CNN Opinion Piece: “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”… Wrong on every level.

Guest rebuttal by David Middleton

From the Climatariat News Network’s Non Sequitur Department:

If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office

By Jill Filipovic

Tue August 21, 2018

Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Follow her on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN) The Trump administration’s latest efforts to undo more of Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change come as no surprise. Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.

[…]

In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office. Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).

But somehow climate change falls in a different category…

[…]

CNN

Sorry… I just couldn’t resist…

If CNN’s opinion writers don’t understand either basic science or the Constitution, maybe they don’t deserve a public forum for their bloviation.  However the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the stupidity freedom of the press.

In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.

Ms. Filipovic, there’s a document that you may have heard of.  It’s called the United States Constitution.  It lists the qualifications to hold Federal public office.  There’s nothing in the Constitution requiring any level of scientific literacy.  If there was, Henry Waxman would have never been allowed to run for Congress.

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

WUWT, 2009

Back to Ms. Filipovic…

Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).

You mean, like Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)?

Now, let’s have a look at scientific proofs of gravity and the roundness of the Earth.

Gravity: “Mr. Galileo was correct in his findings.”

Curvature of the Earth’s surface: “How Eratosthenes calculated the Earth’s circumference.”

Ms. Filipovic… Are you following along? Gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface are upheld by trivial scientific experiments (although a trivial experiment on the Lunar surface was anything but trivial).  Even though Democrat Representatives Waxman and Johnson probably wouldn’t have comprehended those experiments, they were still qualified for public office because they met the Constitutional requirements and a majority of the voters in their respective congressional districts were stupid enough to vote for them.

Also… you were correct not to mention billions more people around the world… They don’t count.  They aren’t counted in the census, nor can they vote in US elections, unless they are US citizens residing, visiting or stationed in other nations.

But somehow climate change falls in a different category…

Yes… Climate change does fall into a different category than gravity and the curvature of Earth’s surface… A very different category.

Thirty years ago, barely 17 years after Apollo 15 Commander David Scott upheld the theory of gravity in a trivial experiment, NASA climatariat “scientist” James Hansen disproved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AKA Gorebal Warming).

Scenario C features humans essentially undiscovering fire in 1999.  (Hansen et al., 1988).

Hansen’s spectacular disproving of Gorebal Warming is even more apparent in his 5-year average temperature plot:

Scenario C: CO2 stops rising after the year 2000.

Bear in mind.  I’m using Hansen’s own temperature data, despite his penchant for influencing “the nature of the measurements obtained, so that key information can be obtained”…

What’s that?  The models have improved since 1988?  “Improved” is a relative term.

Here  are the RSS satellite temperature data and a suite of climate models:

“Fig. 1.  Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The black line is the time series for the  RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)” Remote Sensing Systems

95% of the model runs predicted more warming than the RSS data since 1988… And this is the Mears-ized RSS data, the one in which the measurements were influenced to obtain key information (erase the pause and more closely match the surface data).

Describing this as “a small discrepancy” would be like Dave Scott calling it a small discrepancy if the The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop experiment failed 95% of the time.

The observed warming has been less than that expected in a strong mitigation scenario (RCP4.5).

Output of 38 RCP4.5 models vs observations.   The graph is originally from Carbon Brief.  I updated it with HadCRUT4 to demonstrate the post-El Niño divergence.

RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.

RCP 4.5:
The RCP 4.5 is developed by the MiniCAM modeling team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). It is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario drivers and technology options are detailed in Clarke et al. (2007). Additional detail on the simulation of land use and terrestrial carbon emissions is given by Wise et al (2009).

The MiniCAM-team responsible for developing the RCP 4.5 are:

Allison Thomson, Katherine Calvin, Steve Smith, Page Kyle, April Volke, Pralit Patel, Sabrina Delgado, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Marshall Wise, Leon Clarke and Jae Edmonds

RCP Database

Ms. Filipovic, if you are still following along… Hopefully, you can now understand that climate change falls into a different category than gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface.

The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred.  This is a pretty strong indication that the climate is relatively insensitive to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration… Whereas hammers and feathers are equally sensitive to the force of gravity.

 

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “CNN Opinion Piece: “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”… Wrong on every level.

    • Well, it’s just a modern manifestation of religious zeal – the demand that others pay homage to their end-of-the-world doctrine – all coming from those with utter contempt for religion. And an utterly rigidly closed mind.

      It’s the same TYPE of people in every generation – a couple hundred years ago, their ancestors would have been burning witches – often because of bad weather – and before that they would have been acting out the Inquisition.

      And of course there’s that little debacle in the thirties and forties – all spiritual/philosophical kin.

      • You know Joel I find you and others like you, that profess that any one who believes in global warming is anti God. I for one have never believed the god thing, but have been in the denier camp since the seventies when the ice age was their flavour of the day. I am sure there is people on both sides who believe in God, that said I think we can do without inserting it, and keeping to the global warming hoax. Thank you

        • And Joe – aren’t you kind of suggesting that everyone in the skeptic camp is also a believer in God? Because that’s one of the loudest accusations to those who say skeptics are anti-science.

          But that’s neither here nor there, because my point is, whatever the belief system, there are those that will force it on others. Religion is a good traditional example – and what I was trying to illustrate is that the personality type is consistent, even if the times and the specific beliefs are different – there are always those that will not tolerate those who believe differently – a religious-STYLE fervor.

          Thirties-style eugenics was a ‘science’ based belief.

        • Joe B.
          I’m a minority of the minority:
          I don’t believe in God, heaven,
          hell (and never have)
          or a coming global warming
          catastrophe.

          There is no proof
          any of these things are true —
          just faith / beliefs.

          I have always found it puzzling
          that people who believe in God,
          without proof, would criticize
          other people who believe in a
          coming climate catastrophe,
          without proof.

          They are all fairy tales to me.

          I would say that skeptics are
          pro-science — “climate change”
          is very little real science
          with assumptions and speculations
          piled on top.

          Real science would say that many things
          are unknown, such as the future climate,
          and it is okay to say “No one knows”
          as the answer for any question where
          no one really knows the answer.

          For some reason, people think
          anyone who correctly says
          “no one knows” is stupid,
          while those who spin the fairy tales
          of God, heaven, hell and the
          leftist version of hell on Earth
          (runaway global warming)
          get far too much attention
          and far too much respect.

          By the way, I believe there is
          enough evidence to be confident
          that some of the UFOs are
          visiting our planet from
          other planets, and the
          so-called “crop circles”
          around the world, particularly
          the complex, high precision ones,
          are extraterrestrial art,
          or a message of some sort.

          Much better than most
          human modern art,
          in my opinion!

          Yes, there are some crude
          man made crop circles,
          made as a hoax,
          but the crops from the complex
          “overnight” circles were examined
          by physicists associated with the
          University of Michigan, and
          they had no idea how the nodes on
          plant stalks were stretched to varying
          lengths (changed, not broken) by some
          unknown form of energy — completely unlike
          bending down and breaking a stalk
          with a board, like the hoaxers do.

          The ancient aliens TV show usually has
          a huge amount of speculation,
          and I don’t recommend it … but
          one show on crop circles was
          unusually restrained,
          and a masterpiece, IMHO:

          Season 10, Episode 8
          https://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/season-10/episode-8

          My climate blog:
          http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • Joel, you have committed a generalisation. The are religious believers and nonbelievers on both sides of the debate.

        • Yes, I sure did speak in a generalization – you tend to do that when speaking of world issues, demographics, and political movements.
          And I stick by my statement.

      • The world’s great religions are masterpieces of deep knowledge of human nature, natural law, and spiritual consciousness. The new “secular virtue claques” OTOH have none of the above.
        They are “causes” to be seen publicly espousing as part of a certain “in” group, which require one to actually DO nothing. Whether the belief system serves any practical human purpose is irrelevant. Postmodernism: “I say so, therefore it is.” They are too intellectually lazy to engage in any contest of proofs, so emotional incontinence, claims to moral high ground via appeals to authority, and attempts to shut down dissent are their tedious methods.

        The one common denominator is people educated beyond their intelligence with too much money and time on their hands for over “thinking” stuff.

      • Witch burning is another myth. Heretics were. Catholics never burned anybody for being a witch because it was heretical. Protestants executed about 200 on record but none burned. Not many more than that were executed by the RC for being heretics. It did happen but was rare and execution of witches was about drugs, not weather.

    • Perhaps because it employs fake journalists.
      “You cant make silk purse from a sow’s ear.”

    • CNN is biased news. There’s a big difference. Making a generalization like “CNN is fake news” allows one to rationalize dismissing it all as lies. It is dangerous for democracy when people choose to ignore whatever news they aren’t comfortable hearing.

      There is no real middle-of-the-road, unbiased news outlet, so if one gets all one’s news from either the conservative or the liberal media, one is likely to get a lopsided picture of what’s going on and therefore can’t make educated decisions.

        • It’s not a lie if you believe it’s true. I highly doubt these CNN journalists rise from the bed in the morning thinking “Today i’m going to lie to my foolish viewers because i’m EVIL! MWAHAHA!!”.

          I agree with Kristi. All media is biased in some way. Liberal and conservative. But that’s only because people are biased. Today’s tribal politics have also made it worse. Problem is that we don’t recognize or admit these biases. Too often we treat the media of “our own side” as gospel, and dismiss the media from the other side. “Fake news” is overused and way too convenient term. Just like “racist” or “nazi”.

      • In fairness to the Climatariat News Network, they did include a disclaimer:

        The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

        Although, I don’t think I’ve seen much im the way of contrasting opinion from CNN’s “journalists.”

  1. The comparisons to gravity are especially tiring. If physicists assured us that the average gravitational force on earth on earth was between 10.0 and 30.0 meters per second squared, but hadn’t managed to narrow that range in thirty years, I could forgive anyone for thinking the science of gravity was *not* settled. I would also be receptive to “skeptics” who suggest observational evidence favors an average gravity below 10.0.

    Frankly, anyone who suggests that current conditions and climatic trends constitute a “grim reality” is not exactly working off “facts”.

    • Radiative Greenhouse Theory is on par with the theory of gravity. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

      The percentage of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has an effect as dire as the percentage of poison in your cocktail. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

      I had never seen the John Kerry video. Holy s^^^, what an idiotic explanation on so many levels! And I have recently seen this exact same description by somebody else on a website (I forgot where). And I’m guessing teachers all across the world are teaching this to young people.

      It’s an intellectual tragedy.

      On a more related note, Jill Fullofit needs to take a lesson from the examples cited, … on how NOT to be an idiot.

      • Gravity science is a more well developed science than climate “science”, which makes the two NOT on par with one another, settled or not.

        When one applies the rigor of gravity theory to climate “science”, then one sees right through the ghostly threat of CO2 climate change.

        I wonder what Einstein would have made of all this. Would he have settled on the idea of “settled science”, or would he have gone back to his basic physics education and meticulously checked the math of those pushing climate alarmism. I’d like to think the latter, rather than the former, as was the case with Stephen Hawking (or his handlers), who apparently went along for the alarmist ride.

        • I always wondered why Stephen Hawking thought global warming was a serious problem. After all he was pretty smart.

          • He is proof that one can be highly educated, and even brilliant in a specific field, and yet still be an idiot with regard to other areas. The idiocy stems from not recognizing one’s own limitations.

          • Feynman would have destroyed global warming theory in a 2 page essay. Unlike theoretical physicists like Hawking , Feynman was both a theoretical and an engineering physicist. Feynman was one of Oppenheimer’s most trusted physicists (despite being the youngest) who worked to create the 1st atomic bomb at Los Alamos. Feynman would go on to create 3 subdivisions of quantum mechanics physics. He was a giant which we won’t see again in our lifetime.

        • Einstein would have realized its actually a electrically driven universe because paltry gravity is so weak that the electrical force is 10^39 power more powerful than gravity. Look up the “electric universe” and your minds will be blown away by how much we have wrong including Einsteins own E=mc2.

          • What do you mean by ‘having some idea what gravity really is’?

            Physics is prone to some banal philosophy of existence. Physics describes laws, and constructs dependencies between the laws. That’s the level we understand what stuff ‘really’ is based on physics.

            Thunderstorm is ‘really’ about electricity in wet air. Electricity is ‘really’ about ‘quantum fields’. Now where is it where you take ‘really is’ to be defined, or do you require a ToE taken to such a popular level it can supersede religion as an explanation of ‘what stuff really is’?

            If you want to ask why stuff is or what existence of a law means, then you easily slip from the realm of physical facts to the world of philosophy, where wild speculation meets complicated concepts of existence.

      • That 2 or 3 inch blanket right at the TOA is the problem Robert,…..
        Its trapping all the heat beneath it see, just like real greenhouse.

        Infact we dont need real greenhouses now we live in one,…..

        I mean who would be dumb enough to put a greenhouse inside a greenhouse.

    • Well, the science of gravity is not settled. Whereas we know that Einstein’s theory works and has been confirmed up to exceptional accuracy in all measurements undertaken, we do not know how Einstein’s theory can be derived from more fundamental physics principles. There are many candidates: superstrings, loop quantum gravity, and, my favourite, Verlinde’s emergent gravity, perhaps others… Galactic rotation curves are telling us that either there is a lot of unseen mass in the galaxies or that the theory of gravity itself requires corrections, hence MOND and Moffat’s NGT and STVG. And then there is also much older, but very beautiful Einstein-Cartan theory that adds spin to the sources in Einstein’s equations.

      So, no, science of gravity is far from settled. And, of course, neither is the science of “climate change.”

      • This is a point I often make. We can measure gravity quite accurately, yes. But the “theory of gravity”, i.e. what makes it work, is not at all settled.

        • Sherri: “We can measure gravity quite accurately, yes. But the “theory of gravity”, i.e. what makes it work, is not at all settled.”

          Here’s my observation on:
          Theory of Gravity vs Theory of CAGW

          With the Theory of Gravity, Man is still learning how it works, but has been able to quantify how it behaves with such precision that the planet Neptune was known to exist before it was ever seen. (And, we’ve landed spacecraft on an asteroid.) We’ve derived a set of Laws for the Theory of Gravity.

          With the Theory of CAGW, we’re told exactly how it works with great detail, yet no-one has been able to quantify how it behaves in any meaningful way. We’re left with a theory that has no predictive value, no Laws, no Axioms, no Postulates, no formulae. It’s a vacuous theory.

          • That is Hypotheses you describe Thomas for AGW, it is without measurement or physical proof’s,…..

            All in the minds of the protagonists. and their pound shop physic’s.

          • Gary wrote:
            “That is Hypotheses you describe Thomas for AGW”

            Agreed, and CAGW is a FAILED hypothesis, adequately disproved in so many ways. There is no credible evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is high, and ample evidence that sensitivity is very low, no more than about 1C/(2xCO2) and probably much less, such that any resulting warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be mild and net-beneficial.

            Reference:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/#comment-2417670

          • Theres xero evidence or corrolation that CO2 has any forcing at all.

            Theres not a single proof that the RGE is anything other than fantasy.

      • The problem, too, is that Relativity theory is a classical continuum theory that is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

        This is one of the reasons why Einstein was so upset with QM. Relativity theory as written cannot be correct is QM is correct, and vice versa.

        So far, both have been totally correct (predictively) in their fields of application. QM, though, does need a Relativistic correction to the wave function to properly describe the electronic states of heavy atoms (important in third row transition metals such as Tungsten (W)). But somehow they have to be reconciled.

        When they are reconciled, it is likely that Relativity Theory will be a limiting case of the deeper theory. But then, so will be QM.

      • The concept of gravitation as being related to curved space goes back to Riemann, who tried to reformulate the Newtonian theory of gravitation in this way. But in Einstein’s theory, it is not space that is curved but spacetime, which is what makes it work.

    • ” Frankly, anyone who suggests that current conditions and climatic trends constitute a “grim reality” is not exactly working off “facts”. ”

      Or a full deck.

    • Also, in an alternative universe:

      All Apollo missions were lost in space due to not enough or too much adjustment of raw measurements. NASA is proud of that result which shows full success and the performance of mechanical models.

      Macron is President of the US and his space adviser, Mounir Mahjoubi, a married gay immigrant with a great experience selling model planes online explains to the NYT and WaPo that he wanted it that way.

      Back to France in our universe, Mounir Mahjoubi, a married gay immigrant with zero documented experience (probably zero experience at all) in infosec was in charge of avoiding a muh Russia event in the democrat centrist “En Marche” party. Muh Russia happened (with connections coming from “the Russian frontier” according to the spokesman of “En Marche”) although the IP addresses are assigned to Ukraine.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/world/europe/hackers-came-but-the-french-were-prepared.html

      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/7/1659800/-Macron-campaign-knew-the-hackers-were-coming-so-they-laid-a-trap-and-defeated-them

      In the end, whoever made the dump may not have known what is real and what is false….

      So they basically ambushed the hackers and left them chasing false trails and dead ends, and even planted their own false documents.

      Truly brilliant, utterly simple and devastatingly effective: Since you know they’re coming, may as well let them in and confuse, sandbag, and ultimately overwhelm them. And notice there have been very little bombshells, fake or otherwise in the news re: Macron? The Macron plan worked!

      The plan worked so well, we know someone ordered illegal drugs to his desk at the Assemblée nationale. (We know this is significant because the NYT fact checked it and established it’s fake, which means it’s true.)

      That, and the procurement of guns, in a strongly pro-gun control nation.

      Failure is success. If you are in charge of protecting something and it ends up being “stolen”, you are a hero.

      Mounir Mahjoubi is the son of poor immigrants from Maghreb, he is gay, of course he is a hero.

      Mounir Mahjoubi is now promoting the “anti fake news” law project.

      • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/08/in-france-a-hack-falls-flat

        “The foresight to plant false information represents a savvy strategy on the part of the campaign, cyber-experts said.”

        No responsible infosec expert (what the hell is a “cyber-expert”) would applaud that strategy.

        Against fishing, you either make sure that all users know where to enter their password (having the password automatically fill in by the browser solves that issue, creates another if the browser is accessible by other people, which is itself a risk of malware installation anyway); the other path is with strong authentication made simple with cheap USB dongles.

        And the honeypot strategy is a valid one, but not for the purpose of avoiding fishing. Honeypots can reveal a new or not well known attack method and gives you so time to raise your shields using the knowledge of the attack method. The principle of fishing is old, well known, conceptually simple and no additional data is needed to be prepared.

        There is remarkable consensus that “En Marche!” (like “forward!”) had great computer security.

        https://softsalo.com/sovet_45_poli/plakat_45+30.jpg

  2. The problem is that do not understand that oil becomes hard to find, making alternatives necessary for the future

    • Resource econ is not your strength. Oil depletion fear goes along with the claim that they aren’t making more land so buy as much as you can now no matter what the swamp land price is. Renewables at any price “because the lobbyists said so” is comparable.

      • Disney didn’t do too bad in buying up a bunch of cheap swamp land (until word got out what he was doing, then prices of Orlando swampland skyrocketed). But then Walt had a vision and a plan and knew what he was doing.

        • True, a good business move economically, but hypocritical to the core. They drained and paved over wetlands while making movies about saving the ecology.

        • Anyone who doesn’t agree with you that oil is about to run out, thinks it will last forever.

          Thank you for revealing yourself as a shallow thinker.

        • Oil doesn’t have to be infinite, forever or renewable for there to be a helluva lot of it in the Earth’s crust.

          https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960×0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjudeclemente%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F06%2FScreen-Shot-2015-06-24-at-10.40.32-AM.jpg

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/06/25/how-much-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#11199eee5b1f

          2015 Global Crude Oil Production, Reserves, Resources
          Cumulative production 1,200 billion bbl – The total volume consumed.
          Proved reserves 1,680 – The volume of oil in the ground producible by existing wells.
          Conventional Resources 1,435 – The volume of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in conventional reservoirs.
          Unconventional Resources 2,815 – The volume of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in unconventional reservoirs.

          Total oil consumed: 1,200 billion bbl (17%)
          Total oil remaining to be consumed 5,930 billion bbl (83%)
          Total recoverable oil: 7,130 billion bbl (100%)

          Assuming the a the estimated resource potential doesn’t increase, the world has 211 years worth of crude oil remaining at current consumption rates.

          https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/spe_reserves.png

          • Please name nations with oil that depleted their share but will now miraculously replenish their supply because David Middleton decrees it.
            France? Romania? India? Columbia? There are many more countries that have depleted their supply than countries with adequate reserves.
            Please think first

          • Think? I’ve been a petroleum geologist for 37 years. I find oil for a living… And there’s a helluva lot of recoverable oil in the Earth’s crust. We’ve only produced about 1/8 of the currently estimated total recoverable resource.

            https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/images/4/40/Reserveresource.png

            https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Reserve_vs_resource

            Proved reserves are a small fraction of the total recoverable resource. Proved reserves are the volume of oil that is expected to be recovered from currently developed oil reservoirs. In the US, proved reserves are the volume of oil expected to be produced in the future from a currently developed reservoir (>90% probability). Probable reserves are much larger, >50% probability. Possible reserves (>10% probability) and contingent & prospective resources are even larger… Particular due to the fact that we are now directly tapping source rocks with frac’ed horizontal wells.

            The contingent and prospective resources in North America alone represent 70 years worth of current global consumption,

          • There are many fields that are producing more than they were originally thought to hold, because of new technologies that permit more oil to be found and produced.

            That’s a fact, it’s happening around the world. Just because you don’t want to believe won’t change reality.

          • And from the same graph, so called ‘tight oil’ alone more then made up the difference. And is projected to continue INCREASING to at least 2040.

          • The thing is that *unconventional* oil generally isn’t unconventional *oil.*

            The reservoir rock and extraction methods are unconventional… in that they differ from what was long-deemed conventional.

            25 years ago, no one thought that source rock formations like the Bakken and Eagle Ford could be effectively produced because they were tight (low porosity and/or low permeability.

          • Couldn’t answer my question. Will France suddenly find oil again within its boundaries? Same with many of the countries that once had oil. If the oil is not there, its not there forever. Being in the business 37 years means you have had 37 years of indoctrination to never call out issues.

          • We’ve answered your question repeatedly, you just don’t want to understand. The US has already ‘found more oil’ when we learned how to recover ‘tight’ oil.

            The Peak Oil whiners have been carrying on for decades, always claiming we will start seeing a decline ‘any day now’. It hasn’t happened. It WON’T happen for at least a few more decades. We already know there is oil and other hydrocarbons ‘down there’ to last us centuries, we just don’t know YET how to recover it all economically. But the amount we can recover keeps going up.

            Face it, we will stop using oil for fuel because we came up with something better long before we ‘run out’.

            ~¿~

          • “Couldn’t answer my question.”

            David and others answered your question several times over, you just didn’t like/didn’t understand the answers.

          • Today we are just realizing the Bakken is subsidized by massive amounts of debt and they have already resorted to tertiary recovery techniques such as infill drilling. While France has nuclear power for obvious reasons. Keep up the facade.

          • Debt isn’t a subsidy.

            Infill drilling is primary recovery.

            Water floods are examples of secondary recovery.

            CO2 floods are examples of tertiary recovery.

            Nuclear power is great… but not much use for transportation.

          • Yes, so you agree that Bakken is already near its end of life. Next stop trying to get blood from a turnip.

          • Good fracking grief! Infill drilling occurs when you determine that the reservoir supports closer well spacing.

          • Yes indeed, it’s in plateau and the redQueen effect is in action. If they do not keep up with new plays, the rapid decline of existing ones will start to drag production down. Double infill next?

          • It’s in a price-driven plateau.

            Texas…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/texas_chart.png
            Texas is largely driven by the Permian Basin, possibly the thing on Earth to an “infinite” resource play.

            US Gulf of Mexico…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/gom_chart.png
            Deepwater production is practically in its infancy.

            Alaska forecast with ANWR and OCS open…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/north-slope-2.png

            At least half of the North Slope’s resource potential has been off-limits until last year.

            Estimated US undiscovered resource (Federal only)…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/undiscoil_map.png
            US production potential with off-limits areas opened up and successful development of Green River oil shale…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/potential_us_oil_prod.png
            Add in Canada & Mexico…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/romney_2020.png
            And that’s just North America.

          • The average recovery rate over the past 100 uears is only about 35%. That’s barely scraping the top of the barrel of fields that have already been developed.

          • The oil industry predictions always vastly underperform.
            Green River oil shales will take all the water in the western USA to process.

            In the end, oil industry shills are delusional and their jobs depend on it, if they say anything au contraire they are ex.

          • And that’s not even oil. It turns out all the predictions from the 1950’s were correct. The primary oil is tapped out. Secondary oil from difficult regions such as the ocean, the arctic, and now fracking are dwindling. So tertiary approaches such as infilling are being used. Lucky indeed to be in the USA

          • Nonsense. There’s no such thing as primary or secondary oil. Fracking and infill drilling are primary recovery methods.

          • Primary is a general term. For example, you are a primary tool of the oil industry.

            It is becoming more and more difficult and expensive to extract oil, just as the peak oil theory predicted. You can act like an infant and cry about the situation all you want but that wont change anything.

          • Peak oil theory didn’t predict anything about prices or costs. Prices and costs aren’t even direct factors in the Hubbert equation.

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/1956_hubbert.pdf

            Peak oil is real and irrelevant. Oil is a finite commodity. In general, global production will follow a logistic function. The ultimate peak production rate will occur sometime around when we’ve recovered half of the recoverable resource. The total recoverable resource is unknown, but very fracking YUGE. Much YUGER than Hubbert thought it was.

            Here’s how Peak Oil works: As of the end of 2014, total US cumulative production was 212 Bbbl, proved reserves were 40 Bbbl and the estimated total undiscovered recoverable resource was 130 Bbbl. If that was the sum total of the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), then US Peak Oil occurred in 2004…

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/hubbert.png

            This doesn’t mean that the production rate literally peaked in 2004. It means that a hundred years from now, if you fit a logistic function to the data, the peak would be around 2004. However, proved reserves are a moving target because they only represent a fraction of the oil that is likely to be produced from existing fields. “Reserves” has a very specific legal definition. In the US, “reserves” generally means proved reserves (1P). In less regulated nations, “reserves” often includes probable (2P) and/or possible (3P) reserves. Most of the “off limits” areas would fall under “prospective resources”…

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/spe_reserves.png

            In the US. “proved reserves” are the 1P number. This is the minimum volume of oil expected to be produced from a reservoir (>90% probability). Proved reserves go up all of the time without additional drilling because well performance converts 2P (50% probability) and some 3P (>10% probability) into 1P. Changing economic conditions can also move contingent resources into the 1P category.

            As long as proved reserves and undiscovered resource potential remain steady or rise, each barrel of oil produced pushes Peak Oil further off into the future.

            Most reserve additions don’t come from new discoveries. They come from reservoir management and field development operations.

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/chart-14.png

            New discoveries are the brown curve at the bottom of the chart.

            Recently Bloomberg put out a bar chart showing how the size of new oil discoveries has steadily shrunk over the past 70 years. Here’s that bar chart at the same scale as global crude oil production and reserve growth.

            https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/bloomberg_irrelevance.png

            There’s an old saying in the oil patch: “Big fields get bigger.” The biggest field in the world, Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar oil field was discovered in 1948. When first discovered, the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) was in the neighborhood of 60 Bbbl. It has produced over 65 Bbbl and it is estimated to have about 70 Bbbl remaining (EUR ~130 Bbbl). Half of Ghawar’s EUR was recognized at its discovery. Half of it, or more, will be the result of field development and reservoir management.

            https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2010/04/the-king-of-giant-fields.

            People will often babble about conventional vs unconventional oil… This simply demonstrates an ignorance of the use of the word unconventional. Oil produced from shale is conventional oil. The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. The oil is conventional. The extraction process (massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) is what’s unconventional.

            “Oil shales” are unconventional oil, solid kerogen… This has not played a role in the boom in US oil production. If it ever becomes economically feasible to tap the unconventional oil of the Green River formation, Peak Oil will be put off “to infinity and beyond!”

          • He finally said:
            “Peak oil is real”

            That wasn’t that difficult to admit after all. You must really be worried about it, otherwise why write all that exaggeration for the benefit of no one but me. Hang it up, the oil age is over.

          • Learn how to read… The beginning of my first comment:

            Oil doesn’t have to be infinite, forever or renewable for there to be a helluva lot of it in the Earth’s crust.

            https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960×0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjudeclemente%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F06%2FScreen-Shot-2015-06-24-at-10.40.32-AM.jpg

            […]

            Simplistically…

            Cumulative production + Proved reserves + Recoverable resources = Total volume of recoverable oil

            Cumulative production ~ 1,200 billion bbl
            Proved reserves ~1,680 billion bbl
            Conventional recoverable resources ~1,435 billion bbl
            Unconventional recoverable resources ~2,815 billion bbl

            Total recoverable oil: 7,130 billion bbl (100%)

            Total oil consumed (cumulative production): 1,200 billion bbl (17%)
            Total oil remaining to be consumed (reserves + resources): 5,930 billion bbl (83%)

          • @Pierre lettrede at August 26, 2018 3:27 pm wow. Just wow. You have yet to present a fact. Even your fanciful babbling could be linked to a nutter conspiracy theory website and you won’t even bother to do that. If this were a debate with actual rules, your score would still be zero (0).

        • Nobody said oil is forever nor renewable. Recoverable oil is driven significantly by economics and technology. While some small percentage of oil may be abiotic, most is not. Eventually even the most challenging finds will run out, but that appears to be rather distant point in the future, at least long after I’m dust.

    • Make that “workable alternatives” that are suitable for purpose, and I will agree wholeheartedly. However, trying to force the implementation of technologies that do not work will not somehow cause unworkable technologies to suddenly begin to work and become suitable for purpose.

      • In laymen’s terms, ‘we’re going to break your shit, so you have to use ours – and who cares if it works or not?’

        • Closer to: “We’re going to charge you extra to use the inexpensive stuff until our expensive stuff looks attractive.”
          Kind of like throwing acid at all the pageant beauties until only your ugly cousin remains, and proclaiming her the best looking one in the contest.

  3. Like almost all left-wing commentators on “climate change,” Ms Filipovic lacks the science background needed to understand even the simplest statements and issues of science. Consequently, I doubt Ms Filipovic would be “still following” after the first paragraph of Mr Middleton’s response.

  4. It’s hard to resist explaining the truth to a nincompoop isn’t it. . . even when you know that it won’t change how the nincompoop thinks. Nincompoops need to be branded and simply shoved aside.

    • The benefactor of your explanations isn’t the nincompoop, but the silent onlookers around you. 🙂

    • My guess is they understand it well enough to know when somebody is pissing on their boots while trying to tell them its raining.

      The complaint is more along the direction: They don’t understand climate science the way I want them to understand it.
      If I had to steel-man their argument it is: “They are unfit for office because they don’t agree with me.”

      • Which is precisely that argument the real steel man (Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili better known as Joe Stalin) used, frequently.

    • Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.

      Unfortunately for the Climate Faithful, this statement is mostly true.

      Even worse for them, the following statement is also mostly true.

      “Nothing gets most Americans more excited than how much Greater America gets when this President undoes another piece of his predecessor’s legacy.”

      ~¿~

      • I just up-voted you. And I hate to praise ChumpTrump for anything, even when he earns it. But that would make me just like the mindless rabble that comprises the Left. So I grit my teeth, bite my tongue, and grate out a, “Yeah, man.” At this rate I might even have to vote for him in 2 years, which I couldn’t make myself do last time. After 30 years of holding my nose and voting for the “R”, I just couldn’t do it in 2016, and in the end my vote was a write-in. But he is still continuing many (maybe all) of the behaviors that prohibited my vote last time. It will be a tough decision.

  5. The global warming conjecture is not falsifiable and is therefore outside the realm of objective verifiable science, it can be explained as a random walk, given the inherent variability of the climate.

  6. Trump and GOP understands climate change perfectly it is change of climate. Climate Change the political terms- no one could possibly understand that because it changes meaning at irregular intervals.

  7. “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”

    I thought the constitution outlawed religious tests for public office.

  8. Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient.

    “who questioned whether gravity was real”. So now we have a dope reporter with an IQ of 80 ridiculing Einstein, who had an IQ of (at least) 160?

  9. As to trying to persuade the general public, who have bought into the meme, I tried at a dinner party recently. Two otherwise intelligent gentlemen argued with me, and brought up several of the “old wives tales” of CAGW/CCC. I gave them evidence that the “facts” were wrong. The end of the discussion was when one of them said “you’ve always got an answer for everything”, to which my response was “I read a lot”. The other trumped that with “the majority of scientists agree that CC is real”. I pointed out that nowhere near a majority of scientists had actually been polled, and he dismissed my comment.

    The problem is, all these otherwise intelligent folks read the headlines, but don’t actually try to track down the facts. Ms Filipovic is a headline reader and writer – she apparently doesn’t let facts get in the way.

    • Unfortunately, that is (in my experience also) all too common for people who have taken a position on something and have a vested interest in being right. I’m reminded of a saying that was common even 60 years ago: “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.”

      • “Unfortunately, that is (in my experience also) all too common for people who have taken a position on something and have a vested interest in being right. ”

        It’s been called “the right-man syndrome” by Colin Wilson and Robert Anton Wilson.

    • ……And therein lies the crux of this whole nonfunctional issue.
      In a system that begins with the sun, the sun gets little to no mention by most writers.

    • Ultimately it’s a question of Epistemology. So much of modern data is unverifiable by people not directly involved, which creates a low trust environment. Different people process information differently. I’m certainly not smart enough to figure out a path to a solution.

    • “The other trumped that with “the majority of scientists agree that CC is real”. I pointed out that nowhere near a majority of scientists had actually been polled, and he dismissed my comment.”

      A better riposte is to say that climatology has been populated by persons who are tree-hugger types (cranks) or careerists, who hopped on a gravy-train bandwagon. There was virtually no such field before alarmist rhetoric got traction. The persons who flocked into it were and are almost universally persons who want to “make a difference”—who are sure that mankind, especially Western mankind, is guilty of any global problem one can think of. Therefore, the consensus of such persons means nothing, objectively.

  10. CNN really should no longer be considered journalism – they forfeited that right when they decided to back a single political party – and one that lock-step in opposition to every aspect of their host society. They’ve gotten cavalier about hiding it in recent years, but have left no doubt since the last election.

  11. I think that propaganda is more appropriate term, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wa Post, are no different than the Soviets Pravda, in fact Pravda was probably more truthful than these entities have become. So sad that true journalism is nearly dead in the USA, and absolutely dead and buried in these entities,

  12. The beauty of civilised western politics is, it excludes no one with suitable residency status from becoming POTUS or PM of the UK (amongst many other nations) irrespective of their educational qualifications.

    In 1990, Lech Wałęsa, a shipyard electrician successfully ran for the newly re-established office of President of Poland. He had a basic secondary school education and a vocational qualification as an electrician.

    On the flip side, Margaret Thatcher, UK PM, scientist and Barrister recorded in her memoirs that she regretted starting the climate change hare running.

    I also note that former President Obama has no scientific qualifications, so if Trump isn’t qualified to dismantle Mr. Obama’s climate change legacy, and it’s important to have a scientific background to do so (according to Ms. Filipovic), then why was former President Obama allowed to make laws/regulations etc. on climate change in the first place when so clearly unsuited to do so?

    These serial whiners really ought to think past their political prejudices before engaging their mouths.

    I effing hate socialism and it’s blind adherents to a global, political nirvana.

  13. It could get a whole lot worse.
    Jermey Wheelybin wants a new tax to fund ‘public interest’ journalism:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45271286
    Hang on, doesn’t the BBC do all this already via a mandatory ‘take’

    Jermy, wake up and look around. The Great British Public are only interested in train wrecks, car crashes and ‘who shagged who’
    You give yourself away. You are not one of the common socialist people. You are a mendacious & desperate social-climber and elitist wannabe.

    It gets worse, he wants to fund it via tax AND revenue from Google choking the interwebz with even more trash advertising. He says:
    This “public interest media fund” could be paid for either through a content sharing and advertising revenue agreement with Google, similar to that agreed in France or Belgium in 2013

    Whose content. What content.
    Wouldn’t be the content of *my* cookie folder, Smart-Meter account or Facebork profile by any chance?
    To be spent amongst his crony friends to where he’ll retire when booted out of politics.
    What a tedious, muddled and grubby little man.

    • Peta of Newark

      And ‘public interest’ journalism would be, Errrrrr…….let me guess……A Communist propaganda department?

      No doubt his rabid Communist comrade John McDonnell will be in charge of it.

  14. CNN is confused. The prophecy is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, not merely “climate change”. They can’t have the baby and abort her, too. Choose one.

    • What a little bit slows me down that these funny folks and organizations, some of them eminent, prognosticated disappearance of the Maldives and Northern Ice Cap in past perfect, and e.g. coming of 50 million climate refugees.

      Get your predictions right, and I start believing you understand something.

  15. I’ve never been big on appealing to authority to decide which side of a disagreement to come down on. However, I can’t help but wonder what Ms. Filipovic’s qualifications are for being certain that the consensus ‘science’ is right and that the president has it wrong? However, as you have pointed out, inasmuch as she doesn’t really understand how our Constitutional Republic works, it gives me further pause that she is anything but a professional know-nothing wordsmith promoting her personal view of fantasy.

  16. In any reasonable universe, those who deny capitalism, the Constitution, or the rule of law in an attempt to replace it with socialism, social justice, or any other form of big government tyranny would be deemed unfit to hold office.

    There, I fixed it for her.

  17. I don’t see climate change agenda in any of the campaign messaging and I doubt we will see it this fall.

    • MSNBC in a weak moment recently revealed “climate” messaging is a ratings killer. There’s your answer–follow the money, “news” as clickbait.

  18. I can see where most of the misunderstanding comes from
    – they see the ice in the arctic melting and think ‘we (sceptics] ‘ must be mad….?

    However, most sceptics have realized / measured that the CO2 does nothing bad so everything else is /must be caused by natural factors

    as I have tried to explain in my final report

    (just click on my name to read it)

  19. Great stuff. Did everyone see the two theories on the last great extinction: “The Nastiest Feud in Science,” in the Atlantic? The link was on Judith Curry’s feed. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosaur-extinction-debate/565769/

    Right in David’s wheelhouse: does the layer of iridium found at various sites around the world indicate “one” event, almost certainly an asteroid strike, that changed the sky, the atmosphere, the climate etc. and therefore a mass extinction, including the dinosaurs? Or were there a series of events, probably volcanic, both before and after the “iridium” event, whatever that might have been?

    “All the squabbling raises a question: How will the public know when scientists have determined which scenario is right? It is tempting, but unreliable, to trust what appears to be the majority opinion. Forty-one co-authors signed on to a 2010 Science paper asserting that Chicxulub was, after all the evidence had been evaluated, conclusively to blame for the dinosaurs’ death. Case closed, again. Although some might consider this proof of consensus, dozens of geologists, paleontologists, and biologists wrote in to the journal contesting the paper’s methods and conclusions. Science is not done by vote.

    “Ultimately, consensus may be the wrong goal. Adrian Currie, a philosopher of science at Cambridge University, worries that the feverish competition in academia coupled with the need to curry favor with colleagues—in order to get published, get tenure, or get grant money—rewards timid research at the expense of maverick undertakings. He and others argue that controversy produces progress, pushing experts to take on more sophisticated questions.”

    Unfortunately, the “rebel” holding the volcanic view thinks we are now causing big changes to the atmosphere, potentially mass extinction, etc. Climate change climate change. But she sets a good example of challenging the consensus on a matter which, unlike gravity, the curvature of the earth, even evolution, is not “settled.” We don’t have two earths for a controlled experiment, and data from the remote (to us) past is constrained in various ways.

    • “How will the public know when scientists have determined which scenario is right?”

      When the next time a continent rips itself open or an asteriod hits, we should be able measure the Iridium distribution fairly accurately.

    • I personally lean toward volcanic activity playing significant role in the K-Pg extinction… But the impact was a big one… And if it really did vaporize a thick sequence of gypsum and other evaporites, it could have been more than enough to snuff out Barney & Friends.

  20. I suppose it’s asking too much to bring in the AMO into the discussion and the comparison to warming in recent decades. Cycles do matter in science and the economy.

  21. Believers in global warming pay attention to only two “scientific facts” and one “conclusion” and this is enough to be absolutely convincing to them:
    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    2) They are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the air now,
    …Therefore there will be catastrophic warming coming our way.
    That’s it.
    They don’t care if the numbers don’t show it yet. They have heard that “scientists say” that it will be bad, very bad. That’s all they need to know to think this is a scientific slam dunk and anyone who doubts it is ignorant.
    The nuances of why the first two facts don’t necessarily lead to the given conclusion are lost on them, and seem just like sophistry or semantics if you bring them up. If you show them graphs or statistics they will simply assume you are trying to obfuscate the issue or that you got your graphs from shady “Denier” websites.
    Their information is incorrect, and they don’t realize it. Trying to convince them of that against the weight of the establishment and the media is a huge uphill battle.

  22. I would say that we don’t really even know the current temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Our true error would include sampling and measurement biases.

    Pretending certainty does not make an assertion true.

    • You’re right, MS. The entire AGW industry lives on false precision: measurements, climate models, paleo-temperature reconstructions. All of it..

  23. If a journalist doesn’t understand basic logic, let alone science, she should shut her ignorant piehole.

  24. “But somehow climate change falls in a different category…”

    Yep that’s right. It most certainly does. It falls into the same category as eugenics – some element of scientific truth, an application widely promulgated by an intellectual elite who were sure they knew what was best for everyone, now discarded in the trashcan of human healthcare history, but not before it played out its roll in widespread human misery and social cost, including a global conflict.

    Note that sometimes those viewed as progressives of the day who support these ideas are often later vilified in history. For example, the Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung was a supporter of eugenics and campaigned for the sterilization of those considered “simple-minded”. Her promotion of the benefits of sterilization contributed to the passage of eugenics legislation for which the Province of Alberta is still paying the price.

    The big question is how much misery will Alarmist AGW generate before it too is thrown in the trashcan of science.

    I’m sure the next comment will be from some egregious ass claiming that I’m saying McClung wasn’t progressive. I happen to think she was but she also thought she knew what was best for everyone else and is not around to account for her hubris.

  25. What’s that? The models have improved since 1988? “Improved” is a relative term.

    Some good excerpts from a 1997 Science article titled “Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy”

    “The effort to simulate climate in a computer faces two kinds of obstacles: lack of computer power and a still very incomplete picture of how real-world climate works. The climate forecasters’ basic strategy is to build a mathematical model that recreates global climate processes as closely as possible, let the model run, and then test it by comparing the results to the historical climate record. But even with today’s powerful supercomputers, that is a daunting challenge, says modeler Michael Schlesinger o the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: “In the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude of scale, from the planetary scale–which is 40 million meters–down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which wetter vapor can change phase to a liquid [cloud-particle]–which is a fraction of a millionths of a millimeter.
    Of these 14 orders of magnitude, notes Schlesinger, researchers are able to include in their models only the two largest, the planetary scale and the scale of weather disturbances: “To go to the 3rd scale–which is [that of thunderstorms] down around 50-kilometers resolution–we need a computer a thousand times faster, a teraflops machine that maybe we’ll have in 5 years.” And including the smallest scales, he says, would require 10^36 to 10^37 more computer power. “So we’re kind of stuck.””

    In this article, there is a box titled “Model gets it right–without fudge factors”

    Then it says:
    Climate modelers have been “cheating” for so long it’s almost become respectable.

    Gotta love it…

    • I’ll try to find it again, but I read an article a number of years back. Somebody took a climate model. Ran it once with one grid size. Then changed the grid size, and only the grid size, and ran the model again.

      They got a completely different result.

  26. CNN Opinion Piece: “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”…

    Translation:
    “If Trump and GOP don’t go along with the “climate change” meme, we don’t want them in public office. (They might upset the apple cart)”…

    PS David, I doubt if Jill Filipovic will understand what you wrote even if she does (try to) read it.
    I know you included a few cartoon characters and a few cartoon videos, but, perhaps you should include a few more of the “Looneytoons”?

    (Dang! I once had a link to WW2 era Bugs Buggy reading a book “Victory through Hare Power” but now I can’t find it.)

    • Look at her TL:
      https://twitter.com/jillfilipovic

      It’s a train wreck. Weather Event Daniels is a hero. There is “jus de légumes” (vegetable juice) claiming paying off the weather event starlet with your own money is a felony.

      I don’t think “liberalism” will survive this nonsense. Donald Trump is killing the “centrist” left right now.

  27. So how did Eratosthenes synchronize the timing of his shadow measurements? Watch? Phone?

    His model assumed parallel sun rays from a distant sun on a curved surface. But the calculations also work with a nearby sun on a flat surface.

    Climate skeptics must know the accepted scientific dogma is not evidence of anything.

    Likewise a NASA moon video doesn’t prove gravity. If you accept NASA as the authority, then NASA videos prove sound can be transmitted in a vacuum (look at sounds on the moon from hammering and thrown objects).

    The danger here is the appeal to authority.

    [??? .mod]

    • tony

      So how did Eratosthenes synchronize the timing of his shadow measurements? Watch? Phone?

      “Noon” (when the sun is highest in the sky each day) occurs at the same time each day at the same longitude: He did know that the two were due non-south of each other – That HOW he was able to determine the first shaft was vertical to the earth’s surface (and sun), and the second shaft was perpendicular only to the earth’s surface. Therefore, the earth’s surface is curved.

      • Except they are not on the same longitude and he had no way of measuring this accurately.

        You make the same false assumption. If you assume the the earth is round, and the suns rays are parallel, then of course your calculations will verify it.

        Except it doesn’t prove anything as the observations also verify a close sun on a flat surface.

        Its funny how the author’s 2 examples of absolute objective truth are not.

        • There is no appeal to authority here.

          The two examples are direct empirical tests which yielded results consistent with scientific theories.

          Dave Scott was on the Moon. He simultaneously dropped a rock hammer and a feather from the same height. They hit the lunar surface at the same time as predicted by the theory. The notion that the Moon landings were fake is the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy theory ever promulgated.

          Eratosthenes experiment yielded a circumferance of the Earth very close to that measured by modern satellites. The distnce from the Earth to the Sun has also been confirmed by modern measurements and is consistent with rough estimates of Copernicus and later refined by Kepler.

          Individual scientific experiments rarely yield unique results, excluding all other hypotheses.

          Comparable tests of the AGW hypothesis yield results consistent with a world in which GHG emissions have already been drastically reduced.

          The best thing that can be said of the climate models is that they are consistent with doubling of atmospheric CO2 yielding about 1 C of warming. This is not consistent with the Gorebal Warming narrative.

          • You speak of satellite measurements of the circumference of the earth. I have never read of such a measurement so I welcome your citation.

            Likewise the sun distance is calculated with globe assumptions and thus is not objective evidence.

            You are easily fooled. Drop a feather and hammer on earth and they fall at the same rate on earth. It isn’t proof of anything.

            Moreover you exhibit the same arrogance, ignorance, and belief in authority as Warmists. When your belief system is dogma, you have abandoned objectivity and critical thinking.

          • A feather and a hammer only drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
            Are you arguing that they evacuated an entire film studio? Do you have any idea of the engineering involved in that?

            The distance to the sun is easy to measure. Take two points a known distance apart, then at the same time, measure the angle to the same spot on the sun. Calculating the difference in the angle of the two measurements gives you the distance.

            Reality remains reality, even if you don’t want to believe in it.

          • That “experimental demonstration” (dropping a feather and metal in a very large vacuum chamber) has been done. And, yes, it did require an (already existing) multi-hundred-million dollar building-sized vacuum chamber and very elaborate preparations!
            As you point out, reality remains reality, real science is duplicated regularly by real-world engineering and real-world machinery.
            However, “scientific theory” requires elaborate, rare, very expensive, often impossible to provide “theoretical realities” to eliminate those pesky “real world” problems like friction, electrical resistance, gravity, chemistry, dirt, contamination, air (even nitrogen reacts sometimes!), and the butterfly effect on Hawaiian hurricanes, tsunami’s, and earthquakes.
            Thus, the “perfect theoretical world” of a computer-modeled “theoretical climate” will always demonstrate some future other than what will happen in the real world.

          • You guys are easily fooled by parlour tricks.
            Dave Scott used a large heavy falcon feather. It fell in exactly the same way as it does on earth.
            The only thing it proved is how easily people are deceived.

            Mark, again you miss the point of a globe assumption. It’s not a matter of belief but unbiased observation without assumptions.

          • Even a heavy falcon feather doesn’t fall anywhere near as fast as a hammer.
            The one making outrageous assumptions here is you.
            Not just outrageous assumptions, but easily disproven assertions.

          • That depends on height, wind, etc. The point of the experiment, was that in absence of air resistance, gravitational acceleration is a constant.

            Scott could have dropped a canary feather and the result would have been the same. He picked an Air Force Academy falcon feather because he was an Air Force colonel and the LEM was named Falcon.

          • It was first performed on Earth by Galileo, with balls of different weights.. It’s been repeated on Earth. That’s why I referred to it as a trivial experiment.

            However, it doesn’t always work on Earth due to air resistance.

            The purpose of performing it in a vacuum, is that air resistance is totally negated. In a vacuum, it will work with any two objects, dropped from any height.

          • I should have phrased this better… The point of the experiment was that gravitational acceleration is a constant. This is most effectively demonstrated in the absence of air resistance.

          • David, the point is your 2 examples of obvious scientific proofs in fact do not prove what you claim – gravity and roundness.

            It is always dangerous to base anything on scientific truths. Climate skeptics should know that scientific truths tend to change over time.

          • mark sorry you fail 101
            with negated wind resistance, the mass of the object does not affect its speed

          • The mass doesn’t affect the gravitational acceleration. However, air resistance does affect velocity.

          • The “feather” has no well defined feature on that poor video feed and could well be a very heavy metal piece. It would be interesting to try to fake small parts of the Apollo evidence.

          • There is only direct video feed in low quality of that experiment, not cinema film, right? So only low quality images.

            Superimposing the images is IMHO doable with primitive technology and that film could have been faked. The rest of the mission footage, not so much.

          • Any orbital platform, satellite, spacecraft, etc. measures the circumference of the Earth with each orbit. All you need are: 1) altitude, 2) velocity, and 3) elapsed time per orbit.

          • It doesn’t have to be constant. It just has to be measured.

            The Space Shuttle orbiter, with a velocity of 27,880 km per hour (17,322 miles per hour) takes approximately 90 minutes to orbit, or travel just outside the circumference of the Earth. At an altitude of 322 km (200 miles), an orbiter covers approximately 41,300 km (26,000 miles) in one orbit.

            https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/earth_info.html

            The less elliptical the orbit, the easier the calculation.

            Good to see you back on WUWT.

          • approximately?
            this is an inferred calculation.
            so it hasn’t actually been measured as you stated in your first post

          • There’s nothing inferred about it. It hasn’t been measured with a tape measure. But it has been measured by aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and ships.

            Velocity * Time = Distance

            If you measure velocity and time, you’ve also measured distance.

            (Miles / Hours) * Hours = Miles

            It’s an approximation because the Earth isn’t perfectly spherical.

            The most accurate measurements of Earth’s radius and circumference are made by radio telescopes with Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI).

            https://www.livescience.com/7329-measurement-earth-smaller-thought.html

          • “is the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy theory ever promulgated”

            1) Was that a competition?
            2) Do you have the complete results?
            3) What rank was achieved by the “Russia is meddling in the consensus about vaccines” conspiration theory?

          • Vaccines and Russian meddling are distant second and third places in the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy competition.

          • “The notion that the Moon landings were fake is the most bat schist crazy crackhead”

            Independently of whether the evidence of the Apollo mission could be faked (and that film of that experiment was perhaps the single most simple film to fake with the primitive technology of the time), assuming the data was not faked is NOT in any way an “appeal to authority”. It’s appeal to confidence in the data provider which is completely different.

            Please don’t use the concepts interchangeably.

          • Except for the moon rock given to the Netherlands which was analyzed to in fact be petrified wood. Obviously from the moon trees

          • Nonsense…

            The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their “Giant Leap” goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

            Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn’t recall the exact details.

            “I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone,” the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. “But that it’s not real, I don’t know anything about that.”

            “Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister’s collection,” Van Gelder said.

            http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/

            There was never any reason to think that was a Moon rock.

            At least 1/3 of the lunar samples have never been unsealed and access to the available rock samples is extremely limited.

            https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/

          • One of the primary geological objectives was to find anorthosite…

            How Do We Know That It’s a Rock From the Moon?

            Many people have approached us over the years wanting to know if a rock that they possess is a Moon rock. The most common story we hear is that the rock was given to a relative in the 1970’s by an astronaut, a military person, or a NASA security guard. We have chemically tested five such rocks and none has been a moon rock. Other people suspect that they have found a lunar meteorite. None of the many samples that we have been sent has been a lunar meteorite, except those from meteorite dealers, persons who bought lunar meteorites from a dealer, or experienced meteorite prospectors who found them in the deserts of northern Africa or Oman.

            […]

            Lunar Mineralogy

            Only four minerals – plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite – account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.

            Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have not been found on the Moon. The simplicity of lunar mineralogy often makes it very easy for me to say with great confidence “This is not a moon rock.” A rock that contains quartz, calcite, or mica as a primary mineral is not from the Moon. Some lunar meteorites do, in fact, contain calcite. However, the calcite was formed on Earth from exposure of the meteorite to air and water after it landed. The calcite occurs as a secondary mineral, one that fills cracks and voids (see Dhofar 025). Secondary minerals are easy to recognize when the meteorite is studied with a microscope.

            Lunar Rocks

            Most of the lunar crust, that part called the Feldspathic Highlands Terrane or simply the feldspathic highlands, consists of rocks that are rich in a particular variety of plagioclase feldspar known as anorthite. As a consequence, rocks of the lunar crust are said to be anorthositic because they are plagioclase-rich rocks with names like anorthosite, noritic anorthosite, or anorthositic troctolite (see table below). The ratio of iron-bearing minerals to plagioclase probably increases with depth in the feldspathic highlands at most places. For example, rocks exposed in the giant South Pole – Aitken impact basin on the far side are richer in pyroxene than typical feldspathic highlands.

            […]

            http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

            They were looking for anorthosite because the leading theories about the formation of the Moon suggested that the original lunar crust was rich in anorthosite.

            This is why Jack Schmitt, Lee Silver and Farouk el-Baz trained the Apollo 15 crew to be field and aerial geologists.

          • Too fracking funny…

            The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized “moon” rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.

            The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.

            https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858

      • It doesn’t matter if they’re exactly on the same longitude. He could not be very accurate in that respect. Just good enough.

        • It’s funny how sometimes the sun’s rays are parallel and sometimes they are directional as in eclipses.

          Ah the duality of life

        • thats contrary to the claim the experiment measurements were conducted simultaneously,

          If they weren’t measured simultaneously then the observations are meaningless

          • Once again, tony adds something that was never part of the original story.
            The measurements were taken on the same day, not simultaneously.

            Your knowledge of physics, and heck, mere geometry is so woefully lacking that I hardly know where to begin with your re-education.
            There is not and never was a need for the measurements to be taken at the exact same time. In fact if the two points aren’t on the same meridian, taking them at the exact same time guarantees that you will get the wrong anser.

          • Here’s just one example:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

            The article says the measurement was taken at mid-day at two locations.

            If the measurements were taken on the same parallel, then it would be critical to know the exact time at which each measurement was made. Which is why he didn’t do it that way. Unlike you, he was smart enough to spot the problem and do the experiment in a way that would work with the technology available to him.

    • There was no need to synchronize the timing. Each measurement was taken at noon local time.

      This guy reminds me of the Fake Moon Landing guys who proclaim that if you put a pair of garden gloves in a vacuum chamber, a hand in that glove can’t move the fingers. And they are completely correct.
      It’s a good thing NASA didn’t equip their space suits with garden gloves.

  28. This is another example of a person who has been misled by the warmists’ concealment of the fact that 2/3 of the projected increase in global temperatures comes from hypothesized positive feedbacks, which is an iffy idea. She has been tricked into thinking that the projected warming is all based on the relatively solid direct warming properties of CO2.

    Here’s David Evans’ 12 minute video: “The skeptics’ case,” 2/20/13:
    https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc

    In a nutshell, Evans contends that all responsible climate change skeptics accept the existence of some global warming caused by CO2 (IOW, AGW), but do not accept its amplification by purported positive feedbacks from water vapor, as warmists do. If there is no amplification, there is no crisis (IOW, no looming “catastrophe”). Positive feedbacks are the core of the dispute, and the evidence for them is slight.

  29. “The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred. This is a pretty strong indication that the climate is relatively insensitive to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration… ”

    err no.

    you failed to win your Nobel.

    try again.

  30. Forget the surface temperature data, get to the core of the mechanism. Compare models to ERBE. The surface warming can not caused by retained IR if more IR is escaping to space.

  31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Filipovic
    “Originally from the Seattle area, Filipovic earned a BA degree with dual majors in Journalism and Politics from New York University (NYU)[6] and a JD degree from the NYU School of Law in 2008.”

    Jill is just another Artsie, with no apparent scientific education and a radical leftist and feminist bent.

    Like so many of her ignorant ilk, she should not even opine on scientific and energy matters – she is in ‘way over her head.

    There are so many people out there like this – utterly ignorant and full of outspoken, nonsensical opinions – one suspects they came from the shallow end of the gene pool.

    As George Carlin said,
    “Damn, there are a lot of really stupid people out there!”

    “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

    Regards, Allan 🙂

      • Lawyers get jobs helping scoundrels to steal other people’s money. Some become politicians, with the same job description.

        They are self-serving and utterly deceitful, with rare exceptions.

        The Law Business is the dirtiest business in Canada. Never trust a cop, a lawyer, a judge, a Crown prosecutor, or anyone else associated with the Law Business. Don’t talk to them. Tell your children, especially your teenagers, to avoid them and stay away from trouble.

        We have a serious problem here in Calgary with our city cops – they are trigger-happy bully-thugs. Their governing philosophy is shoot first and cover-up later.

        In 2016 there were 10 police shootings of civilians in Calgary, whereas the average for cities our size in Canada was zero. I looked into each of these shootings and concluded that few if any were justified.

        Calgary does not even have a serious crime or gang problem. Our cops spend their time abusing and beating up law-abiding citizens (and occasionally shooting them). I suspect we have a much deeper problem of serious police corruption, and what we see is just the “tip of the iceberg”.

        Here is one example – the cop-murder of young Anthony Heffernan:

        http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-family-right-to-be-upset

        http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/asirt-clears-calgary-cop-in-shooting-of-anthony-heffernan

        Calgary police were called by a hotel desk clerk when a guest was late checking-out.

        Five cops broke into Anthony’s hotel room – he was alone, drug-addled and confused, and non-threatening. They barked out orders and when Anthony did not immediately comply, they tasered him several times and then shot him multiple times in the face, all within 72 seconds.

        The same cop later shot and killed quadriplegic Dave McQueen in his wheelchair. What a man!

        The killer cop should have been charged with murder and gone to trial as ASIRT (the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team) recommended. However the Crown Prosecutor refused to file charges.

        This case disgraces both the Calgary Police and the Crown Prosecutor’s office. This is one more case of a Police and Crown whitewash of a murder by a trigger-happy Calgary cop.

        Anthony was not threatening to anyone. No mature, professional police officer would have even been afraid in these circumstances, let alone opened fire and killed him.

        This twice-killer-cop was put on a desk job, but the Chief has probably put him back on the street by now.

        I have been writing about this disgraceful situation for many years – we finally got some action recently:

        REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE BY CALGARY POLICE HIGHLIGHTS TRAINING GAPS, PROVINCIAL DELAYS
        By Emma McIntosh, StarMetro Calgary
        Tues., May 29, 2018

        https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018/05/29/more-non-lethal-weapons-wanted-after-review-into-lethal-force-spike-by-calgary-police.html

        CALGARY—An independent probe of the Calgary Police Service’s use of lethal force released Tuesday calls for expansive overhauls to how Alberta regulates police and investigates when officers are accused of shooting civilians.
        The findings outlined a series of recommended reforms for both the city’s police and the province, flagging gaps in training and lambasting systemic delays in the investigations of fatal confrontations with police.
        _______________________________________________________________________

  32. The problem is: Who gets to decide who doesn’t understand climate? Forget about climate change. Mainstream science has lost track of what determines climate to start with. Back to basics. We can’t afford to have a deluded “believer” as President again.

  33. It’s political power that motivates us. Those who have it have to moderate their behavior to continue to use it, “civilization.” Those without it have no such constraint.

  34. If anyone brings up the gravity is real argument, I merely point out the government isn’t claiming gravity is dangerous because of human caused gravity and only a gravity tax can save the planet.

  35. “The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred. ”

    “RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.”

    But we are still a long ways from the second half of the 21st century, so I don’t quite understand your point. The observed surface temps are within the range of model predictions, according to the graph you posted.

    ” NASA climatariat “scientist” James Hansen disproved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”

    Seems to me it depends on what your definition of “catastrophic” global warming is. Apart from that, Hansen did not disprove it, since global warming does continue. Whether it is happening at the RATE predicted by models is not relevant to whether it will become “catastrophic” eventually. The focus on particular time periods is something I don’t like about the models, or people’s interpretation of them, as if by 2100 humanity will cease to be affected by climate. I don’t know – perhaps the idea is that by then we will run out of fossil fuels and stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Does anyone know if that’s an underlying assumption?

    On the other hand, rate of change is extremely important in estimating the human and environmental cost and ability to adapt. Whether a given change is going to be “catastrophic” is partly dependent on how quickly it comes.

    “the nature of the measurements obtained, so that key information can be obtained” This could be interpreted to refer to procedures and instruments, not to what the measurements are.

    • In multi-RCP models, the observations track the bottom of the 95% band… which is populated mostly by RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 runs.

      The observations track between the mean and bottom of the 95% band of Zeke’s RCP4.5 enaemble.

      The observations track just above Hansen’s 1988 scenario in which CO2 stabilized at 368 ppm in 2000.

      So far, the observations have tracked strong mitigation scenarios.

      Unless the laws of physics change over the next ~80 years, the TCR is ~1.3 °C +/- 0.7 °C… decisively non-catastrophic.

  36. The phrase “although a trivial experiment on the Lunar surface was anything but trivial” doesn’t sound right to me. Is a word missing?

  37. “Imagine a congressman who …” believes you can run a developed country on “solar energy”, like Hillary?

    (while not counting coal as solar energy)

  38. ‘In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.’

    What about the people who vote for them? Should there be like a 10 question quiz before voters are allowed to vote?

    The democratic reality is anyone can run for office, and everyone gets to vote, and half of voters have below average intelligence. It’s democracy, and Jill is against it.

  39. CNN is in free fall because they have picked incompetent senior management and some really
    stupid talking heads .
    Advocacy has replaced journalism and their political bias has never been so evident .

    Adios CNN !

Comments are closed.