Explaining Global Warming to the Public is Impossible Because We Are Not Talking the Same Language

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I get many emails from people asking for tips on how to explain to others, including their friends and family, what is actually going on with the global warming issue. I also hear from many people about how they lost family and friends because of being a global warming skeptic. It is harsh, but it appears that the English Philosopher, Herbert Spencer’s (1820-1903) observation, is the situation today. He said,

“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”

Uninformed is a better word than “fools,” but the challenge remains the same. This is not a new problem but seems more virulent in today’s so-called information age. Michael Crichton was correct when he more accurately called it the age of misinformation. As Bertrand Russell said,

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

Voltaire suggested a place to start.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”

I would add if you wish to converse with me have a modicum of understanding of the facts. During a recent interview, I became exasperated with the interviewer who kept saying I was wrong and a liar, so I finally challenged him to explain the greenhouse effect for the audience. He couldn’t! He did not even know that the greenhouse theory could result in a colder world. This misconception is a result of the words used. The public associate a greenhouse, and therefore the word, with higher temperatures. The concept automatically infers warming. It is why the analogy was chosen for the political agenda and deception of anthropogenic warming. Several other analogies, most implying energy balance, such as the filling and draining of a bathtub, were suggested over the years but did not replace it. The same misdirection of using a word or catchphrase to create a mental image was used in the ozone deception. There it was the phrase “holes in the ozone.” There are no holes, only an area of thinning, but the phrase implies something is leaking or broken.

Because of this deliberate use of words to mislead, it is incredible how many people hold intractable views on global warming without even a basic understanding. It creates the unsolvable dilemma of trying to have logical discussions about illogical things.

Then, there is the added problem of technical jargon. It is estimated the average English-speaking person has a vocabulary of about 9000 words and about 100 of those words they use repeatedly. Most don’t believe these numbers, as evidenced by the fact that they think they need to learn every word in a foreign language to be conversant in that language. I understand Shakespeare used 24,000 words in his plays and sonnets and introduced 1700 new words into the language. I jokingly told my students that this was about right, 9000 to 24,000, because most people understand about one-third of Shakespeare. The Oxford English Dictionary lists 171,476 words but acknowledges this does not include many areas such as scientific and academic jargon. However, they conclude,

“This suggests that there are, at the very least, a quarter of a million distinct English words, excluding inflections, and words from technical and regional vocabulary not covered by the OED, or words not yet added to the published dictionary, of which perhaps 20 percent are no longer in current use. If distinct senses were counted, the total would probably approach three quarters of a million.”

A university professor has, on average, a vocabulary of 40,000 words, but a majority of them are jargon. The first thing a student learns in a first-year course in any subject is the ‘language’ of the discipline. Some of this is done because the area of study requires unique words, but often a different meaning to a common word is used and creates confusion. The best example appeared early in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate when those scientists, who correctly challenged the theory using the scientific method, were called skeptics. Michael Shermer explained.

“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”

All this came into focus again this week because I was involved in discussions with a group who want to arrange a debate. I am totally in support of debate and free expression of ideas and opinions, but here is the problem. If you have a debate between two scientists on the subject, most of the public would not understand because they don’t know the jargon and have different meanings for some of the words. If the debate is between a scientist and an environmentalist, or even an ordinary citizen, it quickly devolves into an emotional, fact-free argument.

The shameful truth is the courts will not entertain a scientific case because they don’t understand the jargon at even the most basic level. My challenge in finding a defense lawyer was to get one who could follow the basic science. I did it by using knowledge gained from former students who went to law school. They told me most lawyers are Arts students and the biggest failure percentage was in a Taxation course, usually in the second year. I obtained a list of defamation lawyers and asked them how they did in Taxation. The one who said he was top of the class and very proud of his 84% became my lawyer. So far it is working.

The problem with illiteracy about numbers extends to the public at large. Figure 1 shows the number of 15-year-old students with science skills.

clip_image002

Figure 1

The highest level is Finland with approximately 18 %, which means that 82% lack science skills. The average for the countries identified is about 10%. It is reasonable to assume that this reflects the percentages in society, so, 90% are incapable of understanding the Summary for Policymakers designed explicitly for the general public, let alone the Science Reports of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Despite that inability they are imbued with the absolutism, perfection, and immutability of numbers. This evolved from a movement in the 1920s called logical positivism defined as,

…characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.

In response to this, mathematician and philosopher A. N. Whitehead (1861-1947), wrote,

There is no more common error than to assume that because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.

People are so imbued with logical positivism that they can’t believe there are different types of numbers and therefore data. I learned early in my career when doing a study of energy inputs into the formation of a beach for my Masters’ degree that they can be discrete or continuous. In many statistical applications, the difference is critical to the validity of your results. Most people don’t even know that there are imaginary numbers used in some parts of mathematics.

At the same time as logical positivism was emerging, statistics were being applied to society and especially humans and human behavior. I wrote about this in a previous article Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic.” Climate, the average of the weather, was studied and understood by the Greeks but slipped into history until the first part of the 20th century. In response to demands from pilots in WWI for forecasts, meteorology became what everybody knew in relation to weather. It is still true today, but few people know that meteorology is restricted to the study of physics of the atmosphere. Climate only occurred in national weather offices because somebody, often a person tired of forecasting, had to compile daily, weekly, and monthly averages. This is why it was and remains the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). After 1947, the list of its duties was still dictated by the needs of aviation weather, so weather stations continued mostly at airports and the only reference of obligations directed to all the agencies under the umbrella of the WMO was “climatological statistics.”

All this began to change when Reid Bryson (1920-2008) and Hubert Lamb (1913-1997 began studying climatology seriously. Bryson set up the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s meteorology department and Center for Climatic Research in 1948. Lamb established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 1972 but need for reconstructing climate data and long-term records from the past germinated long before then. Lamb’s obituary in the Independent explains.

At around the same time (1950), Lamb – and climatology – experienced a huge slice of luck. He was posted to the Meteorological Office’s moribund climatology department, where he was able to indulge his fascination, with little interruption, in what was probably the most complete, and unstudied, meteorological archive in the world. He set about reconstructing monthly atmospheric circulations over the North Atlantic and Europe back to the 1750s, confirming his growing conviction of the reality of climate change on time-scales of significance to modern humankind. He also started to make the first connections between sea-surface temperatures and the atmospheric circulation.

It is ironic that there is a major effort today to understand such connections, because of the significance of links between ocean circulations and the overlying atmosphere, much of it with the computer techniques Lamb felt were used in an uncritical way right to the end of his life.

Lamb was correct about the computers and their use, but he was also correct about the problems inherent in researching a generalist subject in which there were so many sub-disciplines. This is why climatology was traditionally taught in the original integrative discipline (chorology) of Physical Geography.

“This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences.”

Many try to put me down as obtaining my Ph.D., in Geography. It was one of the lines trotted out by the interviewer who called me a liar. The only climatology options outside Physical Geography at the time were Bryson or Lamb’s programs. I communicated with Wisconsin but could not afford to attend. Instead, I did my degree through Queen Mary College at the University of London, where my supervisor, Dr. Bruce Atkinson, specialized in Urban Heat Island studies. He arranged several visits for me with Professor Lamb at East Anglia. There I witnessed even then the disgraceful way those, under the control of Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, who later dominated the CRU and the IPCC, spoke about and treated him. Fortunately, their actions and behaviours were disclosed in the emails leaked in November of 2009.

A few disciplines, such as people studying systems analysis understand the fundamental problem at the centre of the AGW issue. Figure 2 is a simple systems diagram of the atmosphere produced by Kellogg and Schneider in 1974. The so-called Climate Scientists don’t understand. The more arrogant among them believe, because they have degrees in mathematics or physics, they are superior and understand, while the rest of us trying to put even the major pieces of the system in place are stupid. It is the inevitable extension of logical positivism.

clip_image004

Figure 2

The arrogant few who bully the rest of us don’t even realize the difference between generalization and specialization. They don’t know that for every area on the diagram there is a different specialist, each using different jargon. Just ask them if they know the meaning of the word yazoo used by experts who study the overland flow of “precipitation” on the diagram.

Now you know why there is a Glossary with every IPCC Report, including the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Here is their definition of sequestration.

The uptake (i.e., the addition of a substance of concern to a reservoir) of carbon containing substances, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), in terrestrial or marine reservoirs. Biological sequestration includes direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through land-use change (LUC), afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, carbon storage in landfills and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture (cropland management, grazing land management). In parts of the literature, but not in this report, (carbon) sequestration is used to refer to Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). {WGIII}

There, now you know. The trouble is that it is not the most common use among the public. The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition;

· The action of sequestrating or taking legal possession of assets.

‘if such court injunctions are ignored, sequestration of trade union assets will follow’

1. 1.1 The action of taking forcible possession of something; confiscation.

‘he demanded the sequestration of the incriminating correspondence’

M1.2 The action of declaring someone bankrupt.

‘in Scotland there were 1,908 sequestrations of individuals’

M2 The action of chemically sequestering a substance.

So, most of the public is no better informed and another specialization, lawyers, understand something very different.

The task is to produce a few simple points of challenge to AGW, in the most common and widely understood English available. Of course, you have to overcome a classic. the numerically and linguistically inaccurate claim that, “The consensus is that 97% of all scientists agree.” Good luck.

Advertisements

387 thoughts on “Explaining Global Warming to the Public is Impossible Because We Are Not Talking the Same Language

  1. I am about to teach a certificate course on how to dialogue in an age of political tribalism.
    what can I use to reflect this article above?
    Thanks
    Mary Graves 707 480-2492

    • “… how to dialogue “?

      I’m thinkin’ maybe dialogue is when we talk at each other, communication is when we talk with each other. I’m guessin’ that maybe understanding is a degree course.

      Enlightenment please. (umm, would that be postgraduate?)

      • Hunt,

        I think dialogue is the appropriate term. Communication can include all sorts of things – gestures, body language, eye contact. One can communicate without saying a word.

        • The key element missing these days, whether one says “dialogue” or “communication” is the “listening” element. For politically-charged topics, people have learned to apply a “political filter” to avoid listening to ideas that seem to be coming from “the political opposition.” For many professional scientists, political filters are essential in order to stay employed or achieve tenure.
          My response is to simply point people to the raw data (Nullius in Verba). (I think I learned this from Anthony, who maintains links to raw data as part of this blog). Some have said “what are the chances that I, a non-scientist, can correctly interpret the raw data? My answer is “the raw data is actually quite simple to interpret – you can plot it in Excel and see for example that in most cases, the sea level is not changing very fast at all, and has not accelerated since the 1600s. The temperature has been changing slowly and steadily since record-keeping began in the late 1800s. This raw data is much easier to interpret than the squabbling voices of scientists and pseudo scientists (ahem Bill Nye).” Of course the difficulty is that non-scientists may find “doctored” data, and draw poor conclusions, so when possible I provide links to the raw data.
          The other important part of communication is that we skeptics must listen.

          • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

            – Upton Sinclair

          • Boffin77,

            I agree, listening is a problem. It’s especially hard to listen when one is feeling defensive.

            There are a couple problems with simply plugging data into Excel. One is that without knowledge of the assumptions behind a statistical test, it’s possible to draw false conclusions. Another is that climate is complex, and the variables are affected by multiple factors. Looking for a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, for example, is not going to get one anywhere because no one is saying that CO2 is the only thing driving temperature. There is so much variance in the data that is due to other influences that the true relationship between CO2 and temperature is masked. This is why climate models are constructed.

            Another factor is which dataset you use. For example, some sea level rise data have been statistically treated to remove the seasonal variation, which makes it easier to look at trends and test for significance.

            “…sea level is not changing very fast at all, and has not accelerated since the 1600s” I am not aware of any data set that reliably records sea level change since the 1600s, and find this hard to believe. Please enlighten me, and also take a look at this page https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level.

            A few mm a year adds up over the course of decades. This is already having an effect, with “nuisance flooding” (that which is not associated with a big storm) is becoming more common. Even nuisance flooding can be damaging and costly. …But the page talks about it in more detail.

            I agree that listening to scientists squabble is not very enlightening. I think this is one reason few scientists are eager to engage in public debates. But scientists must squabble, it’s healthy – as long as they do it professionally. Going to the media or a blog and complaining about someone’s research is not professional.

            Nice post. I like the tone of it. Good for discussion.

          • The problem with illiteracy about numbers

            ‘illiteracy about numbers’ is called innumeracy , calling it illiteracy is … illiteracy.

          • The result of illiteracy and innumeracy, is penury, not just a pecuniary concern.
            I think Trump’s imposition of penury on the EPA, Paris purses, actiually did communicate very well to innumerate voters and the illiterate entitled establishment. And it is not just Twitter!

          • Kristi –> “There is so much variance in the data that is due to other influences that the true relationship between CO2 and temperature is masked. This is why climate models are constructed.

            Your statement contradicts itself. If the true relationship is masked, then just how are models constructed that reliably handle all of the variables correctly? If there are 10 variables that all interact between themselves, just how am I going to know my model has the correct programming of their interaction? In fact, if other variables can mask the relationship between CO2 and temperature, just how important is CO2 to begin with?

          • Jim Gorman said:

            “Your statement contradicts itself. If the true relationship is masked, then just how are models constructed that reliably handle all of the variables correctly?”

            Because there are multiple factors involved we can’t know anything useful about the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels? It’s hard so therefore can’t be done in any useful manner?

            “If there are 10 variables that all interact between themselves, just how am I going to know my model has the correct programming of their interaction?”

            Test against observations. For all the crap Hansen cops, he was pretty close with a basic model, especially given the relatively limited data he had at the time.

            “In fact, if other variables can mask the relationship between CO2 and temperature, just how important is CO2 to begin with?”

            Again, that is just an unexplained assertion. How does the fact that other variables can mask the relationship between CO2 and temperature show that CO2 isn’t that important? That’s like saying that the rate water flows into a reservoir is not that important to the level of the water because varying rates of water usage can mask it’s effects.

          • Jim,

            “If there are 10 variables that all interact between themselves, just how am I going to know my model has the correct programming of their interaction?”

            That’s what statistics are for.

        • In an episode of The Wire, an HBO TV series, (I think it was the third one) Mcnutty and
          his partner are investigating a murder scene and they are using the F word in its different forms. This goes on for some time as they measure trajectories and eventually find the bullet. They use only that word with different tones of voice and are effectively communicating to each other the different aspects of the puzzle and figuring out what happened. It was kind of like two lionesses grunting and growling as they look at a distant antelope and test wind direction, figure distance, and assess depth of grass, as one gets set to wait in ambush and the other set to go wide and come up on the sneak.

          Communication has a lot more to do with involvement and caring than form If one doesn’t want to know, angels with trumpets and celestial phenomena couldn’t get through.

        • “to dialogue” and “dialoguing” and “speak to topic x” are leftisms going back at least 6 decades. To many “argue”, “debate”, etc. imply hostility they wish to ignore and avoid without considering evidence or logical trains of argument. To others, using terms & phrases like “society as a whole”, “peoples” (instead of “this group of people defined or differentiated this way, that group of people defined/differentiated that way, these groups of people”), “society chooses”, even “yes, that evidence is interesting, but I feeeeel y instead” are irritants hostile to living, breathing, thinking, free individual human beings.

          I thought TB’s article might also specifically address the many acronyms & abbreviations (GISS, CRU, UAH, GFDI, AGU, IPCC…) which are part of the common jargon IN weather & climate-related discussions, debates, etc.

          Such communications difficulties also arise in discussions of STEM job markets (where “purple squirrels”,”domestic bodyshoppers”, “cross-border bodyshoppers”, “desi contractors”, “vendors”, “end clients”, “temp”, “contingent”, “gig”, “house nerd”… either facilitate or block communication). And in different schools of object-oriented programming (e.g. methods vs. receivers vs. class functions, instance vs. class variables).

          In the end, anyone who wants to understand needs to do some research into the jargon, and then the available evidence…every time it is debated/discussed.

          • Mib,

            The real scientific method relies on others eager and waiting to savage whatever you propose to defend. No safe spaces and dehostilized language. Like the PC purveyors who insist on “trouble soothers” rather than “trouble shooters”, yet such softness is out the window when the Left is challenged, as so graphically demonstrated by the (of all things “journalism”) prof in MO who called for “muscle” to rid her group of a reporter filming their activities. And CA profs who join anti-Trump demonstrations armed with bike chains.

            No free speech for those with whom you disagree.

            Should apply in other disciplines as well.

          • Virtue signalling violently.

            Saw it in college, where spoiled rich kids who drove their daddy’s Cadillacs broke campus windows worth hundreds of 1969 dollars, raising costs for other students, in order to fancy themselves “radicals”.

    • The Regressive Left continually uses misleading linguistics to try and control the narrative.

      Illegal aliens become undocumented migrants.

      Hardcore drugs dealers are re-branded as non-violent criminals.

      People who question the Chicken Little, doomsday climate predictions are called “deniers”.

      If you are not completely, wholeheartedly with the modern radical Left, you are against them; you are (without any need of proof) a Nazi, White Supremacist.

      Populism now has a negative connotation.

      • Reg,

        The exact same thing could be said of the far right. “Aliens,” for instance, has its own connotations.

        “If you are not completely, wholeheartedly with the modern radical Left, you are against them; you are (without any need of proof) a Nazi, White Supremacist.” This is an example of your own complaint.

        • “Illegal alien” is the description used in the written law. It wasn’t invented by the “far” right.

        • The use of the term alien to describe those who aren’t citizens goes back 100’s of years.

          Once again Kristi, what you have been taught to believe has no basis in reality.

          • Mark,

            Correct. “Alien”, meaning “foreigner, citizen of a foreign land,” dates from the early 14th century, from the adjective “alien” or from use of the adjective as a noun in French and Latin.

            By contrast, “space alien” is of recent vintage. Its use in the sci-fi sense of “being from another planet” first occurred only in 1953.

        • No Kristi, alien is an outsider of a country or a planet. Figuratively, too. Alienating oneself by behavior ‘alien’ to the company you are in. It used to be on immigration documents for tourists, etc and was only made a pejorative term by guilt-ridden шнуте lefty folk who invented the diversity silliness which they didn’t recognize as a not very subtle form of real гасisм from the ‘elite’ space they occupy. It’s a ‘These -lesser-helpless-folk-need us шнутээz to-shield them- sort of thing. It robs them of dignity that you know best.

          • Gary,

            Compassion is not the same as guilt.

            Diversity was not invented by the left.

            There are many forms of racism. Racism is a normal human trait, one that must be acknowledged to combat in oneself and in society. Humans have always been tribal, and complexity comes when we live in communities that are far bigger than those we evolved in.

            I am responding, but will not debate this. It’s off-topic. I recognize my folly in using the example of “alien.”

          • Racism is not a human trait. Placing ones family above others is a human trait. We innately want to to keep the circle of people we care about as small as possible so that, with our meagre resources, we can actually care for real. Those wanting to save 6 billion tend to not put any real effort into it. The virtue signalling is so useless that it must be guilt overriding the realisation.
            As societies grow, we develop tiers of people we care about and easily identifying them is important. Colours, football teams, flags when there is little in physical appearance of the person to go on. Its why taking a knee was so stupid. It pushes people to go back to skin colour.

          • Robert,

            Yes, racism is a human trait. There have been psychological studies performed on babies that support this. Even babies that have been raised by those of a different race will respond differently (“better”) to face of that race than to their own.

            It’s even been demonstrated in rats!

            There is an online group of tests, known as Implicit Association Tests. You can test your own degree of bias about several things. Millions of people have taken them, so the sample size is pretty good. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

        • Then Kristi, you need to remind those on the “modern radical left”, when being called a Nazi, that the Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Workers Party of Germany!

      • the fact the hard left support a lot of this nonsense clouds peoples judgement.it is easy to create a “cause celebre” that various groups will champion. it is those creating it for their own purposes ,not the useful idiots supporting it,that are the issue.

        who are they ? the usual suspects, follow the money. there has been no transfer of meaningful wealth anywhere outside of the transfer of taxes from members of the public to the crony capitalists that bought and paid for the politicians that sanction it. no need to create lefty or righty conspiracies.

    • Mary,
      When I worked at BP my manager regularly called multi-disciplinary meetings at which each expert was expected to explain to the other members of the team the progress they were making on the project in hand. He never challenged any of the technical jargon being used by the speaker, after all we were all experts and expected to use obscure technical terms.
      However, if during the course of the meeting he noticed that you, as member of the audience, were not following the speaker’s jargon then he would challenge you as the listener to explain the meaning of the term being used.
      If you could not explain the meaning of the term then you were in serious trouble, not because you did not know the meaning of the jargon being used but because you had not interrupted the speaker and asked for clarification.

      • Often we have meeting where so much “acronese” is used we often spend more time straightening out the gobbley-gook. Somebody will raise the TMA flag… (Too Many Acronyms) to get clarification.

      • If I had $1 for every word and acronym I didn’t understand during meetings with drilling & completion engineers (plumbers), I wouldn’t have to find oil & gas for a living… 😎

    • Only a Septic could transform the noun ‘dialogue’ into a verb in such an ugly fashion.

      If you want a verb, use ‘debate’, ‘converse’ or ‘discuss’. Or say ‘have/conduct/enter into’ a dialogue (or discussion, debate or conversation).

      Oh, and while I am at it, ‘going forward’ is simply another invention designed to make those that use it look and feel superior to those that do not.

      In future, please do not use it.

      Remember Occam. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. There is no need to invent new words where perfectly good ones exist.

      Such conscious obfuscation is the mark of those who want to keep the fact of the paucity of their comprehension hidden from those who cannot be expected to understand the language that they use.

      🙂

      • Leo Smith

        “There is no need to invent new words where perfectly good ones exist.”

        Isn’t that how the English language evolves?

        I believe it’s the most complicated yet expressive language on earth, predating on other languages to find new means of expression.

        President Macron of France is proposing forcing the French language be adopted globally as the official language of business in the run up to Brexit in March. Yet I believe there is a kind of French language police in France to ensure the purity of the language. I also note the French refer to Brexit with some scorn, but they still use the term.

        So much for language purity.

        • France (and Germany) has an Academy for the language. Problem is would Schiller or Velery even be invited to that Academy today? Not to mention English and Shapespeare where today even the subjunctive is banned.
          Actually Frexit is the word added recently to French.

          • Spare me the German please .Only language that can take a 15 english phrase and turn it into a single 80 letter word Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkb meaning”Association for Subordinate Officials of the Head Office Management of the Danube Steamboat Electrical Services”

        • “There is no need to invent new words where perfectly good ones exist.”

          Isn’t that how the English language evolves?

          No.

          It evolves by inventing new words for NEW concepts, not for old ones

          The later is merely ‘progress for its own sake’

          I will accept the verb to ‘google’ because it identifies a common but new concept – the act of using a (specific) search engine to research internet content.

          Likewise my mother used to ‘hoover’ the carpets – again the term to ‘vacuum (clean)’ was then not in common usage.

          But to say ‘going forward’ as simply a term to replace the perfectly adequate ‘in future’ shows those that adopt it to be mere intellectual signallers.

          It is also illustrative that in English, the noun ‘burglar’ precedes the verb. English English created the efficient short and pithy and musing verb to ‘burgle’.

          American English with its desire to impress and be needlessly verbose, invented ‘to burglarize’ instead.

          English is good because it dopesn’t obfuscate. Here in Ye Olde European Unione, instruction manuals typically come in ten or more languages, as do product leaflets. I once spent an idle morning counting the words in such a leaflet. English was by far and away the most concise.

          A short example suffices.

          I used to be involved designing guitar amplifiers. Its a long story. Some of these are built into the box with the loudspeaker. In general these – first ‘combination amplifiers’, became ‘combo amps’ or just ‘combo’ as in ‘Marshall 50W Combo’

          In German such a device is called a ‘Kofferverstärker’ 16 letters against th 5 in ‘combo’ .

          What does it all mean. Well Koffer is in fact a coffer or box or cabinet. Ver is Germanic for of ‘for’. And Stärk is a verb meaning to stiffen or starch or make stronger. I.e. Stärker is ‘an amplifier’

          So what we have is literally, realising that in German the order of words, reversed, always is. ‘for amplifying, in a box’.

          When it comes to making everything concrete, the Krauts are yer men!

          The Romance languages are even worse. German creates long winded nouns, where English abbreviates, but the Romance languages cant even do that.

          I cannot now recall the exact wording which in English is rendered as ‘no user serviceable parts inside’ but in German it became something like ‘access to the interior for the purposes of service or repair is forbidden’ and in Spanish, French, Portugese and Italian it got even more elliptical with a sort of ‘please don’t poke around inside if you dont know what you are doing as we cannot guarantee your safety’ sort of verbiage.

          William of Occam was English.

          Even though in Latin he said entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) his viewpoint was English, we should only invent what we must.

          Invention for its own sake is showing off. And is much to be disparaged. Not Cricket

          • Yes , Ockham, that medieval radical empiricist, the proto-positivist .
            Just imagine letting such an irrationalist at one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.Rather like Salieri wailing Mozart’s music had too many notes.

          • “When it comes to making everything concrete, the Krauts are yer men!”
            The German language is precise when stating the obvious.
            We once bought a German made tractor and the operating manual had obviously been translated from German. There were many stern warnings such as:
            Attention: The driving of tractor across sharp obstructions can result in puncture of the tires.

          • Burglar verses Burgle.

            I don’t know: Sandy Burgle just doesn’t have the same ring to it that “Sandy Burglar” does.

            Sandy Berger was an aid to former President and sex offender Bill Clinton and when Sandy stuffed classified material in his clothes and smuggled them out on one occasion, he was referred to thereafter as: Sandy Burglar.

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

          • Leo,

            “Ver” does not mean “for.” It’s a prefix that is widely applied, and it’s meaning is variable, more or less one of three ideas: wrong, away, or change. “For” is “fuer” (u umlaut).

    • “what can I use to reflect this article above?”

      Beginning a sentence with a capital letter is a good start.

    • ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

      Hi Mary,

      On scientific and technical matters, I suggest this video:

      Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method (1964)
      https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
      at 0:39/9:58: ”If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      At 4:01/9:58: “You can always prove any definite theory wrong.”
      At 6:09/9:58: “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.”

      and
      The writings of Karl Popper, for example
      “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”
      “The Open Society and Its Enemies”

      If you are pursuing global warming and climate change alarmism:

      THIS IS THE “CLIMATE CHANGE” ALARMISTS’ DECEITFUL STRATEGY:
      “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman
      “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.

      The “Climate Change” hypothesis is so vague, and changes so often, that it is not falsifiable and not scientific. It should be rejected as unscientific nonsense.

      The “Manmade Runaway Global Warming” hypothesis is at least falsifiable, and IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY FALSIFIED:

      1. By the ~37-year global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977, even as fossil fule combustion and atmospheric CO2 strongly increased;

      2. By “the Pause”, when temperature did not significantly increase for almost two decades, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations;

      3. By the absence of runaway global warming over geologic time, despite much higher CO2 concentrations;

      4. By the fact that equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures have not increased significantly since ~1982, and corresponding air temperatures increased largely due to the dissipation of the cooling impact of two century-scale volcanoes – El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+;

      5. By the fact that CO2 trends lags temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record, and the undeniable reality that the future cannot cause the past.

      I suggest that global warming and climate change alarmism, in a few decades at most, will be regarded as a mass delusion, and its leaders and its followers will be widely regarded as scoundrels and imbeciles.

      In summary, there is no real dangerous global warming or wilder weather crisis. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 certainly improves plant and crop yields, and may cause some mild global warming, which will be net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

      Regards, Allan

      • ALLAN

        Would being unable to empirically demonstrate the planetary warming effect of atmospheric CO2 be included there?

        Isn’t that the ultimate test of any theory? Being able to demonstrate it works in the real world.

        • Good morning HotScot,

          Not sure if this adequately answers your question – it does not prove NO warming from CO2, but it puts an upper bound limit on CO2-driven warming, and that amount of warming is certainly not dangerous. Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is probably between approx. 0.0C and 1.0C/(2*CO2). The global warming crisis is a fiction and a fraud.

          Best, Allan

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/#comment-2452626

          [excerpt]

          The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are wildly and deliberately exaggerated, to produce a very-scary false result.

          Global warming alarmism is a deliberate fraud, in fact it is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

          Properly deployed, the tens of trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism could have:
          – put clean water and sanitation systems into every village in the world, saving the lives of about 2 million under-five kids PER YEAR;
          – reduced or even eradicated malaria – also a killer of millions of infants and children;
          – gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.

          Notes and References:

          Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low – probably less than 1C/(2xCO2).

          Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures.

          Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

          Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.

          Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
          (*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

          The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

          Practically speaking, however, these maximum sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

          Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.

          Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

          Conclusion:
          The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.

          • “Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.”

            I think this can’t be emphasized enough. What this means is that the “upper limit” of climate sensitvity is calculated assuming that ALL the warming is from CO2. If any of the warming is in fact natural, then even these low sensitivity measurements of 1.6C or less would be even lower.

            I don’t think there is any way that CO2 can be responsible for 100 percent of the current warming, considering we had an equal amount of warming from 1910 to 1940, with much lower CO2 content in the atmosphere at that time, and the highs of the 1930’s were higher than any subsequent year including 2016. So we are not in unprecedented terrritoy and it’s a good bet that a substantial portion of the warming we are experiencing now is from natural causes.

            There is certainly NO evidence that CO2 produces any percentage of the warming we are experiencing currently, much less that CO2 produces 100 percent of the warming. These are just estimates used in computer models and do not relate to the real world in any provable way.

          • Tom wrote:
            “These are just estimates used in computer models and do not relate to the real world in any provable way.”

            Actually Tom, computer models used much higher estimates of climate sensitivity, typically two, three or more times the Upper Bound numbers that I cited.

            If the computer models used a sensitivity of about 1C/doubling, they would not project a dangerous level of global warming – climate crisis cancelled.

      • A few more comments for Mary:

        Claims of consensus have no credibility in science. BTW, the 97% climate consensus is false – fabricated lies.

        Appeals to authority have no credibility in science, especially appeals to the IPCC, who are utterly corrupted. Some people and groups have credibility, but many do not.

        In climate science, you can’t tell the players without a program. Here is mine:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/12/global-warming-skepticism-for-busy-people/#comment-2455588

        Tribalism is an ancient disease in society, the killer of millions or innocents, which has found new destructive life in today’s world.

        The use, especially by the extreme left, of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” has caused a destructive polarization/tribalism in politics. The USA is a prime example, where political issues are resolved by a street fight, that soon descends into the gutter or the sewer.

        Unfortunately, the left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs.

        The left takes political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be a king without lots of peasants – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

      • “5. By the fact that CO2 trends lags temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record, and the undeniable reality that the future cannot cause the past.”

        LOL! 9 months or 800 years. Now that makes sense!

    • ‘Dialogue’ is a noun. What is the matter with ‘conduct a dialogue’? It’s been good enough for all of my lifetime; why does it need replacing now. Inadvertently no doubt you prove Dr Ball’s point!

      • Newminster September 24, 2018 at 7:47 am

        ‘Dialogue’ is a noun. What is the matter with ‘conduct a dialogue’? It’s been good enough for all of my lifetime; why does it need replacing now.

        Newminster, the English language is always evolving in the direction of simplicity. If there are a two-syllable word and a five-syllable word that mean the same thing, the longer word will very likely drop out of favor.

        In the same way, “dialog” (three syllables) as a verb will very likely replace “conduct a dialog” (six syllables) for the same reason—it is simpler.

        It is a slow process, so indeed a word might be good enough for a lifetime, perhaps even two, and then be replaced.

        For an example of this process, the verb “interact” has only been around since 1805, the noun “interaction” since 1812, and the adjective “interactive” since 1832 … and you can bet someone at the time complained about turning a verb into a noun.

        Now, you can argue against that … but it will be about as productive as arguing against gravity.

        w.

        PS—Before you accuse me of being a “grammar Nazi”, be aware that the politically correct modern term for that is “alt-write” … the language evolves.

    • Heh, yeah. Googling “Yazoo” give lots of links about a British synthpop act followed by links aboutYazoo City, MS. took a bit of refining of search terms to find that one.

      • John,
        You’re right, I tried a lot of minus filters to no avail before I went back and read the clue that Tim gave us.
        “study the overland flow of “precipitation”.”
        Yazoo Hydrology hits the bull’s eye.
        Definitely one up for Dr Ball.

  2. This is one of Dr. Ball’s best essays, clearly explaining the great divide.

    When an amorphous fear of mostly weather-related disasters is encouraged and then combined with the communication problem, the public doesn’t stand a chance at deciding what is true and what is false. So they either accept the hype at face value or ignore it.

    • Gary,

      …or they call it a conspiracy, or they say that “mainstream” climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots and say that all the evidence in support of GH theory is not credible or the result of natural variation.

      • Kristi,
        Ever seen a hurricane spaghetti graph? Only a few DAYS out and they are literally all over the map. The computer generated future temperature curves look similar but claim to be accurate (on average???) for decades into the future. Beats me how anyone can look at the temp prediction curves and still keep a straight face. PS the most accurate of these, relative to satellite/balloon data, appears to be a Russian plotted curve that uses fewer fudge factors (I’ll let you Google it if you are ‘seriously” interested).

        • BFL,

          “Predicting” the climate is much different from predicting the weather. There is a lot of chaos in weather that gets averaged out in climate (although there are some chaotic factors there, too). Climate is also about regions, not where a storm will hit land. It is about long-term averages, rather than daily temperatures. The models are very different.

      • “…or they call it a conspiracy”

        Just calling a spade a spade. People should read the Climategate emails. The conspiracy is real. The Keepers of the Temperature Data decided to change the data in order to promote the CAGW narrative.

        With any luck, people will get to read even more pertinent emails in the near future.

        Of course, Alarmists deny there is a conspriracy to change the temperature record. That wouldn’t fit their narrative.

      • There is no evidence that the warming we have seen over the last 150 years is not the result of natural cycles.
        And no, climate models are not evidence.

        Anyone who conspires to hide the raw data, is by definition a fraud.

      • “…or they call it a conspiracy, or they say that “mainstream” climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots”

        “Your “they” should be “some.” Most of us contrarians blame it on cany careerism and/or a bias of those who chose to enter the field against Man’s intrusion on Ma Nature and/or against our current political / economic system which desrves to be disrupted, and/or against the disproportionate wealth of the West. A survey of alarmists’ reading and viewing habits, and of their political allegences and voting records, should be done to test my conjecture.

        • Roger,

          That a conspiracy exists is a fact, already known before the Climategate emails, which removed all basis for doubt.

          One can speculate as to the motives of the conspirators, but that they are such is blatant.

          • roger is a typical statist that relies on an unfounded faith in government and misplaced naivety regarding the abilities of humans to self-deceive. Examining his posts is glaringly obvious that he regularly deceives himself. The term is “Stockholm Syndrome”. He is in love with his captors. He has too much emotional stock invested in the system to think critically enough to recognize how it actually works.

            IGNORE-ance at it’s finest. I have nothing but disdain for such weak minded folk.

      • Kristi wrote:
        “…or they call it a conspiracy, or they say that “mainstream” climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots and say that all the evidence in support of GH theory is not credible or the result of natural variation.”

        Well said Kristi – I’ll agree with most of that statement, based on my two engineering degrees and a diligent study of this subject that dates back to 1985.

        I do find your following terms a bit harsh: “mainstream climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots”. I prefer the gentler term “scoundrels and imbeciles”.

        In summary, there is no real dangerous global warming or wilder weather crisis. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 certainly improves plant and crop yields, and may cause some mild global warming, which will be net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

        Regards, Allan 🙂

      • …or they call it a conspiracy, or they say that “mainstream” climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots and say that all the evidence in support of GH theory is not credible or the result of natural variation.”

        I think that is a quite close description.

        In reality its less a planned conspiracy, tho bits of it are, and more a colossal bandwagon that everyone found to their advantage to climb on, not because it was true, but because its suited their purposes. Remember this is the post truth world now. Truth is, to most of the Left, whatever people[ can be induced to ] believe it to be.

        Everyone has profited from ‘Climate Change™’ except the poor benighted average world citizen who has seen his energy bills rise, his tax dollars frittered away in ‘renewable’ projects that don’t work, in research that leads nowhere, being based on false premises, his freedoms curtailed and the rise of unpleasant shouty people, who claim the moral high ground by sneering and shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.

        Even Anthony gets a slender income from trying to tell the truth about climate change.

        Just stop and ask yourself, if you have an ounce of integrity in your body, what it would mean to the trillion dollar global industry whose existence depends on people believing in Climate Change, if it was generally accepted that it was in fact finally shown to be a crock.

        Its the end of Phil Jones, of Michael Mann, of Dong Energy of thousands of researchers, propagandists, and charitable ‘green organisations’ whose livelihood depends on a drip feed of paranoia into the global media, who themselves would need to be downsized severely if all that was happening was in fact simply YARW (Yet another Royal Wedding) .

        Climate change is a trillion dollar business that provides employment to millions at the expense of the average consumer.

        It’s not going down without a fight is it?

        Who honestly cares of its true or not? Certainly not its protagonists or those aboard the gravy train, What matters to the cash flow is what people believe.

        But you know this already of course. That’s why you are here. Protecting the myth.

        Can you imagine the impact, the utter FURY that would erupt from #TheyAllKnew #AlGoreKnew #GreenpeaceKnew #MichaelMannKnew that in fact AGW was a complete load of bovine excrement, and worse #ObamaDidntKnow, when his bloody business WAS to know, that it was what it was…

        And they all did NOTHING.

        You Kristi, are hoping against hope that AGW is too big to be allowed to fail. You had better keep on hoping, because if it does come crashing down, it will take with it the whole establishment that perpetrated it, and I suspect that includes you, Ms Concern Troll…

        • In order for mankind/civilisation on this planet to progress the AGW con HAS TO come crashing down. You just cannot get any further up the tree while it sits there as a huge falsehood.
          How long this will take is open to wide speculation, it might be over a hundred years BUT if it were a small number of years, if it were within the lifetimes of most of us, would it not be great if you, YES YOU DEAR READER, played some useful part in making it happen.

          Several of us are working at it, some in teams attacking particular bits in a concentrated effort, some as individuals having a go at another bit. You see several of them talking about it on WUWT.

          But what I don’t understand is why some of you are fighting amongst yourselves about which bit to attack and why. You waste time and effort arguing about why Doug’s atmospheric theory 27b is a load of BS compared to Willard’s CORRECT theory of 27b II.

          Are you mad?

          You are supposed to destroy Godzilla FIRST before laying out plans to rebuild the city. THIS is where you went wrong, and could be why we are still waiting for its death. WUWT is in the number 1 slot here. We want more ATTACKS of every type and persuasion and therefore WE NEED MORE TROOPS, and more weapons and more strategies.

          You need to WIDEN it out. You need to forge links with ALL the alternative anti-CAGW groups. Embrace the others, THEY ARE NOT THE ENEMY. Maybe their theories are reall stupid, maybe some of yours are, who knows, who cares, surely all we SHOULD care about is killing the CAGW BEAST.

          I want it chopped into tiny pieces and burnt on a fossil fuelled pyre. AFTER the party you can have a nice discussion about Gravity and Loschmidt if you are in the mood.

          Can we get on with this now please. Your great grandchildren are getting impatient (and poorer).

        • Leo,

          “Truth is, to most of the Left, whatever people[ can be induced to ] believe it to be.”

          “Who honestly cares of its true or not? Certainly not its protagonists or those aboard the gravy train, What matters to the cash flow is what people believe.”

          “You Kristi, are hoping against hope that AGW is too big to be allowed to fail. ”

          You, Leo, show you are incapable of reason by making the assumptions you do.

      • or they say that “mainstream” climate scientists are frauds, liars and idiots

        hiding data is fraud, committing identity theft to steal documents and then manufacturing a “smoking gun” document to go along with them is fraud. offering up “scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” is fraud. adjusting the data to fit the theory is fraud. inventing data where there is none is fraud. etc now either that fraud was deliberate (in which case the fraudsters are liars) or was it not (in which case the fraudsters are idiots). or a little bit of both.

        • John

          Are you suggesting climate scientists as a whole are guilty of fraud for the reasons you list? By this reasoning the whole skeptic community is also guilty of fraud.

          Hiding data is not fraud, although it is unprofessional – but so is posting faulty research on blogs because one can’t get it past peer review. “offering up “scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” is fraud” is not fraud. I don’t know what you are referring to when you talk about identity theft. There is no adjustment of data to fit a theory or inventing data; you apparently don’t know much about science.

  3. What’s so hard about it? The whole concept can be explained standing in the insulation aisle at Home Depot. The atmosphere is a second year ME HVAC problem: Q = 1/R A (surface T – ToA T). No different from the insulation that makes your house warm in the winter, cool in the summer.

    As to RGHE it’s easy as 1, 2, 3.

    Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):

    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
    But how, exactly is that supposed to work?

    2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that traps/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
    And where does this magical perpetual GHG energy loop first get that energy?

    3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible. A mechanic puts a box fan on that hot engine to cool it off rapidly – because non-radiative natural convection and radiation (Cannot be BB!) aren’t fast enough.

    No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.

    • So how many people on the street do you think have knowledge enough to tackle a “second year ME HVAC problem?” My guess would be about two or three percent, tops. And that’s if you are in a university town.

    • Nicholas Schroeder

      Sorry, I didn’t understand a word of that, I’m a layman. So is, probably, well over 90% of the Earth’s population.

      Much of the reason, in my opinion, the subject of climate change was politicised. Whilst one needs a scientific qualification to be considered credible to comment on the science, politics demands no qualification, we are all allowed a political opinion.

    • “The atmosphere is a second year ME HVAC problem”

      which is fine if you are discussing it with second year ME HVAC student. Not so fine if you are trying to discuss it with the average man on the street who only has (at best) a high school diploma (or equivalent).

  4. One example of deliberately deceptive language is “pollution”, which is nearly used in the religious sense, of “made ritually unclean”. So CO2, an essential trace gas, is regarded as something unholy.
    That sort of use of language is a deliberate attempt to avoid debate.

    • Their language is deliberately emotive. They don’t aim for deception, since they believe their nonsense. Deception is an inevitable by-product of non-science. Most of these emotive terms are invented by political hacks and arts graduates. Monbiot claims we invented ‘denier’ (‘we’ = whatever green group he was in at the time). I realize he has a zoology degree but he’s a political hack too.

      Climate scientists avoiding debate is a separate issue. Until 2 years ago they thought they had a snug relationship with politicians. They did. So why would they debate?

      • Mark,

        You are doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing.

        “Alarmist” is no worse than “denier.” There are true alarmists and true deniers (those that deny all evidence supporting AGW theory) in both camps. Generalizing and making assumptions is not confined to either side.

        • Denier is chosen to evoke Holocaust deniers, which is a deliberate attempt to conflate doubt with neo-fascists.

          • Tom,

            I don’t agree. I think it is simply an alternative to “skeptic,” which isn’t always suitable. Though I’m aware that a few have associated skeptics with deniers of the Holocaust, I don’t thing that’s the prevalent idea. There isn’t a very good term. Maybe “doubter.”

          • Kristi,
            Your assertion about “denier” ignores the written statements of those who popularized the use of “denier”.
            You are proving the point that “progressives” depend on deception.

          • Kristi, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and not call you out on a palpable lie.

            The first time I heard the term ‘climate denier ‘was absolutely in the context of comparing those that were sceptical about AGW with those who denied the reality of the Holocaust.

            As if questioning the validity of a scientific theory equated questioning the actual recorded FACTS of history.

            That was when I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only was AGW theory broken, but its protagonists knew it was broken, or they had no need to use tactics like that.

            And indeed that was when I realised that the so called ‘science’; was nothing more than a distraction; political commercial and personal interests had taken over a bandwagon to drive it irrespective of its truth content, to extract the most cash, power and acclaim that they could.

            To say that I have been disgusted by this is the understatement on the millennial.

          • @Kristi

            You are quite mistaken. The phrase was first used by Pulitzer prize-winner Ellen Goodman in 2007, and she made the connection quite clear: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

          • “The terminology emerged in the 1990s. Even though all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process, by mid November 1995 the word “skeptic” was being used specifically for the minority who publicised views contrary to the scientific consensus. This small group of scientists presented their views in public statements and the media, rather than to the scientific community.[41][42] This usage continued.[43] In his December 1995 article The Heat is On: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial , Ross Gelbspan said industry had engaged “a small band of skeptics” to confuse public opinion in a “persistent and well-funded campaign of denial”.[44] His 1997 book The Heat is On may have been the first to concentrate specifically on the topic.[45] In it, Gelbspan discussed a “pervasive denial of global warming” in a “persistent campaign of denial and suppression” involving “undisclosed funding of these ‘greenhouse skeptics’ ” with “the climate skeptics” confusing the public and influencing decision makers.[46]

            A November 2006 CBC Television documentary on the campaign was titled “The Denial Machine”
            ..Terms related to denialism have been criticised for introducing a moralistic tone, and potentially implying a link with Holocaust denial.[7][55] There have been claims that this link is intentional, which academics have strongly disputed.[56] The usage of “denial” long predates the Holocaust, and is commonly applied in other areas such as HIV/AIDS denialism: the claim is described by John Timmer of Ars Technica as itself being a form of denial.[57]”

            (Wikipedia)

            I said I knew that some have associated it with the Holocaust. But assuming that all do that who use the term is looking for an excuse to play the victim, and hate others in response.

            “Assuming anything but malevolence by the True Believers is not at all safe.”

            That is the problem: assumptions. If you are going to assume things like that, Tom, you will spend your life angry and defensive, and that means you can’t be rational.

            “You are proving the point that “progressives” depend on deception.” Hunter, this sounds like you are calling me a liar. That’s BS. You don’t know me, and have no right to insult me in such a despicable way.

        • If there is nothing alarming about what CO2 is doing, then there is no reason to do anything about it.
          Alarmist is an accurate description of those who demand that we drastically curtail fossil fuel usage.

    • Tom,

      While I think calling CO2, “pollution” is inappropriate, your interpretation is downright weird. Why should it have religious connotations? You are willfully misinterpreting the meaning of a word, and that is a problem when it comes to rational discussion.

      • i think it is more a matter of you not having sufficient experience in the uses for the word “pollution”. It is definitely used in a religious sense that you are unaware of, and the green blob is an example of how mass movements become quasi-religious. It is not the actual effect, but that a certain thing is “unclean”, as in violating their code of conduct.

      • Kristi,

        I have re-read Tom’s remarks and I don’t see any reference to religion. His association is to “neo-fascists,” which is political.

        The term “denier” is commonly used by anyone criticizing ‘skeptics,’ and it is typically used without modifiers except sometimes as “climate denier.” Nobody has denied that climate exists or that climate changes. Therefore, it isn’t all that “weird” to assume that the use of the word “denier” is intended to evoke an emotional response, not unlike the 2lst century introduction of the term “ocean acidification.”

        The term “denier” is less accurate than “alarmist” because “denier” is so ambiguous about just what it is that is being denied. Also, “alarmist” doesn’t carry the pejorative baggage associated with “Holocaust Denier.”

        • Clyde, Kristi was responding to an earlier comment of mine, not the second on “d eniers”. It was on the quasi-religious use of “pollution” by the green blob.

        • Clyde,

          Tom: “One example of deliberately deceptive language is ‘pollution’, which is nearly used in the religious sense, of ‘”made ritually unclean’. So CO2, an essential trace gas, is regarded as something unholy.”

          “Therefore, it isn’t all that ‘weird’ to assume that the use of the word ‘denier’ is intended to evoke an emotional response, not unlike the 2lst century introduction of the term ‘ocean acidification.'”

          Ocean acidification is a perfectly acceptable scientific term. It’s happening, and there’s nothing emotional about it.

          “Skeptic” is just as ambiguous as “denier.”

          • Kristi, when the oceans are currently, and have always been, alkaline, “acidification” is misleading. De nier was a slur, skeptic is fairly neutral.

          • Kristi, “ocean acidification” is a good example of the use of a technical term too suggest a problem where there isn’t one. A pH of 7 is neutral. Lower numbers are acidic. The ocean is typically somewhere around an 8, or mildly basic. If that value decreases to 7.9, one can argue that it has changed in the direction of becoming acidic, but it is incorrect to think that the ocean is acidic. It is true that on the surface of subsea volcanoes one can find seawater that is acidic. But those are very unique environments, and pH isn’t the only departure from normal conditions. That reminds me, I need to change the water in my fish tanks, their pH is about 6 which isn’t optimal for my guppies.

          • Kristi, Tom was too much of a gentleman to expand on “pollution” being originally very much a religious word. It was used by the Catholic Church, as a synonym for masterbation, “casting your seed upon the ground”, self abuse, commiting an uncleanly act. The idea was that one should not circumvent the baby making act by contraception or any other means of diverting the seed from the possibility of conception. Links? I’m 80yrs old and it was a well known word before it came to be applied to the modern usage which really was not a concept at the time. That it was considered an unclean, unGodly, dirty act was certainly the emotive reason for using it in the modern sense.

            Kristi, you are an young intelligent person, but you have grossly neglected your broader education and I would say it is your duty to aquire the personally enriching knowkedge that a modern woefully inadequate education has deliberately sidelined 9ver the past 3 generations. A smart person has to transcend the designer-brained widget making education that is on tap.

            There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
            Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

            Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

          • Actually I was deriving the religious usage of the term from a formerly Hasidic woman I knew in college, on violating the various and sundry rules of her former faith. i have also seen the usage in various bits of historical fiction, again in violating various tenets of faith. I am 62, and the Catholics stopped using that terminology sometime before my education.

          • Kristi,

            How do you know that “ocean acidifacation” is “Happening?”

            pH records from the oceans are laughably incomplete, particularly since there were not even any accurate instruments until the 1970’s. The chemistry of the oceans is beyond complex. Do you know that vast reserves of carbonates in the oceans Buffer any change in pH? Do you know what a Buffer is?

            The oceans have never been acidic, and never will be. When the price of oysters increases worldwide because the oceans have become inhospitable to shellfish, then and only then should we begin to worry.

          • When a solution is referenced to a neutral 7.0 pH – values above are alkaline/basic and become more or less alkaline/basic, values below are acidic and become more or less acidic.

            The ocean’s pH is about 8.1. That’s alkaline. Variations are more or less alkaline, not more or less acidic. The obvious reason for incorrectly using the term “ocean acidification” is a propaganda gambit to scare the gullible and uninformed who associate acid with bad, like alien blood and spit.

            Highly alkaline compounds such as caustic soda can be just as dangerous as acidic compounds, e.g. concentrated bleach, sodium hypochlorite, pH 9 to 13. On the other hand: rain has a pH of 4.5, lemon juice has a pH of 2.0, tomatoes a pH of 4.5, and vinegar a pH of 2.2. If they get on your hands the flesh doesn’t melt and they don’t burn a hole in the kitchen counter. (Might etch that granite, though.)

            A solution goes from pH 0.0, dangerous acidity, to pH 7.0, neutral/safe, to pH 14.0, dangerous alkalinity. pH is chemical shorthand for the negative logarithm of H+ ion concentration.

            pH = -log[H+] (1)

            A pH of 9 represents 10^-9 or 1 part per billion H+ ions. A pH of 8 represents 10^-8 or 10 parts per billion H+ ions. A change from pH 8.2 (6.31 ppb M/l) to pH 8.1 (7.49 ppb M/l) is a (-1.18 ppb M/l) change in the direction of lower alkalinity, not more acidity. -1.18/7.49 = -16%. ((8.1-8.2)/8.2 = -.1/8.2 = 1.2%)

            With a log function every whole number change is by a power of 10, a factor of 10. A change in pH from 9 to 8 means the H+ concentration increases by a power/factor of 10 or 1,000%!!!!!!! Makes the -16% look pretty trivial – which anything in ppb is. 0 pH to 14 pH is 14,000 %!!!!

            Applying percentages to a logarithmic scale/function is very dicey, but that’s what you get when food and life style editors write science articles.

            So, pH 8.1 is moving a YUGE 1 ppb in the direction of slightly more neutrality from pH 8.2 which is not much to begin with.

            Improperly using the term ocean “acidification” to scare the public over bogus CAGW is a disgrace to science. Spit out the Kool-Aid and grow a backbone.

          • Kristi,

            I was mistakenly responding to Tom’s remark that appeared immediately above your response. It was obviously a non sequitur on my part.

            You said, “Ocean acidification is a perfectly acceptable scientific term.” It was unknown in the scientific literature before about 14 years ago. It is only acceptable in a small segment of disciplines. For criticism at greater length, please see the following:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/

          • Gary,

            “Kristi, you are an young intelligent person, but you have grossly neglected your broader education and I would say it is your duty to aquire the personally enriching knowkedge that a modern woefully inadequate education has deliberately sidelined 9ver the past 3 generations.”

            You have no idea what my education has been, either in school or after. Did you think I wasn’t aware of that meaning of pollution? Really bad assumption.

            I’m 48. I’ve have plenty of experience in life, and have read widely. I regularly discuss religion and philosophy. But “pollution”? Doesn’t everyone know it has multiple meanings? Geez. I knew that in high school.

          • Ocean acidification:

            ” The obvious reason for incorrectly using the term “ocean acidification” is a propaganda gambit to scare the gullible and uninformed who associate acid with bad, like alien blood and spit.”

            Nonsense. Acidification simply means lowering the pH. Period. It’s used in the same sense in reference to soils and freshwater, too. What term would you all prefer? De-alkalinization would have the same connotation. Ocean lowering-the-pH?

            Why does everything have to be “propaganda”? You people are making all kinds of false assumptions about the way others think. It reflect irrational bias. An excuse to despise others and play the victim.

            Believe it or not, many people are actually genuinely concerned about climate change based on theory and evidence. It’s not a conspiracy to enable the left the destroy the economy or spread socialism or kill those in the developing world. It shouldn’t be political at all, although it is a policy question. In my opinion, the political divide on the issue is an artifact of 1) conservatives being less well-represent in academia (which is big problem!), 2) the difference in ideology when it comes to regulation, 3) the fact that greens are usually liberals, and 4) the fossil fuel industry targeted the right with their propaganda through think tanks, front organizations and the media – before then the two sides were much less politically divided. Targeting one side was a brilliant maneuver.

          • Kristi Silber September 25, 2018 at 3:46 pm Edit

            Ocean acidification:

            ” The obvious reason for incorrectly using the term “ocean acidification” is a propaganda gambit to scare the gullible and uninformed who associate acid with bad, like alien blood and spit.”

            Nonsense. Acidification simply means lowering the pH. Period. It’s used in the same sense in reference to soils and freshwater, too. What term would you all prefer? De-alkalinization would have the same connotation. Ocean lowering-the-pH?

            What term would I prefer? We already have a perfectly satisfactory term that describes this exact situation.

            Do you remember “titration” from chemistry class? You either add an acid to a basic solution, or a base to an acidic solution, to move the solution toward neutral.

            This is exactly what is happening in the ocean, adding an acid to a basic solution … and just as it was in my high school chemistry class, the process is correctly called “neutralization”.

            However, “ocean neutralization” isn’t at all scary, while “ocean acidification” is, which is why it is used by climate alarmists trying to scare us into taking action against the eeeevil CO2 …

            You’re welcome,

            w.

          • Willis,

            While I see the rationale behind “neutralization,” the term is used to either raise or lower pH. While obviously in the context of oceanic pH, it means a decrease, it’s still not as precise as “acidification.” “Neutralization” is vague could refer to other things – a Google search of “ocean neutralization” turns up articles about neutralizing oceanic CO2 in the context of ocean acidification. Neutralization is also used in the context of dealing with pollutants.

            I don’t see why “acidification” is so inherently scary. By now everyone who has any interest in the topic knows that the oceans aren’t in danger of dropping below pH 7. I think it’s just another excuse to accuse scientists of propaganda.

          • Kristi Silber September 26, 2018 at 5:19 pm

            Willis,

            While I see the rationale behind “neutralization,” the term is used to either raise or lower pH. While obviously in the context of oceanic pH, it means a decrease, it’s still not as precise as “acidification.” “Neutralization” is vague could refer to other things – a Google search of “ocean neutralization” turns up articles about neutralizing oceanic CO2 in the context of ocean acidification. Neutralization is also used in the context of dealing with pollutants.

            Say what? Name a word that couldn’t “refer to other things”. Almost all words have more than one meaning … so what?

            I don’t see why “acidification” is so inherently scary. By now everyone who has any interest in the topic knows that the oceans aren’t in danger of dropping below pH 7. I think it’s just another excuse to accuse scientists of propaganda.

            The problem is not the knowledgeable people, Kristi. As a number of people have pointed out to you, it is the millions of people who read newspapers and know nothing of the subject. To them “ocean acidification” means that the ocean is turning acid, and that’s scary.

            But you knew that … you’re just not willing to admit it.

            Regards,

            w.

          • https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/acidification

            acidification
            Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
            acidify (ă-sid′ĭ-fī″) [ acid + -ify]
            1. To make a substance acid.
            2. To become acid.

            So alarmists misuse thechemical term “acidification”. However, “neutralize” usually means to make less acid or base until a solution is neutral. So I’d opt for “dealkelization”.

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

      • You misunderstand. The AGW crowd is using the term in its religious meaning, mostly due to the fact that anthropogenic climate change is an article of the post-modern, secular humanism religion.

        • Paul,

          No, they are using it in the sense of air pollution, the same way we’d talk about smog. Does smog have religious connotations? Mercury in the water?

          • No, they are using it in the sense of something religiously unclean. Thus, atrocities like Prop 65 in California, enshrining the Linear No Threshold model for all risks. What matters with CO2 is levels, not the mere presence at any level, so using “carbon pollution” is evoking black carbon, soot, not a trace gas.

          • I love teh smell of proof by assertion in the morning.

            Don’t be so disingenuous that its so obvious kristi. ‘Pollution’ is of course a legal term that allows the EPA to act by taxing emissions.

            It is also emotive – a pejorative term that implies negativity that mere ’emissions’ do not.

            You have exactly done the same thing by classing CO2 emissions with hazardous emissions of smog, mercury etc.

            Whilst denying that that is what you are doing

            Double think in this one, strong, is.

      • “Why should it [“pollution”] have religious connotations?”

        Pollution connotes impurity, and purity connotes salvation, in some (Christian, mostly) religious terminology.

          • @Tom re: Prop 65.
            Your comment made me chuckle.
            I ordered a steel plate once that came with a prop 65 warning.
            1″ thick x 4″ wide x 36″ long.
            It weighed roughly 40lbs.
            There were no warnings about the far more likely event of dropping it on ones foot.

    • It’s even funnier when ads on TV in Australia depict “carbon pollution” as black balloons floating up in to the sky when electrical appliances are turned on. Like this;

  5. Simply put, Political Correctness is disseminated by the media ,academia and government so the Left can and will politicize EVERYTHING. Social Credit Scores are already here, we just don’t know it.

  6. Dr. Ball: Any attorney seeking to practice patent law must have a BS in science or engineering. I personally know of three who have Ph.D’s. Patent law certainly tends to deplete the remaining portion of the legal profession of those with scientific training, but you certainly can find a scientifically competent attorney from among those practicing patent law.

    • If you ever go to court, you want a lawyer that specializes in the type of law that is at issue. Someone specializing in patent law isn’t the type of lawyer that Dr Ball was in need of.

    • Good point, Thurston. The Conference Board of Canada is a club of bidness executives with a vested interest in having a ready (“infinite” one of their USA brethren insists) supply of cheap, young, pliant labor with flexible ethics.

      But it comes down to the PISA standardized test, which has some selection biases. In some countries, no one takes it, in others only high academic achievers take it, in others only those attending certain schools take it (similar to early biases in SAT & ACT). “High science skills” may not mean a high level of skill in applying the scientific method, and most likely is biased a bit in favor of memorized “scientifical facts”, instead.

  7. Have Australian academics and scientists become mentally unhinged, because of global warming?

    I could not believe what I read, in an article called, “The divisive issue Australia can no longer ignore”.
    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/the-divisive-issue-australia-can-no-longer-ignore/news-story/1915f694320e540444c03aff3ccd3a41

    ~ ~ ~ begin quote ~ ~ ~

    But Professor Greg Skilbeck’s words were even more sharp.

    The academic from the University of Technology, Sydney, said if we believed in science as part of the function of our everyday lives, we should believe in climate change.

    “You cannot pick and choose — if you don’t accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor,” he said.

    “You should not be allowed to fly or drive a car either. But I guess that as most climate deniers also pick and choose the bits of the Bible they subscribe to as well, I should not be surprised.”

    ~ ~ ~ end quote ~ ~ ~

    Professor Greg Skilbeck wants to deny people their fundamental human rights, if they don’t believe in the global warming religion.

    He wants “heretics” to get no medical treatment, including penicillin and painkillers.

    He wants “heretics” to be stopped from going to the doctor.

    What will happen to “heretics” children, and babies?

    ==========

    I would like to suggest to the University of Technology, Sydney, that Professor Greg Skilbeck should be dismissed from his position.

    If the University of Technology, Sydney, is unwilling to do that, then I suggest that the Australian government should cut funding to the University of Technology, Sydney.

    We can not allow unreasonable people to set the agenda, for dealing with global warming. Professor Greg Skilbeck’s words will make the climate change situation even worse than it is already.

    Professor Greg Skilbeck appears to believe that he owns science, and can stop other people from using it. This is an arrogant and stupid belief. I have no confidence that Professor Greg Skilbeck can contribute positively to the global warming debate.

  8. Interview would have ended 2nd time he called me a liar, he wouldn’t have been in any state to continue, i would have asked to not do it again after the first time, these people ”think” they can say anything they want.

  9. I suggest that we start by avoiding the term 400ppm. I have on occasion found that 1/25 % of the atmosphere to be an argument killer.

  10. This occurs in all branches of thought that I have encountered. From legal VS lawful systems, computer languages, metaphysical thought, and especially economics. ie. I have yet to meet any person that can correctly define the word “money”. Every economist I have read or heard, has a different definition. This is why the idiots still think that J M Keynes was correct.

  11. It’s impossible because of the lies, lies, lies. They use lies couched within lies, couched within more lies. They particularly love the 97% lie. Because if 97% of scientists agree, then who are we to disagree? But the 97% argument is itself a lie within a lie. They also follow the rule of Stalin: a lie repeated often enough becomes the Truth.

  12. “Ignorance is strength,”* and the left is very strong.

    And the right is only a bit weaker, but is much more polite and willing to listen.

    BTW, imaginary numbers are routinely used in electrical engineering.

    * from 1984.

    • BTW, imaginary numbers are routinely used in electrical engineering.

      But that only means that they exist in a dimension orthogonal to ordinary ones, which is simply a way of describing and manipulating vectors.

      the imaginary numbers of climate change exist in a rather different dimension, but the problem is that they are represented as real numbers.

      Here in the UK we have bastion of the left Diane Abbott, demonstrating the politically correct way to Do Sums now known popularly as Abbottonomics

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3zUUY8Zz380

      Watch and weep…

  13. Thanks for the post, Tim. You say:

    “He did not even know that the greenhouse theory could result in a colder world.”

    Say what? You’ll have to explain that one. It’s equivalent to saying that adding insulation to a house could result in a colder house … I’m not seeing how your claim is possible.

    w.

    • Have you ever been in a warm country? In old natural stone houses thicker walls keep the heat out in summer and keep the heat in in winter. Solar radiation can only penetrade a few millimeters.
      Or the beach (small rocks) where only the first few millimeters get hot.

    • “Greenhouse theory” only explains why the Earth’s average atmospheric temperature isn’t much colder. In and of itself it doesn’t specify a particular temperature.

    • I suspect that Dr Ball was referencing that ‘greenhouse gases’ can also cause radiative cooling, such as been suggested to cause cooling of the atmosphere above the Antarctic plateau.

      • Yes, Michael, but, also, if the greenhouse effect can cause warming by adding more gases, it can also cause cool by reducing the presence of those gases. As Budyko correctly identified, it is a matter of energy balance, that is why I referenced the alternative idea of a bathtub with input and outflow. Vary either of those and the tub fills (add gases) or empties (reduces gases) thus changing the level of the water (the temperature).

        • Tim,

          While I agree that the theory means adding or removing gases can raise or lower temperature, the term “greenhouse” and its effect was originally used to describe what happens when gases are added. That is how it has been understood since. I’ve never heard or read anyone talk about the greenhouse effect when discussing a decrease in GHG. To say that the greenhouse effect can cool the planet is not only confusing, it implies that you believe there is some mechanism by which adding GHG will decrease temperature.

    • I believe the theory depends on how frequently with which a molecule of CO2 gains and loses energy from both collisions with other molecules and radiation.

      When the atmosphere is thick, when it gains energy by absorbing a photon, the chances are it will lose that energy through a collision before it can have a chance to lose it through re-radiation. Hence, it heats the atmosphere.

      When the atmosphere is thin, when a molecule of CO2 gains energy through a colllision, the odds are it will lose that energy through re-radiation before it has a chance to pass that energy on through another collision, hence it cools the atmosphere.

    • –Willis Eschenbach September 23, 2018 at 2:58 pm
      Thanks for the post, Tim. You say:

      “He did not even know that the greenhouse theory could result in a colder world.”

      Say what? You’ll have to explain that one.–

      I was also going to ask that this be explained.
      According evidence and according to theories in broad topic of climate, global climate does cool. For example, the Milankovitch cycles.
      But I don’t of greenhouse theory [greenhouse effect theory] as including the Milankovitch cycles.
      So, maybe I actually need the greenhouse theory explained also.

    • In a different way, the green house gas CO2 when sequestered by the “greening” also sequesters energy from the sun since photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. Of course it is no longer a greenhouse gas at this point, but it did 8n a small way ‘cool’ the planet.

    • ==>Willis Eschenbach

      “Say what? You’ll have to explain that one. It’s equivalent to saying that adding insulation to a house could result in a colder house … I’m not seeing how your claim is possible.” – W.E.

      Where I come from – Australia – adding insulation to anything (House, stubbie* or esky***) results in colder beer! 😉

      My stone cottage in Tasmania is a veritable meat locker, always colder than daytime air, unless I have the fire going! Perhaps you should rephrase your question or perhaps the issue has revealed the heart of the problem, which is that insulation is all about slowing heating and slowing cooling (Upwelling LW in the greenhouse case). Perhaps the “insulation” of the Earth’s surface explains the missing atmospheric hotspot! 😉

      *A stubbie** holder, is an insulated sleeve into which a small beer bottle may be inserted to be kept cool.
      **Stubbie: A glass beer bottle, typically containing 375mL of delicious, cold, frosty amber fluid.
      ***Esky: Australian vernacular for insulated box, generically refers to portable coolers or ice boxes in place of words like “cooler” or “cooler box”. The term derives from the word Eskimo.

    • “It’s equivalent to saying that adding insulation to a house could result in a colder house…”

      I live in a metal building with a metal roof. If I had no insulation underneath both that metal roof as well as the surrounding outside sheets, the inside of the home would be unlivable in the summer and/or my utility bill would be astronomical.

      Adding insulation to a house can absolutely result in a colder house.

      • I worked in an uninsulated tin roofed factory in Johannesburg. And lived in an uninsulated tin roofed annex.

        Sleep was only possible well after sunset.

        One day I reported to my German boss.
        ‘What is the problem?’
        ‘I can’t do my work’
        ‘Why is that?’
        The sweat is dripping off my forehead and making the ink run on the drawing I am trying to do”

        A temperature gauge on a heatsink in my lab in the sun was registering over 100C WITHOUT the equipment even being switched on.

        ‘Ach then’ he said ‘this afternoon we just drink beer’ and going to the refrigerator in his office and withdrawing two cold ones, that is exactly what we did.

    • ” It’s equivalent to saying that adding insulation to a house could result in a colder house ”

      Willis, you are a very bright fellow, so think about what you are talking about. What is the purpose of insulation? While the unthinking might consider it being there to merely make the house warmer in winter, that’s not the whole story. It for slowing the transfer of heat from where it’s warmer to where it’s colder. In winter, when the interior of the house is warmer than the exterior, it slows that heat from being transferred to the colder outside – resulting in the house being warmer than it would otherwise be (thus requiring less energy running the heating system to keep warm). However, in Summer, where the exterior is hotter than the interior, it slows the heat coming from outside into the cooler inside – resulting in the house being *COLDER* than it would otherwise be (thus requiring less energy running the AC system to keep cool). so yes, Willis, adding insulation to a house could result in a colder house depending on what season it is.

  14. The concept of ‘climate change’ was stolen, plagiarized and modified in 1992. Climatologist Wladimir Köppen first proposed his system of climate classification in 1884 and it has been revised by its followers in later years. Sometimes it is called the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system. A video shows climate change throughout this time period. Because it is objective, it’s the preferred textbook in high school. Climate has changed throughout geologic time. The concepts ‘greenhouse effect’ and of ‘global temperature’ violates Laws of Thermodynamics, whereas climate zones do not. in 1992, Al Gore and Maurice Strong organized the Rio Conference under extreme alarmist propaganda leading to the UN FCCC and Agenda 21, a plan to depopulate Earth. Carl Sagan worked during the space race. He wrote from the Radiation lab in Cornell. His 1972 work displayed no knowledge of thermodynamics. Hot air rises. In spite of this he penned some equations that I found intellectually offensive in 1972. False theory and bad arithmetic is the foundation of beliefs expressed in the Kyoto Protocol, works of the IPCC and the Paris Accord. Two degrees is equal to a walk up hill of 600 ft. Trump would never notice. Where I live, I am promoting Köppen–Geiger in high school and simple experiments that demonstrate concepts in thermodynamics and principles of heat flow. Any student who understands how a Dewar flask (thermos bottle) works would never believe Green Propaganda. We all should be aware of “Propaganda” by Edward L. Bernays, 1928.

    • David,

      Many of the same usual suspects perpetrated the Nuclear Winter fraud before the Global Warming hoax, including the astronomical Dr. Sagan.

    • David,

      “The concepts ‘greenhouse effect’ and of ‘global temperature’ violates Laws of Thermodynamics, whereas climate zones do not.”

      What do climate zones have to do with the laws of thermodynamics?

      How does the greenhouse effect violate these laws?

  15. Many try to put me down as obtaining my Ph.D., in Geography.

    What, in Dr. Michael Mann’s education (physics), would lead us to believe that he knows anything about trees?

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Also, why hasn’t his debunked first hockey stick paper been retracted?

    • CommieBob,

      “Also, why hasn’t his debunked first hockey stick paper been retracted?”

      Maybe because the papers refuting it were found to be flawed, and the original results (with minor variations) have been replicated several times.

      There were minor statistical errors in the original, but they had little impact on the results. It’s not enough for a retraction.

      The fact that so many people still think the hockey stick was totally wrong suggests they aren’t very informed about the whole story. For instance, why isn’t it discussed in relationship to the very flawed paper by Soon and Baliunas, who tried to refute the hockey stick, but which resulted in a peer review abuse scandal at Climate Review that ended with four of the ten editors resigning for the journal in protest? And a statement by the editor in chief that the review process had failed? Or that this was what so many skeptics believe was suppression of skeptic research by CRU scientists, when in fact they had uncovered unprofessional practices? It just goes to show how misleading some interpretations of the Climategate emails have been – thanks to Dr. Ball, among others. (That said, I am aware, too, of the lack of professionalism apparently in some of the emails.)

      The completely unbalanced perception by so many skeptics of the whole controversy shows either a lack of information or a complete inability to see the incident for what it was. Both suggest that skeptics need to be better aware of other ways of seeing things – just as many alarmists do.

  16. When asked to explain what he did that deserved the Nobel Prize, Richard Feynman said:
    “Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn’t have been worth the Nobel prize.”

    When it comes to climate change, in all its complexity, too many think they understand it when they do not, but try to explain it anyway.

  17. Here’s a communications strategy–address the following request to true believers in CAGW:

    Please identify all the headline-grabbing climate change predictions–ones that were supposed to happen by now–that have actually come to pass. When they can’t provide answer, suggest that they do some research.

  18. Good post Tim, and timely. You quoted Voltaire (who can always be relied on to produce a handy aphorism) and then wrote

    I would add if you wish to converse with me have a modicum of understanding of the facts.

    Further back than I really wish to remember I was taught (in one of those interminable business and management courses we were all subjected to) that to have a valid debate it was necessary to ensure that your “opponent” understood exactly what you said, because

    What you thought you heard me say wasn’t what I meant when I said it!

  19. If it hasn’t been done, perhaps a good place to start would be to pull apart the BBC’s latest ‘climate crib sheet’.

    But will it help? We live in ridiculous times. Everyone calls news they don’t agree with ‘fake’, so partisan websites appear to ‘fact check’ it, then alternative leaning websites appear to fact check the fact checkers…………..

    It all leaves ‘the public’ none the wiser.

  20. “He did not even know that the greenhouse theory could result in a colder world.”

    This is an illogical statement. A theory can’t result in a colder world (or a warmer one). Besides, the greenhouse theory (developed in the late 19th C, refined by Nils Eckolm) does not predict a colder world due to increase in atmospheric CO2, it predicts a warmer one.

    While I agree with his general thesis that it is often difficult to communicate in detail about climate to the layman, it seems to me Dr. Ball is the last one who should lambaste others for using misleading statements.

    ” Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, who later dominated the CRU and the IPCC…” How did they “dominate” the IPCC? Serious question.

    “The so-called Climate Scientists don’t understand. The more arrogant among them believe, because they have degrees in mathematics or physics, they are superior and understand, while the rest of us trying to put even the major pieces of the system in place are stupid. It is the inevitable extension of logical positivism.”

    What does that have to do with logical positivism? As long as someone is working with empirical data, there is nothing in logical positivism that says people are stupid just because they don’t have a PhD in a given field. It would be different if someone said, “My soul tells me that climate change is not anthropogenic.”

    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Nice quote, although I would add that doubts can be a hindrance to decision-making, so in the real world we must use working hypotheses if we are to do anything at all. For example, if we are crossing a street, being filled with doubt as to the safety of doing so will either make us continually anxious or totally unable to cross. Doubt should be applied to those subjects where it is reasonable to doubt; where there is evidence about something, doubt should change to skepticism, and where there is ample evidence for something (especially when it supports underlying theoretical grounds), we should accept it provisionally as a working hypothesis (or a “theory,” in the case of science), so that we can make informed decisions. If there are no cars coming and you have a green light, cross the street.

    “Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.” Not entirely true. Skepticism was originally more than just “thoughtful inquiry,” it is the idea that we can never know the absolute Truth with certainty (there are variations of this in classical philosophy, but this is a decent approximation). This is a fundamental tenet of scientific methodology.

    • Professor Silber just wrote:
      “Doubt should be applied to those subjects where it is reasonable to doubt; where there is evidence about something, doubt should change to skepticism, and where there is ample evidence for something (especially when it supports underlying theoretical grounds), we should accept it provisionally as a working hypothesis (or a “theory,” in the case of science), so that we can make informed decisions. If there are no cars coming and you have a green light, cross the street.”

      Does this statement somehow refute the honest scepticism shown by well educated folks commenting on this blog?
      Please clarify.

      • Just for you young lady, I am posting Dr. Sagan’s Baloney detector- please learn this:

        1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
        2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
        3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
        4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
        5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
        6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
        7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
        8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the dataequally well to choose the simpler.
        9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

        1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
        2. argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)
        3. argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)
        4. appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g.,There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
        5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity.Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
        6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer(e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)
        7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)
        8. statistics of small numbers — a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or:“I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)
        9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g.,President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
        10. inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
        11. non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
        12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc — Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or:Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
        13. meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
        14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)
        15. short-term vs. long-term — a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
        16. slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
        17. confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former)
        18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or — this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)
        19. suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but — an important detail — was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)
        20. weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else — “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”)

        • Sagan’s baloney detector? Sagan was author of much baloney, including ‘greenhouse effect. His diatribes against pseudoscience were used to deflect from his own pseudoscience. He knew no biology and subscribed to the theory of spontaneous generation, disproven by Louis Pasteur. That way he promoted his own science fiction in book and movie “Contact”. Anything from Sagan is to viewed as science fiction. I say this even after subscribing to The Planetary Society and its support of SETI, one more failed Sagan project. Any life in our Solar system is microbial like the Archaean life found near black smoker. Sagan died too early for him to gain any real enlightenment.

          • “Sagan died too early for him to gain any real enlightenment.”

            Yes, to me that is quite ironic. I believe he would have either been a valuable sceptic, or would have sold out to the Hollywood meme. Had he sold out his own words would eventually discredit him.

        • I think the Baloney Detector
          gives baloney a bad name
          — I worked in a deli for
          three summers and sold
          a lot of baloney — people
          liked it.

          The detector
          should be renamed in honor
          of the great Irish people, as

          The Malarkey Detector,
          .
          .
          … or perhaps renamed for the great
          people of Brooklyn New York,
          where I lived with old relatives
          for three semesters
          while earning an MBA in Manhattan,
          and heard some wild sayings,
          most of which I still don’t get:

          The Banana Earl Detector

          I personally would use
          BS Detector, or to be polite,
          Farm Animal Digestive Waste
          Products Detector.

      • Pop,

        There is nothing wrong with “honest skepticism,” no matter who has it. But when people say there is no evidence for AGW, that is not just honest skepticism.

        You are mocking me with the “Professor Silber.”

        You are showing condescension in calling me “young lady,” and posting that list “just for me.” I’m 48, and what you posted I agree with, it’s nothing new to me. (The part about “authority” shows me why people misunderstood my use of the word before.) The first part is basic scientific methodology. The second part concerns rational argument, which I advocate, although none of us is always rational.

        I will not give you my time if you continue to insult me.

        • -Pop,

          There is nothing wrong with “honest skepticism,” no matter who has it. But when people say there is no evidence for AGW, that is not just honest skepticism.-

          How much warming has been caused by humans.
          I assume one effect is from CO2, so much from that.
          And include any warming effects from human- say land use or whatever and how much increase in global temperature.
          And has humans caused any cooling effects, if so, how much

          • The catchword here is Global (as in global government, global socialism, and global control of resources).
            What humans heat up is the area around ourselves, with our practices and structures.
            If you have empirical evidence of global weather (climate in the long term) effects from our agriculture and infrastructure, please post it.
            I see the illusion of climate control as being 3% science and 97% politics.

          • gbaikie,

            It’s very difficult to quantify exactly how much warming is due to humans, but there is substantial evidence from a variety of studies that at least half is anthropogenic.

            Likewise, quantification of cooling is tough, but there’s good evidence that we have done that through emissions of aerosols. This is one hypothesis for the cooler period around the 70s, when pollution was high.

            I suspect that we also have had a cooling effect through burning off of forest, and subsequent conversion to pasture and crops with a higher albedo. At the same time, this may have decreased the carbon sink capacity of the land, which may have offset the cooling. It’s all very complex. The resolution and difficulty of measurement makes land use one of the parameters that must be estimated in models, but this is changing as satellites are being developed that have the capacity to measure vegetation change – even growth of trees.

          • Pop Piasa,

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pieter_Beck/publication/230720042_Estimated_Carbon_Dioxide_Emissions_from_Tropical_Deforestation_Improved_by_Carbon-density_Maps/links/552cc47a0cf21acb0920e8a5.pdf

            http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/PielkeEtAl2002.pdf
            “Our paper documents that land-use change impacts regional and global climate
            through the surface-energy budget, as well as through the carbon cycle”

            There are just a couple. Searching for agricultural impacts on climate change is more difficult, as most papers are about climate change impacts on agriculture.

            Infrastructure – making concrete is a major source of GHG. Coal dust has been hypothesized to reduce albedo of ice. You can look up your own evidence.

            “I see the illusion of climate control as being 3% science and 97% politics.”

            Well, this is a major problem, isn’t it? You are seeing the science through politics, when science has to be evaluated on its own merits. How I wish everybody, regardless of their political persuasion, could start doing this!

          • Ms Silber,

            It seems to me this thread is about the language used to explain and discuss “Global Warming.” I have been following this thread a bit and quite agree with statements you and others have made about the unnecessary use of relatively pejorative language toward people engaged in the discussion.

            However, elsewhere in this thread I posted a thought I have had recently about a fundamental difference between the paradigm of basic sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology and the paradigm appropriate to climate science (as well as astrophysics, cosmology, evolution of life and planets, etc.). A fundamental difference as I see it as that the former disciplines rely on the paradigm of prediction of experimental outcomes, comparison of theoretical prediction to outcomes, and judging the “wrong-ness” (in Feynman’s sense) of theories by the level of agreement, whereas the latter disciplines are fundamentally explanatory, not predictive with respect to observations. More is necessary to clarify what I mean be that, but that’s not the point I want to make here.

            The point here is that the simple use of certain terms to describe climate science might confound meanings, or imply scientific underpinnings which do not exist or are not intended, or are interpreted differently by different participants in the discussion. Further, this confounds the explanatory clarity of the theory.

            An example of this is the term “global warming” or simply “warming.”
            Often it seems “warming” is taken to be occurring prima facie based on the apparent behavior of the various global/regional indexes of temperature, such as GISTEMP, HADCRUT, etc. Kip Hansen has a nice essay posted on WUWT recently that very nicely explores the nuances of accumulation of numbers into global temperature anomaly indexes. An underlying current in that essay is that the behavior of such indexes is closely tied to the manner with which they are computed. He discusses things like differences between means of medians, means of means, uncertainties, and the like. The upshot is that global temperature anomaly indexes are far more representative of the nuances of statistical manipulation than underlying physics. It is not at all clear that movement of such an index down or up over some time interval represents any thermodynamic quantities at all, but instead is simply a reflection of changing statistical details. In other words, the notion of “warming” as used in discussions of climate science, i.e. that it is evidenced by an upward trend in the index, lacks a solid quantitative link to thermodynamics.

            From that perspective, talking about “how much warming is due to humans” begs the question of whether we actually know thermodynamic “warming” is occurring and in what quantity. It is not too hard to do some back of (largish) envelope calculations comparing the behavior of the average of the temperatures of a collection of somewhat coupled thermodynamic systems to the temperature of the collection of systems calculated from their actual thermodynamic ensemble. In other words comparing the average of dUi/dSi to d(sumU)/d(sumS). For many assumptions on the systems, the average turns out to be fairly chaotic compared to the actual system and coupled with the statistical quirks with which the average is actually computed. It is unclear that the global temperature indexes can reliably say anything quantitative about “warming” or “cooling” in the thermodynamic sense. Not that they might be unaffected, rather that they may not be very robust indicators of the actual thermodynamics of the global system. The key word here is quantitative.

            What all this means is that even starting a conversation asking to what the “warming” is attributable begs the question of what do we mean by “warming.” It gets even more tenuous, since, if climate science is essentially explanatory and not predictive, then a vagueness in the quantities to be explained makes the prospect of rigorous physics and mathematics explaining the “warming” or “cooling” even less hopeful.

            This issue is also present in discussions of the ice melting, turbulent event strengths and frequencies and the like. Coupled with the wide spatial and temporal variations about the globe, it seems to me it would improve the discussion a great deal to call variables what they are and not use words suggestive of something they are not. For example, “warming” should more rightly be called “a correlation in the global temperature anomaly index” or some such language. Also, the global mean temperatures should be called something like global T statistics. It strikes me the behavior of such things would reduce a bit of the heated (pun intended) discussion about warming and who or what is to blame.

            Feynman’s little talk on the nature of science has a nice section on the difficulty of applying science (he really means physics) to quantities that are somewhat ill-defined.

          • “Likewise, quantification of cooling is tough, but there’s good evidence that we have done that through emissions of aerosols. This is one hypothesis for the cooler period around the 70s, when pollution was high.”

            In US pollution was higher and perhaps around 1970s. Or many have claimed pollution levels in US have lowered in comparison in the 21 century.
            If you worried about leaded gasoline effects [lead in atmosphere] it’s rather dramatic reduction- but lead in atmosphere has little to do with climate.

            In terms global surface area, US is very insignificant.
            The soviets polluted their lands by very significant amount. It would interesting if even allow listing of something like US “superfund sites”?
            So: “Does Russia have a program (or programs) similar to the EPA’s Superfund? If so, what is it called and what are its major cleanup projects?”
            https://www.quora.com/Does-Russia-have-a-program-or-programs-similar-to-the-EPAs-Superfund-If-so-what-is-it-called-and-what-are-its-major-cleanup-projects
            Apparently, not. But anyhow, check global aerosol:
            “Abstract
            Our understanding of the global aerosol change is rather limited, although it is well known that aerosol forcing could affect the global radiative budget, hydrological processes, carbon, nitrogen and sulfur cycles, as well as climate change. To understand the wide range effects of aerosols, it is key to obtain aerosol characteristics at high spatio-temporal resolutions. In this study, we try to map the global variations of the aerosol optical depth (AOD) using two aerosol products retrieved from MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite instrument. It is found that the global average AOD is 0.126 over the last decade (2003–2012). The highest and the lowest AOD occurred in 2007 and 2010, respectively. AOD variations between land and ocean, north and south hemispheres, among seven continents and four oceans were also explored. It is interesting to find that high concentrations of aerosols are mainly distributed in regions where developing countries are located (Asia and Africa), and an increasing trend could also be observed…”
            Of course I heard about such claims- of it affecting climate models. And no doubt it’s monitored in places like North America and Europe- but even such regions are quite small and it’s rather recent that we are monitoring it via satellites on global basis. My wild guess it largely about US temperature, And US has a lot monitoring sites for temperature [and comparison it’s very thin elsewhere over most of Earth surface] , and it’s more about affecting the measured global temperature, rather actual affect global temperature.

            My guess is manmade global pollution is higher now, than in 1970’s- and I don’t think wind mills and solar panels are reducing pollution- nor are the electric cars.

            Going back to:

            “It’s very difficult to quantify exactly how much warming is due to humans, but there is substantial evidence from a variety of studies that at least half is anthropogenic.”
            Maybe it is. Or maybe since 1950s at least half is anthropogenic.
            Or maybe not.

            But it seems humans have had little to do with 7″ rise in sea level over the last 100 hundred years. Of course, there models indicating that human will have an effect upon sea levels. Though I am forgetting that some say, pumping water from underground has added maybe 1″ or more to sea level rise.

        • Kristi Silber

          “I will not give you my time if you continue to insult me.”

          That’ll be someone else struck off your list because they “insult” you.

          Yet you fail to understand you are nothing but just another poster on a blog site. You have no standing or status. You could be 48 (In which case you are a young lady to me) or you could be 480; you might have a scientific qualification, but then you might not. You might be a female, but then you might not.

          On the one hand I think this blog would be a poorer place without you as occasionally you demonstrate uncommon sense, as in some of your comments following Tim Ball’s essay. On the other hand I find your sense of self entitlement offensive in itself.

          This is not a bastion of political correctness, striking people off your little list is simply indicative of the alarmist inclination to refuse to debate on the slightest pretext. Continuing to strike people off your list will pretty rapidly mean you’ll have no reason to visit WUWT. What it doesn’t do is strike fear or a sense of loss into anyone here, indeed I’m sure it emboldens people to push you further.

          Personally, I find your supercilious attitude e.g. “I will not give you my time…..”, offensive, rude and insulting but then I accept this is a blog and you may not be what you say you are, nor perhaps am I. If you imagine you are granting us your time, then you need a large dose of humility.

          But I’m not sure any of this has occurred to you.

          • If you fail to treat Kristi with the deference that she believes is her due, she will refuse to talk with you anymore.
            The funny thing is that she seems to believe that she is harming us by this refusal to dialog with us.

          • “This is not a bastion of political correctness, striking people off your little list is simply indicative of the alarmist inclination to refuse to debate on the slightest pretext. ”

            Staggering obtuseness.

            What Kristi alludes to – and this is common to anyone trying to counter the “ignorance worn as a badge” “not with my tax dollars you warmunist” psychology on display here – is the uselessness of trying to converse on here.
            Answer a post and it will get the reflexive ad hom from some, the sky-dragon slayer “physics” from others or the “it’s a fraud” from the rest. And all combinations thereof.
            There is no “debating” here LOL – we know that full well.
            It’s a wonder anyone bothers.
            (Why do so you may ask )- well there may always be some science sentient being who doesn’t think in those combinations but who does not post – stranger things have happened.
            Because denizens aren’t here for that. It’s a dog-whistle answering echo-chamber in which any voice trying to say otherwise receives said responses.

            It’s only the likes of Nick and Leif (notably) that drags threads from echoing ignorance.
            That you say otherwise is merely the product of the echo-chamber of the angry, “warmunist” hating, ideologically driven that inhabit the place.

            Oh, and “personally” I find your attitude to someone who calls out nasty responses politely as Kristi rightly does to be “supercilious” likewise my Scottish friend.

            Feel free to reciprocate … it’s entirely expected.

            Markw:
            “The funny thing is that she seems to believe that she is harming us by this refusal to dialog with us”.

            Dont be silly.
            You lot are impervious. After all you will always “win” with superiority of numbers on here…. and truly think it a “win” as though to shout loudly and often demonstrates such.
            Like I said – there’s no dialog …. just the QED of my above as you and Scott demonstrate.

          • HotScot,

            Not sure why you keep addressing me.

            I’m not 480, of that I can assure you.

            And I don’t lie.

            ““I will not give you my time…..”, offensive, rude and insulting ” How ironic.
            I even warned you! Why should I interact with those who habitually insult me?

        • “when people say there is no evidence for AGW, that is not just honest skepticism.”

          No, its actually just the truth.

          In fact its not merely that there is no evidence for it, the evidence is actually against it.

          Any theory that predicts a linear relationship between temperature rise and CO2 rises in totally invalidated by a steady CO2 rise that cannot be correlated with a sharp temperature rise followed by 20 years of essentially NO temperature rise at all.

          A non linear relationship is possible, but that is not what the AGW theory says.

          Or you can ‘save’ the AGW theory by downgrading the sensitivity to the point where CO2 is almost irrelevant and introducing Something Else that has stopped global warming dead in its tracks for the last 20 years, but that of course in not what AGW says either, It claims that most if not all late 20th century warming is down to CO2.

          The Pause and the lack of tropical hotspots are the elephants in the room. They utterly refute AGW as it is currently couched.

          All competent scientists who have seen this accept AGW is intellectually dead, but none are willing to risk their careers by saying so.

          And the businesses thatare based on the back of the faux proposition aren’t going to roll over either,. Too much money and too many careers are at stake., At best we will see AGW quietly fade into obscurity as grants are wound down, and the whole Green Blob industry fades out,. Its begun already. There are less eco journalists earning less money than there used to be. No one wants to subsidise renewables any more, and the weaselling begins.

          Even your (Kristi’s) presence here is symptomatic – a last ditch attempt to sabotage what is seen as a centre of intelligent opposition to the AGW meme. I mean, are we THAT important?

          Or is it that its beginning to dawn on you that after all the truth does matter, that it is not simply a question of what people can be induced to think, but there is in some sense no matter how ill defined and misunderstood, an objective truth out there which cannot be denied or resisted and is in fact completely impervious to propaganda?

          • Leo,

            “Any theory that predicts a linear relationship between temperature rise and CO2”

            But it doesn’t! You really don’t have any idea of the science, do you?

            “All competent scientists who have seen this accept AGW is intellectually dead, but none are willing to risk their careers by saying so.”

            Nonsense. Do you seriously believe you know enough to judge? Your comments suggest otherwise, I’m afraid.

            ‘Even your (Kristi’s) presence here is symptomatic – a last ditch attempt to sabotage what is seen as a centre of intelligent opposition to the AGW meme. I mean, are we THAT important?”

            Sabotage? Are you kidding? Do you think I have any illusions about my power here? NO! I do it because it is intellectually stimulating. I learn from it. I like to interact with people who think differently from me.

        • As always Kristi assumes that if it’s warming, that’s proof that it’s AGW.

          I’m still waiting for Kristi’s evidence that any, much less all of the warming that we are currently enjoying is caused by man.

          • MarkW,

            No, I don’t deal in “proof.”

            ‘I’m still waiting for Kristi’s evidence that any, much less all of the warming that we are currently enjoying is caused by man”

            I owe you nothing, Mark. Look it up yourself.

        • I too apologize for assuming you were younger.
          In an earlier article, when you spent so much time bragging about your degrees, I assumed you were a recent graduate.

          In my experience by the time one reaches middle age, you have plenty of acheivements in your life. So when bragging, those are what you concentrate on.
          To have reached the age of 48 without achieving any professional highlights that can compete with your college graduation is truly sad.

          • MarkW,

            I wasn’t bragging. I was simply pointing out that I have a solid background in science. It makes a difference.

            “To have reached the age of 48 without achieving any professional highlights that can compete with your college graduation is truly sad.”

            I agree. I had a lot of potential. And health problems that made me unable to fulfill them. It was devastating to lose my career. I loved what I did, and I was good at it. That’s not bragging, that’s revealing something about myself. You don’t really deserve it, the way you’ve treated me, but you are human and hopefully not just a crotchety old man.

    • “Greenhouse theory” predicts that if more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will warm.
      It logically follows that if greenhouse gases are taken out of the atmosphere, then it will cool.
      Greenhouse theory predicts either warming or cooling, depending on the circumstance.

      • Say Earth atmosphere had 20 atmospheric masses of N2 added , 10 atm mass of O2 added and 1 atm mass of CO2 added giving Earth 3 % CO2.
        So Earth has surface atmospheric pressure of 32 atm.
        Would the massive increase in CO2 warm Earth? And how much?

        I would just add 30 atm of CO2- but that would kill life- animals and plants need enough O2 to live- and adding a lot O2 would burn the place down- but 1 atm of CO2 should be regarded as adding a lot of CO2 compared to the 0.004 Atm of CO2 we have now [or .04% vs 3% or terms of doubling 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 1280, 2560, 5120, 10240, 20480, and less than 40840 ppm- doubled 9+ times].

        It seems to me if we had 32 atm, we would have a dimly lit surface.
        Or you can witness the sun going thru about 10 atm, daily- whenever sun is low at horizon. And the sun is fairly dim. And if had 32 atm, when sun is low at horizon, it be like sun going thru 300 atm- or it would extremely dim.
        And in peak solar hours- 3 hours before and after noon with 32 atm the sun is not warming the surface- instead somewhere around 1000 watts per square meter, it less than 200 watts per square meter or ground is not warmed above freezing by sunlight- anywhere on Earth.
        And of course clouds would make it dimmer.

    • The idea of “Greenhouse Theory” may have begun in the 1800s (with Tyndell’s experiment on CO2 absorbing IR), but it has been a long development and refinement, proceeding through quantum understanding of how molecular bonds selectively absorb IR, through experimental determination of details of IR absorption spectra, through concepts of emission heights for IR emission, up to the use of satellites to examine IR emission from the “wings” of a CO2 or H2O absorption band (which generates the log CO2 effect) to take advantage of emission height to monitor different atmospheric depths.

      • ‘Greenhouse’ gases also cause cooling by increasing the efficiency of convection cooling. The greenhouse gas absorbs radiation and then via collision transfers that energy to non greenhouse gases before it emit a photon.

        Roughly 80% of the cooling in the lower atmosphere is due to convection cooling.

        Higher in the atmosphere there are greater and greater amounts of free ions and free electrons which radiate due to motion. At high elevations the atmosphere is more like a plasma.

        This explains why the greenhouse mechanism saturates.

        Observational evidence to support that assertion is the fact that There are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 was high and the planet was cold and periods when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm.

    • “If there are no cars coming and you have a green light, cross the street.”

      Unfortunately Kristi life isn’t that simple. You step out and get run over by a cyclist who is jumping the red light. I am reminded of the driver who only overtook when when he was approaching a blind bend. When ask why he did this he explained that he had been taught never to overtake when you can see something coming the other way.

      It is impossible to construct a set of rules that will cover every possible eventuality, will apply in all conceivable circumstances and will always be applied correctly and it is foolish to try and do so. Biology has not made us as automatons, we are not pre-programmed robots and our laws, such as they are, have to be based around the concept of total individual freedom, except for that which is proscribed. The alternative method of no freedoms except that which you are allowed to do by law, does not work.

      “Nice quote, although I would add that doubts can be a hindrance to decision-making”
      Why doing nothing may sometimes be the best action of all

      • Philip,

        Well, okay, add in cyclists, scooters, Segues, St. Bernards… But you have to cross the street to get to the other side.

        In Catholic theology there is freedom, and there is license. License means following only one’s own desires, while freedom means considering what is right – what will not inflict harm on others. While I’m not a Catholic, I think this is a useful concept.

        We are a society. We must live together. Right now America is becoming so divided that relationships are being destroyed by political differences. If we keep heading in the same direction, with each side becoming more and more extreme and hateful toward one another, it could lead to either civil war or an authoritarian society. We can no longer discuss things rationally, and that means we can’t compromise.

        Living together in peace means compromise. I want to live in peace. I don’t want to hate or despise anyone unless they deserve it, and I don’t think any group deserves it. My best friend is very conservative. We fight, but I love him dearly. I see the value in a lot of conservative ideals through him and the reading I’ve done – and I see a lot of faults in liberal handling of things.

        I can also understand skepticism. I understand the problems with the way the CO2 issue has been addressed. But I believe doing nothing is very wrong. We must take responsibility. To tell the rest of the world that we don’t care what happens to anyone but ourselves is sending the message that everyone should be able to do the same. Why should we then condemn China for stealing our intellectual property? What right do we have to condemn them for their CO2 emissions, as so many skeptics do? What would give us the right to interfere in others’ conflicts, or convince them to end their nuclear weapons programs? We can’t be a world leader and think only of ourselves. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sent that message. Deregulating the fossil fuel industry is sending that message. America is leading only America.

        I’m a patriot. I believe in American values, and I think we should be a role model for the rest of the world, not a nation that is considered untrustworthy and selfish.

        • “Living together in peace means compromise. I want to live in peace. I don’t want to hate or despise anyone unless they deserve it, and I don’t think any group deserves it. My best friend is very conservative. We fight, but I love him dearly. I see the value in a lot of conservative ideals through him and the reading I’ve done – and I see a lot of faults in liberal handling of things.”
          Like, Ten Conservative Principles:
          https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/
          Reasonable ideals, though I am not conservative. Though Republican are suppose to have “big tent” which I assume includes libertarian- when do the political tests, that where they put me.

          “I can also understand skepticism. I understand the problems with the way the CO2 issue has been addressed. But I believe doing nothing is very wrong. We must take responsibility.”

          You seem to ignore the benefits of elevated CO2 levels.
          As far as Earth history in last 1/2 billion years, we have been at low levels of CO2.
          Most of life evolved in environment with much higher levels of CO2 and have near starvation levels for couple million years- it’s due to geological processes, and we in an Ice Age.
          With brings us to other issue, Earth is not presently too warm. And through most of human history, warmer has always been regarded as better than colder- because it is.
          The guy who proposed that CO2 would increase global temperature, regarded this as good news. And he was right about that.
          If global temperature lower by .5 C, everyone knows this would be big problem- because it would be- it would reduce crop production- food prices would rise- resulting the poorest not getting enough food.
          Lefties were predicting we would have already starved to death decades ago, and very small part of why this failed to materialized was the warming world and increased CO2 levels- though capitalism was major reason- and, plus development of better crops and generally better farming technology. And roughly the same sort of thing regarding the Peak Oil scare.
          “To tell the rest of the world that we don’t care what happens to anyone but ourselves is sending the message that everyone should be able to do the same. Why should we then condemn China for stealing our intellectual property? What right do we have to condemn them for their CO2 emissions, as so many skeptics do? What would give us the right to interfere in others’ conflicts, or convince them to end their nuclear weapons programs? We can’t be a world leader and think only of ourselves. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sent that message. Deregulating the fossil fuel industry is sending that message. America is leading only America.”

          America was leading the world, before WWII, and after which US emerging as sole Superpower [though part of dual superpower if you count a large number of nuclear weapons as a determining factor].
          I have no problem with China emitting twice as much CO2 as US- but China should do something about air pollution and other kinds of pollution. IF China fracks, they can then emit less CO2 with same amount electrical energy and have less air pollution.
          And it should be noted that US is lowering it’s emission and countries spending lots of money doing something about “global warming” [such as Germany] are not reducing their CO2 emissions.
          Or if want to lower CO2- follow the US example.

  21. It’s notable how many people here accuse others of things they do themselves.

    If we are going to discuss climate change rationally, we ALL need to stop using insulting language and making generalizations and assumptions about what the Other thinks and does.

    The stress on debate is wrong. Debate is trying to support one’s own views and dispute others’. Debate doesn’t result in learning, it results in becoming more certain of one’s own beliefs regardless of their merit.

    What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. Research and preparation for the debate would necessitate learning the merits of the other side of the argument. Then we might come closer to understanding each other, and eventually to developing policies that are a compromise. It makes no sense for policy to be radically changed with each new administration.

    • So… The debate is over- in your view? Anyone who disagrees with the “consensus” is projecting their personal biases through egocentricity?

      • Kristi, do you really think that we haven’t researched your side of the debate? Folks like myself started out as believers until we really investigated the entire story behind this politically spawned detour of legitimacy in science.

      • Pop,

        Your interpretation of what I say is just weird.

        You have insulted me enough that I’m not interested in discussing anything with you.

        • Kristi Silber

          “You have insulted me enough…….”

          But describing Pop’s interpretation of your comments as “weird” isn’t insulting?

          • Guess I got her goat, Scot. I was unusually cross with the good woman, I admit. I’m normally a better follower of the Optimist creed. We shouldn’t bash each other here just because we have different conceptions of reality.

            I regret hurting anyone’s feelings and give myself 5 demerits.

        • Kristi writes:
          “Pop,
          Your interpretation of what I say is just weird.
          You have insulted me enough that I’m not interested
          in discussing anything with you.”

          How can I get on the Kristi
          non-discussion list?

          Can I just volunteer,
          or do I have to be a bad boy?

          If it will help me
          to get on that highly desirable list:
          I have read your comments here and
          my first, second, and last thought, was:
          DING DING DING
          bat.

          • and she’s 48!
            FORTY EIGHT!!!!!!
            Seriously?! I thought she was fresh out of college considering her perfect regurgitation of Marxist propaganda talking points. sheesh.

            no quarter for such liars (she is a self-deceiver, the worst type of liar)

          • Honest Liberty,

            You are such a fool. I’m no Marxist, I’m a capitalist. It’s absolutely absurd to think my views are Marxist. What a dumb@ss.

    • “What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism.”

      One of the best comments I have seen you make here Kristi. In my own mind, I do so all the time and the best I can come up with is 7.4 billion humans adding a lot of thermal heat (espeically in the NH) of all kinds to the climate system which made for UHI making for recording higher temps in the historical urban record although I agree the world has warmed .8 degree C in the last 150 years. Probably half of which or more was just natural variation coming out of the LIA when it was much cooler than the bulk of the Holocene. Which is why I don’t only believe the small additional warming is a bad thing, but the fact that the world now supports 7.4 billion, is why it does and is net beneficial. Except for the day it turns real cold and stays cold…and then we are really toast.

      Why don’t you write up a post (you are a good writer, even if I don’t completely agree with your methods or results) and give it your best to be a skeptic? And ask everyone who is a skeptic to have a go at really trying their best to logically be a alarmist. I am sure it would get published here if you made a real good honest attempt. Maybe we will all learn something new. I will participate and do my best to honestly argue the alarmist position.

      • And I won’t stomp my feet, wave my arms, or call anyone a deni@r like alarmists do, or what is now called a Denialist. Definition of which is: defines as “an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth”. I find that word just as offensive, maybe even more so, because it summarily can dismiss anyone who questions someone else’s reality and truth when just acting as a skeptic when that is the definition of a practising scientist, at least until a theory is confirmed.

        With the complexities of weather and climate so vast, it is just amazing to me why a real and proper debate and discussion isn’t advocated, especially by academia and media. If we persist down the alarmist rabbit hole, then we are assured of being mislead because the first rule of science is repeatable results. We can’t have a lot of warming from CO2 alone, especially if we agree there are other forms of warming such as Land Use Change and UHI, then obviously ‘carbon’ can’t be responsible for all of man made warming or climate change. So CO2 has to be subtracted from that column, unless ‘carbon’ has just become a metaphor for everything related to human kind. Maybe the rest of 7.4 billion human actives has something to do with it, which reducing ‘carbon’ will make no tangible result to any future warming.

        • I tried being polite Kristi, and didn’t even get a peep out of you. Unlike the rest of some who you said were being rude to you was why you won’t even discuss anything with them. Put the shoe on the other foot, and tell us what you think, as a skeptic, what your main points would be. That would tell all of us, you included, what you really think about the skeptic position. We, (you), might learn something new. That’s why we are all here, which is hopefully just not an echo chamber to hear ourselves talk and agree with each other.

          • Earthling2 ,

            I’m very sorry, I just didn’t get to you (sometimes I start at the top, sometimes from the bottom). And unfortunately, I don’t have time now to address your comments in detail.

            I don’t think a debate here swapping sides would be very successful. It’s really quite difficult for one to debate many others at once in a thoughtful manner, with literature to back up one’s claims. From the comments I’ve gotten, others think it’s a rotten idea, anyway. And then the question is, what kind of arguments would be allowed? Would I use Climategate in an effort to show that all scientists are corrupt, since that is one argument used by some skeptics? How about policy, and the claim that trillions of dollars are being wasted? In other words, would I use the common claims of skeptics or only the scientific research that rejects the theory? Would I be arguing against AGW, or CAGW?

            Despite the fact that I know most of the arguments skeptics make, it would be difficult to put together a sound argument based purely on quality science. There is reason for skepticism (primarily due to uncertainties), but not a lot of reason for rejection of the consensus, which is what most skeptics seem to argue – or at least they argue that AGW is benign.

            The other problem is that I don’t have a good enough understanding of climate science to do it justice. I know arguments from years of discussing the issue with skeptics, but I don’t consider myself well-versed enough in the immense field of climate science to attempt a purely scientific debate. That would take years of study.

            So, I appreciate your willingness to engage in such a debate, but I don’t think I can oblige – not in a WUWT post, anyway. I didn’t actually mean it should be done here.

            …………………………………….
            “We can’t have a lot of warming from CO2 alone, especially if we agree there are other forms of warming such as Land Use Change and UHI, then obviously ‘carbon’ can’t be responsible for all of man made warming or climate change.”

            The effects of UHI are on measurement, not actual global temperatures – that would be negligible.

            Land use is not directly a factor in global warming, but through its impact on CO2, both as a source and sink. Well, it may be through the contribution to aerosols from burning, but those are transient (although perhaps not negligible; I have long suspected that clearing and burning of forest has an impact).

            ……………………………….
            “Probably half of which or more was just natural variation coming out of the LIA when it was much cooler than the bulk of the Holocene. ”

            The problem with this idea is that natural variation, too, has to be explained. Some of it can be explained by solar variation, but it can’t explain all the patterns. For example, “There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
            http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.short

            Climate is so complex that it’s very difficult to factor in all the variables in a way that we can understand without the aid of models. I can’t understand why people don’t see the value of models. They aren’t perfect, but they’ve been tested in a wide variety of ways against observational data, and have been shown to be skillful. They are not precisely accurate, but offer good estimations of at least some parameters of climate. They are meant to simulate climate over the long term, not annual variability.

            Anyway, I really need to go to bed. Thanks very much for your comments! You are now on my “pay close attention to and engage with” list.

      • “This from the woman who routinely declares that those who disagree with her are in the pay of “big oil”?”

        Another lie from MarkW.

    • Kristi Silber:
      “The stress on debate is wrong. Debate is trying to support one’s own views and dispute others’. Debate doesn’t result in learning, it results in becoming more certain of one’s own beliefs regardless of their merit.”

      You seem to think we are all discussing whether “neither” should be pronounced nee-ther or ni-ther, or whether a soft-boiled egg should be opened at the big end or the little end. In such discussions compromise and/or concession instead of bickering is indeed a worthy goal.

      However, warmists propose billions of dollars should be spent to make 1st world nations’ electricity grids as unreliable as those of 3rd world nations or else the world will fry, while skeptics counter that it is OK to allow 3rd world nations to have the same level of electricity availability as 1st world nations because every warmist claim has failed to materialize.

      Skeptics are trying to argue the merits, warmists are not.

      SR

      • Steve,

        Policy is an entirely different matter. It should not influence science. Science should influence policy.

        “Warmists” are not trying to make electricity grids unreliable. That makes no sense. And who are warmists? Do you think that everyone who believe AGW thinks the same way about policy?

        I’m so tired on generalizations and assumptions and exaggeration and blame. If all”warmists” are alike, does that mean all skeptics alike?

        Why do so many skeptics judge science through the lens of policy? When I see that, it makes it very hard to give credence to someone’s ideas about the science.

    • I already did that exercise. I’m a PhD scientist with some graduate level training in atmospheric chemistry. I used to argue the global warming position. Now I don’t because I learned that it was BS.

    • “What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. ”

      We don’t know how much the ocean is warming and at some point, the added CO2 might start warming the ocean a lot. Or we stupid people and never going to become spacefaring, so we will be stuck on Earth [haplessly] for thousands of years. And also people are starting to get even more stupid {see Einstein} – and in thousand of years, it’s almost certain the ocean will warm from CO2- and our a very stupid descendants will all DIE! And kill all life!

      • Also we need the smartest people available, who can control all the dumb people- and controlling CO2 emission is best path forward to have a smart totalitarian world government. So even if sea levels rise anyhow, the government control all stupid people from killing all life.
        Of course at some point we can genetically engineer, smarter people- the world government will adequately fund such research.

        • gbaikie:

          I hate to say it, but history shows that the smart people who aren’t on board with the totalitarian program are the first ones to be eliminated. As an example, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia took it a step further and killed villagers simply because they wore glasses. Wearing glasses suggested they could read.

    • You have a mistaken impression if you believe that some compromise is needed in the CAGW debate. No compromise is needed and if there is one, it will be a bad thing. Because a few extra parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere will do only absolute good, and there really is NO credible evidence that leads me to believe it causes any additional risk. The history of the biosphere shows this perfectly clearly. You need to believe that.

      I don’t need to believe your silly notions that the 500 or 600 ppm CO2 is going to harm humanity and the environment in which humans are thriving. You need to disbelieve it. You need to stop thinking that output from virtual climate models equals valid evidence of impending doom. You need to stop respecting the idiots who say climate models equal truth, no matter how educated and credentialed they may be. If you can clear this very low hurdle, then maybe we can find some common ground on public policy issues that you might want to impose on me and the rest of the world.

    • If we are going to discuss climate change rationally, we ALL need to stop using insulting language and making generalizations and assumptions about what the Other thinks and does.

      Yup. Now who came up with ‘Climate Deneier’ ? then. Wasn’t the sceptics. First take the beam from thine own eye..

      The stress on debate is wrong. Debate is trying to support one’s own views and dispute others’. Debate doesn’t result in learning, it results in becoming more certain of one’s own beliefs regardless of their merit.

      No, debate is not trying to support ones own views. Not for sceptics in any case. I can’t answer for AGW believers. Maybe it is that way for them.

      Debate consists in pitting logical narratives against one another in order that the differences and potential flaws in either are exposed. Real intellectual debate doesn’t care about winning and losing, it cares about exposing the flaws and weaknesses in arguments. That is of course why you don’t want debate innit?

      What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. Research and preparation for the debate would necessitate learning the merits of the other side of the argument. Then we might come closer to understanding each other, and eventually to developing policies that are a compromise. It makes no sense for policy to be radically changed with each new administration.

      That is mere advocacy. A lawyers answer. Argue the case irrespective of its truth content, merely to win the argument, not to establish the truth. That’s ‘student debating’ stuff – not real scientific debate.

      Of course you wont believe me, but I do in fact know what are claimed to be the ‘merits’ of the AGW argument very well. Unfortunately I would fail at using them in advocacy unless I were prepared to lie, or appeal emotionally to the target audience, because they are simply indefensible on logical grounds.

      My problem in adopting that position is not that I don’t know enough about it, but rather that I understand it all too well, far better than its protagonists do, which is why they are its protagonists.

      Argument from ignorance is always easier.

      • “Unfortunately I would fail at using them in advocacy unless I were prepared to lie, or appeal emotionally to the target audience, because they are simply indefensible on logical grounds.”

        Hear! Hear!

    • “What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. Research and preparation for the debate would necessitate learning the merits of the other side of the argument.”

      Don’t you presuppose that either side hasn’t learned the merits of the other? If so, why? E.g., haven’t you yourself taking the time to learn the skeptics position? If not, why not?

      It would seem to make more sense that those capable of honest debate have already evaluated both sides and come to a conclusion, in which case, taking a different side would seem to be a useless exercise.

      “Then we might come closer to understanding each other, and eventually to developing policies that are a compromise.”

      What if there need not be a compromise because CAGW is false? Is this a possibility? If so, why is there need for compromise? If not, then haven’t you already made up your own mind, in which case, don’t you contradict yourself here?

      • Sycomputing,

        I wasn’t suggesting it be done here. It wouldn’t work.

        I don’t get the idea that most people know the arguments of the other side. For instance, I see a lot of misunderstanding of what GCMs reveal, what their purpose is, how they are tuned, and the relative confidence of their predictions. I don’t get the feeling that people know that scientists understand their limitations.

        Nor are very many apparently aware of the wide range of evidence supporting AGW. Again and again I read that there is no evidence, and that is patently false.

        “E.g., haven’t you yourself taking the time to learn the skeptics position?” Yes, I have, but I’ve spent years as an active contributor to WUWT, and before that, to Breitbart (from which I was banned for my views).

        “What if there need not be a compromise because CAGW is false? Is this a possibility? If so, why is there need for compromise? If not, then haven’t you already made up your own mind, in which case, don’t you contradict yourself here?”

        I believe AGW is true, and I have never denied that, so how am I contradicting myself? The question is, what is the rate of change, and what are the likely effects of that change. This is where compromise comes in. We don’t really know what will happen. We cannot prediction the future with certainty. But we can identify and estimate at least some of the things that are likely to happen given as certain amount and rate of change, both good and bad. This is the science part.

        From science, we move to policy, which is informed by our findings. We can look for ways to slow the rate of CO2 emissions with the intent of slowing the rate of change. We find those mechanisms that have other benefits, like adding insulation to homes, increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, and phasing out coal-fired power plants, which pollute the air and water, have negative health impacts on miners and those who live near mountaintop removal mines, and are being replaced by natural gas, anyway. We also develop new technologies, such as economical ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and grid-capacity energy storage, to make renewables more practical. This requires investment, but I am thinking about the long term. Although we have fossil fuel resources, as the more easily accessible reserves are used, and as global demand increases, the cost will go up, and renewables will become relatively more economical.

        I don’t advocate switching to renewables in a massive way, not now. I don’t advocate doing things that will result in undue hardship. But neither do I think it’s responsible to do nothing to try to lower CO2 emissions. The temperature will rise, but if we can slow the rate of change it will allow people (and other organisms) more time to adapt, and I think this is vital. Mitigation and adaptation should go hand-in-hand.

        Global warming need not be catastrophic, but we can’t count on it if we sit back and wait to see what happens while deregulating industry to allow even greater CO2 emissions.

    • It’s notable how many people here accuse others of things they do themselves.

      That is completely characteristic of the Left.

      Who are the main protagonists for Climate Change It’s down to their one dimensional thinking and emotional insecurity Unable to see more than one version of anything except the version they themselves adhere to, they have no option but to consider anyone whose world-view differs from theirs completely WRONG, because they can’t afford emotionally to lose the security of believing themselves to be absolutely RIGHT.

      Hence their entirely emotional responses (Denier! In the pay of Big Oil! Anti Science!”) which are all simply the very things they fear themselves to be. And in fact are…aren’t they Kristi…?

    • Kristi burbled

      “eventually to developing policies that are a compromise”

      So instead of either driving on the right as in America, or on the left as in Britain we should compromise and drive right down the middle of the road instead?

      So instead of either getting on the ferry to France or staying on the docks at Dover I should jump into the sea mid channel?

      Oh dear, the idiocy in this one, strong, is.

      Sometimes and in fact very often, there is a fork in the road of Life, and we can e.g. marry one tart, or another, but half marrying both of them is a Really Bad Idea™ As well as being illegal.

      I can see Kristi that the whole concept of non-linearity has entirely passed you by.

      I hope you have no kids. ‘Kristi I want to go to Disneyland in Florida’ ‘No I want to go to Disneyland in Hong Kong!’

      ‘We will compromise and go to Novosibirsk instead, which is halfway between them’

      Judgement of Solomon Kristi, surely you have heard of it?

      I am not even sure your thinking can be called one dimensional.

    • Here are the ground rules.

      1) Only proven facts. No multiple runs of a multitude of models. Only individual models that have accurately forecasted “global temperature” for two years in advance.

      2) No studies that claim the subject (other than CO2) being studied “proves” CO2 causes global warming. No polar bear numbers, no insect population changes that are ASSUMED to forewarn us of impending doom due to CO2, etc. Only those studies where there are direct independent and dependent variables (CO2 must be one of them) that have been measured accurately are allowed with a causation proven, not just correlation. Studies that only assume that CO2 causes some effect are verboten.

      3) Any quoted study must include data, statistical methods and assumptions, and a treatment of errors, both measurement and mathematical.

      Let start some real science where hypothesis’ and real, measurable, experimental results are performed.

      • I would make it stricter, they need to have accurately forecast all regional climates 2 years in advance.
        Allowing them to forecast the “global” climate allows them to get all the regions wrong, but be right “on average”.

      • Jim,

        Those are ridiculous ground rules. Climate models are not intended to forecast 2 years in advance, that’s not their purpose – and besides, that would be a very poor indication of their overall skill.

        You are eliminating much of the evidence if one can’t discuss things like changes in organism populations and range.

        “Only those studies where there are direct independent and dependent variables (CO2 must be one of them) that have been measured accurately are allowed with a causation proven, not just correlation.”

        You can’t “prove” causation – science doesn’t ever “prove” anything, much less causation.

        You can’t experiment with climate. You can’t take 20 Earths and subject them to different CO2 levels. That doesn’t mean you can’t have “real science.” There are ways of doing science that aren’t dependent on experiments. This is such a common fallacy, I’m sure it contributes to skepticism.

    • What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. Research and preparation for the debate would necessitate learning the merits of the other side of the argument.

      most skeptics of CAGW already did that exercise, that’s how they became skeptics of CAGW – they started out as CAGW believers until they researched it for themselves.

    • Kristi writes:

      “What would really be a good learning exercise is to have a debate in which the sides were swapped: skeptics would argue for CAGW, and alarmists for skepticism. Research and preparation for the debate would necessitate learning the merits of the other side of the argument.”

      Likely the reason most who have evaluated the evidence have joined the “skeptic” side of the debate after seeing that the so-called ‘consensus’ view is complete bullsh*t. I doubt many would join what’s viewed as the minority (skeptical) side of the debate for any other reason especially when they will be scorned by the far-left supposed majority. But then that brings up the consideration as to which is really a majority opinion, with a minority of those openly taking a stand challenging the supposed majority pushing CAGW.

      So, you are suggesting that those who see thru the scam argue for it? Never gonna happen.

  22. Most people don’t really care about politicians ; they think that’s the job of politicians.

    Most people don’t really care about economics; they think that’s the job of economists.

    Most people don’t really care about climate; they think that’s the job of climatologists.
    ___________________________________________________

    First thing to tell them:

    Better take some care of politics, economy, climate –

    otherwise politicians, economists, climatologists will take care about you.

  23. Most people don’t really care about politics; they think that’s the job of politicians.

    Most people don’t really care about economy; they think that’s the job of economists.

    Most people don’t really care about climate; they think that’s the job of climatologists.
    ___________________________________________________

    First thing to tell them:

    Better take some care of politics, economy, climate –

    otherwise politicians, economists, climatologists will take care about you.

    • Most people don’t really care about medicine; they think that’s the job of doctors.
      Most people don’t really care about law; they think that’s the job of judges.

      You better worry about “health care” (drugs) before you are prescribed worthless products (worthless for you, not for Big Propaganda).

      You better worry about the law protecting “intellectual property” (an absurd notion in the first place) because Big Copyright interferes with your computer.

  24. Tim, while I agree with you the difficulty of trying to explain complicated facts about scieence to the average person, the problem as I see it is we arfe complication a matter that is really very simle.

    I have saaid this before but it bears repeating.

    Tim at the bottom of this whole phony “House of cards”is the root problem. That of the trace gas CO2. Prove that its a harmless and in fact a essential gas, and the whole of this nonsence of climate science should collapse .

    I am hoping that Pres. Trumps EPA will finally get the red and blue teams together and disprove all of this nonsense.

    MJE

  25. Reading explanations about explaining on a website where 97% of commenters are hysterically pro vaccines, all of which have no proven benefits in a first world country, is … hysterical.

    “so I finally challenged him to explain the X for the audience”

    Try that on YOUR DOCTOR. Tell him to explain you which vaccine has which benefit for you and others and which ones are doubtful. Pretty sure he will be either blank or metaphorically rolling on the floor like a baby.

    • vaccines, all of which have no proven benefits in a first world country, is …

      .. a lie.

      As the rising prevalence of diseases that had been eradicated from western countries by vaccination shows. Now people no longer feel that vaccination is ‘valuable’

      You argument is completely logically as false as saying ‘we should not bother to filter and chlorinate water as no one gets Cholera any more’.

      I suggest you move to a country where they don’t chlorinate and do get cholera.

      • He should ask his local doctor if the many migrants are vaccinated at the border of that 1st world country (France?) Measles alone would pandemic if not.
        See, it comes down the proper questions…

        • Migrants are a major health risk. I don’t care so much whether they are vaccinated. They are bringing many diseases for which there is no vaccine.

          “Measles alone would pandemic if not.”

          Ahah! Very funny. You were convinced by the master manipulators that measles is a terrifying disease that people in France would fear. “La rougeole” is not terrifying. It’s the kind of childhood diseases everyone used to get before doctors were reprogrammed by Big Stupid.

      • OK you make no sense what so ever like all Dems/Vaxxers. You work by assertion of benefits of vaccines, as all you vaxxers do, then make demented claims. (In every discussion, every single time, every single vaxxer comes out crazy in the end.)

        Why don’t you tell me which diseases have been “eradicated” by vaccination (meaning fewer people got these) and how that was a good thing?

        If you can’t answer, please go away.

          • 1. No it wasn’t. Yet another myth.
            2. If it was, now what? Are you vaccinated against smallpox? Do you want to be? What’s the relevance of smallpox in any vaccine debate that isn’t historical?
            3. Was that vaccine safe? Would it be usable today? How many people who infected from the vaccine?

          • Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination.

            Anyone who claims it has not should be banned from posting here,

            TB was almost eliminated from Europe till immigration reintroduced it.

          • Simple-t: Why don’t you tell me which diseases have been “eradicated” by vaccination

            Remy: Why don’t you tell me which diseases have been “eradicated” by vaccination

            Simple-t: What’s the relevance of smallpox in any vaccine debate that isn’t historical?

            you ask for diseases that have been eradicated but then dismiss examples of diseases that have been eradicated because they are “history” (ie they’ve been eradicated and are no longer an issue). Prime example of why anti-vaxxers are the crazy people.

          • cut and paste error, Remy’s comment was “Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination.” When will we get the edit button back?

          • Simple-t: which diseases have been “eradicated” by vaccination (meaning fewer people got these)

            Remy: Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination

            Simple-t: 1. No it wasn’t. Yet another myth.

            Yes it was, denying reality only shows how crazy you (and your fellow anti-vaxxers are), by your own criteria “(meaning fewer people got these)” Smallpox has been eradicated as has Polio. That you are ignornant (willfully so) of historical reality is your own problem. We can’t fix your crazy for you.

          • Vaxxers usually want people to be vaccinated against diseases that have been “eradicated”; other lie by omission from you.

            “Smallpox has been eradicated as has Polio”

            What caused the quasi eradication of polio in the US before WWII?

          • There was no “quasi-eradication” before WWII. What there was was periodic large outbreaks such as in 1894, 1916, 1934, and 1945

          • The rate of polio contamination crashed many times. Like with many diseases, the crash of contamination is often more spectacular before vaccines were available than after.

            The (unreliable, dishonest) historical record itself refutes the claims of obvious benefits of many vaccines.

            I like the vaccine issue because it allows the measure of gullibility of people. You can’t ask people whether Apollo missions are real because they will repeat whatever they saw in TV and TV told them it’s real. You can ask what they think re: vaccines.

          • @John
            The context of my question was:

            As the rising prevalence of diseases that had been eradicated from western countries by vaccination shows. Now people no longer feel that vaccination is ‘valuable’

            Which vaccination specifically is not valuable today? Smallpox vaccination?

            Or is “vaccination” some universal thing?

            Yet more evidence vaxxers can’t read, follow a discussion, or show intelligence.

            Vaxxers should be prevented from reaching any job where there is need for analysis of any risk.

        • Thousands of studies showing the benefits of vaccines don’t count because they don’t come to the conclusion that you so desperately want to believe.

          • “Thousands of studies showing the benefits of vaccines”

            They don’t count because you just made that up.

            Which studies? Which vaccines? Which benefits?

            One of us is desperate. It isn’t me! I’m just looking for evidence from a non crazy vaxxer, and a refutation of my hypothesis that vaxxers are all crazy people (which is why vaxxism should be officially a medical condition).

          • a refutation of my hypothesis that anti-vaxxers are all crazy people

            Fixed that for you. and so far your posts are proving that hypothesis correct, keep up the crazy work simple-t

          • “You still have not mentioned even one vaccine that is useful today.”

            Simple-t, you still deny the historical facts of vaccines and their effectiveness. You are like the “what have the romans ever done” skit from Monty Python. You keep dismissing the success of vaccines and then claim no one has ever mentioned even one vaccine that is useful. simple-t think: All right, but apart from their successful use against polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubella and neonatal tetanus what have vaccines ever done for us?” Sorry simple-t but you are not just crazy, you’re a bad joke.

          • What success against polio?

            The explosion of polio-paralysis cases following polio vaccine in India?
            The contamination by polio virus by polio vaccine in the US some decades ago, in Africa right now?
            The useless vaccination of millions of people in countries where there is no polio?

            The amount of delusion of vaxxer is only matched by “Hillary most competent candidate ever Clinton”.

          • What success against polio?

            the success in virtually eliminating it from the industrial western world and the great strides that have been made in eliminating it from the rest of the world. That you would use that elimination as a sign that it doesn’t work shows just how crazy you are. the most virulent anti-trumper isn’t as crazy and that’s saying a lot. I’m done trying to educate the willfully ignorant here. The funny thing is you are so delusional in your crazy that you have no clue just how crazy everyone else see you as. I leave you to your crazy anti-vaxxer rantings. There is no hope for the willfully ignorant such as yourself.

          • One last point re:polio before I leave you to your spout your crazy to your hearts content.

            There were usually about 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic polio reported each year in the United States before the introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955. The last naturally occurring Polio outbreak in the US was in 1979 among the amish (a community that tends to have a lower rate of vaccination that the general population) there were a small number of cases between 1980 and 2000 (less than 10 a year) as a result of the oral version of the vaccine (which uses the live virus) and a small number of cases (less than 1 a year) were the result of travel outside the US. since 2000 only the inactivated polio vaccine shot is used in the US. Compare the post-1979 rate in the US (less than 10 a year) to the pre-vaccine rate in the US (13,000 to 20,000), and you really think the 13,000 to 20,000 rate is a good thing. that alone tells me you are too crazy to bother responding to anymore.

          • “There were usually about 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic polio reported each year in the United States before the introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955.”

            What the hell is “paralytic polio”?

            How can we know how many where caused by
            1) a virus
            2) one of these “polio” viruses?

            What causes these cases of paralyses in India?

            Also, why do you suck up to disgraced entities like the CDC and WHO?

        • smallpox, polio, are the two biggest known. Others that have been greatly reduced by vaccination include (but not limited to) diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella and neonatal tetanus.

          simple-t, please explain how getting smallpox or polio (for example) was a good thing and/or how eliminating them was a bad thing?

          • “greatly reduced by vaccination include (but not limited to) …, measles, mumps, rubella”

            And you believe that was a good idea?

          • Why do you believe it is a bad idea? Care to live life (if you are lucky) as a survivor or Polio? Do you really want to risk the complications of some of the previous listed diseases (which are more likely to occur among adults who contract the diseases)?

          • I see that you will even TRY to argue it’s a good idea.

            For why it’s a bad idea, the risks were described before mass vaccination was implemented:
            – vaccine provides unreliable temporary immunity
            – people get the disease later, sometimes as adults or even expecting mother
            – pediatricians don’t learn to recognize these disease, children are not properly treated

            This was observed, as epidemics of vaccinated teens were seen in the US. Of course for a vaxxer, the failure of a vaccine proves that vaccination is a good idea (like a communist).

            In fact all the negative social side effects occurred as predicted.

            Now mostly harmless diseases are more serious because of vaccines and that statistics is used by health authorities to justify that vaccination is essential.

            And that’s without even discussing the individual side effects of vaccines.

          • Sorry simple-t all you say is paranoid nutcase nonsense (and contradictory paranoid nutcase nonsense at that). Go research the facts and learn something (but you won’t anti-vaxxer nutcases like yourself don’t care about educating themselves they only care about the nonsense they believe to be true that demonstrably isn’t)

            your first and third bullet points contradict themselves. Either they are not effective, in which case pediatricians will have no problem recognizing the symptoms or they are effective resulting in the diseases being so rare that pediatricians fail to recognize the symptoms when a rare case does crop up. you can’t have it both ways either bullet point 1 is true or bullet point 3 is true, logically they both can’t be true (but then anti-vaxxer nutcases like yourself don’t understand logic and consistency so there’s no surprise there at your failings in those regards).

            Also you claim vaccines don’t work, but in your first bullet point you contradict that by saying they do work but only temporarily. Again, you can’t have it both ways. either they don’t work or they do (no matter how temporarily).

            as for the middle bullet point, yes some diseases require an additional “booster” shot later in life. that isn’t a failure of the vaccine, that’s a failure of your understanding of how vaccines are applied and how they operate.

            Are vaccines 100% effective 100% of the time, no there are always outliers and no one has ever claimed otherwise. but for the vast majority of people vaccines work and have been effective at curbing diseases that have, left untreated, taken a tremendous toll in peoples lives. But you’d rather that tremendous toll be taken instead of the effective mitigation that vaccines provide. says it all about just how much deep into crazy you are.

          • My state lists the following vaccines as required for entrance into public school:
            – Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP, DTP, or Tdap)
            – Hepatitis B
            – Human Papillomavirus Vaccine (HPV)
            – Measles
            – Mumps
            – Rubella (MMR)
            – Pneumococcal (PCV)
            – Polio
            – Varicella (Chickenpox)

            I’m happy that my children have not had, and likely will not get, those diseases. The tiny discomfort of a shot, and the occasional booster, and the accompanying soreness for an evening, are extraordinarily small prices to pay for the freedom from these. Likewise, the small monetary cost (often they’re free at local health clinics) means that to me personally, it’s a no brainer.

            I fail to comprehend any reasonable arguments against the practice of immunization here in the U.S. I have no knowledge about, nor interest in, arguing the specifics of immunization elsewhere, as this is beyond my purview. All I can say is that for me and my house, immunizations seemed to have eliminated some very unpleasant diseases…and the costs and negatives outcomes are essentially non-existent. I suspect that the same applies for just about every other American. Hard to make an argument against that.

            Can we get back to climate science now?

            rip

          • “Either they are not effective”

            Nope. You made that up. (I don’t usually use that jargon word.)

            “Also you claim vaccines don’t work”

            Nope. You can’t read. That’s a batsh*t crazy claim. Vaccines are not placebo. (A placebo would better, sometimes.)

            Vaccines have an impact on the immune system. (That makes vaccines dangerous as the immune system is an awful beast, like a very angry god.)

            Also the flu vaccine “works”:
            – it really makes many people ill with the “flu” for a week
            – it might make the flu infection marginally less harmful for some people
            – it turns a bad week in bed with the flu into a very light flu in some people, allowing these person to contaminate other people

            “that isn’t a failure of the vaccine, that’s a failure of your understanding of how vaccines are applied and how they operate.”

            Nope. You lie again. It’s just that vaccines did not perform as expected, as intended, as advertised which means they are by definition defective products.

            Are you going to claim that the need for these boosters was explained to people the first time? It was added afterward. And then after a second booster it’s a third one. You are like Hillary felt because of a hot day, then a pneumonia, then non contagious pneumonia.

            Now go away.

          • My state lists the following vaccines as required for entrance into public school:

            – Hepatitis B

            Because having sex in school is the new normal with the new Republicans!

            [???? .mod]

          • @mod
            To anyone even vaguely interested in what drugs are forced into children, what diseases they allegedly protect from, etc. you would know that hep B is SEX TRANSMITTED. Or by blood.

            Maybe they don’t have enough material for their heroin use at school and they share needles?

      • “You argument is completely logically as false as saying ‘we should not bother to filter and chlorinate water as no one gets Cholera any more’.”

        Do I really have to explain you that you are making the case against vaccine by saying that collective hygiene explains absence of contamination?

        Vaxxers would be funny if they were not in charge in all left-right uniparty establishment run countries. But even where allegedly populist gov came in power, they are still in charge apparently!

        • You know someone is batshit crazy when it’s all a conspiracy with them. All the worlds governments, regardless of political ideology, are conspiring against the pure hearted anti-vaxxer simple-t.

          • “All the worlds governments, regardless of political ideology”

            That’s a good one. When everything failed, claim it’s “ideation”.

            Are you saying that all mainstream news (incl. half of Faux News) channel everywhere do not promote garbage propaganda?

            Are you saying that the fight against fake news is NOT an attempt to prevent re-information?

            Are you saying that the official narrative of many events are not filled with contradictions obvious to a 12 years old?

            Except “populists” (notably Donald Trump, Italy), which gov doesn’t share the same political ideology? Most gov pretend that CO2 is a pollutant, is that “regardless of political ideology”?

            They are all vaxxers, too. Same reason.

            They are breast cancer screeners. Same reason.

            Lew, please go away.

  26. When I began to take an abiding interest in climate a dozen yrs ago, it was because the noise about it had become loud enough that I began to take notice of the alarm aspect. Prior to that, I thought, yeah it does seem to have been warmer in the 1990s and I had little reason to doubt an increase in CO2 might be a part of the cause.

    However, in the 1950s, I had studied paleoclimate as part of undergrad geology and was well aware of the much higher CO2 in past eras and indeed, the trillions of tonnes of coal taken out of the atmosphere mainly in the Carboniferous by plants, showed the power of the biosphere to take up this gas. Moreover the 100+ metres thick White Cliffs of Dover and other chalk formations around the world, which are made up of the tiny carbonate shells (coccolithospores) of zoo-plankton, plus other shellfish throughout the world, probably make the oceans an even greater bio sink for CO2 than land plants. Neither is the temperature above even relatively recent warm temperatures.

    Alarm over it all was what I was strongly sceptical about and it set me to catchup on this science (Im also an engineer). Soon, when I found out about the essentially continuous adjustment of temperatures, the poor state and coverage of the thermometers and then the political connection – and what they had planned for us all, I decided to get into the fray.

    No tipping points were reached or can be reached on a planet that has had an unbroken record of over a billion years of a biosphere, at least not one caused by mankind. Measured against super volcanoes, riftng earthquakes, collisions of large bolides, plate tectonics that rips continents apart and buckles the crust up into high moontain ranges, 100,000yr continental glaciations interrupted by 10 -30,000yr warm periods, humans are pretty puny. We don’t command enough energetic might to match a neasureable fraction of that wielded by the natural disruptions described. We are capable of only temporal and localized harm to the planet that its processes easily heal up.

    The Hiroshima bomb was terrible by our standards killing over 100,000 people. Yet, in one year, radiation was back to background levels and they rebuilt it. Hey, the KT extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs left us only a couple of centimeter layer of the ash fallout from the blast.

    Finally know one can (will) answer the simple criticisms that basically ask themselves. They will jeer and insult and tell us about lab experiments done in the19th century on radiative physics. Fine, but the earth puts up all forms of resistance to change that you can eliminate in the lab. We don’t live on a ceteris paribus planet. In one orbit, the earth varies in distance from the sun by nearly 4%. There “should be”a clear signal of it in the temperature records…but there isnt a sign of it in the least.

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

  27. What I have done before, is ask them to articulate the global warming hypothesis. Often the results are crickets.

    But some good advise I received once was: “Remember, man caused global warming is the religion of the left.”

    • You have model called the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which in a vacuum at Earth distance from the Sunlight. And this Ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorb all sunlight and conduct the heat uniformly over sphere.
      The sunlight “roughly” warms 1/4 of the sphere, receiving about 1360 watts per square meter and if divided by 4 = 340 watts. So the entire surface uniformly emits 340 watts of IR light.
      And a blackbody which emits 340 watts per square is about 5 C.

      Earth emits about 240 watts per square meter on average- and therefore has to absorb 240 watts per square meter on average.
      If Earth was an ideal thermally conductive blackbody- and ideal thermally conductive body is impossible [it’s model of an ideal not of reality]- though Earth is sort of like it. If Earth were an ideal thermal conductive blackbody and emitted 240 watts per square meter [uniformly] a blackbody surface emitting 240 watts is about -18 C.

      So the group of people who thought about it, decided the only reason earth could emit 240 watts per square meter on average and therefore should have average or uniform temperature of -18 C but instead Earth average temperature as measured in shaded white box 5 feet above the ground or ocean was global average temperature of 15 C, was due to greenhouse gases.
      They could not think of any other reason which could explain the difference.

      And Venus has a lot of CO2 and Venus is very hot.

        • Yes, Mars is small planet and has about 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 in it’s atmosphere and compared to Earth in terms of per square meter, Mars has about 30 times more CO2 than per square meter of Earth.
          Some believers of greenhouse effect religion believe it needs more atmosphere, or if added say, 100 trillion tonnes of N2, then you would the CO2 of Mars having a warming effect.
          And other claim the Co2 does having warming effect and if closer to sun it would have more of warming effect from the CO2
          And Mars also has about 210 ppm of water vapor.
          But Venus has “~4.8 x 10^20 kg of mostly CO2 vs Mars having ” ~2.5 x 10^16 kg”
          More than 15,000 times more CO2 than Mars.

          Or in general the greenhouse effect theory is very vague and lacks details of how greenhouse gases increase global temperature.
          Sort of like Marxism- Marxists don’t agree about what Marxism is.
          And this also the case with other religions.

        • The crucial point however re Mars is that at a pressure of just 6 mb (0.6% of Earth) it does not have enough to produce a GHE of any consequence,

        • Mark Twain observed, “The trouble with most of us is that we know too much that ain’t so.”
          Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.

          Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”

          Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT)

          Venus is 70% of the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.

          But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.

          The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.

          The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.

          Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.

          So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.

          All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.

          Simplest explanation for the observation.

          • Part 2

            https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

            According to NASA’s fact sheet the density of the earth’s atmosphere is 1.22 kg/m^3, the density of the Martian atmosphere is 0.02 kg/m^3, 1.6 %.

            Mars basically doesn’t have an atmosphere.

            It’s the albedo and distance from the sun that governs the baseline temperature.

            Venus Earth Moon & Earth w/o atmosphere Mars
            ISR, W/m^2 2,615.00 1,368.00 1,368.00 586.00
            S-B eq T, K 413.00 394.00 394.00 319.00
            albedo 0.77 0.31 0.12 0.25
            ASR, W/m^2 601.45 943.92 1,203.84 439.50
            S-B eq T, K 320.93 359.20 381.72 296.72

            Note that the OLR for Venus is actual lower than for Earth.
            Note that w/o an atmosphere the earth would be moon like and average OLR temp would be 270 K NOT 255 K.
            The atmosphere does not warm the earth, but cools it by reflecting away 30% of the ISR. What is the mechanism? Clouds, water vapor, albedo.

      • You are assuming that the black body mathematics is correct, it is not! The Earth is nothing like an ideal black body for all manner of reasons, so you should not invoke the idea. “Greenhouse gases” do not in any way behave in the same way as greenhouses. Venus is very hot because, amongst other things, it is much closer to the sun.

        They could think of no other reason why the temperature was not as expected? Then they falsified their own hypothesis immediately. What about the certainly not trace gas called water vapour? How about the clouds which they ignored because they did not understand them? Why choose CO2 at all, not Argon (1% of atmosphere)? I know, because they knew the result they wanted before they asked the question!

        Global cooling, oh no warming, oh no climate change, is a political project which has been running for at least 50 years, which changes day to day and has no science behind it. Everything they say is wrong and can be proved to be wrong with real experiments. Presentation of the experimental results goes nowhere because they simply cannot accept them.

        • Politics, money, peer pressure and the lying, fact-free, fake news media’s censorship have completely corrupted science. Climate change has turned science/engineering/economics into full time bullshit factories.

          The Radiative Green House Effect theory contains a fatal flaw.

          For RGHE to perform as advertised requires the earth’s surface to radiate upwelling LWIR as an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity at 16 C, 289 K, 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)

          The contiguous presence of atmospheric molecules participating in non-radiative heat transfers through conduction, convection, latent renders impossible such BB LWIR, the effective surface emissivity being 0.16, i.e. actual 63 W/m^2 / ideal 396 W/m^2.

          The LWIR upwelling 396 W/m^2 does not exist – the GHG energy loop “warming” the surface and atmosphere does not exist – and the global warming and climate changes that are attributed to carbon dioxide do not exist.

          Three decades of careers, books, papers, research, seminars all go straight in the trash bin and the trillion-dollar climate change industry is instantly unemployed.

  28. “They told me most lawyers are Arts students”

    Surely they would have been Law students? Or were they Arts students who then transferred to Law?

  29. @Dr. Tim Ball

    You have written about the correlation between co2 and t (co2 lags t) with the conlusion that we should question wether co2 raises the temperature at all.

    Whats your opinion on the views expressed in articles like Shakun 2012?

  30. I have seen in the previous article, on Arctic ice Minimum years. Some reasoned this to 60-year cycle, some to storms, jetstream — circumpolar vortex movement, etc before attributing it to global warming. In the past few decades, human actions also influencing artic ice. Similarly other events that are being attributed to global warming.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Is there a definitive study that CO2 not only has an effect but also calculates that effect exactly? Just blaming CO2 for the changes is no different than saying Alpha Centauri perturbations cause temperature changes on earth. (/sarc)

      • Jim,

        Do you mean through theory or observation?

        The physics have been known since 1900 (which is when the term “greenhouse” was first used as an analogy, in the seminal paper by Nils Ekholm). They have been verified again and again. There have also been observations done using satellites, although the precision isn’t great. The greenhouse effect has enough support that it could probably be called “definitive.” In my opinion, anyway; others would disagree.

        The amount of that effect in the atmosphere is not known precisely. Interestingly, Ekholm calculated that a tripling of CO2 would raise the temperature by 7-9 C – not so far off the likely range of 1.5-4 C for a doubling of CO2 the IPCC suggests is likely.

        People have measured the wavelengths of energy CO2 absorbs in the lab, but that’s not very helpful when it comes to estimates of how that affects Earth’s surface temperature.

        (Sorry if I’m telling you stuff you already know.)

  31. This is an article after my own heart.

    Having established some years back first of all that renewable energy was a crock, and therefore becoming suspicious too of the motives of those who promulgated it, the dicta of my alma mater – that one should in the case of incomprehension go back to first principles and start with a tabula rasa constrained me to inquire into precisely why people are inclined to Believe, when they have no access to facts or understanding of theories hypothesised to explain Facts in terms of the algorithmic compression that is a scientific (or other) theory about ‘what is really going on’.

    This journey has led me to some interesting conclusions that are, I believe, (sic!) extremely relevant to those not just wishing to understand the truth about climate change, but to understand why in many ways the lies about climate change are more palatable than the truth.

    And this applies to so called climate sceptics, amongst whose number I class myself, as the alarmists. So called.

    Because the views that arise that fit the observational data are as unpalatable to those of what I normally term the ‘rational materialist’ as they are to the ‘logical positivists’ mentioned in the text.

    1/. The truth content of any theory about the world is indeterminate. We cannot know when we are right, only when we are wrong. Cf Karp Popper et al.

    2/. What therefore matters, is that a theory is functionally effective . Science is a collection of such theories.

    3/. Lies or false theories nor indeed metaphysical (in this context, undisprovable) theories about the world that are nevertheless functionally effective have persistence. C.f. God theories. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural omnipotent Being, however belief in the existence of such has been the hallmark of the development of what we might say is Western Civilisation. Even the Marxists who deny God, seem to need to invent a morality of their own – ‘Social justice’ or ‘Gaiaism’ are rife as concepts that fill what seems to be a moral vacuum left by the rendering of God into a fairy story. People need to be told how to behave as consistent behaviour in a social sense is a requirement for social cohesion and the ability to function in groups larger than the tribal extended family. So what we have here is the Darwinian survival potential of conjectures that are clearly not scientific, in that they cannot be disproven – or ‘refuted’ – in Popper-speak. It is not necessary that wise men Believe in God, but it is socially important perhaps that they behave as if they did. As for hoi polloi, they will function better if – lacking the understanding of the fine distinction between behaving as if they believed, rather than actually believing – they are simply taught by the priest class to Believe, or risk Eternal Damnation…. This is, whatever the indeterminacy of its Truth Content, functionally effective in the sense that such a society has a better chance of survival and prosperity.

    4/. Unfortunately, the above can also be applied to genuine scientists. Rational materialism itself is an article of faith whose truth content is indeterminate. Indeed the very existence of an objective world in the sense that we understand it has been challenged time and again from Plato, through Kant and Schopenhauer up to the quantum physicists of the day,. To regard one as existing is functionally effective, and allows us do do science, BUT we have no – can have no – ‘proof’ that such exists in the way we think it does.

    5/. The Truth is a social construct is therefore somewhat true. The very nature of what the world is, before we even construct theories about it, as far as we can tell, is malleable to an extent that everyone would, if they accepted its implications fully, find extremely uncomfortable. Even facts are contingent upon interpretation. You kick the stone , it hurts, therefore the stone exists? Pull the other one. Take the red pill, its just an extremely good computer simulation…BUT despite the fact that so many of the Liberal/Left/Neo Marxist persuasion seem to think that ‘The Truth is a Social Construct’ means that the Truth is only a social construct, and that Reality itself may be changed by ‘thinking different’ ….resulting in what is currently recognised as a characteristic of the Left – which we call ‘magic thinking’ Just get enough people to focus on e.g. cheap storage technologies and renewable energy will work simply by willing it to be so…parts of the experienced world stubbornly refuse to conform to the consensus of the current culture…

    6/. Truth, therefore matters That is, ‘magic thinking’ is demonstrably as ineffective as its products, like ‘renewable energy’. Whether we have hidden subconscious barriers to having ‘the world conform to our wishes and will’ – which is in fact the definition adopted by Aleister Crowley (“The Worlds Wickedest Man”) for ‘Magick’ – or whether there is in fact an orderly Universe Out There Somewhere that simply refuses to listen to our beliefs, entreaties and demands, and has a Will of its own, is in fact functionally equivalent. That is, you might say that. mutatis mutandis, the statements are in a sense [mathematical] transforms of each other. Whether we define the region of Natural Law outside us or inside of us, is merely semantics, what is functionally important is that there is such a region, there are things we are constrained by other than our own imaginations and desires. (And it is not surprising that children, whose parents have tried to make them aware of these things, then project this parenthood onto a an anthropic representation of these implacable and eternal Forces, and call it ‘God the Father’…but I digress).

    And this brings me to the final point that is the encapsulation of all the above.

    Both honest attempts to represent the Truth (as an expression of Natural Law beyond Man’s ability to change) , albeit ad hoc, temporary and always subject to refutation (Science) , and Metaphysical conjectures (in the strictest Popperian sense irrefutable not because they are true, but because they can never be shown to be false) theories about what the world is, have the quality of functional effectiveness, and I would cite Galileo as a prime example of where they came into conflict. I take the totally opposite view to most people here, and would support the Church, rather than Galileo. The Church understood, it seems, that a theory is only a theory, it is not Truth. The Geocentrism or Heliocentrism of planetary motions are both ultimately truth indeterminate, and heliocentrism is simply a way of simplifying the mathematics. A formal technique to which they had no objection.

    Their main objection was that Galileo – perhaps the first Rational Materialist – claimed Absolute Truth. That was for the Church, a step to far. For socially important reasons it was absolutely essential that the authority of the Church and Papal infallibility not be challenged. And in fact the moral maze we find ourselves in today possibly absolutely justifies their position. In this context Galileo was stupid, selfish, narrow, antisocial and arrogant.

    And that is a parable for today as well. What the excellent article has shown that in general less than 10% of the Western World is capable of even beginning to understand science, as it is taught by rational materialists, and I would estimate that less than one percent is capable of understanding and accepting that science itself is not ‘the truth’ either. Merely ‘functionally effective’.

    Ergo the field is ripe to misrepresent and simplify it, and to use and especially misuse half baked ideas about science and about what is ultimately philosophy, to construct a narrative that is emotionally appealing to large numbers of not so unintelligent people.

    Climate alarmists – and indeed the Left in general – are not stupid. But their overriding characteristic is that they seem not to be as smart as they would like to be, or would like others to see them as. This means they are absolutely 100% ripe for plucking by the Triple B – “bullshit baffles brains” – technique of those who are in the ‘hearts and minds’ power game.

    What that boils down to, in my book anyway, is a huge emotional insecurity in the Left. They are second rate minds and deep down they know it. Lacking the ability or the diligence to go back to first principles and works stuff out for themselves they are reduced to operating on received wisdom from ‘experts’ … and that explains their massive emotional investment in things like climate change or eco-politics. At a deep level they realise that they haven’t thought it through, that they might in fact be wrong and far, far worse than that, might be seen to have been extremely foolish in accepting the opinions of others, no matter how much ‘consensus’ they were exposed to. Denialism, in these ones, strong, is…and that’s why they consider that better minds than they are are themselves in denial…because they refuse to accept the ‘consensus’.

    And this is where and why it’s at. This class of people are, as Melanie Alta once sang, ‘trying to be the good guys, by singing the good guys in’. Society needs consensus and cohesion irrespective of whether its right or wrong. The example I often state is that it doesn’t matter on which side of the road on which one drives, but it does matter that all who use the road drive on the same side.

    However, Truth matters, in the sense that consensus ideologies that are fatally damaging to society and its existential survival, have to be challenged. It seems to me that Climate Alarmism is simply another example of Post modern Neo Marxism, which has replaced Christianity in the West as the primary moral body in charge of telling people How They Ought To Behave. ( And to my mind less effectively than religion ). Up to a point Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism is tolerable and, although just as egregious as Christianity in preserving the elites by befuddling the masses, it has now reached such a degree of ubiquity that its lack of functional effectiveness is becoming apparent. In short whilst having everyone believe the same thing makes for an orderly society, having everyone believe something that is not only demonstrably wrong but dangerously so is a serious issue, if you care about the survival of the quantities of humanity that currently exist.

    So ultimately the picture that I draw, for the reasons cited above, is a primal conflict between those who consider that a consensus based on what I would loosely term Cultural Marxism – that is a profound belief that the good of the people is best served by a competent world wide elite who impose a consensus view of reality upon all, for the good of all, irrespective of its arbitrary alleged truth content, because truth is after all simply a ‘cultural construct’, and those who maintain that the consensus view is so radically wrong and worst of all dysfunctional that it threatens humanities interest more than destroying the consensus does.

    And that I believe is about as close to a definition of the Liberal Left and the Conservative Right today as I can get.

    In a conversation with the sister of a philosophy professor friend of mine, she espoused the view that ‘surely it would be better if the world was run by a single authority that could legislate and arbitrate over all the petty human conflicts’

    ‘Sure’ I said ‘ but Who Will Bell The Cat? Or, more cogently, which human being do you yourself trust to place such absolute power into the hands of, and know that they will not use it for selfish reasons?

    As an engineer, I also understand that system of overall command and control type feedback where a single centralised entity micromanages decisions that reflect down into the details of the system are hopelessly slow to respond to change or hopelessly unstable, due to the long delays between ‘at the coal face’ activities and responses emanating from the central authority. Imagine you, as a car driver constantly being occupied by twiddling levers that adjusted fuel mixture concentrations, spark advance and retard and fuel injection timings as you drove along. Hopelessly distracting and inefficient compared to having localised feedback from an engine management system – be it a mechanical distributor and carburettor or a computerised sensor equipped and mapped one. But neither has the management system the wherewithal to understand where you want to drive the car, how fast or why. Those decisions are at a another level, and you are now free to take.

    Perhaps one day we will achieve communism, by handing authority to an incorruptible Artificial, Intelligence.

    I just hope no one hacks it…and Who Will Program It?

    In conclusion therefore and trying to be as balanced as possible, have tried to express a philosophical point of view that makes sense of the conflict we find ourselves in today, of which Climate Change ™ is perhaps a perfect example. A conflict between those who find themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum and whose emotional insecurity is satisfied by the absorption and regurgitation of Received Wisdom from appointed or self appointed Experts, justified on the basis that social cohesion is more important than truth, and the few who stand somewhat askance, and whose position is fundamentally ‘the consensus is wrong, but actually that’s not the real issue, the real issue is that the consensus is, in its own terms, wrong enough and dysfunctional enough to be a real danger’.

    “Climate Change, the emotional narrative”, is more dangerous to humanity than climate change, the reality of the data variation, ever could be.

    And at some level, I acknowledge the functional effectiveness of both points of view. We need a global morality to function as a global society, but sadly Cultural Marxism is not actually a very good narrative. We need to achieve consensus to be able to function politically, but abusing the levers and tools of centralised media and state funded universities to achieve one based on demonstrable untruths, is not the way to proceed.

    To a large extent I lay the blame for this with the USA, if blame it can be called. A CEO of a major US company said ‘we (Americans) have no culture, no history, we simply make it up as we go along’ .

    This does result in rapid progress, but it also results in huge mistakes that could have been avoided if the lessons of (someone else’s) history had been studied. Conservatism means doing it the way your parents did, because that’s what got you born at all. Cultures and civilizations have died because their ideologies ossified, the world changed and they could not.

    My position is of someone who sees the need to change the consensus, but lacks the power to do it except by attempting to promulgate a view – a philosophical view – of why we are where we are, and distinguishing between what is true and what is functionally effective, and what is possibly true but unhelpful, and what is unprovable but helpful, in order that we may collectively begin to define a new consensus more suited for the situations we find ourselves in. A grandiose objective, but the only one I can see is worth actively pursuing.

    In short the argument about the truth or otherwise of Global Warming is too direct and in the faces of those whose emotional insecurity made them ‘climate converted’ in the first place. The egotisms, vanity and emotional insecurity of e.g. Michael Mann is not combatted by confrontation. But by ignoring him. You will never ever get him to admit he was wrong. He simply isn’t emotionally secure enough. To admit he was wrong would be to destroy himself and his fragile ego far far more than any amount of e.g. dismissal from his post, or losing any amount of court battles ever could. I was married to someone like that. Diagnosed with severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder. No matter what other people said or did, she was a lone ‘right’ person battling against other people’s ignorance. Not once in 14 years of marriage did she ever admit to being wrong about anything, and only once did the words ‘I’m sorry’ pass her lips. And that was only tactical – she didn’t actually mean it :-).

    No the way out of the conundrum is to change the agenda. My position is that we are in a truth indeterminate world. At a fundamentally metaphysical level we haven’t a clue about anything, we just fumble about in a picture of the world that somehow works. That is, our narratives and notions and theories and even our understanding of what the world IS and what constitutes facts and phenomena are simply ways of looking at stuff, that has got us here alive. So we must abandon the search for Truth and concentrate on the eradication of demonstrable lies – and lies are demonstrable, within defined contexts. And, lacking any moral compass – after all what does it matter to the Universe or the Planet whether we survive as a species or not? – we can throw away all Politically Correct Cultural Marxism and Green Morality as the total utter piffle that it is. The only yardstick of moral quality is, must be, whether or not the social morality of the day aids the survival of the culture that embraces it. In short what matters – if anything matters at all, which is a seriously indeterminable question – is not the survival of the planet, but the survival of ourselves and future generations. Think of the children!” And kick a Marxist and a Green in the nuts for Baby Jesus!

    Therefore the agenda is not ‘is it morally right to spew CO2 into the atmosphere?’ or ‘is it moral to go against the (manufactured) consensus of society and ‘deny climate change’ ? but “Hey chaps, where is your belief in climate change taking us: Is it a functionally effective place that will help civilisation survive, or is it in fact a self destructive meme that will vanish about as fast as the Cargo Cult”… That is we should, if we want to mitigate the effects of global cultural Marxism not challenge its moral or intellectual precepts but challenge its functional effectiveness in achieving them, wherever possible.

    That is., irrespective of the truth content of Climate Change ™, we can examine the functional effectiveness of the policies it prescribes (and indeed proscribes) in terms of achieving it’s own stated objectives. The primary example being renewable energy, which can be shown to be massively expensive with very low EROEI and almost completely ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions compared with e.g. nuclear power.

    I do not care really how many coal power stations close, if we have a functionally effective cheap clean and safe nuclear strategy for the future, as I believe that to be achievable whereas renewable strategies all seem redolent of the ‘magic thinking’ described hitherto.

    I don’t care how many people ‘believe in climate change’ or ‘believe in Santa Claus’ or espouse political correct cultural Marxism, provided they do not effect policy changes that represent existential threats to the society that gave birth to me, and indeed them.

    And that is the problem today. Untrammelled by any sense of Noblesse Obligé today’s elite, built on the robber baron philosophy of ‘grab and hold, and the Devil take the hindmost’ morality of 19th century western imperialism and the like, has perforce run its course. That it has absorbed its greatest enemy – Marxism – into itself and used it as just another tool of mass exploitation and control is a tribute to its low cunning and insatiable lust to control everything. It did the same with Christianity in past times. That’s why we had a Roman Catholic Church, rather than mere Christianity…

    But as I made the case earlier, everything cannot be controlled centrally and attempts to build a monolithic communist society essentially run from behind by today’s global capitalists, is doomed to failure. It’s too unwieldy. It is in short not functionally effective at promoting its own survival.

    Ergo, it behoves us to point that out. Even if Climate Change™ were True. and attempts to combat it Morally Admirable on the basis that they were functionally effective at reducing atmospheric CO2, the lesser truth remains that they are not so effective. Don’t go after Climate Change™, go after Renewable Energy™, not on basis that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t anthropocentric but that Renewable Energy™ is dysfunctional and does not in the end achieve the aims for which it allegedly exists. Irrespective of Climate Change™, Renewable Energy™ does not work.

    Forget trying to convert Michael Mann. It wont happen. Like all Narcissists, being right is far far more important to him than anything else. Without his bumptious self righteousness he is, and deep down he knows he is, nothing more than a third rate intellect, whose only possession of value is a well polished self image. Take that away and you have complete mental collapse because like all narcissists, there is nothing inside, or its been lost along the way.

    Talke a tip from the globalists. Don’t try and change the perceptions of the useful idiots. Just bend them to your purpose. Hire new ‘experts’ to tell them that in fact nuclear power will Save The Planet, not because it needs saving, but that a few Terawatts capacity of cheap long lasting energy is what we are going to need to combat all sorts of eventualities that may or may not happen, that we can do nothing to prevent. Don’t question at a profane level the morality of those who seek virtue in political action, merely point out the impossibility of actually achieving their stated political aims, whilst applauding their desire to do so.

    “Yes dear, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, but sadly the conversion process between wish and horse is not within our current grasp, but I can get you a job mucking out the stables if you want…”

    At the esoteric level of metaphysics, we need to develop a view as to what we really mean by morality, virtue, reality, truth, science and so on. Because what we have to day is a hodge podge of illiterate mumbo jumbo derived from false premises by the likes of Sartre, Marx and Hegel, but because its ‘post modern’ and ‘progressive’ and makes them feel smart, the useful idiots of the left have done the Bandar Log on it and inside the echo chambers of their urban hipster ‘Cold Lairs’ they have taken up their stick0s and are busy shouting

    WE ALL SAY IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE

    To which, if you need to reply at all, there is only one philosophically sound response

    BOLLOCKS

    • Brilliant, and unfortunately true.

      The death knell of personal transport may well be the electric car, they are unsustainable from many points of view, and as for being green…. The latest advertising of Hybrids as “self charging electric vehicles” and “plug in hybrids” both try to cover up their uselessness as proper transport. The electricity grid will fail and then where will we be, back in a third world broken country with little chance of recovery.

    • If someone believes in global warming and renewable energy as the solution simply ask them if they are willing to have smart meter installed and volunteer to be the first in line to have their electricity turned off when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow! Carry a note card with the statement “I volunteer to be first in line to lose my electricity when brownouts or blackouts occur because renewable sources fail.” Take them to a Post Office or bank, have it notarized and tell them you will be sending a letter to the power company tomorrow volunteering them!

        • from your wiki ref: “Some groups have expressed concerns regarding the cost, health, fire risk,[36] security and privacy effects of smart meters[106] and the remote controllable “kill switch” that is included with most of them.”

          It would seem that (at least some) smart meters CAN shut your electricity off. If you are automating to conserve labor costs, remote service enable/disable functions should be high on your feature list.

          • Krispy,
            if a command comes in to shut off power, and the meter does, then:
            1) the meter does not “control itself” in the sense that it independently decides to cut off power and
            2) it cut off the power.

            Does it matter if the decision is made in the meter or by a computer in the local power company or by a person in the company’s office? Not to the customer, his power is still cut off. Besides, most smart meter designs have enough processing power that a software patch (or hack) could add an autonomous kill command supposing that the kill switch is installed.

          • I see smart meters as a major national security threat. One of the most urgent move for the Western countries is to forbid those.

            Also, forbid any move to demand management.

            Also, forbid the inherently contradicting, inexistant “renewable energy” concept. It doesn’t exist, cannot exist, unless you speak of bathing in the sun.

    • Leo Smith, the best thing I have read in a very long time. It deserves a more permanent place. This would make an excellent “Ted Talk”, an eclectic forum of ideas. You are quite right, something that works is is all we can hope for and it is basically wasted effort to push for more. We proved ourselves quite viable a million years ago when truth was what worked. Something in us moved us to try to understand the world and it served us well. Smelting copper, bronze, iron gave us better, longer, productive lives even though we were superstitious, spiritual and full of wrong ideas. Things that work and things that work better than other things, pragnatism works even when paganism rules.

      Elitist totalitarians today make it easy for one looking at choices because they make no bones about what plans they have for me. They havent even thought out how they are going to go about governing. Trump won because masses of relatively simple folk were already halfway along the road to hell on earth. But, yeah attack the stuff that wont work.

    • Interesting essay. The problem is, you are seeing science through politics, rather than science itself. You can’t judge its merit if you can’t leave your own bias behind. It doesn’t matter how you feel about liberals, renewable energy, communism, etc. All that is immaterial when it comes to physics and math and biology and chemistry.

      I believe this is the single biggest mistake many skeptics make: they can’t separate policy and politics from the science. The same can be said for a lot of alarmists who don’t understand and can’t evaluate the science – they are just going along with what the media, their friends, professors, etc. tell them because it’s part of being a liberal. It’s seeing science through politics.

      However, the consensus does mean something. It’s not alarmism or CAGW. It is not “manufactured.” The vast majority of scientists who publish peer-reviewed papers about climate change agree that at least half of it is anthropogenic. That is significant. It doesn’t just happen; it’s not because of politics or greed or ego or petty animosity or groupthink. Forget about Mann and Jones. Stop assuming they are representative of all scientists. There is a reason they were hacked, and not some state university lab. There are all kinds of nerdy scientists out there with plenty of integrity who are simply putting in their piece of the great puzzle, debating each other, and practicing true scientific skepticism. That’s how the scientific mind works. It thinks of alternatives and what ifs…?

      There are also contrarian scientists who lack integrity, have political or economic motives, and don’t write quality climate science papers.

      You can’t change the consensus. You aren’t even a scientist.

      Science is the offspring of philosophy – as you know, scientists were for centuries called natural philosophers. The methodology developed and made it into a separate field, but there is still a philosophy of science, and this is what shapes the way scientists are trained to think; many of them do it by nature, which is why they entered the field in the first place. Like philosophers, they are driven to find the Truth – but in science, it’s the process that counts; “truth” is not even allowed, which is why no good scientists will ever say they’ve proved something. Science must always leave the door open for a new or more refined version of Truth.

      Leo, leave the politics behind if you want to evaluate the science. Renewables, liberals, Marxists…they are all irrelevant.

      And stop making foolish, insulting assumptions and generalizations about people and their ideas and motives. It’s not rational.

    • Renewable isn’t just a bad product. It’s inherently a con. You can’t pay for renewable. Renewable means free. By definition.

      A possible definition of renewable: no acceleration of natural depletion. For example, the Sun power. That’s power from the Sun. Not power obtained by the system that crucially depends on the Sun output to function.

      Fusion in the Sun is free. What you have to pay for is the part that is not renewable.

  32. For some time I have been trying to produce a simple book to explain the Climate Change scene and have manifestly failed due to this problem of the perceived understanding of words across a dialogue. I start off with the lesser mortal in mind couching my phrases to elicit curiosity. However this quickly degenerates into often trite comments which are anathema to the factual situation requiring complexity of explanation by way of incomprehensible words to many; hence leading to an incipient glazing of the eyes.
    To me this remains an intractable problem and has led to me to avoid discussion of the subject with many of my family and friends; as it can easily degenerate from discussion to argument.
    Meanwhile I am on my fourth attempt with the prospect of failure again looming large.
    A fascinating subject but now so politicised that it has been rendered almost unavailable for mutual consideration in purely scientific terms.

    • Just write about the use and abuse of language with Climate Change as the allegorical theme. No one will know the difference and it will be a winner in terms of defining the “scene”.

      The entire zeitgeist can be explained in two words denotation versus connotation! 😉

  33. I’ve read through the bulk of the comments here, and the one thing that seems to be missing overall is that the less-informed people, to whom I frequently refer as Warmians or Greenbeans, are those with no spiritual guidance of any kind at all.

    I’ve been asked by two different people how to address family members who are in that left-leaning demographic, because they cannot communicate with them at all. One says he is “losing’ his son to AGW, that the teen goes around mumbling to himself, and the other tells me his sister runs out of the room and sometimes slams the door and screams at him.

    What you’re not taking into account is that the less-informed people who act like this, who go into tantrums or literally block their ears so as to not have to listen to sacrilege are converts to a New Religion. All of the scurrilous and derogatory remarks toward people who disagree with the whole AGW business are the same things you’ll get from someone who “believes in” whatever deity is current. The entire schtick is based on “witnessing” in the form of charts and graphs, even if they are full of false data. And then there are those begging letters, too – give me all your worldly goods and follow me.

    This Climate Scientology is the New Religion, run by leftists and Marxists, to weaken the rest of the population. I don’t see a lot of difference between this a Ron Hubbatf’d Scientology religion, or any of the other frauds that have been foisted on people for centuries in the name of controlling their minds, lives and pocketbooks.

    You can argue the real facts all you want to, but you are talking to bricks whose need for some sort of belief system is being filled by Climate Scientology, and you are all Bad People because you are Deniers, you deny what the Gods of Climate Scientology have told them.

    Unfortunately, trying to change the minds of these converts to this New Religion, which is bolstered by incipient Marxism at its core, is and will continue to be, next to impossible. They would be ecstatic if they saw something like an Apotheosis. Reality does not work for them, because the part of the brain that requires some sort of spiritual belief fulfillment is satisfied with the appearances of their Gods (Michael Mann, Hansen, Bill Nye, whoever spouts the lingo) and they will flock to those people before they will ever listen to anything you have to say.

    Why? Because you are an Apostate!!! You are, therefore, as a Denier, as a non-Believer, anathema to them. Untouchable. Unclean. Undesirable.

    If you think i’m kidding, ask one of these converts how often they go to Church, or attend any kind of group gathering other than those that are climate-related. Ask them what their spiritual beliefs are. I’m willing to bet that many would respond with some hazy response about Gaia and/or Mother Earth.

    This is all simply my opinion, nothing else, but the whole thing bears all the hallmarks of religious proselytizing and conversion. It’s the reason you can’t get anywhere with them.

    • Whilst I agree (see my longer post) that Leftist s ideology has filled a vacuum left by the abandonment of traditional religion, do feel that traditional religion has only itself to blame. It has utterly failed to come up with a justification for its won existence which in fact I have. Although I am probably an agnostic verging on atheism, insofar as trad. religion goes.

      The triumph of Marxism is to take God out of morality, which wasn’t needed, whereas morality is something nearly everyone needs.

      What they don’t need is the cockamamie hodge podge of political correctness and wimpy humanism that is sold as morality by the PC brigade.

      And this is the facile doublethink inherent in Marxist and post Marxist thought. A true dialectical materialist ought to argue that there is no ‘ought to’ anything,. The universe is completely unconcerned whatever you do, There is no God to judge your behaviour, so anything goes as long as you personally are prepared to accept the consequences of it. As long as you can get away with it why not become a serial murderer, rapist or paedophile if it makes you feel good?

      And indeed there are those especially in the fringes of the LBGT movement who argue along similar lines.

      Basically saying – and watch carefully here – that there should be no moral strictures applied except to those who seek to apply moral strictures!

      Ho hum. Double think in these one, strong is!

    • Sara
      I don’t know if I agree with you,
      because I don’t understand you.

      I only got me two college degrees,
      and you must have more, maybe
      even a PhD, to do that there
      highfalutin writing?

      As a lifelong atheist,
      and a coming climate
      catastrophe skeptic
      starting about one hour
      after I began reading
      about climate science in 1997,
      I see great similarities between
      conventional religions and
      the climate change secular religion:

      Conventional Religion Leader:
      “Do as I say, or you will go to hell”.

      Climate Change “Religion” Leader:
      “Do as I say, or Earth will turn into hell”.

      So, to this atheist, the only difference
      is whether or not going to hell
      will require transportation.

      It’s all BS to me, from people seeking
      power over others, by scaring them
      with a false boogeyman.

      I suppose now I have 99%
      of the people on Earth mad at me
      for trashing EVERY RELIGION,
      except my “own”,
      which is to just attempt to follow
      12 Rules of Thumb,
      which I read every morning
      just before my first argument
      with the wife***:

      My 12 Rules of Thumb

      LIFE:
      (1) The Golden Rule

      (2) Who said life was fair?

      (3) Don’t talk with a full mouth,
      or an empty head.

      (4) When in doubt,
      tell the truth.

      (5) If you wouldn’t write it,
      and sign it,
      then don’t say it.

      (6) Character is what you do
      when no one is watching.

      (7) A wise man changes his mind;
      a fool, never.

      (8) Don’t believe predictions,
      of the future.

      WORK:
      (9) Perfection is the enemy,
      of getting a job done on time.

      (10) Think twice, act once —
      — measure twice, cut once.

      (11) Without data,
      all you have
      is an opinion.

      (12) If it was fun,
      they wouldn’t have
      to pay you
      to do it.

      ** That was a joke.
      Please buy a sense of humor
      if you didn’t laugh.
      .
      .

      My climate change blog,
      with over 24,000 page views:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • Sara: ‘the teen goes round mumbling to himself, and the other tells me his sister runs out of the room and sometimes slams the door and screams at him’.
      Sara, this is known as ‘normal teenage behaviour’. They should grow out of it in a few years.

  34. While the graph shows US students lack good scientific knowledge, I wonder what percentage of students across the world believe in the global warming scare. I suspect most of the European kids do.

  35. “characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.”

    “There is no more common error than to assume that because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

    Dr. Ball, the two statements are not contradictory. They are contradictory if you assume:
    scientific knowledge = mathematical calculation
    But science is not math. Math is the language of physics. English is the language of Romeo & Juliet. But you can write a grammatically correct English story where Romeo & Juliet lived happily ever after. You can write a 10-dimensional string theory. The equations are mathematically correct but scientifically wrong if our universe is 4-dimensional.

  36. Logical positivism – really just Aristotle airbrushed. Leibniz’s comment on this is yes, everything we experience ist filtered via unreliable senses, except Reason itself”. It is clear that evades Kan’t (can’t do it) Critique, yet is dismissed as metaphysics.

    As for Lord Bertrand Russell, he dissented from Sufficient Reason ushering the in the irrationality of Niels Bohr. And Russells IASA (Institute of Systems Analysis) likes to do such analysis, yet who decided they are the components? Where is the GCR?
    After all Russell in 1890’s decided the science was settled, a matter now of decimals, just before Planck turned the entire ediface inside out. Goedel did it again just to be sure to be sure. It is incredible that Russell’s shade still lurches around.

  37. I know it sounds contemptuous, aloof, snobbish, superior, holier-than-thou etc etc etc BUT

    Consider them as drunks.

    Then, follow my lead if you like (maybe not) take on tee-totalism AND as the stone-cold & sober bore you’ve become, continue visiting places where you will find drunks.

    You will notice and learn soooooo very much about human behaviour – especially that the drunks are simultaneously frightened yet fascinated by you. They notice. They see more than you think.
    Be yourself.
    DO NOT ATTEMPT *any* sort of subterfuge
    They will come to you and talk.
    Learn how to engage with them, all the time remembering that ‘The Human Animal Cannot Lie’
    Then take that into your climate discussions.

    And those with your wife’s lawyer, but by the time a lawyer is engaged, its maybe just ‘a bit too late’
    yes, plummeting birth rates are involved in this mix – unreasonable/unarguable beliefs (& behaviours) in climate change is still ‘Unreasonable Behaviour’ and hence, grounds for divorce.

  38. Reminds me of my introduction to paints. The pigment is the white stuff, titanium dioxide usually. The colouring agent is the tinter. Why?

  39. “Science” makes everything credible to the superficial. Its hard to get them to understand that its a method by which you discover what is credible and what is incredible, literally.
    Good luck.

  40. I debated in high school and college, and this is why the very first step is definition of terms. Even then it didn’t keep things 100% on track, but it would have immediately devolved into chaos without that step, no doubt.

  41. My discussion with anyone who doesn’t really follow the science of climate, but only reads the headlines, reveals that they:

    1) believe there is an easily measured current temperature of the earth
    2) believe there is an easily measured historical temperature of the earth
    3) scientists subtract 1) from 2) to get a temperature difference
    4) 3) means we are heading toward climatic Armageddon so we should shut our lights off every year for an hour, and stop using straws. Or something, it gets a little confusing after that.

    • “3) scientists subtract 1) from 2) to get a temperature difference
      4) 3) means we are heading toward climatic Armageddon so we should shut our lights off every year for an hour, and stop using straws. Or something, it gets a little confusing after that.”

      If it was twice as much temperature difference, it would not matter.
      1] We are living in an Ice Age
      2] the average temperature of our ocean is cold.
      3] The average ocean surface temperature is 17 C- and 17 C [62.6 F] is not warm, you would have to neurotic to set the thermostat to 62.6 F.
      4] the average global land temperature is about 10 C- which colder than 17 C.
      5] what controls global average temperature of 15 C is having 70% of the Earth surface [ocean surface] be 17 C- for the average global temperature to increase the 17 C ocean surface has to warm. And 18 C [64.4 F] is still not warm.
      Increasing average global temperature is not about making hot summer days warmer, rather it’s mostly about making cold winter days, warmer.

      So all the fuss about polar regions getting warmer is actually related to global warming- a warmer world has to have a warmer polar region. And places like Canada would have increase in terms of average temperature. The average temperature of Canada is currently about – 4 C [24.8 F]. So is the world going to end if Canada’s average temperature warms to freezing: 0 C [32 F]?
      Or the southern 1/2 of Canada gets well above freezing, or becomes vaguely like the US with average 48 states having average yearly temperature of about 12 C.
      Russia is also about -4 C. Europe is about 9 C, and China about 9 C. And India average is about 24.5 C. How is one most densely population of Earth survives for thousands of years with +20 C average yearly temperature. Could Canadians survive if the average temperature was half way between the average temperature of 48 states and Alaska [average temperature of -3.5 C ].

      Of course obviously we get fear of ice caps melting. Greenland average temperature is -17 C. And not a problem were it -12 C ? And Antarctica is not warming, but it’s about -50 C. And they say Antarctica is not suppose to warm due to global warming- but if -40 C, it doesn’t do anything in terms of melting ice caps.
      Sea level in last 100 years has risen by about 7″ and hasn’t accelerated. But suppose instead is increased by 1 foot- it wouldn’t make much difference. Nor would make much different if somewhat sea rise increase to 1 foot in next century [in two two centuries increases by 19″].
      What has been significant is rises or falling region of land- which has exceeded 19″ in last 2 centuries [risen or fallen]. Or New Orleans is sinking about 1″ per year- or if continues 100 inches [2.54 meters] per century. So that local problem not resolvable or insignificantly affected by any global sea level rise. The City should do something about, but it’s been known for decades and politicians have ignore it and probably will continue to do so.

  42. Dr. Ball summarizes very nicely the problem of expecting non-scientists (and a lot of scientists) to understand the quality and meaning of evidence behind such a complex field as climate sufficiently that they are able to see through the massive misrepresentation inherent in the current “consensus” model of climate change. What seems to be the case however is that when that model translates into policy and the policy begins to cause harm to the quality of life of those most affected, they begin to ask hard questions and start voting for something else. It is easy to believe in unicorns until your own welfare depends on them and they fail to show up. Maybe we should focus more on what people are agreeing to when they fall for the scam and how it will affect them directly. There is plenty of evidence worldwide of what harm befalls those who drink the Kool-Aid.

  43. THE PROBLEM IS MUCH WORSE THAN DR. BALL HAS DELINEATED.
    The problem with climate science today and indeed all of science is that THERE IS GENERALLY a gross misuse of statistics. Statistics is a necessary discipline because all scientists collect data. Only data can lead one to reject a null hypothesis. Only data can be used to project a future scenario (unless one believes in the fantasy world of computer climate models). So assuming that the scientists has collected enough reliable data, he/she then has to interpret what the data mean. Most scientists have a poor understanding of exactly what the “p ” statistic or confidence intervals mean. Even the IPCC ignores basis tenets of statistics. Ex: They make statements such as the following table taken from the IPCC 5th assessment Technical Summary .

    “The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, and typeset in italics:
    Term*
    Likelihood of the outcome
    Virtually certain
    99–100% probability
    Very likely
    90–100% probability
    Likely
    66–100% probability
    About as likely as not
    33–66% probability
    Unlikely
    0–33% probability
    Very unlikely
    0–10% probability
    Exceptionally unlikely
    0–1% probability”

    Based on the above definitions the IPCC then goes on to make numerous statements about the probability of certain events happening. Statistics DOES NOT GIVE YOU THAT POWER. The researcher only has the power to chooses his confidence interval and based on that choice this then reflects on whether certain statistics will lead him or her to reject or not reject the null hypothesis. Climate science does not even use the null hypothesis scientific method. You cannot use a confidence interval to make deductions on a probability of an event happening. The reason is that you the researcher chose the confidence interval based on how many standard deviations that you want included in your confidence level. That confidence level is only relevant to the confidence that the true mean of the population data falls within the range of your confidence interval. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN PREDICT AN OUTCOME WITH A PROBABILITY OF THAT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL Ex: confidence interval of 95%. Because the IPCC and 97% of climate scientists and most of all the social scientists think that they have that power of prediction doesnt make it scientifically accurate. It is bogus science.

    The other BIG problem with climate science is that climate scientists do not understand the meaning between accuracy and precision. Precision is the error bars of accumulated rounding operations ( millions or billions of them). Accuracy is the error of the fundamental misapplication of the basic science. The charts you see of the greyed error area in climate science graphs ARE NOT ACCURACY ERRORS. They are rounding or precision errors. The actual accuracy greyed area of an Ex: temperature projection is so huge that it it would dwarf the chart. Of course you are never shown that. You are simply shown the greyed precision error. Climate scientists don’t understand the difference.

    • These classifications were introduced into the Summary for Policymakers by that great charlatan Stephen Schneider. This is the same Schneider who told Discover magazine in 1989:

      “On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    • Yessah.

      And that is all based on the erroneous assumption that the playing field is level. So that an average of the outcomes represents the most likely place for the result to end up.

      Let’s say that a mole has been at the putting green. We all aim for the hole, and end up around it, but the molehill is right in front of it representing the LEAST likely place for our balls to end up.

      Or take another example. Lets have a binary star, system and a planetoid that approaches it., Its going to end up in orbit around one star, or the other or swinging violently off in a hyperbolic trajectory almost anywhere., The average of these possibilities is that it goes between the two stars so exactly that its path is a simple straight line.

      That however is the LEAST likely position for it to be anywhere NEAR.

      Anyone who follows hurricane tracking at NOAA will know that several models may predict radically different trajectories. The hurricane seldom follows the average of these ensembles – it nearly always tracks one or another model quite closely, or often does something entirely different yet again. That is the nature of fairly chaotic phenomena – averaging out the models gets you nowhere at all of any use.

      It is just a confidence trick.

      On the other had if you have a hundred thermometers that have been calibrated reasonably well, averaging out the readings, because we assume a justifiable random distribution of calibration errors does indeed get us a better result. Here the playing field is level and the variability is known.

      It’s just more examples of the third rate intellects inability to understand his own one dimensional thinking process, that what applies in one case can be extrapolated to another case although the two situations are in no way comparable.

      Take that popular word ‘diversity’. Is diversity good? well if one route gets blocked having diverse alterantives is good. But how about one generating technology?

      Yes if its all coal and coal runs out, its good to have gas.

      But what about if coal doesn’t run out? Or uranium or whatever. What then is the value of – say a bunch of windmills that are not needed ever, because the cost of ensuring that uranium doesn’t run out is far far less than the cost of making provision for when it may do.

      The cost of driving your car without a spare wheel and a jack and wheel brace and having an account with a breakdown firm who will if needs be come out with a new tyre and fit it, or trailer you to where you are going and your care to the nearest tyre service centre is less than the cost of carrying a spare and the tools, and a set of clothes to put on so you don’t get covered in grease and and and…

      Diversity is not necessarily a Good Thing ™. In fact well engineered standard kit is better than lots of different designs. Diversity in terms of redundancy is good, but even there, beware of what you wish for. At one point the UK internet split itself into two halves despite “diverse” routing from North to South using different carriers. The reason? They all used the same optical fibres that a digger half way up the country had just sliced through…

      It’s just symptomatic of the appallingly low grade of intellect that one finds in the climate change and leftward leaning side of these debates.

      Ruthless extrapolation of simple and often silly ideas well outside their pay grade. By people who like to think they are smart but really really are not.

      Four legs good, two legs bad.

    • 95% is based on a popular vote,
      and has nothing to do with real science,
      similar to the rest of modern climate “science”
      from the IPCC !

      There were 20 scientists and activists in the
      IPCC room — 19 of the 20 agreed with each other,
      while number 20 was asleep, but to be honest,
      no one would vote for him to get to 100%
      ( and besides, 100% seems too certain, like the fix was in).

      So, for those who slept through math,
      19 “agrees” out of 20 people = 95% confidence!

      I have heard that the next IPCC (fictional) report
      will move to 105% confidence — over 100% is
      possible when everyone agrees (100%) and one
      scientist is SO CERTAIN, that he votes twice,
      for a total of 21 “agrees” out of 20 people = 105%

      With 105%, even if one scientist later changes his mind,
      and stops agreeing, the 105% will be reduced to 100%,
      unless the guy who voted twice
      changed his mind, then they are back to 95%.

      Only 95% confidence at the next IPCC party
      would mean there was no scientific progress
      since the last IPCC party, er meeting,
      which would be a HUGE catastrophe
      for the global warmunists!

      The “confidence” percentage must go up ,up, up.
      just like the average temperature.

      This is the real truth, not made up
      like the Brett Kavanaugh women

    • Alan,

      “Based on the above definitions the IPCC then goes on to make numerous statements about the probability of certain events happening. Statistics DOES NOT GIVE YOU THAT POWER.”

      If that were true, you could never calculate the likelihood of rolling a snake-eyes with a couple dice.

      You apparently don’t know how the probabilities are calculated.
      https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Impacts/WhatIsTheProbability.html

      I don’t know why Dr. Ball calls Schneider a charlatan. His comments in the Discover article are couched in terms of ethical behavior. “On one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method…We are scientists, but we are humans as well.” This clearly differentiates between the need for professionalism in science, while at the same time the desire to be effective activists. This is honest. Dr. Ball should be the last one to call someone a charlatan for “scary scenarios” and “simplified, dramatic statements.”

      “The other BIG problem with climate science is that climate scientists do not understand the meaning between accuracy and precision.”

      Precision is the amount by which multiple measurements are close to each other. Rounding error shouldn’t “accumulate.”

      Accuracy is how close the measurement is to the true value.

      Error bars (or the gray area) are a measure of the scatter of the data, and have no inherent relationship to either accuracy or precision.

      “Accuracy is the error of the fundamental misapplication of the basic science.” I don’t know what you mean by this.

      It seems to me that scientists have a better understanding of precision and accuracy than you.

  44. Candidate Trump used computer jargon with he said Hillary “acid washed” emails. (Although an expert would say that servers were acid washed, not emails.)

    He was strongly criticized for it by “fact checkers”.

    So many Donald Trump should use only simple, common words to make it easier for journolists.

    • I saw an interview with Donald Rumsfeld once, where in response to a question about FactCheck, he said dismissively: “Yeah, fat cheque!” ;-(

  45. To my mind if only 80% of people understand science terminology then even if the argument in the press were to change to a threat of global cooling then 80% of people wouldnt understand that either.

    I think no matter what, with science, the likes of WUWT followers are always going to be frustrated by the understanding of the majority.

    I would just like to be able to have reasoned debate with my friends or even family on climate. But even my scientifically minded, masters degree son will not engage with me on climate. He has been totally brain washed by the Bristol University climate community and will not listen to a counter argument …….at all. Which shows a lack of scientific rigour within the University lecturers. As a for instance he told me of a rapid increase recently in acid rain!! so, thinking he was trying to engage me in conversation I said I hadnt heard that and what was his source as I wanted to read about it. His reaction told me that he probably didnt have a reliable source and that actually he didnt know what he was talking about……length of conversation and debate – about 30 seconds before he angrily stormed off.

    No, if we want acceptance and gratitude for our rigour and scientific application I dont think any of us will get it outside of our interest group. Sad isnt it?

  46. Not speaking the same language, … don’t get me started. Well, you did, so here goes:

    Terms with different meanings for different people trying to talk to one another:

    * climate — probably lots of people just think this is another word for “weather”, and so when some people talk “climate”, they mean “weather”

    “climate change” — some people are speaking of the old United Nations improperly fabricated definition that means ONLY changes in climate caused by humans, whereas other people mean the general, more proper definition that includes ANY changes in long-term weather patterns.

    “temperature” — some people are mistakenly talking about black-body-calculated temperature and instrument-measured-statistically-refined “temperature” as the same metric, resulting in the absurd comparison of a black-body-calculated, planetary-emission temperature with an instrument-measured-non-black-body-gas-temperature ensemble, refined statistically, using entirely different math.

    “greenhouse” — still the most misleading (to the general reader), continuing, false analogy used in the whole field of climate “science”.

    “heat trapping” — NOTHING “traps” heat, just as NOTHING “traps” velocity or “traps” color.

    Lots of really bad language habits infect the whole discussion.

  47. Another excellent essay by Dr. Tim Ball. Good look at the bigger picture and how the elephant can get lost in the room (or hidden).

    Fig 2 is notable. I’m pondering as to how it could be expanded in that same format for an even greater communication tool. Maybe using it as a form of ‘graphical outline’ and using ‘outlined blocks” to break some of the various concepts/processes apart for further presentation/explanation using the same format?

  48. I am not sure this thread is still active, but in the event it is, I have some thoughts about which I would be interested in hearing thoughts of others.

    I have been thinking a bit about the climate science conversation and am coming to think the conversation has a fundamental misunderstanding (at least to me) underlying it concerning the nature of climate science.
    My field is physics and I have been one of those in the past concerned about the apparent absence in climate science of following the paradigm of physics (a la Feynman): 1) guess the theory, 2) express it in non-arbitrary calculatable terms and calculate non-arbitrary quantitative predictions, 3) compare predictions to experiment. If the theory and experiment do not agree to the accuracies required, the theory is wrong, period.

    I have seen heated conversations about whether climate science, in particular the theory of AGW, meets this requirement. Many times have I seen people ask for an empirical confirmation of the basic phenomenon of CO2 warming of an ambient, realistic atmosphere/earth system. Many other phenomena seem also difficult to fit to the paradigm, such as melting ice, statistical behavior of temperature indexes, precipitation, turbulent storm activity etc.

    Lately, I am beginning to think that perhaps climate science cannot be held to the same standard, unfortunately. In particular, it seems to me that climate science may be an intrinsically explanatory science and not a predictive one in the sense that physics is (as well as biology and chemistry). By explanatory, I mean that climate science attempts to explain observations in terms of laboratory measurements of experiments that definitely do not replicate the theory, but rather establish underlying physics, chemistry or biology. Then climate science seems to try to explain climate phenomena assuming that the basic laboratory measurements relate somehow to the interaction of the whole climate system.

    It seems to me that climate science is more like astronomy or astrophysics than physics. A fundamental assumption made in that discipline is that lab measurements such as of atomic and molecular spectra, nuclear cross sections, relativistic effects, basic quantum mechanics, and even larger scale experiments such as nuclear weapon detonations, all demonstrate physics that holds also anywhere in the universe. In other words, the universe at large obeys the same physics locally that we measure here. With this assumption we can develop a theory of say, stellar evolution and collapse, which we then compare against observations. The astrophysics theory never gets to predict an experiment, but is instead held to the standard that it must explain as wide a set of observations as possible. We are unlikely in the near future to be able to experimentally measure the properties of neutron star or black hole constituent properties but we nevertheless use the theory to explain observations.

    In this sense, it seems to me that arguments about the degree to which climate science has met a test of experimental confirmation are at cross purposes. A consistent theme in positions I have seen advocated by some climate scientists is that the validity of climate theory is based on its (or their) ability to explain observations based on some underlying principle. I have even seen them claim that climate science is fundamentally non-predictive and that climate models are necessarily non-falsifiable. This latter argument is made by claiming that the models are fundamentally explanatory and not intended to be predictive. Which seems to me to be somewhat similar to astrophysics and perhaps other theories such as evolution of people or planets.

    If this is a valid distinction, it seems a heavier burden falls on rigorous statistics since climate observations and quantities (e.g. temperatures, precipitation, turbulent activity, biosphere phenomena, etc etc.) are necessarily confounded by large background phenomena, cross-correlations, and intrinsic non-normality of underlying distributions. Further, many of the quantities of interest, such as global average of local temperatures, do not have a direct relation to well defined quantities within physics. In addition, the theory should explain as wide a net as possible of observations and not fall prey to the “cherry-picking” syndrome. Observations that the theory fails to explain should be taken as a need to modify the theory. If the theory needs to be twisted too much, then it is time to change the theory. Etc. I have often heard the claim made that climate science is just physics (and hence since physics is sooo right, then climate science must be also), but clearly it is not physics in the same way that astrophysics, cosmology, or stellar evolution are not just physics, but an explanatory extension of underlying basic sciences.

    In sum, it seems to me a lot of the back and forth on climate science results from lack of clarity on what the nature of climate science is and how it relates to the more basic sciences. I would be interested in thoughts of climate scientists.

    • fah
      A brilliant comment
      from someone named
      “fah”.

      I’m afraid you are confusing
      wild guess predictions of
      the future climate with
      real science.

      This here “climate science”
      calculates an average temperature
      of our planet’s surface by wild guessing
      the numbers for most of the surface
      because those grids have no thermometers.

      To measure sea surface temperatures,
      sailors used to throw a wood bucket overboard,
      haul up water from some unspecified depth,
      then use a glass thermometer, before or after
      they smoked a cigarette. The measurement
      methodology changed about five times and
      no one ever tried to measure the same area
      of the sea, at the same time, to estimate the
      differences between all five SST measurement
      methodologies.

      Only a fool would mistake
      this climate politics for real science.

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

    • I have often heard the claim made that climate science is just physics (and hence since physics is sooo right, then climate science must be also), but clearly it is not physics in the same way that astrophysics, cosmology, or stellar evolution are not just physics, but an explanatory extension of underlying basic sciences.

      … the claim that climate science is just physics, eh?

      My impression, from various discussions in various places, is that climate science tends to be BAD physics, misapplied physics, misunderstood physics, twisted physics– in other words, physics done by people who probably should review what the basics of their discipline is and this time understand it correctly.

      I think it mighty be worse than you imagine, in that misconceptions are happening at the most basic level, and then a chain of ever elaborate errors is being built on these basic misconceptions and codified in stilted technical-looking, politically-socially-acceptable language and pretty diagrams that are all very, very convincing, but ultimately are bogus.

      • “climate science tends to be BAD physics, misapplied physics, misunderstood physics, twisted physics”

        “Prevention” by drugs in medicine tends to be bad medical science, misapplied statistics, misunderstood studies, twisted experiments.

    • fah,

      Nice essay. I’m not a climate scientist, but I will comment anyway. (I wish there were more often climate scientists who commented here!)

      I would disagree with one particular: “Observations that the theory fails to explain should be taken as a need to modify the theory. ” If you take the greenhouse effect as the theory, there is no need for modification. Since climate so complex and is affected by much more than the theory behind GHG, such “unexpected” observations (such as “the Pause”) entail not changing the theory, but explaining them through other factors that influence climate. Volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic aerosols, solar variation, albedo, natural processes like ENSO and AMOC, land use… there are many potential explanations for observations that don’t fit the basic physical theory that increasing greenhouse gases lead to global warming. This relationship is not expected to produce steady, inexorable temperature increase. The challenge then becomes one of first documenting and measuring these other processes then relating them in a quantifiable way to climate.

      On the other hand, you could take a wider view of the theory, one that goes beyond The Greenhouse Effect and turn it into one that encompasses all of climate, which is essentially what the general climate models do.

      ” I have even seen them claim that climate science is fundamentally non-predictive and that climate models are necessarily non-falsifiable. This latter argument is made by claiming that the models are fundamentally explanatory and not intended to be predictive. Which seems to me to be somewhat similar to astrophysics and perhaps other theories such as evolution of people or planets.”

      I have often thought the same thing. This doesn’t mean that climate models can’t be tested as to their skill at simulation, though, and they have been, repeatedly. “Predictive” needs defining. Climate models can’t predict when certain states will happen. They cannot predict the weather. They are more useful for “projecting” long-term trends, given assumptions about what is likely to take place. So, scientists can’t just input past and current data and expect the models to show what will happen; instead, they must include data about expected trends in CO2 (and land use and, I suppose, other factors – I’m no expert!!!! The cryosphere? Ocean heat sink?)

      I completely agree that climate science is not just physics. Biology and chemistry play important roles.

      “In sum, it seems to me a lot of the back and forth on climate science results from lack of clarity on what the nature of climate science is and how it relates to the more basic sciences.” A lack of clarity among whom?

      Anyway, nice comment. Food for thought.

      • Ms Silber,
        Several points merit clarification.

        The distinction between a predictive paradigm discipline such as physics, chemistry, or biology and an explanatory one should not be underestimated, in my view. Within the predictive paradigm of physics, a theory makes a non-arbitrary, experimentally measureable, quantitative prediction of the outcome of any and all future experiments. This allows one to determine if the theory is wrong (in Feynman’s sense). Wrong-ness of a theory is not viewed as a “bad” thing, in fact it is a wonderful thing because it means there is new physics to learn. A physicist relishes discovering that theories are wrong.

        As an example, right now I am teaching the undergraduate classical mechanics class. One aspect of that theory predicts that relatively small masses in the vicinity of a large mass such as the earth experience the same acceleration regardless of the mass of the small object. This is the thing observed in the famous Galileo Tower of Pisa experiment. The students do a lab in the course in which they incline an air track and measure the velocity of gliders of various masses moving down the track without friction. If the theory (acceleration = constant independent of glider mass) is not wrong, then the velocity change with respect to time of the gliders of all masses should not be different, within experimental uncertainties, from g*sin(theta) where theta is the angle of the incline and g is the local acceleration of gravity. Time measurements along the track are quite accurate, coming from photogates, and the major sources of uncertainty are the measurements of the dimensions of the apparatus, the incline, photogate locations, etc. In any event, the students plot the velocity of each glider versus time and extract the acceleration, then compare it to g*sin(theta). It turns out that the experiments yield values for which the theory is not demonstrated to be wrong, within the experimental uncertainties, i.e. the accelerations are indeed quite close to being the same and equal to g*sin(theta).

        In this example, one would call the “effect” gravity, and the “theory” the prediction that a measurement of acceleration of a small mass near the earth would yield a constant independent of the small body mass, within experimental uncertainties. In this sense, an “effect” is not a theory, the prediction/measurement connection is.

        Now if we turn to climate science and in particular think about the “greenhouse effect” we need to be clear about what is the “effect” and what is the “theory.” The “effect” seems to be the notion that changes in the amount of certain constituent gases in the atmosphere result in a net change in the thermodynamic energy of the global earth/air/water system. This is analogous to the notion that masses exert an attractive force on each other in proportion to the masses of the objects. The question becomes, what is the “theory” incorporating the “greenhouse effect.” In other words what is the quantitative prediction one can make about changes in the thermodynamics of the earth as a function of changes in the amount of certain gasses within the atmosphere.

        If climate science were such that it followed the predictive paradigm of physics, it would be simple, one would first clearly state what the theory was, i.e. what measurable change in a specific thermodynamic property of the earth should result from a controlled change in only the amount of the gas or gasses in question. Then the experimental uncertainties could be compared to the predicted and measured changes and one could state something about the wrong-ness of the theory.

        However, it seems that climate science, and hence theories that involve a “greenhouse effect” can not follow the predictive paradigm of physics, largely because the system is so large, inhomogeneous, non-equilibrium, and complex that it is impossible to hold “all other things constant” so as to isolate the influence of the “greenhouse effect” from other phenomena with respect to the necessarily global and difficult to measure properties of the global thermodynamic system. Further, even if we could hold all other things constant, we can not make controlled changes (whose uncertainties we can know) to the amounts of constituent gasses to see what the measured results are.

        Climate science seems to be attempting the next best thing, within an explanatory (not predictive) paradigm, by hypothesizing that certain quantities constructed from measurements, such as temperature indexes, should be affected in a dominant way by the measured amounts of certain gasses in the atmosphere. A number of factors make quantitative evaluation of this hypothesis, in an analogous way to the evaluation of the theory within physics, a difficult task. First is the fact that, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and Kip Hansen explored in another thread, temperature indices are not very robust indicators of the thermodynamics of the global system. They have large, purely statistical uncertainties and variations that typically are not explicitly expressed in analyses and they are intrinsically not thermodynamic quantities. One aspect of lack of clarity in communication is the use of the word “temperature.” It is important to keep in mind that what is usually assumed for this word is “temperature index” but what the word itself suggests is “thermodynamic energy.” They do not have the same physical meanings. Second, even when one tries to explain the behavior of such indices in terms of amounts of constituent gasses, one finds quantitative deviations that usually result in references to things other than the theory (that changes in certain gasses quantitatively dominate changes in thermodynamics), such as volcanism, aerosols from whatever source, solar energy output and spectral content, albedo, land use, cryosphere, ocean heat sinks and the like, to “explain” deviations from the basic theory. An open mind would also consider the possibility that the basic hypothesis may be wrong (in Feynman’s sense, not in a bad-good sense) as equally possible. “Wrong” here means simply that changes in the amounts of certain gasses in the atmosphere do not quantitatively dominate changes in the thermodynamics of the global system. An analogy in the physics paradigm would be Einstein’s consideration of the hypothesis that the speed of light should be dependent on the inertial frames of the emitter and measurement apparatus. In that case, experiments kept showing that hypothesis to be wrong and the special theory of relativity was the result of considering that possibility.

        Now, the statement that climate science is not “just physics” or “just physics, chemistry, and biology” refers not to the effects considered, but rather to the paradigm by which the disciplines proceed. Explanatory disciplines like climate science do indeed incorporate effects from physics, chemistry, and biology, but what they do not incorporate is the predictive paradigm on which physics, chemistry, and biology are founded. It is by not incorporating that paradigm that explanatory disciplines would be said to not be “just physics, chemistry, or biology.” In other words, explanatory disciplines are not physics, chemistry, or biology because the explanatory disciplines do not test theories against controlled future experimental outcomes. The use of some other paradigm for determining wrong-ness of theories is the sense in which explanatory disciplines are not just physics, chemistry, or biology.

        As to clarity to whom, the clarity sought is among the participants of the conversation. I think all who take time to discuss this kind of issue have found difficulties communicating solely due to different interpretations of terms, different assumed meanings and definitions of quantities, etc. Clarity in this sense is not intended to be a good-bad kind of thing in the sense that this person or that person has a view that lacks clarity. It is the communication process that lacks clarity if the thoughts of one person are not understood in the same way that the other person understands. There is no “fault” on either side at all, it is simply that the communication channel needs to be improved.

        As far as taking a “wider view of the theory,” a danger of an explanatory discipline is in becoming a curve fitting exercise. A theory that incorporates a wide variety of underlying effects, each of which is impossible to individually verify experimentally, runs the risk of simply including enough variables such that they can be fit to whatever one chooses to observe at a particular time. What often winds up happening in such cases is that the theory fits some quantity well, but not another, so it is parametrically tweaked a bit to fit the other one. Then yet another is not well fit, so the theory is tweaked again, and an endless cycle of tweaking occurs as new observations come to light. A good example of this is the epicycle theory of planetary motion incorporated in the Hipparchian and Ptolemaic astronomy systems. (Note that this an example of an explanatory discipline.) In that theory, the observed motions of the planets were explained by a geometric model of planets moving on circles within circles centered on a point close to the earth. It turns out the theory worked quite well mathematically essentially because of the Fourier result that any function can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a large enough number of periodic components. Eventually of course the Kepler/Newton synthesis produced the simple theory based on the simple gravitational attraction concept. Oddly enough, the epicycle approach (of successive tweaking of a complex model to fit observations) has come to be associated in a derogatory sense with the notion of “bad science.”

        • fah,

          “First is the fact that, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and Kip Hansen explored in another thread, temperature indices are not very robust indicators of the thermodynamics of the global system. They have large, purely statistical uncertainties and variations that typically are not explicitly expressed in analyses and they are intrinsically not thermodynamic quantities.”

          I think I know the thread of Kip’s you are talking about. The problems is, he doesn’t know how uncertainty is handled in reanalyses; it’s much more complex than the way he describes. And anomalies are the ONLY way to look at trends if you want to filter out spatial and temporal variance of the data. I just wrote a post about it.

          How much do you know about modeling of complex, dynamic systems, just out of curiosity? When I was in my 20s I helped with a model of forest dynamics. It included soil characteristics, seedling species and density, shrub species, identity and size, tree species identity, mapping, size and age, light at ground level… not nearly as complex as climate, but not simple, either. Modeling in ecology is quite common. It’s an accepted way of practicing science, and it’s not just explanatory.

          “In other words, explanatory disciplines are not physics, chemistry, or biology because the explanatory disciplines do not test theories against controlled future experimental outcomes.”

          You are right that they do not test theories against “controlled” future outcomes in the normal sense, but climate models can be tested against past outcomes, and they have been skillful.

          They are also able to keep all variables but one the same, and see how well they simulate the past. This is one source of evidence for the theory that CO2 is one of the main (or the main) driving factors in recent warming: it was only by adding in this source of variation that they were able to simulate the historical temperature record – even if the model is tuned to pre-20th C parameters.

          But I’m not going to debate this right now. I’m too tired.

          I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and will think about it more when my mind is fresh.

          All the best,
          Kristi

          • Ms. Silber,

            With regard to “how much do you know about modeling of complex, dynamic systems”.

            In my view, the question is irrelevant to scientific discussions. I ascribe to the views of Richard Feynman, which he famously summarized in his 1964 lectures at Cornell: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess or what his name is, if it doesn’t agree with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” In that discussion (which is on youtube and easily findable) he was speaking of how theories in physics are developed and judged to be wrong or not. Although he spoke of the key to science, he was in large part talking about physics, which in my language here we would call a predictive discipline in that it proceeds with the benefit of predicting controlled experiments. The statement could easily be modified to change ‘experiment” to “observation” for an explanatory discipline. His view would naturally include the predictive disciplines of chemistry and biology. In this view the only thing that matters in a conversation about science is the science itself, not who is participating in the discussion. He also famously said that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” I believe he did not mean this in a pejorative sense about experts, but rather that regardless of whoever constructs a scientific analysis, the analysis stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of how famous may be a person who makes a counter-argument or how obscure may be the person who is constructing the analysis in question.

            Far too much intellectual energy is wasted, in my view, in attacking or extolling the personal bona fides, or in some cases even the ethics or morality, of participants in the climate science conversation. Such issues are irrelevant to the analysis itself and only distract from the technical conversation. So rather than trot out my (or your) bona fides, I prefer to simply address the analysis at hand.

            I will take some time to address the issue of “temperature indices” sometime over the next few days. I suspect we are in different time zones. For now, I only want to clarify what I mean by explanatory versus predictive disciplines. It is quite simple, if the discipline can and does test its theories in toto with controlled laboratory experiments, then it is predictive. If the discipline does not or cannot do so, it is explanatory. Neither is “better” or “worse” than the other, just different. The reason I think the difference is important to keep in mind is that the test for the “wrong-ness” of a theory is somewhat different in each case, that is all. Too many criticisms are leveled against climate science by saying that it does not have experimental confirmation (e.g. the oft espoused request for a controlled experimental confirmation of greenhouse gas warming of the earth’s complex earth/ocean/atmosphere system). I believe that kind of criticism is a misplaced red herring or perhaps strawman that misses the point that climate science is not a predictive discipline (perhaps the modifier “yet” should be added here).

            In an explanatory paradigm, such as the forest dynamics you describe, one seems to construct a model and then compare the results of the model with observations of the system in operation, but not operating as a controlled experiment. That is perfectly fine analytically and much science progresses that way. But it is explanatory not predictive in the sense I mean. Not all complex, dynamic systems are inherently non-predictive. An example might be the operation of a nuclear weapon. The evolution of such a system takes a relatively short time, but spans phenomena including chemical detonation of high explosive and propagation of the detonation front, multiscale and multiphase hydrodynamics (meaning detailed evolution through complete equations of state), radiation transport, nuclear reaction cross sections, etc. However, such devices have been experimentally constructed, instrumented extensively, and detonated so as to compare predictions of the theory (and computer models) used to design them with the measurements of the “controlled” experiment. In that sense those particular complex, dynamic systems have progressed via a predictive paradigm. Similar systems, such as collapsing astrophysical objects are in many ways similar, but necessarily explanatory, not predictive. Another example would be cosmology, for example explanatory theories of the evolution of the early big bang. It would not be reasonable to criticize cosmology for reliance on models or failure of direct experimental confirmation. Some areas seem to be in transition, particularly in biology. For example, understanding the etiology of squamous skin cancer seems close to a predictive ability encompassing formation of pyrimidine dimers via UV exposure, lyase repair, erythemal responses, immunosuppression, and tumor genesis. Of course, the experiments are confined to animal exposures, particularly mice, due to ethical issues with human experiments (some have ethical issues with animal experiments as well), but the theory is close to being able to be quantitatively expressed and experimentally tested. Application to humans seems unlikely to be more than explanatory, although in vitro experiments may be somewhat useful.

            By no means do I intend the meaning of “explanatory” to be dismissive or derogatory. On the contrary, it simply recognizes the manner in which the discipline progresses, period. Holding such a paradigm to some perceived standard of a predictive approach is unproductive to consideration of its merits.

            Further, comments here should not be meant to demonstrate that either I or you (or anyone else) are “right” or “wrong” and thereby accrue some “points” in some comment-land game. Instead the goal should be progression of mutual understanding and communication, which I thought was the gist of this thread.

          • fah,

            Oh, dear. I would love to continue this conversation, but it’s 5:30 in the morning and I have yet to go to bed! I’m afraid the thread will be closed to comments soon. I’ll try to follow up tomorrow, though (or later today, actually).

          • fah,

            There’s a lot to address.

            The upshot is that global temperature anomaly indexes are far more representative of the nuances of statistical manipulation than underlying physics.

            Why does temperature change not represent underlying physics? Did you happen to read my post in Kip’s thread about anomalies? If at a station in Des Moines, IA you have in April 1988 a 0.05 departure from the April avg., and in 1989 a 0.14 C departure, and in 1990 a 0.10 departure, and then a 0.17, 0.16, 0.19, 0.21, would you not see a trend in the change in April temps for Des Moines?

            Now imagine you add the baseline average back, say 17 C, to get the absolute temperature. Then imagine you have the same trend in anomalies for Miami, but a baseline of 26 C, and the same trend at the top of a mountain in Peru, with a baseline of 5 C. Then imagine the same trends for all three, but in August. Miami and Des Moines would have hotter baselines and Peru a colder one. How would you deal with this statistically? If you plotted 30 sites in the NH and 30 in the SH in each month from April to August (4500 points in each year), you’d see the trend but the scatter would be so large that you’d be lucky to find it significant. The variance would be due to geographical and seasonal variation, not to measurement uncertainty. But if you plotted anomalies, you’d see no scatter within a year. Each point would represent a departure from the norm for that month and site. Of course, in the real world sites would all have different departure from the baseline from year to year, but if they were still generally the same, you could average them and identify the trend (at least, if you looked at enough years).

            Does that just make it more confusing?

            Would the data not reflect physical change thermodynamic quantities?

            ” It is not at all clear that movement of such an index down or up over some time interval represents any thermodynamic quantities at all, but instead is simply a reflection of changing statistical details. In other words, the notion of “warming” as used in discussions of climate science, i.e. that it is evidenced by an upward trend in the index, lacks a solid quantitative link to thermodynamics.”

            I’m not sure what you mean by this. This is based on solid theoretical grounds. In a classic paper by Nils Ekholm from 1901, he predicts a range of warming for a tripling of CO2 as well as many effects of it. (http://nsdl.library.cornell.edu/websites/wiki/index.php/PALE_ClassicArticles/archives/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n5._Ekholm__1901.pdf). Evidence includes the amount of IR leaving the atmosphere, which can be measured by satellite. Accounting for the solar radiation, if the heat leaving the atmosphere diminishes over time, it must be getting “trapped” somehow. Including CO2 is the only way to account for the changes since about 1940, given the other possible forcings (which include mid-century aerosols that had a cooling effect). Prior to that time, solar radiation is the likely the greater cause of warming. This is, anyway, what many scientists suggest; I’m sure there are some that believe different variations on the theme.

            I keep meaning to get my uncle’s take on the aerosol idea. He’s a physicist who spent his career measuring atmospheric aerosols, mostly at Mauna Loa. (When I was a kid I got to see the LIDAR in action. Pretty cool. He invented the camera lidar and a polar nephelometer that measures the light scattering characteristics of aerosols, which resulted in the only patent for that year in all of NOAA. Last year he took me to NOAA at Boulder, where he works now. He arranged a private showing of Science on a Sphere, which was also way cool. I also saw a prototype of a new way of sampling atmospheric gases, and part of an ice core. I’ve always been in awe of physicists.)

            From that perspective, talking about “how much warming is due to humans” begs the question of whether we actually know thermodynamic “warming” is occurring and in what quantity. It is not too hard to do some back of (largish) envelope calculations”>>> It would be for me!!!<<< …It is unclear that the global temperature indexes can reliably say anything quantitative about “warming” or “cooling” in the thermodynamic sense. Not that they might be unaffected, rather that they may not be very robust indicators of the actual thermodynamics of the global system. The key word here is quantitative."

            Hmmm. Have people not quantified this stuff? The heat sinks, thermodynamics of evaporation, effects of aerosols on radiation, etc.?

            "What all this means is that even starting a conversation asking to what the 'warming' is attributable begs the question of what do we mean by 'warming.' It gets even more tenuous, since, if climate science is essentially explanatory and not predictive, then a vagueness in the quantities to be explained makes the prospect of rigorous physics and mathematics explaining the 'warming' or 'cooling' even less hopeful."

            Hmmm. It kind of depends on what you mean by "vague." Part of the problem here for me is that I don't know who you are, what you study, or how familiar you are with the literature.

            …"Coupled with the wide spatial and temporal variations about the globe, it seems to me it would improve the discussion a great deal to call variables what they are and not use words suggestive of something they are not. For example, 'warming' should more rightly be called 'a correlation in the global temperature anomaly index' or some such language."

            But the globe as a whole is warming. That's the concept and the trend. Then there is climate change, which encompasses the regional variation.

            "Also, the global mean temperatures should be called something like global T statistics. It strikes me the behavior of such things would reduce a bit of the heated (pun intended) discussion about warming and who or what is to blame."

            "Statistics" makes it sound complicated and beyond understanding for a lot of people. What's wrong with temperature? That doesn't have anything to do with who/what is the blame. …That brings in the whole psychology of the issue, which is another topic altogether. I am of the belief that propaganda on both sides has had an enormous impact on how people see this topic, and that science is seen through the filter of policy.

            Climate science is experimental, in a sense. The Earth is the control against which the experiments are tested: do the models agree with observations? Do the observations support hypotheses? People can look at the biotic angle through experiments into CO2 sequestration and how plant growth is affected by different scenarios. People can make hypothesis about how freshwater melting from sea ice and ice caps will influence ocean circulation and see whether it happens based on observation. There aren't always replicates.

            Oh, my. My brain is fried from lack of sleep. I'm not thinking well. This post probably doesn't make any sense.

  49. Here it is in simple straightforward words: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is false. Whatever slight warming we are observing at present, is neither “catastrophic,” nor “anthropogenic,” nor “global,” nor even “warming” above what is expected from natural climate and weather variability.

    Suffice to look at [1], a plot of “Average Number of Days exceeding 90F 1895-2017 for 1117 USHCN Stations in the Conterminous United States,” to realize that we are being lied to by the warm-monger propaganda, and how it is done: by removing the left side of the graph. In other words, by not telling us that the 1930s were in fact much warmer, throughout the whole of the Conterminous USA, than today!

    [1] https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/alclimatereport/july2018/Picture6.png

      • “>>> that chart is the US only<<<"

        Yes, I know. But there are similar results for many other places on Earth, e.g., Australia, China, Mediterranean, Antarctica, all published in peer reviewed professional journals. The alleged global warming is not really global. Note that the only trustworthy data that is truly global is the satellite data and it does not go back to before 1979.

  50. Back when I graduated from High School the requirements were 4 years of English, 1.5 years of Math and 1.5 years of Science. It is quite obvious our school overlords did not consider math and science important. Just a WAG on my part but after taking 4 years of English, Math and Science I would say only about 1/4 of my classmates took more then the minimum required courses. Now this was back in the 80’s so requirements might of changed but by the lack of understanding amongst todays youth, I don’t think so. It also appears they stopped teaching critical thinking somewhere along the line.

    Should add we had two Math teachers and two for Science but we had an entire wing dedicated to teaching English. Considering that ratio of teachers to students I don’t suppose more than a 1/4 of my class could of taken more Math and Science even if they wanted to.

  51. Greenhouse Gas Theory is False

    Published on July 13, 2013
    Written by Dr. Pierre R Latour
    Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Engineer, July 11, 2013

    https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

    1.GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.
    2.GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong.
    3.GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.
    4.CO2 is green plant food.
    5.GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.
    6.Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.
    7.Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work.
    8.Modeling temperature data is worthless.

    • Robert,

      I’m afraid that WUWT is not too friendly to principea-scientific or anybody associated with it (and visa versa).

      Which is a shame. There can even be infighting among those guys, and so even they have clubs within clubs. All “sky dragons” are not created equal. (^_^)

      • Robert, I’m not opposed to Principia Scientifica.

        I’m opposed to the junk that they publish claiming that it is science. Take just point 3 above, which is:

        GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.

        I know of no reputable scientist claiming that the atmosphere is actually physically acting like a blanket. That’s just a straw man … and sadly, this kind of nonsense abounds at Principia Scientifica.

        w.

        • It is not what reputable climate scientist are claiming, it is what the general public and 99.99 percent of politicians are made to believe.
          Most people (99% or more) don’t even know that WUWT exists.
          The most used picture when they talk about CO2 in the news is the picture of water vapour leaving a chimney.
          https://futuroverde.org/2018/05/19/podemos-limpiar-el-co2-de-la-atmosfera/
          For most people, even scientist who are not climate related , THAT looks like a blanket.
          Explaining Global Warming to the Public is Impossible Because We Are Not Talking the Same Language

          • Explaining climate science or vaccine science doesn’t matter. A child would see through the fog of lies and pseudo science of both, by intuition. Because climatists stomp and scream “weather is not climate” and then “billions of $ of damage from climate events”. Because vaxxists say “a judicial decision that vaccine caused X disease (autism, MS, you name it)” proves nothing, that decision process isn’t science. Then “a shaken baby is a baby that was shaken and not damaged by medical drugs, we know it because many bad parents have been jailed for shaking their babies, based on sound medical analysis of their shaken baby syndrome, that judicial process is inherently scientific and if you don’t believe it I will repeat my argument”.

            Most people don’t care about microbiology or radiation bands. They don’t need to.

            I don’t think we should try to do better than a 12 years old! A child can see that officials, people in power and academics are obviously on the run after escaping a madhouse, or something. It’s also terrifying.

    • A blanket works per Q = U A dT which is exactly why the surface is warmer than ToA. S-B BB has nothing to do about it.

      To move a fluid through an hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.

      To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.

      To move energy, i.e. heat, through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference.

      Physics is physics.

    • Robertvd,

      LOL!

      “5.GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.”

      That’s because IT DOESN’T! That abysmal error alone is enough to show that this guy has no idea what he’s talking about.

  52. I vividly remember watching and hearing Carl Sagan on TV ridiculing Velikovsky’s prediction that the atmosphere of Venus would turn out to be very hot . Sagan authoritatively maintained in that broadcast that the venutian atmosphere must be icy cold because its perpetual cloud cover prevented the sun’s rays from penetrating it. At the time, the first space probe had not yet reached Venus.

    Shortly after the he was proven completely wrong, I saw him on TV again, this time to claim that he always knew the atmosphere of Venus would be hot. I apologize for not remembering his new explanation.

    I hardly think that Professor Sagan could ever be termed “misinformed”, nor did he appear to be a fool. He certainly knew how to market his meager talents. I think self-serving dishonesty by the assertive and sheepish conformity by the masses are the real culprits in this scenario. And no amount of information will fix this.

  53. I’m a bit surprised to see a reference to the Logical Positivists. Philosophers (like me) know about them, but hardly anyone else does. The main thing to know about them is that they claimed principle P:”Only sentences which are empirically verifiable or which are tautological are meaningful sentences”. Then they realised that P was neither empirically verifiable nor tautological.

    Everything else you need to know about them can be found here:

    http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Rudolf_Carnap

  54. The biggest issue is actually poor communication skills of many scientists. By this, I mean inability to explain science in non-technical language.

    I did a PhD in cancer research 30 years ago and once a year the institute opened for the local fundraisers. I was shocked and appalled to see senior scientists drop into jargon and fundraisrs eyes glaze. I proved aged 21 that I could explain things in simple language, something observed with surprise by others. Why, I still have no idea….

    Reality is that the best scientists and engineers are often dyslexic or otherwise impaired in communication, perhaps studying science as they were poor at more verbal subjects.

    Therefore, they should not be the evangelists.

    You need technically trained, literate people to engage the public.

    The wuestions asked and answered must be simple. Examples are:

    1) How do scientists measure ‘global temperature’?

    Now there is a one hour lecture for starters.

    2) What happens to the energy of the sun when it arrives at the earth?

    3) what data sets exist for temperature around the globe and how long have they been maintained?

    As soon as you answer that honestly, no sentient member of the public will assume climate science is settled!

    4) How do scientists make indirect estimates of temperature going back millions of years?

    Ice cores, deep sea cores etc etc.

    5) Do weather/climate patterns show any cyclical behaviour and if so, over what time periods?

    Solar, lunar, oceanic influences. Hale cycles, Gleissberg cycles etc.

    6) What is natural variability of weather and climate over different time periods?

    That should eliminate any belief that doomsday is about to occur…

    The reality is scientists want more grants so must maintain an aura of fog and superiority. Politicians who can use climate scares will.

    The public just wants effects of weather on their lives to be as mimimal as possible.

    Best hope is a 24 week series in a serious journalism outlet. 30 minutes a week for six months.

    A proper communicator could do it.

    Charlatans and verbally challenged cannot.

  55. Rhys Jaggar: ‘I did a PhD in cancer research 30 years ago and once a year the institute opened for the local fundraisers. I was shocked and appalled to see senior scientists drop into jargon and fundraisers eyes glaze. I proved aged 21 that I could explain things in simple language, something observed with surprise by others. Why, I still have no idea….’
    My PhD about 20 years ago was based on looking at a potentially useful approach to developing a meningitis vaccine. An 80 year-old friend of the family wanted to know what my PhD was about. He was an ex-military man, who in civilian life became the manager of a large organisation and later set up and ran his own real estate business.
    In response to his request, out came pencil, paper, and in a matter of about ten minutes he understood fully the concepts behind antibody structure, the interaction with antigens, and what I was attempting to do. I’m firmly of the opinion that explanations which don’t use jargon, and are clear and pictorial can be understood by most people.
    Before my laboratory days, I was a registered nurse, and I always found that patients understood what was happening to them if a clear explanation, free of medical terminology, was offered using a pencil and paper. It’s not necessary to have a medical degree to understand the essentials.

  56. re: Rhys Jaggar and Carbon500’s contention that a clear, simple explanation of a scientific reality can make any layman understand.

    Please explain how it took almost two decades, with clear evidence and a simple explanation in hand, to persuade the world’s medical community that helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers and that these can be healed with antibiotics? I’d like to understand that.

  57. otropogo: regarding helicobacter pylorii – this wasn’t my area of work interest and I’m not a physician, but hopefully someone out there will have first-hand knowledge and be able to give you a detailed answer to your query.
    That said, the short answer to your question re. helicobacter pylori is that nothing is as simple or straightforward as it seems.
    Below is a link to an article in a scientific journal from 1982. I’ve copied and pasted part of it. As you see, eliminating this bacterium is not necessarily always desirable, it may have health benefits, and in some cases treatment can worsen an underlying problem, or be ineffectual.
    https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/35/3/298/409319
    What Is the Clinician to Do?
    There is, seemingly, much to be gained by eradicating H. pylori. However, eliminating H. pylori as a human pathogen may come at some public health cost. The incidence of esophageal cancer in the United States has been rising rapidly since 1970 [59], and Barrett esophagus (a lesion that precedes esophageal cancer) is less common among people who are infected by H. pylori [60], particularly strains that produce the CagA protein [61, 62]. Furthermore, there is no consensus that eradication of H. pylori results in improvement in the symptoms of non-ulcer dyspepsia, which is one of the most common health problems seen by primary care doctors. At best, only ∼20% of patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia experience substantial relief after eradication of H. pylori [63], a proportion that is not inconsistent with a placebo effect. At worst, gastroesophageal reflux symptoms can be provoked or intensified by H. pylori eradication therapy [64].
    The health benefits of H. pylori (prevention of gastroesophageal reflux disease and of esophageal adenocarcinoma), although intriguing, have yet to be quantified and must be balanced against the well-substantiated risks of both gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease, as well as of other diseases putatively linked to infection. Studies looking at all-cause mortality related to H. pylori eradication are under way. In the absence of these data, there is little call to screen all patients for H. pylori infection. However, if infection is documented in an asymptomatic subject, the physician and patient will need to carefully balance the risks and benefits for that individual, including factors such as race/ethnicity, age, family history, anxiety about infection with a potential carcinogen, and presence of other risk factors, before making a decision about therapy.

      • Amen!

        I wish I had asked why the WHO, EPA and Health Canada each have different mitigation thresholds for radon, and why they all endorse the use of measuring procedures and “instrumentation” that would be laughable if they didn’t cause homeowners endless grief on the housing market and billions of dollars for “mitigation” for which there is not a shred of scientific justification and for which there is no economically feasible assessment procedure.

        Surely all of the eminent medical “scientists” who concocted this bogeyman can’t all be misinformed or fools. I’ll bet they’ve even seen the evidence for radon hormesis and they certainly must know that their extrapolation from industrial scale exposure to normal household exposure levels is without any scientific basis.

        And finally, how do they get away with the totally unproven claim that 20% of lung cancers are cause by radon exposure (ie. all lung cancers not caused by smoking tobacco)?

  58. Kristi Silber September 26, 2018 at 6:10 pm

    CommieBob,

    “Also, why hasn’t his debunked first hockey stick paper been retracted?”

    Maybe because the papers refuting it were found to be flawed, and the original results (with minor variations) have been replicated several times.

    There were minor statistical errors in the original, but they had little impact on the results. It’s not enough for a retraction.

    I give up. You seem to think that using an uncentered PC is a “minor statistical error”. That is a load of bollocks. It is a huge and stupid newbie error, one which is sufficient in itself to totally falsify his conclusions.

    And that doesn’t even count his post-facto proxy selection or his use of a method that actively mines for hockey sticks to such an extent that it will generate them out of red noise.

    But then you wouldn’t understand any of that. You are a foolish child playing in an adult game, and you truly don’t seem to have a clue about the profound depth of your ignorance.

    Go do your homework and then go bother some other blog. I’m done with you. Your ignorance coupled with your belief that you know what you are babbling about and your unwillingness to notice when you are not just off the rails but on another planet is just too strong for me to deal with.

    As Shakespeare remarked, “This disease is beyond my practice.”

    Go well, stay well,

    w.

    • “one which is sufficient in itself to totally falsify his conclusions”

      However, as of today it hasn’t been retracted, so Willis, your opinion doesn’t matter.

      I have an idea for you Willis….why don’t you collect all the proxy data you can find, and generate a graph using standard statistical techniques that invalidate Mann’s work? Then get it published. Thos would be a much more effective strategy than moaning and complaining about it in blogs.

      • Remy Mermelstein September 26, 2018 at 8:24 pm Edit

        “one which is sufficient in itself to totally falsify his conclusions”


        However, as of today it hasn’t been retracted, so Willis, your opinion doesn’t matter.

        I never claimed my opinion mattered, and I don’t give a rat’s okole if it is retracted. Serious researchers in the field know it is bogus, and even alarmists dissed it in the Climagate emails.

        I have an idea for you Willis….why don’t you collect all the proxy data you can find, and generate a graph using standard statistical techniques that invalidate Mann’s work? Then get it published. Thos would be a much more effective strategy than moaning and complaining about it in blogs.

        “Moaning and complaining”? Say what? That’s just the voices in your head. I’m simply stating facts—facts like an uncentered PC is a newbie math error … but then it appears you don’t understand that or the effects that it would have.

        Nice try, though. Vanna, what prize do we have for our unsuccessful contestants?

        w.

    • Willis,

      Perhaps you would like to comment on the discussion here:
      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/debunking-the-hockey-stick/

      If you can convince me that all this is wrong, I will listen. I knew about the claim about red noise, and I’ve also read the comments of many who believe M&M made their own errors.

      If the original hockey stick error was so large, why have others been able to approximately reproduce it using their own methods? An error doesn’t falsify conclusions. M&M did not set out to provide a better, more robust model of past temperatures, they set out to tear apart someone else’s.

      I don’t deny my ignorance. I rely on those who know more than me, and take their evidence (and motivations) into consideration. I look at how they present their evidence, whether they have doubts and caveats and humility. I look at the way they talk about others.

      Your insults and certainty detract from your credibility.

      I don’t mind being corrected where it’s appropriate, but you have no right to tell me to go elsewhere. If you’re “done with me,” that’s up to you. I don’t really care.

      • Kristi Silber September 26, 2018 at 9:58 pm

        Willis,

        Perhaps you would like to comment on the discussion here:

        No, I wouldn’t like to comment, not in the slightest. Despite interacting with you a number of times pointing out your errors, despite many others pointing out exactly where your claims were wrong, you’ve never shown even the slightest interest in learning something new.

        Instead, in every case I’ve seen, you’ve continued to repeat your often ludicrous claims. So I’ll pass. I’m many things, but I’m not a masochist.

        If you can convince me that all this is wrong, I will listen.

        Sorry, but I don’t believe that for one moment. It has NEVER been true in the past, and I’d be an idiot to think it is true now.

        As I said before, “This disease is beyond my practice”. I have exactly zero interest in interacting with you.

        I wish you all the best in future endeavors, and I truly hope that someday you learn how to learn.

        w.

  59. climate change is willy nilly scientific term- fails vigorous assessment 30 year change is super arbitrary. – Climate Change in politics is the super vague term for anything bad to do with weather things.

Comments are closed.