Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

climate_deanial_yellowI have often been asked “Why do you deny climate change?”  I am always stumped by the question.  It is rather like being asked “Why do you torture innocent animals?”  The questioner is not merely asking for information, they are always making an accusation — an accusation that they consider very serious and a threat to themselves and others.

The reason it stumps me is that, as you have guessed already, I do not deny climate change (and I do not torture innocent animals — nor even guilty ones).  And there is nothing about me or my behavior, present or past, that I am aware of, that would lead any reasonable person to think such a thing of me.

I am thoroughly guilty though of being very skeptical of what is generally referred to as the Climate Consensus — usually said to be represented by the latest reports and policy recommendations put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters; political, ideological and scientific.  I suppose it is this that leads to the false accusation of “denying climate change”.

And there is the crux of the matter — it is something in the mind of the accuser, not any action of the accused, which leads to the false accusation.

MY DENIAL:

I deny that I am a Climate Denier, a Global Warming denier or any other kind of a  “denialist”.

WHY I DON’T DENY:

I do not deny either of the two primary claims of the Global Warming Movement:

1. Global Warming is happening
2. Human activity causes [some of] it.

Here’s why I don’t deny #1: Global Warming is happening.

temp_panel_800

I am perfectly happy to accept that the “world” (the “global climate”) has warmed since the late 1800s.   We know that the date of 1880/1890 is picked for the starting point of most of the contemporary consensus view plots — purportedly because it represents “the start of the modern industrial era”, this despite the fact that even the IPCC does not claim that “CO2 induced global warming” started at that date.    Let’s take a closer look at Lamb and Lamb_modified_by_Jones:

Lamb_v_Jones_800

Lamb_v_Jones_2007_800

We all know that Lamb was showing a stylized “schematic” view of Central England temperatures — and Jones 2007 re-does the analysis with very slightly different results, then overlays (in blue) the measured Central England through 2007.    This graph contains the seed of my certainty that “global warming is happening” — which, in un-politicized language would be something like:  “The Earth’s general climate has warmed since a bit before 1700 CE — i.e., for the last 300+ years.”    Here’s Spencer 2007:

Spencer_2007

And if you prefer, here’s the NOAA version with comparisons of various reconstructions :

NOAA_reconstruction_2000yrs

They all show cooling to approximately 1650 – 1700 and general warming since then.

From where does my skepticism arise then?  Well, there is no more — general warming started about 1650-1700, maybe a little earlier, and has been ongoing.  When warming doesn’t start is 1880/1890 — it starts a hundred and fifty to two hundred years earlier — earlier  than the start of the increased CO2 output of the modern Industrial Era.  This makes me very skeptical indeed of the claim that the industrial revolution and modern warming are intrinsically entwined.

And I think that it is a good thing that it has warmed since 1700.  The Little Ice Age years, up thru  the 16 and 17 hundreds,  were hard times for farmers (and thus whole populations) in North America and Europe,  as attested to by contemporary accounts of crop failures and hard winters.

LIA

To my knowledge, this point is not controversial or even contested.  In the Consensus Worldview, it is simply over-looked and not mentioned.   Truthfully, since the facts don’t match the narrative — the narrative that global warming was caused by the start of the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent CO2 emissions —  this fact seems to have been down played or ignored.

What does the IPCC say? Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”  — IPCC AR5 SPM 1.1 

 Well, I couldn’t agree more  — moreover, it has been warming since about 1650-1700, two hundred years before the Industrial Revolution starts pouring out CO2.

What else does the IPCC say?  “ … recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history.” — IPCC AR5 SPM 1

 Again, I don’t disagree:

1000yr_CO2_EGU_800

Without arguing about when “history” began, we can stipulate that the graph the European Geophysical Union gives us is an “accurate enough” picture of CO2 concentrations over the last thousand years.   CO2 remains a shaky 275-290 ppm for 800 years  and then begins to show a rise around 1850, finally breaking into new territory  circa  1880-1890 — the start of the modern Industrial Era.    The Wiki offers us the following, again confirming that CO2 does not begin to rise until 1890-1900, long after temperatures begin to rise.

wiki_CO2_IR_800

 It is simply a fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising since 1880-1890-1900 (close enough for my purpose today) and that it is now higher than it has been in a long time.   Some think that this is a good thing, as it has brought about a resurgence in plant life on Earth’s surface and some think it is a bad thing.

Atmospheric CO2  has been rising — but is there doubt about this? — recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history.” ?

While it is not easy to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it has been being done for quite some time….and we have been able to guess about human greenhouse-gas emissions and their sources.  [These are naturally abject guesses, but we needn’t argue with them on that account — they are our “best guesses”).

The IPCC’s AR5 includes this graphic:

IPCC_CO2

We see that recent emissions are highest, at least in this history, but notice that cumulatively up to 1970 (see the right hand inset bar graph), Forestry and other land use accounts for more than 50% of all CO2 emissions.  This surprised even me — I was expecting a pretty big contribution from the clear-cutting and conversion into pasture and farmland of much of Europe and North America east of the Mississippi River — but I had no idea that Forestry and Land Use accounts for >50% all the way to 1970 –and that’s nineteen seventy, not eighteen seventy.   By some proxies, global surface temperature had been rising for 300 years by 1970.

Keeping that fact in mind, let’s see what else the IPCC has to say about causes:

IPCC AR5 SPM 1.2

“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.  Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The IPCC in their synthesis report for policy makers says that human emissions of greenhouse gases and “other anthropogenic drivers,” are  “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Well, OK.  This is where my Climate Skepticism begins to gain some traction.  Dr. Judith Curry, president and founder of Climate Forecast Applications Network, recently offered the following graphic in an essay entitled “Fundamental disagreement about climate change”:

Curry_Fundamental_Disagre_8

I would have used slightly different points and alternate wordings — but the essence would be the same.

The IPCC Consensus general position is shown on the left — CO(and other greenhouse gases) are the primary “forcing” of climate — with changes in CO2 causing changing climate (basically warming) —  this warming amplified by feedbacks, like increased water vapor and clouds.

On the right is Dr. Curry’s general view — I share much the same viewpoint.  I would have placed place more emphasis this:

Climate is Chaotic:  It is composed of  highly complex, globally coupled, spatio-temporal chaotic, resonant systems.

So far, I agree with all the facts, but don’t agree that recent CO2 (and other) emissions arethe dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”    I agree neither with the attribution of CO2 as dominate or the effect size.

# # # # #

If you aren’t yet bored to tears, you can find out more on my reasons for that in Part 2, to be published in the next day or so.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment Policy:

I have tried to use examples, graphs, that would be generally acceptable to both sides of the Climate Divide, and to avoid controversial minor or fringe sources.  I didn’t need to — I am happy with the data presented and that’s Why I Don’t Deny.

I suppose that many readers will disagree with my lack of denial or agree but have different reasons.  That is how it should be in a new young field of science like Climate.  Feel free to tell all in your comments.   I may reply to rational, collegial remarks, questions and requests for clarification.

I am, however, too old to argue.

Address comments to “Kip…” if you expect a response.

# # # # #

4 1 vote
Article Rating
711 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh
August 25, 2018 6:41 pm

I’ve been accused of being a “climate denier” many times. And always by people who have no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

Simon
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 26, 2018 12:21 am

I bet it is not always.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2018 12:48 am

OK. 97% of them.

Greg
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 26, 2018 3:08 am

OK, so it’s a “consensus” that you are a deeenier. LOL.

Kip:

I deny that I am a Climate Denier

Not a good starting point Kip. You know that one of the worst things about being in denial is that you can not recognize it. Saying you are not in denial will just get you a “there you go: a perfect example of someone in denial”. In order to get better ( from your mental illness ) you first need to come to terms with it and recognize the problem.

If someone says : do you realize that you contradict everything anyone tells you? You can not refute by saying : NO I DON’T !

I suggest you take a different line of argument in part two. 😉

John Meget
Reply to  Greg
August 26, 2018 11:11 am

Greg, first, Kip denying something doesn’t mean he is in denial. If you disagree with his point of view you might believe that. In that case, the roles reverse though: he can make the same charge about you, with just as much consistency.

Second, since you’re making a cute attempt at a logical argument, a person certainly can refute denial exactly as you say he can’t. He may mean he doesn’t realize he contradicts everything anyone tells him.

The statement is false from the start, though, because the person making the claim doesn’t know everything anyone says to the other person, or his replies.

Greg
Reply to  John Meget
August 26, 2018 1:05 pm

I did not say he was in denial, I was commenting on his attempts are refuting such a claim made by some hypothetical other.

Saying you are not in denial in the case where are not is honest and truthful but still is not going to work against someone who wishes to maintain that you are, for the reason which I stated.

Before getting too proxy defensive on Kip’s behalf , put on your reading glasses and note the little yellow smiley at end.

Sylvia
Reply to  Greg
August 26, 2018 4:08 pm

I understood your point, and it plays out in real life. Every time you present a counter-argument or a scientific paper, it is dismissed as a denier presenting evidence which is already false or wrong if it comes from a ‘denier’ blog or a ‘denier’ scientist, and is therefore worthless. The stupidity belongs to those who cannot see that via that reasoning, the theory can NEVER be falsified, which makes it a religious belief, rather than a scientific theory. My approach now is to ask people: How can anybody be said to deny an occurrence that hasn’t happened yet, when there is no precedent for that event?

G Barton
Reply to  Sylvia
August 28, 2018 12:43 am

“The stupidity belongs to those cannot see that via that reasoning the theory can NEVER be falsified”
That kind of reasoning is called a True Scotsman fallacy. https://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

Greg
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 26, 2018 1:23 pm

Glad you noticed the smiley wink, Kip. Tongue in cheek certainly but there is a serious point about saying ‘I’m not in denial ‘ and the response it will get from such an accuser.

I would reply that claiming someone is mentally ill because they do not agree about a scientific position shows a total lack of scientific
understanding and factual arguments on the part of the person making such claims.

It’s nothing more than name calling and saying I’m not in denial accepts getting into an argument about your own mental health instead of the facts of climate science: which is PRECISELY where they wanted to take you. You lose before you even start.

The only way out is to attack them directly for name-calling and insulting behavior in place of making a valid argument. You can also be pretty confident that any one who starts out like that knows sod all about climate, scientific proof or logic and has probably never opened a single document published by the IPCC.

Ask them how many polar bears they think there are this year and how their numbers compare to 30 years ago.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 26, 2018 4:44 am

The other 3% are ignorant of grammar and reality.

Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2018 4:43 am

Anyone who accuses someone of being a “climate denier” has no scientific (or reality) knowledge whatsoever.

It’s impossible to deny the climate.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2018 9:02 am

There’s two groups promoting climate alarmists.
1) Those who know nothing of science.
2) Those who know better but are using the climate scare to promote something else. Either their own pocket book, of some form of socialism.

Which group do you fall into Simon?

Jim Whelan
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 9:42 am

Where do you put the very large group who have been brainwashed since their formative years into thinking they are “saving the planet”?

Bill Powers
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 26, 2018 11:52 am

Considering recent studies showing that urban public schools (a significant share of the populous) are graduating students with, on average, 8th grade reading proficiency and 4th grade math skills, put your money on a long slog Kip.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 26, 2018 12:04 pm

Considering recent elections that put President Covfefe into power with the vocabulary of a 4th grader, why does it matter?
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169

michael hart
Reply to  David Dirkse
August 26, 2018 1:26 pm

Maybe that says as much about the analysts as it does about the person they are analyzing. The President does at least have an Economics degree from a serious University School.

I am more inclined to side with those who claim he tends to say what he his thinking at that moment, not that that is his final conclusion.
“His followers believe what he means, not what he says” is perhaps the best translation I have heard. His opponents will, as one might expect, look to to find the worst meaning in his often casual or lazy comments.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  michael hart
August 26, 2018 2:05 pm

As a “follower” I say:
Action over blather,
substance over style,
Results over symbolism,
What works over appearances,

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim Whelan
August 26, 2018 2:28 pm

“As a “follower” I say:
Action over blather,
substance over style,
Results over symbolism,
What works over appearances,”

To a degree. When is enough enough?

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
August 26, 2018 1:30 pm

Once again, our leftists jump in to whine how anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid.

Greg
Reply to  David Dirkse
August 26, 2018 1:32 pm

He may not be the sharpest knife in the congressional kitchen but at least he knows climate BS when he smells it.

Bill
Reply to  Greg
August 26, 2018 2:38 pm

I always think those who sign their name on the front of paychecks instead of on the back of paychecks has a lot more on the ball than most everyone else. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Whelan
August 26, 2018 1:30 pm

I would put them in group 1.

Sylvia
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 5:02 pm

There’s a third group. The lazy, busy or naively trusting. Those who are highly intelligent, and do know something about science, but have been so bombarded with AGW via school, the media, politicians and trusted sources (like our national broadcaster) that they assume it’s true, not their area of expertise, and just haven’t bothered to dig deeper and think harder. I fell into that category, and my family and friends do too. I am having a hard time deprogramming them. It was only after the bad winter last year in Europe and North America, and our bumper ski season here, that I started thinking “Hang on a minute…”. When they started to say global warming was causing more ice and snow, after previously scaring us all that our snow fields here would be gone (ten years ago), I smelt a rat. And boy did I find a BIG rat! The psychological manipulation is incredible. Even university educated people like my sister trot out myths like “But CO2 is the highest in earth’s history”. “It’s the rate of change that shows we are causing it”. One friend explained that global warming causes colder weather. I said, “Think about what you just said. Warming causes cooling.” War is Peace. 2 + 2 = 5.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 26, 2018 3:03 am

Often the question (the accusation) betrays the questioner’s ignorance.

Chris
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 26, 2018 4:15 am

So what? If it’s really true, it means that you make no effort to seek out more qualified people to engage with. That’s your fault.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:34 am

Chris, I’m about to wander into the centre of London to spend an hour or so listening to the arguments at Speakers Corner and maybe do a bit of shopping on Oxford Street. I will pass hundreds of people and I can tell you that none of them care less about the CAGW nonsense. If they did, none of them would be using thr fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops.
People don’t care about your religion Chris. However, it’s a crime that it’s costing them trillions to prop up your religion.

Chris
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 4:46 am

Andy, looks like you are wrong. Unless, that is, that you are only walking past old men from the East Midlands. And your comment that folks must not believe in AGW if they take the bus or train is rubbish. If someone says they believe AGW is real, but still drive a Bentley, are they a hypocrite? Absolutely. But that’s not true of folks who take publich transport to work or for their everyday lives. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-real-accept-majority-global-warming-poll-finds-a7909841.html

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 5:11 am

The Independent. Ho ho!
“People over 55 were more likely to dispute the evidence than those in younger age groups with 15 per cent falling into this group, the poll found.” Looks like those with real-world experience have a better handle on the truth.
“The pollsters, commissioned by gocompare.com asked: Do you believe in Global Warming?
Those who answered, ‘Yes, completely…”
I’d have answered, “Yes, completely” too.
Listening to all the myriad of languages spoken on Oxford Street, I can guarantee you that hardly any of them are from the East Midlands.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 8:23 am

I’m sorry. What was the question again? Did you stop denying climate at the same time you stopped beating your wife?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 5:15 am

With regards to your comment about driving a Bentley making you a hypocrite. We’ll, you’ve justed written off the globe-trotting Al Gore and Mike Mann and his gang as they fly from on climate gab-fest to another.
I presume you agree Al, Mike, Naomi, et al are all hypocrites?

Chris
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 7:35 am

Yes, Gore is a hypocrite. He buys offsets, but he could do a lot better in terms of his carbon footprint and set an example.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 2:55 pm

Chris

“Yes, Gore is a hypocrite. He buys offsets”

A monstrous understatement. As I understand it he set up an investment firm to trade carbon credits. It shut it’s door to new investors when it hit $5Bn.

This from a tobacco farmer who said himself he wouldn’t stop growing the stuff until he found something else to do.

And didn’t he just hit on a cracker, scare up global warming then trade on the back of it for personal profit.

What a toad.

ray boorman
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 4:22 pm

HS, you have just given toads a bad rap, please leave them alone, they are completely innocent, even though often undesirable.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 10:10 pm

HotScot – Gore has made little if any money off his green-related investments. Almost all of his wealth came from the sale of Apple stock given in his role as a member of their BoD, and the sale of Current TV, in which he had a large stake. So your statement about personal profit is incorrect.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 9:24 am

Chris

You really are a blind adherent to the party line. Gore has run Generation Investment Management for 14 years, he is likely to have made many hundreds of millions from it, if not billions.

He sold his TV network to Al Jazeera for $100M. Al Jazeera is a Middle Easter big oil funded network and Gore just happily picked up the dirty money he has condemned others for taking and trousered it.

What an utter hypocritical scum bag.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
August 27, 2018 7:34 pm

HotScot said “he is likely to have made many hundreds of millions from it, if not billions.”

It took me 15 seconds to find this. Why not do your own homework?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4102202-tracking-al-gores-generation-investment-management-portfolio-q2-2017-update

GIM invests in undervalued stocks. Note the word stocks. That means publicly listed companies – not green tech startups. You can even see the names of their positions. Names like Microsoft, Thermo Fisher, Acuity. no green tech companies in the list.

So what you said is false. He did not make his money from green investments.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 28, 2018 2:58 am

Chris

You might want to spend a bit more time than it take you to ejaculate reading and understanding about your love Gore. Nowhere did I even suggest he invested in startups, you might want to spend some time reading the comments posted.

I spent some time reading a number of articles on the unpleasant shyster and he even traded carbon credits to offset the $30,000 energy bill for his 20 bedroom mansion.

You, on the other hand, just find an article that suits your miserable argument and like everything else you do, sling it up here, misinterpret what others have said and then utterly ignore the rest of the argument presented.

ATheoK
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:30 am

Once again, Chris makes a specious claim against a Chris’s false strawman using links that fail to prove Chris’s points or disprove Andy Wilkins’ comment.

Andy states:

“I will pass hundreds of people and I can tell you that none of them care less about the CAGW nonsense. If they did, none of them would be using thr fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops.”

Chris’s link doesn’t even touch the topic “whether people care” about CAGW. It only questions whether they believe or accept global warming; causes are basically unstated. i.e. blaming “greenhouse gases” means exactly what to individuals?

The Independent’s article makes many claims; e.g. “Climate change is real”, “global warming”, “caused by greenhouse gases”, believe, etc. etc.
All, without providing survey questions, or providing survey responses, or supplying the survey’s explicit meanings for terms used, etc. etc.

Nor does the poll company, Censuswide, cited by the Independent provide any information about their surveys.
What Censuswide does proved in their “About” statement is illuminating!

“ABOUT US
PR is our heritage, and we understand the need to gain good coverage without losing sight of the client’s brand message.”

In other words, Censuswide will provide the results desired by the paying customer. Which, by copious past evidence, is whatever frightening event, topic or person that the Independent is flogging as imminent doom.

Andy Wilkin’s summation is proof for his comment:
“If they did, none of them would be using thr{sic} fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops”

Now is the time where Chrissy should tell us how it, personally, grows their own fibers, harvests, cards, twists that fiber into yarn. Then weaves the yarns into clothing.
Chrissy should also tell us how they grow all of their food and preserves that food for year round consumption.
All without any use of fossil fuels.

Chris’s link fails to disprove, or even question, any portion of Kip Hansen’s excellent article.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  ATheoK
August 26, 2018 5:25 pm

Many thanks ATheoK

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:46 am

Chris

And of course the UN is wrong.

http://data.myworld2015.org

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 9:07 am

In Chris’s world view, anything he agrees with is unquestionable.
Anything he disagrees with has already been disproven (by his disagreeing with it of course) and hence not worth talking about.

jimB
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 10:47 am

Chris: That would be my initial conclusion about everything that comes out of that corrupt organization.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 11:17 am

This is a purely “progressives” racist remark. Bashing “Deplorables”. This is a “tell” that you haven’t a thought in your head of your own.

ray boorman
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:18 pm

Chris, London has big traffic problems, plus there is no parking available for the average John to drive into work – that is why they use public transport. I am sure many CAGW believers would prefer the convenience of driving to work if it was practicable for them to do so.

Chris
Reply to  ray boorman
August 26, 2018 10:12 pm

Ray – thanks for missing the point entirely.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:05 am

Now that’s funny coming from Chris, who refuses to read anything except what has already been approved by the priests of his religion.

I really do find it fascinating how socialists just assume that the only reason why everyone isn’t a socialist, is because the rest of us are just ignorant.
Like Obama declaring that the only reason why so many people didn’t like ObamaCare was because he hadn’t given enough speeches on the subject.

Chris
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 10:14 pm

MarkW defends the US health care system where we spend more than any other country as a % of GDP, and get worse results. He will fight to the end to defend corporate hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies who are ripping off American consumers!

gnomish
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 7:35 am

worse results? Up north we have some neighbors who love to fill your head with such nonsense- it’s part of their inferiority complex.
Every single graduate of McMasters leaves Canada for the USA.
In Canada, health-care workers made up 43 per cent of SARS cases. Filthy hospitals, eh.
In Ontario hundreds of patients had prostate biopsies with dirty needles because the instructions on sterilization were in English.
If you need an MRI in Vancouver- get in line – they only have one and it’s booked ahead for months.
If you want a fast, cheap CAT scan go to California- they have them in malls there.
San Francisco CA Low Cost CT Scan for Uninsured or Self Pay $134.28
Canadians go there all the time.
Good luck not dying as you wait for treatment by the NIH in London.
You have noooo idea.

Tom Halla
August 25, 2018 6:59 pm

Stating one does not know what causes the changes in climate is enough to get labeled a “denier”. Any doubts in the global warming narrative is doubleplus ungood crimethink, and the True Believers will try to punish you for your heresy.

Martin457
August 25, 2018 7:04 pm

I deny CAGW and the doom and gloom prophecies of paranoid freaks that happen to be registered book smart.

Reply to  Martin457
August 25, 2018 10:36 pm

The warmists are not that smart – if they were, they’d come up with a more credible falsehood.

ray boorman
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 26, 2018 4:24 pm

More credible, maybe, but more profitable? I doubt that.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Martin457
August 26, 2018 9:47 am

Thirty years of gloom and doom (with countless prophesies fallen by the wayside. What do we have to show for it? More temperate weather, more food and a greener world! I say bring on more greenhouse gasses.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jon Salmi
August 28, 2018 6:51 am

Now, Jon, do you see what you did here? You forgot to close your parentheses. Now the rest of the internet is stuck inside your parenthetical black hole, which is inside someone else’s parenthetical black hole, which is inside someone else’s unclosed quote black hole, which is…

[The mods quickly assist to close the theoretical open parenthetical blackholelessness )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) … .mod]

David (nobody)
August 25, 2018 7:09 pm

The true ‘deniers’ are those that cherry-pick their data, or their narrow time period of data, and deny that all other data is relevant, especially since it leads to different conclusions. Especially so if your selective look at the data allows you to re-interpret it’s relationships to other data and redefine understood process. Very well written essay. Clearly lays out the scientific way of looking at this versus the propaganda. Those that most need to read and understand it will refuse to, of course.

Gwan
Reply to  David (nobody)
August 25, 2018 8:01 pm

I agree with you Kip,
As I have written before I first met John Maunder and in a conversation he told me his role in global weather and his time with the WMO and how he attended the first two climate conferences in Villach and in Rio
.John and his wife came to stay with me and he addressed a meeting that I chaired on why global warming as it was known then was in his opinion was not a problem and that the world had been as warm as present in the last three climate optimums .He also covered much what you have written here Kip and he was well received .
Not long after that our elite warmist James Renwick wrote in the New Zealand Herald that the climate optimums where an inconvenient fact that they would like to disprove that they were ever as warm as now.
John Maunder also told me that methane from livestock was never mentioned at the first two conferences but it was introduced in the Kyoto accord and accepted by politicians .
I take the same approach as you Kip but when we get activists trying to destroy our farming economy I have to push back .
Farming leaders in New Zealand are trying to get the facts before the public that methane from livestock is cyclic and is a non problem .
In a recent farming publication an Australian scientist Mark Howden stated that he had proved that methane was a problem and he had proved it but I can find no record of an experiment .
I cannot locate this on the internet and I would like to view his proof.
Thanks again Kip

Reply to  Gwan
August 25, 2018 11:31 pm

Well said Gwan,

I can’t believe how much air time the NZ media gives Renwick and never any critical analysis of his alarming views. Just because he represents NIWA to the public doesn’t mean he’s above questioning.
Are you by any chance going to be at the Porto Skeptics conference in September…it would be good to meet up with a fellow Kiwi there?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gwan
August 26, 2018 3:47 am

Happy to be corrected, but I understood the previous 4 Inter-glacials were warmer than today by between 3-5 degrees C!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 28, 2018 6:53 am

“Happy to be corrected, but I understood the previous 4 Inter-glacials were warmer than today by between 3-5 degrees C!”

I don’t think we know to that degree (pun maybe intended) of accuracy. Ice cores have their own set of problems as a temperature proxy. The best we can say is “we don’t know”.

Yirgach
Reply to  Gwan
August 26, 2018 1:44 pm

Here is a paper by Mark Howden claiming:
Cotton (Gossypium spp.) and canola (Brassica spp.) are significant crops worldwide. Vegetable oil extracted from the seed of these crops offers the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) through conversion into biodiesel to displace GHG associated with fossil-fuel diesel, or, by feeding the oil to cattle to reduce enteric methane emissions.
See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283507124_What_is_the_best_use_of_oil_from_cotton_Gossypium_spp_and_canola_Brassica_spp_for_reducing_net_greenhouse_gas_emissions-_biodiesel_or_as_a_feed_for_cattle

H.R.
August 25, 2018 7:19 pm

The Earth’s climate is on a trajectory. It started at the Earth’s formation and ends when the Earth is swallowed by the Sun. On a trajectory, at no time are any two points exactly the same. Climate changes.

I’m a strong proponent of global warming. There’s plenty of evidence that the alternative is much, much worse. And it costs me a good bit of coin to Snowbird in Florida.

Wallaby Geoff
Reply to  H.R.
August 26, 2018 2:38 am

Aren’t we going to crash into the Andromeda Galaxy before then? That won’t be good.

MarkW
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
August 26, 2018 9:11 am

There is a lot of space between the stars. Crashing into the Andromeda Galaxy will be an event that is all but unnoticeable for most stars. There will be a few stars that will be flung out of the resultant galaxy, but that will be an even so slow in developing that even if the population of a planet in that solar system were still in the stone age, they would still have plenty of time to develop vehicles capable of crossing the void and move their entire civilization before their sun was complete expelled.

beng135
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
August 26, 2018 10:01 am

Might survive it. Depends — if the solar system is thrown out of the maelstrom in the center (far out into the “tails” of such collisions), might do OK & just watch the radiation-filled show from afar. By that time tho, hopefully should be able to travel outward regardless.

JOHN S CHISM
Reply to  H.R.
August 26, 2018 4:41 am

But are we sure the hypothesis that the Earth will be consumed by the expanding Sun? The Sun has been expanding constantly and the global temperature record of interglacials tend to average 22 degrees Celsius, with anomalies of glacial periods that average around 12 degrees Celsius and both have fluctuations that tend to be Solar Cycles of various intensities. We only have an observed record – that is sketchy going back a few hundred years – and the measurements of our orbit is younger than that. It would make more sense to conclude that our orbit expands along with the expansion of the Sun.

And by the way, if the Sun is able to expand, why can’t the Expanding Earth be feasible? Just because Earth formed a crust, doesn’t mean the same physics are not at play. I just don’t buy it that subduction and orogeny answers the plate tectonics movements. And it doesn’t answer the Earth going from around 13 hours to 24 hours or that space dust, meteors and comets has increased the size of Earth.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  JOHN S CHISM
August 26, 2018 6:09 am

D-K syndrome is strong with this one.

MarkW
Reply to  JOHN S CHISM
August 26, 2018 9:13 am

The expansion of the sun as predicted by current theory is event measured in 100’s of millions of years.

Please spend a few minutes studying why astrophysicists expect the sun to expand, and then spend a few milli-seconds contemplating how none of these processes are in operation here on earth.

So the fact that plate subduction has been observed is not sufficient to convince you that it is happening.

The Earth’s rotation slowed down as it transferred that momentum to the moon.

Yes, infalling debris has increased the size of the earth. But the size of the earth is so big compared to the amount of material being added that it’s not measurable by modern instruments.

jimB
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 10:52 am

And even a bigger earth would be subsumed. Geez.

Reply to  JOHN S CHISM
August 26, 2018 1:40 pm

“…it doesn’t answer the Earth going from around 13 hours to 24 hours…”

Some say “from around 6 hours” and the “why” is answered: the moon’s a drag.

Barring some other catastrophe, days will lengthen until both Earth and Moon are tidally locked, like Pluto and Charon.

Longer days and a more distant moon will definitely affect the weather.

Steven Cusick
August 25, 2018 7:25 pm

The Warmists are the climate change deniers. They say that the climate would be exactly the same as 1800 if not for man’s CO2 emissions. They deny that the climate could be changing all on its own. In fact, for all we know, in the absence of humans on earth, it might actually be warmer, but I suspect it would be exactly the same because we just aren’t that significant in such a huge system.

Chris
Reply to  Steven Cusick
August 25, 2018 9:55 pm

“The Warmists are the climate change deniers. They say that the climate would be exactly the same as 1800 if not for man’s CO2 emissions. They deny that the climate could be changing all on its own.”

False. Look at the chart showing forcings used in climate models. Note the plot of natural forcings – it is certainly not a flat line/constant. Note non CO2 related forcings such as land use. Once again, certainly not a flat line/constant.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Taphonomic
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 12:23 am

And models are never wrong, look how well their projections did on the pause.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Taphonomic
August 26, 2018 12:53 am

“look how well their projections did on the pause.”

Because they couldn’t do.
By definition.
Reason?
The single line model projections you see on a graph are the mean of a series of model runs. An ensemble.
The individual variations in up/downs therefor get averaged out.
BUT, of course in the case of the pause – it was caused by NV. The lengthy -ve PDO/ENSO regime that gave us a cooler equatorial Pacific for such a lengthy time.
There is no (current) way for us to forecast that.

Philo
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 1:38 pm

Averaging the results of multiple models and runs and expecting information is an heretical misuse of the scientific method. Model projections are not any kind of prediction. Also, the error inherent in any model of a chaotic system drives the error to the physical limts of the model in relatively few interations.

old construction worker
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 3:53 pm

‘lengthy -ve PDO/ENSO regime that gave us a cooler equatorial Pacific for such a lengthy time. There is no (current) way for us to forecast that.’ So you admit a natural event is stronger than your “Co2 Rules”

John Endicott
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 27, 2018 7:58 am

The average of garbage is garbage.

Reply to  Taphonomic
August 26, 2018 4:45 am

Only 95% of the models have been wrong… 😎

Tom in Florida
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 8:10 am

Why not simply model the models to see which is right.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 8:32 am

No! 97% of the models. 97 and 42 are the magic numbers.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2018 9:18 am

If 75 responses out of 15000 surveys constitute 97%, then why can’t invented forcing charts prove the climate models?

ray boorman
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 4:37 pm

Mark, you forget that the survey reported 75 came from a subset of 77 respondents (97%) who self-identified as climate scientists. The rest were mere geologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc – you know, people with careers in disciplines that have not been taken over by rent-seekers.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ray boorman
August 26, 2018 5:28 pm

ray boorman

Mark, you forget that the survey reported 75 came from a subset of 77 respondents (97%) who self-identified as climate scientists. The rest were mere geologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc – you know, people with careers in disciplines that have not been taken over by rent-seekers.

False.
The 1300 odd self-selected people (of all disciples in the organization) who actually returned the five question survey were SCREENED bywhether they worked for government laboratories or in approved academia bureaucracies.
Those left were then ranked according to how many papers each was credited writing, or being listed as a co-author. (This favors government department heads, lab heads, and approving officials in the funding chain, since THEY approve the grants for the next year’s budget, and they approve the papers released by their agencies.) .
With only 97 surviving this pruning and culling, only TWO questions were selected for the “survey of all scientists” you claim is authoritative:
1. Is the earth climate recently warming?
2. Is mankind responsible for some part of that warming?

And, in fact, I too – like the vast majority of those reading this article today – would firmly answer “Yes!” to both questions!

Open questions of course, remain:

How much has the earth warmed recently?
How is that warming properly and accurately measured?
Is a single average global temperature an appropriate measure of the earth’s climate?
and how much of the recent warming is due to man’s influence?

But 97% of the earth’s bureaucratic agencies and politicians deny those questions are relevant to the 3.0 trillion each year they can take as carbon taxes from the industrial Western nations, and the 30 trillion in carbons futures trading the international bankers want to process.

HotScot
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 8:53 am

David Middleton

97%, surely.

hunter
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 1:09 am

Chris, your relying on circular evidence from highly motivated sources actually makes the skeptic case.
Thanks.

Chris
Reply to  hunter
August 26, 2018 4:13 am

It’s not circular evidence. If you don’t believe, it fine. But it’s not circular.

Mardler
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 6:05 am

Chris: the difference between you and most of us here is that you believe but we think.

Chris
Reply to  Mardler
August 26, 2018 7:38 am

Mardler – rubbish. This is a grouthink site. Paywalled papers that support AGW which are posted here are criticized even before they have been read. How exactly is that thinking?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:37 am

An analogy might be going out on a blind date. You see this hunchback, with a patch over one eye, limping over towards you, and you have a pretty good idea of what is behind the ‘paywall.’ If you want to spend the evening with that person, more power to you. But most would conclude that they already know enough to make a judgment.

Chris
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2018 9:20 am

Clyde, except that the paywall summaries are not like that. Nice strawman, though.

Chris
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 26, 2018 10:17 pm

Kip, then you are the exception. Do this – next time there is a paywalled paper posted on WUWT that supports the AGW position, read the comments.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:55 am

Chris

I can barely think of a paywalled paper I can’t get hold of by other means.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 9:21 am

That’s the difference between you and Chris. You are smart enough to find other methods, while Chris assumes that anyone who doesn’t agree with him has already proven himself an idiot.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:20 am

Chris, just reading the summary and methodology of these papers is sufficient to disprove most of them.
Of course you won’t ever question any paper that supports what you want to believe.

MarkW
Reply to  Mardler
August 26, 2018 9:19 am

You have to remember that in Chris’s mind, anything that supports AGW is proven beyond questioning.
Merely questioning his pronouncements is sufficient to prove that you are a science denier.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 3:44 am

A point being missed is, most people are outside the actual scientific research and studies. They are routinely pumped with the constant message of the CAGW alarmist narrative. They rely entirely on what they are told, and given no opportunity to hear counter argument. They don’t understand the issues, but are happy to make the accusation of ”Dnyr” anyway. Usually, a few minuets of enlightenment gets them backpedaling and then the few soundbites they know are put to rest too.
Again, most people simply aren’t interested enough to jump in any deeper than just repeating what they’ve been told. (Only now, they are repeating what I told them. :).)
This whole CAGW/ Climate change alarm lives or dies according to the political will behind it. Once it looses the popular public support, it is over. That just takes time. People are tired of being told the sky is falling.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:02 am

Models. They’re not data Chris. And they’re, um, crap.

Chris
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 4:11 am

And what’s your evidence, Andy?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:23 am

Evidence of what Chris?

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:03 am

Chris

The sceptics evidence is that after at least 40 years of claims of imminent catastrophe, nothing has happened.

And as its you alarmists who are making these insane claims, it’s up to you to provide the evidence.

We are sceptical of anything you say because you can’t empirically demonstrate the underlying claim that CO2 causes global warming.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:22 am

The fact that the models have proven that they can’t model climate.

PS: If they can’t model the earth regionally, they aren’t modeling the earth. The claim that the models can be wrong for each and every region, but still be right for the earth as a whole may be enough to satisfy the acolytes, but it just shows that you aren’t doing science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:30 am

And after the virgin was sacrificed to the volcano, the eruption stopped, ergo …

https://www.svds.com/avoiding-common-mistakes-with-time-series/

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:53 am

Chris

Show us the empirical evidence that demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm.

Can’t do it, can you Chris.

Simon
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 11:34 am

Here’s a good start
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

HotScot
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2018 3:10 pm

Simon

I get a graph, which proves nothing. Try again.

Simon
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 6:09 pm

Sorry…. maybe learn to read it.

HotScot
Reply to  Simon
August 27, 2018 3:52 am

Simon

Perhaps you should learn that a graph with no supporting narrative is worthless.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:17 am

The self delusion is strong in this one.

The chart of forcings used in climate models was invented by the same people who created the climate models, and the values in them were picked to help the climate models produce that the politicians were paying for.

Chris
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 10:19 pm

Another vague hand-waving post from MarkW. No substance or detail whatsoever.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 12:54 pm

The second sentence in the summary of your referenced article states: “Note that the forcings are estimates that may be revised as new information or better understandings of the source data become available”

In other words, the basis for the supposedly accurate models, is itself an unknown, as the summary states, “Quantifiying the actual forcing within a global climate model is quite complicated and can depend on the baseline climate state. This is therefore an additional source of uncertainty.”

Regardless, no model can be definitive unless it is verified with actual, unbiased data. That is not what is happening. Unfortunately too many people (some of them, even more unfortunately, are “scientists”). Instead the data is manipulated, often to come closer to the models and even adjusted data doesn’t match the models very well. A purely observational science like climate “science’ (in quotes becuuse very little of what is labelled climate “science” these days is actually science) is difficult since controlled experiments with well defined initial conditions are impossible. To take then easy way and create some models, then claim they represent the real world is not real science. To be real science the model must describe the exact measurements to be made and any averages, etc. which the model is to match. This is not even attempted.

A final point: No-one should be disrupting the global economy and trying to eliminate the source of energy which drives modern society without an iron clad case that the disruption will definitely accomplish an essential goal and that the intended solution will not cause more problems than it causes. In other terms, the precautionary principle operates in exactly the opposite direction from that claimed by the warmists. The current situation seems to me like demanding everyone undergo chemotherapy because they might contract cancer.

John Endicott
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 7:58 am

False. Look at the chart showing forcings used in climate models

When the models actually can model the Earth’s climate and make predictions/projections that actually are accurate, then and only then can you be taken seriously when saying to look at anything to do with the climate models. As the models and their predictions/projections have consistently and spectacularly failed, they (and you) are a joke.

StephenP
Reply to  Steven Cusick
August 26, 2018 2:10 am

Do we want the temperature to be the same as the early 1800s?
The Little Ice Age, cold weather, exacerbated by volcanic eruptions.
The year without a summer in 1816.
Give me the present climate any time.
Incidentally the UK hot spell has broken and we are starting to get some proper rain, just in time for the August Bank Holiday! I just hope it knows when to stop!

Chris
Reply to  StephenP
August 26, 2018 4:12 am

Irrelevant question, Stephen. Earth to Stephen, it’s not the early 1800s right now.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:24 am

No it’s not, thankfully. It’s warmer now, which is much better for humanity. Hopefully it’ll continue to get warmer.

Chris
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 7:39 am

Warmer is better for humanity in Canada and Russia. It’s certainly not better for farmers in Australia, for folks in Africa, for folks in India, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:25 am

As always, Chris projects his own feelings onto others.
Regardless, even the IPCC has admitted that almost all of the warming is going to be in the polar regions. Where there is lots of H2O in the atmosphere, CO2 has little, if any impact.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:30 am

Chris

What a lot of regurgitated warmist nonsense. Deserts and tropical rain forests exist at the same latitudes on the planet.

Folks in India are currently suffering a bad monsoon, not excess heat. Bangladesh frequently suffers the same.

Australia? “‘Water as far as the eye can see’ as floods hit Australia’s Queensland” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-floods/water-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see-as-floods-hit-australias-queensland-idUSKCN1GL100

Indeed, they are common enough that the government issues a flood management leaflet. Not seen one of those in the UK. http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/flood/EMA_Floods_warning_preparedness_safety.pdf

London is further north than most major Canadian cities, including Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City, and Toronto. If we get a few weeks of freezing weather in the UK it’s considered a catastrophe.

So just how is climate change supposed to affect the UK? It shouldn’t be as warm as it is, but it is. And I’m well aware of the Gulf stream – the North Atlantic conveyor belt which was supposed to collapse a few years back. Another barmy alarmist prediction that failed to happen.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 10:28 pm

HotScot -news flash, Australia is mostly in drought. From your article: Water could take weeks to recede from the flatter country covered further west, where it has been welcomed in a region gripped by severe drought.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drought-impact-graphic/farming-impact-of-australias-worst-drought-in-living-memory-idUSKBN1KR060

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/australia-boosts-aid-dry-farm-billion-drought-hit-farmers-10631000

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 9:31 am

Chris

Australia is frequently “gripped by severe drought”. It a feature of the country exacerbated only by idiots like you reading and believing the latest MSM sensationalist headline.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
August 27, 2018 7:49 pm

HotScot said: “Australia is frequently “gripped by severe drought”. It a feature of the country exacerbated only by idiots like you reading and believing the latest MSM sensationalist headline.”

Another 3rd grade level analysis. “Australia has always had drought, always will.” “The climate has always changed, always will.” How incredibly uncurious of you. Why not dive deeper to see if drought is worsening and why?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drought-impact-graphic/farming-impact-of-australias-worst-drought-in-living-memory-idUSKBN1KR060

Australian farmers, who are very conservative by nature, believe AGW is real. But hey, HotScot knows more than the folks on the ground who are experiencing it firsthand. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview/if-pollies-wont-act-on-climate-change-farmers-will/news-story/2dcff259f4e936be14deac19f793fa58

Sgt
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 8:20 pm

The World War II drought (1939-45) and the recent Millennium drought (1997-2009) were not within living memory?

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 28, 2018 3:22 am

Chris

“Australian farmers, who are very conservative by nature, believe AGW is real.”

And you would know that, how?

Oh right, you produced yet another MSM article as evidence which says “AUSTRALIAN farmers are pretty savvy.”

Just make it up as you go along Chris. As usual.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
August 28, 2018 7:32 am

HotScot said: “Australian farmers, who are very conservative by nature, believe AGW is real.”

And you would know that, how?

Oh right, you produced yet another MSM article as evidence which says “AUSTRALIAN farmers are pretty savvy.”

Just make it up as you go along Chris. As usual.”

No, I spent time reading articles about surveys of Australian farmers. What’s your evidence to the contrary?
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/farmers-want-action-on-climate-change-new-survey-shows/news-story/b4f1bc575617805fd53ead66b21e6347

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 28, 2018 9:51 am

Chris

So you produce yet another MSM article.

FFS Chris. Give it up, the whole subject is too confusing for you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 11:04 am

“HotScot -news flash, Australia is mostly in drought”

That’s not a newsflash, it’s old news. Australia has always had drought issues, and likely always will. That’s it’s natural climate. Why do you deny climatic history?

Robert Austin
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 10:15 am

Chris,
It is a tenet of climate change aka global warming that the major temperature increase will occur in polar regions with little temperature change in tropical regions. Hence the phasing out of “global warming” for the more nebulous “climate change”.

Philo
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 1:46 pm

The tropical climate(-15 to +15 latitude) at sea level is controlled by the evaporation of water and limited to a range roughly 20-40degC. Of course smaller areas(less than the size range of the climate model grid) can have local conditions that extend that range.

David Smith
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 5:30 pm

Warmer means wetter, so they’ll be just fine

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:24 am

Olympic class side stepping there Chris, I give you a 9 out of 10 for it.

steve case
August 25, 2018 7:51 pm

The original study/survey that started the 97% meme was:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There were two questions:


1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Based on my answers

             “Yes global temperatures have risen and human
             activity, not just CO2, should be a factor.”

I would fall into the 97%, however, I don’t agree that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide or methane constitute a problem that requires me or anyone else to change their basic life style, but Doran and Zimmerman didn’t ask that, so their study is essentially meaningless as it applies to me.

Then we get into the propaganda, data manipulation, politics, censorship, bullshit and lies.

George Daddis
Reply to  steve case
August 26, 2018 6:05 am

My question, from when Doran and Zimmerman published, was what was their definition of the somewhat ambiguous word “significant”. Presumably they studied science and statistics and at the start were surveying 10,000 geo-scientists.

When interpreted in the vernacular, a majority of people assume “significant” means “a measurably LARGE amount” (e.g. The venture produced significant profits.).

A statistician would answer ” yes, CO2 is a CONTRIBUTING factor”, no matter how small, if its effect is something other than mere chance. (both definitions from Merriam Webster).

The alarmists (including former President Obama) have then expanded the response to “is CO2 a ‘significant’ CONTRIBUTING factor” to mean it is the ONLY factor.

(And they added a bonus interpretation: “97% of scientists think the temperature rise will be CATASTROPHIC”, a point not included in the survey!)

Mardler
Reply to  steve case
August 26, 2018 6:08 am

Don’t forget Cook’s wonky work.

August 25, 2018 7:57 pm

They actually spend a lot of time trying to understand climate denial. They appear to be very proud of their status as “scientists” and expect some RESPECT! Here is a bibliography of climate denialism research where their inability to accept skepticism is apparent.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/22/climate-change-denial-research/

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 25, 2018 11:57 pm

43 studies that have wasted taxpayer dollars on asking why a fairy tale isn’t believed. Boggles the mind.

Sheri
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 26, 2018 6:43 am

Not when you consider this is marketing, not science. The global warming people failed in proving their case, so now they are desperately trying to market a lemon. Taxpayer dollars are used because taxpayer dollars are the ultimate goal of the global warming crew. Temperatures have nothing to do with the whole scam.

Hokey Schtick
August 25, 2018 7:58 pm

We need a simple test to determine whether someone is a witch or not. I mean a denier. Let’s see, a duck floats…

Sara
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
August 25, 2018 8:49 pm

So do very small stones.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
August 26, 2018 3:52 am

She turned me into a newt!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 26, 2018 3:53 am

I got bettah!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
August 26, 2018 4:02 am

Yes, & if the water rejected her by allowing her body to float proving she is a witch, then they burn the poor girl tied to a stake! Who says there is no justice in this world? 😉

John Endicott
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
August 27, 2018 8:10 am

If… she… weighs the same as a duck.. she’s made of wood.

And therefore?

A witch! A Denier!

Robert B
August 25, 2018 7:59 pm

Q “Why do you deny climate change?”
A Can you ask a sensible question so that I’m not wasting my time explaining my self to a gullible twit.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Robert B
August 25, 2018 9:40 pm

A: I get this question all the time. Would you summarize my position?

Fredar
Reply to  Robert B
August 26, 2018 1:59 am

That’s something a denier would say!

Ron Braud
Reply to  Robert B
August 26, 2018 4:40 am

In my experience when this question is asked you are not being asked whether you believe in climate change. Often what is actually being asked is whether you believe in imminent cataclysmic temperature and environmental effects from CO2 level increases.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Braud
August 26, 2018 8:02 pm

When asked if you believe in Climate Change, you should ask the questioner just exactly what they mean by Climate Change because there is more than one description for climate change. The questioner needs to get more specific.

commieBob
August 25, 2018 8:03 pm

The real deniers are the alarmists who deny natural variability.

Doug
Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2018 9:46 pm

Exactly. The climate has warmed. What proportion of the warming is due to natural causes and what is anthropogenic is not quantifiable. To claim otherwise is to deny the basics of science. We are all entitled to a guess. It would be nice if those using models to make their guess could acknowledge that it is just that, another guess.

MarkW
Reply to  Doug
August 26, 2018 9:28 am

Up above, Chris claims that we know exactly what all the forcings are with great precision.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 2:10 pm

Using as his evidence a paper which states that the forcings are “estimates”, “subject to change” and a weak link in the modeling.

Chris
Reply to  Doug
August 26, 2018 10:38 pm

Of course it’s an estimate. Tell me, Doug, how would you precisely measure the change in global forcing due to changes in farming practices (for example, the switch from tilling to zero tilling)? Or the impact of aerosols in the atmosphere?

We don’t have a second Earth where we can do lab experiments, switching knobs to eliminate aerosols from the environment, and then see how that impacts forcing. Then switching another know to roll back changes in farm practices to see that impact.

So scientists take measurements – for example, looking at the change in albedo and surface level humidity due to changes in farming practices – and then extrapolate that. Is it precise out to the nth degree? No, but it’s a good estimate.

And if you say it is not, explain why. And explain what alternative method you would propose to better measure or estimate forcings.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doug
August 27, 2018 5:58 am

” It would be nice if those using models to make their guess could acknowledge that it is just that, another guess.”

And they could also acknowledge that their scary CAGW models don’t match reality.

Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2018 9:47 pm
Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2018 10:30 pm

True. Many years ago I began referring to them as “natural climate change deniers.”

And adopted a slogan: “Climate change, that’s what climate does.”

Kristi Silber
Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2018 11:19 pm

commieBob – and who are they? Do you just assume that alarmists deny natural variability?

commieBob
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 3:24 am

Exhibit ‘A’ would be Dr. Michael Mann who, with his bogus hockey stick, tried to wipe out all the natural variability in the last millennium.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 4:05 am

So Kristi, how much of the current warming is natural and how much man-made? Real data please, not models. I await your answer.

Chris
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 4:16 am

Why not present your data first, Andy?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 4:28 am

I don’t need to. I’m not making wild claims about increasing CO2 levels driving us towards thermageddon.
Chris, have you got the data that shows the amount of natural and amount of man-made warming? Cos if you haven’t, you’ve got no reason to get your knickers in a twist about a totally beneficial trace gas #plamtfood

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 11:24 am

Andy,
‘I’m not making wild claims about increasing CO2 levels driving us towards thermageddon.’

Nor did I.

I don’t know how much is man-made and how much is natural. I’m not sure anyone claims to know that amount.

MarkW
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 1:37 pm

Given the FACT that CO2 concentrations have been at levels that are 10 to 15 times then the levels we are enjoying now, with temperatures that were the same as now, and lower, it’s hard to believe that adding a few hundred ppm is going to have much of an affect.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2018 9:09 pm

The sun emitted less radiation in the past.

Sgt
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 9:18 pm

The sun gains power by one percent every 110 million years.

Thus, when CO2 was about 4500 ppm (11 times now) 440 million years ago, the sun was 96% as powerful as now, yet there was an ice age.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 4:42 pm

Kristi, I appreciate your answer”I don’t know how much is man-made and how much is natural.” This makes you a lukewarmer and not an alarmist.
The alarmists, most prominently, are the IPCC and people like M.Mann who claim, erroneously, that CO2 is the control knob.

This makes you not unlike perhaps the majority of people who frequent this blog. I wish people here would focus on that and stop demonizing those that maybe show some skepticism about some forms of skepticism itself. Skepticism should work both ways. Those claiming to be skeptics should be less sensitive about showing that their skepticism is based on facts.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Spalding Craft
August 27, 2018 10:21 pm

Spalding Craft,

I’m not sure what you mean by “control knob.” I very highly doubt Mann would deny that there is natural variation, if that’s what you mean.

I want to be clear about my position. I do believe that CO2 has an effect on global climate. I also believe that there is good evidence that some of the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are negative, and that it will become more apparent over time. Some effects are also positive, and the effects are/will be regionally variable. But the faster the global temperature rises, and the more its does so, the harder it will be for humans and non-human biota to adapt.

There has always been, and always will be natural variation. I believe it’s likely that the variation will become more extreme because of the additional effects of global warming.

There is significant evidence that precipitation episodes are becoming more intense. There is some evidence that droughts are becoming more prolonged, but for various reasons this is hard to determine with confidence. Record high temperatures are becoming more common relative to their likelihood, and this is a health risk. Plants and animals are responding to changed climate. There is some evidence that hurricanes are becoming more intense. Apparently tornadoes are more often occurring in clusters, though overall they are not becoming more common.
(See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/44/17905 for an interesting analysis of the likelihood of record temperatures – or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/on-record-breaking-extremes/ for a more accessible explanation)

(This is an article about attribution of weather extremes to climate change. Those who believe that all computer models of climate are bunk won’t be interested – you don’t have to tell me. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9)

There are varying amounts of evidence that such extremes have become more common. I think it’s likely that the evidence will become stronger – although perhaps not in the next few decades, since there is a weakening of solar irradiation expected.

Sgt
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 10:40 pm

Kristi,

Have you really not read these 2010 and 2013 papers on CO2 as the “control knob” on climate? Note please the authors.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change

Andrew A. Lacis, James E. Hansen, Gary L. Russell, Valdar Oinas & Jeffrey Jonas

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.19734@zelb20.2013.65.issue-s1

David Smith
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 5:31 pm

Good – so you admit we’ve got no grounds to worry about CAGW

Kristi Silber
Reply to  David Smith
August 27, 2018 10:21 pm

Nope, I don’t “admit” that.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:52 am

Chris,

Not surprisingly, you demonstrate that you don’t understand how science works.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

Occam’s Razor suggests that the post-glacial warming is adequately explanatory for the post-industrial warming, and unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary one should accept that “There is nothing to see here. Move on!”

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2018 11:57 am

Clyde,

How does post-glacial warming explain post-industrial warming? Even if the warming were continuous, that wouldn’t *explain* anything… but it wasn’t. As I said elsewhere, even the graphs provided by Kip show that there were about 150 years before 1900 where there is no increasing temperature trend.

The claim that the Earth has been generally warming since about 1900 (with natural ups and downs) is not extraordinary at all. It’s supported by data. The simplest explanation is increased atmospheric CO2: it provides theoretical and observational evidence, and there is no other plausible mechanism to account for it. Occam’s Razor would support that sooner than the claim that the majority of the world’s climate scientists are colluding to commit fraud, or are victims of “groupthink,” supporting a partisan agenda to institute global government. Would skeptics of AGW claim that Exxon (aka Humble) scientists in the 1970-80s were in on it, too?

RicDre
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 12:38 pm

“The simplest explanation is increased atmospheric CO2”

The simplest explanation is the null hypotheses which is to say it is a natural change in the climate. Given that the climate has been at least this hot in the past makes natural climate change a plausible explanation. Any other explanation requires proof that it exists and that it is strong enough to override natural changes in the climate.

MarkW
Reply to  RicDre
August 26, 2018 1:43 pm

RicDre, it also requires proof that whatever caused the recent warming isn’t in operation this time as well.

Without the aid of CO2, the planet has been warmer than it is at present for over 90% of the last 10K years. It takes a will suspension of disbelief to believe that CO2 is the only possible explanation for the current, mild, and extremely welcome warming.

RicDre
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 3:11 pm

“RicDre, it also requires proof that whatever caused the recent warming isn’t in operation this time as well.”

Good Point.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  RicDre
August 27, 2018 10:30 pm

RicDre,

The null hypothesis is random variability without any trend. Any trend in climate change has something driving it.

AGW doesn’t “override” anything. The natural variation is there, but AGW has an additional effect. If the natural trend is toward cooling, you might see no temperature trend if AGW cancels it out. Natural high temps could become higher through the effects of AGW (though this depends of region, since AGW doesn’t always make it hotter everywhere.)

Sgt
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 10:53 pm

Kristi,

Nope. The null hypothesis isn’t random.

It is that nothing special is happening now outside of previously observed natural fluctuations, which are cyclical on many time scales. Hence, no special explanation or forcing need be invoked.

The null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

Chris
Reply to  Sgt
August 28, 2018 2:08 am

The null hypothesis has not been proven with regards to the climate changes we are experiencing. Whenever I asked commenters here why it is warming now, they say “we have no idea.” So, in other words, they don’t know the cause. But they know with absolute certainty that nearly all of it is natural.

MarkW
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 1:41 pm

If the simplest explanation was CO2 as you have been trained to believe, then temperature levels would have moved up in lock step with CO2 levels.
The reality is that there has been no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 200 years. Nor has there been at any time interval you care to investigate.

The majority of the world’s climate scientists aren’t in on it. As you would see if you actually examined their work.

As to your willingness to spread and believe lies, your last sentence condemns you again. For you the data doesn’t matter, it’s all a matter of believing what you have been told to believe.

PS: The claim that Exxon scientists bought into the scam is easily disproven by just reading what they wrote. Something that you have never bothered to do.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2018 10:42 pm

“If the simplest explanation was CO2 as you have been trained to believe, then temperature levels would have moved up in lock step with CO2 levels.”

Only if you’re dumb enough to think there’s no natural variation.

Wrong again, MarkW, as usual.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 6:19 am

“The claim that the Earth has been generally warming since about 1900 (with natural ups and downs) is not extraordinary at all.”

Saying it has generally been warming since 1900 is a little misleading. What actually happened is the climate warmed from 1910 to 1940, then the climate cooled from 1940 to 1980, reaching nearly the same low as was reached in 1910, and then the climate warmed from 1980 to the present at the same magnitude as the warming from 1910 to 1940, and to date, the current temperatures have not exceeded the tempertures in the 1930’s.

So the “Ups and Downs” are much more important to the story than alarmists make them out to be.

The “generally warming” meme is misleading. It has not been generally warming since 1900. That implies a steady upward increase in temperatures which is just not happening, except in the bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts.

Here’s the Hansen 1999 chart, it doesn’t show “general warming”. Combine this chart with the UAH satellite chart for the full picture on the temperature trend.

Remember these key points: 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, acording to Hansen 1999, which makes 1934 0.4C warmer than 2016, the socalled “Hottest Year Evah!”, according to UAH, which means we have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. Calling it “general warming” is a distortion of reality.

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2018 6:21 am

And the UAH satellite chart:

comment image

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2018 10:44 pm

That’s U.S. Temperature.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 28, 2018 1:51 pm

The U.S. temperature profile looks just like the unmodified temperature profile of other areas around the world such as Finland (see chart below), which is halfway around the world from the U.S. yet the Finland chart shows the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years, just like the U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) I used.

comment image

Unmodified temperature charts from around the world look similar to the Hansen 1999 U.S. chart. None of the unmodified charts look like the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick surface temperature charts that are used to sell the CAGW narrative.

So which temperature profile best represents reality? The U.S. chart, which resembles unmodified charts from around the world, or the bogus Hockey Stick chart which doesn’t resemble anything other than itself?

The Hockey Stick chart does resemble the CO2 chart but that is a deliberate modification of the temperature record to make it look like the rise of CO2 corrolates with the rising temperatures. Those Climategate co-conspirators were very clever with their fraud, but not clever enough. They left the old records still available. Now the alarmists want to act like the old records have no value. And we know why: Because they want us to bleive their lies and worship the Hockey Stick.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:29 am

It’s up to those who are demanding that the entire world’s economy be changed to provide evidence that this change is necessary.

colin smith
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2018 4:19 am

@MarkW
Hear, hear 🙂

Reply to  Andy Wilkins
August 26, 2018 6:14 am

The models say that 3 times as much warming should have occurred from 1999-2008 than actually occurred.

comment image

Since 1998, 95% of the models predicted more warming than actually occured.

comment image
Remote Sensing Systems

The “climate” (30-yr avg. temp.) is not particularly anomalous.

comment image

It’s clearly obvious that the models underestimate natural variability and/or overestimate climate sensitivity to CO2.

Chris
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 7:41 am

Why do your charts stop in 2008? That’s 10 years ago.

Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:33 am

Kaufmann et al. 2011 ends in 2008 because that’s what they modeled: 1999-2008, 1 decade.

The RSS graph is through 2017.

My graph is through about 2000 because it is a 30 year running average in order to reflect climate rather than weather and make the resolution of HadCRUT4 instrumental reconstruction somewhat comparable to the resolution of the proxy reconstruction.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 1:16 pm

The obvious thing to do would be to provide more recent data, and a graph that didn’t start in 1998. Damages your credibility.

Your graph is for the NH only. Regardless, the rate of rise does indeed look exceptional compared to the reconstruction.

Isn’t the yellow graph TLT? Sure would be nice if you provided a source. Besides, the fact that part of the observations are outside the 95% range doesn’t mean “95% of the models predicted more warming than actually occured”

comment image

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/are-95-climate-models-linking-human-co%E2%82%82-emissions-and-global-warming-error
This is also a nice discussion of models and natural variability.
“There is a saying in science that ‘all models are wrong, but some models are useful’. In simulating any complex system, any model will fail to reproduce all facets of the system perfectly.

…’To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. These include solar variations, volcanic eruptions and human aerosol emissions.

“The influence of all these ‘climate drivers’ are included in modern climate models. On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations – like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, ENSO and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, [IPO] – that can redistribute heat to the deep ocean (thereby masking surface warming).

“Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.”

Other graphs:
comment image
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/698380997222510592

http://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_1950-2015.jpg
“Comparison of a large set of climate model runs (CMIP5) with several observational temperature estimates. The thick black line is the mean of all model runs. The grey region is its model spread. The dotted lines show the model mean and spread with new estimates of the climate forcings. The coloured lines are 5 different estimates of the global mean annual temperature from weather stations and sea surface temperature observations. ”
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/09/model-spread-is-not-uncertainty-nwp.html

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 8:58 am

Probably because that was all the data that was available when the graph was published in 2010! If you have an update that tells a different story, feel free to post it. However, with the exception of the exceptional 2016 El Nino, it has been pretty much ‘business as usual’ the last 10 years.

Chris
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2018 10:44 pm

Clyde – Kristi was kind enough to do just that. It shows it has certainly not been “business as usual” for the last 10 years.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris
August 27, 2018 12:55 pm

Chris,

Yes, about 5 hours after I made the suggestion, Kristi posted some graphs. As I see them, a linear regression does a reasonable job of describing the trend since the early 1960s — i.e. business as usual. Although, with the exception of the most recent El Nino event (not directly CO2 related) the last decade has been flatter than the previous decades. Therein lies the problem. The variations are unrelated to variations in CO2 emissions! To properly ascertain correlations, time series should be de-trended. Did you read the link I provided above about spurious correlations?

Picking increments of years divisible by 10 for decadal averages is an artifact of when we think Christ was born. A better approach would be to look for trends in the temperatures and select decades out of those without concern about whether the numbers are divisible by 10. Another example of how poorly climatologists analyze data!

Chris
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2018 7:53 pm

Clyde, if global temperatures are climbing, then the baseline upon which El Nino’s occur will cause the El Nino peaks to be higher. So you can’t dismiss El Nino spikes as being unrelated or irrelevant to AGW.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2018 11:14 pm

You don’t know that the degree of warming in the latest El Ninos wasn’t affected by climate change.

There is variability, sure. There is not only natural variability, but variability in patterns of human actions that could influence temps. – there’s evidence that aerosols from pollution and volcanic activity caused the mid-century cooling, for example.

“Picking increments of years divisible by 10 for decadal averages is an artifact of when we think Christ was born. A better approach would be to look for trends in the temperatures and select decades out of those without concern about whether the numbers are divisible by 10. ”

You aren’t a scientist, are you?

It makes absolutely no different whether “the numbers are divisible by 10.” It’s not like climate cares what decade it is, or whether the trend is from 1993-2002. Looking for trends in temperature would bias the effect they are illustrating.

Are you Chaamjamal?

If one is going to look at the relationship between CO2 and climate statistically, many factors would have to be taken into account, which is why there are complex climate models.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:31 am

Thought better of it.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
August 26, 2018 9:37 am

Chris

The middle chart goes up to around now i.e. 2018.

What kind of scientist are you if you can’t see or count?

Craig Belcourt
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 12:27 pm

Thank you!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 4:15 am

Technically, Kristi you are right. Most of the time, most alarmists like Mann, Hansen, Gore, Schmidt, Obama, Clinton, Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, …, do not explicitly deny natural variability. The denial is implicit. They propose the magical thinking that natural factors that were capable of driving snowball earth and hothouse earth periods in the past, have been totally overwhelmed by a 0.014% increase in a minor trace gas, even though that trace gas has been at least ten times higher in concentration during the past.

To explicitly acknowledge the implications of their alarmist premise would be self-defeating to their propaganda.

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 26, 2018 6:45 am

They mimimize natural variability and call anyone who disagrees with them a clumate denier.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 8:59 am

Or even worse, a clathrate denier!

Kristi Silber
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 1:55 pm

Who is “they”?

HotScot
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 26, 2018 9:40 am

Rich Davis

My understanding is that man made CO2 as a proportion of the entire atmosphere is ~0.0012%.

Rich Davis
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 11:36 am

Yes, probably, but I was referring to the change in CO2 concentration overall, including natural causes.

I suppose you can make the case that the magical thinking makes a distinction between harmless all-natural CO2 and deadly human-generated CO2. (Because after all, they are totally different at the metaphysical molecular scale. One has a pure and holy soul, the other is stained by the sin of human association needless to say). Maybe that’s the incantation that negates the fact that earth had CO2 levels much higher than today during ice ages.

AnthonyB
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 26, 2018 9:58 am

“They propose the magical thinking that natural factors that were capable of driving snowball earth and hothouse earth periods in the past, have been totally overwhelmed by a 0.014% increase in a minor trace gas, even though that trace gas has been at least ten times higher in concentration during the past.”

No “they” dont – it is well known/accepted that orbital variations caused most large climate variations and that carbon dioxide was a feedback into the process.

O3 is also a “minor trace gas” but yet it stops the Earth frying from UV radiation.

The “past” is just that, the past, when the Earth was a very different planet,
What was the albedo?
What was the Sun’s output?
What was the continental configuration?
Ocean currents or lack of?

Rich Davis
Reply to  AnthonyB
August 26, 2018 11:48 am

Oh AnthonyB, you bore me. You raise some examples of valid natural factors and then revert to the magical thinking that this time none of those factors matter. Don’t you know that CO2 is the master control knob for the climate? What difference should ocean currents or continental drift have compared to the omnipotence of CO2? Albedo and the sun? What does the sun have to do with earth’s climate? Is there CO2 in the sun? /sarc

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 26, 2018 1:54 pm

No, natural variability has not been “overwhelmed” – that’s obvious. The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability. It makes no sense, for example, to assume that recent el Ninos would have been as strong as they were if not for AGW. Perhaps they would have, but to assume so would be denying the possibility that natural variability is affected by AGW.

To me the term “alarmist,” applied to anyone and everyone who believes that AGW poses a problem or advocates for change, is just as bad as calling all skeptics “deniers.” In what way is Schmidt, for example, an alarmist? Does he predict a sea level rise of meters by 2050? Does he say that all hurricanes are a result of AGW? Or what? (I don’t know the answer. Serious question.)

The problem is that while “denier” may not be suitable, neither is “skeptic.” There are plenty of people who practice skepticism but accept the theory of AGW. It seems to me that many AGW “skeptics” do not apply their skepticism adequately to evidence that supports their ideas, and are very quick to condemn research that either supports or assumes AGW as fact, even if it isn’t about climate change at all.

This is the problem with labels and generalizations: few labels capture the variety of ideas held by the people to which they are applied. Some skeptics are well-defined as “deniers,” just as some alarmists are truly unrealistic and promote propaganda.

RicDre
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 3:25 pm

“No, natural variability has not been “overwhelmed” – that’s obvious.”

I agree

“The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability.”

The magnitude of this overlay is not proven and may well be zero.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 3:43 am

“It makes no sense, for example, to assume that recent el Ninos would have been as strong as they were if not for AGW”

Null hypothesis mean anything to you Kristi?

Does it make any sense, for example, to assume that recent forest fires would have been as big as they were if not for phlogiston?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 9:37 am

“The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability.”

I am compelled to ask the question: What climate effects of CO2? Is there any evidence that CO2 is affecting the climate? No, none that I can see, and I feel confident in saying that noone will provde me with any because there is no evidence to provide

CAGW is a fantasy scenario created by the Climategate co-conspriators (and you know who you are). They have perpetrated a fraud on the world.

Chris
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2018 7:54 pm

Tom, a link to this was already posted below.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  commieBob
August 26, 2018 8:43 am

And those who deny that skeptics have valid points because they question the consensus.

Earthling2
August 25, 2018 8:03 pm

I have often been asked “Why do you deny climate change?” I am always stumped by the question. It is rather like being asked “Why do you torture innocent animals?” The questioner is not merely asking for information, they are always making an accusation…

Yes, that question, or accusation, is a real insult on many levels assuming you are just some ignorant na-zi sympathizer. It is not only an insult, but also comes from a position of some type of intellectual or moral superiority, before they have even started a discussion to actually know what your position is. And then there is the Natural Variation issue, in that the climate is always, and has always been changing. That is what climate does, and is implicitly changing otherwise it wouldn’t even really be climate. Climate and weather are dynamic processes and by default they are always changing. Usually going in some sort of cycle. We seek to truthfully understand why it changes, when and how much. I feel the same way that it is a loaded statement, and sort of an ignorant one too. Sort of like asking someone if they believe in climate change…it is like asking someone if they believe in winter.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Earthling2
August 25, 2018 11:17 pm

Oy vey. The questioner may have phrased it poorly, but honestly wanted to know. To read into it all kinds of hidden meanings could simply be part of YOUR thought processes, not theirs. It depends on how it’s asked.

Earthling2
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 25, 2018 11:38 pm

Yes Kristi, you just proved my point…wanting to demonize someone that doesn’t hold your exact world view.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Earthling2
August 26, 2018 1:04 am

You are both right. Some alarmists are on a high horse while others are simply curious about skeptics.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 26, 2018 1:50 am

Alan Tomalty said:

“Some alarmists are on a high horse while others are simply curious about skeptics.”

And, a lot of them aren’t alarmists. I get called an alarmist. Nick Stokes gets called an alarmist.

When I ask what have either of us done that is alarmist, the usual answer is something along the lines of “well, you refuse to acknowledge that whatever I declare to be a hoax is a hoax, so therefore you are alarmist!”

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 4:07 am

No alarm = no problem.
So, let’s give up the obsession with CO2, stop wasting trillions on green crap, and spend it instead on raising the world’s poor out of poverty and misery.

Sheri
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 6:38 am

I would call you both true believers, not alarmists.

Reply to  Sheri
August 26, 2018 6:47 am

Nick just views the data from a different perspective.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 26, 2018 9:04 am

A VERY different perspective. Such as when one is standing on their head!

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 6:46 am

That actually earmed a +1.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 9:27 am

Anybody that believes in CAGW is by definition an alarmist. If you only believe in AGW then there is no problem and why are the politicians trying to limit CO2 increases? Why does this website even exist if there are no alarmists? It is because all the politicians and media and people like yourself think the world has a problem. THE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. The atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less. If you disagree with what I am saying you are an alarmist.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 26, 2018 2:23 pm

Does one have to predict catastrophe to believe there is a problem? Are those who believe the latest hurricane is a sign of global warming the same as those who believe the potential impacts of AGW should be considered in policy?

Are those who automatically dismiss all evidence of global warming properly called “skeptics”? What about those who refuse to believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can have any effect on global temperatures?

It’s a logical fallacy to think that people fall into discrete camps that can be defined by labels. Labels are simply a convenience; it’s when people fail to recognize this that problems arise.

If skeptics want to stop being called “deniers” because the term is inappropriate, they should also stop calling “alarmists” anyone who believes AGW is not wholly benign. Why expect others to be reasonable when you are not reasonable yourself?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 27, 2018 9:49 am

“Kristi ==> Would you help out the conversation by prefacing your comments with some kind of label as to whom you are addressing?
You can’t count on the threads to make this plain.”

Good point. Posts on these new threads can sometime bounce around out of sequence and it is sometimes difficult to know which post is addressing what.

It would help to put a name or a quote in the post to let others know what you are referring to.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 27, 2018 11:24 pm

Kip – Yes, fair enough. I forget sometimes.

RicDre
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 3:40 pm

“If skeptics want to stop being called ‘deniers’ because the term is inappropriate, they should also stop calling ‘alarmists’ anyone who believes AGW is not wholly benign. Why expect others to be reasonable when you are not reasonable yourself?”

I agree with this comment, though I don’t think skeptics fired the first shot in this name-calling battle. In any case, I believe most skeptics would love to have a civil Red-Team/Blue-Team discussion of this issue but there appears to be much less enthusiasm for this kind of discussion among the Global Warming proponents.

Steve O
Reply to  RicDre
August 27, 2018 8:21 am

The term “denier” was chosen because of its application to holocaust deniers. It’s an intentionally inflammatory term that is meant in a derogatory manner.

The term “alarmist” is merely descriptive, in an accurate manner.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 1:03 pm

Kristi,
I suggest that you do an online search and see when the two terms (denier & alarmist) first started showing up. My sense is that “alarmist” was a response to being called “denier.”

My definition of a “skeptic” would be anyone who calls out the consensus claims, regardless of the particular claim.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2018 11:32 pm

Clyde,
“My definition of a “skeptic” would be anyone who calls out the consensus claims, regardless of the particular claim.”

That says a lot. It doesn’t matter what the claims, skeptics are going to “call it out”? What does that mean, exactly? Why would a skeptic only do this with “consensus” claims? Doesn’t that indicate bias?

I don’t care which came first, denier or alarmist. Reacting by finding a comparable insult is just lowering oneself to the opposition’s level.

MarkW
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 9:33 am

If you are alarmed enough to demand that CO2 production be radically curtailed, then you are an alarmist.

HotScot
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 26, 2018 9:54 am

Philip Schaeffer

The easy way round being called an alarmist is, of course, to produce credible empirical studies which demonstrate CO2 causes global warming. There must surely be numerous papers over the last 40 years or so.

Strangely, no one I have asked that question of can produce one including Chris and Kristi.

On that basis alone, those claiming CO2 causes climate change is an alarmist.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  HotScot
August 26, 2018 2:25 pm

Maybe, HotScot, other are like me – they don’t want to waste time on you.

HotScot
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 4:38 pm

Kristi Silber

On the other hand, you don’t have the evidence and think its clever to evade the subject rather than say, as an honest scientist would, “You’re right HotScot, I don’t have the evidence”.

But that would just stick in your craw, wouldn’t it Kristi?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 26, 2018 9:02 am

“… simply curious about skeptics.”

Like someone who can’t resist the Freak Show at a carnival?

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2018 2:28 pm

Clyde, those are your words. Is that what you really think? How odd.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 1:06 pm

Kristi,
I consider myself to be a skeptic. I have no problem being self-deprecating if it illustrates a point.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Earthling2
August 26, 2018 1:04 am

“climate is always, and has always been changing. That is what climate does, and is implicitly changing otherwise it wouldn’t even really be climate. ”
Correct on a regional level.
Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.
More energy in OR more energy being retained.
The only one current is the latter.
To simply say it’s just climate doing what it has always done ignores 150+ years of empirical science (that CO2 is a GHG) and as such drives climate when it comes first, and amplifies change when coming second (feedback).

“wanting to demonize someone that doesn’t hold your exact world view.”
Kristi did not “demonise” you.
Just posed an alternative interpretation – you know, the word “could”?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 2:02 am

And YOU “could” be – a child molester, a wife beater, a rapist, a stamp collector;
…now, all YOU have to do is prove that you’re not.

That’s how demonetization works.

Rich Davis
Reply to  saveenergy
August 26, 2018 4:30 am

Obviously saveenergy meant demonization, not demonetization.

Oh he’s had an auto-correct spell-check mishap, quick, let’s jump all over that so that we don’t need to acknowledge the valid point!

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 28, 2018 2:14 pm

Thanks Rich, it’s proof of not proof reading (:<((

Hugs
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 2:56 am

“Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.”

Obvious?

I’m not sure how obvious the drivers between the HCO and Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval warm periods are, let alone before those, but what you basically say is that such reasons don’t apply to last 150 years. OK, good, that’s your opinion, but showing it is obvious, is, eh, not so obviously done.

The panic button depends on believing in unprecedented, fast warming such that CO2 is explaining 150% or more of it. (See Curry-Schmidt on ‘more than half’)

Kip, thanks for this down to Earth, simple statement of your position. I largely agree and feel the same, though I don’t take climate into discussions with any greenie friends and family because they’d just become hostile for merely disagreeing on policy. So I’m not called as a denialist for supporting nuclear instead of wind and solar. I just try to vote for parties that couldn’t care less on building wind + solar. And that leaves me about one, populist possibility. Sad is that.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Hugs
August 26, 2018 4:28 pm

I don’t know about the other periods, but the MWP was not as warm as many believe if you look at the Earth as a whole.

There is evidence that it occurred at a time of higher solar radiation and lower volcanic activity, neither of which apply to the last 150 years.

I think you mean 50% or more.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 4:12 am

The Sun is the primary Climate driver for the Earth, as demonstrated a few years back when the UK Wet Office announced a’la back page, that the Earth may experience colder than usual winters over the next 30-35 years becuase the Sun is in “shut-down” mode, but of course it wouldn’t affect long-term man-made Globul Warming. An announcement made by highly paid public sector workers around middle-age who would be merrily retired on big fat juicy pensions when the time came!

HotScot
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 26, 2018 10:10 am

Alan the Brit

Fret not mate, the catastrophic 0.0012% of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere will overcome any effect from that puny sun.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 9:34 am

“Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.”

You have to do the null hypothesis experimental studies to find the answer to that one. So far the climate scientists have not done this . All they have done is worship their computer models which are programmed to project warming with increased CO2. Therefore you cannot do a proper null hypothesis experiment with the computer climate models. Climate science has been reduced to hand waving and alarmism.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 26, 2018 4:33 pm

There are other ways to do science besides experiments testing a null hypothesis. Since we only have one Earth to study, how would you propose conducting such an experiment?

“All they have done is worship their computer models which are programmed to project warming with increased CO2” Evidence?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 1:30 pm

Science can only be done using a null hypothesis. Small scale laboratories would have to be set up with a real land surface and another one with a real water surface. The laboratories would have to be large enough to have clouds forming as in a cloud chamber and different levels of CO2 injected . If this doesnt work then it is impossible to duplicate the real earth atmosphere. But that doesnt justify spending trillions of dollars on a guess.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 27, 2018 1:47 pm

“Science can only be done using a null hypothesis.” That is not true. Einstein did not use a null hypothesis to construct the Theory of Special Relativity

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 27, 2018 11:44 pm

Alan –

I see. So you create models. And separate the water from the land. And have a big heat lamp for the sun I suppose? Populate it with little tiny model people and little tiny model cornfields and forests? You could have a little choo-choo, with a bridge and a station!

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 9:37 am

Anthony, so the whole earth did not warm up between 2016 and 2017?
The whole earth does not warm up and cool down when the oceanic cycles change their phase for 30 to 60 years at a time?
What caused the little ice age?
What caused the Mideival, Roman and Minoan warm periods?
What caused the Holocene optimum?

PS, why does it have to be an obvious driver? Is it not possible that we don’t understand how climate works as well as the high priests tell us we do?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 12:12 pm

What should be obvious, but clearly eludes the consensus crew such as Anthony, is that the atmosphere is the tail and the ocean is the dog. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is trivial compared to the oceans. Short- and long-term oscillations of the ocean cool and heat the air. It doesn’t violate any physical laws or energy balance for it to be a widespread or global effect. The global atmosphere is nothing compared to the ocean.

And CO2 is the flea on the tail of the dog.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2018 11:52 pm

Rich,

That’s why the oceans are included in the models. It’s no news that they are a heat sink. But to say that the atmosphere is of secondary importance does not recognize its role in the energy balance of the planet as a whole. It’s like saying the oceans are more important than the variation in radiation from the Sun.

HotScot
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 26, 2018 10:01 am

Anthony Banton

Kindly produce the “empirical” studies that demonstrate CO2 causes climate change. Nor do I mean laboratory studies or modelled examples.

And if you want a ‘laboratory’ discussion:

John Tyndall himself concluded that “water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 27, 2018 11:56 pm

Kip,

“We don’t know what caused past changes when the current meme, “anthropogenic CO2”, wasn’t in play” We have some pretty good evidence-based hypotheses for at least some changes. The solar cycles are important, for example.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 28, 2018 5:26 pm

“Correct on a regional level.
Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.
More energy in OR more energy being retained.
The only one current is the latter.
To simply say it’s just climate doing what it has always done ignores 150+ years of empirical science (that CO2 is a GHG) and as such drives climate when it comes first, and amplifies change when coming second (feedback).”

We don’t know with any real certainty what global climate, not that there is such a thing, was like in the past. We can guess, based on very imperfect proxies, but the error bars are almost always greater than the supposed differences.

Air masses move around, continents move around, jet streams move around, those are what cause changes. It gets warmer in one place, cooler in another, relatively static in others.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Earthling2
August 26, 2018 2:00 pm

Earthling2,
Nonsense. That’s not what I said at all. You are missing the “may” and “could,” and I am demonizing no one. It’s natural to read meanings into others’ words, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational or correct. And what I said has nothing whatever to do with my world view.

Earthling2
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 27, 2018 11:49 am

Kristi, why do you even bother to use weasel words like ‘may’ and ‘could’ in your hypothetical reply unless your intent is to further mislead and confuse readers because of your world view that is pro alarmist. I only stated a truth that climate is always changing so that term is sort of irrelevant, if not confusing and leading a false narrative. And I also point out that it is usually done by people that view themselves as intellectually or morally superior. Which in my opinion, is you and those types that continually denigrate people who hold a different opinion on the effects of AGW. That is intellectual demonization.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Earthling2
August 28, 2018 12:07 am

Earthling2 – I continually denigrate people? I sometimes do, normally specific people who have a long history of insulting me. But I’m no match for some others around here. Why not complain about MarkW, for instance, or Lord Monckton?

I don’t believe I’m intellectually or morally superior in general. I have my strengths and weaknesses intellectually, as we all do. I don’t think about the moral angle much, except when I see moral hypocrisy (e.g. complaints about “redistribution of wealth” and assertions that rather than spend money on research, we should be helping the poor).

commieBob
Reply to  Kristi Silber
August 26, 2018 3:34 am

The Social Justice Warriors (SJW) would refer to microaggressions.

Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”. The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned.

If we were SJWs, we would demand safe spaces for climate skeptics.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
August 26, 2018 9:39 am

I find it fascinating how the so called scientist assumes that these denigrating messages are being sent because of “group membership”.

To the left, everyone is defined solely by the group they are in.
Individuality is not permitted.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2018 4:37 pm

MarkW,

“To the left, everyone is defined solely by the group they are in.”

Isn’t that what you just did?

</