An open letter to RealClimate.org

Guest summary by Sheldon Walker

RealClimate recently published an article called “The Climate Scientists are Alright“.

The article is about the “climate scientist blues”.

I posted the following comment under this article.

====================

Sheldon Walker says:

——————–

I am willing to believe that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job.

However, it must be depressing to find that a large number of people don’t “trust” what climate scientists are saying.

This is because global warming is a “toxic” issue. There is a lack of trust on both sides, and a high level of nastiness.

Climate scientists need to continue doing a good job. But they need to work on building “trust”. Stopping calling people “deniers” is the first step.

So an important question is, CAN climate scientists stop calling people “deniers”. If they can’t, then perhaps we are all doomed.

——————–

Gavin replied to my comment:

[Response: Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable. By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science. – gavin]

====================

I tried to post another comment, in reply to Gavin’s comment. But my comment was put into “The Bore Hole” (which is described as “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”).

The following is my comment that got put in “The Bore Hole”.

====================

Sheldon Walker says:

——————–

Gavin,

Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.

Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.

If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.

I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.

I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.

Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).

I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.

I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).

But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am too modest to point it out.

I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.

If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.

https://agree-to-disagree.com

Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.

I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.

====================

The following is an additional comment for Gavin to think about:

Gavin, you claim that NOT calling people “deniers”, would be avoiding the truth.

It is possible to tell somebody that you disagree with them, without calling them a nasty name. You can even show them evidence to support your view, without calling them a nasty name.

I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.

If you want my respect, then you need to earn it. I am willing to give you the chance to convince me. It is now up to you.

Advertisements

243 thoughts on “An open letter to RealClimate.org

    • Except that Gavin Schmidt is still pretending to be a scientist and pretends that gives him a position of authority. He can’t have it both ways. Admit you are politician and everyone will know you are a lying lowlife and cast your proclamations in that context.

      Gavin is too busy to discuss climate with another qualified climatologist and prefers to walk of the TV set and refuse to be on the set at the same time as Dr. Roy Spencer.

      This little display tells us all we need to know about the level of “wisdom” and the scientific objectivity of Gavin Schmidt.

      Thanks for reminding us.

    • All those who believe in climate change yet still drive internal combustion engine cars, and/or fly in airplanes are deniers.

      Asking other people to fundamentally change the way they live without doing so yourself is dishonest.

      • Those believe life on earth is at stake need to take leadership positions themselves. I won’t ask that they give up drive gasoline-powered cars because I know how difficult that may be.

        I suggest that they need to make insects a staple of their diet. Otherwise, why should I take them seriously. Windmills aren’t going to save us and they should know that. If they won’t take that tiny step to save life on earth, and demonstrate leadership, do they really believe what they say they believe?

      • I have never cared for the words, “believe or belief ” when discussing scientific endeavors. It is 2+2=4 or it is not and you, me, or we need more data.

        As for instance, my condominium community’s average age is 41 years old but it is not a gaussian distribution, it is a dumbbell distribution on a scatter plot. The devil is in the details.

        I sometimes also fantasize about having Schmidt, Mann and myself in front of a congressional committee and my argument would not be whether Schmidt or Mann was correct but it would be to ask the politicians which two continents of people we need to murder in order to return to pre-1850 levels of CO2( there would be no guarantee of this outcome). The argument to Congress would be that these gentlemen are Gods when comes to the climate and they have decreed that a vast population of human beings need to die. They are the Government’s consultants and you need to follow their recommendations to the letter. That is the final analysis, the final iteration of climate change – which humans get to live and which humans have to die. Force Mann and Schmidt into their 2+2=4 moment. This is what angers me toward the climate change crowd – is this intellectual dishonesty. The entire argument is based a poorly derived scientific analysis and models and yet their hubris prevents them from reevaluating or telling the complete truth.

    • IMHO … every “true believer” in manmade, Co2 driven, Global Warming, Climate Change, Sudden Catastrophic Climate Change, EXTREME weather … et.al. … needs to be cast into the BORE Hole of eternal shame. The BORE Hole of Rent-seekers, stealing a living from taxpayers by fomenting unjust FEAR of a cataclysmic, apocalyptic, DEATH.

      • Someone please convince me that ‘Rent-seekers’ is either more or less offensive than ‘climate-deniers’. Despite the almost undeniable urge, we must avoid jumping into the same mud-hole.

        • Too late for that. Just imagine your son being thought by an alarmist rent-seeker, and the whole offense thing will drop. I wear my climate denier badge with pride. It only means my PhD in EE truly means something.

          • Hah!–I got it! You had me baffled for a few minutes–“imagine your son being thought by an alarmist rent-seeker…”–as ‘thought’ seemed neither harmful nor a crime–‘taught’, right? Not a problem–with a geologist for a father, one familiar with the last 1.8 billion years of the planet’s history as revealed by rocks, the teachers had little chance of instilling irrational fear in someone who grew up knowing logic and observation.

            So I still try to avoid calling these ‘alarmist rent-seekers’ names, other than possibly a gender-neutral one allowed by the fact that they all have one, as my brother (also EE) pointed out when confronted by our (Canadian) prime minister making it illegal to speak a gender pronoun to someone who doesn’t want one. Although it may not be a one-size-fits-all term, I’d say it meets any universality requirements.

  1. The one thing I learned about RealClimate.org many years ago (probably around the time of Climategate) is that they deny a voice to anybody they disagree with. I was banned for expressing a scientific criticism of one of their postings (and I am a physicist with two degrees and was accused of not being a scientist and not knowing what I was talking about). Their behaviour is not what proper scientists do.

    I have totally ignored them ever since, because their behaviour told me that they were political and not scientific.

    • I was banned for even asking a question about temperature doubling, never mind criticising their position!

      • Along those lines, years ago on a forgotten chat room discussing “ocean acidification”, I had the impudence to ask “If the oceans are warming, how can they store more CO2, isn’t that a violation of Henrys Law?” (I have two Geology degrees and had to suffer through three Chemistry courses as an undergrad.) I also took Oceanography as an undergrad and as a grad student (in which we called it “the Coca Cola Effect”, i.e., as warming sodas lose their fizz, so do the oceans.)

        Someone’s “answer” to my honest question was that I “should be put on trial” (for asking this science-based question).

        Nothing has changed.

    • They have set out with government backing and formed a new religion. They are the founders and the clergy of this new religion and they have millions of followers. They have done so at the behest of Big Government (God to you) for the purpose of controlling the masses (the great unwashed).

      To do as Sheldon requests, debate the existence of their God, would shake the faith of those followers. Therefore, their only position can be to call out those wishing to question their dogma as heretics. It is simply not possible to change the approach of the church elders for they have a church and revenue stream to protect.

      Compromise with real scientists with honest questions, would shake the belief of the faithful and cause them to question their religious beliefs. This cannot be tolerated. You sir are a heretic and with the full force and backing of the United States Government you will be severely dealt with. Bend a knee or they will disappear you. That day is coming sooner than you think if you see it coming at all.

      • “To do as Sheldon requests, debate the existence of their God, would shake the faith of those followers. Therefore, their only position can be to call out those wishing to question their dogma as heretics.”

        It’s as simple as that.

        • 100% agree, Tom, but I think it can be summed up even simpler than your two sentences.
          To wit –

          “Climate alarmists are Leftists.”

          From the French Revolution – and whatever prior manifestation Leftism operated under before the end of the 18th century – those on the left may have great intellectual/scientific knowledge, but they lack all self-awareness and are slaves to whatever emotion or politics rule them at the moment. In short, Leftists are not rooted in wisdom, and therefore, can easily drift into unscientific or absurd positions. Leftists mock or ignore the Judeo-Christian truths found in the Bible, and that, I believe, is the root of the Leftist affliction.

          • L.B. there is a name for the 21st Century leftist. Post Modernist. Truth is what they say it is. Therefore if they say the earth is warming, it is. If they say the Government must implement controls upon our liberties despite the admission that such controls won’t affect a positive result then the Government must act nonetheless.
            Post modernism is applied when a boy decides he is a girl and when a group of white catholic boys with Maga hats become racists for being in the same vicinity as a native american with a drum who invades their space.
            You cannot discuss let alone debate facts with post modernists. The Post Modernist cannot be reasoned with. They simply don’t want the truth getting in the way of their secular religious narrative.

    • Mr Bratby, this is very common at many websites, including The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, various football blogs, various climate blogs, even the BBC on occasions.

      One of unpalatable consequences of the internet is what I call ‘mutual reinforcement of prejudice’ societies. It is the online version of preadolescent tribalism, where ‘them n us’ is the name of the game. Go to a traditional football derby match to see adult versions of it. It even happens here, although many will scream to the contrary….

      Most of us grew out of it by about 15, if we even went through that phase (I never did).

      But there are blogs where the blog owner effectively says ‘my blog, my rules, get lost if you do not agree!’

      There are also places which were once good discussion fora now totally destroyed by childish puerile insulting in comment after comment.

      The difficulty with the climate discussion is that teacher is confronted with two fighting boys each saying the other one started it.

      A wise teacher knows that adjudicating on that is a fool’s errand, the issue is not who started it but how to defuse it respectfully with both sides maintaining face and dignity.

      They may subsequently take soundings from other pupils, but ‘it was him, miss!’ ‘No it wasn’t, it was him!’ is no evidence base on which to adjudicate…..

      • I remember when NPR.org cancelled the comments on their articles. They claimed it was because there was not enough diversity in those making comments. I suspect the real reason is that within 15 minutes of posting a column, half of the first 10 comments would debunk the column, pointing out the factual errors.

        • Which is exactly why every outlet promoting AGW propaganda resorts to censorship of contrary points of view – because those with the contrary points of view have much better support for those views than the so-called “climate scientists” do, and they aren’t about advancing science, they are about pushing a political agenda.

  2. Mr Walker, you are a true gentleman and scholar. The name calling alarmists are simply fools who know no truth but their own vanity and financial self interest. And boy do you have a whole lot more patience than me. Bravo, and thank you!

      • They are fools if the only argument they have is to call everyone who disagrees with them names.
        They are fools if they don’t understand that name-calling in place of reasoned debate usually indicates you have lost the argument.
        They are fools if they think sitting in their own echo chamber and refusing even to consider alternative interpretations of their hypotheses is somehow scientific.
        They are fools if they believe that their computer models are more reliable than observations.
        They are fools if they believe that sooner or later their arrogant, self-righteous egotism won’t catch up with them — and that applies whatever the climate does over the next half-century.
        And finally they are fools for tolerating the climate activists who go beyond even their blinkered arguments in pursuit of political propaganda for ends which simply use “climate” as an excuse for their own ends.

      • if you don’t understand the difference between being called a denier and a fool then we can’t help you … you would be ACTING foolish … like a fool does …

      • Steven, you are again giving knee jerk responses without rationale.

        Please rewatch the whole Stoessel interview with Gavin and Roy and then tell us:
        1. What science did Dr Spencer deny?
        2. How did Gavin’s behavior come off as anything but foolish?

    • And Gavin also seems to have a bit too much time on his hands for a person in his position. There is clearly room for making some budget savings at NASA GISS. That might be a language he understands.

  3. “I hate Alarmists for how they treat me.’

    Seriously? Sheldon. It’s just the internet, don’t take it so seriously.

    Gosh one day I had someone on my own team go off on me

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/22/friday-funny-f-word-fusillade-by-michael-tobis/

    Read the comments. All of them.

    Any way, love your enemies. They make you stronger.

    Getting hit from both sides, even stronger.

    There’s no denying that. But go ahead, since you cannot resist gain-saying.

    At some point you may get beyond the mere skepticism of gain saying. That will start when you question
    what you think you know. Nobody can do that for you.

    Generally speaking people who say “convince me” mean exactly this: “I have decided I am right, regardless”
    The only way your mind will be changed is if you radically question everything you believe.

    Start by writing down what you believe and why. you will be shocked.

    Psst. Been to your blog, you need to work harder at doubting yourself.

    • Steven Mosher,

      I am a true skeptic. Not just about global warming. But about everything. Including my own beliefs.

      I always try to see things from the other person’s point of view.

      Skepticism is a big part of my personality.

      As soon as somebody tells me something, I automatically try to think of an example which proves them wrong. This is not a good way to keep friends.

      I am not just gain-saying. I love science, mathematics, and computer programming. I have excellent Excel skills. I love trying to come up with interesting data visualisations. I love trying to solve difficult or “impossible” problems.

      I recently downloaded temperature data for over 24,000 real locations on the Earth (it took me about 7 days of continuous downloading).

      Not just average temperatures, but
      – yearly and monthly average temperatures,
      – yearly and monthly average high temperatures
      – yearly and monthly average low temperatures
      – some yearly and monthly record high temperatures
      – some yearly and monthly record low temperatures

      I wrote several articles based on this temperature data.

      https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-far-to-reverse-global-warming

      https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1

      https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death

      I try to provide scientific evidence for all of my views. Alarmists usually don’t even bother looking at my evidence. The “know” that I am wrong. So why bother looking at the evidence. Better to call me an insulting name, and then run away and hide under a rock.

      I try not to show my “self-doubt”, in my articles. Nobody wants to read a wishy-washy article.

      I am ready to defend everything that I say in my articles. I go to a lot of trouble to provide evidence.

      If you think that I am wrong about something, then don’t make vague insinuations. Let me know exactly what you think is wrong. I will give you a reply.

      • sheldon

        ‘I am a true skeptic. Not just about global warming. But about everything. Including my own beliefs.”

        how about your belief that you are a skeptic, or that you even know what skepticism is?

        As i explained, you need to start by questioning what you believe, ESPECIALLY the belief that you are a skeptic.

          • sheldon, merely saying you have your doubts doesnt make you a skeptic.

            you have to DEMONSTRATE the self skepticism. show dont tell.
            otherwise you are just arguing by assertion.

            Its pretty simple.

            A) you claimed to be a skeptic
            B) I question that.
            C) it’s up to you to show ( not tell) us how you are skeptical.

            start by showing us you are skeptical about your own claim to skepticism.

            Show, not tell. cause we like to see evidence and not just read words.

          • All right (or alright) Steven Mosher,

            you have caught me out. I am not really a skeptic.

            I am really an Alarmist. But I think that Alarmists are wrong (and I am wrong as well, since I am an Alarmist). [does doubting my Alarmist beliefs make me a skeptic?]

            Also, Alarmists are such horrible people, that I don’t want to associate with them (or be associated with them).

            But skeptics are nice people. I would rather be associated with them.

            So I live a lie. I am an Alarmist, who pretends to be a skeptic.

          • “I used to be absolutely sure that I was a skeptic. But now I have my doubts.”

            Pretty sure that was a joke, but Mosher seems not to have gotten it.

          • Dave Miller January 24, 2019 at 12:02 pm

            “Well, that went over most heads.”

            Yep.

            Steven Mosher January 24, 2019 at 7:14 pm

            “Nice try Sheldon.”

            Ha! Wrong again “Mosher!”

          • attacking?

            dude claimed to be a skeptic. Since when do folks here merely let people get away with simply making assertions and not providing evidence?

            since when is asking for evidence an attack?

            gosh you sound like Jones reponding to Warrick Hughes

          • Mosh, he has no standing to prove he is a skeptic. It is a self-declaration. Everyone is skeptical to some degree.

            As for AG climate change, I remain unconvinced. That is not a ‘skeptical position” it is a declaration that I remain unconvinced there isn’t any proof of same. I don’t have to “prove” my position, I am relating it.

            Sheldon sounds sensible and goes to great lengths to make sure his sentences are correct. I advise grad students and wish they would take that much trouble. It would save me a lot of time. Sheldon already knows how to communicate a scientific opinion.

            Nearly everything published on AG climate science outside the journals would fail any proper test of veracity using standard rules of science communication. Sadly, too much of what is published in climate-oriented journals would fail proper review, largely for bias and the failure to represent the current scope of knowledge adequately.

            The climate science community has succumbed to the lure of the Kingdom of Names and exists in a materialist philosopher’s world where morals and ethics are pliant and suborned by agendas. It’s kinda boring actually, to see the pseudo-arguing and pretend-tolerance of disagreeing opinions. The “team” members are largely small “f” fanatics. History will not remember them.

            Gavin is sort of honest in a way – he is completely intolerant of differing opinions – and admits it. He cannot bear the thought of being challenged by a peer. He therefore, and thereby, cuts himself off from intelligent conversations from which the spark of truth would shine. He is smart enough to use rhetorical devices to paint others with brushes of various hues and as often demonstrated, censors the conversations. Well, stop wasting time talking to him. One could hardly ask for a better result – that they sever themselves from the general population and retire to their monastery to interpret their runes.

            Let the debaters move on to better things. We have a lovely planet filled with lovely people who need and want our attention, input, wisdom, support, listening ears and considered advice .

          • All right, Steven, what precisely would you accept as evidence of being a skeptic? Your challenge is too open-ended, and invites you to simply reply “That’s not what I meant” to anything Sheldon might say. So, put up, or shut up.

          • “All right, Steven, what precisely would you accept as evidence of being a skeptic? ”

            I already explained.

            he has to SHOW people evidence that he challenged HIS OWN beliefs.

        • They are fools for trying to believe in models that are not accurate and in many cases do not have physical processes properly coded (don’t even know all the equations that describe how different variables interact). Worse they don’t even try to devise physical, real world measurements that will verify their assumptions.

          Compare to the world of astrophysics. How many different theories exist on how things in the universe works?

          • “Worse they don’t even try to devise physical, real world measurements that will verify their assumptions.”

            Strangely that is all we do

        • Definition of a sceptic.

          “I’m from Missouri. Show me.” Missouri, a state in middle of the US, is known as the “Show Me” state. As legend would have it, they take a stubborn pride in being skeptical, not accepting an assertion without visible proof. So the phrase in question literally means “I don’t quite believe you. Show me proof.”

          In essence, don’t show me a computer model, show me the physical proof that what you say is true.

      • “I always try to see things from the other person’s point of view.

        Skepticism is a big part of my personality.

        As soon as somebody tells me something, I automatically try to think of an example which proves them wrong. This is not a good way to keep friends.”

        1. skepticism is not trying to see something from the other point of view.
        Its about questioning YOUR OWN point of view, even questioning your ability to
        se things from the other side, and even questioning your own view of skepticism.

        2. Skepticism is not about trying to prove the other person wrong. ( gain saying again)
        Skepticism is about questioning YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING.

        So see, we cant even get started until you examine the basics. Like, do you actually know what a “big part” of your personality is? because its not ( I observe) skeptical.

        Contrary yes. Skeptical? no.

        But go ahead prove you are skeptical.

        ( thats a joke you wont get)

        • Questioning my own point of view, is helped by being able to see other people’s points of view.

          If I thought that I was 100% correct, then I wouldn’t be a skeptic.

          I would be an Alarmist.

          Alarmists have no doubts. They know everything. And they know, that they know everything. Anybody who disagrees with them is wrong, and is called a Denier (because they are denying the infallibility of Alarmists).

          • “Questioning my own point of view, is helped by being able to see other people’s points of view.”

            1. Really? Maybe you should question that you are a skeptic. My sense is this.
            YOU CANNOT ARTICULATE THE POSITION YOU ARE ATTACKING WITHOUT
            FALLING INTO A STRAWMAN PRESENTATION. put another way, you consistently
            demonstrate that you dont understand the other point of view, so if that is suppose
            to help you, its not. See below where you dont get that much of alarmism is driven
            by uncertainty and doubt.

            If I thought that I was 100% correct, then I wouldn’t be a skeptic.

            I would be an Alarmist.

            1. REALLY? are you certain about that? some skeptic. Maybe you should question your
            ability to understand alarmists.

            “Alarmists have no doubts. They know everything. And they know, that they know everything. Anybody who disagrees with them is wrong, and is called a Denier (because they are denying the infallibility of Alarmists).”

            1. Really, heck we have plenty of doubts and uncertainty. Seems like
            you dont understand alarmism.
            2. Much of alarmism DERIVES FROM the lack of certainty , of not knowing for example
            all the possible hazards of a warmer world.

            you see, instead of having NO doubt, the alarmist has more doubt. more uncertainty
            only their decision is to take action in the face of this uncertainty.

            note. alarmism is not my position but its clear you dont understand alarmism.
            you paint a cartoon of it. And since you argue that your self skepticism derives from understanding others, you have just proved your are not a good skeptic

        • “Skepticism is about questioning YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING”

          I didn’t reallze being a skeptic was so complicated. I get the impression you think one must have the personal insights of a Buddhist monk to qualify as a skeptic.

          Do you have ratings for skeptics? Like Skeptic First Class, and Skeptic Second Class?

        • Mosher: skepticism is ….

          Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means

      • sheldon: ” I recently downloaded temperature data for over 24,000 real locations on the Earth (it took me about 7 days of continuous downloading).”

        sheldons first article: “Just for fun, I have collected the yearly average temperatures for over 36,000 locations on Earth.”

        ‘The best trendline was a parabola, with the following equation:

        Yearly average temperature = (-0.006671 * Latitude^2) + (0.011589 * Latitude) + 24.434759″

        Use cos(Lat) and a spline with 16 knots.

        Another hint: give your data source that’s one reason why I would not take you seriously.
        Another hint: dont use excell
        Another hint: it should take you less than 10 minutes to get the data.
        Worst download I had was 30K stations of daily min/max, winds, rain etc.
        took a day.

        I do however applaud you for rediscovering the wheel. When people ask me how we interpolate temperatures where we have no thermometersI explain regression using latitude.

        second article
        https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1/

        “I don’t think that many people would spend the time that I have, collecting the temperature statistics for over 36,000 locations on the Earth. ”

        Yes most people would go to the resource that has 43000 stations and download it in a minute.
        or NDCD, 27000 stations in a minute
        or ISTI, 360000 stations in a minute.

        Irony.

        As for your distributions. cute. non informative . They don’t adresss the concerns of AGW
        here is a hint. Understand the STRONGEST form of your opponents argument and attack that.
        one concern is that certain parts of the earth might more extremly hot days. maybe maybe not.
        but you dont address that argument by looking at yearly average

        in short nobody in science is arguing that the danger or risk comes from increases in annual temp.

        your fallacy is strawman. Hug him for me.

        last article.

        again, no data source and you are simply wrong about real temperatures not being available

        here: whole globe temperature field, absolute T

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TAVG_LatLong1.nc

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMAX_LatLong1.nc

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMIN_LatLong1.nc

        requires netcdf, not excell

        Oh video version ( sorry anomalies)

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Animations/Complete_TAVG_Annual.mpg

        • Steven Mosher,

          there is nothing wrong with using Excel.

          It does the job correctly, and it is easy to use.

          I use Netcdf4excel, an Excel plug-in to read and edit NetCDF files.

          I have used the GISTEMP Gridded Monthly Temperature Anomaly Data in the past. I calculated the temperature change and warming rate for every 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cell.

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/if-the-earth-was-an-apple-pie

          I use Excel to do all the calculations. And plot the graphs. And it also lets me write programs in VBA, to manipulate the data.

          Excel is a good, general, multi-purpose program. I can make it do anything that I want. Specialist programs are good, but you are limited by what they have been designed to do.

          • Sheldon.

            You provided no providance for your data. in the articles I referred to

            Now you refer to 3 different articles

            sloppy, worse than Jones or Mann

        • Steven Mosher,

          you seem to have a compulsive need to find fault with people’s work. That is not healthy.

          If you want somebody to jump through your “hoops”, then I suggest you get a dog.

          I analyse the temperature data for my own enjoyment. I don’t get paid for doing it. I am happy to share my work with other people. I am normally happy to answer questions about my work.

          But you just seem to want to nit-pick. I am not interested in getting your approval. I will say again, get yourself a dog. They show unconditional love. Then you can stop pestering me.

          • “If you want somebody to jump through your “hoops”, then I suggest you get a dog.”

            LOL! The dog wouldn’t have him.

        • Hi Stephen,
          I’d appreciate an explanation of why global Tavg is even calculated. The effects of weather factors I’m aware of, including temperature differences, pressure differences, water vapor concentration(s), phase changes, insolation, density, temperature, gravity, depend on local conditions, not long term averages.

          Try calculating the effects on a bunch of small steel parts in a leaky, poorly controlled heat treating furnace using average temperature.

      • “I try to provide scientific evidence for all of my views. Alarmists usually don’t even bother looking at my evidence. The “know” that I am wrong. So why bother looking at the evidence. Better to call me an insulting name, and then run away and hide under a rock.”

        hmm. well I went to your site the first time I saw you post at Judith’s
        Didn’t call you any names as far as I can recall.
        Things I noted

        1. No data provenance, worse than Mann or Jones.
        2. Poor understanding of data that is available.
        3. Strawman arguments ( if any)
        4. failure to state opponents argument in the strongest form possible.
        5. Tries to argue with questions .

        In general, you really have not made any argument that I can see. you did some plots of annual averages looked at some distributions and some temerature ranges. None of that comes close to being a relevant discussion of AGW theory.

        In short you havent made an argument.

        First job: Lay out the opponents postion. do this is in the STRONGEST form possible . no strawmanning.

        do that on your site

        • In short you havent made an argument.

          Not exactly true, e.g:

          1) I have won scholarships . . .
          2) I almost always get “top” marks.
          3) The last time that I checked, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology were called the “hard” sciences. (????)
          4) I am also an expert . . .
          5) I know all about the human brain, the senses, and perception.
          6) I have trained a hooded rat to push a lever . . . (rofl)
          7) My hatred of Alarmists is . . . (hmm . . . )
          8) Alarmists are wrong, and stupid. (ack . . . )
          9) I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. (indeed . . . )

          And the saddest of all:

          10) The standard “golden rule”, has a logical flaw. Bullies love the standard “golden rule”. It protects bullies from being “taught a lesson”.

          I suspect that the politically correct “golden rule”, is why so many kids commit suicide. They are punished if they stand up for themselves. So they feel trapped. The bullies love it. The bullies don’t follow the standard “golden rule”.

          You’ve been kind to try and help, or so it seems to me.

    • ““I hate Alarmists for how they treat me.’

      Seriously? Sheldon. It’s just the internet, don’t take it so seriously. ”

      That took me aback, as well, Letting emotions rule is so counter-productive. Love everyone, treat them like you would want to be treated, but unmercifully destroy their fallacies and pretensions.

      • I think a lot of skeptics fall into this trap of having emotional responses. sad.

        In fact the whole “D” word thing does just that.

        Suppose a skeptic is on a roll cleaning the other guys guys debate clock…
        ( never happens but imagine)

        just jab him with the D word and the skeptic will go all snowflake or faux outrage.
        he will rip his shirt and demand justice.

        and then the whole actual science debate is lost. opps.

        a food fight breaks out and then comments get closed, the train of argument is derailed, and
        people start discussing non science issues. classic.

        skeptics fall for this diversionary tactic all the time. kinda funny.

        Anyone here think Feynman would stop a science argument he was winning if somebody called him a denier?

        Nope, he would press on with the science and not be detered distracted or distraught

        of course when you have no science chops the name calling can bring you down. got to Sheldon
        apparently

        • “Suppose a skeptic is on a roll cleaning the other guys guys debate clock…
          ( never happens but imagine)”

          “Never happens” because climate scientists only allow discussion within the fallacious frameworks they devise. For example, Gavin Schmidt certainly had sufficient knowledge and intelligence to publicly debate Roy Spencer, but he can’t operate outside of the carefully crafted narrative, and he knows it.

          • Oh, Steven. Do you hear yourself?

            I have been debating climate change science for almost 30 years! Supporters of a climate crisis use to debate back in the 1990s, but not anymore. Now, it seems like they are all like Gavin; claiming the science is settled and the skeptic is just a ‘denier’. Curiously, they never say specifically what aspects of the science are ‘settled’. Nor do they define exactly what is being denied by their opponent, making it impossible to discuss. (If you would care to define these things that are ‘settled’ and ‘denied’, I am sure a very informative discussion would follow.) Vague, unsupportable statements about their positions and vague accusations about their opponents positions are all that we get from climate crisis supporters these days.

            Back when crisis supporters had the balls to show up for a debate, they always ended up on the ropes. At that point, they would pull out the Precautionary Principle, proclaiming a certain moral authority in defense of their indefensible science, and proclaim victory! But the Precautionary Principle is self-contradictory and certainly not a ‘principle’ by any definition. The use of it often produces a great deal of harm (self-contradiction), and it is wielded on completely subjective grounds, the opposite of a principle. Today, the idea of the PP is assumed by the warmists, and those who do not believe in it like religious dogma, are dismissed. This behaviour by warmists is quite contrary to science and the scientific method.

            Yes, we skeptics can get triggered by being called names and being treated like some form of sub-human life. We are human beings. But your point is as misguided as the news coverage of the Covington High School students. The media continues to search for someway to find fault with the kids who were clearly the most mature participants at that scene. The vulgarity spewing men and the drumming-in-your-face native American are given a complete pass on their behavior. Your criticism of Sheldon Walker and skeptics in general would carry more weight if you acknowledged the childish behaviour of Gavin Schmidt and the climate crisis supporters, with as much vigor. Then, we readers would have some evidence that you are an honest broker.

            Yes…I cringe every time a skeptic on this site stoops to the same level as the name-callers on the other side. It happens far too often. I would love to see more skeptics making the choice to stay above such tactics. Yet I still acknowledge that the other side has seemingly nothing more than name calling and appeals to authority in their debate arsonal. If the science was so rock solid, there would be no need for such fallacious arguments. In fact, it would be extremely foolish to make such arguments at all, unless that was all they had that ‘worked’.

          • “I have been debating climate change science for almost 30 years! Supporters of a climate crisis use to debate back in the 1990s, but not anymore. ”

            who are you again?

          • Wow, Steve, can you be more of an ass?

            Seriously, you dont find it funny how guys come on and thump their chests
            about being bore holed at realclimate or thump their chests about years and
            years of “debating” climate.

            ya, what was it that Feynman said about fooling yourself?

            Oh ya, he said, “find the guy in the room who claims the most years debating
            and he will be the one to trust.”

            Here’s a clue. While ya’ll were pining for debates guys like Nic lewis were scoring goals by doing fucking science.

            not tv debates
            not open letters
            not lame blog posts
            not challenges on the internet.

            guys like Nic Lewis and Anthony, and WILLIS for fucks sake were scoring goals
            by actually DOING science and writing up results and trying to publish them
            with real data and code.

            and for the most part their whining about being mistreated is minor. They grew a pair or had a pair to begin with.
            they pulled on their big boy pants, and ignored the BS and did some actual science.

            So I have no patience for snowflakes who melt or fake outrage at being called names.
            Thats the fricken playing feild. Suit up or get lost.
            you want a debate? Sorry, the game day is sunday. the field is conferences and journals. you wanna play? thats the field. There is a ball and referees.
            Dont like that? cry me a river.

            Wanna claim victory in the super bowl because you showed up with ice skates and puck
            and everyone ignored you? go ahead claim victory. woo hoo!

          • Mosh the Great and Powerful complaining about people coming in and thumping their chests.

            That’s all you ever do Mosher.

            The fact that you look down on anyone who isn’t famous is just one of the reasons why we love you so much.

        • To date I’ve “won” every debate with AGW believers by simply showing a voluminous collection of charts from temperature reconstructions showing such things as much higher temperature with much lower CO2. Many studies indicate we are now in the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, but with the highest level of atmospheric CO2. When I ask them to debate those studies I find they are true believers, not open to examining facts.

        • Steven Mosher,

          you said, “of course when you have no science chops the name calling can bring you down.
          got to Sheldon apparently”

          I have won scholarships based on my exam results for Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, and English.

          I almost always get “top” marks.

          The last time that I checked, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology were called the “hard” sciences.

          I am also an expert in the soft science, psychology. I know all about the human brain, the senses, and perception. I have trained a hooded rat to push a lever (and turn a light on), for a tasty treat. This training helps me deal with Alarmists, who are a slightly different species of rat (rattus alarmicus).

          You mistake my cool, calm, assessment of my emotions, for hot, uncontrolled emotions.

          My hatred of Alarmists is cold, and calculating. I use my anger to motivate me to write articles, which show that Alarmists are wrong, and stupid.

          Emotions can be used for good purposes.

          • Sheldon

            First rule of climate fight club

            you cannot VOUCH for yourself or referee your own fights.

            You cant even properly cite the data you use.

          • Steven Mosher,

            Rules of climate fight club:
            1) there are no rules
            2) you can get away with whatever you can get away with
            3) skeptics are always right
            4) when skeptics are wrong, rule 3 applies
            5) if you snooze, you lose

      • As is often the case, people who preach about not hating often become the very thing they railed against and in the end become worst thing in humanity i.e. – Hating the Haters. This is were Mosher is at whilst believing he is serving some noble purpose. He is actually and actively hating on people who have legitimate questions. Worst part is his complete inability to see that.

        • . . . people who preach about not hating often become the very thing they railed against and in the end become worst thing in humanity i.e. – Hating the Haters.

          You mean as poor Sheldon appears to have become?
          “My hatred of Alarmists is cold, and calculating.”
          “I hate Alarmists for how they treat me.”

          This is were Mosher is at . . .

          You mean as per the following:
          “Any way, love your enemies. They make you stronger.”

          Worst part is his [Mosher’s] complete inability to see . . .

          Are you sure it’s just him? Isn’t there a log in thine own eye? Or do you believe your eyes are open?

          • ““Any way, love your enemies. They make you stronger.””

            Mosher must really love enemies, he just makes more and more with his elitist attitude.

          • LOL! The dog wouldn’t have him.

            But surely this dog should have him, wouldn’t you agree, Jeff? If you think about it, what “Mosher’s” done here throughout is offer quite a bit of constructive criticism to one who desires others to see, review and comment on his work. You can dislike “Mosher’s” style, but here’s a guy that normally types a single line ad hom and departs, who now is actually spending quite a bit of time and effort explaining how (dare I say, “help?”) Mr. Walker can up his game.

            a priori to even the first rule of “Climate Fight Club” would seem to be, “Be in Climate Fight Club,” wouldn’t it? I don’t think Mr. Walker’s in the fight quite yet.

            Proposition:
            Are you saying that you don’t believe my data? Or are you just trying to find something else to complain about? (strawman . . . how can anyone believe your data if you don’t tell us from whence it came???)

            Premise 1:
            I downloaded it from a website which provides weather information. (okay, “a website” . . . hmmm)

            Premise 2:
            As a part of their service, they keep a database of historical weather-related information. (argh . . . “weather-related,” like an ice-storm shut down the freeway? ‘splain please Lucy??? )

            Premise 3:
            This weather website obviously gets data from all over the world. I don’t know the details. (whoa Nellie full stop!! you mean details like which db’s, how the data was collected, the source(s) of the data, whether db data was combined from a bunch of different db’s into one and then disseminated, etc? Like those sorts of details not to mention all the real one’s that matter I’m missing?)

            Conclusion:
            Because they have done this for many years, their data can be used for “climate” related purposes. (ack . . . wth does “climate related purposes” mean? and then how long you’ve been doing it presupposes an authoritative source? isn’t that textbook argumentum ad verecundiam?)

            Moreover:

            . . . you seem to have a compulsive need to find fault with people’s work.

            Or perhaps he’s commenting because that’s what “Mosher” does professionally, i.e., data analysis? Or because that’s what science is about? Publishing your work so your peers can try to rip it apart at the seams?

            I am not interested in getting your approval.

            Because one shouldn’tcare about what *actual* professionals in the field of data analysis have to say about one’s work? Disagree with “Mosher’s” conclusions about whatever dataset all you like, but ignoring his resume seems short-sighted. That is, if you’re looking for people who matter to respect your conclusions anyway. If you’re looking to *land* a punch in the fight.

            So Jeff, given the above, does this dog hunt or no?

            What’s your take on “Mosher” spending the time here and at Mr. Walker’s website to comment about HOW Mr. Walker’s conclusions are arrived at rather than the conclusions themselves, which (or so it seems to me) normally is the case in other articles? Is it because he just wants to be a jerk today?

          • Mosher must really love enemies . . .

            Alternatively, maybe “Mosher” is making a broader point that you can either: 1) allow irrelevant criticism borne from moronic arguments to add you too to the set of all morons, or 2) you can try to not let it bother you and move on?

    • Sheldon Walker – January 24, 2019 at 3:22 am

      my version of the “golden rule”, is “do to others, what they do to you”.

      I start out nice. What happens after that, is up to them.

      Bravo, bravo, bravo, ….. Sheldon Walker, ….. I agree 101% with your above….. and that is because it has also been my version of the “golden rule” which I have religiously applied when necessary for the past 25 or so years. I quickly found out that it was absolutely, positively necessary when I first started using the Internet for posting commentary on Newspaper Forums in the mid 1990’s when anti-MTR mining and anti-AGW were just rearing their ugly heads among the miseducated masses.

      Posters who “hid” behind silly “screennames” would launch “personal attacks” against your person if they didn’t like or believe what you posstd.

      And it makes no difference if one is conversing “face to face” or conversing “PC to PC” via an Internet website, ……one’s honor, honesty, educational expertise, reputation, etc,. should NOT be questioned unless they fail to explain their claims, comments or commentary when a legitimate request is made for them to do so.

      And 98% of the time it is those “screenname” hiders that will immediately launch a “personal attack” against any person that requests or demands that they, the “screenname’ers”, provide proof or evidence to support their claims.

      And according to his above posting, it is obvious that Steven Mosher fancies himself as being an expert “psychobabbler” trying to defend the uncalled for dastardly, devious, dubious, disingenuous personal attacks by the aforesaid “screenname” hiders, to wit:

      Steven Mosher – January 24, 2019 at 2:31 am
      Seriously? Sheldon. It’s just the internet, don’t take it so seriously.

      If Mosher thinks that Sheldon should not take anything serious that is “posted to his attention” on the internet …… then why do you suppose Mosher posted all of his “psychobabble” to the attention of Sheldon?

      Well “DUH”, obviously Mosher expected Sheldon to take his “psychobabble” seriously.

      Me thinks Mosher’s actions was not only a CYA, but also an oxymoron.

      • “And it makes no difference if one is conversing “face to face” or conversing “PC to PC” via an Internet website, ……one’s honor, honesty, educational expertise, reputation, etc,. should NOT be questioned unless they fail to explain their claims, comments or commentary when a legitimate request is made for them to do so.”

        https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1/

        I ask for the sources for this chart.

        still waiting.

        https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death/

        read it dude.. do you see the sources?

        I asked, still waiting to hear.

        https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-far-to-reverse-global-warming/

        sources? any data citation?

        Nope.

        At the very least Sheldon should link to his sources for his article

        Do you want to know WHY no climate data scientist would respond to his artcles?

        very simple.

        1. NO DATA SOURCES LISTED for most of the work
        2. Manifest incompetance

        example
        “An interesting fact: It took my computer 4 hours, just to sort the monthly anomalies into a pattern, so that I could do the linear regressions. While I was doing the analysis, Excel stopped working, with the message “out of resources”, about 6 times. Each time that happened, I had to start from the last time that I saved the spreadsheet.”

        jesus love me for a sunbeam, you cant make this shit up

        • Steven Mosher,

          As I said before, you seem to have a compulsive need to find fault with people’s work. That is not healthy.

          If you want somebody to jump through your “hoops”, then I suggest that you get a dog.

          I analyse the temperature data for my own enjoyment. I don’t get paid for doing it. I am happy to share my work with other people. I am normally happy to answer questions about my work.

          But you just seem to want to nit-pick. I am not interested in getting your approval. I will say again, get yourself a dog. They show unconditional love. Then you can stop pestering me.

          BUT, since I am using a dog analogy, I will throw you a bone.

          First, tell me this. Do you see anything in my graphs and data, that makes you think that my data is not real and correct?

          Are there any suspicious temperatures? That don’t match what you would expect for the latitude, etc. Are the temperature ranges unbelievable?

          Are you saying that you don’t believe my data? Or are you just trying to find something else to complain about?

          I downloaded it from a website which provides weather information. As a part of their service, they keep a database of historical weather-related information. Because they have done this for many years, their data can be used for “climate” related purposes.

          This weather website obviously gets data from all over the world. I don’t know the details. I was happy to find actual absolute temperatures, rather than temperature anomalies.

          Before you accuse me of “manifest incompetence”, you should look in a mirror.

          Your attitude puts me off giving you more information.

          I tell people about things, like “It took my computer 4 hours, just to sort the monthly anomalies into a pattern, so that I could do the linear regressions.”, because it is interesting. And it helps them to appreciate how much work went into producing the graphs and results.

          Don’t you want me to tell people the truth? I didn’t “make this shit up”. It is the truth. Do you hide your “problems”, in the hope that people will think that you are perfect?

          Working with large amounts of data can be difficult. I enjoy solving the problems, and I think that other people might be interested to hear about it. I am not hiding anything. Anybody who can use Excel can check a lot of my work. I encourage people to do that. Check that I am telling the truth. But don’t accuse me without evidence. I am happy to help genuine people.

        • Steven Mosher – January 24, 2019 at 8:15 pm

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1/

          I ask for the sources for this chart.

          still waiting.

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death/

          read it dude.. do you see the sources?

          I asked, still waiting to hear.

          Steven Mosher, …… Sheldon Walker told you what the sources of his data was ……. and I know damn well that you had/have no intentions whatsoever to verify said data ….. so why in hell are you demanding a url “link” to said data?

          GEEEZUS, even iffen he had offered a few “links” I seriously doubt that you would even have bothered to see if they were legit.

          And I say that because of all of your “psychobabbling” tripe n’ piffle rhetoric that you have (hopefully) been using to “badmouth” and discredit Sheldon Walker …… in the eyes and the minds of anyone reading your agitprop. And thus, as far as I am concerned, you are nothing more than a “political science” pimp for Berkley Earth, which the following is proof-positive of, to wit:

          here: whole globe temperature field, absolute T
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TAVG_LatLong1.nc
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMAX_LatLong1.nc
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMIN_LatLong1.nc

          requires netcdf, not excell

          Oh video version ( sorry anomalies)
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Animations/Complete_TAVG_Annual.mpg

          Source post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/an-open-letter-to-realclimate-org/#comment-2602645

          Steven Mosher, how come you didn’t provide the exact sources from which Berkley Earth obtained all of their temperature data, ….. I want to check it out to verify if it is legitimate. ☹ 😊

        • Steven Mosher – January 24, 2019 at 8:15 pm

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1/

          I ask for the sources for this chart.

          still waiting.

          https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death/

          read it dude.. do you see the sources?

          I asked, still waiting to hear.

          Steven Mosher, …… Sheldon Walker told you what the sources of his data was ……. and I know that you had/have no intentions whatsoever to verify said data ….. so why are you demanding a url “link” to said data? GEEEZUS, iffen he had offered a few “links” I seriously doubt that you would even have bothered to see if they were legit.

          And I say that because of all of your “psychobabbling” tripe n’ piffle rhetoric that you have been using to “badmouth” and discredit Sheldon Walker …… in the eyes and the minds of anyone reading your agitprop. And thus, as far as I am concerned, you are nothing more than a “political science” PR’er working for Berkley Earth, which the following is proof positive of, to wit:

          here: whole globe temperature field, absolute T
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TAVG_LatLong1.nc
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMAX_LatLong1.nc
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Complete_TMIN_LatLong1.nc

          requires netcdf, not excell

          Oh video version ( sorry anomalies)
          http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Animations/Complete_TAVG_Annual.mpg

          Post source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/an-open-letter-to-realclimate-org/#comment-2602645

          Steven Mosher, how come you didn’t provide the exact sources from which Berkley Earth obtained all of their temperature data, ….. I want to check it out to verify if it is legitimate. ☹ 😊

    • “Any way, love your enemies. They make you stronger”

      Good Christian advice. Difficult, though, for the likes of Judith Curry and Willie Soon who have been nearly destroyed by people on your side. They dared to say here is my data and here are my conclusions and all they got was a raging hatred.

      Besides, I don’t think that I have read a comment by anyone on WUWT who denied that the climate changes. I have lived in upstate New York where the Laurentide Ice Sheet was upwards of 5,000 feet thick and then, all of a sudden, it was gone. I lived just south west of Reno Nevada on glacial moraine. The glaciers are long gone. Climate always changes. Nobody (that I know of) denies that climate changes.

  4. Well said Sheldon. Anyone who resorts to the word ‘Denier’ has abandoned science.

    Since science advances by withstanding challenges, this is no more that a rhetorical attempt to suppress criticism – and is therefore profoundly anti-scientific.

    • Absolutely. The word ‘denier’ shouldn’t be used. It’s unacceptable, just like ‘alarmist’, ‘extremist’, ‘warmunist’ …

      • How is alarmist inaccurate?
        Aren’t they proclaiming alarm?
        If there is no cause for alarm, there is no cause for any changes.

      • SkS came up with it in their ” game plan” forum in 2011. Along with the Rapid Reposnse team and Crusher crew. The funniest thing is, there is no empirical evidence in real world conditions that a trace gas of 0.04% of the atmosphere in any way affects temperatures, or the fact man only continues < 1% of all human CO2 emissions on this planet. If it were proven, things would be a different.

  5. So is calling them “Alarmists”, not falling into exactly the same trap?

    Why should they talk to people who call them names?

    RS

    • If you visit Sheldon’s blog, you’ll see that he started by searching for polite disagreement, but this was not reciprocated. He (accurately) describes the practice of other websites that brook no disagreement. They too are deeply unscientific.
      ‘Alarmists’ are, BTW alarmed, so the term does not misrepresent them as ‘Denier’ does. Not only does it misrepresent scepticism, it was a deliberate attempt to liken sceptics to Holocaust Deniers – if you care to study the history.

      • “‘Alarmists’ are, BTW alarmed, so the term does not misrepresent them as ‘Denier’ does. ”

        Exactly right, Alarmist is a perfect description of those who spread the CAGW alarm.

    • Well, no it’s not. Pushing claims of imminent global catastrophe without verifiable evidence surely is alarmist. They would admit themselves that they are trying to alarm people.

    • RockySpears,

      my version of the “golden rule”, is “do to others, what they do to you”.

      I start out nice. What happens after that, is up to them.

      The standard “golden rule”, has a logical flaw. Bullies love the standard “golden rule”. It protects bullies from being “taught a lesson”.

      I suspect that the politically correct “golden rule”, is why so many kids commit suicide. They are punished if they stand up for themselves. So they feel trapped. The bullies love it. The bullies don’t follow the standard “golden rule”.

    • But “alarmism” is a well-established expression:

      “Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat, such as the increases in deaths from an infectious disease.[1] In the news media, alarmism can be a form of yellow journalism where reports sensationalise a story to exaggerate small risks.[2]”

      “The alarmist person is subject to the cognitive distortion of catastrophizing – of always expecting the worst of possible futures.[3]”

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

      Can’t see any reason why “alarmist” should have anything like the negative associations which “denier” has. An alarmist may exaggerate, or be too easily frightened, but that’s a mistake anybody can make. The denier tag, on the other hand, is deliberately used to associate with Holocaust Denier. And that’s ugly.

    • You’re confusing name-calling with categorizing. What other term would you use to describe a person who repeatedly pushes worst-case scenarios?

  6. Who wants to debate with an illiterate who thinks “alright” is actually a word?

    • Thank you, Michael S. Kelly! You anticipated my comment. The expression is “all right.” I used to correct “alright” and “alot” and similar incompetent combinations on student papers, and I hate seeing “alright” in a headline (!) in a publication meant to be read by adults.

      • Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
        and John M Ware
        The English language is alot like a linguistic moving feast, with the long lived colloquialisms becoming the new standard. So enjoy the change 🙂
        Verily a static dead language it becometh not — alright?

        • English impresses me as being a haphazard jerry rig (a little play on words there; speaking of, jerry-rigged is an interesting term to study and is illustrative of the haphazard nature of English.) I think becoming facile in English must develop in the mind a certain capacity for dealing with randomness and non-structure.

          • I also forgot (not really; just shows how English can be abused to mean ” I had an afterthought”) that English must develop in a person the capacity for humor (“That word comes from what! OMFG that’s hilarious! Hey hold my beer and watch what I do to THIS word!”)

        • indeed tom0mason. So while “alot” is not currently a recognized word on it’s own, perhaps one day, if enough people continue to use it when they mean “a lot”, it will be. Thus has it ever been with living languages.

          • I always thought Sir Lance Alot got that name by regularly skewering people, but perhaps I was wrong and it was not a lot. Live and learn. Thanks, John.
            😜

      • For ignoramouses like you 2 the word alright has been in use since 1865 as an alternative to All right.
        Try doing some research before embarrassing yourselves.

        • Mornin’ AC,
          Thank you for taking time to check the history of alright. Since I basically agree with your perspective, it would probably be counterproductive to suggest doing some research into the spelling of ignoramus.

          So I wont. :>)

          • Juan,
            Why does it not surprise me that you show up to comment on this?

            I like to visit this site: http://worldwidewords.org/

            This time the first post returned via the search gave an explanation of the meaning of “Adam’s oft ox” with the correct spelling as “Adam’s off ox.”

            Well, I wasn’t doing much except watching snow melt and birds eat sunflower seeds. Lots to learn, alright, from this newfangled internet thing.

            We are going to a special presentation of “Nick on the Rocks” tonight at CWU.

            Best to you and Nancy.

      • All right and alright are not synonyms. Compare

        My answers were all right, I didn’t miss one.
        My answers were alright, good enough to pass with a C.

      • John, while you are correct to correct any and all usages of alot (there should be a space between the “a” and “lot”, the smashed together version is not an word to be found in most dictionaries) you are wrong about alright. It is in the dictionary (as I pointed out in my post to Michael) and thus is an actual word. It’s mainly for informal usage (and internet forums would count as informal). Though, as the English language is a living language, even that can change, so the fact that it often turns up in more formal writings should be no surprise and is simply a sign of the changing times. If you want a static language, stick to latin and other dead languages.

        • Well, Webster’s says that “nukyuler” is an alternative pronunciation of “nuclear”. Apparently they just go with the flow.

    • Michael, the dictionary disagrees with you:

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright

      alright adverb or adjective
      al·​right | \ (ˌ)ȯl-ˈrīt,
      ˈȯl-ˌ\
      Definition of alright
      : all right

      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alright

      alright
      [awl-rahyt]
      adverb
      1 all right.

      The later notes: Although alright is a common spelling in written dialogue and in other types of informal writing, all right is used in more formal, edited writing.

      As this posting on an internet forum is considered informal writing, alright is perfectly alright to use.

      • Last sentence of second blockquote should have been outside the blockquote. Where is that edit button when you need it?

      • alright is perfectly alright to use.

        Interestingly, that use of the word “alright” is a fine example of how the word does not in fact mean, nor replace, “all right”.

  7. To me, as a sceptic, anyone who calls me a denier is indulging in a FALSE accusation.
    Usually done to avoid answering answering awkward questions.

    Those smitten by the rectitude of the CO2 Meme cease to be scientists as they themselves indulge in the DENYING of the scientific process.

    • Alasdair January 24, 2019 at 2:53 am
      To me, as a sceptic, anyone who calls me a denier is indulging in a FALSE accusation.
      Usually done to avoid answering answering awkward question.
      ——————————
      So as a “sceptic” you believe that the Gavins of this world MAY be correct and we do have a problem with co2 and co2 is being increased by human emissions.
      This being the case why do you chose to suggest that we carry on as normal pushing ourselves to a difficult future, passing the problems of our excesses onto future generations,
      There are a large majority of scientists whose research leads them to believe that AGW is real and will become dangerous. Should you as a sceptic totally ignore them because it may impact your lifestyle?
      What knowledge do you have of the future? It is not easy predicting what happens 100 years from now – how do you do it with such accuracy that you can ignore 1000s of scientists?

      • As a skeptic, I acknowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere influences atmospheric temperature.
        As a skeptic, I acknowledge that human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
        As a skeptic, I acknowledge that the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing.
        As a skeptic, I acknowledge that the atmospheric impact of increasing CO2 is logarithmic.
        As a skeptic, I question data that must be “adjusted”, especially multiple times.
        As a skeptic, I question models which don’t model what is observed, even after “adjustment”.
        As a skeptic, I question unsupportable claims of accuracy and precision.

        In short, I acknowledge what is known and question what is believed but not known.

        • Why do you think CO2 in the atmosphere influences atmospheric temperature? No such effect has ever been empirically demonstrated. The paleoclimate record shows no such “influence.”

          You appear to have acknowledged as “known” a purely hypothetical effect with no actual evidence it operates in reality.

        • Ed Reid January 24, 2019 at 5:38 am
          As a skeptic, I question data that must be “adjusted”, especially multiple times.
          As a skeptic, I question models which don’t model what is observed, even after “adjustment”.
          As a skeptic, I question unsupportable claims of accuracy and precision.
          ———–
          If measurement systems change, and some amount of correction can be applied. should they not be corrected?

          If you look at the averaged model and compare agains 2017/2018 actual data the error is small. Most plots seem to stop in 2013.

          Unfortunately AGW is small but insidious. IF AGW is real and caused by GHGs (you seem to agree with this) then the science says that the increasing CO2 levels will have a very long term effect (Approx 1.5 to 4°C increase) We will not be able to counteract this unless we start tampering with climate engineering (not a good idea), or start to limit CO2 and other GHGs emissions now. The effect is small but it is very long term.

          • No, they should not be corrected. Any changes are at best an estimate of what the error was, the odds are you will allow your biases to only change those numbers that help your cause and not do any changes that hurt your cause.
            There is no evidence that the “corrections” you are making aren’t actually making the numbers worse.
            List the problems found and leave it at that. That’s what real scientists do.

          • PS, there isn’t a shred of evidence that the response to a CO2 doubling is as high as 1.5C to 4C.
            PS, there isn’t a shred of evidence that even if temperatures do go up that much, it will be a problem.

      • I believe that “the Gavins of this world MAY be correct”.
        I also believe that I MAY win the lottery.

        Both have an equal chance of happening.

      • “There are a large majority of scientists whose research leads them to believe that AGW is real and will become dangerous.”

        My opinion is that the field drew in greenie types who are predissposed to resent man’s intrusion on nature and predict that harm will result from it.

        A couple of little-known surveys (George Mason 2008 and von Stoprch) found that only little more than half of surveyed scientists believed that AGW would be dangerous.

    • Alasdair, be prepared to prove your skeptic bonafides. Surely Mosher will be along shortly with half a dozen replies to you pressing you to prove you are a skeptic to his nebulous, undefined satisfaction.

  8. Why?
    Why do alarmists call people who disagree with their theories „deniers“ and throw dead cats at them?
    Is it because they want to nip in the bud any possible dicussion with people who do not, at least in general, consent to their opinion?
    Why don‘t they accept the recognised procedure of thesis – antithesis – synthesis?
    Don‘t they recognize that by denigrating and ridiculing people with other opinions does not make their own findings and conclusions more trustworthy? Au contraire: They seem to believe that by beating up, at lest verbally, the opponents makes themselves more scientific, better beings of a high morale. For the sake of the children…
    Are they afraid of being outed as charlatans, spreading dubious theories?
    Are they afraid of losing their economic basis of funding and collecting public money to finance their research if somebody finds out that things are not „worse than we thought“?

    Are these alarmist just starry-eyed idealist who want to save the world at all cost, even at the cost of destroying fundamental principles of society?

    Global warming and CO2 are no real problems. Warmer is better and CO2 is plant food. Instead of wasting time and mostly taxpayer‘s money on things that are changing anyway, they ought to find ways to better the living conditions of the poor by making good use of the chances of uncertain warming and increased plant growth.

    They are certainly trapped in their ivory towers of make – believe and bad manners, but our world isn‘t doomed. I hope theirs is.

  9. I posted that comment on Nir Shavivs blog some days ago:

    I find it always fascinating or bold as H. Rahmstorf, who sees himself as a scientist does not act according to scientific principles, i.a. by assuming that he and his colleagues are the sole owners of the truth, that he and his colleagues consider themselves flawless and believe that anyone who says otherwise is a denier, unscientific, unclean, have not read this or that or misunderstood it, tells nonsenses.
    He writes to newspapers and journalists to trim them in line, if they should ever publish something critical, which happens rarely enough, and refers to a fictitious consensus that 1. does not exist and 2. is obsolete in the scientific debate.
    There are not much scientists who trample the freedom of research and science under foot in the way that a H. Rahmstorf does.

    Put Schmidt instead of Rahmstorf, that changes nothing, it’s all the same dunghill.
    As far as “climatescience” is based on models and the realitycheck fails we don’t speak about science whatever a “consensus” is telling us.

    • Nicholas William Tesdorf January 24, 2019 at 3:21 am
      “Gavin Schmidt, like most Leftists, ”
      ———-
      No name calling here then!

      • Definition of name calling: abusive language or insults

        So, ghalfrunt, you are claiming leftist (IE those who are politically left-wing) is abusive or an insult you are correct, there is no name calling in the bit you quoted. While I can see someone who is politically right-wing being offended at being mislabeled a leftist, there is no indication the Gavin is politically right-wing and plenty of indications that he is in fact politically on the left (IE a leftist). And in either case it’s a political label, not an insult. same as referring to someone as a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, right-wing, left-wing, etc.

  10. The whole story is flawed an the base.
    Most is not all “climate scientists” are on state tenure or funded by state related agencies.
    All states use “climate science results” to justify taxes and huge taxes while opportunistic private sectors forsee immediate easy profits from government decisions.

    Those involved in “climate science” have no other reusable in the private sector qualifications.

    So the conclusion becomes clear, do not bite the hand that feeds.

    Which is a substantial bias, totally incompatible with the assumptions and other fudge constants used by the computer climate models.

  11. Sheldon – you miss the obvious. Climate scientists are miserable because they are tax men or revenuer’s and we have been fighting those miserable sod’s all our life.

  12. In the context of the hysteria over a warming climate and the presence of more plant-loving-CO2 in the atmosphere, the use of the term “denier” is nothing to get upset about. Personally I regard it as a badge of courage.

    I suggest we should all do the same. That is not to go around shouting about it but at least not agonising over being called it.

    • The problem with denier is it is meant as a slur, to associate the person being called a denier with “holocaust denial” (see the history of the use of the word in the context of climate change politics). It is very much meant as an ugly insult to dismiss those it is used on as being so “evil” and “fringe” as to not be worth listening to. You wearing it as a badge of courage is like a black man wearing the N word as a badge of courage – it doesn’t change the fact that the rest of the world still sees it as the demeaning slur its meant to be.

    • The antonym of denier is believer, a word that should be more of a slur to the scientific process. I guess that emotional proximity to an already preconceived result to a theory makes some scientists favor their status and funding over the scientific process.

    • The fact that those pseudo climate “scientists” cast about the term “denier” at those who disagree with them, and denounce “skeptics” like being a “skeptic” is essentially the equivalent of being a “denier,” just tells you that they are activists, not scientists.

  13. I once asked Schmidt which forcings caused the warming from 1910 to 1945.
    He couldn’t answer.
    But they adjusted or are adjusting the temperature data for this period with help of models so the science is settled again.

      • Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI
        The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355

        And I don’t even talk about regional SST differences.

        • yes john at the regional and local scale you will find differences.
          you have to given the different methods and different datasets.

          That’s why we call it a global record.

          Work continues ( because we are skeptical ) amongst specialists in the field.

          we look for more data. this is called data rescue.
          we compare records at the national and regional scale to see if we can improve or
          reconcile differences.

          One thing we note.

          The global record doesnt change as we refine local scale estimates.

          For berkeley we have a few approaches for improving local scale and have tested them out in USA and europe.

          • weird

            In all the temperature work I’ve done on local scale matching models has never been a criteria for correctness.

            For example. in the USA we ran our processing at 1/4 of a degree and then compared
            to PRISM which is 1km data, NCDC, some reanalysis products, and some downscaled GCMs.

            The thought is never to correct the data to fit the models because we know the models are not correct at local scale. The main issue is to understand why some products
            are smoother than others, why some products have local ouliers, diagnose why those outliers exist ( are they real, artefacts, or unknown?)

            In one study ( of labrador) the other researcher and I just spent months compiling
            all the known data and looking for differences between CRU, BEST and ENV canada.
            were stations mis identified? wrongly fused into single records? mis labelled
            dropped on the floor? And on of the questions we were looking at was what would we recommend as additional stations to reduce future uncertainty

            or there was this

            https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.4808

            There are a host of individual country comparison projects going on, and most importantly data rescue efforts.

            GISS says X about a region. CRu says Y, Berkeley earth says Z.
            The local experts say Q.

            So we sit down and try to identify SYSTEMATIC problems. Like CRU missing outsome arctic data, or the berkeley method getting some adjustment wrong.

            its tedious work. But you dont tweak to match GCMs. you have it backwards.
            our goal is to test them, not the other way around. we want them to haveto do better work to match us, rather than the other way around.

          • Mosher,
            Because you haven’t enough data you use models for refining local estimates or global estimates.

            A recent paper about models is here:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0355-y

            Earth system models are complex and represent a large number of processes, resulting in a persistent spread across climate projections for a given future scenario. Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal. This Perspective discusses newly developed tools that facilitate a more rapid and comprehensive evaluation of model simulations with observations, process-based emergent constraints that are a promising way to focus evaluation on the observations most relevant to climate projections, and advanced methods for model weighting. These approaches are needed to distil the most credible information on regional climate changes, impacts, and risks for stakeholders and policy-makers.

            Is the model Best uses better than CMIPS 3/5/6?

      • Things that never happened for $500 Alex

        What is Mosher not being an ass? Oh look I won the daily double.

  14. Gavin Schmidt
    Your challenge, if you will accept it, is to rise to and uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and break free of the political attraction of descending into Lysenkoism.
    Physics Noble Laureate Richard Feynman explained:

    But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. . . .
    We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science. . . .
    But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. . . .
    I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. . . .

    Cargo Cult Science, Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.
    http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
    When you call me a “climate denier”, you have abandoned sound science and descended into committing an illogical ad hominem rhetorical attack.
    Rise above that corruption of science for the collective good of WeThePeople – who are paying your salary.

    • “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out.”

      I believe that. As long as everyone is free to speak their mind.

  15. “Climate deniers” is a ridiculous term, nobody denies the existence of climate, although there is some debate as to its definition. The moment I see that term I know I am dealing with an idiot.

    “Climate change deniers” do exists but they are rare.

    The big denial problems are:

    “Natural climate change deniers” these people ignore all the climate change that occurred before man could have had any effect and insist that any climate change that occurs now must be man made. Even the IPCC is not that stupid, they only say the majority of current climate change is man made.

    “Climate complexity deniers” there people insist that there must be one thing that controls climate, generally CO2. A review of past climate changes shows clearly that no one thing controls climate.

    “Climate change benefits deniers” these people insist that any change must be for the worse. Actual evidence shows many benefits, often the exact opposite of what the alarmists claim. The obvious case is that both theory and practice say that reduced temperature differentials results in less severe storms, while the alarmists pretend that the few storms that still happen are cause by climate change.

    • “Even the IPCC is not that stupid, they only say the majority of current climate change is man made.”

      That’s about it. Most alarmists don’t read anything beyond the headline. For instance:

      “Climate change will affect gender ratio among newborns, scientists say”
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/climate-change-infant-sex-ratio-intl/index.html

      Note the word “will”.

      The first paragraph:

      “Global warming will have a variety of effects on our planet, yet it may also directly impact our human biology, research suggests.”

      Note the words “may” and “suggests”.

      Further on: “A recent study in Japan found a link”

      Notice: “A” study found “a” link.

      Again: “declined by between 6% and 14%”. Bit of a gap in the math there, no?

      And: “Stress stemming directly from “climate events caused by global warming” might also affect the sex ratio, Fukuda wrote in an email. Though scientists do not know how stress affects gestation, Fukuda theorizes”

      So, that’s more “might” and “email” and “theorizes”.

      Etc.

      When smeared with the “D”word I reply: I acknowledge that the majority of recent warming is man-made”. That at least calms the alarmists down…until I hit them with “by majority I mean a little more than 50%” and by recent I mean decades, which in terms of millions of years of climate, means nothing.”

  16. Gavin Schmidt. Climate Science must clearly differentiate accurately predict both natural and anthropogenic warming. E.g. see:
    Early 20th Century Global Warming Judith Curry.

    A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.

    Curry cites: The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes and consequences
    Gabi Hegerl, Stefan Bronniman, Andrew Shurer, Tim Cowan
    Abstract: “

    The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability and the response to human influences in the present and future climate. . . .

    • “The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability and the response to human influences in the present and future climate.”

      Hey! ETWC! We have a new name for the warming from 1910 to 1940 (new to me, anyway).

      I think this *is* the key to understanding our current temperature situation. If it was as warm in the recent past as it is today then that means we are not experiencing unprecedented warming today and there is no crisis on which we need to spend $TRILLIONS of dollars to fix.

      The Hansen 1999 US temperature chart below illustrates the ETWC! perfectly.

      It shows that the US has been in a temperature downtrend since 1934, where 1934 is 0.5C warmer than 1998, and 0.4C warmer than 2016 (per UAH). It’s cooler in the United States today, with more CO2 in the air, than it was in 1934, with much less CO2 in the air. An amount the IPCC says was not a significant factor in the warmth of the 1930’s. There’s more CO2 in the air now, but the temperatures are cooler than in recent history. So where is the crisis? Where is the CO2-induced warmth?

      Other unmodified temperature charts from around the world show the same temperature profile as the Hansen 1999 US chart which means the Hansen chart is representative of the global temperature profile, i.e., the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

      There is no unprecedented warming today. There is no need to turn our world upside down to fix this problem that doesn’t exist.

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

    • I have a suggestion for at least one simple method of determining if humans are affecting the global temperature:

      Take the temperature rise from 1915 to 1945 and note its magnitude – use historical data not adjusted numbers because are not trying to compare eras or synchronize stations.

      Then take the modern temperature rise 1976-2006 (a similar period of 30 years). Subtract the former from the latter to arrive at the difference. If there is one, that is the maximum possible human influence because we already know that the former was natural.

  17. CAGW alarmism is a political phenomenon, not a physical one.

    Using facts, data, logic, reason, historical records, math, physics, statistics, the scientific method, etc., to show how CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis is a waste time when debating with Leftists who call you a “science denier” or “climate denier”…

    Leftists’ blind beliefs are about being Politically Correct, not being factually, empirically or logically correct.

    Eventually, Leftists’ blind beliefs become so laughably devoid from reality, they’re abandoned, and replaced with a new Politically Correct faux crisis, which can only be fixed by governemnt hacks wasting $trillions more of taxpayers’ hard earned money…

    I wonder what the next Leftist “crisis” will be? Manmade Global Cooling, perhaps?

  18. Speaking of trust, per Rodney Dangerfield:
    “Trust is getting oral sex from a cannibal”

    That is the funniest line I ever heard.

    • Tom in Florida
      I read your witticism to the Long Suffering Mrs. Jewett.

      She huffed and said “MEN!”.

      No sense of humor.

  19. Hello Everybody,

    When confronted with names such as ‘denier’ I am reminded of Mike Hulme’s book, “Why we disagree about climate change” [Ref. 1]. Hulme is/was Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (i.e. the university at the centre of the Climategate affair) and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    In his book Hulme says, at page 78, “Climate change has become a classic example of … ‘post-normal science’: the application of science to public issues where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ … Normal science, science as guided by Merton’s four classic norms of scientific practice – scepticism, universalism, communalism, disinterestedness – is no longer fit for purpose.” Personally, I disagree profoundly with Hulme; I believe normal science has a huge amount yet to contribute provided it is not drowned out by post-normal scientists and their allies in the mainstream media.

    Later in the book, pages 340 – 341, Hulme writes, “Climate change is not a problem that can be solved … we need to find other ways of categorising it … I suggest we change our position and examine climate change as an idea of the imagination rather than as a problem to be solved. By approaching climate as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of task, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” Is this not Hulme inviting us to set aside Feynman’s “scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” in favour of research outcomes which are policy-directed (i.e. highly political)?

    From the above it seems to me that we should be calling out post-normal science (PNS) and post-normal scientists whenever they practice PNS but fail to declare their commitment to it, especially when they claim to be normal scientists in the Mertonian and Feynman tradition. Making this distinction would, I suggest, be very helpful to the public – although it might not help the mainstream media with their desire to sell exciting/catastrophist copy.

    Reference
    1. Mike Hulme, “Why we disagree about climate change”, Cambridge University Press, 2009, especially at pages 78 – 79 and 340 – 341.

    Regards,
    Idiot_Wind.

  20. Just remember what Popper and Feynman said.

    the way to disprove science is to find a few guys who call you names. If some person X, believes in theory Y, and calls you name Z, then Y is false.

    or better. Post to a blog. if no one reads your junk, they must be wrong.

    Scott adams was collecting bad skeptical arguments.

    somebody I know is a broadcaster..

    • Looks like Steve has had his wittle feewings hurt.

      You can tell this because he starts lying about what other people are saying and doing.

      The way to disprove a theory (you don’t disprove science, even you should know that Steve) is by showing that the theory fails to accurately reflect the real world.

      That is what we’ve done. However Steve can’t accept that because his salary is dependent upon the continued belief in the so called “climate science”.

      • The way to disprove a theory (you don’t disprove science, even you should know that Steve) is by showing that the theory fails to accurately reflect the real world.

        BINGO MarkW. Science is predictive. If the predictions fail then the theory or hypothesis that made those predictions is falsified – that’s how science works. If there are no predictions then there is no falsifiability and thus it is not science. Either way CAGW fails. It’s projections/predictions routinely fail to match observed reality (so it’s falsified) and if you insist that it only makes “projections” which are not to be considered “predictions” than it’s not science (see “Science is predictive”).

    • Just to give Steve Mosher the props he deserves:

      “Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails

      “Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails
      · Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data

      · Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands

      · Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”

      From the next post by Dr. Tim Ball.

      I think Mosher and Fuller deserve full credit for publishing Climategate: The Crutape Letters, clearly airing much of the behind the scenes manipulating going on in the past.

    • Care to explain why you find it funny? or why you think every sentence a self-described skeptic writes must be “very skeptical” (to you undefined nebulous standard) or else they’re not a “real” skeptic? or are you “simply making assertions and not providing evidence”? I thought you were against that?

      • Its funny because he took a huge amount of time to do 10 minutes work.
        and then got the work wrong!

        He took so much time because he doesnt know sources.

        Look at his temp versus Latitude? Do you know why that is wrong?
        Do you see how smooth it is around his curve?
        Do you know there should be a divergence at approximately 15 degrees latitude?
        do you know why?

        Do you see he is missing data below -50 Lat?

        Now my suspicion is he used gridded data ( and says so elsewhere)

        But in the actual article he doesnt cite his sources.

        So why is it funny.

        1. Because he Uses the time he spent as evidence of his dedication when in fact its
        evidence of ignorance and incompetence.
        2. Because he tries to vouch for himself and credentials when
        A) you cannot vouch for yourself
        B) data matters and not credentials– ask willis
        3. Funny because he has no idea how dedicated other people are or how much time they spend.

        funny.

  21. People like Gavin exist and prosper because of ignorance on the part of the vast majority of the people in this and other countries. A dumbed down educational system is crucial for his continued prosperity.

    For example, anybody familiar with the history of science would understand that we are just in the beginning of our understanding of the climate on Earth. Since climate science is basically observational, we cannot do laboratory experiments to test any hypothesis. (Note: I typed “confirm any hypothesis” at first. We have no way of confirming a hypothesis!) Some might question is such an activity appropriately even called a science.

    There is simply no way that we can create realistic climate models, for example. It would be like making a computer model of a human and using that model to test drugs to treat cancer.

    Then, our student of science would learn how crooked the path to the truth can be. Every scientific question has lead to many wrong paths being pursued by diligent scientists. The theory of evolution is an excellent example. Humans have speculated for centuries on the origin of the different species on Earth and even on how life began. Even though we think we now understand evolution, there are many unanswered questions. Is Darwin’s idea that evolution is a slow and gradual process true, for example. If so, how do similar species have different numbers of chromosomes? Does not that imply a quantum step? And who would dare to put forth a computer model, predicting with mathematical precision, the genetic state of the human race in 100 years?

    Now, imagine if any researcher who differed in his view of evolution from the current mainstream thinking were labelled an “evolution denier” or worse. For example, what if a paleontologist said an astronomical catastrophe destroyed the dinosaurs? In my youth, such a man was called a crackpot or a religious zealot. Now, the same view identifies you as a solid, mainstream scientific worker.

    My view is that the asteroid hit did not kill off the dinosaurs. Am I an evolution denier?

    • What folks have to realize is that the term denier is encapsulated framing. Whenever you allow the opponent to define the framing, you lose. Learn to co-opt, hollow out and redefine their framing. For example, deniers means those who deny that thermodynamic physics is just as relevant to climate science as radiative physics is. Or those who deny that climate model ensembles are not data.

  22. Steven Mosher wrote, “in short nobody in science is arguing that the danger or risk comes from increases in annual temp.” I think that’s not correct but I’m curious to know where you think people “in science” think the risk or danger of global warming come from.

  23. With less than 10% of the visits of WUWT and almost a 50% higher bounce rate, lots more folks will see the letter here – and even more so the unfiltered comments – than at RC.

    It must really burn to so badly want folks to believe your narrative that you’re willing to disingenuously suppress skeptical points of view only to have those views expressed here to an audience more than 10X as large.

    • Yet a Google search for “climate change skeptic websites” returns realclimate.org as the fourth hit and wattsupwiththat.com as the 60th.

  24. First you write:

    Then you write:

    You started off reasonable and non-confrontational, and then you went into attack-mode, using a word (Alarmist) to describe those who you say you hate! Who are these “Alarmists”(always with a capital ‘A’?) and why do you describe them as “Alarmists”? Is it just an easy insulting description for those who you don’t like and hate? Just like those who use the word ‘denier’? Gavin gave his description of what he sees as ‘climate denial’ (not using the word ‘denier’) and yet you have automatically used the word ‘Alarmist’ as a catch-all against all those who you seem to hate.
    And you mention “name callers” and resort to name-calling.
    And you know that most “deniers” are “intelligent”? How do you know this?
    I’ll leave by quoting your own words back to you: “When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.” Bad luck, then…

    • “Alarmist” is descriptive. It is an appropriate adjective for someone who is alarmed. How is it insulting?

      “Denier” implies a false description, and is intentionally provocative, being used to describe racists who deny that millions of Jewish people were exterminated in a holocaust meant to wipe them out.

      • Also, the term “denial” implies that what is being denied has been proven to the point that no rational person could doubt it.
        An honest term would be skeptic, but the climate alarmists gave up being honest a long time ago.

        • And even when they say “skeptic,” they spit it out as if it should carry a degrading meaning, for exactly the same reason – their “belief” that their point of view has been “proven” to the point that no rational person could doubt it, when the reverse – no rational person who actually bothers to examine their claims in detail could possibly do anything BUT doubt it – is the truth.

  25. I’ve made two attempts to post a comment there, but my comment just disappears (Screenshot #1, Screenshot #2).

    This is the comment which I tried to post:

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Gavin wrote to Sheldon Walker, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”

    The truth is that most of the people who use that term do not restrict it to know-nothings. Anyone who disagrees with even the most tenuous aspect of climate alarmism gets called a “denier” by climate alarmists (often from behind anonymous handles like “t marvell,” “DukeSnide,” “Mal Adapted,” “Al Bundy,” etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the disagreement is based on mere reflexive gainsaying or solid evidence.

    In fact, most of the people who use that pejorative term also insist, ironically, that there is no such thing as “solid evidence” against climate alarmism.

    For instance, when I show graphs like these as proof that CO2 level does not significantly influence the rate of sea-level rise, and thus that the IPCC is wrong to claim that rates of sea-level rise depend on emission scenarios or RCPs, I usually get called a “denier,” or worse:

    https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_Wismar_Stockholm_vs_CO2_annot3.png

    https://sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html

    Sea-level continues to rise in some places and fall in others, at rates not significantly different from 90 years and 105 ppmv CO2 ago.

    All that additional atmospheric CO2, CH4, etc. has not significantly altered sea-level trends, thus far. (Nor, contrary to Leif Knutsen’s comment, has it caused worsening droughts, forest fires, or storms.) The major effects, so far, are modest & benign warming (mostly at high latitudes, where it makes frigid climates a little bit less harsh), beneficial “greening” of the earth, and agricultural gains.

    Those are proven facts, yet most climate alarmists refuse to admit them, and many of them are the very same people who call those who disagree with them “deniers.”

    It also doesn’t help that the name-callers are often unwilling to engage in civil discussions with those who disagree with them, and that they even often seek to censor those who disagree with them, if they can. For instance, even though several people here, including Gavin, have written replies to Sheldon Walker’s comment, including a question, he is not permitted to respond to them here. When he tried to respond, his very measured comment was removed to “The Bore Hole.”

    “Valid criticism does you a favor,” noted Carl Sagan, but it takes a big person to be properly grateful for it. Sheldon’s criticism was valid, constructive and gentle, but I’m not detecting any gratitude for it.

  26. Ha. The notorious Real Climate.
    This happened exactly as I describe.
    Years ago I’d engage them. Always calm and simply inquiring in search of genuine discussion.
    Their censoring turned ugly when one of my comments was literally edited to alter it’s meaning.
    Then their goons tore into it while I was blocked from posting any reply.
    When I did not reappear and respond to their trash talking of my edited comment they mocked me for having run away in defeat. Which of course I had not. I was prohibited from telling them I was blocked.

        • Indeed, to prove the editing he’d have had to have the foresight to screencap his post before it was edited, but not being Psychic he’d have no way of knowing beforehand that his post would be altered so would have to have literally been screen capping all his online activity in order to have a relevant screen cap. So unless Canman routinely screencaps all his on line activity (which I’d be willing to bet he doesn’t) its unreasonable of him to expect that of others.

        • Well, I kinda wished I could have screencapped my UseNet discussions with people like William Connolly (or at least remembered what name I was using…).

          They made some quite checkable predictions twenty years ago or so. Would be nice to say “told you so” to “experts”.

          • You could probably dig them up with some effort. As long as you know the time frame and the usenet message group you could probably fine them by searching for William Connolly’s posts.

      • I think I did at the time. And may have shared it here. But it was 10 years ago.
        And I dont care how much weight it carries.
        Of course the edited/altered version was so stupid it was easy to be debunked and ridiculed.
        But I never said it and was blocked from responding.

  27. My response has always been, “No, I am not a holocaust denier, and you are not a member of the national socialist German workers party. Can we get back to talking about science?”

  28. Gavin isn’t a scientist. He’s a climate modeler. Big difference. Gavin specifically eschews scientific methods to advance his computer toys to a more “scientific” state. I salute you for trying, but I fear you will never crack this particular nutshell. Because Gavin knows the level of the inner meat. He knows he’s got a very thin gruel but trying to sell it as Filet Mignon. He gets results by bullying, censoring, cronyism, and having expanded his influence within the teat-suckling interest group that is climate research. He’s been a success, too. At least in that he has helped climate science as a whole to strongly shift away from the very objective, but problematic remote sensing tasks (problematic because the data don’t always back up his case), and towards climate modeling, which is vague and which can always be found to be in agreement with a tiny amount of opacity and prestidigitation with some FORTRAN code. Furthermore, this is a great political and financial victory for him. But the science of climate models is worthless, the outputs they generate are merely innumerable and innumerate hypotheses that we’ll never be capable of testing, even if an honest person was in charge, rather than people like Gavin, who seem to be running the show. Oh, geez, did I just hint that I think Gavin is a dishonest person? I guess I did. And I think he’s a terrible coward, too. (witness: the borehole, John Stossel show, etc.)

    I once had your experience of trying to speak some sense, calmly to the other side. This was at BadAstronomy, the blog run by CAGW alarmist Phil Plaitt. It went nowhwere. But I gave the audience at that blog a prediction of the future that gives me great comfort. I told them that when all the dust of the great CAGW debate settles, in the end, the use of the term Climate De NYE r will define it’s accusers far more effectively than it will define it’s targets. I told them that the climate hysteria of the late 20th and early 21st centuries would become a phenomenal sociological case study in mass delusion and political brainwashing. I hope that tiny seed took root in a young, impressionable mind or two.

  29. Since Gavin and his pal Mike both act like jerks, I stopped posting (rather attempts at posting) on Realclimate. I noticed that obsequious posts survive and got supportive answers whereas serious, but non-obsequious questions vanish.

    • I’ve simply stopped giving sites like that my clicks. They are worth money* (advertising), and just as I don’t go where I’m not welcome, my money doesn’t go where I’m not welcome.

      *No idea if that site actually sells ads, but you get the picture. Even if they don’t, someone is counting clicks…

  30. Gavin would probably say that the word alarmist is just as derogatory as denier. So be it. I call them worse than that “bedwetters” .

  31. RealClimate? Is that actually still around? I guess it could be useful as a repository for leaked, incriminating emails…..

  32. I salute the fact Gavin Schmidt actually takes part in the discussion.

    ‘might need to do something about carbon emissions’

    The trouble here is we won’t ‘do something’. Believing we need to, will be a pain.

    There are two options: adaptation or doing nothing. ATM we’re doing nothing: China will grow emissions, none knows how to reduce them in a cost efficient way. Cost efficient == less people die than by not acting.

    We should be ready to adapt to. If +1C is this bad, +1.5C must be devastating. Add /sarc if needed.

    • Problem with “carbon emissions” is that they have the wrong demon. It’s carbon dioxide. There still are actual emissions of carbon from coal mining, and many other types of mining where the actual carbon is incidental to what is being mined.

      The problem with “might need to do something about carbon emissions’ is that fossil fuels compromise something like 60% of the world energy supply and an even larger fraction, roughly 80%) of transportation fuels such as the fuel for the 1300 private jets that flew to Davos recently to discuss climate change and carbon emissions. Right now there is no viable substitute on the horizon that will make a significant(say 20-30%) reduction in CO2 emissions. China and India simply won’t do it. Neither will sub-Saharan Africa. Once they have gotten to decent level of GDP they will, but not now.

      It’s not that we “won’t” do something. Presently we simply can’t make any usefuls substitute for fossil fuels in the supposed time we need to do it. The only possible possibility might be dispersed nuclear power both for electricity and transportation. Small, difficult to weaponize reactors would easily fit in the giant container ships. Unfortunately nothing but fossil fuel will work for aircraft.

  33. Someone who reflexively uses the term “denier” is putting everyone in the same category. Do they really believe that everyone is in the same category? Do they really believe that all skeptics believe more or less the same things? If they do, it’s a very safe bet that they would be unable to articulate the mainstream skeptical positions.

    It’s not hard to counter incorrect arguments on the other side that are outside the mainstream. If all someone can do is attack extreme positions that almost nobody holds, I will automatically assume that their position is so weak that that’s all they can muster. We can laugh at an elected politician who says that we only have 12 years to live, but it would it add anything to the discussion to debunk such a claim?

    Supposedly, failing to develop a political consensus that global warming requires radical action, we’re facing all sorts of catastrophic events. And THIS is how they engage? With lives at stake, they throw insults? That’s weak.

    As a side note, rather than saying “… it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.” It would be better to say, “It is a mistake to think that only you know the truth.” Don’t talk about versions of the truth as if you believe there is more than one.

  34. “Denier”, an other word for “heretic”, is part of religious vocabulary, as the complete AGW building (church) is only a religious question of believe it or not.
    Further I see no reason to ask if the author of the open letter is skeptic or not.

  35. Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth.

    Not only is his VERSION of the truth not the only version, but also his version amounts to the opposite of what he implies, meaning he is labeling a lie as “truth”.

    The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.

    There is no such thing as “climate denial”. In defining this phrase as he does (between the dashes), he falsely manufactures a definition of this phrase that is NOT legitimate (according to what the word, “climate”, actually means).

    He hijacks this phrase with his own, narrow, linguistically-perverted definition, which means that he is presenting a FALSE definition, which makes him a liar, in order that he can continue to lie in discussions where this phrase is used, … where other people are forced to adopt his linguistically perverted definition, to the exclusion of properly interpreting the words.

    By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth.

    Read my previous comment again, and then laugh at his utter hypocrisy. By using a contrived, narrow-minded application of a fake label, he MANUFACTURES untruth in the context of all other words he uses.

    I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science. – gavin]

    I would suggest that if people want to be rightly be called a climate scientist, they don’t make up linguistically degenerate definitions to aggressively label other people who point to real-world evidence and competent mathematical treatments revealing abuse of science in the name of climate.

  36. Mosh,

    Do you post on Real Climate or Skeptical Science? If you are welcome at either or both, that says a lot about you.

    You keep talking about “science.” Do you know what science is, and is not? You talk about interpolating data. Data cannot be interpolated, much less extrapolated which is what BEST and all temp data sets actually do. And, data certainly cannot be “adjusted,” for any reason ever. Data is what the instrument recorded. If you need better data, get a better instrument.

    There is no other “science” where 30 years of effort have resulted in NO PROGRESS towards determining the central question, what is the ECS or even the TCS, and is there actually a difference.

    Is Michael Mann a “scientist?” Are there proxies for GAST? Did you know that those bristlecone pines he used only actually grow for six weeks a year? Well, that makes a nice temp proxy for the whole world, doesn’t it.

    Why do “climate scientists” use “forcings?” There are no forcings. There is an amount of heat in the atmosphere, which changes every minute. The Sun shines, the dirt, sand, rock, grass, and water reflect and radiate to space, and water vapor and CO2 absorb, thermalize, and re-emit IR. Is Kevin Trenberth a scientist? Can the atmosphere heat itself, or the Earth’s surface?

    You should not talk about “science” until you start doing what real scientists do, and no one in “Climate Science” does this, except maybe probably Lindzen, but he is retired.

    How about those ARGO buoys? They showed the oceans cooling, so the keepers of the “Data” let Josh Willis throw out the cool readings. Wow, how scientific. How about those TOB “adjustments?” How about a system which changes temps from 100 years ago because of new readings?

    I could go on, but I needn’t…

    • “Do you post on Real Climate or Skeptical Science? If you are welcome at either or both, that says a lot about you.”

      In the begining I posted on RC. then I got attacked and left.
      I comment there maybe once a year

      SKS?

      I am banned.

      any more idiotic questions?

      • Instead of insulting him asking for more questions you could have tried answering some of the nearly a dozen other questions in that post that you completely avoided addressing. That you avoided all those questions and choose to attack him with a disingenuous “any more idiotic questions?” speaks volumes.

  37. What Gavin doesn’t seem to understand is that the output from computer models isn’t “true”. You aren’t denying the truth by being skeptical of the accuracy of predictions of future warming and predictions of how that warming may impact the earth and mankind.

    I’m very skeptical that there will be any kind of meaningful action taken in the next 10 years to reduce emissions. It’s politically impractical as shown so clearly in France.

  38. “I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.”

    Gavin and Skepticalscience think they have the only versions of the truth.
    I no longer waste my time on these sites but they are quoted by people who will not take the time to do some real searching and comparisons.

    So, yes, you are wasting your time.

  39. My reaction to Gavin’s “response” –

    “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth.”

    – Which is why “climate scientists” pushing “climate change” propaganda aren’t trusted. Tell the truth (about the complete lack of empirical evidence regarding your claims, the massive uncertainties and lousy data, etc.), and then people might have trust in you; when you instead resort to data manipulation, exaggerations, cover-ups, refusal to share data and methods, refusal to openly debate the issues with those whose views differ, attacks on scientists (and anyone else) whose views differ from yours, outright lies regarding the “confidence” that it’s all the fault of humans, etc. ad nauseum to push a POLITICAL agenda, don’t expect “trust” because YOU DON’T DESERVE IT.

    “The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”

    – The only “denial” going on is the denial of NATURAL climate forces, which have driven changes to the climate which extend far beyond the range of anything currently being experienced, which have driven rates of change faster than anything currently being experienced, and which haven’t gone “on holiday” so as to have nothing to do with current climate changes. Just because “climate science” has yet to adequately identify, measure, and study all of the natural forces involved doesn’t mean our minuscule CO2 emission input is now “the” primary driver, based on the “pet hypothesis” of so-called “climate scientists.” So the propaganda pushing so-called “climate scientists” are the REAL “deniers.” Because, unlike their pseudo science, NATURAL climate change is a FACT – it requires no “belief.”

    “By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science.”

    – Nobody is asking “climate scientists” to avoid “the truth,” just to refrain from demonizing people who disagree with their garbage pseudo-science as if it were religion. In order to be “denying” something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST, so there is no “rightful” accusation of “climate denial.” There is nothing remotely convincing in so-called “climate science” to convince anyone with a brain who (1) isn’t interested in pushing the agenda, and (2) is actually looking critically at the ridiculous claims being made, to convince them of the imaginary “truth” of which “climate scientists” are so defensive.

    • Indeed, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth.”

      That trust, however, has to be based on demonstrable facts. Real science is based on the production of hypotheses that can to objectively proved/disproven. Climate “science” is rife with apocalyptic claims (ice-free Arctic, endless California drought, annual Katrinas) that are patently false. The response from the climate alarmists is always some convoluted interpretation of sparse and obscure data to justify a correction ex post facto, then demand funding for more “research”.

      That’s how swindlers operate; not scientists.

  40. Well said Sheldon! The use of “denier” is foolish wrong and unhelpful I am a proud skeptic. I don’t know everything and I know that, but I also cannot tolerate the arrogance and self-righteousness of the warmists. It is not an opinion or a belief to say that AGW “science” is created from a political premise and given to the UN to “study” as though there could be no other cause than CO2, which in itself is laughably daft. The use of the word “denier” is indicative of a belief system and politics, and betrays any actual science, wherein no emotion or politics can be present.

  41. I’m skeptical of a science where it seems anything cute, fluffy, or nourishing is on the verge of some tipping point that will lead to its extinction, whereas anything nasty, disease-carrying, or crop-destroying is on the verge of some tipping point where it will flourish. Because I’ve observed that nature tends to be indifferent to human perceptions of good and bad.
    I’m skeptical of a science that, when observations for the previous few decades showed cooling, predicted that cooling would lead to more intense storms; but when observations for the most recent few decades indicate warming, predicts that warming will lead to more intense storms.
    I’m skeptical of a science that airbrushes out familiar and descriptive terms in favour of alternatives that obfuscate. For example, ‘Medieval Warming Period’ becomes ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’; ‘Global Warming’ becomes ‘Climate Change’; ‘Unusual Weather’ or a “Bad Storm’ or the latest flood or drought collectively become the new catch-all ‘Extreme Weather’.
    And since I mentioned Anomaly, I’m wary of any science that adopts everyday terms in a manner that will mislead laypeople. Normal implies ‘to be expected’, but I am unlikely to observe a ‘normal’ temperature on a cloudy and rainy day, or on clear and sunny day. Yet I expect both kinds of days, and some that are a mix of sun and cloud. Anomaly implies something irregular, but decades of temperature measurements and centuries of proxies indicate that it would be more irregular if temperatures remained the same year after year, decade after decade, and century after century.
    That’s just some of the baggage that climate science has chosen to adorn itself with, and to warrant ‘Extreme Scrutiny’, and to rate the integrity of its output somewhere between that of Economists and Astrologers.

  42. The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is NOT proven beyond reasonable doubt. A major role in science is to raise specific rational questions which probe a theory. For example wrt to global warming, the theory states that incoming solar energy is constant but rising CO2 reduces energy loss to space (measured as outgoing long wave radiation or OLR). Constant input, reducing output creates an imbalance which causes Earth to warm. It strikes me the most basic test is to check, is OLR reducing as CO2 rises? Answer – all the data I have seen shows that OLR is rising not falling.

    Asking such a question is not denial, it is a reasonable rational question pertaining to an unproven thesis and to call that denial implies an unwillingness to engage in rational reasonable scientific debate. That in turn means believers know they cannot defend their theory. One cannot “prove” a theory simply by claiming unilaterally that it is beyond dispute.

    By the way, as the temperature of Earth rises one would expect OLR to increase but the claimed rise in temp is <=1C with a climate sensitivity of 3 watts/sqM/C so temperature rise could maybe account for up to 3 watts/sqM if we assume no reduction of OLR from CO2 – which by the way would disprove the thesis. The data from NCEP shows the rise is more like 6-8 wats/sqM since 1950.

  43. “I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.”

    But we’re going to be swallowed by the bloodthirsty jaws of INESCAPABLE DEATH!!!!

    They feel obliged to chivvy us along…

  44. Interesting post,nice reply on the authority front,did seem to go off the rails pretty quick.
    I am sceptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,in all its names, I have heard many adherents to the cause speak of “the science”.
    But their science is alien to me,it lacks defined terms, the data is weirdly fluid,the error bars exceed the amplitude of the signal.
    Enquiries and requests for information are treated as personal attacks by these “Keepers of “The Science””, replication is impossible.

    Output from computer programmes is not data,the constant attempts to defend G.I.G.O as evidence is astounding,persons who attempt to defend this indefensible position reveal themselves as fools.

    Climate Science would make Mark Twain proud, 40 years of endless speculation based on so few facts.

    Those who argue from authority are keepers of the faith,they can see the evidence for climatic doom,just as the experts of the Emperors Court could all see the naked mans wonderful clothes.
    And they use the same arguments that Hans Christian Anderson immortalized.
    Human Nature is amazing.

    As for Gavin..Real Climate is still a thing?
    Kind of sad when a bureaucrat starts a website for propaganda purposes and then censors to the point that almost no one bothers going there.while demonstrating the same “honesty” with comment handling he demonstrates as a “Climate Scientist”.

  45. “…Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth…”

    And yet he and others will go blue in the face defending Stephen Schneider (“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…) and the antics revealed in Climategate.

    But speaking of Gavin and trust, who can forget this gem?
    https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/

  46. “Do you post on Real Climate or Skeptical Science? If you are welcome at either or both, that says a lot about you.”

    In the begining I posted on RC. then I got attacked and left.
    I comment there maybe once a year

    SKS?

    I am banned.

    any more idiotic questions?

    • (since you posted….)
      Instead of insulting him asking for more questions you could have tried answering some of the nearly a dozen other questions in that post that you completely avoided addressing. That you avoided all those questions and choose to attack him with a disingenuous “any more idiotic questions?” speaks volumes.

  47. Yesterday there was a big ugly fly in our living room. It flew around and made a lot of noise, yet nobody started running after it and after a while it sat down somewhere and didn’t bother us anymore. Can we please do the same with this Mosher guy?

Comments are closed.