see the value of being skeptical of all you see? Are you saying you can only cast a skeptical eye over one area of this discussion? I come here to see the value in the arguments offered by those I don’t always agree with. I think that’s healthy.

          • Kristi,

            Most skeptics accept “information” with scientific validity. It just so happens that the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming not only has no confirming support, but has been repeatedly shown false.

          • Theo,

            I have seen far too many examples of skeptics rejecting acceptable science for the wrong reasons (or for no reason at all) to believe that those skeptics even know what constitutes scientific validity.’ I don’t know if it’s “most,” but it seems significant that few skeptics are willing to correct such errors even if they know better. For example, many skeptics assert that adjustments to temperature records are a sign of improper data manipulation, when in fact the opposite is true: to not adjust the record would be scientifically negligent, since biases and errors in the data are bound to occur when there are different protocols used, satellites get off-track, measuring instruments need to be recalibrated, the earth subsides, etc. There are also widespread misconceptions about the way GCMs are tuned and validated, and the way they are interpreted. Whether a projection has low or very high confidence, any failure (so far) in projections is treated the same, and any natural variation that wasn’t predicted is treated as a failure of the models in spite of the fact that the models were not designed to forecast such variation.

            It puzzles me when people say that AGW has no supporting evidence. How can so many disparate signs, from temperature trends to coral bleaching to changes in flowering phenology…how can they be ignored? Are skeptics unaware of the evidence, or have they been taught that it’s all faked, or what?

            If it were true that AGW has no confirming support and has repeatedly been shown false, do you really, truly, honestly believe that thousands of scientists worldwide are oblivious of the fact? Or that they are all involved in a giant conspiracy? All subject to massive, international “groupthink”? It simply doesn’t make sense. These thousands of scientists would have to be gullible, dumb, and/or lack integrity, none of which are helpful in getting a PhD.

            Why is it any more likely that the great majority of climate scientists rather than “skeptics” (most of which are not climate scientists) have it wrong?

            Why do so many skeptics complain about MSM propaganda, yet ignore the evidence of propaganda campaigns by fossil fuel organizations?

            I’m not arguing for or against AGW so much as arguing that everyone on both sides try to combat bias, always being mindful of the fact that human reasoning is subject to all kinds of external and internal (unconscious) influences. I am arguing that the science has to be evaluated on its own merits regardless of what it means for policy and partisan politics.

            In some ways I agree with Dr. Ball that economic analyses shouldn’t have been included in the IPCC reports, but that doesn’t make them a “deception.” The countries that pushed for the IPCC wanted information that helped them make policy, and economics is part of that. However, when economic predictions are necessarily based on assumptions about development and resources use, they are bound to be of limited predictive value, which is why they are now instead used as scenarios. If economic predictions are difficult for the IPCC, they are equally difficult for others, and there is no reason to assume that those who make different predictions are more likely to be correct. Dr. Ball quotes people that disagree with the predictions, but those quotes “explain” nothing. Saying something is “science fiction” is not an explanation, it is an assertion. Dr. Ball, by throwing in dates, anecdotes, quotations and a graph made 53 years ago, gives the appearance of a supported argument – but in reality there is no cohesive argument here. It’s mostly unsupported opinion. A divergence in opinion about global warming during the period 1990-1995 could just as easily be explained by the fact that this is when the pro- and anti-AGW propaganda campaigns really took off.

            (I admit, I’m biased against Dr. Ball, and have been ever since I saw his article interpreting climategate emails. If their implications were really so clear to an outsider like Dr. Ball, they would not need interpretation. What they really needed was context – but the context sometimes showed the opposite of what skeptics wanted them to show, and this led to widespread MISinterpretation of some of the emails. That’s not to say that there was no evidence of unprofessional behavior.)

          • ““skeptics” is an appropriate general term is belied by the fact that so many are willing to accept information that supports their ideas and reject what doesn’t regardless of its scientific merit.”

            You should provide one or more examples of skeptics rejecting ideas with scientific merit. It’s not clear what you are referring to exactly.

          • Even as it happens, the mob will not go back to “Global Cooling”.
            Mankind can’t be blamed, so there will be no money for conversion to real science.
            Indeed, the mob has to have anxiety and will have to find a new nemesis for groupthink to focus on.
            Bob Hoye

        • Alley – “two science degrees” says NOTHING, gives zero information as to what science even. My sister has a PhD in Biology and my wife has one in Microbiology. Neither degrees give them any base knownowledge, background or “scientific” knowledge to understand the mechanics of AGW, let alone the mathematics and statistics knowledge (of which they are both highly lacking in) needed to understand AGW. In fact I have an advanced degree in “Applied” mathematics and constantly have to explain to PhDs in Theoretical mathematics the fallacy of their argument. Applied Mathematics is as different from Theoretical Mathematics as Apples and Elephants.

          • “Neither degrees give them any base knownowledge, background or “scientific” knowledge to understand the mechanics of AGW, let alone the mathematics and statistics knowledge (of which they are both highly lacking in) needed to understand AGW”

            What proportion of the people who comment here have that? Why should those who support (C)AGW be judged by a different standard than the many who make similarly unsupported, opinionated statements around here?

          • Funny how the lady gets upset when we apply the same standards to her side that she insists on applying to ours.

          • You need Mathematics and Physics to understand Forcings, feedbacks, Statistics, Probability, Bayes’ Theorem and Bayesian Confirmation Theory, quantitative measure of degree of confirmation or degree of evidential support. just for a start.
            As an analogy a doctor is a “Scientist” and a Biologist” is a “Scientist.” Both are very knowledgeable as to where the organs are in your body and can make you feel as if they know exactly what is causing your ailment. Which would you prefer to remove your Appendix?

          • I disagree that doctors are scientists. They are not normally schooled in the scientific method. I think that’s one reason so much published medical research is problematic.

            Nor are biologists necessarily trained in location of organs (at least above the college level). As a biologist (ecologist), I am trained in statistics, probability, experimental design, etc. at the graduate level and have taken physics and calculus as an undergrad. While this doesn’t give me the background to understand the complexity of climate, it does enable me to evaluate some of the statistics people use. One problem I notice arising repeatedly is a confusion between regression and correlation, and the assumptions of the statistics are ignored. Unfortunately, some authors of published research call the results of regression analyses, “correlations,” which leads to erroneous interpretation.

          • No one could be more statistically ignorant and incompetent, apparently intentionally so, than Michael Mann. He and his minions are also clearly clueless as the scientific method. No surprise, since so many of them aren’t scientists but math grads and GIGO computer gamers.

            Consensus “climate science” denies that climate is complex. According to that repeatedly falsified doctrine, CO2 is the control knob on climate. Everything else hardly matters.

            Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature


          • At another site where I regularly hang out (Cars, specifically Alfa Romeo) there has been a thread since 2008 called “Do You Believe in Global Warming?”
            Some time ago, there was a frequent poster who has a Ph.D. in physics and decades ago had published research on the Martian atmosphere. He also had papers used by the IPCC.
            Global warmer, through and through, and really believed that he had been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. One nasty activist.
            When I started explaining the history of actual climate change, other posters warned that there was a “Nobel Prize” winner who posted.
            I noted that I just had a B.Sc. in geophysics and kept on posting.
            He has not been visible for a few years and I would like to ask him what he thinks of Svensmark’s work on cosmic rays and climate change. Not to overlook Nir Shaviv.
            This is a very exciting time for real research in climate change. Also. exciting for us watchers as well.
            Bob Hoye

        • On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog.
          For someone with so much knowledge, you are mighty stingy with sharing it.
          So far all you have ever done is whine that us nasty deniers refuse to worship as you do.

          • Having worked at the World renoun Rutherford Appleton Laboratory for 10 years, I met with & worked alongside many “scientists”. Whilst very brilliant in their fields, they frequently lacked a sufficient amount of “common” sense!!!

          • My brother has an IQ that puts him well up into the top 1%. However it’s a family rule to never leave him alone with power tools.

          • HotScot, I can prove it but I choose to not post PDFs of my degrees here. If you don’t believe me, that’s ok.

          • Chris

            “HotScot, I can prove it……..”

            Err……No you can’t. Not to me or anyone else here.

          • >>
            No you can’t.

            Says someone who hides behind a pseudonym. I have two science degrees too, but like Chris, I’m not going to post my degrees here. I also have a commercial pilots license, and I’m a designated (retired) Navy pilot.

            I have all the necessary documentation (not to mention photos). However, even if I post them, how do you know they weren’t photo-shopped?

            I used to subscribe to Science (which makes you a member of AAAS). Yet people didn’t believe me then, either. I don’t have to subscribe anymore, because my alumni group gives me free access to journals.


          • Jim Masterson

            How do I know Jim Masterson isn’t a pseudonym?

            I’m lots of things, but other than to illustrate a point by using, perhaps, an anecdote, I don’t brag about my qualifications or appeal to my authority as a qualified ‘whatever’ to browbeat others.

            That’s Chris’s style.

            My position is, I’m uneducated. It happens to be true but it also means that if I can make a point better than you, then what’s your education worth?

            I mostly ask questions, that’s all, and Chris has consistently ignored my one simple request, to furnish me with the empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming.

            So far he has employed various strategies to evade the question including trolling, appeals to authority, distraction, obfuscation etc. and yet, is it not a reasonable question considering the fate of mankind rests upon it?

            Is it not within my gift as a layman to ask a question that stumps a man who claims to have two recognised qualifications? Indeed, is it not my duty to do so?

            And is it not the duty of highly qualified intellectuals to represent idiots like me? Isn’t it your duty as a member of the single digit % elite of the highly educated world to ensure we laymen have complicated issues explained to us in a manner we comprehend?

            Personally, I have always advocated for my subordinates. My job has never been to issue commands without questioning the source of their authority and the reasons behind them. Nor have I ever ordered a subordinate do anything they know I wouldn’t do myself. Yet an appeal to authority is just that, a command to submit.

            I question those that would flaunt their authority, especially when they remain anonymous, despite claiming their chosen online moniker to be factual.

            It is also my choice, and my right, to remain anonymous to everyone on this blog or any other, and I resent your implication that my intentions are anything but honourable. And as you claim to be an ex Navy man, I damn well know how hurtful that statement is, and you can have only one response.

          • >>
            How do I know Jim Masterson isn’t a pseudonym?

            I guess you’ll have to take my word for it–as an officer and a gentleman (assuming that statement is still politically correct).

            It is also my choice, and my right, to remain anonymous to everyone on this blog or any other, and I resent your implication that my intentions are anything but honourable.

            I think you’re assuming facts not in evidence. As about 99.9% of the commenters here are using pseudonyms, you’re in good company. I just don’t see how anyone can “prove” a statement true about their personal information.

            The only way I could prove my subscription to Science is to post my member number. That would have given anyone free access to my Science account. I’m not going to do that.

            Of course, all this school yard nonsense reminds me of a riddle: What did the big firecracker say to the little firecracker? My pop is bigger than yours.


          • Jim

            “I guess you’ll have to take my word for it–as an officer and a gentleman (assuming that statement is still politically correct).”

            With the best will in the world, and being that we’re batting for the same side here, I feel I must tell you, as a former officer, and still a gentleman, I’m actually Donald Trump. The clue is in the name “HotScot”. And you thought I was just some Gorbals numpty. Charming naivety.

            Silly, I know, but it illustrates a point.

            No one here can prove anything unless prepared to present themselves, Like Anthony, Tim Ball and David Middleton, amongst others.

            You claim to be educated, with Naval credentials, but won’t prove them so, frankly, your claims are meaningless. You’re a back street hoodie as far as the internet is concerned.

            I like [your] you’re riddle though. By appealing to authority, you’re claiming your credentials over mine, which I’m happy to accept, you’re far better educated than me, unless of course I’m lying about my education.

            And sorry, I don’t believe your claims about being in the Navy. I expected an acknowledgement of my honourable intentions, something deeply engrained in the services, but you responded with a firecracker anecdote.

            I would be deeply offended but I’m not, for reasons you’ll never understand.

          • >>
            You claim to be educated, with Naval credentials, but won’t prove them so, frankly, your claims are meaningless.

            Tell you what, HotScot, you first. I’ve seen nothing of substance from your last two posts.

            Just to give you something to chew on, put my brother’s name, Frederick James Masterson, into Google or Bing. His Bio usually pops up first. He’s a hero as a Vietnam POW. He was shot down while I was in flight school, and was released nine months later.

            I would be deeply offended but . . . .

            For what? You’re no Donald Trump. He doesn’t offend easily.


          • Jim

            before we go any further and fall out over nothing, the point I was trying to make is that few of us are who we claim to be online. You can believe no more of what I claim to be than I can you.

            Flaunting credentials is meaningless and is an appeal to authority, with the possible exception of anecdotal accounts, and even they should be viewed with scepticism.

            So how about we bury the hatchet and accept that what we say can be taken with a pinch of salt by anyone.

        • It’s a worry for society if you have two science degrees and you don’t even understand the concept of falsifiability. If that’s true, I am guessing those degrees are not in the hard sciences. By the way, even a child can reason through the problems with the CO2 theory. Try very hard, you might even be able to figure it out for yourself.

      • I shall believe whoever gives the best reason, not whoever has the most prestigious background. Argument by authority gets us back to ‘98% of scientists’ and should be avoided

        • “I shall believe whoever gives the best reason, not whoever has the most prestigious background.”

          Except that’s complete rubbish. On any topic, whether it be climate change or new cancer vaccines, there are thousands if not 10s of thousands of articles/research papers/blog posts by authors/comments on sites like WUWT. Specifically how are you going to read all of those and decide which gives the best reason?

          • Just because you’re too lazy to do your own research, doesn’t mean everyone else is too.

        • g barton –

          The problem is, scientific expertise takes years to develop, and it is not always easy to evaluate who really has the best reason without that kind of expertise. A layman may provide a perfectly legitimate-sounding reason for a medical ailment without any training whatsoever, but we don’t allow laymen to practice medicine, so why should we allow laymen to explain AGW?

          • No. Screeching Mercury Monkeys are good guys who helped Anthony with the SurfaceStations project inventory. It’s a pejorative term we bear proudly. The flying monkey minions of climate catastrophe as something different entirely.

    • Alley, I believe there are many additional variables that interact with climate that could be studied, ie Milankovich Cycles, Solar output (subdivided into several different parameters), PDO AMO, ENSO, water vapor, etc. Forcings and Feedbacks from many different variables almost surely interact, and in ways not precisely known. My understanding of the IPCC was that they were charged with assessing the effect of Anthropogenic CO2 on climate, and not charged with a general Climate study.

      • Ron, exactly…for one thing, they can not model or predict any of the things on your list…until they can, they can’t predict climate
        for the other, the portion of “human” CO2 is so small…all the things on your list would over ride it

        They’ve screwed with the temp history so much….to show a faster rate of warming….no climate model can ever be right…and the climate models reproduce that fake history right off the charts

      • Ron, what makes you think these things haven’t been studied by climate scientists? The IPCC isn’t the Bible of climate, or of climate change; it is revised as new information becomes available, but is likely to always be a bit “behind the times.” The way natural cyclic processes occur and their interaction with climate change is just beginning to be understood, but it is unlikely that any of them will counteract the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere; more likely, they will change in response to it (for example, the addition of cold fresh water around the Artic through ice melt may change the rate of oceanic heat transport). The point is, the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is a driver of change to the planetary system as a whole. The only comparable forcing is variation in the sun’s energy input, and the cycles that determine that have been studied extensively (in the past, things like volcanic activity, continental drift and meteorites have likely been influential, but the probability of them having a major, long-term impact in the next few hundred years is very low).

        • Kristi, what proof exists that CO2 is a driver of change to the planetary system, at least in terms of temperatures? You take it as a given, but I have yet to find this proof. That’s at the beginning of all my objections to AGW. You take it as a given but it’s nowhere near a given. Hotscot makes this point often, and it’s powerful because it’s accurate. You instead don’t even question it, and neither does they IPCC nor the authors of these studies. SO why do you keep acting surprised when people object to the study? You’re missing the fact that the majority here reject the entire basis of the argument, because that basis has never been proven. I can’t believe this is not clear to you after all the time you have been posting on this site. I think if you addressed that we could have more fruitful discussions.

    • “The IPCC was set up to produce a desired result.”

      “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
      risk of human-induced climate change, ……………………..”


      • And then the “Summary Report” the only thing most people read or cut-and-paste from, gets revised by Bureaucrats, Politicians and Governments.
        “In parallel, the Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary are prepared by authors selected from chapter writing teams. The Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary undergo a formal Expert and Government Review and are revised based on the review comments. Again, 2-3 Review Editors oversee the review process for the Technical Summary. The Summary for Policymakers is then distributed to the Governments for final comment. The Summary for Policymakers undergoes a line-by-line approval process by Governments during a multi-day meeting. The Governments must reach consensus before text is approved. After the Working Group Session approves the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC Plenary then accepts the entire underlying Report (including the individual chapters and Technical ” [ From WG1 Summary Description – ]

    • Alley

      “Except that there are many forcings or a variety of strengths and directions. This is not new or hidden, and the other forcings are in fact used to model climate.”

      Really? Name them. Then explain why CO2 is the go to reason cited for climate change. The forcings I’m aware of are greenhouse gases, of which water vapour is ~95%, CO2 ~3% (with man made CO2 ~0.12%) nitrous oxide ~1% and methane ~0.4%.

      Then consider that man made CO2 is ~0.0012% of all atmospheric gases and one should begin to wonder where the logic breaks down, or indeed starts, that condemns man made CO2 as the culprit of climate change.

      • “Really? Name them.”….he can’t…because the climate scientists can’t either
        Something shut it down for almost 2 decades…they have no idea why
        …so they have to invent the heat is hiding in the deep ocean…since 1970

        There is so much wrong with that excuse it’s hard to find a place to start……..

      • And that’s just for starters. You haven’t even mentioned land-use changes, nor natural variability.

    • The only thing being “forced” on us is the idea that somehow Man’s CO2 is responsible for bad weather.

      PS Yes, my screen name is “anonymous”. But Anthony knows who I am. I told him several years ago.

    • The fact you used the words forcing and forcings suggests to me you have no idea what you are talking about and just parrot the alarmist narrative aka a troll.

        • Translation: I’ve been caught showing my ignorance, but I’ll pretend that I’m just too smart for you guys to figure me out.

          • Most of the time I ignore simple typos, except Alley’s sock puppet Betty made a big deal about one above.

        • To me, with an engineering background, forcing is getting substances to behave in a way that they don’t usually behave. A force being applied to any substance requires energy. Where does the extra energy come from to enable CO2 to force warming/climate change etc? If you say CO2 forces the climate to change then show your evidence.

          BTW it was you who mentioned forcing as if you knew what they were. If you don’t know what they are then you can’t say they have any effect.

        • They use both words? Fine! However, do they show how “forcing” works and what “forcings” are in play in relation to the human contribution of CO2 to climate change and how that may be dangerous out side of a theory and a computer simulation?

          I didn’t think so!

          • Now Patrick is changing topics. You said “The fact you used the words forcing and forcings suggests to me you have no idea what you are talking about and just parrot the alarmist narrative aka a troll.”

            Instead of admitting you were wrong, you change topics. Bad form.

          • Hivemind
            Please stop using the word ‘forcing’. This comes from the radiative forcing theory of atmospheric physics and it has been shown to produce incorrect predictions of global temperatures. The real atmosphere works by convection and conduction. If you live in the mid-west of America, you can see large cumulonimbus clouds forming in the mid-afternoon. This is how the Earth controls the climate.

            11 ReplyAugust 12, 2018 4:29 pm

    • The essential difference between agw skeptics and believers boils down to the placement of just one letter –
      believers say – “something makes the climate change”
      skeptics say – “some things make the climate change”

    • Please stop using the word ‘forcing’. This comes from the radiative forcing theory of atmospheric physics and it has been shown to produce incorrect predictions of global temperatures. The real atmosphere works by convection and conduction. If you live in the mid-west of America, you can see large cumulonimbus clouds forming in the mid-afternoon. This is how the Earth controls the climate.

      • Alley likes to pretend that he knows what he is talking about. But time and time again he shows that all he can do is parrot memorized talking points.

      • “If you live in the mid-west of America, you can see large cumulonimbus clouds forming in the mid-afternoon. This is how the Earth controls the climate.”
        It is as simple as that. Atmospheric heat pump. Heat at moderate pressure and temperature is rejected at low pressure and temperature.

    • Looks like we’ve had an Alley Ooops. It seems “alley” is a sockpuppet, Previously he was commenting as “Scott Koontz” which very well may be a made-up name too.

      That IP address is the giveaway. It hasn’t changed for either of the two personas.

      From our policy page:

      Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted; also posts repeatedly linking to a particular blog, or attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted. Take that personally if you wish, but all deletions/snips are final. Grousing about it won’t help since deleted posts can’t be recovered. Rather than trying to deal with each comment, bulk moderation may be employed to save time.

      Looks like you are in the bit-bucket now for violating the “sockpuppet” portion.

      • Anthony Watts

        HeHeHe… in action.

        Doubtless it will be ignored by Alley/Scott Koontz, despite the evidence.

        Gosh, that seems familiar.


        • When I read the name “Alley” I’m afraid I added “Blind” A dead end; a position without hope of progress or success.
          Rather than “Ally” a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose

    • Actually its dead right. The IPCC was set up and the terms of reference are clear – to examine the impact of man made climate change..

      NOWHERE in its remit is there any question as to whether or not man made climate change even exists…

    • Alley > This is not new or hidden, and the other forcings are in fact used to model climate.
      Well one forcing was definitely hidden. The recent forcing that caused the temp pause/slowdown whatever they call it….and that wasn’t in the models at all

      So, is that forcing in the models now?…..of course not….they still don’t know what happened
      ..and had to come up with the lame excuse it’s hiding in the deep ocean

      And the was the best excuse they could come up with…because it’s so wrong it’s embarrasing

    • Alley,

      I’m not big on authoritarianism, but I would give more weight to citations, or to a reasoned argument on your part, over a personal opinion that something is “just wrong.” You claim to have two science degrees, but you don’t state in what field(s). Would that be an embarrassment to you state in what field your supposed expertise lies?

      You claim to do a lot of reading from climate scientists, as do I. It is my impression that those same climate scientists routinely ignore confidence intervals in their reports, are convinced that CO2 plays the central role in impacting warming, and base their ‘projections’ on climate models that can’t handle the cloud energy exchanges at the same spatial resolution as the other variables, so must therefore be parameterized with best-guess assumptions. In other words, the much vaunted “physics based” models have a wild card thrown in. Guess what happens if you have an algorithm calculating something and you introduce a “best-guess” factor? The result is no better than the “best-guess” if the factor is non-trivial.

    • Degree or no no degree, I’ve done my own research and am going with Anthony. AGW is flat out wrong. It used to be, AGW flawed at best, fraud at worst. Every day it looks more and more like fraud.

      And Alley, the other forcings that are used in the climate models are underweighted as to not make a difference. On the other hand, co2 is over weighted as the single most important factor in climate. …
      I think 20 years of failed predictions is more than enough time for AGW to meet it’s end.
      Do some research Alley and tell me that you have downloaded the co2 and temperature anomalies for the last 60 that co2 doesn’t follow temperature. CO2 clearly follows temperature.

    • What’s most amusing to me is that, on almost every thread, the first comment comes from a troll, usually with a similarly dismissive and fact-free comment, backed by no references, and no references provided ever, despite numerous inviations. Which proves to me that either a) the troll Alley, and any other like him, has no job, or b) trolling this website IS their job. The lack of facts and/or references is to aid in typing and posting speed. The failure to rectify is just a failure.

    • Ally …. it takes no science degrees at all to realize there is no such thing as global warming. All one needs is a set of eyes …. or even one eye that can see colors reasonably well to realize that all the Warming is in the Arctic ……. ummm …. where there are few thermometers, and thus they just calculate the “estimated” temperature.

    • Ah, the stated mission of the IPCC is to show the effects of man-made global warming.

      It’s in their mission statement. If they did not support their mission statement, they would fail and be disbanded. They cannot admit any cooling or actual science showing that any temperature effects from manmade CO2 are either zero or negligible and undetectable.

      They have to follow their job description and the upper levels of the IPCC are bureaucrat/politicians with a clear agenda—show that manmade CO2 is warming the planet, whether it really is or not.

    • Key phrase, Alley: “to model climate”. That’s impossible, and any computer scientist (I am one) will tell you that.

      • It took 10 hours for my previous comment to be approved and posted. Am I on a watch list or something?

    • If climate scientists know so much about the climate, and you put so much faith in them, why are their models so spectacularly wrong? Why haven’t their predictions played out? Why doesn’t the basic hypothesis make any sense in terms of historical climate FACTS. The political aims of AGW have been revealed, the discarding of facts that undermine the theory is evident, so I am stumped as to why anybody with half a brain could keep insisting the theory and the science is solid?

  2. Dr. Tim Ball , what an interesting and fact-filled posting (I’m sorry I didn’t get a beer and some chips before starting to read it). It confirms my belief that the AGW issue is the greatest scam perpetrated on unsuspecting public for a long time. What in the world has the Club Of Rome ever got right? The economics of extracting natural resources is an integral part of defining a resource.

  3. “Science” is one thing, “Politics” is another. The two should never mix. When they do, politics gains power and science suffers.

  4. Good recap of the situation. The Club of Rome gave a preview of tendentious computer projections, with utterly inadequate and unreliable input information processed with a equally bad simulation. Does it remind you of anything?

  5. Would someone please fix figure 1. It’s horizontal axis is clearly the date in “years AD”, but the label below it says “Years before present.”

    • No can do, but can explain why its the way it is…

      Its part of a stack of 3 charts on decreasing timescales, showing temperatures since the Pleistocene, with the dotted line (on all 3 charts) representing nominally the conditions at the beginning of the 20th century.

      Chart a) (not shown here) starting 1 million years ago.
      Chart b) (also not shown) starting 10000 years ago.
      Chart c) (shown) the last 1000 years.

      All are labelled ‘Years before present’, with older on the left.

      That’s how the chart appears in the IPCC First Assessment Report, on page 202.

      • Above I linked to CA and at the very bottom is a diagram such as you describe:
        However, Steve M. wrote:
        Updae (sic): Here is triptych image from Crispin Tickell (British Antarctic Survey) 1977 mentioned in a post below (thanks for the ref) as compared to the corresponding full triptych in IPCC 1990.

        The embedded link to Crispin Tickell does not work. The Wikipedia article about Tickell has a birth in 1930, but seems he is still alive at 88.
        Comments are interesting. Search with ‘ Tickell ‘

  6. Arthur Scargill

    Possibly the worst influence on the UK imaginable. An idealogical, fanatical, union zealot who’s destructive industrial relations resonate today.

    Unions can be a route to change. Instead, they religiously embrace the concept that the very businesses that employ their members are somehow enemies of the free world.

    They refuse to abandon the sinking ship of rabble rousing after the fact, preferring to scavenge the remains of companies they have colluded to destroy.

    They are incompetent, idealogical organisations, run by oafs who would rather bite the hand that feeds them than enter into constructive dialogue.

    I have had the misfortune to have been represented by them recently, for the first time in my life, and I can confirm their utter incompetence.

    I was also there during Scargill’s pièce de résistance, the UK miners strike. Working as a police officer at the time, I can confirm the brutal and violent methods he employed to further his futile agenda.

    Don’t ever imagine a few police officers defended by nothing more than rudimentary plastic shields and 18″ wooden truncheons represented a threat to thousands of miners. Nor did we have body armour or helmets, the best that could be mustered was the traditional Bobby’s helmet, a cork affair easily dislodged, not that we even had those up in Scotland, our only protective headgear against bricks and bottles was a cloth cap.

    She released the UK from the smothering stranglehold of socialism. She privatised nationalised businesses that were going down the pan and taking the country with it. She freed up the city of London to become the international financial powerhouse it remains today.

    Margaret Thatcher employed every means possible to break the stranglehold the unions had on this country, including employing the concept that CO2 represented a threat. However, she was a scientist, a chemist by profession before becoming a Barrister and then a politician. I suspect today she would be the very one condemning the monster that is climate change she may have unwittingly created.

    Make no mistake, Thatcher stands with Churchill as one of the contemporary giants of global politics.

    • What say you, HotScot, did Mrs. Thatcher buy the notion of AGW, which then positively influenced her position with regard to the coal miners, did she use AGW merely as a power play against them, or was it some combination of both?

    • Well, HS old pal, that’s one side of Maggie. It might have been nice if she had determined that a national strategy of promoting industries that made things was as important as moving money from one place to another. She certainly helped the de-industrialisation of the UK.

      She also did not follow through on her promise to replace coal power with nuclear. This was due to her advisers working out that if they included the full life cycles of nuclear plants in a cost analysis, they were way more expensive than coal burners. That made sense as far as it went, but it might have been nice if they had talked to EDF about the advantages of making all your nukes from the same blueprint, or talked to Siemens, who were just starting to develop modularised reactors in those years. The outcome might have been different, and if it had resulted in a lot more nukes, Britain would be a better place today.

      • Smart Rock

        “It might have been nice if she had determined that a national strategy of promoting industries that made things was as important as moving money from one place to another. She certainly helped the de-industrialisation of the UK.”

        Had she not done what she did, we would all be working for Chinese wages. Shipbuilding, steel, car manufacturing (did you ever drive a British Leyland piece of junk?) were all being undercut by the Far East. Th UK had no option but to turn to the services sector where we still excel.

        The problem with the UK is we need to understand where all our industrial might came from, innovation, inventions and new technology. That’s what Thatcher wanted, to encourage the UK’s education to develop, then utilise offshore labour to manufacture. The fact successive governments lost control of the concept wasn’t her fault.

        Profit comes from controlling the money, not making it. Anyone can manufacture a widget.

      • The nuclear power build ended the day interest rates spiked. Or so a fellow engineer at the CEGB told me.

        That was as a result of the federal reserve bank trying to curb inflation.

        As it happened,. Gas was discovered in the North Sea and there was no need for nuclear – we had a cheap to build cheap to run solution based on Rolls Royce gas turbines with some steam plant on the back.

        Gas is now running out. UK is once again importing fossil fuel overall.

    • Yup. There is a tide in the affairs of men which seems to mean that Scargill-think, i.e. idealistic communism, comes around every second generation. Long enough that a generation has grown up without witnessing the previous failures and depredations.

      Even now, the Shadow Chancellor (the’ money-man’ of the official opposition in the UK parliament) can be watched on the internet celebrating the 2008 financial crisis as the beginning of the downfall of capitalism. And yet many people will vote for them. It’s scary.

      J.R.R. Tolkien — ‘Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.’

      • The young, impressionable and inexperienced, lacking all historical perspective, hence lacking immunity, need to be inoculated anew in each generation against the virus of communism.

      If it wasn’t for the nips being so good at building ships
      the yards would still be open on the Clyde
      and it can’t be much fun for them
      beneath the rising sun
      with all their kids committing suicide

      What have we done?
      Maggie what have we done?
      What have we done… to England?

      Churchill was the first to gas the Kurds – Lest We Forget.

      • The Final Cut, which was if I recall correctly, penned by Roger Waters. If Roger had a bigger chip on his shoulders you could cover him in salt and vinegar and feed him to the seagulls.

        Quoting him to prove a point on unionism is a bit like quote Coleridge to make a statement about getting wacked off your dial in order to write poetry.

        Still, in answer to the question – you allowed unions to strangle manufacturing with an outdated sense of entitlement while failing to follow international trends. Rather than countering the overseas ability of ‘working cheaper’ by taking the proactive step of ‘working smarter’, industry was forced to reject any change that may have impacted on traditional jobs until a time where the death spiral was too step to climb out of and the only thing left to do was blame the government for not giving them enough money.

        Also Churchill was open and supportive of the idea of using gas. There is no proof that they actually did, or as it turned out, even needed to. Bombing them with 112lb HE was perfectly cost effective. Gas wasn’t.

        • The Final Cut was a horrible album. I’m not sure what Water’s point was with the lyrics I cited, other than to complain about the British ship building industry closing down under Maggie, and on account of the Japanese being better at building ships. He makes no reference to the role of the unions.
          I quoted the lyric in response to Smart Rock:

          “Well, HS old pal, that’s one side of Maggie. It might have been nice if she had determined that a national strategy of promoting industries that made things was as important as moving money from one place to another. She certainly helped the de-industrialisation of the UK.

          My point wasn’t about Thatcher’s war on the unions, but her globalist contribution to de-industrialization of the UK using the instrument now call “globalization.”

          Thatcher’s contribution to promotion and success of the globalist union agreement outlawing production and use of CFCs, known as the Montreal Protocol, is well known, so I didn’t mention it.

          I appreciate being corrected on my false “Churchill gassed the Kurds” claim. It appears he merely argued for its use on ethical grounds, slaughtering the “uncivilized tribes” en masse, using conventional explosives to demonstrate his point about double standards of “squeamishness.”

        • When i was in England in the 60s (I awoke one morning and listened to the Beatles new song “Yesterdays”), I read that the Ford plant was on strike because of a dispute between the machinists and the pipefitters over which should be cutting the threads on the new torque converter bar. I thought that this kind of problem wouldnt exist in their role models Soviet Union. I then thought that the Soviet Union was actually an end game for such unwitting socialists where they ultimately lost power to a despotic government. Did they (Do they) believe that marxbrethern power actually leads to economic control by the proles?

      • Churchill did not gas the Kurds.

        Is there any lie which you won’t repeat, so long as it confirms your bias?

      • Whatever the Japanese did, the Clyde would have failed eventually . I seem to remember in the 50s the “who does what” union created farce at one of the Clyde ship yards . It involved a dispute as to which of the union members should be responsible for twanging the piece of chalk covered string that marked the line of rivets. Not only was the technology primitive , but the management was completely, and ultimately fatally, ineffectual.
        The same was true of the British Leyland factories pre- Thatcher when “Red Robbo” and his union mates controlled the production , or lack of it. Yet the same workforce , when working with new management from Toyota , Honda or Nissan produce excellent vehicles . A few years ago I read that the Nissan factory in the North East had the best record for any Nissan factory.

      • In 2008 UK manufacturing was at its highest ever allowing for inflation (see executive summary of the linked PWC report), it’s just about caught up again after the bankers’ crash. Services have massively expanded and we are all richer for it.

        Executive Summary
        There is a widespread assumption that the final demise of manufacturing in the UK is only a matter of time. But this is simply not so. The facts tell a different story:
        • Output of British manufacturing reached an all-time high in 2007, even adjusted for inflation
        • The UK is the world’s 6th largest manufacturer with strong positions in certain key industries, e.g. a 15% global market share in Aerospace
        • UK Manufacturing achieved a 50% increase in labour productivity from 1997-2007

      • Khwarizmi,
        If you were old enough to be living in the UK when the unions had a stranglehold on manufacturing, you’d never buy a car made by the workers from British Leyland. The cars were, ahem, crap. The hard working “nips” appeared with cars that worked, and pulled the rug out from underneath the union dinosaurs.
        The commies (yes they were) in the 1970s unions ruined the country. It took the amazing Mrs T to break them and rebuild our country. Today we have a manufacturing industry to be proud of.

      • He used Tear Gas, O deceiver, which caused their horses to flee without their riders. Who had to walk home sadly. Without killing anyone.

      • There are a lot of people who want to return to those levels. They believe that they aren’t getting all the free stuff they are entitled to.

        • MarkW

          “There are a lot of ‘lazy good for nothing socialist’s’ who want to return to those levels.”

          Please be specific.

          You will also note from my preceding comment that ‘Dick’ knows nothing of UK politics and economics, and should stick his ‘Head’ where it belongs, right up his derrière.

          Wot an effing pillock!

      • subtle2

        At least try to do some research before making idiotic (no typo) statements.

        The 98% income tax was a labour (Democrat in the US) government initiative resulting in “the brain drain” when the well heeled fled the country. It was some time before Thatcher.

        Thatcher encouraged less taxation, not more, and reversed the brain drain thereby encouraging innovation and investment.

        Is your name Richard? I’ll call you Dick from now on, shall I?

  7. Sort of on topic, but as I recall when the Club of Rome forecast came out in the 1970s of our “future”, a counter group used their formula and showed that 1890s London (or New York) in 50 years would be under 30 feet of horse manure. Thank you Henry Ford for preventing this disaster.

  8. Dr Ball you make WUWT Great Again and again.
    I’m flicking over to your blog now to make a small donation.
    You’re on a pension and deserve our support.
    Best regards . . .

  9. And a hypothesis it remains, woefully ill-equipped to reveal the myriad swirls of the chaotic system it tries desperately to mash into its preconceived outcome. Hell, it can’t even be “just a theory”!!!!

  10. Hard to figure which is wilder, climate forecasts or economic forecasts.

    “I believe that economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show they have a sense of humor.” – William Gilmore Simms

  11. “Somebody said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. This puts them in the same league as climate scientists trying to predict the climate by measuring one variable, CO2. ”

    wrong: you see skeptics make these kind of statements all the time BUT YOU NEVER see skeptics
    check each others work.

    Does climate science, THE ACTUAL SCIENCE measure only one value?


    others as welll

    • Incorrect. The “consensus” does measure only one variable to produce their papers.

      However, I must regretfully inform Dr. Ball that he is also incorrect. The variable is not CO2, it is the number of digits on the checks. That is one bit of mathematics that they can handle without taking off their shoes.

    • Are you bashing the noble place of scepticism? Perhaps you mean unthinking scientifically illiterate “contrarians”. Certainly the sceptical side has fewer such folk than your champs.

    • OMG!
      Was that two complete sentences in one Drive-By, from our very favorite drive by trolling bot, Mosher?
      The only thing that could be more surprising is if he posted something that added to a conversation, or informed anyone of anything they did not already know.
      Like all trolls though, Mosher must be ignored studiously, whenever possible, because, like all trolls, every single thing he posts is designed to make anyone reading it stupider.
      Facts are like bug spray to someone like this…he runs away and rarely comes back for more.

  12. Figure 1. Figure 7c in the 1990 IPCC Report.

    FFS, everyone knows that Lamb “diagram” was wrong when Folland put it in the report.
    chrits its not even wrong, its a sketch with no data to support it. and no error bars.

    • so you’re saying there’s science in the IPCC reports that passed a double peer review that are wrong

    • “FFS, everyone knows that Lamb “diagram” was wrong when Folland put it in the report.”

      I realize you guys are trying your best to do after the fact damage control..

      But honest to god Mosh….you have no idea what you are saying. You’re saying the IPCC reports…after two layers of peer review….has crap in it

      Obviously “everyone” does not include all the people that did all the peer reviews for the IPCC..and that was a whole lot of climate scientists

      • Everyone knew it was wrong, but they put it in anyway.

        In other words the process was crap from the get go.

    • If people want to find out about the myth of the “Lamb diagram” then there are sources to look to.

      Sorry it’s SKS …

      You could go to…

      “Jones et al. (2009) explore the origins of this figure. They note that the figure caption specifically stated that it was a schematic diagram, and not an actual temperature reconstruction.

      “as far as palaeoclimatologists were concerned the diagram was nothing more than how it was originally described in the caption: a schematic.”

      Jones et al. trace the schematic diagram back to a series used by H.H. Lamb, representative of central England, last published by Lamb (1982). However, Lamb is plotting 50-year averages here, and the final data point appears to be 1950. Jones et al. superimpose IPCC FAR Figure 7.1c (black) with Lamb’s central England temperature (red) and added the Central England Temperature data up to 2007 (blue):”

      Figure 2: The black curve and the x- and y-axes are a redrawn version of IPCC FAR Figure 7.1c. The red curve is from Lamb (1982). The amplitude of this curve has been scaled to correspond to that of the black curve. The Lamb (1982) time series does have an explicit temperature scale, and the best-fit scaling between this curve and the IPCC curve indicates that one tick-mark interval on the IPCC figure corresponds almost exactly with 1°C. The blue curve is a smoothed version of the annual instrumental Central England Temperature record from Manley (1974, updated) including the last complete year of 2007. This has been smoothed with a 50-yr Gaussian weighted filter with padding.

      “Central England temperatures have risen by over 1°C since Lamb’s last measurement. Jones et al. also note about Lamb’s schematic:

      “At no place in any of the Lamb publications is there any discussion of an explicit calibration against instrumental data, just Lamb’s qualitative judgement and interpretation of what he refers to as the ‘evidence’….Greater amounts of documentary data (than available to Lamb in the early 1970s) were collected and used in the Climatic Research Unit in the 1980s. These studies suggest that the sources used and the techniques employed by Lamb were not very robust (see, eg, Ogilvie and Farmer, 1997).”

      In short, Figure 7.1c from the IPCC FAR was based on Lamb’s approximation of the central England temperature. It was intended only as a schematic diagram, and known not to accurately reflect the global average temperature. “

    • The subject Figure 7c from the IPCC 1990 report is apparently sourced from Crispin Tickell’s British Antarctic Expedition 1977 report, which is similar to H.H. Lamb’s 1965 Figure 3.

      Note that the scale is apparently in units of 1 degree C (as noted in the Figure) and is the global temperature anomaly. Lamb’s figure, while similar, is derived from Central England Temperatures.

      [excerpt from Climate Audit post}

      “So I think that we have a solution to the provenance of IPCC 1990 Figure 7c. It is derived from the rounded CET from Lamb 1965 Figure 3 top panel, with portion after 1400 smoothed somewhat. It has been converted to anomaly deg C (using the average of the entire period) and extended to include the average CET for the period 1950-1984.

      Here is triptych image from Crispin Tickell (British Antarctic Survey) 1977 mentioned in a post below as compared to the corresponding full triptych in IPCC 1990.” < NNB

  13. Dr. Ball: “They moved the goalposts; global warming became climate change”

    But we are still being urged “limit warming to 2°C by 2050” Or is it 1.5°C? Or by 2100? It’s measured from “pre-industrial” 1850? Or perhaps 1750?

    Climate change is just the fancy wrapping paper. Once you tear it off and open the box, it’s still the same old global warming caused by human CO2 emissions.

    Of course the genius of “climate change” is that it explains every single weather event.

      • Despite the fact that the origins of this change have been shown over and over again.
        Ryan can’t accept the fact that his side moved the goal posts.

        • Mark.. at some point we need to just call them what they are. Bold faced liars. Period. It all starts with lying to oneself. These folks, in my estimation, are continuing to lie to themselves. How very unfortunate.

          At first I read most of what Stokes, et. al, or GangGreen on here (and as others have noted, at least Nick has some worthy insight on occasion, but the rest simply do not),
          now, as time has progressed and I have dissected how GangGreen operates on this site.

          It is undeniable that they are 100% bold faced liars. Unwilling to admit when wrong, unwilling to accept established, factual history about this entire narrative, unwilling to admit they are lying every time they type. They are post-modernists. They refuse to accept objective truth. How can you ever expect them to be honest when they don’t even believe in honesty?

          LIARS. I think it is funny as they continue to expose themselves over and over and over.

          • I agree. They lie and lie and lie. If they know they are lying, and have any conscience at all, they appease it by claiming moral superiority – they are trying to ‘save the world’. Alternatively, they use postmodern relativism to state that there is no ‘truth’, it’s all about power…and they want it. Evil stuff.

  14. Tim Ball
    Thanks for helpful overview and background.
    However please correct: (1972 Club of Rome . . .) “limits to growth approach then applied a simple linear trend to determine when the resource would be exhausted. This is where the term “peak oil” originated.”
    However “Peak” refers to a maximum production rate with estimates of the magnitude of the maximum and its timing. (not to “linear” or “exhaustion”.)
    USGS/Shell geologist M. King Hubbert presented his non-linear theory of geologically based recovery and depletion in 1956 based on the logistic curve. TOTAL geologist Jean Leherre (1977) details the history of then extending that to “Multi-Hubbert” modelling to address “Hubbert like’ production progressively applied over multiple regions.
    That works reasonably well over similar resource with similar economics. ExxonMobil shows global conventional crude oil plus deepwater production has been declining since 2005.
    Robert Rapier reports Fuel use in Asia grew 280% in 44 years or 6.4%/year.

    “But demand in the Asia Pacific region climbed from 9.1 million BPD in 1973 to 34.6 million BPD in 2017. This 280% increase in demand is the primary reason the global demand curve has marched steadily higher.”

    How far with “tight oil” be able to meet the demand of growing population and growing economies?

    • How far with(sic) “tight oil” be able to meet the demand of growing population and growing economies?

      This sort of question comes up all the time.
      Here’s the “Overview” of Simon’s “Ultimate Resource.”
      The overarching thesis on why there is no resource crisis is that as a particular resource becomes more scarce, its price rises. This price rise creates an incentive for people to discover more of the resource, ration and recycle it, and eventually, develop substitutes. The “ultimate resource” is not any particular physical object but the capacity for humans to invent and adapt.

      Currently this process is going on with Cobalt. What exactly will happen is not known.
      Still, you will be able to follow along as it does happen.

  15. Why is it that Dr. Ball is always talking about events that happened more than a quarter-century ago. And roughly 0.5 degC of warming ago. Back then, the FAR said warming was within the range anticipated for natural variability. We need confront the situation that exists today, not live in the past

    • Oftentimes an historical perspective on a subject brings long forgotten light to it. Does your criticism extend to history as an overall subject, or just to this topic?

      • sycomputing: No, history is valuable. The writers of the first IPCC report were at the end of a 15-year period of warming at a rate of 0.2 degC/decade that had followed a quarter-century of no warning. Those IPCC scientists WERE OVERLY AGGRESSIVE drawing any conclusions from this modest change – but admitted it within a range expected for unforced (natural) variability. Now we have 40 years of near 0.2 degC/decade. (Except for UAH, which is 0.13 degC/decade.)

        Today, the overly aggressive IPCC is selling the projections of climate models with an average ECS of 3.3 degC/doubling, while the 0.2 degC/decade warming we have seen over the last four decades is consistent with an ECS of 2.0 degC/doubling. We are dealing with the same distorting alarmists, but the relevant issues are different. The chances that this 0.7 degC of warming is solely due to natural variability (after a large warming at the end of the LIA) are fairly low.

        History tells us that a revolution (quantum mechanics and relativity) took place in the decades after 1900. The leaders of physics were building an atomic bomb forty years later, but those who didn’t adapt to QM and relativity remained in place until they died off. Today, I’m having difficulty accepting dark energy, string theory, ten dimensions and parallel universes, but some form of dark matter and unification of three forces seems sound.

    • Frank

      “Why is it that Dr. Ball is always talking about events that happened more than a quarter-century ago.”

      Because it’s important to understand the crappy foundation the CAGW scam is built on.

      • No. It is important to understand the crappy foundation that CAGW is built on today – AOGCMs. The past is the past.

        • Frank

          “The past is the past.”

          Would that be like Michael Mann’s past where the MWP just disappears?

      • However, we have ice core records from 1000 decades of climate during the Holocene. Four in a row warming at 0.2 degC/decade is unusual. It did happen for 1-2 decades in 1920-1940. There was a Medieval Warm Period. If we hadn’t surpassed the MWP peak in 1990, then the 0.5 degC of warming since has probably done the job.

      • Soon as I saw this in the headline “…Between 1990 and 1995” I thought the same thing. Put him out to pasture.

          • Mark, wasn’t there a book, 1984, that discussed that in length?
            controlling the past or something?

            Ryan… your cognitive abilities need some sharpening.

    • The world has warmed by 0.5C in the last quarter century?
      Not even the IPCC is making that claim.

  16. Thank you Tim for another excellent article.

    You have provided the sordid history of the IPCC and the global warming scam that few others have witnessed over the decades, as you have.

    This is H.H. Lamb’s Figure 7c in the 1990 IPCC Report. It may be the last credible chart of global temperature produced by the IPCC, which soon adopted very-scary fictional nonsense like the Mann Hokey-stick (MBH98 etc.) to stampede gullible imbeciles into believing that there was a real and dangerous risk of catastrophic humanmade global warming.

    There has been little or no global warming that can be credibly attributed to human activities. The moderate warming that has occurred since about 1977 has been largely natural, caused by the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 and a few El Nino temperature spikes that have largely reversed themselves.

    The IPCC’s future scenarios still project dangerous global warming, despite a complete lack of credible evidence that such dangerous warming is occurring now or will occur in the future. There are only a finite number of times that the IPCC and its minions can repeat their big lie before they lose all credibility, even among their most ardent and uneducated followers.

    The minions are bound to be deeply disappointed, but their fearless leaders will have absconded with huge sums, carved out from the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on global warming alarmism, the greatest scam in the history of humanity.

    Regards, Allan

    • This is H.H. Lamb’s Figure 7c …

      Lamb did not have a figure called “7c.”
      See the link in my comment at 3:09; go there, read it all.

  17. How Maurice Strong a Canadian communist, high school drop out, with no scientific knowledge and a mission to destroy western free enterprise and democracy, essentially that of the United States because Europe was already in the bag, is an enigma that one is reluctant to contemplate because it shows that the majority of people are either “all in” or unthinking useful idjits. In this particularly amoral age, a large percentage of scientists proved to be for sale – rock star status, schmoozing with Hollywood and world leaders, exotic country conferences, airmiles…. They were outfitted with a rationale that even if they didn’t have legitimate data or statistical methods they were doing the right thing. How can it be wrong to violate scientific ethics if it saving the world or putting environment in the driving seat.

  18. Between 1990 FAR and 1995 SAR sits the beginning of the Clinton Admin in 1993. Bill Clinton put VP Al Gore in charge of the White House lead on the climate issue. You can date the corruption of the US govt’s involvement in climate science endeavors to that one man’s involvement. Ben Santer of DOE/LLNL undoubtedly had his WH marching orders to ensure human attribution was an included outcome of IPCC AR 2.

    • “Ben Santer of DOE/LLNL undoubtedly had his WH marching orders to ensure human attribution was an included outcome of IPCC AR 2.”

      I was going to mention Ben Santer’s role in all this. If Santer hadn’t singlehandlely not changed the 1995 report to Policymakers to an opposite conclusion that Working Group 1 came to in their scientific report, Global warming might have been stopped in its tracks.

      • The IPCC reports are written by Politicians NOT scientists:-

        Ben Santer justified his alteration of the WG1 science report by correctly pointing out that the rules of the IPCC said that he could. But, who are the IPCC??

        It is NOT an organisation of scientists. The IPCC is the Inter GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Is is an organisation of non-scientists – mainly diplomats and bureacrats – which convokes some scientists to write a report.

        That report is then changed by non-scientists who insert what scientists didn’t say and delete what scientists did say.

        The changes are made for political reasons, not epistemelogical ones.
        The altered reports are radically different to the originals.

        It is these fake and doctored reports that are then exagerated by the media and the politicians.

        It isn’t science it is politics.
        It isn’t about truth, it is about control.
        The “Climate Con” is the setup for the “Sustainability Scam”
        Sustainability is poverty and slavery.

  19. Tim,
    I am bemused by your selective quotations. The full paragraph from Nick Breeze reads:
    “These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction. It makes for sober thinking when glossy images of President Obama and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, are presented to the world shaking hands on global emissions reductions by 2030 that we know will commit us to catastrophe.”

    Which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming in your article.

    • i understood he was claiming that breeze called the rpc’s ‘science fiction’
      what do you see as misrepresentation?

      • Well for starters Tim Ball clearly doesn’t believe that CO2 affects the climate in any significant way. Nick Breeze clearly does and is worried that we aren’t taking sufficient
        steps to counteract the effects of rising CO2. Nick is worried because the RCPs rely on
        unknown technology to reduce CO2 on a massive scale in the future which he doesn’t think
        is possible.

        • Well, Perry, as MarkW says, thank you for clarifying.
          The point for T. Ball has to be that this is something we can agree on, the IPCC’s solutions (some) are actually Sci Fi, and Breeze explains it very well. You should agree that Breeze’s explanation is credible, this IS Sci Fi.
          Try to read what Ball says in other ways than how the devil would read the Bible.

  20. I don’t want to start a whole Maggie versus the miners debate again but Dr. Ball’s history is a bit off. UK coal mining peaked in 1913 at 287 million tons and declined pretty steadily after that. Wilson and Benn closed more pits of course.

    Here are some letters from the Guardian of all places (garlic and smelling salts at the ready).

    • Personally I draw analogies with the AIDS scare.

      Maggie Thatcher’s scientific advisors told her something and being an honest scientist herself, Thatcher thought that they were being honest as well. Hence her acceptance of government propaganda about the threats of AIDS and man made climate change.

      There is a bit in the memoirs about her reluctance to circulate safe sex advice. Man made climate change may have suited her agenda, but I think she genuinely accepted the incorrect advice.

      • nope.
        not how i remember it.
        where did she say she believed?
        i thought it was entirely a political scam and her big lie got away from her.
        so much for the noble lie, right?

  21. “They moved the goalposts; global warming became climate change.”

    Yet they were having hearings on climate change in 1988 and neglected to call the IPCC the IPGW.

    For fun I searched the first IPCC report for these terms. It uses the phrase “global warming” 86 times. It uses the phrase “climate change” 361 times.

  22. Clarification: “Peak Oil Theory” is a concept originally derived from the measured postulates and predictions of M. King Hubbert, who in the year 1956, set out to scientifically formulate a method to prognosticate peak oil production within the United States between the years 1965 and 1970.”

    Dr Ball writes: “The limits to growth approach then applied a simple linear trend to determine when the resource would be exhausted. This is where the term “peak oil” originated.”

    I don’t think Dr. Ball is saying the Limits to Growth book, or crowd, originated the term, “peak oil” in the 1970s. But it could be construed from the text that is what he meant. Its just a clarification, not a criticism.

  23. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere, where it comes from, whose fault it is and who must “fix” it does not matter, nobody cares. Plus, to even mention CO2 validates the RGHE beast. Stop it!

    What is required is nothing short of full frontal assault on the greenhouse. Here’s how.

    1) The 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is rubbish. Linked is why.

    2) The up/down/”back” GHG energy loop is thermodynamic nonsense. Linked is why.—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    3) The 396 W/m^2 of upwelling BB LWIR that powers the GHG loop is not possible. Linked is why.

    1 + 2 + 3 = ZERO greenhouse effect, ZERO carbon dioxide warming and ZERO man-caused climate change.

    It’s the RGHE death star’s exhaust port.

    Keep focused, stay on it, use the force.

    Neo (Nick S.)

    • The issue is much simpler than your analysis Nick Schroeder. To have a thermodynamic source, the supposed additional “back radiation” needs a temperature rise aloft. As a minimum, at some regions of the atmosphere (not necessarily uniformly spread). This is the reason for the hypothesised tropospheric hot spot.

      But there is no observation to confirm this warming pattern. Without it, the additional “back radiation” (supposed to be causing warming at the surface) amounts to energy coming from nothing. And that’s where this idea breaks energy conservation.

      The whole “enhanced greenhouse effect” toppled on this point some years ago when John Christy and colleagues reported the “model discrepancy”.

  24. Whenever I see that small chart/graphic, I never see any numbers on the Y axis…. Were there originally numbers in degrees C there? The range could be any numbers the way you look at it now…

Comments are closed.