Dr. Roy Spencer: “The science of climate change is anything but settled”

Guest post by David Middleton

From The Washington Times…

The science of climate change is anything but settled

By Roy W. Spencer – – Wednesday, March 13, 2019

On March 5, 58 senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel to take a critical look at the science underpinning climate change claims. Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the “science is settled.”

But if the science is settled, what are they afraid of? Wouldn’t a review of the science come to the same conclusion as the supposed consensus of climate scientists?

The letter claimed, “Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating.”

While climate change is indeed real, it is not at all obvious how much humans have to do with it. Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits this, saying only that over half of warming since the 1950s is believed to be human-caused. So, “driven by humans” is an exaggeration, even by the IPCC’s rather alarmist standards.

The additional claim that climate change is “accelerating” can also be challenged. In recent decades, warming actually decelerated, and there is a growing gap between climate model forecasts and measured global temperatures.

In fact, a peer-reviewed paper published last year in the prestigious Journal of Climate found that the observed level of global warming since the late 1800s, including the deep oceans, was consistent with a climate system only half as sensitive as are the climate models guiding U.S. energy and national security policy.

And even that study assumed that all of the warming was human-caused. If recent warming is only half anthropogenic, then the global warming problem is only one-fourth as bad as the public is being told.

In their letter, the Gang of 58 then used Hurricane Florence from last year as a supposed example of human-caused climate change. Seriously?


Read more here

Dr. Spencer goes on to demolish the Gang of 58’s reasons for opposing President Trump’s Red Team.

Dr. Spencer nails it:

Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the “science is settled.”

But if the science is settled, what are they afraid of? Wouldn’t a review of the science come to the same conclusion as the supposed consensus of climate scientists?

What are they afraid of? Getting their @$$es kicked? Made to look like fools? Losing precious time in the Global War Against Weather? According to Ayock & Beto (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Robert Francis O’Rourke) we only have 10 or 12 years to save the planet from destruction… So, clearly the planet can’t afford any delays in the implementation of the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution. Speaking of saving the planet…

Speaking of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke… Did anyone else hear his moronic comments about the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution? (Side note: My wife, who is Mexican, refers to Beto as “Puto.” I can’t repeat what she calls Ayock in a PG-13 environment…not that the George Carlin bit was PG-13).

QUESTION: Your thoughts on the new green deal?

BETO O’ROURKE: The question is on the Green New Deal, and if you don’t mind I will take the spirit of the question. We face catastrophe and crisis on this planet, even if we were to stop emitting Carbon today, right now at this moment, we know that the storms we saw in Texas, Harvey, which dumped a record amount of rain on the United States of America, as long as we have kept records, that claimed the lives of too many of our fellow Americans, flooded people literally out of their homes and businesses. Storms like Harvey will be more frequent, severe and devastating. Ultimately they’ll compromise the ability to live in a city like Houston, Texas. The droughts experienced in the panhandle of Texas, five years straight. We got rain and went back into droughts again. The same scientists say those droughts will be more profound, more severe. At a town hall like this. A young woman came in with her two children. She was skipping her son’s basketball practice to be there to talk to a Democrat though she was a life long Republican. She told me what her grandparents planted on the farm, what her parents planted on their farm, she’s now trying to plant it and it doesn’t grow. She said climate change isn’t something to prepare for. It is here. 

Let us all be well aware that life will be a lot tougher for the generations that follow us, no matter what we do. It is only a matter of degrees. Along this current trajectory, there will be people who can no longer live in the cities they call home today. There is food grown in this country that will no longer prosper in these soils. There is going to be massive migration of tens or hundreds of millions of people from places that are going to be uninhabitable or under the sea. 

This is the final chance. The scientists are unanimous on this. We have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis. My gratitude to them for the young people who stepped up to offer such a bold proposal to meet such a grave challenge. They say we should do nothing less than marshal every resource in the country to meet that challenge, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, to get to net zero emissions, which means not only must we emit less greenhouse gasses, we must plant things that absorb greenhouse gasses and Carbon and invest in the technology to allow us to claim some that are in the air now. Can we make it? I don’t know. It’s up to every one of us. Do you want to make it? 

[ applause ]

Your kids, my kids. Ulysses, who in 2050 is going to be just about my age, will be looking back on this moment in Keokuk in 2019 and every moment thereafter to judge what we did or failed to do. Thinking about us, his kids’ lives, whether they can even breathe, depends on what we do now. 

Some will criticize the Green New Deal for being too bold or being unmanageable. I tell you what, I haven’t seen anything better that addresses this singular crisis we face, a crisis that could at its worst lead to extinction. The Green New Deal does that. It ties it to the economy and acknowledges that all of the things are interconnected. 

It also recognizes some communities have borne the brunt of pollution more than others. The asthma deaths we have in the United States of America concentrated in some neighborhoods, some people more than others. It wants to make sure we do our part in making this more equitable, helping communities already hurt so badly. That we ensure there are jobs available for those looking for work for purpose, for function in their lives who are succumbing to the diseases of despair. 

In so doing make sure the world’s greatest superpower, its greatest democracy, and economy brings everything we have to the unique challenge. Literally. Not to be dramatic, but literally, the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are. Let’s find a way to do this.

Real Clear Politics

As difficult as it is to imagine, Puto Beto appears to actually be dumber than Ayock, and rates 25 Billy Madison’s.

158 thoughts on “Dr. Roy Spencer: “The science of climate change is anything but settled”

  1. It is a good thing that Beto O’Rourke supports the crazy New Green Deal, because he will fail at the general election if he makes it that far with that platform. He probably represents the young, new and upcoming Democrat that may get some traction at the polls, similar to the upswing that Obama got with his fiery rhetoric. But if he clings to the socialist marxist crazies that are driving the democratic youth, then he will have to wait until Trump finishes another term. Most voting people just won’t vote for this nonsense of a NGD, not where it really counts anyway.

    • He will start making speeches in another year that proclaim that we are not a Blue America or a Red America but a Red, White and blue America, which come election day will only be discussed on Fox news.

      Remember when B Ob claimed to be a moderate American before he got control and acted like a marxist dictator?

      • Yes, people tend to forget that Hugo Rafael Chávez was B Ob’s hero, probably still is. The CIA just prevented him (i.e., Chávez) from implementing his policies properly.

    • The level of hubris required to state that scientific knowledge on something as complex as the climate and how it changes, is settled, should mark anyone doing so out as either an idiot or charlatan.

    • Very recently, Nikolov and Zeller made an empirical discovery that shows planet temperature is solely determined by the atmospheric pressure and the strength of the sun. The predictive accuracy indicates atmospheric content plays no role in temperature. CO2 has no effect.
      Models developed for the UN to predict future temperature rise have been proven wrong year after year. An inarguable sign that your theory is wrong, or at least woefully incomplete, is when models based on the theory fail to predict system behavior.
      Insisting that a theory successfully predicts behavior before accepting the theory is fundamental to the scientific method. Why is the UN pushing Global warming so alarmingly. They must have an ulterior motive. Whatever it is, Canada is getting shafted.
      Why does the UN allow China and India to burn coal with impunity? Because global warming is a myth.

  2. James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’. Anthony Watts / January 27, 2009. That was 10 years ago. How much longer will it take?

    • A whole lot longer because now it is officially a religious cult by possessing the two critical elements of a cult:
      1. A vision of a coming apocalypse that they have been given a special revelation and purpose to evangelise.
      2. An exclusive vision of their message (and themselves) that cannot be questioned or critiqued and those who do offer counter-arguments are shouted down, mocked and ridiculed, told not to question — ‘the science is settled. The ‘unenlightened’ are attacked personally, not their arguments and evidence in unapologetic ‘ad hominem’ personal attack.
      It’s not going away, it can’t…look at all the children protesting in the street last Friday, how could they be wrong and who’s going to tell them?

    • There’s another reason why the cataclysmic global warming’/climate change mafia won’t go away — now it is officially a religious cult. Consider that it possesses the two critical elements of a cult:
      1. A vision of a coming apocalypse that they have been given a special revelation and purpose to evangelise.
      2. An exclusive vision of their message (and themselves) that cannot be questioned or critiqued and those who do offer counter-arguments are shouted down, mocked and ridiculed, told not to question — ‘the science is settled. The ‘unenlightened’ are attacked personally, not their arguments and evidence in unapologetic ‘ad hominem’ personal attack.
      It’s not going away, it can’t…look at all the children protesting in the street last Friday, how could they be wrong and who’s going to tell them?

  3. What are they afraid of?

    Losing money.

    Big Solar, Big Wind, Big Electric Car, Big “Carbon Storage,” Big Electric Battery, et al..

    ALL depend on a Big Fat Lie (that is, that there is any data at all to prove a correlation between human CO2 and “global warming” <– that is their conjecture; "climate change" is just a propaganda term unfortunately promoted regularly by science realists who use it carelessly, thus helping to promote the "climate change"/AGW agenda)

    Cui bono.

    • Edit: “a MEANINGFUL correlation between… .” IOW: Not one scintilla of evidence proves causation between human CO2 and “global warming” (or “climate change”).

          • Janice Moore March 16, 2019 at 8:39 pm
            The older is now in college. He is 21. The younger is 11 . He is scary smart. he knows and understands more at his age then I did. .. it concerns me.

            I am not bragging.


      • Sending hugs from Ireland on Paddy’s day, Janice. Great to read your words of wisdom here again. I’m not alone in sending best wishes.

        Regards, Eamon.

        • Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you, too, Eamon! Good to know that someone who has the facts straight about nuclear power (and CO2) still inhabits the Emerald Isle.

          Here is a little blessing from me to you. Since you are likely about to lay your head down on your pillow, a lullaby (and some sheep 🙂 ):

          Sleep well, securely held in the “everlasting arms” of your Good Shepherd.

          Take care over there,


      • Pop! 🙂 Great to see you, too. All is not “well,” but, given that I am healthy, I can truly say that I am “okay.” Thank you for saying “Hi!” And I hope you are doing more than okay! 🙂

          • Oh, Pop. Sorry things are kind of tough. And, good for you. You inspire me to do the same and adjust my attitude by doing as a little song I like says, “Count Your Blessings” and STAY POSITIVE. Thank you for that. Glad you are here.

          • Hi! 🙂 Thanks for taking the time to say “Hi.” I guess by now that you’ve read my other comments about “how I have been.” I hope you are doing well. Still praying for you. Has “she” come along? I believe she IS out there!! Don’t give up! I KNOW that is my dream for you not yours (at least not admitted here, heh) for yourself. I am praying for it ANYWAY. Pahrumph! 🙂

            Oh, and, ssshhhhhhh! (just kidding — AS IF I WANT PEOPLE TO BE QUIET AROUND THIS PLACE!! lolololol)

      • Latitude, Dude!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 I miss lots of you wonderful people here, too. I enjoy you all, so much. The depressingly lukewarm atmosphere around here is what keeps me away (along with some living situation issues).

    • What are they afraid of? Loss of funding. Absolutely! On the nose! Always follow the money trail.

    • Long time no see! Since then (and a lot of people here haven’t heard), I’ve gotten divorced, our house is sold, I’m closing on another on Tuesday. I’m doing okay.

      After that (and assuming I get my butt off FaceBook), I’ll catch up on a lot of WUWT stuff.

      At least New England weather keeps doing bizarre stuff. Some constants are never settled.

      • Dear Ric,

        Glad to see you, too. So sorry about what you have been going through (during both the years leading up to the divorce, usually it takes many ….. and through the heart-wrenching (even if a relief), tedious, process of getting the final judgment in your case).

        “Irretrievably broken.” That was a tough thing to read and to realize and to sign my name under. Even though the breaking had gone on for years.

        Glad you are okay. I will pray for you, though. You have been and will be, no doubt, going through many days of gloomy weather, even though it is now sunny much of the time.

        Keep looking forward. Good things are ahead for you!

        With gratitude for all you’ve done to help me with posting images and videos and all the other support you provide for us here,


  4. I agree with AOC and Beto O’Rourke. We need to take the threat of climate change much more seriously. The 58 senior military and national security leaders who wrote that letter are also correct. Climate Change is a grave and present danger to our national security.

    Climate Change must be stopped at all costs!
    I recommend artillery.
    Consider the composition and capabilities of our Armed Forces. The Air Force is uniquely suited to fight Climate Change anywhere it rears its ugly head in the atmosphere. The Navy is equipped to combat Climate Change both on and under the worlds oceans. Also, with the Marines, the Navy can dispatch expeditionary forces to fight wherever Climate Change might run to. The Army can and will fight on land to defend the country against the coming scourge. Ground units with tactical close air support can deal a devastation one-two punch the enemy.

    Just wait until Climate Change gets a taste of that napalm and artillery.

  5. Beto O’Rourke is a spoiled rich kid, as is AOC. Neither really has an actual education, or at least they exhibit no sign of it.
    But they can be “cool”.
    The Green New Deal is a good test for both political radicalism and sheer ignorance of the real world, so anyone who supports it, let alone anyone who wrote it, gives dispositive proof of both.

  6. “The scientists are unanimous on this.” More precisely, 75 scientists worldwide (also known as 97%) are unanimous on this. Remaining 13,000 disagree in various degrees. They are not unanimous in their disagreement.

    • No way, Roy is about the only scientist to maintain his sanity in this morass. Sending him to Washington will damage his level headedness for life!

  7. you know….why are people still going around and around with this “science”….put a damn stop to it

    If CO2 is really toxic and going to destroy the planet….then cut those +200 developing countries off

    …make them go for zero emissions too and see how long this s c a m lasts

    No one had any problem stopping freon, mercury, arsenic, DDT, etc because they really are toxic…
    …there’s two choices

    Either all these developing countries do not believe one word of this s c a m…
    …or they are all suicidal

    • As a long suffering Canadian, yes there are suicidal countries. First Ontario’s economy was severely damaged by Gerald Butts and Dalton McGuinty. Gerald Butts then moved up to the federal level and used the vapid Justin Trudeau as his vehicle for continued destruction by moving on to the oil producing western provinces with bizarre regulations. How exactly does one do a gender analysis on a pipeline? Perhaps its phallic nature as a start?
      It’s slow suicide, but suicide nevertheless.

      • I don’t think the scale of the damage wrought by Butts is appreciated by the general population. The CBC will never reveal it, of course, and now that he has been embarrassed into retirement from his post inside Trudeau’s ear, they can let him slink away (unless he gets called to court over the SNC Lavelin influence peddling scandal).

        It was only recently that I realised the depth of his involvement in the Ontario Power fiasco which will cost us $130 billion over 30 years. The cost of offsetting a ton of CO2 (badly calculated offsets at that) is $257 per ton so far.

        Whether the Canuk government can recover from their positions into which they have been manipulated by foreign-funded “charities” remains to be seen. Money has been pouring over the border.

        Here is one article on the foreign interference as manifested in the infiltration of anti-oil activists:


        Like the US, I think we deserve a little investigation into “foreign interference”.

    • DDT IS NOT TOXIC . It was the 1st UN science scam. Ozone was the next and hopefully CO2 will be the last.

      • Freon was off patent and generic. It was highly efficient. The replacements were patented and less efficient. Cui Bono!

  8. It’s here, ya hear?

    Long ago I speculated that Al Gore dropped out of Divinity School after learning how ancient shamans used weather guilt and fear to manipulate hoi polloi. We are there again, ya hear? Ancient days are calling to an ancient people.

    Though it is a lie that weather has become more extreme, and though real global warming will decrease the polar/equatorial temperature gradient and decrease weather extremes, we’ll not get easing of the madness of the herd that is climate catastrophe until we get some global cooling. That may well be in our near future, despite the likelihood of powerful narrative disruption to hide the fact of cooling. We can but hope, but it is peculiarly ironic to hope for global cooling, which truly will be destructive, to cool the fever of this climate madness.

    Red teams are good, but we’ll need a whole professional league of them to make much difference.

    I hope I’m unduly pessimistic, and that truth and real unbiased science can moderate this false narrative of climate catastrophe, but I’ve been waiting for fifteen years for the truth to shine through the muck of money and power. It shoulda happened sooner, and just why it hasn’t, I’m not sure.

    • Bad news always sells more copies than good news, it seems. Maybe it’s the negativity of a spoiled-rotten western populous. The press caught on and sell doom by the truckload.

  9. America has little experience with socialism. That’s actually bad. It’s like the native Americans having little experience with the germs brought by the Europeans.

    There is a correct dose of socialism and it’s not zero. The Scandinavian countries thrive with a surprisingly small dose of socialism. link

    If Americans vote for a big dose of socialism with Bernie and AOC, the result will be very bad but hopefully not fatal. Certainly, if Americans come to understand socialism they won’t vote for a big dose.

    • America already has a dose of socialism. The first New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, etc.

      • America was desperate for something like FDR’s New Deal. link

        My century old mother was a teenager and a young adult during the Great Depression and she lived in the Dust Bowl. Folks like her have a different take on the New Deal than do younger people who, quite frankly, have no clue about the conditions in the 1930s.

        SJWs complain of today’s world and compare it with what happened in WW2. There’s a big difference between not being able to get a cake for your gay wedding and being gassed and cremated. Just saying.

        • Even Roosevelt’s Secretary of Treasury wrote a jeremiad about what policies had been enacted. They worked so well that the US had the slowest recovery from the Depression. The unemployment rate was still about 19% in 1939.
          The harms to agriculture are still with us. When oats became popular, the US had to import it.
          That is just one example. As Alistair Cooke said. the US tried fascism in the New Deal.
          You can’t argue with older folks, like my mother, they thought FDR was god and when you died you went to warm springs, ga.

    • commieBob

      No one understands socialism because it’s personal to everyone and relies on each of them running a country themselves.

      When they eventually realise it’s a political ideology never designed to include them, it’s usually too late.

      • Saskatchewan tried a variety of socialist experiments. Some worked, some didn’t. In any event, grass roots involvement was strong. Also, it was farmers not labor. It was an interesting overlap of CCF socialism and libertarianism. Anyone who even whispered collectivization would have been shot. Marx was a four letter word for sure.

  10. I was at a Creation Science lecture quite a few years ago. If I asked a question during the talk, I was told it would interrupt the discussion — could I ask during the Q&A at the end? Which I did, only to be informed there wasn’t time for that, then.

    Bears a startling likeness to the Climate Science discussions.

  11. “…On March 5, 58 senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel to take a critical look at the science underpinning climate change claims. Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the “science is settled.”…”

    Do these 58 individuals believe the president has never seen the Wizard of Oz? Are they telling him to pay no attention to “that man behind the curtain”? ……


    The more I’m told to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the more suspicious I get.

  12. The question that I would ask of the concerned Leaders and/or Experts , is
    how does one tell the difference between a molecule of CO2 from out
    of the smokestack of a power station or a car, to a molecule of CO2 which
    comes out naturally from say the Ocean, or our breathing it out.

    As I understand things chemically they are identical, so how can various
    experts tell us how much of the so called “Carbon Pollution” is from
    man made fossell fuel generation ?


    • The simplest way is to keep track of how much coal, oil and natural gas are burned each year and compare this to the annual change in atmospheric CO2. You can also look at the change in 13CO2. This doesn’t tell you which molecule is which; but it does tell you that at least some, probably more than half, of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

        • I didn’t even allude to that. The fact that some, almost unquantifiable, portion of the rise has to come from fossil fuel consumption, doesn’t exclude other sources, natural or anthropogenic.

          Until such time that all of the sources and all of the sinks are thoroughly quantified, there’s no way to quantify the anthropogenic component as a percentage of the total mix with any degree of certainty.

      • The δ13C of CO2 from the current mix of fossil fuel types is estimated at around -28 per mil (δ13C is the 13C/12C ratio relative to a standard). Atmospheric CO2 is currently around -8.5 per mil and is declining, as would be expected if the CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere has a lower δ13C than that.

        However, we can also estimate the δ13C content of the incremental atmospheric CO2 from the observed decline rate. It is -13 per mil. Nowhere close to -28 per mil. There is a possible oceanic explanation for this mismatch, but one thing is for sure: the observed atmospheric 13C/12C decline rate is not the same as the rate that would be seen if it only reflected the addition of entirely anthropogenic CO2.

          • Seems you are a little off your game Janice, I can clean up most shots, but you’re gonna have to eventually hole one.

        • None of these even addresses Ferdindand’s post. While exact attribution is impossible, and up to half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be due to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age, basic mass balance dictates that some of the rise has to be due to fossil fuel combustion. The math simply can’t work otherwise. The uncertainties are primarily in the inventory of natural sources and sinks.

          Dr. Salby’s point about 13C is valid. Carbon isotope excursions (CIE) aren’t diagnostic. However, the CO2 emissions from the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas are depleted in 13C relative to the overall atmosphere. This can be directly measured.

          The fact that the Warmistas are wrong when they claim that certain types of evidence are conclusive, diagnostic and/or “fingerprints” doesn’t alter the fact that these observations do constitute evidence, albeit with far more uncertainty than they acknowledge.

          • You either did not read the comments on the threads for each of those articles or you did not understand them, Mr. Middleton.

            You did not refute Bartemis’ and the others’ well-supported, ably argued, arguments by your simple dismissal.

            Yeah, the above is manifestly obvious to all who read your comment, but, I felt that Bartemis and the rest deserved better than what you gave them — a sneer and a wave of the hand.

          • I didn’t refute anything, nor was than my intention. I just pointed out that none of the posts addressed Ferdinand’s main point: mass balance.

          • From Ferninand’s post…

            From all those flows very few are known to any accuracy. What is known with reasonable accuracy are the emissions, which are based on inventories of fossil fuel use by the finance departments (taxes!) of different countries and the very accurate measurements of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere on a lot of places on earth, including Mauna Loa.

            Thus in the above CO2 mass balance, we can replace some of the items with the real amounts (CO2 amounts expressed in gigaton carbon):

            4 GtC = CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) + 8 GtC – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…)

            Or rearranged:

            CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…) = – 4 GtC

            Without any knowledge of any natural flow in or out of the atmosphere or changes in such flows, we know that the sum of all natural outflows is 4 GtC larger than the sum of all natural inflows. In other words, the net increase of the atmospheric CO2 content caused by all natural CO2 ins and outs together is negative. There is no net natural contribution to the observed increase, nature as a whole acts as a sink for CO2.

            The only disagreement I have is with this phrase:

            There is no net natural contribution to the observed increase…

            Global warming, particularly warming of the southern hemisphere oceans, could account for up to half of the observed increase.

  13. I’m going to insist that all these earnest souls from science peeps to ecohippies and their ilk show us their sincerity – so that we can measure its volume – by agreeing to wear rebreathing equipment. There is a large enough group of them to show that their personal emissions are just as damaging as anything the rest of the world does, including my use of natural gas to heat my home, heat water, and cook.

    I’m saying “Put your money where your mouth is, or go find your own secret island and stay there.” 🙂

    For anyone who is interested, Beto O’Rourke was a hacker when online service was through the baud rated modems. Here is the link to that: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6814145/SPECIAL-REPORT-Beto-ORourkes-secret-membership-legendary-hacking-group.html
    I’m sure that his followers will think this is just SO cool!

  14. Somewhat O/T but… We have many more important agendas to deal with on a global scale than the climate issue. If it becomes the deciding factor of the next US election, IMHO the Democrats will lose.

  15. If a national security council panel IS established, then the findings must deal with the real-world data as articluated by Dr Roy. In other words, the climate zealots will do anything and everything to stop the truth from being exposed.

  16. Remember when Beto live streamed his dental exam? Someone photoshopped him live streaming his proctology exam. Quite funny because it seemed so in-character (i.e., clueless, banal) for him.

  17. “Climate change kookmania is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating.”
    There, fixed.

  18. Mob Mania ignorance loves bandwagons..even scientists with no balls and who want tenure and 15 seconds of fame and talk like caged parrots on cue are getting paid to dessiminate climate paranoia…Our post.modern academia operates like a Star Chamber at majority of US universities..preordained outcomes are created intentionally, considering WHO creates and funds the special “chairs” (appointments) and the so-called studies being churned out like bait on a hook. The oligarchic octopus-like media primed for climate change content to feed the masses normal fear reactions knows that fear, sex and identity politics attract eyeballs and ears with headlines that are repetitive on basis..day after day…. China controls much of the minerals to create technology necessary to manufacture the so.called replacement to fossil fuels..no wonder Russia is the scapegoat of the Demoncrats, instead of China..the political globalist fix was always in, IMO…decades ago in Congress..look at Harry Reid’s kowtowing to China for years.

  19. If the science is settled then we can slash the research funding and spend that money on something useful, like tornado prediction.

    • Or the next alarmist-blamed molecule that “might, may, could” do us harm and can easily be taxed. Hide your wallets. If history’s any kind of guide, it’s coming.

      • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N – The next EPA ‘molecule(s)’ for blame are the perfluorinated compounds:


        And for Janice – Indeed, welcome back from the land of Jay ‘I’ll ramrod through a Carbon Tax on my watch’ Inslee – our mutual and once-beautiful Washington State! Looks like ‘Old Jay’ needs a Carbon Success Story to use for his run for El Presidente, so SEN Hobbs of the WA State Legislature has presented a Fuel and Carbon Tax that may just pass into law (http://search.leg.wa.gov/search.aspx#document).

        Sorry to hear you have been having issues, and I wish you well. looks like the PNW is finally coming out of our unseasonably cold winter, and a few days of above-normal temps are headed our way. may the sunshine provide you with a brighter outlook on things!!



        • Hi!

          Thank you, so much, for your kind words and good wishes.

          Jay Inslee. Ugh. To use a fine Irish word: what a BUFFOON. Bought and paid for by Big Wind/Solar/Electric Battery, et al..

          Yes, aah, the sunshine I am gazing at right now, turning the primroses and pansies on my mom’s apartment deck into glowing garnet and amethyst, happy yellow, and vivid green, is so lovely. What a RELIEF. Given my living situation, this was the hardest winter of my life. So glad spring is here (yes! who cares about dates on a calendar! 🙂 ) at last.

          Re: carbon tax (what a RIDICULOUS concept!), i.e., artificial market share for industries that CANNOT COVER THEIR OWN COSTS OF PRODUCTION WITH THE MARKET PRICE, it will die, just like the “head tax” Seattle chopped off. Even UNION workers were against that one. The unions are against this one, too.

          I hope all is well with you,

          Janice A.(ccepting the way things are) Moore

  20. If CO2 is causing all of the climate change problems then Why is Germany and the USA pushing a program that causes ZERO CO2 emitting Nuclear Power Plants to shut down? The shut down of NPPs will add years to the date that a reduction in CO2 can be obtained.
    If CO2 is causing all the climate change problems then WHY is India and China, the next biggest contributors allowed to INCREASE their CO2 emissions for many years? They are each building more Coal plants than the USA has Shut Down.
    If CO2 is causing all the climate change problems then WHY are many EU countries emitting MORE CO2 through the use of “biofuels” (wood pellets), dirty coal – that was outlawed decades ago in the USA (which is also a heavy in other toxic elements).
    If CO2 is causing all the climate change problems then WHY is there NO herculean effort to build as many ZERO emitting Nuclear power plants? My calculations show that if the money spent on the Climate Change farce had been spent on Nuclear power from the date of conception (1988 or so), The level of CO2 woul be on a downward trend.

  21. The most promising approach to winning the debate with alarmists is to attack it at its foundation. Basic and irrefutable “greenhouse” theory demands that the troposphere respond to increased concentrations of “greenhouse” gases by trapping IR frequencies and thereby warming the atmosphere, thus retarding the natural cooling of the surface. Any minor warming from “greenhouse” gases produced by man is amplified by temperature-induced increased humidity, H2O being the vastly more consequential “greenhouse” gas.

    The fundamental problem for the alarmist “scientists” is that modern measurement improvements has shown that atmospheric humidity is not following modeled predictions and the atmosphere, especially over the tropics, is not warming as predicted. Measured atmospheric and surface temperatures both show less warming than predicted by UN IPCC climate models. The measured/modeled discrepancy is most pronounced in the tropical troposphere; no “hot-spot.”

    The Presidential Commission must focus on this issue. Any other approach leads to tail-chasing, never-ending arguments over items such as butterfly migrations, temperature record adjustments, polar bear counts, ocean heat content, increasing storminess/floods, increasing desertification, etc. You would get into arguing over every sentence of every UN and U.S. climate report.

  22. There’s another reason why the cataclysmic global warming’/climate change mafia won’t go away — now it is officially a religious cult. Consider that it possesses the two critical elements of a cult:
    1. A vision of a coming apocalypse that they have been given a special revelation and purpose to evangelise.
    2. An exclusive vision of their message (and themselves) that cannot be questioned or critiqued and those who do offer counter-arguments are shouted down, mocked and ridiculed, told not to question — ‘the science is settled. The ‘unenlightened’ are attacked personally, not their arguments and evidence in unapologetic ‘ad hominem’ personal attack.
    It’s not going away, it can’t…look at all the children protesting in the street last Friday, how could they be wrong and who’s going to tell them?

  23. No science is ever settled. It is in a constant state of refinement. The process of that refinement is :
    Repeat – Ad infinitum!!!!!!

    Anyone that refuses to follow this process is hiding the flaws of their conjecture, and covering for their failure to provide sufficient experimental evidence to support their position. This has been going on for a very long time. Yet, so many semi-intelligent people are willing to cover for fraudulent claims. Government money is a toxic pollutant to rational methods of scientific inquiry.
    Thank you Roy for the work you do, and your refusal to prostitute the scientific method, for political expediency.

    • Elsewhere on WUWT I read they have discovered heat travels in waves. What does that do to the CC theory? What does that tell you about the Scientists that discovered it.
      LAst week I heard that they now have rejected the Accepted theory on how the Earth’s Moon was formed. A few years ago They decided Pluto is NOT a Planet. Yet CC has been settled science for going on 30 years and STILL there has been no definitive, reproducible, independent PROOF – other than a computer models that do not agree with each other – as I have a degree in Computer Science i fully understand how worthless that is. Haven’t written a program in 20 years and I could still write one proving that Airplanes can not fly – but wait – they do!

  24. “Climate change is real… and it’s accelerating.”

    It could hardly be accelerating because the change isn’t even systematic. The slightly warmer temperature that’s existed now for two decades resulted from a couple of brief episodes of warming that just happened to be before El Ninos – warming that was random.

    https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ [16:00]

    It couldn’t have been caused by CO2, which increased steadily.

  25. What does the mob do in year 12 or sooner when they wake up and discover there is no emergency? What do the chase next?

      • Ah. The world ended 19 years ago from global warming. That is why it is now called climate change. The “sell by” data on global warming expired in 2000. 2030 is the new “sell by” date for climate change.

        This 30 year spread is no coincidence. Climate is formally defined as the average of 30 years of weather.

    • What did the followers of Harold Camping do when his predictions failed? It is much the same as for most of the followers of Paul Ehrlich, either just don’t talk about it much, or consider the whole exercise consciousness raising.

  26. A person cannot claim to be a scientist while claiming a scientific issue is settled. Science is provisional.

  27. per Dr Spencer: “While climate change is indeed real, it is not at all obvious how much humans have to do with it.”
    While I totally agree with the statement I believe we all need to emphasize that climate change, while real, has been going on for millennia without human intervention and is not constant either – at least there is no reason to assume it is constant. The fact that it is real and is NOT new – ie since humans began – is something most people miss when these discussions happen. The second point about it not being constant is directed toward those who seem to assume the temperature change will ALWAYS be 0.1deg C per 10 years (or any other number). No where near enough data is available to support the ‘constant’ assumption.

  28. She told me what her grandparents planted on the farm, what her parents planted on their farm, she’s now trying to plant it and it doesn’t grow. She said climate change…”

    Sounds like stretching confirmation bias to the limit, to me. Perhaps she should consider crop rotation, but since there is no actual data presented in this sloganistic claim so the stated problem could be for any number of reasons.

    • Could it be she is a bad farmer? Did she go to college, work in some field, and go back to her inherited farm? Chances for endless speculation.

  29. Almost all of these 58 “senior military and national security leaders” will freely admit that they don’t understand the ‘climate science’, and haven’t made a serious attempt to do so.

    What they will not admit, even to themselves, is that they are still making a judgment call as to which of the climate scientists are telling them the plain unvarnished truth, which of them are exaggerating, and which of them are lying. If pressed, these leaders will then probably say something like “but 97% of them say the same thing”.

    And once again, these same national security leaders will not have taken any time to seriously investigate what they think this apocryphal “97%” have agreed upon, and what they have not agreed upon. They will likely cite something emanating from the orifices of CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC. If only they would admit to their own laziness, then that would be a huge step forward in national security.

  30. Under the rules of the scientific method, CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis because CAGW’s hypothetical global temperature anomaly projections have exceeded empirical observations (UAH 6.0 and radiosonde datasets) by more than 2 standard deviations for a statistically significant duration of almost 23 years, despite 30% of all man made CO2 emissions since 1750 have been made over the last 23 years:


    All other CAGW projections for: Sea Level Rise, extreme weather frequency/severity trends, CH4 projections, Antarctic Land Ice loss, ocean acidification projections, etc,, have also been disconfirmed under the rules of the scientific method.

    Based on observations and known physics, ECS is somewhere between 0.6C~1.7C which not only isn’t a catastrophe, it’s a net benefit from: increased global greening and crop yields from the CO2 fertilization effect (30% increase per CO2 doubling), warmer global temperatures have greatly increased arable land area in Nothern latitudes, warmer temperatures tend to increase precipitation, increased CO2 makes plants more drought resistant, less early frost lost, longer growing seasons, less energy use for heating during winters, fewer animal and human deaths from exposure, etc.,

    CAGW is already dead and it’s high time a Red Team be commissioned to expose this reality.

  31. “On March 5, 58 senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel to take a critical look at the science underpinning climate change claims.”

    To what extent does the commander-in-chief have any say in the promotion of any of these 58 senior military and national security leaders? If Donald Trump has any input into any of their future promotions, he should appropriately promote their colleagues who did not participate in this letter because they know otherwise.

    • I think all 58 were “senior military and national security leaders” prior to January 20, 2017.

    • The only reason Trump got elected, was because the electorate felt the hairs raising on the back of their necks.
      He is just trying to put the pin back in the grenade.

  32. I think Roy Spencer is a great voice for promoting the calm, rational view that climate change is not a problem.

    I’m just not happy with him driving around with a infrared detector which he claims shows proof of the effects of downwelling radiation.

    I prefer Tim Ball’s explanation.

  33. “the world’s greatest superpower, its greatest democracy”? If Beto and Ayock take control, we will see the end of civilisation as we know it.

  34. Dr Spencer wrote:
    “Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the “science is settled.”
    But if the science is settled, what are they afraid of? Wouldn’t a review of the science come to the same conclusion as the supposed consensus of climate scientists?

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb created the idea of Anti-Fragile in his book by that name. He writes about this because he came to realize we live in Black Swan world. And our world is able to withstand Black Swan shocks because it has evolved anti-fragile resilience. Unforseen stressors have made it stronger, not weaker. Anti-fragile systems thrive on chaos. Chaos delivers a shaking out of bad ideas, unfit modifications, and bad ideas.

    Anti-fragile things get stronger when stressed. Darwin understood this as natural selection of the fittest to changing environments, new niches. In biological systems, everything from our bones to the adaptive immune system get stronger, more resilient, less likely to break when a serious challenge arises. We immunize, doctors now tells parents to let their children play in the dirt, be around animals, get outside, stop living in a sterile environment. These things properly tunes and challenges the immune system. They make it stronger. Same for bones. A stay in space microgravity immediately starts to make bones weaker. They stop being stressed. Stress makes them anti-fragile. This is also a bottom-up way of organization. Bottom-up systems thrive on chaos. Strength and resilience arises.

    This concept applies to political systems too. Socialism/communism are top-down directed economies. They have 5 year plans for the economy from bureaucrats far removed from the consequences of their decisions. These systems are fragile. They can easily break. On the other hand, free-enterprise/capitalism that thrives in a representative democracy is anti-fragile. It is bottom-up organized. There is aconstant creative-destruction. Businesses are allowed to fold/go belly-up. Entrepreneurs compete. Profits and losses ultimately weed out the weaker and bad ideas.

    The Earth’s climate system is also anti-fragile from 4+ Thousand-Million of years of constant challenge. Feedbacks have evolved from the deep, vast oceans in high latitude ice systems, cloud systems, in the ocean currents to move and release heat.

    Thus the realization that Searching for anti-fragile truths is the basis of the scientific method. It is a bottom-up method of inquiry. Researchers independently exploring new ideas, new hypotheses in a bottom-up human enterprise of the mind to understand nature. Theories and hypotheses that don’t fit data/observation are discarded early if the scientific method is faithfully followed. The scientific method is a shifting path to find a truth about the nature of something being studied. Indeed many pet theories, if honestly evaluated with the scientific method, die early painless deaths for the area of science they inhabit.

    What we have with today’s Climate science is top-down, consensus-enforced science. It is fragile. It has not been adequately challenged. It is brittle. It is easily breakable. The consensus science carrying climate change will ultimately break now in a spectacular fashion.

    So the problem that “they” are afraid is founded on the fact that they know the State of their Climate Science is Fragile. It is brittle. It will easily break if stressed or pushed. Exactly because their so-called “settled science” is brittle they fear what will happen when a credible, critical examination of it arrives.

    • Missed a few things there .
      Too Big To Fail finance casinos are not allowed to break – there are given infusions of the blood of the economy. Better medicine is Glass-Steagall, forced separation, surgical intervention.
      Not much scientific activity there.

      As far as bones in orbit go – it is not micro-gravity, rather the missing Schumann Resonance that enhances osteoclast activity. We really need to bring the actual biosphere with us.
      Scientific activity here is stunted.

      • bonbon,

        This essay is a generalist essay. For that type of essay, it is necessary to stay out of the trees, limbs and leaves and focus on the forest. After-all it is the forest that matters in the Big Picture of the ecosystem that the other animals depend upon.

        Specialists of course dive down into the leaves, into the weeds. The details do matter. A deep understanding is essential to specialists. Examining the micro-scale of what is happening. Putting it into the context of the macro-scale. So osteoclasts, osteoblasts responding to micro-stress fractures in calcium-hydroxyapatite crystal structures, that’s far too much detail to discuss in a generalist essay.

        There is a lot more that I could have discussed. Yes, too big to fail banks back-stopped by the taxpayers is huge problem in a capitalist society. It invites bad decisions on the bank presidents to take too much risk. Risks they wouldn’t take without Uncle Sugar with the tax-payer checkbook sitting in the shadows.

        In the Soviet context, Lysenkoism was also another example top-down “science.” So was Geo-centrism in the 16th-17th Centuries a top-down science enforced by the Catholic Church hierarchy. And Galileo felt its wrath when he went against the top-down enforced consensus.

        • I don’t buy the analysis , it is brittle.
          What broke the Soviet was the refusal to go for Reagan’s SDI – economic implosion followed almost to schedule. SDI was a an economic top-down strategic solution to a still-current problem.

          Then in 1990 the so-called capitalist system refused to go with SDI, and large scale projects like reconstruction of the Comecon, instead looted them to the bone – result one financial crash after another – rather brittle I would say.

          Now China has taken up the torch with mega scale projects , the BRI, putting “capitalism” to shame. Notice the old labels becoming let’s say, yawn inspiring?

          People need to see Pence, Pompeo, Rubio pompously puffing “capitlism” for the Potemkin it is and get on board to large scale massively needed programs again, MAGA.

          Why do 2 China premier’s mention FDR’s inspiration? Dump the old rhetoric and listen.

  35. The scientists are unanimous about this.

    There were four scenarios put forward by the IPCC report, and RCP8.5 was the worst one.

    How can scientists be unanimous if they had other findings?

    At best, this is ignorance and stupidity. At worst, it’s outright duplicitous, and I’m a leftie!

  36. Roy Spencer says:

    Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits this, saying only that over half of warming since the 1950s is believed to be human-caused. So, “driven by humans” is an exaggeration, even by the IPCC’s rather alarmist standards.

    Not quite what the IPCC said. What they said in the 2013 AR5 assessment report was:

    It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

    Here “extremely likely” is defined as having 95–100% probability. The IPCC went on to say:

    The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C.

    Here “likely” is defined as 66–100% probability.

    Roy states that the IPCC said “…only that over half of warming since the 1950s is believed to be human-caused…”. In fact what the IPCC said was that there is 95-100% probability that more than half it was human-caused; and there is 66-100% probability that ‘all’ of it was human-caused. In that context, to say that the IPCC believes warming since the 1950s is primarily “driven by humans” is hardly an exaggeration.

    • Ahm, no. The 95-100% is defined as ‘extremely likely’, not the other way around. As far as I can see there is no mathematical or sratistical basis for it – they just put a number to an opinion.

      • The percentages are simplifications of the first and second standard deviations.

        Statistically they are not very significant. If engineers used these sort of numbers 737 max 8’s would be dropping out of the skies every 6 months.

        • If a publicly traded oil company used these sorts of numbers to book reserves, people would go to jail.

  37. ‘senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel’

    Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Trump should fire these yahoos.

  38. Beto O’Rouke is living proof of the H L Menken assertion “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    The Democrats decry Republicans for the ‘Politics of Fear’, but they appear to indulge in that particular vehicle with gusto.

    • Yep. Thank Ronald Reagan for this. When he crushed the Soviet Union in the Cold War, he gave control of “the bear in the woods” to the Democrats.

      Puto and Ayock combine Menken’s hobgoblins with a fascistic quasi-religious zealotry, which is particularly effective on low information, zero life experience, young voters.

      • Reagan was the worst president ever because he actually saw that problems could be solved. From a government standpoint no problem is ever solved without having more government and once you have more government and the problem is still there it’s because, off-course, you don’t have enough government.

  39. “…the global warming problem is only one-fourth as bad as the public is being told.”

    My only objection is the the use of the word “bad.”

  40. What are they afraid of? Those who support the “climate change is killing the planet” fantasy probably know that it is a fraudulent manipulation of pseudoscience that creates the belief, and that it has nothing to do with real scientific reasoning. That said they will lose either way from the President’s sponsored scientific review. Either the President’s panel does real science and shows there is nothing to worry about, or they play by the rules the climate fetishists have established and demonstrate that democrats and socialists are actually witches in disguise who want to eat our children and solar panels and wind turbines are the work of the devil.

  41. These 58 brave warriors afraid? You must be joking – they have Greta and kids taking point!

    Meanwhile NATO Chief Stoltenberg is invited by Pelosi to Congress to promote a new Cold War for 2020!
    Not clear if the kids are in on the action.

    As far as Beto goes – his book Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World is out. As a teen blogged as Psychedelic Warlord.

    So the Dems are pushing the Green New Death , the Cult of the Dead Cow , and Cold War.

    It’s settled then. (You just couldn’t make this stuff up!).

  42. Why does the elephant in the room always get ignored. The UN is pushing this on the world. The UN is made up of government representatives. These representatives are mostly politicians. Governments of the world listen to the UN thinking they have the moral high ground because they are looking out for the greater good of the planet. What could that greater good be? Could it be Europe’s reliance on Russian gas? It’s not wise to rely on an enemy for your winter survival. Could it be the enrichment of a dangerous super power… again Russia. The free world has a small fraction of world petroleum reserves. All but Canada are reliant on petroleum imports in the long term. Instead of feeding an enemy, why not create your own energy and keep your hard earned cash at home? Ordinary citizens will not accept high taxes and energy prices unless it’s for a greater cause and that cause would not de-funding Russia.

    • “Enemy” – surely you don’t take Freeland seriously? Or Pompeo?
      Macron thought he was Jupiter and taxed the French for a “greater cause” – Have a good look at the result – get it in Quebeqois.
      Now just try and force Germany into a corner on Nordstream2, Turkstream. Go ahead – I’ve go the popcorn ready.
      The loosers in all this are Freeland’s Ukrainians who tried geopolitics – bad for business.

  43. The great Judith Curry is taking one topic at a time. Sea level: if I can summarize crudely: no good evidence to be alarmed about globally, but some areas will be hard hit and (no doubt) appropriate action should be taken. Dr. Curry is all about adaptation and improving infrastructure.

    “Apart from the challenges of simulating hurricanes in climate models, the amount of warming projected for the 21st century is associated with deep uncertainty. Hence, any projection of future hurricane activity is contingent on the amount of predicted global warming being correct.

    Recent assessment reports have concluded that there is low confidence in future changes to hurricane activity, with the greatest confidence associated with an increase in hurricane-induced rainfall and sea level rise that will impact the magnitude of future storm surges. Any projected change in hurricane activity is expected to be small relative to the magnitude of interannual and decadal variability in hurricane activity, and is at least several decades away from being detected.

    Decadal variability of hurricane activity over the next several decades could provide much greater variability than the signal from global warming over the next century. In particular, a shift to the cold phase of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is anticipated within the next 15 years. All other things being equal (such as the frequency of El Nino and La Nina events), the cold phase of AMO harkens reduced Atlantic hurricane activity and fewer landfalls for Florida, the east coast and the Caribbean.”

  44. The UN is pushing global warming. The Free world has little petroleum reserves. Europe is dangerously reliant on Russian gas. Home produced energy will reduce Russian enrichment and help Europe from being frozen out should Russia get nasty. Saving the world will make citizens want to develop home grown energy and accept the huge energy bills. The economic boom of green is a benefit, but world stability is key.

  45. Before I went to Uni I was comprehesively bombarded with the message that humans were a terrible danger to the global environment. Then I went and studied geology and after first year was over it had of course dawned on me that the truth was precisely the other way around. But that was in the 1980s when observed facts were still considered important to understanding Earth.

    But we’re much less naive now, and know with certainty that humans are fundamentally a walking, talking planetary crisis on a stick.

    ’cause warmth, wetness, greenery and more food for everything is the pits.

  46. Whilst my initial query was how does one tell the difference between fuel
    burnt in a power station, and which of course emit CO2, and the fuel i.e.
    food “Burnt” in the human digestive system, which of course also produces CO2.

    But there is another fact which needs to be considered. The Warmest
    lobby claims that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere then the hotter
    things will get. But my understanding is that the CO 2 effect is logarithmic.

    If that is so then any increase past say 200 pip should make almost no
    difference to the so called CO2 effect on the heating of the Earth.


Comments are closed.