Live stream climate debate from NYC – minus the Manntastic players

It seems that rather than than say he isn’t coming, Mann and his co-horts resorted to the “we never got the invitation” tactic. – Anthony

By Press Release:

CLIMATE CHALLENGE: BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY … BIGGER DEBATE

It’s time for both sides to make the case: What is happening to our climate and what can we do about it?

On September 23 in the Big Apple – on the same day and in the same city the United Nations will convene its Climate Summit before its General Assembly session – The Heartland Institute will host a debate on what is happening to our climate and what we can do about it. That’s a debate long-delayed, but never more important than now.

We’ve cordially invited some of the country’s most-prominent advocates for taking immediate action on climate change: Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Don Wuebbles, Katharine Hayhoe, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They blame human activity for global warming,  insist it will be catastrophic to life on Earth, and demand big changes to the way Americans live, work, eat, travel, and build.

If those claims are correct, then it’s time to make the case to the American people – who are skeptical of the scope of the problem and have not been asked their consent to those proposed solutions.

The Heartland Institute will bring three prominent scientists who have often defended their findings and views from the “climate realist” side in public: Patrick Michaels, David Legates, and Willie Soon. Doesn’t the wholesale reordering of our society demand at least a little bit of public debate?

We think so.

This debate will be live-streamed from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ET at Heartland.org and on YouTube. Tune in so you can make up your mind for yourself.

Advertisements

318 thoughts on “Live stream climate debate from NYC – minus the Manntastic players

    • debate this and actually get somewhere….

      In the past 50 years China, India, and the developing 3rd world have been responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2..
      Developed countries are supposed to cut their emissions even more…so developing countries can increase their emissions even more….and developing countries also have to pay them to do it

      If increasing atmospheric CO2 is really dangerous…..why is this not a scam?

      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0713_Fig1.jpg

      • “In the past 50 years China, India, and the developing 3rd world have been responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2”
        This is wrong and part of the problem of accepting the talking points of the alarmists. The chart shows emissions not atmospheric content. All but 15% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been natural emissions. Of the .04% of the atmosphere that is CO2, only 3% is from fossil fuels. The alarm mongers push the tale that all of the increase is due to human emissions but Harde and Berry have shown that to be falsified.

        • Of the .04% of the atmosphere that is CO2, only 3% is from fossil fuels.blockquote>Your data and assertion are pure nonsense. The current elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentration (eCO₂):
          eCO₂ = (Cₐ – C₀)/C₀ = 50%
          Cₐ = C₀ + 50%
          Anthropogenic C = Cₐ – C₀ = 137ppmV or 33.4%
          C₀ = 1750 = 275ppmV
          r>Cₐ = 2018 = 412ppmV

          (The effective GHG is 490ppmV when all nGHGs included and WV excluded) is found in the biosphere which operates as a sink and a source of Cₐ for extant life.

          • Rob, as far as I can tell you’ve proved nothing, except made the assumption that co2 concentration didn’t rise naturally, therefore it didn’t.

          • We know it didn’t rise naturally because carbon has traceable isotopes and only one source or origin. All other sources are recycled carbon from the original in the natural biological cycle. It can be recycled many times in the natural carbon biological cycle before it is sequestrated in geological sinks. The difference between the geological and biological cycles gives rise to the aerial portion of carbon dioxide. For every 100ppmV from the human activity about 1ppmV is from volcanic activity. As the biological cycle absorbs and exchanges the human emmissions it does not add to the aggregate.

            Your feelings are not how science is done. Learn from scientists like me and you won’t make embarrassing remarks.

          • Hey, who’s in for picking some nits using basic math?

            Cₐ = C₀ + 50%
            Anthropogenic C = Cₐ – C₀ = 137ppmV or 33.4%
            Solving for Cₐ yields:
            Cₐ – C₀ = 50%

            Where’s my Nobel Prize?

          • WHOA!!! I just took your equation and solved for Cₐ – C₀ = 50%…straight forward calculation. Where did you get those rabbits you just pulled out of your hat? Where is the error in that calculation? My math skills are as good as any CAGW Alarmist’s. If you know Mikey Mann, can I borrow his Nobel Prize until mine arrives?

          • No.
            delta CO2 (1750 to 2018) = CO2 (2018) – CO2 (1750) = 137ppmV
            and
            delta CO2 (1750 to 2018) = delta natural CO2 + delta anthro CO2
            yields
            delta natural CO2 + delta anthro CO2 = 137ppmV

            Your statement Anthropogenic C = Cₐ – C₀ = 137ppmV assumes all of the CO2 increase is due to human actions. Also you state CO2 as elemental “C” carbon in your unsubstantiated, assumed equation. Wrong on assumptions and wrong on basic element versus molecule definition. Really. Basic. Errors.
            Now, I’ll critique you in the imperious fashion you have done to others: You have demonstrated you are a charlatan and a fraud, unworthy of further consideration by reasoning adults. Are you mentally ill? The voices you hear in your head misinform your fallacious assumptions! Take your meds, tyro, before you embarrass yourself further!

          • You are regurgitating what I wrote. Thank you. You misunderstand natural δC it is so small that it is noise and within the margin of error at a maximum estimate of about 0.5 – 1.5ppmV over that period.

          • A lot of this looks like a cut-n-paste, I have seen everything from (eCO2): and below before somewhere. Where did you get that from Rob?

          • It is published everywhere. Do you need a publication to do the math on the available data? This paper has an excellent summary:

            The Anthropocene equation DOI: 10.1177/2053019616688022 Human activities now rival the great forces of nature in driving changes to the Earth System (Steffen et al., 2007). This has led to the proposal that Earth has entered a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002; Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000). While substantial data have been gathered in support of the Anthropocene proposal (Waters et al., 2016), what has been missing is a high-order conceptual framework of the Earth System’s evolution within which the Anthropocene can be compared with other changes in Earth history. We propose that in terms of the rate of change of the Earth System, the current regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’.

          • Rob, that paper also says the below.

            From The Anthropocene Equation – “Over the last 7000 years the rate of change of temperature was approximately −0.01°C/century. Over the last hundred years, the rate of change is about 0.7°C/century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013), 70 times the baseline – and in the opposite direction. Over the past 45 years (i.e. since 1970, when human influence on the climate has been most evident), the rate of the temperature rise is about 1.7°C/century (NOAA, 2016), 170 times the Holocene baseline rate.”

            That’s right, for 7000 years the temperature declined 0.01/century, in a dead flat line apparently. Yet the recent century driven by the magical co2 molecule has risen 70 times faster. I’ll take of its conclustions therefore with a grain of salt. If that makes me a denier ( to believe actual facts over bs ) then I guess I’m a denier.

          • I don’t do therapy, I don’t know why science is difficult for you. I suggest you know your own impairments and should work on them and your obvious aliteracy. Temperature trend lines come from the mean of the data and are straight in their simplest forms and you should have learned in grade 5 algebra. The data, however, most likely plot as a scatter about the mean in a defined range. It is a free world you can make your own erroneous conclusions. Just don’t whimper when you become the laughing stock because of your junk science and scientific illiteracy and nescience.

          • Some clues: the ratio of isotopes and oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting despite warming because of partial pressure increase.

          • That’s right Rob, the trend.
            In the 7000 years of temperature declining 0.01degrees per century;

            daily temps may vary 20 degrees
            Decade temps average may vary 0.1 degrees
            Century temps may vary 1 degree
            Millennium temps may vary more.

            Only an idiot would believe the temperature change was nil over 7000 years.

            Only an idiot would conclude the last century is unique, and must be caused by humans.

          • Only an idiot would believe the temperature change was nil over 7000 years.

            Paleoclimate science does not agree with your strawman.

          • You personify aliteracy. Just because you had to look it up that doesn’t make us all so under-educated as you are. Now if that’s a big word for you how will you cope when they change your science books from coloring between the lines to words?

          • Actual paleoclimate science shows that there were substantial climate changes over the last 10,000 years.
            One defective hockey stick says otherwise.

          • Actual paleoclimate science shows that there were substantial climate changes over the last 10,000 years.

            Substantial is a lie. Why lie? Nothing beyond normal variation for that part of the long-term Milanković cycles. Rookie, your knowledge of climate science is worse than pitiful. Did you even graduate middle school or are you just another red state cyberstalker idiot running your mouth?

          • Guess you live in a bubble with no contact to the outside world. Do you need a pen pal from the indigenous people of western Alaska?

          • Rob: When you learn what ‘patronising git’ means you will have learned something too. Carbon is no more a shorthand for carbon dioxide than a chemist calling H2SO4 Sulphur.

          • Wrong again. If carbon had hydrogen it will still be carbon atoms that are counted. The shorthand is because of the minuscule quantities. You are not a scientist so why do you care?

          • Rob: By your logic, then, sulfuric acid is Oxygen or Sulfur or Hydrogen. Any one of these atoms is good enough for you, but lacks any specificity and therefore meaning. Arguing against specificity is one step closer to just meaningless babble…

          • Let me know when you can do middle school science. Until then just STFU and go annoy your boyfriend or something.

          • Why would you come to a forum that attracts highly intelligent people, and do your best to offend people –from who you could learn something. Your comments are boring and detract from good conversation.

          • Why is it that they resort to personal attacks straight off the bat, accusing of aliteracy, lack of understanding of science, lack of education, suggesting anybody who disagrees must have a boyfriend they can go annoy etc etc.

            Really is a sign of a weak argument.

            Fact is since we didn’t have thermometers for the last 7000 years we can’t compare the last 100 years of actual records with a period of time we don’t have records. Except for defective hockey sticks.

            I’ll bet my bottom dollar the “Nothing beyond normal variation for that part of the long-term Milanković cycles. “, as Rob puts it, would be at least +- 2 degrees. I.e. Holocene high stand, little ice age, roman warm period etc. To deny these periods having occurred is truly ignorant. I notice Rob didn’t go into what he considers “normal variation”. Presumably he thinks it’s less than the 0.7 degrees/century that we have experienced in recent recorded history.

          • I knew Rob would be ignorant enough to try and explain prior variation on the Milanchovich cycle.
            That cycle operates on the scale of 100,00 years, not hundreds or thousands such as the previous well documented climate cycles.

        • noted DMA….and you’re right….emissions

          So Rod….why is this not a scam?….you’ve dodged this every time

          • What have I dodged -explain yourself I’m not a mind-reader and you may be a scientist but not in the climate field.

          • “Rob September 23, 2019 at 5:18 pm

            What have I dodged -explain yourself I’m not a mind-reader and you may be a scientist but not in the climate field.”

            Neither are Mann, Flannery et al…but you believe they are.

          • Why can’t you explicate what I dodged instead of veering off to libel Mann et al. You display the hallmarks of a coward loser.

          • “In the past 50 years China, India, and the developing 3rd world have been responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2..
            Developed countries are supposed to cut their emissions even more…so developing countries can increase their emissions even more….and developing countries also have to pay them to do it

            If increasing atmospheric CO2 is really dangerous…..why is this not a scam?”

            http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0713_Fig1.jpg

          • “Rob September 23, 2019 at 8:19 pm

            Why can’t you explicate what I dodged instead of veering off to libel Mann et al. You display the hallmarks of a coward loser.”

            I asked what climate field qualifications does Mann have, same question about Flannery?

            Libel;

            libel
            /ˈlʌɪb(ə)l/
            Learn to pronounce
            noun
            1.
            LAW
            a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.
            “he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes”

            Where have I libelled Mann? This is not about cowardice, it’s a genuine question because you made a comment about someone being a scientist but not in the climate field. It was a simple question and your answer was an insult. When someone has no answer in a discussion and resorts to insults usually has no idea what they are talking about.

      • Also:
        The fact that the communists want to allow us to emit as much CO2 as we want as long as we’re willing to purchase ‘credits’, says that it’s not about the environment.

        It’s about the money and controlling the economy.

      • “Developed countries are supposed to cut their emissions even more…so developing countries can increase their emissions even more….and developing countries also have to pay them to do it”

        I think you meant “developed”.

    • There are types of debates.
      One is the opinion-change debate. The audience is polled as to their position on the proposition in question before the debate. The “winners” won more switchers.

      From Sean Carroll’s site: [Sean Carroll’s] newest book, Something Deeply Hidden, is about quantum mechanics, Many Worlds, and the emergence of spacetime; it [was] released on 10 Sept.

      There are differing opinion as to the “meaning” of quantum mechanics. Dr. Carroll likes neither the Copenhagen nor the guiding wave interpretation. I wonder if he’s right that everything is entanglement.

    • Latitude September 23, 2019 at 1:18 pm
      debate this and actually get somewhere….

      In the past 50 years China, India, and the developing 3rd world have been responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2..
      _________________________________________

      NO. Instead:

      100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2..

      – lags warming in the current interstadial

      – leads to enhanced greening of Planet Earth

      – allows 3 fold population growth in the “developing 3rd world”

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-by-world-regions-post-1820

      https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

    • Their best bet is to not show up, and then use plausible deniability, saying, “We are beyond debate, the science is settled, it’s time for action” Anything else hurts their cause.

    • Bruce Cobb: you get off to a good start by referring to Climate Action Advocates as ‘liars’ (although I confess that that’s mild stuff compared with the usual WUWT vitriol).
      These are people who want to talk about the science, not exchange insults. If you are typical of what should be expected at a Heartland session, they’d be mad to turn up.

  1. Epistemic fail! Science isn’t a debate. The debate is theatre. Yes, there are arguments in science, but it’s not a formal debate. One doesn’t show science is wrong by having a better argument. You demonstrate it wrong by doing better science, with data, evidence, and methods, not rhetoric!

    • Climate Liars never want to debate because they always lose. They don’t have science on their side, just pseudoscience.

    • Fair enough, Rob, “Science isn’t a debate.” But a debate does not damage science, at least not in the actual science. The debate aspect is to provide claim and counter-claim, with citation of data/evidence by both sides, in a comparative format, which is sort of a hearts-and-minds event. This debate would be way ahead of whatever direct presentation of claim and counter-claim we have seen to date. The moderator, John Stossel, is a Libertarian, and given to demand exact proof, and is a quite reasonable choice for moderator. I will tune in on Heartland.org to see what’s up, but, I admit, only with modest expectations.

      • Both forms of Relativity were hotly debated; Plate tectonics was hotly debated in it’s respective fields of inquiry. Faraday, Humphreys debated weekly at the Royal Academy of Sciences; when you defend your dissertation or thesis WTBF do you think are doing: Debating.

        • Pedantic moron. A scientific debate such as plate tectonics was conducted in the peer-reviewed Earth science and geophysics journals back in the 60 and 70s. I was at university then and at a school with one of the famous detractors of plate tectonics who was head of the faculty and split his staff in half because of his intransigence. We had to meet clandestinely to discuss the topic or face his censure and wrath. On the whole, he was a loveable old stubborn codger with a wealth of knowledge and one of the world’s foremost geomorphologists of his era. Ranked #3 all-time great by the Russian Akademie of sciences. His portrait hangs there and I saw it several times over the years when I visited and worked in the ex-Soviet Union in the 1990s. Awesome an impressive museum to visit if you ever get a chance to travel to St. Petersburg.

      • Yes! Have you derived Newton’s laws of motion for yourself from first principles? If not, then you’re relying on the authority and consensus of physicists. If you avoid eating arsenic because it’s toxic, then you’re relying on the authority and consensus of scientists. I’m not sure it’s possible to go through a day without relying on the authority of experts and the consensus of scientists in some way. So while consensus may not have a place in the scientific method, it surely has a place in our lives and in communicating science to laypeople.

        “The best science was presented by plaintive … from Chevron’s perspective, there’s no debate about climate science. First, because Chevron accepts what this scientific body and includes scientists and others, but what the IPCC has reached consensus on in terms of science on climate change.” All other defendants concurred.” People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/ Defendants: Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhilips +10 DOES

        • No, rob, science is not a consensus. The sun does not orbit around the earth. All shareholder-owned companies study the best course of action for themselves when engaged in litigation. If a useless agreement makes something go away so they can focus on their main business, which is maximizing shareholder wealth, then they agree to it.

          • Consensus is the very essence of science. The scientific consensus has formed around the overwhelming evidence. When you disagree with the evidence, that is ignorance. When you agree with the evidence, that is knowledge. The reason we have the consensus is because of empirical evidence. Or again, do you honestly think that every single scientific organization in the world – for the first time ever – decided to launch a major global conspiracy of ridiculous proportions, and perfectly executed it without a trace of the treachery or error among their millions of members? Are you a schizophrenic? Do you hear voices when no one else is around?

          • Do you honestly think global warming is dangerous….when the vast majority of countries can increase their emissions…and we get to help pay for it?

            When they try to hide the scam with “per capita” and “GDP”…

            Arguing the “science” is just another scam….when the policies put into place say global warming is not dangerous at all…and every “climate scientist” has to know who is increasing emissions…has to know the policies in place…and has to know it’s a scam

          • Why return with more delusional drivel from the climate fiction cults and claques? Per capita is the only fair measurement unless you think American citizens are worth more than an Indian or Chinese citizen.

          • No Rob, reproducibility is the very essence of science. When an experiment gets reproduced often enough, then it becomes accepted.

            Agreeing or disagreeing with evidence says nothing about the underlying physics. It’s merely the result of that experiment that produces that result in a reproducible manner.

            The underlying physics is still not entirely known. Which means that if you run a different experiment using the same principles, the results may be predicted, or they may be something entirely different.

            The atmosphere has many components all interacting differently at different proportions. Nothing can be said to be settled, let alone “overwhelming evidence”.

          • Your waffle is completely off base and yes there is a consensus in climate science. That does not mean it is cast-in-stone. The “settled” part of climate science pertains to the unarguable fact that CO₂ is a GHG. That it slows radiative cooling when present in the atmosphere. That a known quantity has a known back radiative effect. Everybody knows that CO₂ is the primary forcing, except for people, like you, who never took a science class.

          • Consensus is politics. As Einstein said, it would only take one to prove me wrong.
            In Rob’s mind (if I can use the term so losely) the mere fact that it has warmed, proves that CO2 is the cause of the warming.
            Therefore no debate is needed, wanted, or tolerated.
            Step two will be to jail all those who continue to disagree.

          • My petty, creepy cyberstalker with Stockholm syndrome strikes to waste recycled cyber bits on BS. It is besotted with me after so many spankings that it has endured from me! What is it with you uneducated buffoons that you feel compelled to follow your intellectual superiors after we have given you thorough schooling in the very basics of math and science? Those are emotionally appealing talking points, too bad they are not based in reality or have any scientific context and is meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain. Very creepy!!

            The old Einstein ploy or gambit. “Many challenged him, he asked why when only one was needed to show him to err. This is true of course but scientists don’t know which counter, if any, may prevail.He made fun of 100 challengers, who were wrong, and he was correct, therefore I am right too.”

            You people can’t keep politics out of science, and you attribute political motives to scientists in order to cast doubt on the integrity of their research. It’s reprehensible. You are clueless as to how science is practiced and most of your prejudiced opinions are not grounded in reality and come from the climate fiction claque!

          • Then explain why every policy they’ve put into place guarantees CO2 levels will increase…

            If they thought climate change was dangerous…no country would be able to increase their emissions

            Even the UN/IPCC climate scientists don’t think it’s dangerous…an increase would kill them too

            …it’s all a scam

          • “No Rob, reproducibility is the very essence of science. When an experiment gets reproduced often enough, then it becomes accepted.”

            for lab science yes.

            But for observational science, not so much.

            Example: 2 airplanes crash into the world trade center. Some skeptics argue
            ( they are crazy) that planes cant take buildings down. Do we repeat the experiment?
            Nope. we look at all the evidence and argue to the best explanation.

            Many things we “know” via science ( extinction events, a persons cause of death,
            etc) are not strictly speaking “reproducable”.

            It’s a mistake to think that all science must follow the same method: repeat the experiment. and a mistake to think that repeatability is the essence of science.

            we find X dead with a noose around his neck. All the evidence points to a death by
            hanging. we can’t repeat that event. We don’t go out and try the same thing on other
            subjects. We eliminate other explanations and are left with the best explanation
            given the evidence. And this rules until a better explanation replaces it.

          • “Per capita is the only fair measurement unless you think American citizens are worth more than an Indian or Chinese citizen.”

            you just said they can’t grow their economies without burning fossil fuels…
            ..and at the same time said climate change is not dangerous and they can increase their emissions…..which will increase the atmospheric level

            if climate change was truly dangerous…no country would be allowed to increase their emissions for any reason

          • Steven,

            It’s a mistake to think that all science must follow the same method: repeat the experiment. and a mistake to think that repeatability is the essence of science.

            I think you’ve committed a non sequitur here. Experiments may not always be possible, but repeatability is indeed the essence of science.

            Consider astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology. Experiments aren’t always possible in these disciplines; they achieve their acceptance by making predictions that are later verified. They have to make many, many, predictions that are verified, in order for their tenets to become theories, and perhaps Laws.

            Stephen Jay Gould said, “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'” CO2 as the control switch for global temperature has not reached this degree of confirmation. In fact, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 has any more effect on global temperature than the 1-1.5C rise per doubling that basic gas physics predicts. Everything else is output from a model, and their results are all over the place, with zero repeatability.

            Consensus is the result of this degree of confirmation, not the cause of it. Einstein’s General and Special Relativity weren’t true (to the extent they’ve been verified) because a consensus thought they were — the consensus came after every prediction they made — and that was then subsequently observed — was verified. Alfred Wegener’s ideas on Continental Drift weren’t true because of a consensus — his ideas were mocked and derided for forty years, until sea floor cores at the Atlantic Ridge proved sea floor spreading, and provided the mechanism for what became Plate Tectonics.

            In a science discipline where experiments are near-impossible, prediction and verification are the sine qua non of science. So far, climate science has been a dismal failure at these.

          • Geez Mosh. Death by hanging has been demonstrated countless times. We have that “experiment” done to death literally and figuratively. The evidence for the Twin Towers being brought down by planes was based in large part on experimental science as well. There are people who spend their career in labs focused on such matters. We know the properties of steel and concrete and their response to impacts and temperature. We know how they respond in a fire.

          • Struggling to suppress his moral righteous indignation, Rob, the evangelical environmentalist idealogue, flashes his science badge with one hand, while barely concealing a small green and unusually thick book with the other: “When you disagree with the evidence, that is ignorance. When you agree with the evidence, that is knowledge.”

          • Rob: “Per capita is the only fair measurement unless you think American citizens are worth more than an Indian or Chinese citizen.”

            But if we know that CO2 emissions will continue to rise rapidly from developing nations, and that reductions in our emissions will only defer Doomsday 2100 by five years, then why bother bootlessly bankrupting ourselves?

            Why not instead pursue no-regrets strategies, as Judith Curry has urged, like less objectionable nuclear power (e.g., CANDU, coming in 2020) and funding for fundamental research (as suggested by the Danish guy who authored “The Skeptical Environmentalist) on things like small-scale fusion power, or in greater resilience, such as by requiring backup power for gas stations?

          • Rob: “Consensus is the very essence of science. The scientific consensus has formed around the overwhelming evidence.”

            That’s what the consensus of nutritionists (government-funded, mostly, BTW) thought too.

          • “Geez Mosh. Death by hanging has been demonstrated countless times. We have that “experiment” done to death literally and figuratively. The evidence for the Twin Towers being brought down by planes was based in large part on experimental science as well. There are people who spend their career in labs focused on such matters. We know the properties of steel and concrete and their response to impacts and temperature. We know how they respond in a fire.”

            err no. you misunderstood the case. Of course youthink you know all these things.
            you have models of how steel and concrete respond, but thats just model evidence.
            You’ve never tested those models with a live experiment of taking the building down
            You trust that the model which works for condition X will work in condition Y.
            But you dont go out and test every condition Y, especially when condition Y may
            be very very expensive. There are some experiments you cant afford to repeat.
            And to repeat. You find a body with a noose around its neck. you didnt witness the
            hanging. You reason from the evidence, you do not always repeat the experiment.
            The experiment here is not hanging someone and watching. The experiment is
            finding a dead body. That’s what happened. you found a dead body. Now, reason
            as to how the person came to be dead.

            the point is repeatability is an imprtant ASPECT of some science. Just think of
            science that focuses on singulr events.. heck geology, plate techtonics. Asteroid
            impacts. You CANT repeat some things, so you reason to the best explanation.

            you wake up in the morning and the grass is wet.

            explain it.

          • There was also consensus in:

            solar system model –> that consensus fell apart

            Geology and Earth science was at consensus –> then some “fool” came around with plate tectonics

            “Science” is rife with the consensus being wrong.

            Observational studies can only carry you so for; you could be right but for all the wrong reasons; or you could be wrong for all the wrong reasons; until you have empirical and experimental data nothing can move forward.

          • Tour two frivolous examples never had a consensus in science. You’d know that if you’d taken a science course. Better luck bullshitting more next time.

          • Steven Mosher/Rob

            A scientific consensus is not science, it’s politics.

            Replication IS science.

            Your examples of 9/11 etc. can be examined with the benefit of scientific tools but they represent nothing but informed opinion. The conclusions are not scientific outcomes because they can’t be replicated.

            Similarly, even with the benefit of computer models, climate science is nothing more than informed opinion, especially as 100% of scientists agree they don’t understand how clouds work.

            Which makes any conclusions on climate change ill informed opinion.

        • Huge conflict of interest behind: “accepts what this scientific body and includes scientists and others, but what the IPCC has reached consensus on in terms of science on climate change.”
          Oil Companies want to sell more Natural Gas.
          Also consensus is a meaning concept in science. No I did not derive Newton’s Law of Gravity myself, but since I know of nobody who disagrees with it, I se no reason to reexamine it. However I see hundreds of reasons to disagree with the claims of the chicken littles claiming a Climate Emergency.

          • It’s also not particularly hard to derive most of the fundamental laws, and their experiments – I had to do all of them in my undergrad courses (and I do mean ALL of them) as my physics professor thought that you’d only really understand them if you did it yourself (of course, he was one of Feynman’s students….).

            The tricky part is coming up with the laws in the first place, and then figuring out how to prove them. Copying those genius work is relatively easy.

        • Gosh, we have an unlucky contestant named Rob.

          Chevron’s lawyers made a brilliant LEGAL argument totally sidestepping and blunting every CAGW Alarmist argument by NOT attacking the so-called “underlying science.” The lawyers for the STOOGES suing them were left reeling on their heels trying to show cause why Chevron should bear the blame and cost when EVERY PLAINTIFF had WILLINGLY USED their products and were INFORMED PARTICIPANTS in the “destruction” caused by the evil “fossil fuel.” The judge tossed out the case WITH PREJUDICE!!! Schadenfreude!!!

        • Then explain why every policy they’ve put into place guarantees CO2 levels will increase…

          If they thought climate change was dangerous…no country would be able to increase their emissions

          Even the UN/IPCC climate scientists don’t think it’s dangerous…an increase would kill them too

          …it’s a $ ( @ ^^

        • Rob,
          Your attitude invites this scientific test.
          The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule. It was not derived for a bulk gas mixture like Earth’s atmosphere. One can plausibly assume that one activated molecule is incapable of causing a 1degree C change in atmospheric temperature. Not one molecule, not 10, not even 10 million.
          There is a logical lower limit to the concentration of CO2 that is capable of causing the claimed change.
          What is this lower limit?
          How is it measured?

          Spare us the circular argument that change in atmospheric CO2 correlates with change in temperature. Geoff S. Scientist, chemistry.

          • I do not know what type of chemist and scientist you assert to be but your questions are very ambiguously and not scientifically worded.

            Are you familiar with the Greenhouse Effect? If so, then I don’t know where you are going with CO₂.

          • Rob,

            The questions can hardly be worded more clearly.

            There is a logical lower limit to the concentration of CO2 that is capable of causing the claimed change.
            What is this lower limit?
            How is it measured?

            Why are you obfuscating, avoiding an explanation?

            The topic is fundamentally important. Geoff S

            ps What type of scientist am I? Hard, measurably successful, a follower of the scientific method.

          • Geoff you are wasting your time. Rob is a mindless troll, as evidenced by his numerous meaningless posts over the past week. Good for laughing at, but not much else. Best not to feed the trolls.

        • Many things we “know” via science ( extinction events, a persons cause of death,
          etc) are not strictly speaking “reproducable”.

          Oh for Pete’s sake . . .

          Wowzers thank you “Mosher” for your perspicaciously prescient presentation of pompously porous propaganda pointing out the futility of reproducing the effects of, for example, pushing pointed projectiles at high velocity into the vertex of extant human beings to test the theory that this event, when repeated, is likely to interrupt the normal activity of the great grey matter such that in most cases we pretty much know it’s LIGHTS OUT.

          Really dood?? REALLY???

          Why do you do it?

        • I thought you were real until you proclaimed science as consensus.

          You know nothing of science, Rob. I start to doubt you have a degree in STEM.

          • KaliforniaKook

            One of the benefits of not being scientifically educated, like me, is that one can spot a fake scientist faster than a scientist can.

            I figured out Rob hasn’t a scientific credential to his name some time ago. he’s just the cut and paste king.

        • Rob
          You are entitled to your views, and it is a great relief to hear from someone who is prepared to do battle for ideas, and not shout.
          No doubt – ‘consensus’ is a major factor in everyday life. But science is implicitly critical of ‘experts’ who rely only on previous, not new, theory and evidence. Language (which includes mathematics) is not the world; and every hypothesis is based on too little evidence, since it predicts what may happen eternally. Hence, every law of science, including Newton’s laws of motion, are guesses which have so far withstood testing. Which is why we no longer believe in Newton’s ‘God the Watchmaker’ and Absolute Space and Time. When Newton became the new orthodoxy, Hooke’s wave theory of light was lost for more than a hundred years. This is the danger of consensus science.

          • It is not possible for modern scientists to waste time on the past and have to have trust in the consensus of their forebearers. Each successive generation stands on the shoulders of precedents. Scientists tend to do their best work in their early years. A law you seldom see today but was very prevalent in my early academic undergrad career was “Uniformitarianism” aka Doctrine of Uniformity. The law assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. That is how we are able to discover the human influence on our biosphere.

        • “…Of course youthink you know all these things.
          you have models of how steel and concrete respond, but thats just model evidence…”

          Again, there are people who spend their careers designing and testing these. Experiments. Replication. Duplication. You don’t have to build a replica of the WTC. We have crash tests for materials. We have fire tests. Situation X and Y will never be identical. They just have to be similar enough.

          “…And to repeat. You find a body with a noose around its neck. you didnt witness the
          hanging. You reason from the evidence, you do not always repeat the experiment…”

          Like I said, that experiment has been done. We know the results. Experiments will certainly be done to make sure it was not foul play, determine a time of death, toxicology, etc. When average Joe discovers the dead body, he doesn’t repeat the experiment. But he is also not doinh science.

          “…you wake up in the morning and the grass is wet.

          explain it…”

          Explain which part? Waking up? Waking up in the morning? Having wet grass? Having wet grass in the morning? Having wet grass after I wake up? All of the above?

      • What is published in textbooks is often the same as other textbooks. There is often a “consensus” among textbook writers.
        Science is not just results. Science describes an experiment you can do yourself if you please.
        Science is always: *Given what we know* now, this is a true description of nature. There is, in every scientific statement, a degree of doubt. There was this consensus about Newton’s Laws. Such a consensus they called them Laws. However, Newton’s Laws turn out to be a special case (low speed) of Einstein’s “Laws.”
        Science treats Mother Nature as the only Oracle of Truth. As is the nature of oracles if the question is phrased wrongly the answer, though true, may be misleading (see above example). The scientific method is designed to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
        Science: A beautiful theory may be proven wrong by a single, solitary fact. A wrong prediction invalidates any theory. Something is wrong with the current “consensus” of a subset of climate experts; their predictions have a history of failure going back as long as we can find.

        Government funding distorts science. Some bright people follow the money and don’t care much about experimental science.

        Consensus is for the non-provables. The right Religion. The right Politics. The right morality about Sex.

        • Government funding distorts science
          ——————————————–
          – The science paid for by coal companies finds there is no warming – other climate science disagrees. The science paid for by Exxon and suppressed, finds it’s warming. The science paid for by the Koch brothers affirms all the findings of climate research done by the worldwide institutions (Gôôgle “Dr. Mulder & BEST”). There are a few venal contrarian scientists and clearly most of them are fossil-fuel funded propagandists.

          – Paying scientists to support global warming would harm the fossil fuel industry which is one of the wealthiest industries in the world, if anyone was going to give scientists money to influence their opinions it would be them. Ironically there is documented evidence of this happening too. Willie Soon, one of the few venal scientists who disagree with human-caused global warming has received millions from oil companies.
          Anyone who suggests climate scientists have been massively corrupted by federal funding and peer pressure does not consider the countervailing power of opposing financial interests that might lure scientists to question the scientific consensus such as the lucrative funding made available in the right-wing think-tank world and fossil fuel corporations. If it were only money why haven’t the scientists defected in droves? Because you discount the possibility that scientists would find the lure of eventually being proven correct to be a powerful reputational incentive, let alone that they would actually care enough about being right to disregard social and financial pressure. If you had any specific sense of how these social pressures survived the rigors of the scientific method and peer review, you don’t explicate them.

          • Rob: “Anyone who suggests climate scientists have been massively corrupted by federal funding and peer pressure does not consider the countervailing power of opposing financial interests that might lure scientists to question the scientific consensus such as the lucrative funding made available in the right-wing think-tank world and fossil fuel corporations.”

            There are probably about a dozen or so skeptical scientists who are being funded (not by much) by Heartland. In most cases they were skeptics before they got the funding, and in some cases they have been unable to get funding from the NSF or foundations that fund mainstream studies. A larger number of skeptics have probably received a little gravy from having their articles reprinted in think tank periodicals, or spaeker’s fees, or (in unusual cases) as members of a board of consultants. But these are standard wamts received by consensus scientists too, and don’t amount to much, I’d guess. Take a look at the list of skeptics scientists listed on Wikipedia—they aren’t shills, or receiving anything like the funding consensus scientists get.

            See my WUWT guest thread, “Notes From Skull Island – why climate skeptics aren’t ‘well funded and well organized’”
            If our side were well funded and well organized, as warmists charge, it would have the following 22 characteristics–which it doesn’t.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

            “If it were only money why haven’t the scientists defected in droves?”

            They have a vested interest in conformism that is far greater than what they’d get by defection. If there were no climate alarm, their field would be 90% smaller. In a “global” sense, 90% of what they get is a payoff for compliance.

          • Eschew prolixity and pleonasm when you write a garrulous jeremiad of gallimaufry based on your prejudiced feelings.

          • Roger Knights September 23, 2019 at 9:14 pm
            Roger don’t feed the troll.
            I will say it again, look at his word use. He claims to have 50+ years experience and was twenty when he finished under grad work. OOPS! Do the math, 1969 at latest?
            He probably does not even understand how he screwed up.
            It is much easier for someone in their 60s or 70s to pass themselves off as being in their mid 20s then the other way around.
            He is either a post grad student or just finished his Doctorate and is struggling to pay for all those student loans. Guess climate welfare is drying up

            michael

          • Rob: “Eschew prolixity and pleonasm when you write a garrulous jeremiad of gallimaufry based on your prejudiced feelings.”

            Not on-target.

          • My petty, cranky and creepy cyberstalker strikes to waste recycled cyber bits on more BS. It is besotted with me. Pavlov’s dog was trained to salivate. Apparently, so are you!! What is it with you uneducated buffoons that you feel compelled to follow your intellectual superiors after we have given you thorough schooling in the very basics of math and science? That is an emotionally appealing talking point, MarkW; too bad it has no scientific context and is meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain. Very creepy!!

            It is so very sad that your sibling parents didn’t complete reading and comprehension in English with you in your home school! Now you think everyone who has a better command of English than you must need a Thesaurus. What makes this more laughable is English is not my first language.

          • Government money is way more corrupt because it has used over 3 decades to select only activist scientists…selection occurs by “go along and there’s more money and prestige”…don’t go along and you can’t get published or earn any advancement (usually, you must get defunded or fired).

    • Rob

      Then why has it been a long-standing tradition for scientific societies to invite speakers to speak on new and controversial topics, such as evolution or continental drift, and entertain questions afterwards? Why are panel discussions an accepted forum for controversial topics of science? The point is that claims should be backed with facts and logic to defend a position. While sophists might beguile laymen with their rhetoric, that advantage should be nullified by opponents who actually are familiar with the facts.

      The problem in the “climate change” controversy is that those who consider themselves to be experts, make unsupportable pronouncements and are never publicly challenged and therefore never have to defend their claims. They are appealing to their authority and are unwilling to face their peers with similar authority. In the end, “better science, with data, evidence, and methods,” should prevail. However, if those making claims are unwilling to submit to challenges, then how can it be determined if the claims are valid?

      It has been demonstrated that those who do not toe the line with respect to main-stream consensus have difficulty getting published. Media outlets, such as the Australian blog The Conversation, openly announce that they will delete comments that challenge the claims of authors that preach doom and gloom. The system is stacked against doing better science and presenting the results.

      • Your second and last paragraphs are just bloviating prejudiced feelings. I have heard many of the leading climate scientists talk and defend their research and findings. I have also had the opportunity to work with some. The last one I heard present their work (recently) was Heyhoe. I don’t believe any of the world’s leading and not so prominent climate scientists shirk away from defending their science. You have snorted too much contrarian and denier BS and its affecting your rational thought process.

        • Rob

          There has never been any peer reviewed scientific paper, there has never been any scientific evidence produced, there has never been any data recorded that supports the hypothesis that back radiation from atmospheric CO2 whether natural or anthropogenic causes warming of the earth’s surface.

          If you know of any publication or evidence or data that contradicts what I have stated above then bring it forth now.

          • Regurgitating climate science denier and contrarian memes is not science. Yes, there is a tonne of peer-reviewed papers from the mountain of consilient evidence.

            If you know of any publication or evidence or data that contradicts what I have stated above then bring it forth now.

            You peaked in middle school, didn’t you? There are invertebrates that have shown more spine than you. Another case of the fool believing it’s smarter than experts. You deny the science from the experts. You deny the science from peer review. You deny anything that does not fit into your myopic, scientifically illiterate, and prejudiced feelings world view. The proof you are looking for is contained in the IPCC AR5 report which you would have, no doubt, read because you are interested in the subject. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

        • Rob, I suggest that you go to the top of the page and click on the “Climategate” link and read a few posts. Then come back and tell us about conspiracies..

          • Rob the troll denies the climategate emails are real, despite the fact that many of the writers of those emails (including one that he was conversing with at the time) have admitted they are real emails that they wrote.

          • Where did I write the emails are not real? Why lie? Just because your fat, lazy, orange, lying coward and clown in the WH does it, it doesn’t mean that’s what folk of heft do. It’s the hallmarks of great weakness and plethora of insecurities and mental issues.

          • “Climategate emails are a fictional meme among denizens of the science denial cult and climate fiction claques.” – rob the troll September 21, 2019 at 8:38 am in the Michael E Mann, Loser thread. Fictional means not real. I’d suggest the troll swap his thesarus for a good old fashioned dictionary so he might learn something, but we all know trolls like Rob are incapable of learning anything. Why trolls like Rob bother to lie about something so easily verified is something that not even science can figure out. Now we can all have a laugh as we watch the troll dance in response.

        • Rob
          What is at issue in this article is not whether ‘scientists’ are willing to present their ideas in front of an audience of uncritical genuflecting acolytes, but rather, whether they have the courage of their convictions to present in front of hostile peers. It is the hard questions that separate a scientist from a compliant technician.

          • It really is funny how left wing trolls can only see tiny flaws in others, yet ignore huge flaws in themselves.
            I guess when your paycheck is on the line, honesty goes out the window.

          • leitmotif

            No contradiction to your statement because Rob is a sad little troll in his garden shed with no friends and no qualifications. If he can’t cut and paste it, he wont respond to any question.

        • “Regurgitating climate science denier and contrarian memes is not science. Yes, there is a tonne of peer-reviewed papers from the mountain of consilient evidence.”

          Consilient evidence is the the last resort of climate scoundrels. You cannot dispute my claims so you resort to insults. Show me the evidence. I will save you the time; there is none.

          You are rockyrex from the awful Guardian and I claim the £10.

          • The Troll “Rob” with whom you are wasting your time conversing thinks “homogenized temperature readings” constitute Consilient evidence.

    • Rob,

      You say, “Science isn’t a debate.”

      Even by your standards that is ridiculous. Without debate there is no development of knowledge; i.e. no science.

      Richard

      • You bloviation is a compliment. You are a gross embarrassment to science like many of our venial dotard scientists in the US and around the world.

        • Rob,

          Your sentences may make more sense if you knew the meanings of the words you misuse.

          For example, bloviation is speaking verbosely.
          Your verbosity is bloviation, and my clear statements are not.

          I repeat to ensure your evasion fails.
          Without debate there is no development of knowledge; i.e. no science.

          Richard

          • Your sentences may make more sense if you knew the meanings of the words you misuse.

            your venal, vile, dotard projection is puerile, boring, odious and tedious.

            Without debate there is no development of knowledge; i.e. no science.

            pernicious deceit to assert there is no debate in science. Perhaps, you are in urgent need of a refresher on peer-reviewed publications and post-publication dialogue. Why such weasel words? What inferior complexes or insecurities are you hiding? In my innocent youth, the nickname for Richard was Dick and gay implied being happy. I suppose you were a happy Dick once. Now you are just a pompous, geriatric, and garrulous Dick.

          • Rob,

            I repeat both my points because you have failed to address either of them and I would not wish them to be obscured from onlookers by your egregious bile.
            1.
            Without debate there is no development of knowledge; i.e. no science.
            2.
            Your sentences may make more sense if you knew the meanings of the words you misuse.

            And I am proud of my peer reviewed publications.
            My work cannot be defamed by the offensive and foolish personal abuse from an exceptionally obnoxious and anonymous little oik which you provide.

            Richard

          • Clear indications of mental deficiency are not being able to absorb information that is presented to you and then to keep repeating the same nonsense repetitively. Your strawman fallacies are not an argument. Acquiesce and move on.

          • Rob,

            You correctly say,
            “Clear indications of mental deficiency are not being able to absorb information that is presented to you and then to keep repeating the same nonsense repetitively.”

            YES. And you have yet to “absorb” any of the information I have presented for you.

            It is good that you have acknowledged your deficiency. You now need to obtain treatment for it.

            Richard

          • Pumpkin, I ignore your crass stupidity and definitely don’t absorb the BS you spew. You obviously snort so much nonsense it has addled your geriatric brain.

    • Rob: The debate is on what the science says… that is the debate. This is important because politics has sabbotaged the science and people now have beliefs which they want to turn into devastating actions.

      • Mario – to the layperson they are not able to distinguish who is a great scientist – they don’t have that expertise. The three “contrarian” scientists Legates, etc do not have sterling science reputations according to their peers based on their work. Why didn’t they invite a Republican like Richard Alley who is an expert? So a layperson will judge based on presentation, not content. Felon Jay Lehr is great at presenting his oddball science but he is a fraud and did time for defrauding the EPA for it but you never see Fox mention that when they have him on as an expert on EPA matters or climate science. His easily readable voracious Op-ed production is pure junk science riddled with denier and contrarian memes. How does the layperson know it is BS without a whole lot of research? Sorry but science debate is pure theater.

        • Rob: Thank you for your note to me. You’re making it political theater. I do not care about an apeal to whom is called great… the substance is what matters. I hope you do not believe everything someone says because you consider them to have group accolades. Else, we’d all be dumb enough to believe in things like the CO2 is a pollutent, which it isn’t — or that CO2 is NOT green, which it is.

          • CO₂, is most definitely beneficial and a pollutant like most compounds according to one of chemistry’s oldest and most fundamental of laws: sola dosis facit venenu!

            CO₂, is not green it is colorless.

          • Is there a ringing in your ears? Do you hear voices other than the radio? Thank you for writing absolutely nothing useful. Now please work on writing absolutely nothing. If only you were smart enough to know how ignorant you are.

          • I always thougt that Loydo is the top dork. But it´s nice to have a winner.

            Rob, congratulations ! You are the most immature idiot ever seen here. You are a science denier. Go and play with your legos. Grow up !

            Rob, debate is one corner stone of science. And your “consensus” is too scared to debate. Why? They can´t win. They tried and lost.

          • Your projection is boring, tedious, odious and shameful for an adult. You people can’t keep politics out of science, and you attribute political motives to scientists in order to cast doubt on the integrity of their research. It’s reprehensible. You are clueless as to how science is practiced and most of your prejudiced opinions are not grounded in reality and come from the climate fiction claque!

          • Rob: You wrote:
            [CO₂, is most definitely beneficial and a pollutant like most compounds according to one of chemistry’s oldest and most fundamental of laws: sola dosis facit venenu!
            CO₂, is not green it is colorless.]

            I can fix the English part of your statement here.
            [CO₂, is most definitely beneficial and [Not] a pollutant like most compounds according to one of chemistry’s oldest and most fundamental of laws: sola dosis facit venenu!
            CO₂, is not green it is colorless.]

            Also, I referred to CO2 in the context of the often used meme/metaphor, that requires elimination of CO2 in order to accomplish the “green” agenda. Adding CO2 contributes to further greening of the planet. Hence being “green” by eliminating CO2 is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

          • So sad to hear about the fire in your home library. The report said that all your science books were damaged – all three of them. You were most upset about it too because you hadn’t finished coloring in two of them.

        • Rob
          You complain to F1nn below (@4:40 am) that he can’t keep politics out of his comments. Yet, more than half of your 2:29 pm comment is about politics, demonstrating where you stand politically. It also betrays why you are not in favor of science debate. It is suicide to show up at a knife fight without at least a knife.

          • Pumpkin, I totally embrace science debate. It is known as”peer-review” – look it up and learn something new today. One step at a time.

        • Rob

          One of the most convincing reasons for accepting that Rob is not a scientist is the high opinion he holds himself in.

          The olther is that as a layman I have been on WUWT for several years now. I came in asking questions, that’s all, and I was treated with respect and generosity for simply showing an interest.

          Rob is an ignorant clodhopper. Rude, dismissive, demeaning evasive and utterly unwilling to consider an opinion other than his.

          Thoroughly nasty piece of work.

    • Climate is not really a scientific debate in this context. The country is being demanded without being asked to carry a great financial burden and to entirely change our lives and even to sacrifice some basic freedoms. The Alarmist side of the debate owns the media so their propaganda is incessant and widespread. The Denier side has lots to add to the political discussion…but mainly right now is just trying to get its message out at all.

      The scientific work amongst scientists will require decades to centuries to establish the “truth” about most of the drivers and interactions of Earth’s Climate. We’ve got lots of theories and projections, but it will take a very long time before enough “data is in” to provide most of the answers.

    • Rob,
      The debate isn’t about the science. The debate is about what the science really says about the subject (there’s been lots of interpretations and simplifcations). For example, is the changing climate really an existential threat to our species? The debate is also about public policy – what should we do about the changing climate? Are the proposed cures worse than the theoretical disease?

    • 97% of the “science” of AGW is rhetoric. Most climate-related scientists generally agree about the 3%.  I’m fairly certain that Pat Michaels, David Legates and Wille Soon would agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, all other factors held equal, adding more of it to the atmosphere will raise the bulk temperature to some degree. Almost all of the “science” beyond that ranges from speculative to purely rhetorical.

      Rhetoric…

      BO_1

      The scientific “consensus” according to:

      Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
      Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.

      “Climate change is real”

      96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

      “Man-made”

      67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and at least >51% man-made.

      “And dangerous”

      Only 38% of “scientists” characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.

      Only 50% of “scientists” characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.

      “And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

      So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead. 

      –Thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015

      Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.”

      Climate Change…

      Additionally, Stenhouse et al., 2017 tells us that there is conflict within the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.

      This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.

      “Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects”… 

      If it looks like a debate, walks like a debate and quacks like a debate, it might just be a debate.

      • “The American Meteorological Society has more than 13,000 individual members in nearly 100 countries. Membership was initially limited to professionals or scholars in the atmospheric or related sciences, but today an array of membership categories accommodate a wide range of people including students, teachers, corporations and weather enthusiasts. ” [Wikipedia]

        Total responses to survey:
        “Climate change is real” 4,091
        “Man-made” 4,004
        “And dangerous” 3,546

        Assuming that all members were invited to complete the survey. Less than 31% of those questioned believed that “Climate change”, as defined, was occurring. Less than 29% agreed that man contributed to “Climate change”, as defined, and less than 11% that such changes as they perceived had occurred were in any way harmful.

        Of course it is possible that only some members were sampled and others were ignored, but the evidence from the survey certainly does not support the statement that “96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

        • Good point about the no response rate. However, it’s a safe bet that close to 100% of.scientists agree that climate change is real… Because climate is always changing.

    • So why are so many climate scientists out to conceal data, evidence, and methods? Why so much noisy rhetoric instead? Why so much backdoor activity (no pun intended…please don’t get excited with your Penn State thoughts)?

      Phil Jones on CRU raw temp data: “…If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone…”

      Jones in an email to Mann: “…Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann also from NCAR] to do the same…”

      • ISo why are so many climate scientists out to conceal data, evidence, and method

        What data, evidence, and methods are concealed, please explicare?

        Your middle and last paragraph shows you are clueless as to how science is done. What do you think these mean – spell out your knowledge, not your insinuations. Smarter and more competent and knowledgeable folk have reviewed these and don’t conclude what you seem to be implying. If your information is from nonscientific and tendentious sources then don’t bother to respond.

        • Those emails have nothing to do with how science is done. I get that you’re an old, miserable, unsuccesful, lonely, angry, dishonest, and hateful troll, but surely you’re not that stupid. I mean you have 50 decades of experience, after all.

      • Loose was his mother, actually. But she needed the money and had a habit to support. Of all the diseases she bore, Rob was the worst by far according to the consensus.

    • Rob: “Epistemic fail! Science isn’t a debate. The debate is theatre. Yes, there are arguments in science, but it’s not a formal debate. One doesn’t show science is wrong by having a better argument. You demonstrate it wrong by doing better science, with data, evidence, and methods, not rhetoric!”

      All that is necessary to show “science” is wrong is to find logical or mathematical or statistical flaws, or overlooked alternative explanations, from an armchair, not necessarily by doing better science. For instance, the claim that automotive exhausts are responsible for an increase in asthma and other respiratory ills in the past 20 years is refuted by noting that automotive exhausts are ten times cleaner than they were 20 years ago. Pointing out similar flaws in climatism isn’t “rhetoric”or “theater,” it’s commokn sense / healthy skepticism, a vital part of science.

      And, of course, part of the contrarian case IS founded on better science, such as that done recently by Frank and by Nic Lewis, and earlier by the satellites and balloons that have failed to find the predicted tropical hotspot. Insinuating that the skeptics are only making noise is willfully inaccurate.

      • You are delusional of course in that contrarian science seldom gets past peer review and when it does it is refuted by peers in short shrift. You obviously don’t know what the scientific method is and Feynman was addressing his expertise, not science. Earth science definitely has a different method to chemistry for example. Your automotive example fails the SM that the cause of the rises is still present and growing – it has not been removed even though the aerosols and some CO₂ are ameliorated. Einstein’d theory has been superseded, modified and changed. You are stuck somewhere far back in history.

        • @Rob: I can see from this and your prior response why YOU wouldn’t want to participate in a debate. The audience would laugh, and the referees would find it hard to keep straight faces. You’re just a ranter.

          • From a scientifically illiterate ignoramus, I will treat that as garbage in. The few scientists and scientifically literate on this conspiracy blog compliment and support my comments. Now, who do you think I’m going to pay attention to you? Sorry to hurt you prejudiced feelings.

            Btw, why so arrogant and pompous? Are you a Trump U or Prager U drop out with chips on both shoulders?

          • Rob
            You asked, “Btw, why so arrogant and pompous?” I’ll ask you the same question! What motivates you to bother to respond to someone you dismiss as not being worthy of responding to? Your insults indicate that you think highly of yourself. Do you really think that you have managed to convince anyone of your intellectual superiority?

            “Far back in history:”
            https://www.livescience.com/52600-einstein-is-right-about-general-relativity.html

          • You are entitled to your prejudice feelings and insecurities. I respond to whom I feel necessary and if you don’t like just STFU! I am not here to make friends. Read, absorb then think, before running your mouth. I care not a jot that you write or what you spew. I only post to deny your ignorance for others.

    • I am currently reading a biographical book about Faraday and Clerk. Faraday and Humphreys as a team debated all the time at the Royal Academy of Sciences.

      And what the hell do think you were not doing you had to defend a thesis?

  2. Let’s establish the status of “The Science”. “The Science” is what Greta, Bernie, et al refer to.

    “The Science” offers no laws, axioms, postulates, formulae, nor any tools of reason. “The Science” offers no capacity to measure “back-radiation”. “The Science” offers no method to discern if anything is improving or worsening.

    Fundamental science has shown:
    – Carbon Based Life Forms require Carbon
    – Carbon Based Life Forms participate in the Carbon Cycle of Life
    – Carbon Dioxide is necessary to complete the Carbon Cycle of Life
    – CO2 is the only singular throttle in the Carbon Cycle of Life
    – The purported “greenhouse gas property’ of CO2 has not been measured here in Earth’s atmosphere, nor on Mars where the atmosphere is 95% CO2
    – Carbon Based Life Forms depend upon the extraction of Carbon from atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis by both plants and phytoplankton
    – CO2 is the base of the food chain

    • Your comment looks like science but it is pure strawman fallacy. There’s no such science as fundamental – why the red herring?

      • Rob: “Your comment looks like science but it is pure strawman fallacy”

        I noticed you didn’t respond with a list of laws, axioms, postulates and formulae. Nor did you refute any of my proclamations about Carbon.

        We would have a difficult time deriving tools of reason from a flawed theory. “The Science” offers no tools of reason. How do you distinguish “The Science” from a flawed theory?

        Do you still consider Carbon to be “pollution”? “Pollution” might be defined as “harmful to life”, and all life that we know of is Carbon based. “Carbon Pollution” could thus be translated as:

        [ Carbon is harmful to Carbon Based Life. ]

        You dismiss an argument as a “strawman”, but you’re defending a contradiction.

        • Nope. I can’t make up for your lack of scientific knowledge and you prejudiced feelings. Obviously carbon dioxide is toxic as all life expels it as a byproduct of metabolism even though it is an aerial fertilizer for the autotrophic organisms and plants. If you had done chemistry you would have learned the fundamental and very old law of sola dosis facit venenu!

          • Rob: “Obviously carbon dioxide is toxic ”

            You boldly claim that “obviously” CO2 is “toxic” and you want to disparage my level of scientific knowledge?

            CO2 is the base of the food chain for all carbon based life forms.

            CO2 feeds life.

            When should we expect the first law/axiom/postulate/formula to be derived from the theory you are defending? How much time do you think you’ll need?

          • Acquiesce and move on. Your grade 5 grammar and syntax is not science. Your science knowledge is atrocious. Case closed for obnoxious nescience on your part and lack of evidence!

          • Wow, support from MarkW! Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope that his brain cells will start running at least at minimum voltage.

          • If you think that comment was in support of you, your reading comprehension is even worse than previously indicated.

    • 18M Ohm water is also toxic, well more preciously caustic.

      Heavy water, be it the Hydrogen that’s heavy or the Oxygen, would also be toxic technically.

      For a scientist does not seems the least be bit interested in actual scientific inquiry or debate.

      I would have to specifically look at an MSDS but I think O2 would be more prone to flammable as you approached it toxicity concentrations.

      Rob does not understand the true purpose of peer-review is debate; rebuttal.

      He refuses to prove me wrong; yet continually says I am not worth efforts of debating but will not hesitate to throw insults.

  3. Climate realists need to discover an anti-Greta, who is bright, eloquent, charming and young.
    This young lass would ideally poke fun at Greta and followers in a kind way, but would also educate some on a few important details regarding the climatic history of our planet.
    She could challenge Greta to a debate.
    And again.
    And again.
    And again.

    Eventually, Greta would have to show up and attempt to defend her beliefs, subject them to some rational counterpoints.

    That would be popcorn time.

    • Sorry Kurt, you are delightfully delusional.

      Greta would never show up for a debate, in the same way Mann or any other climate alarmists won’t…..because they know they will be intellectually crucified.

      • HotScot,
        You wrote, “Sorry Kurt, you are delightfully delusional.”
        Doesn’t make it not worth trying. Some of the audience would get it.

      • HotScot: “Greta would never show up for a debate, in the same way Mann or any other climate alarmists won’t…..because they know they will be intellectually crucified.”

        I think their behavior is contemptible. As Tom Paine said, “It is not truth, but error only, the shrinks from investigation.” But:

        1. Mann and that admiral (Tetley?) showed up in Charleston to debate Curry and Moore.
        2. They have expressed a not-entirely-dismissable worry that they aren’t as slick debaters as skeptics, or that skeptics’ claims are only superficially persuasive, but that refuting them takes far longer and is more boring and technical, not appealing to the public as well.
        3. They have been advised by media experts to avoid debate, because they are in the lead in the public opinion polls, and giving the trailing side a platform will erode that edge. (This isn’t forthright behavior, though.)

    • Greta is really on her high horse now, saying “How dare you” to supposed “adults” at the UN. It’s go time. The Climate Crusaders are in full-throated rage, as they realize they are losing, which makes them all the more dangerous.

    • “Climate realists need to discover an anti-Greta, who is bright, eloquent, charming and young.
      This young lass would ideally poke fun at Greta and followers in a kind way, but would also educate some on a few important details regarding the climatic history of our planet.”

      A young lady, who looked a lot like AOC, not long ago was poking fun at AOC in an internet video, in a kind way, and she and her family got so many death threats from the hateful Left, that they disconnected from the internet.

      The Left gets real nasty, even dangerously violent when someone challenges their worldview. They can’t handle the truth. Putting a child in that situation wouldn’t be a good idea.

    • Kurt in Switzerland… I would absolutely love this, imagine having facts showing the world people that co2 isn’t causing weather but its the earths natural cycles that is causing it… greta is a puppet, she has no facts, no science of any sort, and to this day I have not seen any names of the “99% of all scientists say the earth is changing”.

  4. There are 2 other critical items on the agenda for gaining the CONSENT of the PEOPLE to completely alter their lives for the sake of stabilizing the Climate.

    These 2 issues (for me) are those surrounding the Global Temperature Record, and the REAL percent of scientists who would support the position that projected Climate Change will be catastrophic or at least a very very bad thing and require $ Trillions to rectify.

    1.) I’ve seen wholesale adjustments being made to the historic temperature records all around the globe that just happen to bring global temperature trends into almost exact agreement with most Alarmist projections (by cooling the past and warming the present).

    But my searches have found no explanations justifying the modifications…..BUT NEITHER have I seen any formal audit of the alterations of the temperature records by Deniers convincingly describe how the adjustments are not justified. Adjustments are almost always required to data sets when instrumentation and procedures are not held strictly constant over time…and that IS what we have here.

    We need to know what the temperature data tells us to the best of our ability to know, and we need an honest assessment of the levels of uncertainty…especially since the global temperature record is very sparse prior to 1950, and it is nonexistant for most of the globe prior to 1920.

    2. I do not trust “97%” studies that try to pry the number indirectly out of published papers where bias is all too apparent. JUST POLL ALL THE SCIENTISTS. WE NEED TO SEE AN ACTUAL POLL OF ALL OF THEM conducted in such a way with a level of anonymity that the answers would not jeopardize the careers of any of those polled. And to make this Poll useful, I’d also need to know the level of Social Activism held by each of the respondents (I have no idea how to get honest answers to this…I would expect a tendency of left leaning scientists to lie to “prove” a lack of political bias exists among scientists. Conservative scientists would have no reason to dissemble on this point.). I’m pretty sure the country will be surprised how many of our scientists (especially in Academia) are way left of center, and so not unlikely to allow their political leanings affect their work and guide their opinions.

    I’d really love to include all the engineers in the country in these Polls…these are the men and women that have to interface with physical reality every minute of every day.

    • I hear they are sending Breta Thunderpants in their stead, to berate everyone and say how “ashamed” they all should be.

  5. I hope to heck Heartland Institute has procured a professional security staff of +6’5″, +250lb, retired Navy Seals and Army Green Berets to protect our brave lads from violent mob assault…

  6. This utter nonsense over the term Developed and Undeveloped countries
    go right back to the original Kyoto, when the 3 rd world countries refused to
    sign up to the proposed cuts in their carbon emissions.

    To avoid a total collapse of the proposed “”Treaty”” the organisers instead
    decided to give the Third World countries a “”Get out of Jail free card””” in
    effect the can was kicked a lot further down the road.

    So fast forward and we see the two big ones, India and China now truly 1st
    World countries, Space programmes, having the atomic bomb, big militaries
    yet still holding onto their so called Third World status.

    While I am all for lots and lots of CO2 to Green the Planet, its become a sick
    joke that those two can attend the Paris Conference and insist that we in the
    Western countries come close to destroying our economies in the name of CC.

    One could say that they are “”Handicapping the West”” to gain a advantage in
    World trade.

    MJE VK5ELL

  7. Listened to the first hour…
    Too bad that all the invites chickened out and didn’t show up …
    there was no debate. But the scientists there were very good,
    but I have heard and agree with all their points …
    Back to listening to the Mark Levin Radio show …
    – JPP

  8. It will be interesting to see which of the warmists turns up, if any. Perhaps laptops and other resources need to be allowed, so the warmists can try to dredge up some real evidence if they can find it. I reckon that if none turn up, someone can step in from the audience to defend the cAGW/”climate change” rhetoric.
    Other good people we should have are Ian Plimer and Marc Morano. Come to think of it, most of the readers of WUWT would be able to demolish AOC and probably hold up well on the others.
    I will place a bet that the tolerant left will try to shout the event down or storm in to shut down the debate.
    My bet will be that only AOC will turn up, but do the old leftist trick of putting her nose up in the air and storming out in a huff, citing offence when she finds out that she is totally out of her depth.

  9. Anthony,
    There was a famous Debate in New York on March 14, 2007 (the podcast on NPR is 22 March, 2007).
    It was entitled “Global Warming is not a Crisis”.
    Those for the Motion were Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott.
    Opposing the motion were Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C.J.Somerville.
    WUWT (passim) has mentioned that debate.
    Interestingly Gavin Schmidt previewed it at Real Science just prior to its occurrence (“Climate Warming Debate”, 12 March, 2007)but so far as I can see did not thereafter announce the outcome.
    Forbes did.
    See “The Global Warming Debate produces an indisputable Winner” by James Taylor, September 28, 2011.
    The proponents for the proposition triumphed, after a debate on established rules.
    Pre debate the audience was 2/1 in favour of a climate crisis. At conclusion it had swung to 46 % to 42% against with 13% undecided.
    “The Debate is indeed over and the victor is indisputable”, to quote Mr. Taylor.
    There is no climate crisis.
    As you know, two more recent debates went the same way, that of Will Happer v. David Karoly on Bestschools.org ( 2016-2018) and in May last, at the Soho Forum in Manhattan.
    Can we get some MSM publicity on the fact that ‘mainstream’ climate scientists are unable to win an open debate?
    Three major losses is clear cut.

    • Don’t forget this gem…..

      Climate Alarmists like OwlGoracle or Gavin Schmidt (who RAN AWAY ON STAGE from a debate with Dr. Roy Spencer, hardly a “Climate DENIER” since NOBODY denies the climate CHANGES) can claim that we have “passed the tipping point,” that “oceans are rising 15 meters a year,” or whatever wild outrageous claim he wants, it is BROADCAST without any verification by the LAMESTREAM MEDIA and in “scientific” journals, and CLIMATE REALISTS must present evidence to demonstrate that he is LYING, which they DO. Of course, the LAMESTREAM MEDIA won’t broadcast the rebuttals by the Climate REALISTS, so the public is left with the belief that the ALARMIST must be correct since nobody challenged him.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

      CAGW Alarmists are AFRAID to debate CLIMATE REALISTS because they CANNOT produce ANY evidence of their claims of impending DOOM while Climate REALISTS need only point to OBSERVED DATA (not COOKED DATA) to DESTROY the absurd CAGW Alarmism.

      If you want to be educated, listen to a REAL scientist, not a FRAUD CLIMATEGATE LIAR.
      If you want to see a tv spectacle, watch a movie such as the SCIENCE FICTION CRAPUMENTARIES pumped out by OwlGoracle or Michael Moore.

    • I’ll take CAGW Alarmism Junk Pseudo-Science for 400, Alex….

      The “settled” part of climate science pertains to the unarguable fact that CO₂ is a MINOR GHG. That it slows radiative cooling HEATING when present in the atmosphere. That a known quantity has a NO known back radiative effect. Everybody knows that CO₂ WATER VAPOR is the primary forcing, except for people, like you, who never took a science class…..FIFY….still waiting for my Nobel Prize.

        • Not blaming the mods, probably some glitch on my part as I posted my reply to ROB that may have appeared to be to you, but somehow my reply to you appears to be ABOVE your comment on Stossel and his website and other podcasts. I am certainly in agreement with your position.

      • LOL – WV can’t be a primary forcing because it is temperature dependent, condenses out the atmosphere, is poorly mixed in the atmosphere, short residency of fewer than 9 days, etc and can’t self-potentiate the GHE. This all from a classic science denier who self proclaims he lead the NASA team that landed men on the moon, spent 30 years in the AF, has a Ph.D. in physics and piloted AF1.

        • Well, well, well, “Rob” or “Grant Foster”…aka Sclerosis_Priapsm…, you can hide behind as many fake names as you want, but you can’t hide your vitriol, dishonesty, and complete lack of scientific knowledge. How did you get so many things wrong in such a short post?…although your insult did bring back some fond memories of flights and ground tests aboard the VC-25A (both 8000 and 9000), and this is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing…great men and women on our team, our lead was 29 years old and had THREE PhDs…thanks for the memory jogger. I should contact Judith Curry and Joe Bastardi and let them know how WRONG they are about water vapor…based on YOUR superior knowledge and collection of observations and empirical evidence.

          Nevertheless, your CAGW Alarmism Junk Pseudo-Science comments are being shredded by everyone commenting based on science, logic, observation, and common sense. Your envy of my long list of actual accomplishments is duly noted and is only overshadowed by your wild exaggerations about them. Maybe some day you can be as wise and knowledgeable about “GlowBULL Warming” as Greta Thunberg.

          I’m sure Anthony and the Mods would appreciate your picking up that rake you just stepped on before someone else gets hurt….thanks.

          • Do you take medication for those voices talking to you? Your sad pleonastic and garrulous rant of gibberish is of concern. Seek professional help for your delusions, fantasies, and anger before you do yourself or others harm. I will not continue any further correspondence with you as you’re completely bonkers and a waste of valuable time.

          • …Well, well, well, “Rob” or “Grant Foster”…

            The plagiarist? The unethical website host who has been caught not just censoring posts but actually manipulating them? The one who fantasizes about being a hero like Tamino – who plays a magic flute that turns sorrow into joy (a good metaphor for his fellating of Mann, Jones, and Schmidt)? The bulldog that humps Hansen’s leg?

            Now I REALLY feel sorry for that putz.

        • Rob
          You unthinkingly said, “WV can’t be a primary forcing because it is temperature dependent, …” That is precisely why it is primary. It is a positive feedback loop with the absolute humidity increasing with increasing temperature. Anything and everything that can initiate an increase in temperature will cause an increase in WV if the atmosphere is under-saturated and there is a local source of evaporation or transpiration, which means most places except extreme deserts.

          You also presented the non sequiturs, “condenses out the atmosphere,” and “short residency of fewer than 9 days.” It matters not because it is continually replenished by evaporation and transpiration. Furthermore, humans are contributing to an increase in WV in arid and semi-arid regions by building reservoirs, and with irrigation water pumped from aquifers. Cars also contribute WV as they burn fuel, and water used for cooling power stations contribute WV that formerly was not present. Cities like Phoenix use misters in gas stations, bus stops, and backyard patios. This adds WV to areas downwind that were formerly very dry.

          • That is a pile of crap. Worst junk science I have seen in a while and you have very stiff competition. Please get a scientifically literate friend to set you straight you are hopelessly lost.

            It matters not because it is continually replenished by evaporation and transpiration. WV cannot self-potentiate – are you the discoverer of perpetual motion?

            Having water vapor sustain its own greenhouse effect would be like trying to lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoelaces. Atmospheric humidity is a function of temperature (the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship) so without the non-condensing GHGs, water vapor would precipitate out of the atmosphere, which would diminish the greenhouse effect, which would, in turn, lower the temperature, which would lead to even more precipitation, and so on until there was virtually no water vapor left and global temperature would fall to -18°C (in fact lower because of the increased albedo of the snow- and ice-covered ground).

          • Strawman Alert!!! Rob uses the extra straw and hay to feed his cow to produce more BOVINE EXCREMENT to use in his research.

            Nobody claims that WV bootstraps itself, it is created by evaporation and transpiration and Unicorn farts (just checking to see if you are paying attention), just as was stated. It has probably condensed on the WINDOW you had installed in your NAVEL and is keeping you from seeing out into the REAL WORLD.

          • Why return and embarrass yourself further? There is no evaporation beyond partial pressure exchange when thetemperatue of the surface of the Earth is not warmed by the GHE. WV can not potentiate a GHE being secondary fast feedback. You are a very slow learner. For today’s remedial class lesson let us repeat the following until you grasp it:

            Atmospheric humidity is a function of temperature (the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship) so without the non-condensing GHGs, water vapor would precipitate out of the atmosphere, which would diminish the greenhouse effect, which would, in turn, lower the temperature, which would lead to even more precipitation, and so on until there was virtually no water vapor left and global temperature would fall to -18°C (in fact lower because of the increased albedo of the snow- and ice-covered ground).

          • Wow!!! So according to you, energy from the SUN has no bearing on EVAPORATION, “GlowBULL Warming”GHE is the ONLY cause for EVAPORATION, and there was NO EVAPORATION before MAN and his SUVs started polluting the atmosphere with CO2….oooooops, according to YOU, we are supposed to call it CARBON…a pond sitting under a clear sky on a hot day or thousands of square miles of open ocean do not experience evaporation except due to the GlowBULL Warming GHE……no wonder I blocked you on Disqus. You are a human BOT programmed with an IQ that varies with room temperature.

          • “Don’t lie, lying only makes you look….” sound familiar? I know who you are, we have exchanged hundreds of comments, and you lost every time. Everywhere you enter a conversation, by the time the string has played out, everyone on the board hates you, and you have insulted all of them and everyone you don’t like with your childish tantrums and vicious rhetoric, even people who aren’t even involved in the discussion. You are SICK, and you need to get medical help. You cannot defend your junk science, so you just spew insults and implode.

            Try this new book that destroys the GCMs and the CAGW Alarmism….from a new face on the scene.

            Top Climate Scientist Criticizes ‘Nonsense’ Of ‘Global Warming Crisis’
            https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-scientist-warming-nonsense/

          • There is no such science as CAGW as you have been told repeatedly.

            Well, you finally said something we can all agree on. It is not “science,” it is a Religion and a Cult! It is a form of GAIA worship, but much more dangerous because it has the capability to destroy civilization.

            When you have to say that your opponent has lost the argument, you are just trying to convince yourself; everyone replying to your comments has defeated them.

          • Rob
            It takes energy to evaporate water. When it condenses and precipitates out, it releases that energy to the atmosphere, thus keeping it warm. The only cooling on a global scale results from radiative loss. In the presence of greenhouse gases and low-level clouds, the radiative loss is impeded. One doesn’t have to appeal to a “perpetual motion” machine because the sun is continually supplying additional energy.

            Pumpkin, have demonstrated that you are a sophist of an even higher order than Stokes! Maybe that is why the two of you are a mutual admiration couple.

          • Riddled with basic errors. Get someone who is scientifically literate to help you out. I can’t help the stubborn who refuse to absorb knowledge.

  10. Thanks for staying on for the whole time, even though none of the other side showed up.
    I will say to each one of them individually, you are CHICKEN. … lol
    I thought some of the questions where very good !
    – JPP

  11. I had the “Holocene Climate Optimum” question from Youtube. Glad that they were taking input from the 600 or so individuals watching along. Since Greta got millions, we have our work cut out for us…

  12. An oldie but goodie…from a link in the Weekly Roundup thread….

    Judith Curry writes:

    I’ve posted the chapter on Thermodynamic Feedbacks in the Climate System from my text “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans” on my website, the links can be found at

    Text: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/Ch13_GalleyC.pdf
    Figs: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/chapter13_figs.pdf

    For my more recent thoughts on the subject of climate feedbacks, I refer you to my previous post on the spencer thread, post #23

    “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans” — Dr. Judith Curry
    Chapter 13 Thermodynamic Feedbacks in the Climate System
    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/Ch13_GalleyC.pd

    13.3 Water Vapor Feedback
    The feedback between surface temperature, water vapor, and the Earth’s radiation balance is referred to as the water vapor feedback.

    Climate modeling results have shown that the water vapor path increases with increasing surface temperature (dWv/dTo > 0). This increase arises from increased evaporation from a warmer ocean surface, providing additional water vapor to the atmosphere. A consistent result of climate models has been that atmospheric relative humidity remains approximately constant in a perturbed climate and that the water vapor feedback is among the chief mechanisms amplifying the global climate response to a perturbation. Since condensation and precipitation are associated with important sources and sinks of water vapor (Section 8.6), the water vapor feedback simulated by climate models depends on the model’s parameterizations of cloud, precipitation, and convective processes. Given the current deficiencies in climate model parameterization of these processes, the water vapor feedback determined by these models must be questioned.

    • TEWS vehemently always denies WV is feedback. Is this a come to Jesus moment for the science illiterate who falsely asserted that it was a primary forcing?

      • Rob
        If “primary” means doing the ‘heavy lifting,’ then something can be both primary and part of a feedback loop. If by “primary” you mean initiator, then you should have made that clear.

        • Science uses precise and ambiguous language. Rookie, you will benefit greatly if you would learn to do the same. WV is a secondary feedback forcing and is never prime by scientific definition.

      • Ha, ha, ha, that’s why I posted an excerpt from Dr. Judith Curry’s book criticizing the GCM’s FAILURE to properly model the strong effect of WV as a forcing and essentially disregarding it altogether because it would DEBUNK their CO2 EGE model completely….have you installed that window in your navel yet so you can see out into the REAL world?

          • Ha, ha, ha you truly are the“Baghdad Bob” of CAGW Hysteria!!! There are NO WATER VAPORS in BAGHDAD forcing GlowBULL Warming”…er, uh, Judith Curry is an INFIDEL and a FOOL, and my STOOGE hand-puppet “layman” Zeke the know-nothing Hausfather knows far more than she does…and ALL the GCMs have been PERFECT (ONE model out of 100 is within an order of magnitude of observations, and it is the RUSSIAN model) as you can see by the BURNING SAND in the SAHARA!!!…..you are a hoot!!!

            Did you put a windshield wiper on that window over your navel so you can see out through the CONDENSED WATER VAPOR into the REAL WORLD?

            OK, everybody, we will now sing, “Troll, Troll, Troll the DOPE” to the tune of “Barack Hussein Obama, hmmmmmm, hmmmmmmmmm, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

          • Willie Soon rightly chided his colleagues for the same climate fiction meme that you repeat about the Russian model. Soon is a charlatan but still knows the difference between science and the bullshit. You don’t you hapless git!

          • Ha, ha, ha, you will stand by those corrupt, failed, biased models no matter how far they depart from reality, won’t you?

            Soon is a charlatan but still knows the difference between science and the bullshit. You don’t you hapless git!….that puts him WELL ahead of YOU!!!

  13. Not many people were tuned in tonight…the fact is that not very many people are really concerned at all about the climate in their daily lives. Many will claim that they are if asked…but absolutely nobody is living as if they have any concern whatsoever…From the vile hypocrite Al Gore on down through all the hypocrites in Hollywood and all the hypocrite Socialist politicians in the universe to the millions of overindulged and spoiled leftist college students and their hypocrite professors in the Socialist Indoctrination Fake “Sciences” ending in “-Studies” (like “Western Patriarchal Hierarchy Oppression Studies”).

  14. I bothered myself to watch the whole thing. What a waste. Good thing the alarmists did not show up. This sorry bunch would have gotten wiped.
    THE PROBLEM:
    They could not give a straight up answer to a straight up question. At All.
    Example:
    Question: (Straight up!)
    Was it warmer any time in the past than it is now?
    Willie Soon answers:
    Well that is an interesting question. there is lots of data, lots and lots of and lots….
    {Trails off, Pauses…}
    And Thomas Jefferson wrote and he wrote, and Thomas Jefferson wrote and ….
    {Trails off, Pauses…}
    And the temperature. and the temperature, what it means is one tenth of a degree. That is a very small amount. That is one tenth of a degree. That is a tiny bit. That is one tenth of a degree. That is a teeny tiny amount.
    {rambles on about teeny, tiny. Messes up his delivery, talks about teeny, tiny thermometers(!)}
    {Gets lost in the weeds of technical details.}
    {Never gets back to what Thomas Jefferson wrote.}
    NEVER ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

    Just so we all know what a direct answer looks like:
    YES! The Medieval warm period was warmer than today. The Vikings colonized Greenland. It was much warmer than today, *and* it is part of the historical record.
    Direct answers were not to be found.
    The whole two hours were this bad.

    Worse, Stossel was a friendly interviewer, and coached them with helpful leading questions on numerous occasions. In a more adversarial format, like a debate, these three would have done very poorly.
    Honestly, if I did not already know the points these presenters were trying to make, I would have been lost. Sometimes the answers got so convoluted, they bordered on the incoherent.
    Somebody should have told them: Stay On Point, Be Concise.

    • I do not usually agree with much of what you post. However, I have respect that you recognize that the contrarians so-called A team of climate scientists was a flop regurgitating well-worn climate fiction memes from the science denier and contrarian bubbles. HS AP science kids could blast Soon and his dotard compatriots out of the water. It reinforces my original statement debate is theatre and not science. Thank you for being honest.

    • I agree that the debate/discussion was somewhat lame. Willie is passionate and the other two were trying to make our points. But…..the skeptical side seriously lacks what is needed to push back. We are being overtaken by a well funded and media backed propaganda push. I don’t know what the answer is. Whenever I forward links to posts on WUWT, I get responses like “well they are a denier site…”. We need to rise up and be heard. We need to focus our arguments and talking points and raise HELL.

      • Your junk science is too easy refutable. You also have a plethora of crackpots that cloud, tarnish and muddy your side as well. Also, most on the denier and contrarian side are very under-educated and even basic science alludes them.

      • Over the years, I have had many professors in biology and chemistry.
        None of them were ever anywhere near as bad as this crowd. You need to convey information and make the point. It is just not that hard. I just do not know what it is with this crowd.
        They all went to graduate school, so they must have all been laboratory instructors. That means they gave the lab lectures. They must all have given department seminars. You do not get through grad school without any speaking experience.
        Soon, especially, was a disappointment, because he can give a good talk.
        Even with the obvious meatball questions, they seemed unprepared, and could not give a straight up answer.
        Convey the required information.
        Make your point.
        Drive your point home.
        {Done. Shut Up.}

      • It is so lame that the media follows the science and is not picking up the the denial arguments. It’s almost like that they ignore the antiscience arguments entirely. It is so unfair.

  15. Rob: When I took physics courses we had what they called “labs” where we did experiments and measurements (some just as described by Newton) and derived things like the acceleration of gravity and other Newtonian laws. When toxicity of chemicals is tested, experiments are conducted on rats or mice and are highly repeatable.

    No one ever organizes all scientists in a specific field and takes a vote on whether or not a hypothesis is true or false. Even in climatology there is no defined process for formally establishing a consensus. I’m quite sure that it would be quite impossible to even reach a consensus on who is qualified to vote or what proposition should be voted on. It is not your mythical concept of scientific consensus that convinces us of facts. It is the existence of evidence that supports the position and lack of evidence that refutes it.

    Physicists are still designing and conducting huge massively expensive experiments to test the specific predictions contained in Einstein’s theories. There’s a Nobel awaiting anyone who can prove that Einstein was wrong in General and Special Relativity.

    I would suggest you do some remedial study on the scientific method. You might start with the recordings of Richard Feynman’s lectures on the subject.

    • I’ve always wanted the American Chemical Society to take a poll on attribution of climate change as the society’s position statement is in line with that of the UN. I suspect they won’t take a pole of membership because they know they won’t like the results.

  16. having now seen this i assure the readers here those 3 on that panel would agree with 95%+ of what i have written here in the past…….claiming humans control the climate via co2 is INSANITY, IF the claimant believes their claim.

    • No one asserts that humans control the climate. Why construct a strawman and then knock it down as if you were some whizz kid when it is obvious you are an under-educated know nothing?

      • Rob, please tell us why Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment failed to show that increased CO2 ppm did not produce an increase in temperature.

        Also could you explain why Hoyt Hottel is wrong about the emissivity of CO2 below 33C?

        Finally could you tell me why my thermodynamic book does not have the forcing equation shown in the tables when finding the energy required to raise temperature of air or CO2?

          • So you do not know the answer to any of them.

            Probably don’t know who Hottel is.

            Probably don’t know which equation to use to figure out how much energy is needed.

          • While Rob is often demanding that others prove what they say, whenever asked the same, he gets offended and starts whining that someone as important as he believes himself to be shouldn’t have to show his work.
            After all, all the scientists who are smart enough to agree with him, agree with him.

            (Rob, has been put into the trash bin) SUNMOD

      • the assertion is that humans are the cause of the recent climate changes too bad you lack the basic sense to grasp to do that REQUIRES control over the climate and call the FACTS a strawman……having read several of your posts now i see nothing to be gained you are a child playing games, i am an adult discussing the actual science.

        • i (sic) am an adult discussing the actual (sic) science.

          Then try and conduct yourself like one.

          … the assertion is that humans are the cause of the recent climate changes …

          Much better language. You may get there some day if you keep up the good work. BTW: there is a mountain of consilient evidence and a tonne of published peer-reviewed papers on the topic. The human forcing is so overwhelming that modeling attempts have been accurate since the first one over a century ago despite missing many features and subtleties. Here’s a layperson’s summary that may be of some use to you:

          https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/

  17. The problem with the climate realists side of the equation, is they are trying to debate the climate alarmists, using science talk and politics, the kind of talk that is used at scientific meetings, graphs, numbers etc that are meaningless to the general public. Or they attack people’s politics, which is an attack on the person. They do not speak in general terms the typical dupe comprehends and values.

    They need to learn to convey topics that are relevant to the lay person. …. like ….

    CO2 and global warming mean more food per acre ( note i said food, not yield … yield is a street sign).
    More food per acre means less human suffering.
    More food per acre means less land usage so we can give more back to nature
    Educate the public that Global warming doesn’t mean hotter days, but less cold nights.
    Less cold nights mean we need less energy to heat homes
    Less cold nights mean less homeless die of the cold
    Less cold nights means longer growing seasons, and more food per acre …. see above.

    In attack mode, point out NONE of the predictions of the alarmists have come true.

    The Arctic still freezes over and has yet to be ice free as it was in the past.
    The polar bears are fine
    Coral reefs are doing just fine
    Fish are still in the sea and shell fish still have shells
    Fewer people are dying of climate related phenom.

    So … everything we are telling you HAS come true ….. everything they are telling you hasn’t come true.

    So … who do you think is right. … and who do you think is selling you a bill of false goods.

        • None of which you can refute.live in a dreamworld –

          You live in a climate fiction dream world and don’t present any evidence or citations for your crap because there are none.

          • Really ?????

            So .. .you have some data showing the arctic is ice free??
            … some data showing Polar Bear populations aren’t increasing??
            … some data showing shorter growing seasons?? ….

            I”m not going to do your work for you …. google CO2 plant fertilizer … hell … for that matter enter it in the search function here at WUWT!!! … Global Greening.

            (Oh .. what the hell … for the intellectually challenged on this site)

            Crop YIELDS Yeilds
            https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

            Longer Growing Season
            https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/growing-seasons-changing-climate

            Climate related deaths
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/27/inverse-hockey-stick-climate-related-death-risk-for-an-individuals-down-99-since-1920/

            See … look how easy that is!!!!
            [PRUNED]

          • I don’t see any links to science – what happened? Since when was such rapid greening a good thing? It is one of the predictions of AGW theory that you numbskulls disdain. Your crop yields are no evidence as you have no baseline and C₄ crops have little to no reaction to additional CO₂ fertilizer. There is a marked decrease in yields and protein under field trials to elevated CO₂ in all plant types for a plethora of reasons that elude your grasp.

          • Ya don’t read to well do ya.

            I said factual observation.

            We don’t need any science. Lord knows your side don’t have any. We need whiney little girls from Sweden, and triggered college students to go out and preach the word … just like yall!!! What we need is a propaganda campaign that will resonate with the numb and the dumb.

            BTW … “data” is part of science … may not be the whole thing, but it is the integral part that counts.

          • The guy you support goes to great lengths to declare that he doesn’t have to support any of his claims.
            If the left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

    • Fully agree on this and TonyL’s comments and I’ve said the same many times before.

      Our side needs some spokesfolks who are telegenic as well as being well-grounded in the science. And we need them to get the key points across without all the rambling and caveats. We can be pretty darned sure about the integrity of the geological record as well as written/recorded history and we KNOW that it’s been significantly warmer (and cooler) over sustained periods in the past couple of thousand years……so why not just say that?

  18. The most prominent alarmists will never, ever, be caught in a debate, because “caught” is what they will be.

    The reason? They’ve each made one or several predictions that have seen the “sell-by” date expire and none of them have happened.

    They can’t debate as long as all anyone debating them has to do is cite their own words of upcoming catastrophe that was to have already occurred, but didn’t. There’s simply no defense against such an attack. So you’ll never see them engage in an honest open debate. Never.

    • Rod, …let’s not call it debate …. let’s call it discussion.

      In the scientific perspective, discussion is what leads to questions, new points of interest, new challenges to the line of thought. Without challenging questions, a scientist is robbed of the opportunity to further buttress their hypothesis.

      For some reason, the alarmists don’t want to have discussion. I get it, you made a prediction, and it didn’t happen Exactly as you thought. So what? That’s just creates more opportunity to discuss. It’s this refusal to discuss, and to take others points of view respectfully that has led to suspicions that the alarmists aren’t all above board. All this denier crap, science is settled, … and refusal to discuss.

      NONE of this discussion should happen in the public space. A discussion on hurricanes has no place on the Today Show, or Foxnews, or any other place where lay people with no understanding will become confused. Hurricanes happen …. nuff said. So do tornados, droughts, floods, cold days hot days, windy days ….. there is no reason to raise alarm in the public that these things are influenced by fossil fuels …. unless you are using science for an alternative agenda. This is especially true if there are discussion points left on the table. Nobody is allowed to just proclaim they right in the absence of sufficient proof

  19. the simple fact that nobody from the warmista cult would even show up is PROOF they know they cant debate the FACTS, to any thinking person…….

  20. facts = the greenhouse effect is an insulating situation and NO insulator has ever ADDED HEAT to any system or location…….insulators only slow the movement of the energy they NEVER “trap” any of that energy.

  21. The warmists regard failure to attend as “proof” of everything they claim. In reality, it shows they have no actual credible evidence- none. In some ways, it is difficult to argue against non-existent evidence because there is nothing to argue against. It is pretty well always the case when a formal debate is called-the warmists do not show up. When they do, as things get “hot”-ie they are being destroyed on the pseudoscience and even the emotional blackmail is failing, they up stumps , claims of offence and walk out in an indignant huff, nose in the air. We have seen it.
    It was a disappointment that none of them showed up, but it was absolutely no surprise whatsoever. The only one that could have been stupid enough to show up would have been AOC. The social justice warriors would have compared AOC being demolished by the bully-boy real scientists to the way Donald Trump ignored brainwashed puppet, Greta Thunberg . For Donald, it was totally the correct thing to do- since when is a brainwashed, mentally disturbed (by the scaremongering stories) that does not even bother to turn up to school on par with the President of the United States? What right does she have to tell the President what to do and what to think? The height of arrogance. More revealing is the UN fawning over the brainwashed, mentally disturbed truant puppet. By their reaction, they would gladly see the child high priestess becoming the Secretary-General, becoming defacto ruler of the planet.
    Please explain, what is the story behind the totally opposite reactions?????

  22. I watched the entire program. It seems that most people see through the sham when multiple people are invited and none of them show up to present “the science.” There’s a reason that climate catastrophe is at or near the bottom of concerns for the average person. Something I really enjoy is aerial photos of low lying pacific islands around WWII or before and comparing them to modern aerial or satellite photographs. Almost without fail, you can’t see a bit of difference in sea levels from then to now. The climate in the last 100+ years is actually becoming better. Because it’s cyclical, I’m enjoying it now while I can.

Comments are closed.