‘There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts’… Except When It’s a Straw Man

Guest logic by David Middleton

From Real Clear Science…

There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts

By Klemens Kappel

Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment. The reason such a conciliatory response to a disagreement is often desired is reflected in ideals about open-mindedness and intellectual humility: when learning of our differences with fellow citizens, the open-minded and intellectually humble person is willing to consider changing his or her mind.

Our disagreements on a societal level are much more complex, and can require a different response. One particularly pernicious form of disagreement arises when we not only disagree about individuals facts, as in Frank and Gita’s case, but also disagree about how best to form beliefs about those facts, that is, about how to gather and assess evidence in proper ways. This is deep disagreement, and it’s the form that most societal disagreements take. Understanding these disagreements will not inspire optimism about our ability to find consensus.

[…]

Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling. One can find similar patterns of selective distrust in scientific evidence and institutions in social disagreements over the safety of vaccines and genetically modified crops, as well as in conspiracy theories, which are extreme cases of deep disagreements.

[…]

As the political philosopher John Rawls noted in Political Liberalism (1993), a liberal society largely rescinds from attempting to control the flow of information and the minds of its citizens. Therefore disagreements are bound to be pervasive (though Rawls had religious, moral and metaphysical disagreements in mind, not factual disagreements). What is particularly troubling about some societal disagreements is that they concern factual matters that tend to be almost impossible to resolve since there is no agreed-upon method to do so, all while relating to important policy decisions. Generally, theorising about liberal democracy has focused largely on moral and political disagreements, while tacitly assuming that there would be no important factual disagreements to consider. It has been taken for granted that we would eventually agree about the facts, and the democratic processes would concern how we should adjudicate our differences in values and preferences. But this assumption is no longer adequate, if it ever was.Aeon counter – do not remove

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Real Clear Science

Key passage…

Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling. 

Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?

Anyone? Anyone? No one?  Straw man torched.

 

OK… So, we can actually agree on the fact that the climate changes.  Are there any other “facts” that are seriously disputed?

Well, these “facts” are not universally accepted.

  1. Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas.  All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the bulk temperature of the troposphere.
  2. The average surface temperature of the Earth has been generally rising since at least 1850, probably since the 1600’s.
  3. A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.

While the three statements above are “facts,” their significance is equivocal.

  1. Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
  2. Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
  3. This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.

 

Where do the real disagreements lie?

  1. How modern climate change relates the natural variability of the rest of the Holocene Epoch.
  2. The degree to which human activities have contributed, are contributing and will contribute to climate change.
  3. The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
  4. Whether or not any negative climatic effects due to fossil fuel consumption are outweighed by the economic benefits of fossil fuel consumption.
  5. The most effective ways to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.

I’m certain that there are more areas of disagreement.  However, these are all disagreements about interpretations and opinions.  They are not disagreements about facts.

About the author of the Real Clear Science red herring

Klemens Kappel

Position: Director, Associate Professor

Department: Department of Media Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen.

Research: Klemens Kappel has a broad research profile in analytical philosophy and has contributed to research at an international level in epistemology, ethics, bioethics, meta-ethics and political philosophy. In ethics he has published work on consequentialism and egalitarianism, and issues in political philosophy. For several years his research interests have focused on epistemology, in particular externalist theories of knowledge and justification and problems in moral epistemology. He has published work on epistemological naturalism, skepticism, transcendental anti-skeptical arguments, moral intuitionism, moral coherentism and the generality problem. Klemens Kappel’s current research interests are within social epistemology broadly construed, and he is currently working on questions concerning the value of knowledge, the social function of knowledge and knowledge attribution, the semantics of knowledge ascriptions, disagreement, testimony and the political philosophy of knowledge production.

University of Copenhagen

Featured Image

https://imgflip.com/i/1ocgwb

Addendum

Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment.

How could I have possibly missed this opportunity?

Advertisements

318 thoughts on “‘There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts’… Except When It’s a Straw Man

      • It’s an interpretation of data (AKA facts). This particular interpretation demonstrates that all of the secular warming of the 20th century occurred in areas of ocean-air-affected (OAA) temperatures.

        While areas of ocean-air-sheltered temperatures (OAS) experienced no secular warming trend. >70% of Earth’s surface is in areas of OAA. So, it doesn’t really demonstrate no global warming. It just demonstrates a pattern that’s inconsistent with enhanced greenhouse warming.

        • That’s all it takes does it not? There should be no inconsistency, especially when the areas selected should show the maximum CO2 signal. Thus the null hypothesis, ie, CO2 is either not providing warming, or it is so small as to be not detectable. Arguably, there is a decline, not an increase. The data is not current, so the 2016 EL NINO will no doubt curtail that decline.

          What am I missing?

          • David, you are missing the fact that the CO2 signal should be evident in the OAS areas. No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, since its heat capacity is too large, and CO2 back radiation does not penetrate the ocean surface. The ocean is warming, and has been at a steady rate for 300 years. That is not due to us, and is evident in the graph. What is not evident is our CO2 global warming that we are being blamed for. To me this evidence is a game changer.

          • I would expect the enhanced greenhouse effect to be most pronounced at night, in winter and in Earth’s coldest air masses… All of which have been observed.

            I would agree that the aggregate of evidence should be a game changer and would be a game changer if climate “science” followed the general principles of science. It all points to a relatively low climate sensitivity and neuters the climate “crisis.”

          • EdB, try getting the warmistas to see that it’s a “game changer”. Remember “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

          • David, John.. thanks for the comments.

            The data source for the paper was mostly NOAA GHCN v2 raw.

            The authors biggest challenge was to find original data sets, which had no adjustments.

            It is amazing that after all these years, trillions spent, that a raw data set, identified by class, ie, no urban heat island effects, is not available.

            What am I missing?

          • EdB,

            I don’t think you’re missing anything. It’s just that there aren’t any unique solutions in climate science or Earth & atmospheric science in general.

          • ” It’s just that there aren’t any unique solutions in climate science or Earth & atmospheric science in general”

            In my professional life, it is a clean kill. This paper replicates in the northern hemisphere what Tony Heller was doing with the data for the USA. Our extra CO2 is not warming as expected, indeed, at all. I don’t worry about the ‘why’. That is for academics.

            I welcome feedback as to how I am wrong.

          • “avid Middleton October 17, 2018 at 10:20 am
            I would expect the enhanced greenhouse effect to be most pronounced at night, in winter and in Earth’s coldest air masses… All of which have been observed.

            I would agree that the aggregate of evidence should be a game changer and would be a game changer if climate “science” followed the general principles of science. It all points to a relatively low climate sensitivity and neuters the climate “crisis.”

            Really David?
            Warming has been observed on Antarctica’s central areas?
            Greenland’s Central Glaciers?

            Where the warming you describe does occur is where water vapor is and increases.

            Consider JoNova and Jennifer Mahousey’s investigation into BOM’s changing weather stations from a lack of warming or cooling over time to a clear warming trend?

            CO₂ may have an effect, but CO₂’ increase is miniscule and the waring caused by CO₂ is impossible to identify or clearly track.
            Water vapor’s effects on temperatures are substantial.

            Which is why the CAGW crowd uses a CO₂ increasing water vapor mechanism to achieve their results.

          • EdB writes: “No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, …. CO2 back radiation does not penetrate the ocean surface.”

            Sorry, Ed. This is nonsense. Incoming SWR is mostly absorbed by the top few meters of the ocean. Yet measurements show that seasonal warming and cooling from seasonal changes in solar irradiation reach down to 100 m and average 50 m. This happens because surface winds turbulently mix this part of the ocean. So you have proof that the ocean can warm further down than radiation penetrates.

            An average of 333 W/m2 of DLR is absorbed mostly by the top 10 um of the surface of the ocean, but that SAME LAYER emits an average of 390 W/m2 of OLR (thermal infrared), loses 80 W/m2 of latent heat (evaporation), and loses 10-20 W/m2 of sensible heat (conduction by molecular collisions between surface and air molecules). Without SWR, the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze. However, SWR delivery varies time: none at night and increasing amounts at increasing depths around noon. Therefore the top 10 um of the ocean usually slightly colder than the water immediately below. The energy from SWR flows upward by conduction and convection. (If that energy didn’t go anywhere, the temperature of the ocean 1 m below the surface would rise indefinitely.) If you look at some of Willis’s posts, you’ll see that the surface of the ocean (unlike the atmosphere) varies less than 1 K between day and night).

            It is absurd to say that one (DLR) of many routes of energy inflow to or outflow from the top 10 um of the ocean heats or doesn’t heat or cools or doesn’t cool this part of the ocean. Heat is the NET flux of all forms of energy transport. Temperature is proportional to mean kinetic energy – it doesn’t make any difference if that energy arrived via DLR, SWR, conduction, or convection (or some other process such as work or electrical resistance). Pick any compartment: the top 10 um, 1 cm, 1 m, 100 m, or 2 km of the ocean, or the boundary layer of the atmosphere or the troposphere. Temperature is the net result of ALL energy fluxes into or out of that compartment.

            More completely, EdB said: “you are missing the fact that the CO2 signal should be evident in the OAS areas. No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, since its heat capacity is too large, and CO2 back radiation does not penetrate the ocean surface. The ocean is warming, and has been at a steady rate for 300 years.”

            We don’t have very good records for the ocean for the past 300 years. When the ocean as a whole warms, it expands and sea level rises. Warming also melts ice caps. Sea level was rising as tide gauges came into use more than a century ago. Unfortunately, tide gauges measure local sea level change including vertical land motion and changes in prevailing winds. (El Nino causes about a foot of “SLR” in Peru and fall in the Western Pacific.) With tide gauges we can easily detect the 7 inches of rise in the 20th century, but the data is too noisy too detect 0.7 inches in one decade. That same rate of change is 70 inches (six feet) per millennium and we can detect that using coral that grows a fixed depth below the surface. We know that for the last 2-4 millennia, sea level hasn’t risen (or fallen) at anywhere near the average RATE it rose in the 20th century. The rise that was observed as tide gauges began to be used was almost certainly caused by the end of the LIA, and not something that persisted for millennia. Sea level rose at the end of the last ice age, slowed dramatically about 7 millennia ago, became undetectable and much slower than the 20th century 4 millennia ago, and was rising when tide gauges came into use. Some people think sea level could have been higher than today during the MWP or RWP or late Holocene optimum, but those high stands weren’t large enough (or the rate of rise didn’t persist long enough) to be unambiguously detected by the coral record. The rate of 20th century SLR is unambiguously abnormal compared with the past 4 millennia.

          • EdB wrote: “No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, since its heat capacity is too large.”

            Here are some calculations that provide guidance when thinking about ocean warming.

            The mixed layer of the ocean is the layer that warms in summer and cools in winter. That layer averages about 50 m. If you take the heat capacity of 50 m of ocean covering 70% of the Earth (and add a little for the heat capacity of the atmosphere, 10,000 kg above every m^2), it is easy to calculate than a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m2 at the TOA is capable of warming the atmosphere and mixed layer at an INITIAL RATE of 0.2 degC/yr. When talking about what can or can’t happen, it is always worth keeping THIS RATE in mind.

            The mixed layer is defined by seasonal warming and cooling: the depth heat from SWR and all other sources can travel in less than six months driven by turbulent mixing from surface wind.. Thermal conductivity of stationary water is much to slow to carry much heat deeper into the ocean. That happens by convection: a) The subsiding cold water in the Arctic and Antarctic that sinks to the bottom of the ocean, travels around the world and is returned to the surface an average of 1500 years later. b) The vertical motion caused by tides and ocean currents flowing over underwater obstacles. c) Other phenomena such as Eckman transport.

            If one wants to discuss temperature change in the ocean over periods longer than one year, one needs to take into transport into the deeper ocean. The average depth of the ocean is 2 km and if heat were equally distributed everywhere on the decadal time scale, then warming rate from an imbalance of 1 W/m2 would be 0.005 degC/yr – essentially undetectable before ARGO. Today we know that an average of about 0.7 W/m2 has been flowing downward through the surface for more than the last 1.5 decades, with most, but not all of the temperature rise in the top 100 and 300 meters. (The change below 700 m is hard to measure.) Thanks to ARGO, we have a much better idea of where heat is going on the decadal time scale.

            The second thing that happens to the INITIAL RATE is that a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance gradually diminishes as the retained heat raises the temperature of the surface and atmosphere, and they radiate more heat to space. If the IPCC’s models are correct and a forcing of 1 W/m2 causes an equilibrium warming of 1 degC (ECS 3.6 K/doubling or 1 K/(W/m2)), then halfway to the new equilibrium (+0.5 K), the radiation imbalance would be reduced to 0.5 W/m2. So the slowdown in warming would begin to become apparent in as little as 2.5 years. If energy balance models are correct and equilibrium warming were 1.8 K/doubling or 0.5 K/(W/m2), the rate of slowdown would be significant within a year. So, if all of the heat from a 1 W/m2 imbalance remained in the mixed layer, equilibrium warming would be nearly complete within in a decade.

            Today, we supposedly have experienced a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W/m2, but ARGO says only 0.7 W/m2 (the radiative imbalance) of heat is flowing into the ocean. The radiative imbalance therefore is 0.7 W/m2. The remaining 1.8 W/m2 therefore must be going to space as OLR because the Earth is warmer. So the planet emits (or reflects) and additional roughly 2 W/m2/K to space as it warms. This is consistent with an ECS of 1.8 K/doubling.

            So, it is fairly easy to calculate that a SUDDEN radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 would produce equilibrium warming in an isolated mixed layer in a decade or less and that radiative imbalance would quickly drop from 1 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 in a few years and nearly zero in a decade. CO2 is rising at a rate of 0.5%/yr: 140 years to double or a forcing increase of 0.25 (W/m2)/decade (plus more from minor GHGs). That means the temperature of the mixed layer and atmosphere remain nearly in equilibrium with this rising forcing. ARGO shows 0.7 W/m2 going into the deep ocean, meaning that we have experienced about (2.5-0.7)/2.5 or 70% of equilibrium warming and when heat stops flowing into the deep ocean there will be about 40% (2.5/1.8) more warming to come.

            One can, of course, quibble about the right values for radiative forcing, radiative imbalance, the sun, internal/unforced variability as the deep ocean chaotically exchanges with the mixed layer, etc. The depth of seasonal warming comes from submarines, not climate science and the heat capacity of the top 50 m of the ocean plus atmosphere is a given. I picked 1 W/m2 so you can substitution whatever values you choose.

          • EdB wrote: “No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, since its heat capacity is too large.”

            Ed and David: Here are some calculations that provide guidance when thinking about ocean warming.

            The mixed layer of the ocean is the layer that warms in summer and cools in winter. That layer averages about 50 m. If you take the heat capacity of 50 m of ocean covering 70% of the Earth (and add a little for the heat capacity of the atmosphere, 10,000 kg above every m^2), it is easy to calculate than a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m2 at the TOA is capable of warming the atmosphere and mixed layer at an INITIAL RATE of 0.2 degC/yr. When talking about what can or can’t happen, it is always worth keeping THIS RATE in mind.

            The mixed layer is defined by seasonal warming and cooling: the depth heat from SWR and all other sources can travel in less than six months driven by turbulent mixing from surface wind.. Thermal conductivity of stationary water is much to slow to carry much heat deeper into the ocean. That happens by convection: a) The subsiding cold water in the Arctic and Antarctic that sinks to the bottom of the ocean, travels around the world and is returned to the surface an average of 1500 years later. b) The vertical motion caused by tides and ocean currents flowing over underwater obstacles. c) Other phenomena such as Eckman transport.

            If one wants to discuss temperature change in the ocean over periods longer than one year, one needs to take into transport into the deeper ocean. The average depth of the ocean is 2 km and if heat were equally distributed everywhere on the decadal time scale, then warming rate from an imbalance of 1 W/m2 would be 0.005 degC/yr – essentially undetectable before ARGO. Today we know that an average of about 0.7 W/m2 has been flowing downward through the surface for more than the last 1.5 decades, with most, but not all of the temperature rise in the top 100 and 300 meters. (The change below 700 m is hard to measure.) Thanks to ARGO, we have a much better idea of where heat is going on the decadal time scale.

            The second thing that happens to the INITIAL RATE is that a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance gradually diminishes as the retained heat raises the temperature of the surface and atmosphere, and they radiate more heat to space. If the IPCC’s models are correct and a forcing of 1 W/m2 causes an equilibrium warming of 1 degC (ECS 3.6 K/doubling or 1 K/(W/m2)), then halfway to the new equilibrium (+0.5 K), the radiation imbalance would be reduced to 0.5 W/m2. So the slowdown in warming would begin to become apparent in as little as 2.5 years. If energy balance models are correct and equilibrium warming were 1.8 K/doubling or 0.5 K/(W/m2), the rate of slowdown would be significant within a year. So, if all of the heat from a 1 W/m2 imbalance remained in the mixed layer, equilibrium warming would be nearly complete within in a decade.

            Today, we supposedly have experienced a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W/m2, but ARGO says only 0.7 W/m2 (the radiative imbalance) of heat is flowing into the ocean. The radiative imbalance therefore is 0.7 W/m2. The remaining 1.8 W/m2 therefore must be going to space as OLR because the Earth is warmer. So the planet emits (or reflects) and additional roughly 2 W/m2/K to space as it warms. This is consistent with an ECS of 1.8 K/doubling.

            So, it is fairly easy to calculate that a SUDDEN radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 would produce equilibrium warming in an isolated mixed layer in a decade or less and that radiative imbalance would quickly drop from 1 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 in a few years and nearly zero in a decade. CO2 is rising at a rate of 0.5%/yr: 140 years to double or a forcing increase of 0.25 (W/m2)/decade (plus more from minor GHGs). That means the temperature of the mixed layer and atmosphere remain nearly in equilibrium with this rising forcing. ARGO shows 0.7 W/m2 going into the deep ocean, meaning that we have experienced about (2.5-0.7)/2.5 or 70% of equilibrium warming and when heat stops flowing into the deep ocean there will be about 40% (2.5/1.8) more warming to come.

            One can, of course, quibble about the right values for radiative forcing, radiative imbalance, the sun, internal/unforced variability as the deep ocean chaotically exchanges with the mixed layer, etc. The depth of seasonal warming comes from submarines, not climate science and the heat capacity of the top 50 m of the ocean plus atmosphere is a given. I picked 1 W/m2 so you can substitution whatever values you choose.

          • Frank, thanks for the feedback.

            My comment still stands. The heat capacity of the ocean is so huge, that the thermometer readings under the influence of the ocean will show little response to out added CO2.

            Those stations measuring temperature in areas without ocean dampening/warming influences will show the CO2 signal the most.

            That’s what the authors did. The results were surprising. One has to conclude that that CO2 warming effect is not dominating natural variations. There is the slight chance that somehow the earth cooled just in time for our CO2 warming, and thus the previous 1930’s / early 1940’s and current peaks are the same. If so, we should be grateful!

            The question still remains.. why, with the Trillions spent, was this basic research not done before? My grandparents knew that the dirty thirties were hotter. Why were their views not properly tested? Why was UHI allowed to run amok for so long, and maybe still does?

            Very bad science, imo. Very bad science. Years and years of theoretical arguments, with no ground truthing. Tony Heller imo was the first to validate that the 30’s etc were warmer(USA), and now these two researchers followed up with a twist… isolate out the ocean air influenced stations and then check the history, worldwide. Good on them.

          • “Frank October 18, 2018 at 1:49 pm

            EdB writes: “No one would expect the ocean to be warmed by our CO2, …. CO2 back radiation does not penetrate the ocean surface.”

            Sorry, Ed. This is nonsense. Incoming SWR is mostly absorbed by the top few meters of the ocean. Yet measurements show that seasonal warming and cooling from seasonal changes in solar irradiation reach down to 100 m and average 50 m.”

            Hmmm. Pot calls kettle black.

            Tell us how that works, Frank?
            Water, H₂O is very active across many frequencies, including a large part of the Infrared spectrum. Where CO₂ is mostly active in a very narrow range of frequencies, and even then H₂O has a least partial activity.
            Plus, water actively absorbs and emits infrared frequencies in all three phases, including liquid.

            So, now alarmists claim that CO₂ is so active that it easily captures all infrared wavelengths passing through a gas, yet claim that liquid H₂O is insufficiently dense to capture infrared frequencies withing a few millimeters?

            Infrared radiation is captured by water within a few millimeters of the surface layer.

            Your seasonal claims is pure bafflegab, as it is impossible to credit that effect to CO₂. But, water is warmed by infrared wavelengths with convection and conduction warming deeper layers.
            Seasonal changes are not caused or aided by CO₂.

            Deeper waters and shallow waters are very effectively warmed by higher energy wavelengths. Higher energy wavelengths, e.g. ultraviolet, carry far more energy than CO₂ gets from it’s tiny range of infrared frequencies.

            Then there the conundrum where land that is warmed by light frequency wavelengths results in the land emitting infrared; as evidenced in urban areas every sunny day.
            Only oceans do not emit such quantities of infrared wavelengths.

            Where does all of that alleged “back radiation” come from over the vast oceans?

            Consider that if infrared radiation is sourced from land, then there is zero reason for infrared radiation not getting released to space. Especially, as it is much closer to space, than most of the oceans are to land.

            Nice of Frank to destroy the CO₂ infrared radiation process claims.

          • EdB: Thanks for the respectful reply. You wrote: “The heat capacity of the ocean is so huge, that the thermometer readings under the influence of the ocean will show little response to out added CO2.”

            Saying the heat capacity of the entire ocean is “huge” is meaningless. The heat capacity of the entire ocean is 40-fold bigger than the heat capacity of the top 50 m, the mixed layer that warms and cools with the seasons as much as ocean surface temperature. The mixed layer warms at an initial rate of 0.2 K/yr in response to a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance. The ocean heat uptake is approachable. Do the calculations.

            EdB wrote: “Those stations measuring temperature in areas without ocean dampening/warming influences will show the CO2 signal the most.”

            Have you read the E&E paper on this subject? The abstract tells me nothing about how stations were separated into ocean-air-moderated and -sheltered categories or how the data was processed. (I haven’t followed Tony Heller lately because he made such atrocious mistakes when he started, and WUWT was unwilling to post any of this work.)

            Attribution studies show that most of the warming before 1950 can NOT be attributed to rising GHGs (it is attributed to unforced variability and the sun). The differences observed as Lansner aren’t seen since 1950, the only period the IPCC asserts was warmed by rising GHGs. Lansner finds almost exactly the same amount of warming in both locations since 1950.

            EdB: My grandparents knew that the dirty thirties were hotter. Why were their views not properly tested?

            Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Every month, we experience far more change than all of the “global warming” in the past century. Monthly or seasonal variability is so might bigger that GW, that no one has personally experienced GW. Watch this video from the skeptic Clive Best, who has animated the last 165 years of GW. Can you see the “dirty thirties” against this background of variation? (The smallest color change represents 1 degC.)

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=l4cCWz878f0

            EdB asks: Why was UHI allowed to run amok for so long, and maybe still does?

            UHI is a fairly complicated problem. How big a city do you need for UHI. Trees absorb more incoming SWR than other terrain, including cities. Replacing a forest with a city is less likely to produce UHI than building on desert. UHI is weaker when the wind is blowing. UHI only biases a warming trend when the amount of UHI CHANGES with time.

          • Frank.. again, thanks for the reply.

            I don’t understand why one needs to get all technical about the observation (common sense) that if you are in San Francisco in July, with an on shore wind.. it is COLD. So much for measuring any CO2 effect.

            Thus when the authors isolate ocean influence stations out of the study, they are going to get the best signal to noise ration for CO2 warming.

            It is as simple as that. What did they find? The CO2 warming signal was not there.

            Conclusion: The hypothesis of CO2 warming takes a huge blow to its credibility. Now the goal has to be to prove that that study was in some way doctored, ie, cherry picked or the like.. otherwise.. I cannot buy into all your numbers about radiative imbalance etc. You are wrong. (I can hear Feynman comment re scientific method)

          • Frank..
            “All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the bulk temperature of the troposphere”

            But that is the whole point. The CO2 GHG did NOT raise the temperature higher than the 30’s and early 40’s. The simplest answer is that there is a cyclical rise and fall(PDO), and our added CO2 has done zip, or near zip to raise the GAT. The 0.7C climate sensitivity of warming that Richard Lindzen calculated sure looks to the high side. That is just nothing to worry about. We can stop spending money on mitigation. Trump thus was right to pull out of the Paris accord, and to give a green light to coal again. Unless this paper can be found to do something incorrect, then the IPCC might as well call it a day and disband.

        • Is there an acceleration signal in the Global Mean Sea Surface Temperature Database?
          Because the long-term Sea Level Rise Rate through the 20th Century does NOT show any sustained acceleration (the smoothed rate is linear). This is a major problem for the warmist dogma. See Gregory, Church, et al. 2013 “Sum is greater than…”

        • It’s impossible to evaluate this paper without seeing the methods used. Unfortunately, it’s pay-walled.

          And what does “World – 10 areas” mean? From the graph it looks like they’ve divided the world up into ten areas, then separated each into OAS vs. OAA. One has to wonder how they’ve weighted the data in each area, if at all. Some areas might have substantially higher OAA to OAS ratios and differing numbers of stations.

          Why, if this was just published, does the graph end at 2010?

          Why should increased warming from oceans be discounted in looking at the data? It’s not just “noise,” as the authors assert.

          Why does the difference in anomalies only show up in the first half of the graph?

          Apparently only land temperatures are used. I understand the theory, but there are too many questions.

          “It just demonstrates a pattern that’s inconsistent with enhanced greenhouse warming.” Maybe, maybe not. Seems to me there are reasons to be skeptical of this paper without seeing the whole thing. Energy and Environment doesn’t have a particularly stellar reputation for publishing quality research.

          • “The data source for the paper was mostly NOAA GHCN v2 raw”

            Oh. Well, no wonder. Who in their right mind would use the raw data for research? Don’t they know it’s full of biases and errors? Sheesh. Doesn’t even go past 2010.

            Yet people here are relying on this as evidence for what they want to believe. It supports an idea, and therefore it must be good research, a “game changer.”

            Why is it that competency is equated with whether it supports a given ideology? Perhaps a better question is, why is it so often the case skepticism is supported by weak research? Not always, just as a lot of “warmist” research is weak, but whether research is accepted or not by skeptics seems more often due to its conclusions than to its quality.

            (It’s possible this paper is fine – impossible to tell without reading it – but there is evidence suggesting it’s questionable, in my opinion, even accounting for my own bias.)

          • I downloaded it and read it. All of your concerns are addressed within.

            With regard to the data set, it really does astonish me that after spending trillions of taxpayers money, a complete raw file from all open and closed stations, along with details of UHI history, and site ratings, have not been done.

            Why was A. Watts forced to do it on his dime? Why is there such a complete disregard for basic science? My answer? There was a bias from the outset to contrive a man made danger, and anyone trying to do good science was sidelined.

          • David and Kristi: The paper shows a disagreement between ocean air-accessible and inaccessible stations before 1950, but not after 1950. The IPCC claims most, if not all, warming after 1950 is due to rising GHGs. If you read the attribution papers, only a small fraction of the warming before 1950 is due to rising GHGs, a little is due to the sun, and most is unforced variability.

            As best I can tell, the paper tells us nothing about GHG-mediated warming.

          • David and Kristi: The paper shows a disagreement between ocean air-accessible and inaccessible stations before 1950, but not after 1950. The IPCC claims most, if not all, warming after 1950 is due to rising GHGs. If you read the attribution papers, only a small fraction of the warming before 1950 is due to rising GHGs, a little is due to the sun, and most is unforced variability.

            As best I can tell, the paper tells us nothing about GHG-mediated warming!

          • EdB: WTF is a “greenhouse signal”. Isn’t the roughly 1 degC rise reported at both types of stations by Lansner an “enhanced greenhouse effect” due to rising GHGs? Is not, what is it?

            One possible answer is that this warming is “unforced” variability” (aka “internal variability), chaotic redistribution of heat between the mixed layer of the ocean and the much colder deep ocean below. The warming seen in the Lansner graph and every other reputable global temperature index (including UAH and the Koch brothers-funded BEST) could be due to a slowing of upwelling of cold deep water and subsiding of warmer surface water. (This phenomena among other produces El Ninos.) ARGO is diminishing the likelihood of this explanation is correct. However, if unforced variability is a viable explanation for warming surface temperatures, it is also a perfectly valid explanation for the absence of warming during certain periods like the Pause. And the absences of a few tenths of a degC of warming over a short period is less significant that 0.85 degC of warming over the last 40 years.

            If you are talking about the inability of DLR to make the planet “warmer” because of the 2LoT, your physics education is incomplete. Individual molecules and photons don’t obey the 2LoT; they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The concept of temperature (proportional to the mean kinetic energy of a large groups of rapidly colliding molecules) doesn’t apply to individual molecules – who molecular speed changes with every collision (about 10^9 times per second). A course in statistical mechanic would teach you that the 2LoT is a consequence of large groups of colliding molecules obeying the laws of quantum mechanics and heat is the NET energy flux between two such groups.

            Well, these “facts” are not universally accepted.

            Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas. All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the bulk temperature of the troposphere.

        • Frank ” WTF is a “greenhouse signal”

          That should be obvious, but maybe not to someone who goes into denial.

          The temperatures PRE our CO2 additions, ie, 1950, should be LOWER..

          IE: we are told constantly that our GHG additions are WARMING the globe. “Warmest ever”, remember?

          Well, the opposite is true, in fact, in 2010 it looks cooler in the graph.

          Clear evidence of a failed hypothesis, ie, that man made CO2 is warming the globe, let alone to a dangerous level. The onus is on the IPCC’s science group now, since the facts speak for themselves. Prove the authors wrong, or accept that the GHG issue is overblown.

          • EdB: Respectfully, Lansner’s graph separating ocean air sheltered from ocean air accessible stations tells me nothing about the existence of GHG-mediated warming. I don’t know what fraction of stations are ocean air sheltered and were at least as warm today as in the 1930’s (assuming Landner’s work survives scrutiny). Stations are only found on land, which covers only 30% of the planet. The temperature on the other 70% is measured by sea surface temperature and it is warmer now than in the 1930s. Ocean air accessible stations are warmer now. Many different groups (including BEST) show that a COMPOSITE OF ALL land stations is warmer now.

            Twenty years ago, Hansen published a temperature record for the continental US (only) that showed very little warming compared with the 1930s. Unfortunately the volunteers who run US stations were asked in the 1980’s to read their min/max thermometers and rain gauges in the mornings when the rain gauge readings would be more accurate. Later it was discovered that this change from afternoon to morning readings caused 0.2 degC of artificial cooling. This is because Monday’s temperature at 7:00 am can turn out to be the lowest temperature on Tuesday. Being a skeptic, I’ve personally downloaded some hourly temperature data and proven that this phenomena is a serious problem. Even after correcting this documented TOB problem, there still are unexplained large shifts in the record that may be due to station moves or other artifacts. Correcting those inhomogeneities added another 0.2 degC to the warming between the 1930s and present. (IMO, since we don’t know the cause of these shifts, we don’t have a valid scientific reason for correcting them. We should say warming is somewhere between X and X+0.2. Anyway, after 0.4 K of correction, the 1990’s were far warmer than the 1930’s in the US. Strong warming followed in the next two decades. The “1930s-were-warmer” problem has vanished, with or without homogenization.

            I suspect when others look into Lansner’s work, they will find some reason for the discrepancy between warmer OAS and cool OAA stations before 1950. There isn’t a any good reason for the change that occurred around 1950. FWIW, stations that are sheltered from the wind have the most problems with local heating caused by sunlight and cold air settling into the lowest locations at night. Data on windy days is far more reliable. The technology we use for measuring changes in global temperature was not designed to accurately measure warming rates of 0.1 degC/decade. Getting reliable results has been a real problem. The entry of the skeptics at BEST into the picture using vastly more records and novel methodology (kriging) has provided useful confirmation.

            Finally, unforced variability (aka internal variability) caused by chaotic heat transfer between the surface and the deep ocean makes it difficult to prove anything about the existence or non-existence of GHG-mediated warming. We live on a planet where ENSO can raise and then lower global temperature by 0.3 degC in one year – partially due to changes in upwelling and subsidence. Fortunately, the 0.85 K of warming in the past 40 years is a unusually large change in the contest of a Holocene that contains 200 such 40 year period. It appears likely that this change had a cause and was not unforced.

            However, even if I lacked observational confirmation of GHG-mediated warming, I am certain that it has been occurring. If you understood the physics of radiation passing through an atmosphere that absorbs and emits thermal IR, you would understand why rising GHGs must reduce the rate at which the planet radiatively cools to space. (The same physics explains why the surface of the planet emits an average of 390 W/m2 upward, but only 240 W/m2 escapes to space.) And conservation of energy demands that reduced radiative cooling (with constant solar input) will force the planet to warm – somewhere – until incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance (if nothing else changes). Our planet’s atmosphere is fairly well mixed, so warming will probably occur in most places. Some other caveats probably should be attached to these deductions.

            The physics of radiation transfer through an absorbing and emitting atmosphere is described by the under-publicized Schwarzschild’s equation. Ask if you want an explanation.

            http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm

          • Frank
            Your commitment to GHG warming is admirable. As you said, if it does not warm you will still believe it is warming. Admirable stubbornness!

            What about the possibly that Entropy keeps the temperature the same. For example, water is such an effient escape route for a slowed CO2 transmission that we cannot measure the difference? That would bring us back to where we should have started, ie, the research into the many natural cycles.

          • EdB: My commitment is to science, not CAGW. Science doesn’t tell us that AGW will be catastrophic, nor that it is practical reduce global emissions of CO2, nor that cost-benefit analysis shows that it would be economically sensible to do so even if it were practical. When most economics think the 1 degC of warming we have experienced has been a net beneficial, the goal of limiting total warming to 1.5 or 2.0 degC is economic lunacy. Government policies to reduce emissions have been wasteful, ineffective and inadequate. That is politics. I won’t let politics change my scientific judgment.

            FWIW, the Enlightenment was sparked by the scientific revolution, which showed humans could learn how the world worked through systemic study. As Alice Dreger points out, many of America’s Founders were “science geeks”. Democracy is an absurd form of government if one doesn’t believe citizens are capable of learning the truth about the world. However, humans have a great weakness that prevents them from learning new things that disagree with their preconceptions – confirmation bias. As Feynman said in Cargo Cult Science: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Today, people are fooled because they only listen to media and sources that agree with what they already believe. The current disdain for experts is frightening, but often earned by the politicization of much academic research.

            When rising GHGs reduce radiative cooling to space, AND IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES, the retained heat must build up SOMEWHERE (below the TOA). That is simply the law of conservation of energy. Don’t you believe in that?

            Don’t you believe well-controlled laboratory experiments have determined how radiations interacts with various GHGs? And that we know the composition and temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes? That is all we need to know to calculate the reduction in radiative cooling to space.

            That is why they called warming from radiative forcing “settled science”. Clouds are not settled science. The thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium is not settled science. (Our climate system lies between the 6000 K sun and 3 K space – a steady state that is far from equilibrium.) Chaos makes many phenomena non-deterministic.

            I didn’t specify how much warming would occur. Nor that it would be larger than natural variability, and therefore observable. There is a huge amount of cold water in the deep ocean that can cause a massive amount of cooling at the surface for a long time. Maybe it caused the LIA.

            EdB asks: “Water is such an effient escape route for a slowed CO2 transmission that we cannot measure the difference?”

            For years I fooled myself into believing that increased convection could transport some of the heat that must be accumulating due to radiative forcing away from the surface, preventing or limiting warming where we live. I finally realized that convection can only carry heat upward as fast as it escapes from the upper atmosphere by radiative cooling to space. Buoyancy-driven convection doesn’t persist in the absence of an unstable lapse rate. Convecting heat (mostly latent heat) upward faster than it escapes to space makes the lapse rate more stable.

            EdB: “That would bring us back to where we should have started, ie, the research into the many natural cycles.”

            We have a decent amount of information about natural cycles from 100 centuries of Holocene climate. Do those records show periods where the temperature naturally rose 0.85 degC (in a half-century)? The MWP? RWP? Minoan WP? It’s barely possible, but such periods aren’t common. Gambling that the recent rise in GHGs and temperature are unrelated is a poor bet. (When considering ice cores, remember that fluctuations in polar temperature tend to be double the fluctuation in global temperature.) We do know that the Maunder and Dalton minimums in sunspots were associated with the coldest period of the LIA, but we can’t count on the same phenomena occurring later in this century. Another LIA would moderate the IPCC’s exaggerated projections only slightly. (When you go back further in time to glacials and interglacials, our orbit around the sun has changed, and the caveat “assuming nothing else changes” is no longer valid.) Natural cycles are unlikely to save us from the IPCC’s scariest projections, but Lewis and Curry’s low estimate for ECS will. In other words, better science may save us! (:))

    • Please put the writer’s CV up on top. Seeing “Media Professor” with an interest in “philosophy” will save me so much time…

      Why do all these guys think they’re Aristotle?

      • This way, you can be thinking, “What sort of idiot wrote this drivel”… Then get to the end of the article and see that he’s an academic pinhead in a thoroughly useless discipline… Much funnier this way.

        • David,

          “Then get to the end of the article and see that he’s an academic pinhead in a thoroughly useless discipline”

          There would be no such thing as science if not for philosophy. For most of the history of science, it was called “natural philosophy.” Epistemology, in particular, is a key part of the philosophy of science.

          What makes an academic pinhead? Someone who studies things you don’t? Or are all academics pinheads? Why do you think there’s such a paucity of conservatives in academia if academics are constantly dismissed? Don’t you understand that we need conservatives represented in academia? Or do you think the country would be better off if only liberals got college educations?

          Conservatives need to stop moaning about the liberal academic elite, and do something to change it. Take responsibility, encourage conservative kids to go to college and become professors rather than discouraging them through incessant demonization.

          • “Conservatives need to stop moaning about the liberal academic elite, and do something to change it.”

            We are. Here in Ontario, Canada, we elected a conservative who will shortly be cutting university funds. While I hope enough remains for real education, I hope that enough of the soft science and politically correct crap gets scraped off to make it worth cutting so close to the bone. As well, see: Hungary, Gender Studies

            Or, google declining university enrollment

            “Take responsibility, encourage conservative kids to go to college and become professors rather than discouraging them through incessant demonization.”

            I actually encouraged my conservative kid to go to community college, which has allowed him to be gainfully employed at a job he loves (with no student debt) the last few years while his university friends work two or three jobs they hate, living at home and worrying about student debt.

            As for demonization, I don’t think it goes in the direction you think it does, student-wise:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/liberal-college-administrators.html

          • Caligula Jones,

            I’m all in favor of community colleges and tech schools. I don’t agree with the push for all kids to go to a 4-year university/college.

            My point is that some want to do so, and that academia shouldn’t be such a bastion of liberalism. There needs to be more conservative teaching (and administration, as the article pointed out) in order for kids to get a more balanced education, whether they are liberal or conservative.

            And I don’t agree with demonization from either side. I’m sick of it. Sick of hearing liberals do it, too.

          • Kristi,

            I think it’s fair to provide a little gentle mockery of someone whose field of study is completely inadequate to the task of proffering counsel on a subject…and yet dismisses those of us skeptics who do have the education and background to understand the scientific deficiencies of the arguments. We see it all the time, and frankly, it’s annoying to have an individual talk so “authoritatively” about something he or she knows nothing about.

            As for the encouragement for conservatives to pursue academia, well, I personally believe people automatically and unintentionally self-segregate. They tend to congregate together in areas that match their personalities and interests. That there’s such a gap between percentages of liberals and conservatives in academia is a reflection of the general disposition of individuals. And that’s ok.

            So, I’m not convinced the “solution” is to push conservatives into academia. (I’m not sure it’s beneficial to encourage people to pursue things that aren’t a good fit for them.) Rather, it would be nice to see academia have a little more intellectual curiosity and humility, and recognize that there is an equally valid, if opposite, worldview held by the other half of the country.

            rip

          • Ripshin,

            “Rather, it would be nice to see academia have a little more intellectual curiosity and humility, and recognize that there is an equally valid, if opposite, worldview held by the other half of the country.”

            I agree! The same could be said for many others, though.

            “I personally believe people automatically and unintentionally self-segregate. They tend to congregate together in areas that match their personalities and interests.”

            Definitely!

            “That there’s such a gap between percentages of liberals and conservatives in academia is a reflection of the general disposition of individuals. And that’s ok.”

            Yes, that’s true. But the gap has widened over the last few decades, and one has to wonder why that is.

            “So, I’m not convinced the “solution” is to push conservatives into academia. (I’m not sure it’s beneficial to encourage people to pursue things that aren’t a good fit for them.)”

            No, no one should be pushed into academia. But the way parents talk about the profession likely has an impact on whether kids pursue a career in it. They could stress that academics are liberal elites that pursue meaningless studies, or they could talk about the joys of teaching, rewards of studying something in depth, and the job security once tenure is achieved…then leave it up to kids to decide what they want to do.

            Likewise, liberals could moan about the degrading pursuit of status and money or they could frame the business world in terms of the challenge of leadership, the creativity of designing and marketing products, and the potential to move up the economic ladder, and how it would allow them to care for a family.

            It would be ideal to have a mixture of political views in all fields, so that policy more often reflected the desires of the country as a whole. That would take compromise, and no one would always be happy about the actions of a given administration/Congress, but at least there wouldn’t be the extreme changes from election to election. Greater stability means being better able to plan for the long term and ideally less likelihood of major recessions. Extremely rapid growth of the stock (or real estate) market makes some people very wealthy in the short term, but also more likely to panic, leading to problems that affect the populace as a whole as well as the markets in other countries.

            But we are not living in an ideal world, we are now in a deeply partisan one. How do we move in the other direction? To me this is perhaps the most important question and greatest challenge of our time. (That and climate change. Hee hee, just kidding. Sort of. I think the distrust of the scientific community is also a big problem, and that, too, reflects political partisanship.)

            Thanks for the conversation.

  1. “…Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment. The reason such a conciliatory response to a disagreement is often desired is reflected in ideals about open-mindedness and intellectual humility: when learning of our differences with fellow citizens, the open-minded and intellectually humble person is willing to consider changing his or her mind…”

    Horseplop.
    If I see a finch in the garden and someone tells me it’s a sparrow, I’m not going to become less certain about the species of bird, as I’m more than capable of distinguishing a sparrow from a finch; what I will do is subsequently discount the other person’s opinions on the species of any other birds they ‘identify’…

    • No, both should photograph the bird and compare it to photographs of known finches and sparrows for a final determination based on mutually accepted premises (e.g., the photos are accurately identified). No need at all to become less confident. All that’s needed is an agreement on method to determine the identification. Outcomes will be 1) finch, 2) sparrow, or 3) undetermined. Case closed.

      • What’s really happening is that they definitely see a finch in a hopelessly blurred picture, where the so-called “finch” is little more than a smudge of color. That blurry picture is essentially the temperature dataset that they base all of their “science” on.

        • Smudge of color should be a dead giveaway, but shoot the little f****r anyway and sequence its genome.

          Every time the term “climate change”, or even “climate” (for the less linguistically endowed parrots) is mentioned, it’s a straw man from that point forward.

          • There was a saying in the 19th century regarding bird identification: What’s hit is history, what’s missed is mystery.

          • yes. you catch the bird. it will prove the truth of the matter absolutely.

            this ‘philosopher’ is attacking man’s cognitive functions by smuggling a hidden premise that truth is relative or subjective. this is an assault on reason qua reason.
            he knows what he is doing- and not 1 man in a million can properly identify the nature of his evil.

            popper did the same exact thing.
            the idea that nothing can be proven is a self contradiction
            if this lie is believed, the believer is crippled and can no longer perform critical thinking.
            if that lie has taken root, then even the ability to recognize the lie is compromised.

            it has been so well exploited that very few remain who still have the functioning cognitive ability to grasp that it is a lie.
            and that’s how slaves are made.

            lies are as effective as brute force- but lies the mother believes will be taught to their children and a population of dependents breeds who are uncertain about everything, who are therefore fearful and who are therefore prey to the ones who hacked their minds and who did more than subjugate them- who taught them to subjugate themselves.

            this is not a bit complicated to understand. a child can understand it.
            nature doesn’t do stupid. that requires training.
            a habit of dependence can not be broken; only extinguished by darwin when there are no more hosts upon which to feed.

            i can explain it easily- but you have to understand it your own self- and know with confidence that you do.

            it is your job to claim self possession and earn the name H. sapiens.
            but the slave only knows he is not worth it.

          • If you ascribe to the notion that fact and truth are equivalent, to the exclusion of all other sources, then truth needs must have a level of subjectivity. Facts are gathered only by human sense and perception, and these are not perfect, and are vulnerable to damage, manipulation, chemical influence, and just ordinary everyday entropy. Knowing absolute truth with perfect certainty would require a source outside human ken, which would bring the spiritual and, yup, the religious into the matter.

            This doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and just give up trying to understand the world. It means we must approach the search with a degree of doubt and humility. This is why I always say that science is the search for fact, not truth.

          • drednicolson,

            I agree with most of what you said, except the last line. Science is the search for truth, but it’s the process that is important; it never claims to have found the truth. This is somewhat different, I think, than some types of philosophy, in which truth is the goal.

          • truth is a necessary property of a fact.
            if it is false, it is not a fact.

            the particular manifestation of your scotoma is named the goedel perversion.
            that lie makes it impossible for you to do critical thinking.

            your argument is self contradictory- but even tho i will show you how, you will be unable to process it.

            you assert as true that truth can not be known.
            it’s crazy. worse- it’s transmissible.
            at your age it’s incurable.

          • So to think critically, one must uncritically accept your position?

            I’d think the self-contradictory argument here is yours.

        • Agreed Kurt!
          I was thinking along the same lines, especially when reading Klemens’ research interests.

          “Klemens Kappel has a broad research profile in analytical philosophy and has contributed to research at an international level in epistemology, ethics, bioethics, meta-ethics and political philosophy. In ethics he has published work on consequentialism and egalitarianism, and issues in political philosophy. For several years his research interests have focused on epistemology, in particular externalist theories of knowledge and justification and problems in moral epistemology. He has published work on epistemological naturalism, skepticism, transcendental anti-skeptical arguments, moral intuitionism, moral coherentism and the generality problem.”

          Soft science, processed opinions and bafflegab writings.

      • If someone ( eg Dr. Julienne Stroeve ) told me that Arctic sea ice was declining faster then ever over the last decade , I would go and find some data to check their claim.

        https://climategrog.wordpress.com/cpom_arctic_ice_vol_mths/

        when I found that Arctic sea ice area / extent has remained essentially at the same level for the last decade and that summer ice volume has increased. I would say the person is talking out of their tush and since it is their specialist field of study they are being deliberately dishonest and misleading.

        Logical fallacies such as arguments of authority would not convince me otherwise.

        • Exactly Greg, and I shall drink an early holiday season toast in the first week of December to commemorate the speech by Al Gore that week, in 2008, about Arctic sea ice being gone in 5 years.

          If anyone knows Al personally, could they please tap him on the shoulder and let him know that Arctic sea ice minimum 2018 was pretty much the same as 2008. Friends shouldn’t let friends look like global idiots.

      • Well …. if the bird is in the garden and causing such an uproar then just shoot the bird and you would have irrefutable evidence/data. But then there is the default fallback … you shot the wrong bird even if it was the only one in the garden or you can’t shoot the bird because it would end the argument and prove one or both wrong.

      • Or…give it a DNA test and prove that in some cases , different “species” were the same species, just with different colouring.

        Seriously, there is a reason why even experienced bird watchers call them LBTs (little brown things).

      • …..And the “plop” (that was heard?) was most likely bovine, not likely equine (unless it was a sick horse.)

    • Steve W

      Of course the guy ignores every variable possible by citing that stupid example including, is either Frank or Gita an ornithologist, if so, one or the other should shut up.

      Of course if neither are competent at identifying birds, as you say, why should one or other back down? Reason dictates each accept the others perception as just as valid as their own and agree to disagree.

      What a stupid, over simplistic analysis

      • Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement.

        Klemens sees his elbow in the mirror and believes it’s his ass. Standing beside him, Gita also sees his elbow, but she’s confident it’s his elbow.

        What response should we expect from Klemens and Gita? If Klemens response were: ‘Well, I know it’s my ass, so you must be wrong”, then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him.

        The same does not hold true for Gita, of course.

        Instead, Gita (and everyone that comes into contact with Klemens) should let him know that he does not know his ass from his elbow; And as such they should become less confident in all aspects of Frank’s judgment.

      • In the cited example, the answer is simple. Doubting their own opinions is only step one. If neither is an expert, they should both confirm with outside, independent evidence, such as a copy of “Birdwatching for Dummies”. If their memories or photographs are insufficient for comparison, then they should answer “we don’t know”.

    • If someone says it’s a finch, and I observe that the bird in question has two inch claws, curved beak and a seven feet wing span, I would not believe them regardless of their so called authority…….

      • When I was a teenager I heard a biologist describe a spider with six legs. I asked if that didn’t disqualify it as a spider. He explained that the spider had evolved with some of its legs fused.

        That conversation was back before DNA was a standard tool. Anyway, a quick google doesn’t produce any evidence of a six legged spider.

        I assume that the biologist wasn’t the only one holding the opinion that the critter was a spider. For all I know, he got his PhD for studying it and published the results.

        For some decades, the critter would have been classified as a spider.

        A conversation about a disagreement about facts should start with an examination of the evidence.
        – Is this a six legged spider?
        – We used to think so but DNA says otherwise.

        – That was a bloody finch you idiot.
        – That bird sitting on the fence was a sparrow.
        – It was too a finch and it was sitting in the tree … Oh.

        – I observe that the bird in question has two inch claws, curved beak and a seven feet wing span. Why are you calling it a finch?

        • Wikipedia:
          Arachnids are a class of joint-legged invertebrate animals, in the subphylum Chelicerata. All arachnids have eight legs, although the front pair of legs in some species has converted to a sensory function, while in other species, different appendages can grow large enough to take on the appearance of extra pairs of legs.

          Maybe this is why some spiders could “appear” to have only 6 legs?
          I know making absolutes about biology is hazardous. Sorta like climate models and CAGW.

    • Frank will always assume he is right and Gita is wrong: male prerogative. Getting the bird book and checking would be akin to asking for directions.

      • Susan

        You do realise that whilst women multi task, men prioritise.

        A woman asking for directions does so whilst simultaneously consulting a map thereby confusing the issue.

        A man simply trusts the map, assuming a man is reading it.

    • It’s clear, Gita is a “Finch Denier”. She must be publicly humiliated. We can’t let her opinion be tolerated.

    • The problem with this comparison is it is not really about two people who are both equally convinced about the entire sparrow/finch debate, it is about Frank using his Finch spotting claims to support his theory of Global Finch Apocalypse.

      If we do not act now it may be already too late to stop a Finch based destruction of the entire planet. Finches will rise and our children may grow up not knowing what a sky undisturbed by the beating wings of millions of small birds. The combined beating of wings will knock over all but the strongest skyscraper and entire Pacific islands will be carried away in their claws.

      You! Must! Act! Now!

      (And by ‘Act’ we mean give us money…)

      Trying to break the entire CO2/Global Doom thing down to two people simply being too stubborn to admit they might not fully understand birds is, as nearly everyone has pointed out, utter rubbish.

    • You are so very wrong, and very speciest.

      You have to ASK the bird (if it indeed identifies as a bird, or even if it identifies as an “it”), what species it WANTS to be.

      We need to admit to ourselves that the very root of all our problem is the “sapiens” in “homo sapiens”.

      That word means “wise”, and its completely that being wise is far less important that having feelings.

      We should be moving from “homo sapiens”, i.e. “wise ape”, to “homo animu motus”, “feeling ape”.

  2. Is there a credible scientific study, using empirically derived evidence evidence, that convincingly demonstrates increased atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm?

    Laboratory studies are all very well but when they can’t be replicated in the wild the hypothesis falls flat on its face, doesn’t it?

    Or at least until someone provides a convincing study. Even then I would be sceptical because if the effects of atmospheric CO2 were as dramatic as we are expected to believe, there should be dozens, if not hundreds of convincing studies over the past 40 years. Surely?

    On that basis alone I contend that any scientific study which assumes CO2 causes global warming fails before it has even begun.

    Or is that a straw man?

    • You are discounting the possibility that while CO2 does cause warming, the amount of warming is too small to distinguish from natural variability given the data we have available at this time.

      • temperature should not be increasing in a linear straight line…

        ..not that they are not trying hard enough to make it do that

      • MarkW,
        Water vapor and CO2 have overlapping absorption lines; the cumulative effect is the same as some hypothetical gas with those absorption characteristics. To attempt to predict warming, then the results from doubling of the hypothetical gas should be used. That is, we shouldn’t be concerned about doubling of just CO2, we should be concerned about doubling of the sum of water vapor and CO2. Since water vapor is abundant and relatively constant on a global scale, and CO2 is scarce, that would explain why so little warming can be attributed directly to the influence of CO2! It is akin to worrying about how the loss of one feather on the breast of the hybrid finch/sparrow will affect its ability to fly.

        • …and having chosen your method, any method, of “predicting warming” you then check against actual results to see if your method holds up. That’s were a lot of the doomsayers fall flat. More ice with your nightcap Mr Gore?

        • Some of CO2 absorption lines overlap with water vapor, not all of them. Beyond that there are a number of places in this world with very little water vapor. The higher up you go, the less water vapor is present.

          The relative amount of water vapor vs. CO2 isn’t relevant.

          • An relevant fact however is that at the South Pole, with bone dry air, where the effect of CO2 should be most pronounced, there has been no warming for as long as records have been kept there.

          • MarkW,
            You said, “…there are a number of places in this world with very little water vapor.” That fact has been used to explain why the Arctic is warming so rapidly. It has gone from a situation where there was very little in the way of green house gases, to one where the dominant influence is increasing CO2. Proportionately, CO2 is increasing more rapidly in dry areas than in humid areas, as a fraction of total green house gases.

        • Clyde,

          I think I went through this question with you before.

          The spectra of CO2 and water vapor are not completely overlapping; there’s a “hole” in the spectrum of energy absorbed by water vapor that is partially filled by CO2.

          Water vapor is a condensing gas that doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, but cycles. CO2 is not, so it tends to accumulate. Atmospheric water vapor rises as the air temperature rises, the positive feedback. Water vapor would not increase in the atmosphere if there weren’t something causing the atm. to be warmer (CO2).

          CO2 passes its energy on to other molecules that don’t absorb IR (such as O2), increasing its warming effects relative to it paucity in the atmosphere.

          Ergo, CO2 has a larger effect on global temperatures than one would expect simply from its tiny fraction. There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation. Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.

          Does this make sense? Do you see what I mean?

          • If CO2 is one molecule per 2500 other molecules, then that’s quite a magical molecule to be able to have any significant energy-adding effect to those other 2500 molecules.

            Okay, say 100 of those molecules are water. Still, that’s one magical molecule that could have any significant energy-adding effect to a hundred molecules that would, in turn, have a magical energy-adding effect on the still remaining 2400 molecules.

            The mass of Earth’s atmosphere, as a whole, simply dwarfs the mass portion that is CO2, and this greater mass is a fluid dynamic entity, operating at a macro-level of energy transfer (fluid dynamic mass transfers) that reduces the micro-level energy transfer to a piss-ant effect, if any effect at all, and if any at all, then it is a cooling effect or a channeling-of-energy effect that REGULATES the Earth’s temperature, in conjunction with the greater fluid dynamic processes.

            CO2 myopia IS a disease.

          • O/T to Kristi:

            See reply on the “McIntyre: a reducto ad absurdum … ” from me; I found where you disavowed Mann and the ‘hokey schitck’.

            Vlad

          • Vlad,

            Sheesh, how did you find that?

            You asked,
            “Suppose we start with this: the original thesis of Mann et al, was that the annual growth rings of trees are solely a reflection of the temperature of the environment in which they live (or lived), hence the coining of the term ‘treemometers’ on this site.”

            I said no. I still say no. I don’t believe annual growth rings of trees are solely a reflection of temperature, and MM doesn’t, either. If they were, there would have been no reason for him to do the PCA (principle components analysis) that M&M had such problems with.

            They can be used as a proxy for temperature, you just have to do it right. Right selection, right analysis.

            I’m glad we have clarified that little misunderstanding. No?

          • Well, Kristi, your statement, “You’re dreaming” told me that you had no clue as to your previous statements. That’s sad; I make an effort to recall previous statements, so I don’t look like a fool, when I try to tell someone that, ‘I didn’t say that!’, then have them prove me wrong.

            Sidebar: I would hazard a guess that I learned what PCA is (early ’70’s, second [of four] year Calculus; probably well before your parents even knew each other), so thinking that I’m some schlub off the street is not helpful to your discourse.

            Now this is intriguing to me: “They can be used as a proxy for temperature, you just have to do it right. Right selection, right analysis.”

            And, of course, you know all there is to know about the ‘right selection, right analysis’?

            Then please enlighten us.

            If the ‘hokey schtick’ is such a valid proxy, then there’s no need to defend it; it would be completely self-evident. The entire computer algorithm is proven to produce the ‘hokey schtick’ shape, regardless of the data fed into it. The ‘hokey schtick’ was predicated upon a single tree, not a suite of trees from around the globe (even though Mann et al claimed that it was; and by the way, the tree is from Yamal, hence our WUWT saying is, “If you’ve seen one tree, you’ve seen Yamal.”

            Mann’s entire thesis is that tree rings ARE a valid proxy for temperature, despite the fact that just about everyone here, except for you and Mann, understand that such a method would require anywhere from three-to-five generations (human), with meticulous records of weather patterns, etc, JUST TO CREATE A CALIBRATION CURVE (which, by the way, is how we’re taught in the hard sciences– — nothing can be discerned w/o first knowing the instrumental calibration). Most of the “skeptic” community understand, quite thoroughly, that any given tree, of any given specie, in any given area, is going to respond to MULTIPLE environmental factors, not just temperature.

            And, unlike you and Mann, most everyone here is quite cognizant of the fact that for at least the last four billion years, give or take, the climate of the Earth has always changed, and always will change, just as Nature has designed it.

            Earlier, you made this statement: ” There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation. ”

            That’s quite a statement! So, there’s no other factor (besides carbon dioxide) that could POSSIBLY be causing the current warming. Very interesting. I find it interesting, because embedded within that single statement is the implicit assumption that we have PERFECT knowledge and understanding of the entire global climate system.

            You and Mann seem to be isolated from the awareness that most WUWT’ers have that we have *** very little *** knowledge and understanding of the intricacies of global climate, and what causes it to change, and what affects it, and how. Our knowledge and understanding are in their infancy, at best. Maybe, just maybe, if we’re allowed to do some research, some “free-of-preconceived-notions” science, we may slowly begin to eek out some minuscule understanding of how global climate works.

            But as long as we’re stuck with the false paradigm that “carbon dioxide is the global thermostat”, there will be no advances in understanding. If you start with a false assumption, you have nothing. Case-in-point, if you asked any 1940’s geologist if the continents were moving around the surface of the Earth, only a tiny, tiny minority would have answered in the affirmative. Oooooops! Then came Ewing, Heezen, Hess, and a host of other researchers, who confirmed a number of aspects of a “mobile crust” complete with drifting continents, which go around banging into each other, and splitting apart … … …

            That’s how science progresses; the false narrative is discarded, and the better hypothesis starts its journey — — either to confirmation, or replacement, with an even better hypothesis.

            We are NOT in that state of analysis or understanding in the world of ‘climatology’, ‘global climatology’ or anything else related to ‘anthropogenic climate change’, or whatever today’s meme is. The “science” cannot advance, as it is built upon a false paradigm. Now, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to continue to believe in the false paradigm (I had a professor in college who was [until his dying day] utterly convinced that the continents were IMMOBILE, and railed against the new paradigm, telling us that anything related to ‘plate tectonics’ and ‘continental drift’ was a complete lie). The biggest single reason Anthony’s WUWT is so successful is because the scientists (of all stripes), engineers, statisticians, and even “lay” persons, have all examined the “science” of “global warming [caused by humans]”, and have found it to be a completely false notion.

            Enjoy your life, Kristi, free from any ‘guilt’ you might have that you are “causing” something which is an entirely natural process.

            And, please, try to remember what you post; I see where you’re “sick” of the ‘liberal’ mindset infecting our campuses. It’s nice that you say something; let’s see you do something about it, and not just pontificate on obscure blogs; paraphrasing an old saying, which I’m sure you know, and ‘cleaning’ it up for a “G”-rated blog, ” [ Do it ], ” (a normal bodily function), ” or get off the pot!”

            My regards to you and yours,

            Vlad (and sorry for the length; there was a lot to say)

          • Kristi,

            “There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation. Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.”

            I believe you’re misunderstanding what is being claimed when climate scientists state “It could only be CO2.” The claim is NOT that CO2 forcing is the only thing that could be driving warming. The specific claim is that CO2 forcing is the only thing that could be driving the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere. And, thus, if we see this dipole, then it’s the fingerprint of CO2. This is a critical point to understand, and the absence of it is one of the primary reasons for remaining skeptical of the claims of Climate Science.

            rip

          • “There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation.”

            But a chaotic system, constantly seeking its latest attractor, disrupts things in doing so, causing it to veer off in a new direction. IOW, the climate system generates change internally, without any need for an external forcing. Climatology has ignored decades of awareness about chaos theory. It’s probably too subtle and uncongenial to them.

          • Kristi,
            You said:

            “The spectra of CO2 and water vapor are not completely overlapping; there’s a “hole” in the spectrum of energy absorbed by water vapor that is partially filled by CO2.”

            You are describing my “hypothetical gas” that has the absorption features of WV and CO2. Ergo, the sum of their effects have to double.

            “Water vapor is a condensing gas that doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, but cycles.”

            And, WV is continuously replenished! WV can be created more easily when the air is dry.

            “CO2 is not, so it tends to accumulate. ”

            Only half of the new anthropogenic CO2 shows up. The remainder will be removed eventually. However, it currently appears that it is being added faster than it can be removed.

            “Atmospheric water vapor rises as the air temperature rises, the positive feedback. Water vapor would not increase in the atmosphere if there weren’t something causing the atm. to be warmer (CO2).”

            It only rises to the level of saturation. That is, the rise, particularly in the tropics, is limited. Water vapor can increase (up to the limit of saturation) at a constant temperature with increased windiness.

            “CO2 passes its energy on to other molecules that don’t absorb IR (such as O2), increasing its warming effects relative to it paucity in the atmosphere.”

            And in so doing, decreases the average temperature and lowers the peak of emission. That is important because the peak absorption of WV and CO2 are at specific wavelengths.

            “There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing –”

            Yes, we have discussed this before. Until you can state with certainty why Earth started to warm well before the industrial revolution, you aren’t logically justified in making that claim. There is no reason to believe that, whatever the natural factors are, that they suddenly stopped working when the industrial revolution started.

            ” Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.”

            I don’t think that you understand! A decreased albedo means LESS sunlight is reflected back into space, causing warming. When leaves from deciduous trees decompose each year, the oxidation is an exothermic reaction, releasing the energy that was temporarily sequestered by photosynthesis.

          • Vlad,

            I’m very sorry if I sounded like I was dismissing your comment – and you’re right, I didn’t answer with appropriate respect. Sorry.

            (You have no reason to lump me with Mann.)

            First: This is a nice little review of the subject of dendroclimatology: https://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~sheppard/Raul/DendroclimatologyReview.pdf

            “I would hazard a guess that I learned what PCA is (early ’70’s, second [of four] year Calculus; probably well before your parents even knew each other),”
            Wrong. I was already born then.

            “…so thinking that I’m some schlub off the street is not helpful to your discourse.” I don’t! But I don’t think you are characterizing people’s views well, either.

            “And, of course, you know all there is to know about the ‘right selection, right analysis’?” I never said such a thing.

            “The entire computer algorithm is proven to produce the ‘hokey schtick’ shape, regardless of the data fed into it.”

            No, this was an error on M&M’s part – they failed to remove to hockey stick signal before running their analysis, making it much more likely that they would produce it.

            “The ‘hokey schtick’ was predicated upon a single tree, not a suite of trees from around the globe”

            That’s a myth. There was one tree that had an especially hockey-stick-like temperature record, but the analysis never depended solely on that tree.

            “Mann’s entire thesis is that tree rings ARE a valid proxy for temperature, despite the fact that just about everyone here, except for you and Mann, understand that such a method would require anywhere from three-to-five generations (human), with meticulous records of weather patterns, etc, JUST TO CREATE A CALIBRATION CURVE.”

            There are plenty of other proxies against which the tree record can be compared. Why would calibration require a record of hundreds of years? I’ve never heard that argument.

            “Most of the “skeptic” community understand, quite thoroughly, that any given tree, of any given specie [sic], in any given area, is going to respond to MULTIPLE environmental factors, not just temperature.” In general true, but sometimes trees grow in areas where temperature is by far the predominant factor limiting growth. See the review. And, as I said before, PCAs and other statistical methods are used to partition the effects of different factors.

            “And, unlike you and Mann, most everyone here is quite cognizant of the fact that for at least the last four billion years, give or take, the climate of the Earth has always changed, and always will change, just as Nature has designed it.”

            Oh, c’mon! It’s just silly to suppose that anyone with a scrap of knowledge about paleoclimatology would think otherwise. Why do you assume people are fools?

            “Earlier, you made this statement: ‘There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation.’

            “So, there’s no other factor (besides carbon dioxide) that could POSSIBLY be causing the current warming.”

            Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant none of these things, alone or together, is causing the pattern of climate change we’ve been seeing in the 50 years. That’s not assumption, that’s a matter of observation. Solar activity and all the rest can be estimated, directly or indirectly, and it’s been done again and again. We don’t have to have perfect knowledge of the system. If solar activity (etc.) is not correlated with modern temperature change, it can’t be the driving factor. There are multiple lines of evidence, and nice little graphs like this:
            https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png
            There’s lots of evidence, but I don’t really have the patience right now to look for it when I suspect it won’t do any good. You should explore on your own.

            “You and Mann seem to be isolated from the awareness that most WUWT’ers have that we have *** very little *** knowledge and understanding of the intricacies of global climate…”
            Well, I disagree. Although there is plenty more to learn, that doesn’t mean we don’t already have a lot of knowledge. Just because those on WUWT (very few of whom are climate scientists) don’t have all that knowledge doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is a tremendous breadth and depth of literature out there that would take decades of study to read, understand and synthesize, even in a single area (such as oceanic-atmospheric interactions). There are thousands of published papers on dendroclimatology alone, and that IS a relatively new science.

            “Maybe, just maybe, if we’re allowed to do some research, some “free-of-preconceived-notions” science, we may slowly begin to eek out some minuscule understanding of how global climate works.” Who is “we” and why do you think this hasn’t been done? Who is not allowing it? “Preconceived notions” is highly vague. If you wan’t to start from scratch and abandon the theoretical work on which the “greenhouse effect” is based, that means scrapping research from 150 years ago that has already been debated and verified. I’m not sure what preconceived notions Exxon (Humble, at the time) scientists had in the 1970s and 1980s that led them to conclude that CO2 from fossil fuels was likely to warm the planet, raise sea levels, melt glacier, etc., though they, too, were building on the work by the pioneers of “greenhouse” theory (even the term “greenhouse” was used as an analogy by 1901).

            “But as long as we’re stuck with the false paradigm that ‘carbon dioxide is the global thermostat’”

            That’s a paradigm falsely ascribed to climate scientists. Of course there are other factors in climate regulation! It’s just that in the past 50 years CO2 has been the primary (not sole) agent of change.

            “That’s how science progresses; the false narrative is discarded, and the better hypothesis starts its journey…”

            Well, of course. So discard your false narrative. Abandon your myths. Try to understand what climate scientists really believe, rather than what you are told they believe. That’s the first step.

            “The biggest single reason Anthony’s WUWT is so successful is because the scientists (of all stripes), engineers, statisticians, and even “lay” persons, have all examined the “science” of “global warming [caused by humans]”, and have found it to be a completely false notion.”

            People here have examined some of the science, yes, but if you are going to gauge climate science by what the people here say (which is not uniform!), you are going to get interpretations and post titles and representations of science that are often seen through a particular political and policy-driven ideology that can lead to the kinds of errors you have made in your post. Generally speaking, the policy debate over the costs and benefits of climate change science and climate change mitigation play too prominent a role in the evaluation of the science itself, in my opinion. They should be seen entirely separately, but the whole site is full of policy and politics, and that is its main weakness. Furthermore, there is a common underlying message that climate science is also tainted by political ideology, and should be discredited/dismissed.

            It’s extremely frustrating that so few people here seem to recognize the bias in the messages of so many posts and their titles, while so many are ready to yell, “Propaganda!” when it comes to alarmist media and blogs. It is only through seeing this that one can practice true skepticism.

          • Quite a lot to digest; strong the projection is with this one, I see.

            You deny that Mann predicated the ‘hokey schtick’ on the Yamal tree. Fine. We disagree on this.

            Climatology is 150 years old? PALEOclimatology is a few centuries old (started with those ol’ geologists who went out and did reconstructions, and figured out what the depositional environments of a suite of lithologies were. Climatology, the kind practiced by Mann and others, is at best a few decades old.

            And almost completely dependent upon unreliable computer models; no, we know very little about ‘global climate’, and what causes it to change. So-called ‘climate science’ today is caught in the paradigm that any change is the result of a single factor (i.e., carbon dioxide), when, as others have pointed out, we are dealing with a ‘coupled, non-linear, dynamic system’; I do not know that I would go as far as ‘chaos’, but, to each his own.

            Wow! You’ve been around since before the ’70’s, and still can’t think? Gee, how much warmer is it where you live now, than when you were but a wee tot? I think I characterize absurdity quite well. You made the statement that there exists a ‘right selection, right analysis.’ Works for me! What is it? Find a single event that confirms your hypothesis, and discard any and all other data? You put a lot of trust into someone making that, ‘right selection, right analysis.’ If it was so right, why the secrecy and deception about the methodology? One of my very first professors told me that [this type of scientist] loves to tell people about the things they’re studying. McIntyre and McKittrick (sp?) literally had to force things from Mikey; for someone who made such an astounding discovery, he sure was secretive about how he made this “discovery”.

            This is perfect: “There are plenty of other proxies against which the tree record can be compared. Why would calibration require a record of hundreds of years? I’ve never heard that argument.”

            A proxy of this sort would require meticulous records to create some kind of calibration, simply because trees DO NOT RESPOND TO A SINGLE VARIABLE in the environment. It could be done, it would take time, money, and a lot of dedication by a steadfast group of researchers. You cannot state that a ‘treemometer’ is an accurate record, then at the same time, and in almost the same breath, state that (on 30 April) trees are NOT accurate records of temperature. Either they are, or they are not; and I’m really curious on this: WHICH (of two apparent) “Kristi Silber’s” am I currently communicated with?

            Yes, there are OTHER proxies, that can be used for comparison, but they all show that climate changed (and, according to EPICA and Vostok, plus GISP II) due to natural forces, and at rates far in excess of what has been happening within the past [let’s say, four] centuries. Alley, a warmist, argues that glacial-interglacial transitions were on the order of four or five Celsius degrees, an in a time frame of under a decade. Sorry you’re so challenged on the Math, but a degree, give-or-take, since the inception of the “Industrial Revolution”, is a pittance compared to prior transitions.

            And those “other” proxies all tend to show the change in carbon dioxide trailing behind the change in temperature, temporally; EPICA in particular is emphatic that as carbon dioxide is ‘peaking’, temperatures are generally starting to fall.

            I’m so glad you’re comfortable accepting, with so much willingness, a false hypothesis. I presume nothing about what someone understands about past climates, and climate change. If there was a solid understanding, then there would be very little concern about this “current” warming trend; most, such as yourself, genuinely act as if it is the first time such an event has occurred. If it’s something that has happened multiple times (could we perhaps say even ‘thousands of times?’ in the past), then what is all the hubbub about? Why is THIS change in temperature different? What is so exceptional about THIS one? There is nothing abnormal happening for the past two centuries, give or take. Why are you so exercised about absolutely nothing at all? Either you know that climate changed, and much more drastically, purely through natural processes, or you do not. Do not act like you “know” the past has changed, and then get a bee in your bonnet over some piddly-little beneficial change in ‘average’ global temperature.

            My regards,

            Vlad

          • Ripshin,

            ” The claim is NOT that CO2 forcing is the only thing that could be driving warming. The specific claim is that CO2 forcing is the only thing that could be driving the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere. And, thus, if we see this dipole, then it’s the fingerprint of CO2. This is a critical point to understand, and the absence of it is one of the primary reasons for remaining skeptical of the claims of Climate Science.

            I don’t really understand where you get the idea that there is only one specific claim by climate scientists – to demonstrate what, exactly? First you imply that there is a “warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere” (since the claim is that CO2 is driving it), then talk about “its absence.”

            The quantity of observed warming/cooling of the troposphere/stratosphere is, as far as I can tell, not a resolved issue. There are debates about which satellites to use, whether the radioisondes are biased at their upper ranges, and whether the models have predicted the amount of difference accurately. Some claim that the evidence supports the expectations – see
            https://skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html …this also looks at other “fingerprints.”

            One general problem seems to be that there is enough contradictory evidence out there (often depending on ideology) about all kinds of stuff, it’s often hard for laymen to evaluate which is the most sound and which is full of holes. Sometimes it simply comes down to what evidence one is exposed to or how the debate is framed.

            Anyway, I don’t see why the trop/strat temps is the only relevant point, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

          • Clyde,

            “You are describing my “hypothetical gas” that has the absorption features of WV and CO2. Ergo, the sum of their effects have to double.”

            I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean. What hypothetical gas? Why a doubling?

            H2O has a saturation point dependent on temperature, so it has an upper limit. It also responds to aerosols that cause condensation and cloud formation – there’s a complex interaction there determining energy budgets and albedo and precipitation, but that is only tangentially relevant to my point. CO2 also cycles, but it has no upper limit in the atmosphere as WV does, and is not affect by temperature – so the quantity will keep rising without action taken to prevent it. On all this we agree, right?

            “Only half of the new anthropogenic CO2 shows up. The remainder will be removed eventually. However, it currently appears that it is being added faster than it can be removed.”

            I don’t know the figure, but sure, not all the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere. A large fraction enters the oceans. Some is sequestered by vegetation. Some is very slowly turned into rock. And yes, it is being added faster than it is removed, so it’s increasing in the atmosphere. I don’t really know what you mean by “the remainder will be removed eventually.”

            “Water vapor can increase (up to the limit of saturation) at a constant temperature with increased windiness.”

            I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that wind removes humid air from around plants so that they transpire more, and away from moist ground so it evaporates more?

            Kristi: “CO2 passes its energy on to other molecules that don’t absorb IR (such as O2), increasing its warming effects relative to it paucity in the atmosphere.”

            Clyde: “And in so doing, decreases the average temperature and lowers the peak of emission. That is important because the peak absorption of WV and CO2 are at specific wavelengths.”

            What? How does that decrease the average temperature? The energy is still in the atmosphere, but in molecules that don’t absorb either solar energy or that emitted from the Earth. It’s not through emission and absorption, but through random movement of the molecules. Excited CO2 comes in contact with O2 (or N2, etc.) and passes energy to it. The CO2 is then able to absorb more energy emitted from the Earth. This is one reason CO2 has a greater effect than one would expect from its quantity. The net effect is heating of the atmosphere. This process is independent of WV (though I suppose H20 could also pass along energy. Hadn’t thought about it).

            “There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing –”

            Yes, we have discussed this before. Until you can state with certainty why Earth started to warm well before the industrial revolution, you aren’t logically justified in making that claim. There is no reason to believe that, whatever the natural factors are, that they suddenly stopped working when the industrial revolution started.

            My understanding is that solar radiation was increasing from about 1700 or so until the 1950s, with the exception of the Dalton minimum, which wasn’t as much of a decrease as the minima that preceded it. After the 1950s, solar radiation started decreasing again.

            The first part of the LIA saw heavy volcanic activity. While a single volcano only has an effect lasting a few years, multiple volcanoes in a relatively short time span could, it is hypothesized, have more enduring effects through the expansion of glaciers and sea ice. As volcanic activity decreased and solar radiation increased, there was an unsteady climb out of the LIA.

            ”Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.”

            “I don’t think that you understand! A decreased albedo means LESS sunlight is reflected back into space, causing warming.” Yes, I understand that, but I wasn’t clear. My point was that greening of the planet is not an entirely beneficial effect if one is concerned about warming. But still, land use change and the greening do not fully account for the warming of the last 50+ years.

            “When leaves from deciduous trees decompose each year, the oxidation is an exothermic reaction, releasing the energy that was temporarily sequestered by photosynthesis.”

            Also releases CO2. Some of the energy and carbon sequestered by plants also makes its way up the food chain. So what? This is all part of the carbon/energy/water balance, but I don’t see your point.

            Nice chatting with you Clyde. Always a pleasure talking science with those who don’t resort to insults.

          • Vlad,

            “You’ve been around since before the ’70’s, and still can’t think?”

            I’m no longer interested in discussions with you.

          • Robert Kernodle,

            I suggest you read my comment to Clyde, (Kristi Silber October 20, 2018 at 8:20 pm) starting at the point,
            “Kristi: “CO2 passes its energy on to other molecules that don’t absorb IR (such as O2), increasing its warming effects relative to it paucity in the atmosphere.”

            I didn’t understand this point, either, until I asked my uncle, who is an atmospheric physicist with NOAA.

          • Kristi:

            Wonderful! You can’t take the heat, so you get out of the kitchen.

            You write in a very juvenile style, hence my incorrect belief that you were quite on the young side. Most septagenerians that I know are able to connect two logical thoughts, and see when they’re being made a fool of.

            Love these statements you make to Clyde, et al:

            “I don’t really understand where you get the idea that there is only one specific claim by climate scientists … … … … ”

            So-called “climate scientists’ have a singular focus: the focus is carbon dioxide, and the false hypothesis that it controls global temperatures. According to you, it would appear that the problem has only been for some ” … 50 years … ” (19 October 2018, 1613 hours), which is a nice deflection and ‘moving the goal posts’. First, it’s ‘since the Industrial Revolution’; then it’s ‘ … just the last fifty years … ‘. Gee, somehow, carbon dioxide’s physics and characteristics CHANGED completely, and all of a sudden, it now controls all of global temperature!

            And, as a sidebar, I do not “believe” what anyone tells me about what so-called ‘climate scientists’ think. I’ve seen their own words, and their own words tell me that they sincerely, albeit misguidedly, believe that carbon dioxide and its concentration in the atmosphere is the SOLE cause of temperature change. What, exactly, do you think “Paris” is all about? Is “Paris” designed to control and remove water vapor from the atmosphere? NO!! “Paris”, “Kyoto”, “Rio”, Hansen, Mann, [and yes, I lump you with Mann because at least one of your two resident personages believes absolutely in the ‘hokey schtick’, while the other tells me that trees cannot be ‘treemometers’, unless the ‘right selection, right analysis’ is done; but of course, we do not know what “right” selection, or what “right” analysis was done, because Mikey went out of his way to hide it], Schmidt, Hayhoe, Jones all focus and mention only “carbon dioxide” and call it “pollution”, and tell us that unless we do exactly as they say, we’re all going to FRY.

            “The quantity of observed warming/cooling of the troposphere/stratosphere is, as far as I can tell, not a resolved issue. ”

            Uhhhh, wait: we have suites of measurements (and, yes, they show that there is a change in temperature taking place), and to an extent, they are showing (at least) something roughly similar. The temperature of the atmosphere is changing; somehow, this is “different” this time? This is where your two personages have me stymied; one tells me that they realize that temperature has changed in the past, but the other one tells me that the last ‘fifty years’ has been “different”. How has it been different? Suddenly, somehow, some little fairy went around and switched all the carbon dioxide molecules from “neutral” into “full heat” mode? Somehow, those ‘natural’ factors that caused most of the Holocene Epoch to be warmer (including a likelihood of an ice-free Arctic, at least some of the time) than the present-day, this same fairy switched all those factors into “neutral”, and they no longer play a role? All I can say is, lady, you need some serious help. You’re in your seventies, and can’t see the internal contradictions in your own writings? And you can’t remember what you posted? [E.g., “Vlad: No.”]

            “What? How does that decrease the average temperature? The energy is still in the atmosphere, but in molecules that don’t absorb either solar energy or that emitted from the Earth. It’s not through emission and absorption, but through random movement of the molecules. Excited CO2 comes in contact with O2 (or N2, etc.) and passes energy to it. The CO2 is then able to absorb more energy emitted from the Earth. This is one reason CO2 has a greater effect than one would expect from its quantity. The net effect is heating of the atmosphere. This process is independent of WV (though I suppose H20 could also pass along energy.”

            I’ll give you a hint on this one: it’s one of two atmospheric realities that GCM’s, the IPCC, Hanson, Mann, Schmidt et al completely leave out of the equation: the first one is called “convection” (GCM’s set convention to zero), and the second one is advection (also set to zero). The atmosphere is dynamic (and coupled, and non-linear, and does not have the characteristic of stationarity (sensu stricto)), so when a hypothetical parcel of air undergoes a temperature change, it has a tendency to move vertically. If it increases in temperature, it tends to rise (and it may also begin to advect, depending upon local circumstances). The temperature then changes adiabatically, as it rises; it is not uncommon for the increased ‘heat’ to eventually be released to space. If the “heat” was “trapped”, as MANNSON (intentional merging of Mann and Hanson) claim, then the Earth would have fried somewhere in the Early Archean.

            Please have “I-contradict-myself” Kristi to tell “Snowflake” Kristi it’s OK to respond. I think I’m fairly consistent in my statements: carbon dioxide is not pollution or a threat; the warming taking place today is not outside of normal processes; climate always has and always will change; the ‘hokey schitck’ contains more bovine excrement than every cow or steer who has ever lived, all put together; trees could be calibrated to reflect temperature, but without calibration of the method, it is useless.

            Regards to both of you,

            Vlad

          • One other thought, since you’ve, ” … never heard … ” of calibrating a mechanism, before using it:

            Dr. Harold C. Urey was one of the first pioneers to use the delta-oxygen-18 as a ‘paleothermometer’. Before the method could be used, it had to undergo some calibration; that it DID undergo some calibration, and has undergone some refinement since the 1950’s, is a testament to its robustness.

            That you think some “untested” method can be hastily patch-worked together, at which time you uncritically defend it, as representing unassailable, gospel “truth” (and please do not deny that you defend the ‘hokey schtick’), gives me pause to consider whatever professional credentials you might possess, suspect, at best.

            Here; let’s make it simple for you. Just as before, in April, you can boil it all down to single-word answers:

            #1) Mann, his cohorts, the ‘hokey schtick’, are all gospel truth; trees respond only to temperature

            #1) Yes No

            #2) All “warmist” climate science considers carbon dioxide to be the sole controller of global climate and global temperature; control carbon dioxide, and you control Earth’s temperature

            #2) Yes No

            #3) Mikey has taken great pains to conceal his methods (since it is so dependent upon the ‘right selection, right analysis’)

            #3) Yes No

            #4) We know all there is to know about what that ‘right selection, right analysis’ was

            #4) Yes No

            I shan’t hold my breath waiting for a reply. Previously, you decried the amount of time you “waste” here. For some reason, either you do NOT think it is a ‘waste’ of your time, or you have oodles and oodles of time to ‘waste’ (re: 30 April 2018), so please make up some mind, somewhere. Dealing with the two of you is getting quite confusing!

            It is just TWO, right?

            Vlad

          • Vlad,

            I choose those with whom I want to converse, and the topics I’m interested in pursuing. Why would I want to discuss anything with someone who thinks I can’t think? That is a waste of time for us both.

          • Hence, Kristi, I stand by my statement that you cannot take any form of criticism. You recite the mindless platitudes about carbon dioxide, using the serious mis-nomer “greenhouse gas” , when Woods, in 1905, proved that a greenhouse is warmed by suppression of convection. The standard mantra of the warmist community that greenhouses are warmed because of LWIR being ‘reflected’ from the underside of the plate glass is a very small portion of any ‘heating’ that takes place. Window glass is only about 11% opaque to thermal IR.

            I posed some questions; it would appear that you are unwilling to answer. So be it. I would hesitate to be the cause of you ‘wasting’ so much time at WUWT (is this “I-contradict-myself” Kristi, who says she doesn’t want to waste time at WUWT, then proceeds to waste [apparently] hours-on-end making posts and rebuttals, or is this “Snowflake” Kristi, who melts at the first sign of someone having an ill thought?).

            Since you do not want to engage in any kind of dialog, fearing that you might actually learn something, that is your choice. I think I shall make it my mission to dog every post you make, pointing out your errors, and reminding you of what you said, prior to the post I am rebutting.

            I am curious about something: it would appear that you have an “uncle” at NOAA or someplace like that. Let’s see: you’re in your seventies (like me), and so unless there was some kind of fluke in the family tree, any siblings of your parents would have to be in their eighties, or even nineties.

            Just seems a little strange … … …

          • Vlad, if you can’t argue with someone without insulting them, then maybe you should stay out of the kitchen until you’re mature enough to stand the heat without resorting to such childish behavior.

          • I think you just proved my point, Mr. Schaeffer. To bring you up to speed, back on 30 April 2018, in a post on the ‘hokey schtick’, I asked Ms. Silber (or, more accurately, one of her), point-blank, if trees are usable thermometers.

            Some one answered, “Vlad: No.”

            A few months down the road, another Ms. Silber, still defending the ‘hokey schtick’ (in subsequent ‘hokey schtick’ posts) and the ‘right methods, right analysis’ (though I was informed that this Ms. Silber is unacquainted with the methods employed) is advised that some entity disavowed the use of trees as thermometers. The response was, (paraphrasing) ‘ I’ll believe it when I see it’, which I took to mean that some entity was disavowing the disavowal of ‘trees as thermometers’. Many posters, of unknown scientific background, have commented and pointed out that the environment in which a tree lives is subject to myriad factors, and not just ambient temperature.

            So I was ‘called out’, and proved that someone had told me that trees were not valid thermometers, unless the ‘right [secret] methods’ and ‘right [secret] analysis’ is done, at which time, trees are “suddenly” really, REALLY GREAT TREE-MENDOUS thermometers!

            I would wager that most anyone looking through the sequences of posts would come to a similar conclusion that I have: there exists within this one person some elements that have the implications of dissociative identity disorder.

            Now you are here fighting someone else’s battle. I think it is in her best interest to stand up for herself. If she can’t, then stay away. At one time, she firmly stated that time spent here (WUWT) was a, ” … … … waste … … “, so looking at all the posts she makes is not congruent with that statement.

            Incidentally, at one time I posted under my real name. In an attempt to insult me, one individual named “Harry TwinOtter”, having been thoroughly skewered by me, attempted to incite anger in me, by bestowing the moniker, “Vlad the Impaler”. I thought it was a joke, and then one evening, while watching American Heros Channel, they were doing a series on famous evil personalities. The episode started, as they all do, with the teaser, and then the name of the person being profiled came on: “Tonight, the real story of Vlad, the Impaler!”. I damn-near fell out of my chair (but I saved the DoppelSpatten Optimator), and was enthralled for the next hour.

            I embellished the moniker (requesting permission from Anthony and Jo to switch to an anonymous handle; they both approved, though Jo thought I could have chosen something … … … … … … milder?) once I found out that I’m just Deplorable.

            Supposedly, Kristi is in her 70’s, like me. Trust me, I’m much to old to be easily insulted, or easily offended. Feel free: have at it! I very much doubt there is anything you could do, or say, that would any effect upon me at all. People who respond to criticism in such a manner have earned the moniker, ‘snowflake’.

            “Range is HOT!”

    • HotScot

      Did you post as RedHotScot at the Guardian? I enjoyed your no-nonsense posts concerning the lack of empirical evidence of AGW and especially CAGW, as I also enjoyed several other posters in the same vein who mysteriously disappeared (gulp). Were you one of them?

      I followed the same line of argument before you, under various guises, but was banned in a very short period (7 days max) each time by, I assume, linking to my IP addresses . 5 times in fact!

      My main line of attack was that there was no evidence that CO2 in the cooler atmosphere (in general) could possibly raise the temperature of the warmer (in general) earth surface. Generally, the earth heats the atmosphere not the other way round and conduction and convection are the great players in energy exchange between the earth and the atmosphere not radiation. Radiation is basically how the atmosphere loses energy to space and CO2 plays a major role in the regions where water vapour is scarce or does not exist.

      The atmosphere is self-regulating.

      I also made references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (integral of Planck equation), the Planck equation, the Wien Displacement Law, Clausius, the gas laws, Avogadro, the the Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the 2nd which deals with entropy but to no avail. Got banned. You too?

  3. From what I recall, the 97% question was “has the world warmed since the beginning of the industrial revolution?” or words to that effect. And the correct answer to that is most likely (probably 97% likely) Yes. However, the 97% consensus is only about the fact that temperature has changed over time, not about cause or solution. So the issue is more about misrepresentation of a fact or opinion than about the fact itself.

    • Dr. Bob

      There’s also the fact that of 1,100 papers selected for the study, eventually all but 75 or so were ‘selected’ which conformed to what Cook (it was Cook wasn’t it) expected.

      When we’re talking ‘concencus’ isn’t it reasonable to expect a majority of recognised, well qualified scientists to be presented with something resembling a scientific study that they can participate in?

          • Oh, and this is what I was looking for:

            http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

            “The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

            The authors explicitly stated in their paper (Table 1) that “social science, education and research on people’s views” were classified as Not Climate Related, and thus not counted as evidence of scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. All of the papers below were counted as endorsement.

            Chowdhury, M. S. H., Koike, M., Akther, S., & Miah, D. (2011). Biomass fuel use, burning technique and reasons for the denial of improved cooking stoves by Forest User Groups of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(1), 88–97. (This is a survey of the public’s stove choices in Bangladesh, and discusses their value as status symbols, defects in the improved stoves, the relative popularity of cow dung, wood, and leaves as fuel, etc. They mention climate somewhere in the abstract, or perhaps the word denial in the title sealed their fate.)”

            Seriously bad science, repeated as Sacred Gospel by the same people who turn their lights off an hour a year to feel good about themselves.

  4. If someone told me that an 18% tip on a $50 tab is $18, I wouldn’t “become less confident in [my] judgment” that it’s actually $9, even if that someone is Albert Einstein.

    And many of the things said (on both sides) about global warning are just as objectively wrong, but people accept them because prominent, well-regarded proponents say them.

    Perhaps conciliatory responses are overrated.

    • Joe Born

      IMO conciliatory responses ARE overrated. Any compromise on any subject leaves dissatisfied participants. Usually both in a two party dispute.

      I don’t see Trump delivering conciliatory solutions on climate change, or much else for that matter. He’s taken the tough decision to do what’s best for America, consequently the country is doing well.

      That’s doing what right, not appeasing the masses to no meaningful end other than making everyone 50% unhappy with his decisions. As it is, it seems there are 50% of the country entirely happy with his decisions and 50% unhappy. It remains to be seen if that changes in the future but as I suspect people will be more fearful of losing America’s growth and the 50% of happy people will grow. Because Trump made ‘unpopular’ decisions.

    • @Joe Born

      I couldn’t care less about the source of information. The facts speak for themselves. It is 2+2=4 or it is wrong. I refuse to fall into confirmation bias, projection, or Wizard’s 1st rule(self-propaganda). Once I read something to the effect, “our models show X” then my skeptical headgear and sewer boots are quickly installed. Our knowledge of atmosphere physics and planetary engineering is seriously lacking.

      It is the Warmists, who seem to be arguing that climate shouldn’t change. Their entire position is full of hubris. Climate Changes. Period, end of story and it is not the end of world.

      As a for instance on wrong experts can be:
      Pluto surprised everyone. It is amazing how wrong the so called experts were on Pluto.

      • Amen about experts.

        Sure, I don’t know what I don’t know, so I’ve made a practice of seeking experts out. But much of my career consisted of being a layman dealing substantively with experts, and I found that a layman’s logic and math routinely detected errors in what the experts said.

        There’s often little choice but to trust them on some facts, but we’d be foolish not to subject them to our own logic and math.

        • First thing needed in order to deal with experts outside your field of knowledge is a good B.S. meter. If you haven’t developed that you’re just fruit ready for picking.

      • The Proof that 2 = 1
        a = b Given.
        a*a = a*b Multiply both sides by a.
        a*a – b*b = a*b – b*b Subtract b*b from both sides.
        (a+b) * (a-b) = b * (a-b) Factor both sides.
        (a+b) = b Divide both sides by (a-b)
        a+a = a Substitute a for b.
        2 * a = a Addition.
        2 = 1 Divide both sides by a.

        can you see the flaw?
        more importantly, can you understand the nature of it?

          • yes. oh, thank you.
            that nothing is something is the basis of all mysticism.
            violate the 3rd law of logic (the law of the excluded middle) and you have the supernatural.
            that’s popper and all the others who perform intellectual mutilation.

            zero is nothing. the empty set has no members and no properties.

            care to try another?
            there is no such thing as truth.
            or how about:
            you can’t know anything because you can’t know everything (goedel perversion)

          • Isn’t the mathematical concept of zero an example of treating nothing as something, or at least as a placeholder?

            Of course, modern mathemagicians also treat an inherently unbounded value (infinity) as a bounded one. Set theory is weird.

          • >>
            Isn’t the mathematical concept of zero an example of treating nothing as something, or at least as a placeholder?
            <<

            Yet, there’s a place for it on the number line–along with all the other numbers.

            Jim

        • seventh grade … Mrs. Tracey.

          Jim wasn’t in our class, so we didn’t get it until Mrs. Tracey explained it.

        • Unfortunately, the algebra errors most often encountered outside elementary algebra classes aren’t that straightforward.

          For example, it would take most people quite a bit of time to determine why the third line of Christopher Monckton’s slide at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxcZ8LEm2A doesn’t really follow from the two previous ones.

          Or why his block diagram at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/did-official-climatology-know-its-predictions-were-nonsense/ doesn’t follow as he thought from the “Bode” equation.

          Even when significant sums of money are involved, most of us–and I include myself here–just don’t take the time to really dig into the math. It’s too hard.

  5. Correction

    Warmists (not skeptics) have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.

  6. “a liberal society largely rescinds from attempting to control the flow of information and the minds of its citizens”

    Funny, left leaning governments make it one of their primary goals to control information and through that, the minds of citizens.

    Just look at all the caterwauling on the left regarding fake news, and the need to “protect” people from it.

    • Look at the editorial board decision of the LAT to refuse to publish anything that contradicts CAGW / CCC. And the recent BBC decision that one doesn’t actually have to bring skeptics into a CAGW / CCC discussion to ensure balance.
      The LAT isn’t a government entity, but it sure is liberal. The BBC is a government entity, and liberal. Or are they progressive?
      Are two examples sufficient to contradict the hypothesis posed, “a liberal society largely rescinds from attempting to control the flow of information and the minds of its citizens”?

    • That’s of course “liberal” in the classic sense: open-minded, non-interventionist, laissez-faire…

      But in today’s United States (and to some extent, Canada), the term “Liberal” (pron. “LibRuuL”) refers to someone who likely self-describes as:
      – a “progressive”
      – a ‘social liberal’ (though this movement is increasingly becoming illiberal by means of fiat)
      – never Republican / Conservative (i.e., a Democrat / NDP / Liberal Party of Canada)
      – strongly in favor of quotas to achieve equality
      – embarrassed, even apologetic, for the crimes of W. Society (particularly if White)
      – a believer in the ‘moral’ argument for increased government intervention to correct society’s ills
      – anti-extraction industry
      – a Keynesian in matters of economics
      – intolerant of anyone opposing his/her views.

      So what used to be Liberal has joined forces with Leftist, including Extreme-Leftist causes (which most certainly contradict Liberalist principles).

      Luckily, the Average Joe / Jean is realizing that this path does not lead to a future which they would like to inhabit.

      • Funny: here in Canada, our left-wing party is called the New Democratic Party (NDP).

        Of course, it truly hasn’t been “new” for some decades, but hey, they still have all that letterhead.

        I do believe that the New Democratic Party in Sweden is quite right-wing.

        Oh, and we have something called a Progressive Conservative Party (at the provincial level). Can’t say Canadians aren’t willing to compromise.

    • MarkW,

      Interesting comment. It seems to me it is the right that so often calls the media fake news, thereby sowing distrust. Likewise, many skeptics assert that climate scientists are liars or incompetent, as you did in another comment. These are both perfect examples of controlling flow of information – no information can be communicated if it’s automatically deemed untrustworthy. Media bias leads to an ill-informed populace, but there is an enormous difference between bias (in which both sides engage), and lying. How can people evaluate truth from fiction if the assumption is that it’s all fiction? How can people inform themselves if they refuse to even consider those news stories that they don’t want to be true? It’s living in a dream world.

      It’s a problem for both the right and the left. Extreme partisanship is not good for the country since leads to a lack of conversation and compromise, so that no matter who is in office half the country will be angry. This just pushes people further apart, toward more extremism. It also leads to susceptibility to propaganda. History has shown the terrible results made possible by continuing down this path.

      • Kristi Silber: “It seems to me it is the right that so often calls the media fake news, thereby sowing distrust. Likewise, many skeptics assert that climate scientists are liars or incompetent, as you did in another comment. These are both perfect examples of controlling flow of information”

        If you say a Christopher Monckton post is bad math, is that “a perfect example of controlling flow of information”?

        I don’t think so. I think it’s performing a public service: alerting the public to error.

        Similarly, I’m not controlling information flow when I say it’s fake news for the Boston Globe to contend that 1/1024 to 1/64 Latin American blood vindicates Elizabeth Warren’s claim that she’s Cherokee.

        Nor is it controlling information flow for me to say there are logical lacunae in your statement that “There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation.”

        Now, it’s true that Anthony Watts controls information flow when he spikes proposed head posts that debunk Lord Monckton’s drivel. But at least he permits comments, which is better than what you see on alarmist sites. So, yes, there are problems on both sides. But they are much greater on the alarmist side.

        • Joe Born,

          I was thinking more about the endless cries of “fake news” from Trump. “BACK IN MAY, Lesley Stahl, a 27-year veteran of CBS’s “60 Minutes,” revealed that President Donald Trump once told her that he deliberately uses the phrase “fake news” to deflect from, and to “discredit,” negative media coverage of his presidency”

          The “fake news” slur has been taken up by people about completely legitimate stories. It has also been used by authoritarian leaders in other countries to discredit stories.

          “Nor is it controlling information flow for me to say there are logical lacunae in your statement that ‘There is no other factor that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing – not solar cycles, not long-term oceanic changes, not soot on the ice, not any other source of natural variation.’”

          >>Logical<< lacunae? How so? (True, you aren't controlling information flow.)

          There are non-skeptic sites that permit skeptic posts. skepticalscience.com does, for instance. They just don't like ad hominem and political posts. I don't know which ones you have in mind – I seldom visit "alarmist" sites.

          • And yet many main stream media stories are fake news, particularly in regards to Trump where they mischaracterize what he has said. Two examples (out of way too many to list here):

            1) “Trump mocks reporter’s disability”. Nope, he did no such thing. What Trump did was mock the reporter in the same way he mocked several other people (including himself during an interview with Larry King in 2005) with his “confused and bewildered” act. What’s more the motions of that act in no way resembled the reporter’s disability (which actually would prevent the reporter from making such motions as his disability limits the movement of joints, meaning if Trump was attempting to do what the fake news claimed, he was spectacularly failing at mocking the reporter’s disability)

            2) “Trump defends white-nationalist protestors”. Again, nope, he did no such thing. What he did was point out that there were violent people “on both sides” and that there were “fine people on both sides”of the issue (There were people there on the right and the left who had nothing to do with the extremists such as the misnamed Antifa on the far-left or white-nationalists on the far right who were engaging in all the turmoil and violence) and he specifically said he “condemn(s) in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence” but the fact that he did so “on both sides” sent the MSM into fits of fake news as they tried to spin what he said into something he didn’t and their insistence that one side was pure as the driven snow while the other side consisted of the devil incarnate.

            Every time they pull their fake news shenanigans, they discredit themselves even without Trump calling them on it.

  7. Another example of the lack of insight of the environmentally brainwashed. They don’t understand what the debate is about so they assume we are denying climate change – No. They assume certain beliefs are categorically proven facts without ever examining the underlying evidence or lack thereof. They assume those of us who are sceptical of the following haven’t examined the evidence supposedly supporting these assumptions:

    1. All rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (not possible if ocean’s wamred but maybe most is)
    2. CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary or sole cause of recent warming (not in any way likely – just an assumption tha comes from deliberately discounting every other known climate driver)
    3. A small warming from CO2 will cause a near double amount of warming from a rise in atmospheric water vapor (no evidecnce).
    4. The amount of warming and other climate changes to be expected is accurately reflected in non-validated climate models that to date get pretty much every prediction wrong.
    5. That the changes will be incontrovertibly bad for the the environment and human society (in spite of historical evidence that warm periods are better than cold).
    6. That CO2 can’t have any beneficial effects (in spite of strong evidence that it is doing just that in terms of enriching the biosphere and increasing agricultural yields).
    7. That natural cycles (solar, ocean, atmospheric etc. ) are not having any appreciable impact on climate trends (though they clearly were the only causes before industrial society).

    It is like the blind men examining the elephant. The one who has his head well up the animals rectum is convinced that an elephant is like a warm moist cave with a fragrant aroma of manure and anyone who denies it is clearly a republican anarchist with brain damage.

  8. Oh I think we can all agree the climate is changing alright but like Tim Blair I’m just waiting for the science to be settled before making up my mind-

  9. The problem with stupid is that the all think they are morally superior, so they join stupid mobs and demonstrate their stupidity by promoting stupid ideas.

  10. Well, since the bird had a yellow belly, a pointy beak, and was sitting on a fence post making meadowlark sounds, I’m going to guess that it was a meadowlark. Frank and Gita are both wrong.

    Now can we talk about whether it was a Western Meadowlark or an Eastern Meadowlark?

    Compromising on scientific observations is intellectual dishonesty at best, or something worse.

  11. Empathy

    We are all born with it.
    It is what makes for ‘Social Creatures’
    It requires quick-wit plus an agile and inventive mind

    It is thus destroyed through the long-term use of (especially) chemicals that depress our central nervous systems.

    Alcohol
    Cannabis
    Sugar not least

    Accompanied and exacerbated by a diet low in nutrient vital to brain/nervous function…
    Iodine especially
    Almost all of the B Vitamins
    Vitamin D
    General ill health brought on through a poor or damaged immune system, esp shortages of copper, potassium, selenium and chromium.
    Or, brain & nervous systems overly excited by nicotine, cocaine and caffeine.

    Global Climate Warming Change is *entirely* inside everyone’s heads, it a ghost, and the above list describes what put it there.

    • A lack of empathy brought on by chemicals that depress our central nervous systems, and exacerbated by chemicals that over excite nervous systems, sounds contradictory.

      I’ve seen no evidence Psychopathy, NPD, and similar disorders characterised by a lack of empathy have anything to do with diet. It’s usually attributed to emotional abuse of one form or another at an early age.

      • Lurker,

        It may not be the main driver of Psychopathy, but William Walsh (see his book Nutrient Power) and others have shown that nutrient imbalances and deficiencies (sometimes driven by diet or genetic factors) strongly influence behavior, particularly violent behavior which involves a lack of empathy. Peta may have overstated things a bit, but poor nutrition is likely a major and very underappreciated factor in mental health issues.

      • A lack of empathy brought on by chemicals that depress our central nervous systems, and exacerbated by chemicals that over excite nervous systems, sounds contradictory.

        I don’t think you are getting the point of the post. Perhaps it wasn’t worded clear enough for you (hence your seeing an apparent contradiction where none was meant). The point is that when the nutritional balance is thrown off – through chemicals that “depress our central nervous system” such as Alcohol, Cannabis or Sugar “Or, brain & nervous systems overly excited by nicotine, cocaine and caffeine”. It’s an “or” not an “and”.

        • thanks John & Superchunk, I missed the point by tunnel visioning on a more clinical diagnosis regarding lack of empathy, rather than viewing it in a transient sense.

    • According to my better half, empathy is not innate; children must be taught empathy. Sympathy seems to be innate, or at least developed early in life. From the OxfordWords blog: “Empathy means ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’… whereas sympathy means ‘feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune’…”

      Empathy is one of the basic foundations of the Judeo-Christian moral system and is also taught as a part of many other religions. The fact that it must be taught tells me that if you’re not raised in a religious environment, or historical religious environment, where it is taught in early childhood, you are left only with sympathy for the plight of others. In that it is easy to place yourself above everyone else and to look down on others as your inferiors. It is then only a small step from there to the attitude held by many in New York, D.C. and on the Left Coast of a “flyover country”, where the people are too ignorant to care for themselves much less the country, and therefore incapable of governing themselves. They thus require proper guidance and control by a government run by the ‘enlightened’.

      • Interesting post, Joe. It makes a lot of sense.

        Empathy versus Sympathy

        The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have others treat you. That would require empathy.

        We need to teach the Golden Rule more. It’s what makes a peaceful society.

        Of course, there is a certain percentage of society (about 10 percent) that does not feel empathy towards others. But, teaching the Golden Rule to them probably wouldn’t hurt them, although they probably wouldn’t learn anythng. We’ll probably have to lock them up eventually..

      • Joe Crawford,

        While it’s true that children can be taught empathy, there does appear to be at least some level of innate empathy. Multiple lines of research has been done on pre-verbal infants suggesting this is the case. Day-to-day experience with babies also suggests this could be the case: they often get upset when caregivers or other babies cry, for instance.

        Even research on rats suggest they show empathy.

        I think there may be a TED talk on this, though I read about it first in books.

        Some suggest that adults can be taught to empathize better, though it’s true that some don’t have the capacity but instead learn to mimic it.

  12. Frank and Gita are in the garden. They see a bird and Frank believes it is a finch. Standing beside him Gita sees the same bird and she is confident it is a dodo.
    Frank, being a student of Kappel immediately became less confident of his judgement and was overcome with humility and open mindedness. ‘Yes, I begin to see it now. It’s actually 100 times bigger than I first thought and it has a funny shaped beak rather than the straight one I initially perceived.’

    ‘Good. we don’t like dodo deniers around here’

    • EO,

      Continuing the Frank and Gita story, with your permission:

      And then at that point “Gita” stands back and ‘takes a leak’ whence Frank replies that he thought Gita said “she” was a woman. At that point Frank tells Gita that “she” is the dodo because “she” doesn’t even know a man from a woman. Gita replies “it is what I say it is and you don’t understand what I have in my hand or in my mind. You are a bigot and a denier!” Frank is soon arrested for his observations and speech and must undergo re-education!

      But secretly Frank remains steadfast in his opinion even after release from jail and re-education!

  13. As the political philosopher John Rawls noted in Political Liberalism (1993), a liberal society largely rescinds from attempting to control the flow of information and the minds of its citizens.

    ROFLMAO! Attempting to control info & minds is EXACTLY what they specialize in. Been doing it for the past century.

    • Classic liberalism was exactly that but the word was appropriated by leftists in the mid 20th century. In 1993 Rawls certainly knew that but was intentionally conflating the two definitions for his own purposes. In other words, he was prevaricating, i’.e., lying.

    • for a couple of thousands of years-
      ever since the desert nomads figured out animal husbandry
      and applied it to each other.

  14. Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment.

    How could I have possibly missed this opportunity?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y

    I think I’ll add it to the post.

  15. Frank says that the bird he sees there is unprecedented as no bird like that has ever been here before. But Gita says that a bird that looked just like that one was here a week ago and is ignored by Frank.

    That where most of the disagreements are. It has all happened before and until you explain why it happened before but why this time is different then blaming CO2 is BS.

    • “That where most of the disagreements are. It has all happened before and until you explain why it happened before but why this time is different then blaming CO2 is BS.”

      Mkelly nails it.
      The correct scientific viewpoint is that Mother Nature has caused any and all changes to the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise.

      It was hotter in the past, there were more frequent tornados and hurricanes in the past, and more floods and droughts in the past than there are today. Nothing new to see here. And all this took place before CO2 was a factor. So, as Mkelly says, why is this time different? Why isn’t it Mother Nature who is causing our current warming? She did it before, and she can do it again, without the aid of CO2.

      It has to be Mother Nature that directs the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise, and it has not been proven otherwise to date.

  16. I will continue to point out that while the climate alarmists use a number of lies and very faulty logic this continues to be a ridiculous charade and smokescreen for the real issue of a UN world governing body and the greedy power hungry followers (such as the current- treasonous in my opinion, PM of Canada).
    Let’s not get bogged down in their ridiculous arguments and let’s keep in sight their real goal to ensure they never succeed.

  17. One problem is language being used as a weapon. For an example outside of the climate argument consider the issue of race based college admissions. I don’t want to incite a discussion of that. Only to point out the abuse of language. To correct what many saw as the need to redress previous racism, the concept of “affirmative action” was created with the aim to aid African-Americans in being able to attend college. Many people, myself included, consider racial quotas to be abhorrent for whatever reason while supporting the general concept of helping disadvantaged groups to gain a higher education (affirmative action). When pointing out that racial quotas are wrong, we are attacked by claiming we are against affirmative action. Notice the trick. You disagree about something specific and you are attacked by using another term that does not mean the same.

    Same thing is true in the climate debate. We’ve lost control of the language being used. We are talking about catastrophic CO2 induced global warming but we are condemned as climate change deniers or even just climate deniers. And notice how the terms being used become more general. Originally, it was catastrophic anthropogenic global warming(CAGW), then anthropogenic global warming, then just global warming, then they switched to climate change. Each time they used a more generic term while hiding the fact that they were really talking about CO2 induced AGW. Any wonder that the people who haven’t looked at the evidence that counters there ideology don’t understand the scam that’s going on.

    I would guarantee you that Kappel has never listened to the details of the climate skeptic arguments, accepted authority over facts and has been blinded in part because of the use of language as a weapon.

  18. Ok, the filters don’t like my example. Here’s another take:

    One problem is language being used as a weapon. We’ve lost control of the language being used. We are talking about catastrophic CO2 induced global warming but we are condemned as climate change deniers or even just climate deniers. And notice how the terms being used become more general. Originally, it was catastrophic anthropogenic global warming(CAGW), then anthropogenic global warming, then just global warming, then they switched to climate change. Each time they used a more generic term while hiding the fact that they were really talking about CO2 induced AGW. Any wonder that the people who haven’t looked at the evidence that counters there ideology don’t understand the scam that’s going on. Notice the trick. You disagree about something specific and you are attacked by using another term that does not mean the same.

    I would guarantee you that Kappel has never listened to the details of the climate skeptic arguments, accepted authority over facts and has been blinded in part because of the use of language as a weapon.

    • Moderator, could you remove this one? I edited it from the previous comment because I thought it had been rejected because of my affirmative action example.

  19. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing and global average temperatures are increasing, therefore carbon dioxide is causing global warming. This is an unfalsifiable conjecture. Case closed.

    • Global average temperature is (if even a valid or useful metric) increasing (or at least has been increasing) and CO2 levels are increasing, therefore the increase in temperature is causing the CO2 levels to rise. A more valid conclusion since at least it is supported by both experiments and paleoclimate history, unlike the “CO2 drives temperature” meme which is just hypothetical BS.

  20. Is computer modelling factual? For that matter is it science? Being skeptical of a computer model is not denying science, since it isn’t science

  21. Since the good Dr. Kappel is so concerned about the epistemology of disagreements, a question. Take these two guys arguing over baseball, serious, not mere birds. Do they disagee on fact ?

    Abbott: You throw the ball to first base.
    Costello: Then who gets it?
    Abbott: Naturally.
    Costello: Naturally.
    Abbott: Now you’ve got it.
    Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
    Abbott: You don’t! You throw it to Who!
    Costello: Naturally.
    Abbott: Well, that’s it—say it that way.
    Costello: That’s what I said.
    Abbott: You did not.
    Costello: I said I throw the ball to Naturally.
    Abbott: You don’t! You throw it to Who!
    Costello: Naturally.
    —–
    Naturally I don’t know Who the pitcher is and don’t give a darn.

    • A rip-off of one of Charles Dodgson’s earlier lines:

      …“Who did you pass on the road?” the King went on, holding out his hand to the Messenger for some more hay.
      “Nobody,” said the Messenger.
      “Quite right,” said the King; “this young lady saw him too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you.”
      “I do my best,” the Messenger said in a sullen tone. “I’m sure nobody walks much faster than I do!”
      “He can’t do that,” said the King, “or else he’d have been here first.”…

      C Dodgson (writing as Lewis Caroll) – Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There 1872

      • There have been violent disagreement about the meaning of Goedels shattering refutation of Russell’s program – This Statement is False.
        These “epistemologicians” are not interested in the content, rather the debate, as if knowable pursuit of truth is outmoded as impossible, an out of date belief. Look at Kappel’s other writings, especially political philosophy.

    • Naturally I don’t know Who the pitcher is and don’t give a darn.

      Oh, that’s our shortstop!

  22. Of course climate changes, often and to a significant degree. It was that well known fact that brought me to this site (and others) years ago. Speaking of facts, there are the following:
    1. About 20KY ago the upper East side (and most of Canada and the Northern US) were underneath a KM or more of ice. All gone now.
    2. About 2KY ago the Romans were establishing vineyards in England. Barely possible now with certain varieties. In North America and parts of Europe ice retreated and tree lines advanced to areas above the current retreating glaciers, which are revealing tree stumps and archaeological sites as they retreat.
    3. About 1KY ago the Norse were farming Greenland. Only barely possible again now and the melting ice there is revealing old Norse villages that were once farming communities.
    4. Less than 1KY ago the Norse were forced out of Greenland by cold and ice. At about the same time Glaciers in the Alps were advancing and destroying villages that had been established in the previous 1000 years. This is recorded history. One poignant side note is the account of the village priest that walked up to the base of the glacier advancing on his village to exorcise the demons from the ice. It didn’t work, his village was scrubbed into oblivion by the ice.
    5. Only a few hundred years ago the Thames froze hard enough to support horses and riders. Something very rare since.
    6. About 240 years ago one of my ancestors marched up to Fort Ticonderoga and captured the cannon there from the British and sledged them to Boston across frozen rivers. By many accounts some of those rivers seldom, if ever, froze thick enough to support the weight of 18th century cannon again until the cold snap of the 1970’s.

    If this Kappel wants to talk about facts, lets include proven, written history and solid paleo data that totally and completely destroys the Mann flat-line until now hockey stick. And speaking of Straw men and Ray Bolger’s scarecrow part in “The Wizard of Oz” How about this line for Kappel as sung by Judy Garland:
    “With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’ you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain….”

    • Thanks David, your isolation of the “key passage” says it all…

      “Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.”

      That so many of our academic, media and political elites have no idea, or pretend to have no idea what the skeptic argument actually is, is what?….human nature?

      We all know there is a GHG effect….so what, its “estimated” in tenths of a degree. It doesn’t even register on our outdoor thermometers.

      I wish these people would just go away.

  23. All that is a distraction even if you took a giant leap and said that Climate Scientists actually had everything right they are not physicist, engineers or economists to be able to do assessments and viability of a solution.

    If you follow there own argument about needing to be qualified to argue on a field, they aren’t qualified to speak on fields they have no qualifications in.

    Hence almost all Climate Scientists are not acting as scientists they are activists with an agenda, it was a point that even Trump made in his interview.

    Emission controls was never going to work I think everyone knew that from the outset, the left just hijacked the idea to try and get some social justice outcomes.

  24. I think there are some interesting research opportunities into the usage rate of strawman argumentation, such as testing positive correlations with the big push for new revenue for political power, courtroom presentations, and media advocacy efforts.

  25. It doesn’t matter what “Scientists” believe, especially so-called “Climate Scientists.” What matters is what they can prove or disprove.

    Null hypothesis: all the extremely poorly documented change in Global Average Surface Temperature since (insert year here, 1850, 1880, 1600, 1950, etc…) is due to natural variability, not CO2.

    Prove otherwise, gain entrance to the CAGW Hall of Fame…

    • Until the so called climate scientists can prove that whatever caused previous warm periods is not responsible for the modern warm period, the claim that CO2 done it, doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

  26. What facts?

    The cult of CAGW shutdown all open scientific discussion at all scientific sites and on all news channels.

    The facts do not support CAGW.
    The facts do not support AGW.

    The recent warming is not exceptional. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record.

    The pattern of recent warming (last 40 years) verses CO2 changes does not support the assertion that the recent CO2 rise caused the warming. This assertion is supported by the pause in temperature rise.

    Atmospheric CO2 changes do not correlate to temperature changes in the deep paleo record.

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

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

    The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative. Marginal radiative forcing (DRFCO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, was computed using MODTRAN.

    The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between DRFCO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative. Spectral analysis, auto and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO2 concentration and DRFCO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO2 and DRFCO2 are antiphasic. A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO2, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies.

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

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

      Ditto for the recent climate – unless future CO2 controls past temperature, AGW isn’t plausible:

      https://i.postimg.cc/yxvS1wg8/12mo-CO2-lags-Had-SST3.jpg

      Warmists defend AGW against this fact by illogically rationalizing with a ‘carbon budget’.

      The climate controls CO2, not the other way around.

      • Bob Weber,

        Interesting idea. But carbon isotope ratios make it possible to identify whether the CO2 in the atmosphere (and ocean, and carbon in plants) comes from fossil fuels.

        Besides,

        “If heating oceans were the source of the CO2 in today’s atmosphere, we could expect a historical trend of dropping CO2 concentrations in the oceans, yet we see the exact opposite – CO2 concentrations in the ocean have increased even as their temperature has risen, driving down ocean pH (making it more acidic) and will continue to do so (source: Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology, NOAA). In addition, if a hotter ocean were the source of CO2, oxygen would be coming out of solution as well, yet the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is actually decreasing, not increasing”

        https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m2

        You might want to peruse the page. Some interesting arguments.

    • William Astley,

      Well, that’s one paper.

      Another paper takes a different approach, looking at the various proxies in more detail, and developing an association between glaciation and CO2 levels.

      Conclusions reached:
      “1. Proxy estimates of paleo-CO2 agree, within modeling errors,
      with GEOCARB model results.
      2. There is a good correlation between low levels of atmospheric
      CO2 and the presence of well-documented, long-lived,
      and aerially extensive continental glaciations
      3. The uncorrected Veizer temperature curve predicts long
      periods of intense global cooling that do not agree with independent
      observations of paleoclimate, especially during the
      Mesozoic. When corrected for pH effects, however, the temperature
      curve matches the glacial record much better. [This is relevant to the study you cited, but only briefly mentioned.]
      4. The global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray
      flux model of Shaviv and Veizer (2003) do not correlate in amplitude
      with the temperatures recorded by Veizer et al. (2000)
      when corrected for past changes in oceanic pH. Additional
      problems with this correction have been shown by Rahmstaff
      et al.(2004). Changes in cosmic ray flux may affect climate but
      they are not the dominant climate driver on a multimillionyear
      time scale.”

      It seems to me that looking for simple, direct correlations between CO2 and temperature over the time period of 100s of millions of years is bound to have problems. Even with several thousand proxy records, looking directly at temperature over that time frame runs into problems of lack of data; doing linear interpolations from one data point to the next could be hiding much important information or including data that are not representative of the time as a whole. Aerial glacier extent, on the other hand, might tend to “average” short-term temperature changes, eliminating noise in the record that would tend to obscure correlations.

      I don’t really know, this is simply hypothesizing. At any rate, I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude from a study finding no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Phanerozoic that the association does not exist today.

      You suggest, “Atmospheric CO2 changes do not correlate to temperature changes in the deep paleo record.”

      There are many possible reasons why a null hypothesis might not be rejected; failure to do so does not confirm that the association doesn’t exist.

      “The pattern of recent warming (last 40 years) verses CO2 changes does not support the assertion that the recent CO2 rise caused the warming. This assertion is supported by the pause in temperature rise.”

      I don’t think this is good reasoning. The fact that CO2 and temperature are not perfectly correlated only suggests that there are other factors besides CO2 that influence climate, which no one denies. They are still correlated, especially when other factors (e.g., aerosols, volcanic eruptions, the 11 year solar cycle, el Nino events) are also taken into consideration. The combination of observational data and underlying theory are strong support for the idea that CO2 is a driver in most (but not all) the climate change of the last 50+ years.

  27. Warmunists excel in calling a spade a watermelon, and if you disagree, you’re a fruit and vegetable denayer.

  28. The birds example seems to be a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either one is competent at identifying birds or one is not. If one is competent that one can be confident in the identification and should not question it because someone disagrees. If one is not competent then one should not be confident in the identification. But in his example there are 2 people who are both confident, but at least one of them is wrong. The one(s) who are wrong are illustrating the Dunning–Kruger effect.

    What I would do is ask the other person to describe the bird, if their description does not match what I am seeing, then we are looking at different birds. If it does, then I can point out that the species they say it is does not have the features they have just described.

  29. If he is right then the way to tell who has baffled themselves would be to look at if they are willing to debate with their opponents.

    The True Believers refuse to debate on the science. They say it wouldn’t help them but it would help the Sceptics .
    (They are right. The Sceptics always win on the science.)

    The Sceptics are eager to debate. So he is actually arguing against his own position.

  30. When they tell me that the finch just killed and ate a housecat because they saw the finch sitting on a dead housecat, I must conclude “You keep using that word (fact). I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  31. ‘Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority”[…]

    s/climate change/$1/g

    communism, veganism, evangelism, *slam, little endianism – whatever your ideology, others are just wrong and question the right authorities. So? How do you base your finchism for real? Hint. If it’s an ideology, you don’t.

    • “little endianism” !! Love it, haven’t seen that term in ages. Thanks for a good laugh.

  32. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.

    I’d say the ones insulating themselves from any evidence would be the ones who refuse to debate. Since Skeptics are eager to debate where as the alarmists insist that the “science is settled” at that there is nothing to gain from debating skeptics, it’s the alarmist, not the skeptics that are insulating themselves.

  33. ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’

    Then the ‘finch’ picks up the cat and flies off.

    Still think it’s finch says Gita.

    I have just written a computer program to prove that it was says Frank.

  34. This fellow’s credentials proclaims that he is an expert on “media cognition”. Based on the article, such authorities appear to base their understanding of reality on strawmen that have been constructed to reinforce their prejudices, while obscuring evidence that might be the source of some dissonance if properly understood. One must wonder what benefit can accrue from mastering “media cognition”, if this a representative sample of its work product.

  35. Dreamer: I support all policy vehicles which would reduce climate related disasters.
    Denier: How much will it cost?
    Dreamer: I’m not sure but probably quite a lot.
    Denier: How are you going to know the positive effects of each policy?
    Dreamer: There will be less climate related disasters.
    Denier: How are you going to measure that?
    Dreamer:
    Denier: How long will it take to know this?
    Dreamer:

    • Dreamer: I support all policy vehicles which would reduce climate related disasters.
      Denier: How much will it cost?
      Dreamer: I’m not sure but probably quite a lot.
      Denier: How are you going to know the positive effects of each policy?
      Dreamer: There will be less climate related disasters.
      Denier: How are you going to measure that?
      Dreamer: IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
      Denier: How long will it take to know this?
      Dreamer: WHY DO YOU HATE THE ENVIRONMENT, WANT TO DESTROY THE PLANET AND POISON THE POOR AND PEOPLE OF COLOR?!?!?!?

  36. There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts

    This assumes that said facts ARE, in fact, facts. Otherwise, disagreement begins PRECISELY when a false fact is stated.

    HOW … is a fact a fact ?
    WHO … says a fact is a fact ?

    One must question the sources and methods of establishing what others might call “facts”. One must consider counter arguments to facts. One must use common sense and individual intelligence to assess the logical consistency of a fact.

    There is ALWAYS middle ground to question facts. And when enough middle ground is claimed, then it becomes the higher ground of reason that separates fake facts from legitimate facts.

    • There are facts, and then there are interpretations about those facts. Alarmists tend to confuse the two and insist the later is the former.

      • For example, ‘likely between 1.5K and 4.5K’ does not mean a ‘renewable’ mandate is 1) needed 2) effective 3) most efficient solution. Ideology makes people buy expensive non-solutions.

        Or Paris treaty did not mean there ever was anything efficient set up from Obama’s half.

        Fact is, world emissions per capita are growing, US emissions are going down. Germany has messed up. Now you may disagree based on your ideology, but … these are still facts.

        • Fact is Paris was not a Treaty, never signed off by the Senate. It was also not 1/2 or a 1/3 of a Treaty, nor a Treaty in an asymtotic limit (we’re kinda gettin’ there logic). Trump is not fooled by maths.

    • Never seen a SJW interested in arithmetics. Take an average thesis mentioning ‘white supremacy’ and note the algebra is not really at the level science majors do.

      Then they start educating me, a science denier for telling them a Chinese solar panel will not dent their emissions. They’re saving the children and ‘doing something’.

  37. Show of hands ….

    How many of our fellow AGW skeptics have actually been asked by Kappel why they are skeptic?

    Occam’s razor tells me: probably none. Because if he had asked only one, he would have realised that on this matter he is out of his depth. Making bold assertions on hearsay is not good for your CV.

  38. …. Well, if a million dollar grant subsidy hung on whether the bird was a sparrow….. Then it would be bluddy sparrow even if it were a raven. 😉

    ….. and that is pretty much the thinking of the entire Scientific Political Complex at the moment.

    • It is difficult to get a man to understand something recognize it’s a finch, when his salary depends on his not understanding it insisting it’s a sparrow.

  39. Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment.

    no they shouldn’t. What they should do is attempt to methodically ascertain which it is. For example, get out their smartphones and take a picture so that they can compare it with pictures of finches and sparrows (and other birds, in case it turns out it was neither of those two types of birds) to determine which it is.

    The choices are: one is right and the other is wrong, or both were wrong and it was some other type of bird (an unladen African swallow perhaps – cue Monty Python sketch) and which the case maybe can be determined by looking at facts rather than their opinions about the facts. And that’s what this article boils down to, the author is confusing facts with opinions about the facts.

  40. Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement.

    Klemens sees his elbow in the mirror and believes it’s his ass. Standing beside him, Gita also sees his elbow, but she’s confident it’s his elbow.

    What response should we expect from Klemens and Gita? If Klemens response were: ‘Well, I know it’s my ass, so you must be wrong, then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him.

    The same does not hold true for Gita, of course. Instead, Gita (and everyone that comes into contact with Klemens) should let him know that he does not know his ass from his elbow; And as such they should become less confident in all aspects of Klemens’ judgment.

  41. David, an important factor not listed by you, but possibly inferred in your “all other factors held equal”, is the earth climate system’s reactions to heating that are countered by several agents. For example, a high climate sensitivity (which certainly isn’t in evidence) could be possible, yet show no effect because of factors resisting warming, like modulation by clouds, strong convection/thunderstorms that send warm air “up the chimney” by-passing CO2 in the lower atmosphere and exposing heat in the air to more ready radiation to space, plus the enthalpy changes of state to water, endothermic sequestration of “heat” in new greenery of the “Great Greening^TM” (BTW a better case for a new epoch in the making with expansion of habitat, diversity, blah blah).

    • That’s exactly what I meant by “all other factors held equal”… Nature doesn’t work that way.

  42. I think Mr. Middleton totally misses the point. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a genuine debate with a pathological liar. The AGW ‘debate’ is not between two sides that disagree, it’s a battle between seekers of truth and masters of deception, with the highest stakes – literally the lives of all humanity. And the ‘useful idiots’ who Truly Believe and fight many of the battles, have a bottomless capacity for denial of facts and logic and the full support of a Scientific Establishment that supplies them with endless reams of baffling bulls^it. AGW debate is FUTILE and too many skeptics are as much in denial as True Believers, refusing to see the Monster puppeteer pulling the strings. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” and futile debate amounts to NOTHING.

    • They’re either pathological liars or logically inept… I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt… 😉

    • Linda,

      Your ideology is showing.

      My Master’s is in ecology and evolution, not deception. You may wish to think I (for instance) am a liar, but your wishes do not make it so. There can be no debate if one side thinks the other is lying, for the first side (yours) will never ever able to discern what is fact and what is lies; you have decided beforehand.

      One can never approach truth with a closed mind and without the humility to admit one might be wrong. You see a sparrow, and the other person is lying about what she sees, even if she’s an ornithologist with binoculars who has written 34 papers about finch anatomy and taxonomy.

      There is no Monster puppeteer pulling strings, there are many people pulling strings on both sides of the debate. If you can’t see that, you could see a turkey and be certain it’s a sparrow.

      To me it looks like a finch, but I am not an ornithologist and my vision isn’t perfect.

      • It’s hard to tell if you are a liar, or merely seriously deluded.
        The data doesn’t show what you want it to show. Never has.

        The data shows that there has been a very mild warming of about 0.7C since the end of the little ice age.
        The data shows that the modern warm period is still cooler than the medieval warm period, which was cooler than the Roman warm period, with was cooler than the Minoan warm period and so on.
        In fact the data shows that the current temperatures are cooler than about 90% of the last 10K years.
        CO2 caused none of this previous warmth, so why are you so convinced that CO2 is causing most of the current warming?

        A review of the climate network (ground based sensors found the system to be seriously flawed, contaminated by both micro and macro issues, not to mention undocumented station moves and equipment changes.
        Beyond that, prior to the early 70’s, data was recorded by thermometers that were marked in 1 degree increments, and had to be read by eye (meaning if the head wasn’t positioned properly, parallax would occur. Bet you have to look that up.) Also only the high and low for the day was recorded. Anyone who thinks you can figure out what the average was to within a tenth of a degree using that data is seriously deluded, but that is what the so called climate scientists claim?
        Beyond that, prior to the use of satellites, less than 5% of the planet’s surface was adequately sensored. The rest of the planet was virtually unmeasured.

        So Kristi, which is it. The claim to be able to tell the temperature of the earth 100 years ago to an accuracy of 0.1C is nonsensical.

        So are your precious climate scientists totally incompetent, or merely bad liars?

        • @MarkW,
          Seems you are being really hard on Kristi.
          Kristi didn’t say any of the things you said were said.
          Care to try again ?

          • u.k.(us),

            Oh, I’m used to MarkW’s fantasies. He has his own ideology, which for some reason includes me.

            Thanks for the comment, though. I appreciate it.

      • My Master’s is in ecology and evolution, not deception.

        what your degree is in is irrelevant to whether or not you practice deception (or are merely deluded). You don’t need a master’s degree to be a very skilled at (IE “a master of”) deception. Either you already knew that (and thus proving that you are a deceiver) or you didn’t (and thus proving you are ignorant). Which is it?

        • One’s degrees are also irrelevant, or should be.

          Either one practices the scientific method, or one doesn’t. Either one can defend one’s position with data, ie valid observations of nature, ie factual evidence and proper inductive or deductive reasoning therefrom, or one can’t.

    • Hi Linda!
      i know that you know that what you say will not be useful for anything except finding out if somebody else gets it.
      Yatta!
      come trolling on liveleak! the NPCs are good for the lulz!
      it’s target rich- easy pickins- just say TRUMP and they dance like burning spastics.
      you get to see the latest pathetic attempts at propaganda and demoralize the novices before they go pro.

    • here’s the truth, linda-
      a normal human has no concept of evil until he has see it openly acting.
      but the creatures don’t do their work in the open.
      so mr middleton is too innocently generous to grasp the nature of the beast.
      markw also has no clue.
      if you want to see what it really takes for somebody to come to grips with the nature of evil- watch the dan pearl beheading. he started out convinced he could hug and cumbaya. the character development in the vid is breathtaking. he finally got a frightening glimpse of his own stupidity.
      then he tried appeasement. those delusions fell. finally reality set in.

    • Linda G,

      I disagree that “futile debate amounts to nothing.”

      If it’s an endurance contest between rationality and stupidity, then so be it. Every stupid claim needs to be met with a rational claim, … over and over, and over again. Now that we accept what the situation is, then let us proceed to dig in and meet every single stupid claim with its opposite. At worst, we might maintain a balance.

      There is not a group of words that will change someone’s mind. But there might be a level of dogged persistence in using words that makes an unchanged mind take greater notice of the fact that his/her perspective will NEVER be fully established.

  43. This claim is made in the main article:

    “The average surface temperature of the Earth has been generally rising since at least 1850, probably since the 1600’s.”

    I agree with the first half, but the second half is suspect.

    Glaciers (primarily N. Hemisphere) most definitely grew until approx. 1850 (recognized as the peak glacial extent of the Little Ice Age). From 1600-1850, from what I’ve seen, the decadal temperature trend was falling, not rising. Most certainly, most Alpine Glaciers of Switzerland, France, Austria and Italy were growing considerably. Perhaps there is a 10-15 y lag between surface temperature anomaly changes and glacier growth / shrinking, but not 2.5 centuries.

    Of course, the mass trend of glaciers depends both on winter snowfall and on summer insolation. The first needs to be positive and the second negative (compared with previous trends) to incite growth, whereas the opposite needs to transpire (overall) for shrinkage.

    But the 20th & 21st centuries are not bucking the long-term trend of glacier retreat, though we still have a ways to go before matching the glacier retreat of the early- to mid-Holocene.

    Entrenched Climate Scientists know this, yet they are rather quiet about these facts when “selling” their Climate Pitch to the general public. This is sleight of hand, pure and simple.

    • Kurt,

      The coldest decade of the LIA was the 1690s, during the depths of the Maunder Minimum, at least in western Europe.

      As you know, alpine glaciers advanced scarily in the 17th century, to which the cold contributed. Glacial advance and retreat isn’t entirely controlled by ambient air temperature, however.

      Coming out of the Maunder Minimum in the early 18th century, Earth warmed rapidly for decades, then suffered another cold cycle, followed by mild warming, followed by the Dalton Minimum around the turn of the 18th to 19th century.

      • It varies from different reconstructions; but pretty-well all of the non-hockey stick reconstructions put the coldest phase of the LIA in the 1600’s.

    • Neoglaciation definitely continued beyond the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age (ca 1650-1690). I don’t think it warmed up enough before ca 1850 to reverse the trend of increasing glacial mass balance.

  44. Give me a photo of that finch/sparrow, and I will finesse the data to prove (97% confidence) it is a chickadee.

  45. “Frank sees a finch, Gita sees a sparrow.”

    Try “Frank sees a finch. Gita doubts it’s a finch.”

    To cast skeptics as deniers is deny their doubt. That’s why atheists are also called deniers. To cast atheists as “denying the existence of God” is to assert the existence of “god” as a fact.
    Alarmists have a belief. Deniers have a belief. Skeptics lack belief.

    • Try “Frank sees what he wants to see. Gita is aware of Frank’s character & intellectual honesty and believes that the likelihood that Frank is being completely honest or competent is very low.

      Gita sees a bird … and once it starts flying Gita knows, without a doubt, that it is likely a sparrow by the way it moves. Frank gets either an emotional or monetary boost when he sees finches, and even if it flies 80 mph he will still believe that it is reasonable to claim he saw a finch.

      Alarmists have some sort of a belief.
      Deniers react to the Alarmist.
      Skeptics think, learn, & then react.

    • “Alarmists have a belief. Deniers have a belief. Skeptics lack belief.”

      This^

      Seriously, its like religion: believers have a believe (duh!). Atheists have a belief. Agnostics lack belief.

    • Oddly enough, many atheists claim to lack belief.

      I think skeptics can have provisional beliefs after going through the process of learning and questioning – but they will always allow for the fact that their beliefs might be wrong, if more or better evidence is offered to show this is the case. This is the underpinnings of the scientific philosophy.

      Skepticism does not simply dismiss those ideas that seem disagreeable.

      • Again you are deceptive by doing the very thing you project on to others: dismiss those ideas you disagree with. Skeptics do not “simply dismiss those ideas that seem disagreeable.” They’re disagreeing with an idea that the evidence does not support. we’ve had 30+ years of failed predictions for your fellow travelers, yet you defend the failed and falsified nonsense and dismiss those that disagree as not being true skeptics because they don’t drink your kool-aid. you are fooling no one.

        • John Endicott,

          Again you are not reading well. I didn’t say “skeptics,” I said “skepticism.” Not very good grammar, but it’s a very different thing to talk about skepticism in a general sense versus “(C)AGW skeptics.”

          It’s also different to dismiss ideas that seem disagreeable vs. dismissing ideas one disagrees with. The first depends on something “seeming” to be disagreeable (i.e., reacting to it with emotion), the second could mean evaluating something, disagreeing with it, then dismissing the idea.

          You haven’t had 30+ years to evaluate many of the “predictions” unless you dismiss all the science that has happened since. Nor do you seem to understand that climate scientists evaluate model projections differently from you and that there are varying degrees of confidence and likelihood associated with the projections. Furthermore, it is no surprise to modelers that the models are not completely accurate; that doesn’t mean they are failures overall. They are works in progress, and some of the projections have been reasonably good considering the difficulty of trying to project future climate trends. Just the fact that they can run a simulation that shows cyclones as emergent properties (not programmed, not a part of the data, but appearing as a function of the simulation) suggests they are doing something quite remarkable, in my opinion.

          If in your opinion they are failures, fine. You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to disagree.

          I’m not trying to fool anyone, but if you jump to conclusions about what I mean without even trying to understand it, you are only fooling yourself.

          You might as well give up trying to insult me. If others want to see what you do, they will anyway. I really don’t care about your opinion of me; you have given me no reason to value it.

  46. I saw an endangered finch. No you didn’t, it was a sparrow, which is common around here.

    No, it was definitely something endangered, so you have to stop using your land and convert it into a bird sanctuary, for which you get payed nothing. Oh, and you have to pay me very large consulting fees on how to stop using your land for productive purposes.

    It’s almost impossible to convince someone of something when their income is on the line to prove the opposite.

  47. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow.

    This isn’t deep disagreement as the author uses the phrase. One or both of them is wrong. There is no middle ground. A bird book in the house, or look through google for a bird that looks like the one you spotted would resolve the matter.

    This has nothing to do with Global Warming, or CAGW, because this is all about future catastrophe, which requires belief that catastrophe will happen. There is no catastrophe happening now, therefor there is no right or wrong answer right now.

    The evidence that he believes is evidence, is not evidence of catastrophe. It is only evidence that CO2 has risen, and perhaps the average temperature of the world has risen. What effect both of these have, is yet to be known. They may have very little to no effect at all.

    He’s simply upset that he believes it’s true, and can’t understand why everyone doesn’t believe as he does. End of story. Everything else he states is simply waffle to justify his being right and everyone else being wrong.

    • Greg wrote: “This has nothing to do with Global Warming, or CAGW, because this is all about future catastrophe, which requires belief that catastrophe will happen. There is no catastrophe happening now, therefore there is no right or wrong answer right now.”

      Dubious analogy. If someone has jumped out of an airplane without a parachute and is falling, according to you this situation is “all about a future catastrophe” and “there is no right or wrong answer right now”. According to you the “only evidence is that the person has begun to descend (but not at a dangerous rate). “Perhaps” that rate of descent will accelerate, but it is debatable whether the fall will end in catastrophe. Isn’t it? You might counter that the law of gravity is certain to apply and the consensus can answer that the laws of quantum mechanics, radiation transfer and conservation of energy apply to our climate system. Warming is as inevitable as the falling person hitting the surface.

      What is missing from any discussion of both situations is QUANTITATIVE information. How high is the airplane above the ground or perhaps a lake??? The plane could be parked on a runway. How much warming is likely. What would constitute a catastrophe? The IPCC is projecting 4 degC or more; 2/3rds as much change as the difference between a glacial and interglacial. That change caused 120 m of sea level rise. On the other hand, we have already experienced about 1 degC of warming (which economists agree was beneficial) and nearly a foot of SLR (which is unnoticed). As Lindzen points out, this is a subject that shouldn’t be discussed without quantification.

  48. ‘Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?’

    I deny that there is a climate.

    There are many.

    The climate in the Sahel is changing. No where else on earth. So, yeah, I deny climate change. In fact, I declare “climate change” to be meaningless nonsense. Real scientists should not use the term.

  49. “Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence”

    No, we dismiss irrelevant methods and evidence.

    • No, we dismiss irrelevant methods and evidence.

      or more precisely: we dismiss irrelevant methods and lack of evidence

  50. “A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.”

    Who are “relevant scientists”? Where does this statistic come from?

    “Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
    Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
    This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.”

    How so, since the question underlying the “97% consensus” doesn’t have anything to do with the other assertions? Just because estimates are variable doesn’t make them equally credible.

    “Where do real the disagreements lie?
    How modern climate change relates the natural variability of the rest of the Holocene Epoch.
    The degree to which human activities have contributed, are contributing and will contribute to climate change.
    The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
    Whether or not any negative climatic effects due to fossil fuel consumption are outweighed by the economic benefits of fossil fuel consumption.
    The most effective ways to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.”

    The last two statements are about policy, while all the rest are about science. It’s important to clearly distinguish between the two issues. The science should not be seen through the lens of policy, whether one is a “skeptic” or a “warmist.” Very often skeptics assert that the science is dictated by policy, but many of the same people evaluate science based on what it means for policy, which is just as wrong.

    I would add to this list, whether mainstream climate scientists and the data they collect can be trusted.

    • Kristi says…

      “A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.”

      Who are “relevant scientists”? Where does this statistic come from?

      Two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse et al., 2013 and Maibach et al., 2016).
      Kristi says…

      “Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
      Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
      This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.”

      How so, since the question underlying the “97% consensus” doesn’t have anything to do with the other assertions? Just because estimates are variable doesn’t make them equally credible.

      LEARN HOW TO READ!!!

      From the post:

      Well, these “facts” are not universally accepted.

      1. Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas.  All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the bulk temperature of the troposphere.
      2. The average surface temperature of the Earth has been generally rising since at least 1850, probably since the 1600’s.
      3. A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.

      While the three statements above are “facts,” their significance is equivocal.

      1. Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
      2. Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
      3. This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.

      Correlate the 1’s to the 1’s, 2’s to the 2’s, 3’s to the 3’s.

       

       
      Kristi says…

      “Where do real the disagreements lie?
      How modern climate change relates the natural variability of the rest of the Holocene Epoch.
      The degree to which human activities have contributed, are contributing and will contribute to climate change.
      The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
      Whether or not any negative climatic effects due to fossil fuel consumption are outweighed by the economic benefits of fossil fuel consumption.
      The most effective ways to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.”

      The last two statements are about policy, while all the rest are about science. It’s important to clearly distinguish between the two issues. The science should not be seen through the lens of policy, whether one is a “skeptic” or a “warmist.” Very often skeptics assert that the science is dictated by policy, but many of the same people evaluate science based on what it means for policy, which is just as wrong.

      GOOD FRACKING GRIEF!!! LEARN HOW TO READ!!!

      From the subject article by the idiot professor:

      Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling. 

      My reply:

      Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?

      Kristi says…

      I would add to this list, whether mainstream climate scientists and the data they collect can be trusted.

      Add to which list?

      • I think Kristi’s heart is in the right place, maybe a little confused (who ain’t), we all come here to get educated.
        Patience may be required.

      • “Two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society”

        That is not all “relevant” scientists. Maibach, et al. is a survey of TV WEATHERCASTERS. Among AWS members whose area of expertise is climate science, and that’s what they published most, 78% said GW is a fact, and it’s mostly caused by humans. That was published in 2014. I looked at another survey you wrote a post about. Over 17% of those who agreed with AGW being mostly human-caused had changed their minds within the last five years, suggesting that more and more are being convinced. At that rate, by next year over 90% of AWS climate scientists will agree with the consensus.

        Also in the Meibach et al., “In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).”

        “This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.” That list didn’t have a heading, so I don’t know if it’s what you think is fact or not – but the point is, it wasn’t made clear that “This only serves to…” was referring to the other question 3. It’s not my fault if you don’t write clearly.

        It’s not a lie any more than your stats are lies. It’s dumb that people have used the 97% as if it’s the True Percentage of Consensus, but it’s not a lie. This is why I don’t like people using “data” and “fact” synonymously.

        …To the last list, the one I had just been discussing.

        I don’t know what you’re going apesh!t about, and I don’t know what your point is in repeating what the guy said. Maybe you’re having trouble understanding me.

        Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, this time or in the past. That happens sometimes. It doesn’t mean I can’t read any more than it means you can’t write.

        • it’s not a lie if you believe it, eh George Kristi. Notice all of the number you cite are less than 97% (some considerably so), yet here you are defending the 97% as “not a lie”. Kristi defender of the indefensible. 97% is deception no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig. You defense of it is just more deception, par for the course from you.

          • John Endicott,

            You misunderstand me. There are all sorts of statistics out there about the rate of consensus, depending on whom is asked, the way the question is phrased, etc. None of them can be considered “lies” as long as the person who develops the statistics is being honest about his results (and ideally, who was polled). That doesn’t mean that all of them are equally representative of the agreement among those who are most knowledgeable about climate science.

            As I said, I think it’s dumb to say that exactly 97% of scientists agree about anything. But I don’t think it’s dumb to say that a clear majority, most likely over 90%, of active, publishing climate scientists agree that the majority of global warming in the last 50+ years is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

            You have turned your own misunderstanding of what I said into an assertion that I was being deceptive. That suggests just how eager you are to discredit those who think differently from you. I wonder if you are capable of learning from that.

          • your defend the indefensible, routinely. You’re attempts at deception are blatantly clear. Blaming being caught out on those catching you out does not work. You are fooling no one Kristi.

            I have no problem with people who honestly disagree. You’ve shown time and again, that isn’t you. Are you capable of learning from that? I suspect not.

  51. I’m very concerned about man’s war on CO2, it makes me breathe heavily (hoping to do my bit to counteract!) 😉

    For example, as the basis for all life on Earth, anything below 0.010% of CO2 in the atmosphere I gather from real science will cause annihilation of all life on Earth. We are currently at 0.040%, we know plants thrive at around 0.1%. The Earth during plant-booming epochs has been at up to 0.700% of this life-giving trace gas in the atmosphere. Lowest in history I recall is around 0.018%. Yet in the name of *insert future doom prediction here*, those in power and their ‘useful idiots’ wish to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, hoping for a reduction of 0.005% – 0.010%.

    Are there any discussion papers on what seems to me like an obvious flaw in the assumptions and management of risk??

  52. There is more evidence that low dose rate radiation is safe than there will ever be for any drug including a vaccine (like a billion time stronger), but that wasn’t even cited in the list of obviously obvious stuff, which shows how disconnected from real evidence these people are.

    (Of course most people who are vaccinated do NOT suffer from abominable life long crippling side effects. Many people simply wasted their money and took stupid risks getting vaccinated.)

    • You’re slipping. I thought for sure you’d inject your anti-vaxxer nonsense into the thread a lot sooner than this.

      simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

      says it all really.

      • I know approximately nothing on medicine and I humiliate people who defend vaccines. Every. Single. Time.

        Do YOU claim that MS can be diagnosed by RMI, and it’s cristal clear? I have been told that. Later the exact same TT account (who claims to be medical doctor(*)) told me that MS can only be established by the evolution, over time. So one RMI cannot show MS.

        (*) who probably really is a MD, nobody would claim that otherwise!

        The number of crippled people who get benefits in France doubled in a few years… same years vaccines were added. What happened?

        Your defense of vaxxism only prove how phony “skepticism” here is…

        • Simple,

          You only ever manage to humiliate yourself.

          Skeptics of “climate change” base their doubts on the lack of evidence supporting the repeatedly falsified hypothesis that man-made CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

          But the safety and efficacy of vaccines are supported by all the evidence in the world. Some batches of course have been bad, but incontrovertible fact remains that billions of people have lived who otherwise would have died without vaccines and other inoculations over the past more than millennium, especially since Jenner in 1796.

          Please cite a reputable source for your obviously false claim that “the number of crippled people who get benefits in France doubled in a few years… same years vaccines were added”. What years were those? Vaccination has been practiced in France for centuries. The second generation of vaccines indeed even originated in France, thanks to Pasteur from the 1860s.

          Infectious diseases formerly virtually eradicated in Europe have made a comeback, such as measles and diphtheria, due to evidence-free, anti-human, anti-science ranters like you.

          I don’t know why our host tolerates your outbursts, advocating policies potentially even deadlier than costly remedies for the non=problem of “climate change”.

          • I note that France has gone from making three vaccines mandatory to eleven. I would prefer that parents be educated as to the advantages of vaccines to their own and all children, rather than making vaccinations obligatory.

            My Chilean stepson had a stroke at age five because he hadn’t been vaccinated against ear infection. Thank God that only his vision was affected, and he suffered no permanent damage.

        • simple-t: “I know approximately nothing on medicine and I humiliate people who defend vaccines myself. Every. Single. Time”.

          fixed that for you, simple-t.

  53. ” Climate ‘alarmist’ have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.”

    There, fixed it…

    In climate science, it’s a buzzard because they say it’s a buzzard. It could be a sparrow or a finch, but not in the mind of a climate alarmist. It’s a bird, has to be a buzzard.

  54. Kristi Silber,

    This will probably be out of sequence because the thread that we were engaged in does not have any “Reply” tabs. Because this is out of sequence, and the comments are getting out of date, I’m not going to take the time to respond to all of your latest comments.

    However, you said, “There is no other factor [other than CO2] that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing … Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.” The implication of your remark was that you thought that a decrease in albedo would cause cooling. I was correcting the misconception. You then followed up with, “But still, land use change and the greening do not fully account for the warming of the last 50+ years.” No, it doesn’t, but then there are few who deNye that there is any effect from CO2. CO2 is making a contribution (in my opinion) but the contribution is not large enough to warrant the Paris Treaty. The implication of the Paris Treaty is that just addressing fossil fuel CO2 will stop warming. One can only reach that conclusion by assuming CO2 is the ‘Control Knob.’ Please see the following for an analysis of all the human contributions to warming:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/

    Additionally, I think that it is cavalier to dismiss solar or astronomical influences on post-glaciation warming. Earth has been on a warming trajectory for the last 11,700 years. It appears to be one of just many similar cycles. Until it is clear that we have hit the peak of the warming, and and should have started a downward trajectory, it is not necessary to appeal to any sort of significant contribution from humans. One estimate is that we will not begin another glaciation for 50,000 years. If that is the case, we are only about 1/3 of the way through this warm, interglacial. That would seem to negate your claim that there is “no other factor” that can account for the current warming. It is whatever caused the ice to melt!

    • clyde,

      “Additionally, I think that it is cavalier to dismiss solar or astronomical influences on post-glaciation warming.”

      I did not do that. Climate scientists have not done that. They have studied solar influences in great depth, and they have found that it is not a major factor right now. Sorry, but I don’t have the energy or patience to find evidence for you at the moment.

      I’m sorry, but I’m not going to be convinced by a WUWT blog post arguing a particular position. You can list all the arguments you want, but without quantifying their effects and interactions, they don’t mean anything. The number of swimming pools and sprinklers is irrelevant unless you can show it’s meaningful. Yes, there are reservoirs, but we have also drained a heck of a lot of swamps. Even the relative number of beaver dams over time could make a difference if you want to get that detailed – but this stuff is small-scale on the scheme of things.

      Quantification is the whole point of GCMs and other statistical analyses.

      Perhaps it would be a better approach to ask, what is wrong with the theory? Someone needs to prove the theory of GHG and climate change wrong in order to state that the evidence is an illusion. That would take analysis of the physics. People have tried, and failed. It’s certainly not enough to say, “well, CO2 is just a small portion of the gases,” since that is obvious, and it’s taken into account in the physics.

      I don’t really think this debate is going anywhere right now, but it’s been interesting chatting with you.

Comments are closed.