How I changed my mind… about global warming

Professor Byron Sharp
Professor Byron Sharp, Professor of Marketing Science, Director Ehrenberg-Bass Institute

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon. Reproduced with permission from Professor Sharp.

How I changed my mind… about global warming

Byron Sharp
Oct 7 

Most, if not all, people would consider themselves to be open-minded. Yet, if you ask someone to name an important belief that they have changed their mind about, in response to evidence and/or logic, most struggle to give even one example.

This is the first in a series of blogs where I describe how and why I changed my mind about something. I hope to encourage myself to change my mind more often. And to encourage others.

Short summary: I now worry less about global warming than I did, the scientific evidence is that it’s not going to be catastrophic. PS Our best course of action is to adapt to the effects and to invest in R&D to develop new low carbon energy.

I’ve been a “greenie” since I was a child. I raised money and marched to save the whales. I searched out all the pockets of native bush on our New Zealand farm. I became a vegetarian (although the original motivation was nutritional, not for the environment). As an adult I bought hundreds of acres of Australian bush (mallee) land and have set it aside to regenerate. When I learnt that greenhouse gas emissions were causing the climate to warm I put solar panels on the roof of my house, I sold my car and lived without one for years (until having a new baby made that impractical so I bought a small car and ran it on bio-diesel (I couldn’t afford a Prius)).

When Al Gore’s 2006 movie came out about global warming I used it to to rally my colleagues in the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute — “how could we contribute to the solution?” I asked. Being a complex problem I didn’t think it was likely it would be solved simply by legislation or technology, and I thought that we might contribute insights into consumer behaviour as well as mass communication effectiveness. Some of my colleagues pushed back (we have a culture of questioning, and not just accepting things that the director says). They said that Al Gore was exaggerating, that he sounded more like a religious zealot than a scientist, and pointed out the numerous errors he presented. I agreed, but I said he is a (religious) politician with good intentions, he’s inflating things to get attention. I quoted them more technical accounts of global warming from people like Tim Flannery (a mammalogist, author of The Weather Makers (2005)).

But then the forecasting scientists in the Institute told me that the forecasts of global warming were not to be trusted. They pointed out that climate scientists were not forecasting scientists, that climate scientists were ignorant of the established principles that help improve the very difficult business of making forecasts (ie predicting the future) in complex conditions, and that their forecasting approaches were a very long way from best practice. It’s common for experts in a field (finance, politics, physics) to assume that their expertise means they can make better forecasts than non-experts. However, research on forecasting accuracy has shown over and over that this is not true, experts are merely more sure of their forecasts, but no more accurate.

So now I had a dilemma. I respected the forecasting scientists, but I also respected the climate scientists. And emotionally I really like the idea that this global challenge might be discovered by science and then solved in a globally coordinated manner — it would be a sign of how advanced human civilization had become, and a real feather in the cap of science.
“But look at your own field”, said the forecasting scientists… “what do you think of the consensus of views among marketing academics, do you think this represents real knowledge or rather “group think?” Ouch.
Plus I knew that complex multivariate models in marketing (and elsewhere) have a miserable track record in making predictions, even in quite stable environments.

Oh dear. They certainly gave me doubts… but time will help decide things I thought, as we would see the prediction of the climate models borne out at a global scale. Indeed, in 2007 Professor Scott Armstrong challenged Al Gore to a 10 year global warming forecast competition. The losing forecaster would make a donation to charity. Al Gore declined to participate but the competition went ahead regardless. Based on the forecasting principle of “be conservative” Scott Armstrong proposed a ‘no change’ forecast, which was a bit radical given that everyone knew the climate was warming slowly. The competition wasn’t compared to Al Gore’s dramatic “tipping point” forecast, but instead to the more accepted IPCC forecast of 3 degrees of warming over the next 100 years. Ten years later and Scott Armstrong’s forecast turned out to be more accurate.

Now ten years isn’t long enough to be definitive, but it’s important because it was a predictive test. Modellers love to play with their models, tweaking this and that, trying to get better and better fits to historic data (achieving lots of academic publications and grants along the way). This sounds sensible but there is a very high risk of “over fitting” where the model is modelling noise/error in the data, so the fit to historic data is better but it’s even worse at predicting the future, and therefore not correctly telling us what really causes what. The IPCC’s has done an assessment of climate models, which is a bit like marking your own homework but even they reported that almost every model failed to predict the slowdown in warming that occurred after 1998, in other words the models predicted more warming than occurred.

Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were wrong, and how to improve them (some climate scientists claim that with a better understanding of multi-decade variations in speed of warming “the long-term warming trend in response to human emission of greenhouse gases is found remarkably steady since 1910 at 0.07°–0.08°C decade”).

Time will tell, but for now it’s clearly good news that the climate doesn’t seem to have reacted to greenhouse gases quite the way we feared.
Meanwhile there is other evidence that has changed my mind about the seriousness of global warming and the best courses of action to take to mediate its effects. It’s not that global warming isn’t a problem, but the problem has been misrepresented, and over-hyped (by people with good intentions). And simplistic, unfeasible solutions have been embraced, while more feasible zero-carbon solutions such as nuclear power are mostly ignored. Most concerning is how preoccupied people are about “what side you are on?” rather than wanting to discuss facts.

Global warming is not a existential threat. Global warming means the world is getting hotter (milder winters, hotter summers). Which is of most concern for those who already live in hot places (like Adelaide or Dubai) but probably quite welcome if you live in Northern Europe, China, or America. Each year far more people die due to cold than from heat, even in Australia six times more deaths are due to cold than heat. And most of this isn’t from extremes but rather simply cold winters, and global warming means warmer winters (that’s something the climate scientists all agree upon).

Contrary to reports in the popular press, climate scientists have not been reporting more hurricanes, flood, fires and so on due to Global Warming. There are concerns that extreme weather events might increase but not for a long while yet, and maybe not. Equally importantly United Nations data shows that deaths due to extreme weather events have declined a staggering 96% over the past century, and that’s in spite of population growth. Why? How? Largely due to better buildings and infrastructure, better emergency services, better hospitals and so on. In other words, human technology and wealth levels, both of which continue to improve. So even predictions of increased deaths due to a warmer planet seem far fetched, while the idea that global warming means “the end is nigh” is sheer apocalyptic fantasy.

This is pretty important to know because there are many things we’d like to fix (literacy, poverty, antibiotic resistant bacteria, cancer, clean water, endangered species etc), and efforts and money put into one problem often does nothing for another. We need to have a proper sense of the magnitude of each threat, each problem, and then the options to solve the problem and what their costs and feasibility are.

Anyway, decide for yourself, be open-minded. Here are a few important climate science articles that don’t get much coverage in newspapers (which prefer bad news):

The world is getting substantially greener. This is a positive effect of CO2. Also as the world become richer (and cleverer) people stop cutting down forests, and start planting trees.

Wildfires are not increasing, “Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago”. Globally, the total acreage burned by fires declined 24 percent between 1998 and 2015. It appears that changes in agricultural practices are more than offsetting the increased fire risk now that they world is 1 degree warmer.

The world’s beaches are not disappearing. Most are stable, some are shrinking, but slightly more are growing. And Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls aren’t shrinking.

Oceans are rising. This article says the trend is less than 2mm a year (or 20 centimeters per Century). Here is an articlewhere a climate scientist explains the error of newspapers of reporting the very unlikely forecast of a one metre rise this Century.

There has been no increase in North Atlantic tropical cyclone flooding. Nor tornadoes in the USA. Tropical cyclones in Australia tend to also show a small declining trend.

NASA says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

And even though most Australians believe that there are more droughts, there is actually no drying trend over the past hundred years, according to Bureau of Meteorology data. Professor Andy Pitman (Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, and a Lead Author for the IPCC) says there is no reason to think global warming will cause more droughts in Australia (at 1hr, 11 minutes).
So because of the evidence, I’ve gone from being a climate alarmist to a climate realist. I hope that both ‘alarmists’ and ‘deniers’ will do likewise. Then we can all move on to working out feasible solutions that don’t harm people and the environment while trying to save them.

Source: https://medium.com/@ProfByron/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming-f603a8aca3da

Advertisements

252 thoughts on “How I changed my mind… about global warming

  1. “PS Our best course of action is to adapt to the effects and to invest in R&D to develop new low carbon energy.”

    Had me till there… We don’t have a carbon problem.

    I too have changed my mind from my original position, but it is because the observed data does not match the alarmist claims or the the model outputs.

    As long as carbon dioxide is held as a pollutant, toxic, and major greenhouse gas, the discussion is a non-starter with me.

    8>D

    • Tony Heller does a great job in informing people about climate disasters/extreme weather events of the past, backed up with contemporaneous written evidence and newspaper accounts, when CO2 levels were say circa 300 to 320ppm

      It follows from this evidence, and the alarmists claim that CO2 is the control knob to extreme climate evemnts/disasters, that we would have to, not simply stop increasing CO2 levels, but we would have to reduce CO2 levels to below 320 ppm even to have the slightest prospect of preventing extreme weather events/disasters from happening.

      Of course, this historical evidence more effectively substantiates that CO2 levels do not cause or lead to extreme weather events/disasters. There has always been, and always will be extreme weather events/disasters no matter what steps mankind seeks to take to avoid these happenings. Adaption not mitigation is the obvious way forward.

    • Exactly. Even a “Climate Memo” would be too strong a phrase to describe 20cm/1°C by 2100. Well inside the natural variation. Find a true religion to believe in or devote yourself to helping the poor. The global thermostat is fine.

    • yes, similar path to my own ( and many others ). I am of the generation who fought to recycle paper and glass when everyone laughed at the idea and it seem utopic.

      When got IPCC AR4 after a week of media hype announcing its arrival , I took it at face value….. then I started searching for data. Ice cores initially. I soon realised that it was not all freely available since the “gas age” calibration of depth vs age was not open at all and thus not verifiable. At the time Dr Davis Archer was using HITRAN to show that cutting CO2 from current levels would have negligible effect. The deeper I dug the more skeptical of all the alarmist claims I became and I started to smell a rat.

      By the time ClimateGate hit the proverbial fan I was already familiar with MacIntyre’s exposure of the hockey stick and a regular visitor on WUWT.

      That is ‘how I changed my mind’.

      those who already live in hot places (like Adelaide or Dubai)

      Dubai, OK, but Adelaide hss one of the most temperate climates in Aus. That is why it’s a favourite with ex-pat pommies.

      I have no idea why the author who is apparently a kiwi, thinks that South Australia is a “hot place” compared to , for example, N.T. or Queensland. Did he never notice that Coramandel was warmer than Dunedin ? Maybe it another chance for a change of mind in face of the evidence.

      • Perhaps he mentioned Adelaide because he’s Director Ehrenberg-Bass Institute which is in Adelaide.

      • Any one that thinks Adelaide has one of the most temperate climates in Australia needs to get out and about a little more. Adelaide and the Adelaide plains weather, and I have lived all over Australia, can fry your brains. Particularly, from late December to late February – 40 C plus is not an uncommon daytime temperature. The mid north coast of NSW weather, on the other hand, is close to perfect.

  2. Invest in R&D to develop new low carbon sources of energy? That would imply profit and the only thing making low carbon seem profitable is government interference. Besides, the author admits that any warming that does occur won’t be catastrophic.

    • It also implies “carbon” is a problem. According to some specialists, we’re heading for global cooling, where an extra blanket could come in useful!

        • IIRC, the experts said that in the 60’s; in the 70’s; in the 80’s [see a pattern developing?]; in the 90’s; in the Noughties; and still, today, and probably tomorrow.
          I will not hold my breath.
          I will make one small prediction.
          In the 2020’s, experts will say that fusion is about twenty years away.
          Don’t clap – just send money!

          Auto

        • My son was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes 20 years ago and, per all the specialist doctors and drug company reps, we’ve been 10 years away from a cure every year since then. Treatments have improved no doubt but the cure (or practical cure of a device that functions as a fully automatic artificial pancreas) is stii just 10 years away!

    • We can always use investment in R&D and some could be tossed towards lower carbon sources of energy, but there is no emergency nor imminent threat impelling that course of action.
      Many of the author’s past actions indicate he has easily been misled by previous alarmist actions. Fair enough. Many will come running the first time the herder cries “WOLF!” and maybe the second time. But, eventually you must wizen up to the falsehoods being foisted upon you.

    • Any climate warming will be beneficial. Unfortunately, I no longer believe there will be any significant warming! “Low carbon” is a scam. I still support nuclear power – because it offers an easy route to plentiful energy. But I cannot argue that nuclear power is saving the planet any more. It isn’t. It may, if we run out of fossil fuel one day. But that day is hundreds of years away.

      • It doesn’t have to be “low” it has to be sustainable – whatever it is. Nuclear power is sustainable for all practical time scales.

        That doesn’t mean wood pellets are not sustainable too. Or solar panels if they invent really good ones that last as long as glass does. Nothing wrong with innovations in an ever advancing civilization.

        It seems the root problems are not between factions but between the ears.

        • But there is no reason to stop using ‘unsustainable’ fossil fuels until such time they exhaust. That time appears to be many, many generations from now.

          • There’s a big potential market in self contained power plants that need very simple resupply logistics, all of which can be airdropped.

            Think of what would change if we started air dropping into central Africa, or parts of Asia, containerized reactors that have and on-off button, and a door to slide in a packaged cube of new fuel, like some of the automatic espresso machines. They get a new canister every year, and have storage for 20 years worth of waste.

            It won’t be a lot, but for the areas with nothing, it’s a huge step that allows people to build on it. Think of what life is like after the zombie apocalypse- one with electricity, one without. I know which I’d rather live in.

  3. The first time I read about global warming many years ago, my job experience made me instantly throw the Bee Ess flag. Warmists do not know, and in fact cannot know, what they claim to know about global temperatures.

    My industrial facility has a requirement to compute — very accurately — the enthalpy of a tank of water containing about a half million gallons. This tank has leaks into it from other sources, and leaks out of it to other places. Some of the incoming leaks are steam, and some are cold water. Sometimes water is pumped into it, and sometimes water is recirculated within it. We have about 20 temperature sensors in the tank, scattered throughout at every depth, and these sensors are recalibrated every year, and water level instruments similarly recalibrated so that we know very accurately the total mass of water.

    And yet, getting exact and consistent measurements of the heat content of this tank is maddeningly difficult.

    And the AGW alarmists think they’ve got this down for the whole planet?

    Anybody whose professional experience includes accurate energy measurements of large objects will immediately recognize the whole AGW movement as a supernova of cocksure stupidity.

      • yes Bro.Steve, it is a very difficult task. Maybe you could order some of those 5mK accuracy thermistors from NOAA.

        Maybe you can comment on how you assess uncertainty when averaging temperatures or combining the energy content of the volumes monitored by each sensor.

        Is the uncertainty in the ‘average’ temperature the individual uncertainty of one sensor / sqrt(20 ) ?

        I’d be very interested to know how that is calculated in a context where being accurate and truthful actually matters.

        • Greg,

          If it were a matter of calculating uncertainty numbers for a static situation, that would not be hard. But when variables are changing, as I described in my response to Hugh, it’s fair to say nobody really knows how to figure that. Masses with different heat content are being added and removed continuously. Temperature sensors don’t react instantaneously. Flow is not uniformly mixed. Consider, for example, if you’ve ever gone swimming in a deep lake and experienced passing through 12-inch thick “veins” of icy cold water in an otherwise warm lake. How would you model that to compute a bulk average temperature so that the enthalpy of the mass is accurate to some arbitrary value? How many sensors would you need to know that your total enthalpy is accurate enough? And more importantly, how would you validate the numbers you’re getting? What’s the control for that?

          So, once again, given the challenges involved in getting to a rigorous answer for our water tank, the AGW alarmists’ claim that we have sufficient data to compute a heath balance for the entire earth is just not credible.

    • Steve. I had a similar experience several years ago when I suspected an error in the outside air temperature measurement (OAT) of one of our helicopters. The OAT is very important for the engine power available calculation. The power available was slightly below an acceptable amount so I was hoping it was due to a temperature measurement error. I checked the temperature of three other aircraft that were about 50 ft apart from each other inside a hangar. They were all different from each other by as much as 4C. I still am not sure if the actual temperature was different or it was instrument error. These temp sensors are an aircraft standard item that should be of high quality and accuracy. We changed the engine. Like you I just can’t get excited over 1C for the whole world.

      • And we are supposed to believe computer models using data from temperature sensors not designed, sited, or maintained with the purpose of monitoring long-term climate change.

    • Bro. Steve. Yes! Anyone who has ever had to measure the temperature of something accurately or had to calibrate thermometers or thermocouples to do the task would immediately dismiss any of the “global temperature” claims as pure unacceptable delusions, i.e. BS.

    • You just need a good model or two or three. Please make a proposal to your boss for me to help, just a few thousand to kick off the project. We can meet in Bali and in December and bring your boss along with his checkbook and credit card.

    • “Maddeningly difficult” anecdote: Bingo.

      I often wonder (but only rhetorically; the reason is depressingly obvious) why people purport to foresee the tiniest fibrillations in the fluid envelope of our very planet when—last time I checked—we still didn’t have a satisfactory model of the Mpemba Effect. For those who haven’t heard of this, it’s well worth googling. For one thing it’s an example of the triumphs of citizen science—schoolboy science, no less—in the face of a recalcitrant establishment. More to the point it’s a paradox whose solution requires an understanding of the events that unfold in a grand total of two glasses of water.

      • The explanation for this effect is maddening.
        It is maddeningly difficult to induce certain people to think logically.
        Or to do experiments in which all things but one are kept equal.

    • Steve, great post.

      What I’d like to know is: to what degree of accuracy do you need for that tank? And how does that compare with the DOA cited for ocean temps records?

      Because someone can come back with “Well, the DOA you need for your tank is orders of magnitude higher than what we need to say that the oceans are warming in a threatening way.”

      If the DOA is equivalent, then with your post it’s game over (encore une fois).

      • Hugh,

        The answer is that we have a regulatory limit of 95 deg. F, and we can be arbitrarily close to that limit before having to take undesirable actions to reduce it. If we exceed the limit, warrior droids from the Regulatory Empire will do Seriously Bad Things to us.

        Under most circumstances, normal environmental controls for the building keep the water temperature with plenty of margin to the limit. On those occasions when it is getting close, it’s usually because a steam turbine has been operating under test, quenching the exhaust into the pool. So you have steam heat entering the pool, but also a very considerable amount of pump heat being added. In this transient situation, with a lot of stirring and mixing and hot mass addition and bulk mass removal, and with certain sensors more affected than others by the steam source, computing a meaningful bulk average temperature gets dicey. It starts to reach a point where a skeptical observer would challenge it by saying that the system is too dynamic and the measurements are not accurate enough.

        I think that’s exactly the situation that prevails when trying to compute a bulk average temperature for the earth. Mr. Watts has shown that a lot of weather stations are affected by heat islands, for example. Ocean temperature buoys are FAR too widely scattered and never get calibrated. The system is highly dynamic. Water is being added to the oceans from volcanoes and icy stuff falling from space, even as water is supposedly being dragged into the mantle by subduction. There’s no way we have enough data about energy entering the biosphere versus energy leaving it to perform a reliably meaningful heat balance.

        The point I was making is that this strains technology in a small tank where all the gozintas and gozoutas are known and measurable. When I’m told that somebody has a precise measurement for the whole planet that’s accurate to 1 deg. C (using instruments that seldom or never get a cal check), speaking as a professional engineer with some background in heat and temperature measurement, I just flat-out do not believe it.

    • Regarding the measuring of ocean temperature and heat content.

      Excerpts from Testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
      Raymond W. Schmitt, lobbying for funding for Argo
      Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
      July 18, 2000
      https://www.whoi.edu/news-insights/content/the-oceans-role-in-climate/

      “In contrast to the 1,200 records of US land temperature used to examine climate trends in the report, 𝙬𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙉𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙩𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙘! For these few sites with rather short records, an observation once a month is often the best we have. This observation system is woefully inadequate”

      “An abundance of evidence indicates that the key to long-term prediction is in the workings of the ocean, which has 99.9% of the heat capacity of Earth’s fluids. It is the heart of the climate “beast”, the atmosphere its rapidly waving tail, with only 0.1% of the heat capacity. Let us get to the heart of the matter, with an unprecedented new look at the ocean. We have the technical capabilities.”

      “It will take a factor of 10^8 improvement in 2 horizontal dimensions (100 km to 1 mm, the salt dissipation scale), a factor of 10^6 in the vertical dimension (~10 levels to 10^7) and ~10^5 in time (fraction of a day to fraction of a second); an overall need for an increase in computational power of ~10^27. With an order of magnitude increase in computer speed every 6 years, 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 162 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙖𝙣.”

      To underscore the first excerpt, here’s an animation, courtesy of Bob Tisdale, that shows the coverage of ocean temp sampling from 1955.

      http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-1500m.gif

      𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣: 𝙄𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 140 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙤 𝙬𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙖𝙣. 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮.

  4. The world IS changing… we can only hope that cool headed deliberation will continue its upward trend. Alarmism is dying.

    • Mike Bryant – Exactly. Alarmism is actually dying – which is what I think is causing this latest, desperate paroxysm of the Greta Thunberg phenomenon. All polls in the western world over the last few years show a slow increase in people who now believe that the reason for present global warming must be partly natural. Nobody denies, of course, that the warming is real : we are the warmest we have been for a thousand years (and may well get warmer for another little while) – but why worry?

      There are many more people like Byron Sharp now slowly coming to their senses.

      • “we are the warmest we have been for a thousand years”

        We don’t know that. Might be, might not be. The proxies are so bad, we just can’t be sure.

    • Alarmism is dying because its supporters have gone insane and people are starting to recognize this. In order to be dead once and for all, it must be recognized that the pseudo-science supporting alarmism is so incredibly wrong, it’s become an embarrassment to all legitimate science.

      • Climate alarmism is not dying.

        It’s worse than ever.

        The alarmists are getting more publicity than ever, with the Green New Deal, the nuts in the Extinction Rebellion glued to roads, and that young, brainwashed, climate change trained parrot, Mean Greta “Thunderberg”.

        It’s hard to refute the “science”, because there was almost no real science behind the “coming climate change crisis” to begin with.

        Real science is not a wild guess theory about the future climate, stated with great confidence, that has been wrong for over 50 years.

        The alarmists never debate science — the science is “settled”, they say,
        and in their own weak minds the “science” has not changed since the 1970s, and nothing they claim can be falsified by actual measurements.

        The past 325 years of intermittent, mild global warming is completely ignored, because it was harmless — actually it was good news, versus the cold climate during the Little Ice Age.

        The future global warming, they claim, will be 100% bad news, and an existential threat, unless everyone does as the alarmists say, without question.

        It’s hard to refute the latest prediction, because the gross errors of past climate predictions, get almost no publicity.

        If the general public can believe Donald Trump colluded with Russians for the past three years, with no evidence, why can’t they believe a climate crisis is coming, with no evidence ?

        • The rhetoric from it’s more strident supporters has definitely become more shrill, but this may be the last act of desperation in support for a dying cause. Many in the middle who have no clue about the science, none the less see the lunacy in solutions like the Green New Disaster. Even a corrupt MSM in league with the Socialists is having trouble putting lipstick on that pig as the less ideological become more receptive to accepting the proper science that predicts a more benign result.

  5. Dare I mention that for some strange reason Prof. Sharp neglects to mention the Arctic, which is of course warming significantly faster than other areas of the planet?

    • Jim Hunt,

      And your point is?
      Are you claiming that something – anything – unpleasant is to happen from Arctic warming?

      Richard

      • Richard,

        My point is that if Prof. Sharp even bothered to look at the evidence from the Arctic he certainly didn’t mention it in the article reproduced above.

        There are those who claim “unpleasant things” are happening in the far North. E.g. Sir Wally Herbert’s daughter Kari:

        https://youtu.be/Odghw9P2b8E

        • Jim Hunt,

          OK, I went to your link and after the ads. I discovered there is more than 16 minutes of the daughter of somebody I have not met for me to watch. I can’t be bothered.

          If you think something – anything – unpleasant is to happen from Arctic warming then please say what it is and preferably add a link to whatever makes you think that.
          Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are trying to waste my time.

          Richard

          (Jim, has been banned…. again) SUNMOD

          • Jim makes assertion, is asked a question.
            Refuses to give answer to question, but posts a wiki about something not related to the underlying question.
            Thank you for proving several points made here so far.

          • Nicholas,

            Apparently you are as ignorant concerning Arctic history as Richard seems to be?

            Kari Herbert is the daughter of the apparently not entirely world famous explorer Sir Wally Herbert. As a small child she lived for several years on the Northwest coast of Greenland. When she returned a few decades later things had changed:

            https://youtu.be/MPWOzu_EVI8

            All of which is very relevant to the question that was posed.

          • Apparently you are as ignorant concerning Arctic history as Richard seems to be?

            [snip] Jim steps in it again! LOL

            Jim, there is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years. But you know this, because you have had this explained to you on almost a daily basis for years now.

            Why do you hate poor brown people Jim?

            [No need for name calling. -mod]

          • Mark – A “fascinating” quote for you:

            There are so many changes in the ice now that the people don’t know where they can go safely.

            Gator – The “people” referred to are “the Polar Inuit”.

          • Not big on math [snip] Jim?

            How many thousand Inuit died of starvation today?

            How many Inuit died as a result of climate change today?

            Do I need to do the figures for you?

            Now how many poor brown people died today as a result of alarmism? Lomborg says it is in the thousands. But you don’t care.

            Not much of a salesman are you? Just a Jim Reaper.

          • Winters have changed where I grew up as well.
            Back when I was a kid, it used to snow so much it was up to my waist, but now it rarely gets above my knees.

      • fresh water at the pole can affect the thermohaline pump. This will stop the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation freezing northern europe

          • continuing on from your wiki link
            “Thermohaline circulation and fresh water[edit]

            The red end of the spectrum indicates slowing in this presentation of the trend of velocities derived from NASA Pathfinder altimeter data from May 1992 to June 2002. Source: NASA.
            Heat is transported from the equator polewards mostly by the atmosphere but also by ocean currents, with warm water near the surface and cold water at deeper levels. The best known segment of this circulation is the Gulf Stream, a wind-driven gyre, which transports warm water from the Caribbean northwards. A northwards branch of the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Drift, is part of the thermohaline circulation (THC), transporting warmth further north to the North Atlantic, where its effect in warming the atmosphere contributes to warming Europe.
            The evaporation of ocean water in the North Atlantic increases the salinity of the water as well as cooling it, both actions increasing the density of water at the surface. Formation of sea ice further increases the salinity and density, because salt is ejected into the ocean when sea ice forms.[25] This dense water then sinks and the circulation stream continues in a southerly direction. However, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is driven by ocean temperature and salinity differences. But freshwater decreases ocean water salinity, and through this process prevents colder waters sinking. This mechanism possibly caused the cold ocean surface temperature anomaly currently observed near Greenland (Cold blob (North Atlantic)).[26]
            Global warming could lead to an increase in freshwater in the northern oceans, by melting glaciers in Greenland, and by increasing precipitation, especially through Siberian rivers.[27][28]
            An AMOC shutdown may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which occurred during the last glacial period: a series of Dansgaard-Oeschger events – rapid climate fluctuations – may be attributed to freshwater forcing at high latitude interrupting the THC. 2002 model runs in which the THC is forced to shut down do show cooling – locally up to 8 °C (14 °F).[29]
            Studies of the Florida Current suggest that the Gulf Stream weakens with cooling, being weakest (by ~10%) during the Little Ice Age”

    • You mean as it apparently did in the 20’s and 30’s?

      The arctic seems to go through phases of warm and cold, more ice and less ice, and apparently was ice free as late as ~5000 years ago.

      Looking at the geologic record, it does not appear that we have exceeded natural variation in any way.

      • Owen,

        On the contrary, it appears that we have exceeded the “natural variation in the 20’s and 30’s” by a long way.

        Why on Earth do you assert otherwise?

        • And precisely what is this natural variation, Jim Hunt – your alternative hypothesis for the last 30 years or the null hypothesis of 4 bil years of the planet’s natural dramatic climate cycles?

          • James,

            I was rather hoping that Owen would have enlightened us by now regarding the “natural variation” he mentioned.

            Perhaps you could do so in his stead?

        • JH
          Because the freezing degree days graph shows 2019 in the middle of the last 7 years which indicates to me a stasis at least in those years.
          More to the point, I would assert otherwise because: Harde and Berry show us that humans add very little to atmospheric CO2, Munshi shows us that atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to changes in emissions rates, Connolly shows us that the hypothesized enhanced greenhouse effect is not existent in our atmosphere because 20 million radiosondes demonstrate that it obeys ideal gas laws. With these facts I conclude that any change in the Arcitc is natural just like climate change everywhere else.

          • DMA,

            I don’t know which FDD graph you are looking at, but the one I linked to above shows 2019 in a “statistical tie” for lowest of the low at this early stage in the 2019/20 Arctic sea ice freezing season.

        • Jim,

          5000 years before present the Arctic was Ice Free or nearly so. Tree lines in northern Canada and Siberia ran to the coast. That is way hotter than today. There were no SUVs 5000 years before present, so natural variation must be the cause. Or are you a science d–ier?

          • Mark,

            Notice how you have evaded answering the question, just like Malcolm. And Gator.

            Here it is once again:

            What were the sea levels in London like at the time? Or Miami, or Manhattan, or Dhaka?

          • Jim, you are a liar as well as a flip Jim Reaper. I never fail to answer your genocidal rantings. It is you who has never explained why you hate poor brown people so very much.

            Again, the TED talk. Lomborg. Millions needlessly starving to death because of alarmism. Remember?

            Do I really need to post it all again? For the hundredth time?

            Now again.

            Why do you hate poor brown people [snip] Jim? Answer the question.

          • Now [snip] Jim, we have covered this before, and you lost this one too. Logic and reason are not in your repertoire.

            As I told you before, I have no wife. So that is moot.

            The Inuit are fine. In fact, the Inuit have never had a higher standard of life or longer life expectancy, all thanks to European settlement and fossil fuels. You are an idiot to have even mentioned them.

            [Snip] I will repost Lonborg’s easy to follow logic once again.

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            So the question remains unanswered.

            Why do you hate poor brown people Jim [snip]? And why are you so flip about endorsing alarmism that starves millions to death annually? Hate is the only answer that comes to my mind, but please do explain.

            [snip] I use you to turn believers away, and it works. No rational humans want to side with genocide.

            Thanks! LOL

          • [snip] Jim, you have no point. You also have no ethics.

            Quit avoiding the question.

            Why do you hate poor brown people?

          • I never have. Nothing that I say or do is any way an endorsement for or support of such projects.

            Are you trying to look dumber? I’m not sure that is possible.

            You support alarmism which diverts finite resources away from poor brown people?

            Why do you hate poor brown people?

          • I guess we can safely say that logic is as foreign to [snip] Jim as are ethics.

            Jim [snip], nothing I do adversely effects those in the photo you shared. They don’t appear to be starving to death either.

            What you do is promote alarmism which causes governments to divert finite resources away from poor brown people who are actually starving to death by the thousands daily.

            Your idiotic comparison is empty, as is your soul.

            So Jim, quit dodging the question.

          • Please everyone take note.

            Mornin’ Gator (UTC),

            But, but, but……

            I distinctly remember you telling me “You have no point”!

            This is how leftists view the unnecessary death of millions of innocent humans. For them it is a joke. Instead of altering his anti-human ways, [snip] Jim doubles down by first trying to normalize his behavior, and then he just shrugs off the body count when he finally realizes he is beat [snip]. Jim does not place any real value on the the lives of millions of poor brown people. To him they are the cost of an agenda, they are pawns to be spent.

            Most people are truly disgusted when they learn how we are wasting precious finite resources on a big nothing burger instead of using them to save millions. Only a very select few morons ever argue this point with me, and they are so very useful. Useful idiots that I use to prove just how anti-human, and frankly racist, that this CAGW religion has become. Even died in the wool believers will turn away, and they will keep quiet, rather than be lumped in with the likes of [snip] Jim.

            I’m grateful for the chance to out these ghouls. They are helping by digging their own ideological graves.

          • Once again [snip] Jim, nothing I spend my time doing effects the people in your photo.

            But please, do keep trying to justify killing millions of innocents for no reason, it makes you look so smart and noble.

            Even a child can see through your charade Jim. Imagine what you look like to adults.

            I only wish I could inflict as much damage to your religion as you are right now.

            [Stop posting insults. Your point is diminished AND you’re violating site policy. Keep it civil, or take it somewhere else. -mod]

          • Still no excuse for your support of alarmism, which kills millions.

            I do not host a website that works to stop solar projects. I also do not host a website that promotes alarmism which kills millions. I do not go around to various blogs denigrating solar plants. I also do not go around to various blogs promoting alarmism that kills millions.

            Please Genocide Jim, keep proving me right, and proving that you hate poor brown people, by excusing and promoting your alarmism.

            I only endorse saving lives, and agenda be damned.

            So again Genocide Jim, why do you hate poor brown people?

          • Sorry Mod, but I do not see how it is possible to insult the likes of Jim Hunt.

            And how is his blatant anti-human and racist attitude more acceptable than harmless name calling? Once we all agreed that his behavior was evil. What happened? When did fascists who sacrifice millions of innocents for an agenda become noble?

            I thank God every day that I was born before this evil madness was considered socially acceptable. I have zero regrets for what I have posted here.

            If madmen have the right to incite genocide here, then I should have the right to call them what they truly are.

            (Jim, Has been banned, let it go, and try to be more mature in your replies) SUNMOD

          • You’ve been banned before for sockpuppetry and for repeated thread bombing – and you know it.

            Don’t post here again, they will be deleted (and so will sockpuppetry attempts).

          • Mature only works for mature audiences. Sometimes I must get down on their level to make contact. I‘m sorry that had to happen. If thousands of lives were not being lost every day to this madness, I would be more than happy to be congenial.

            But hey, now that Jim is gone, maybe we can have adult conversations again.

            Thanks for your patience.

        • Jim, who exactly are you quoting when you respond with the following in quotes, as if the person you are conversing with said it?
          “natural variation in the 20’s and 30’s”

          • That’s the smell of rotting corpses [snip] Jim, it’s not me.

            Remember Lomborg? How he explained that climate alarmism robs the poorest of resources that would save thousands of lives daily?

            Yeah. You do. But you don’t care.

          • I suggest you review what it means to place something in quotation marks.
            It is generally agreed that it is only done when the words are repeated exactly.
            You took two separate sentences and spliced them together and made it a quote.
            And then you just doubled down.
            Of course I saw what you were claiming to have quoted…the point it that your quote was not one, it was a plain old lie.
            Since you are a liar, and will not own up to it, I have to point out that when Owen said this:

            “You mean as it apparently did in the 20’s and 30’s?
            The arctic seems to go through phases of warm and cold, more ice and less ice, and apparently was ice free as late as ~5000 years ago.
            Looking at the geologic record, it does not appear that we have exceeded natural variation in any way.”

            And then you claimed he said this:
            “natural variation in the 20’s and 30’s”

            You changed the context of the statement from Owen and just plain old lied.
            Why should anyone give you the slightest credibility when you make up such obvious lies

            Besides for that, your claim that it “appears” that the Earth has recently been changing by amounts that exceed natural variation is not supported by anything except cherry picking and selective attention and willful ignorance.

            ?

          • Good afternoon Nicholas (UTC),

            By “t[aking] two separate sentences and splic[ing]them together” I was merely attempting to elucidate the point that Owen may or may not have been attempting to make. That’s no reason to start calling me names!

            https://youtu.be/F5CMW2XBH6I

            As for your assertion that:

            It “appears” that the Earth has recently been changing by amounts that exceed natural variation is not supported by anything except cherry picking and selective attention and willful ignorance.

            it may not surprise you to learn that I beg to differ! Please provide some learned links rather than paragraph after paragraph of unjustified invective.

        • Not even close to being true, but then you’ll probably post a video of someone else’s grand daughter to prove your point.

        • It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
          (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.

          President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

      • This endlessly repeated arctic stuff reminds me of a Viking map I saw once, tattooed on leather, clearly showing routes across the Arctic. Maybe it suffered the same fate as that tree that clearly showed the was no sea level rise in the Maldives?

      • Richard Greene October 11, 2019 at 10:49 am
        A warmer Arctic is good news.
        —————————-
        OK Mr science guy. You must have predicted how the ice free arctic will affect the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (gulf stream) to be able to make your statement. This brings warmer waters from the south and warms northern Europe.
        a substantially changed arctic system will affect this and change European weather (colder). is this good news?

        • Ghalfruit:
          The Arctic has been warming since 1975, although the sea ice extent (DMI) has barely changed in the past dozen years.

          Please list all the bad news from the past 44 years, since 1975, (none) BEFORE you begin speculating about all the coming bad news (in your imagination) !

          • Evenin’ Richard (UTC),

            I suggest you click on all the links I have provided above to assorted Arctic metrics then come back and list all the “bad news” you can spot.

    • If you look at long term temperature records, the arctic temperatures are very responsive to the AMO. We have been in the positive phase of the AMO since the 1980s. But is appears we are nearing the end of that and as we drop back into the negative phase ( if this system is as periodic as it seems to be ) we should see a waxing of the arctic similar to what happened in the late 1970s.

      We have only been watching this system with instrumental precision for a gnats fart of time. Making assertions based on such limited data seems premature.

      Furthermore – we are currently experiencing a period of very low solar activity. This typically means less UV and thus less heating of tropical ozone which allows the jet stream to make these deep excursions to the lower latitudes. The meridional flow means large blobs of warm air are able to make it into the arctic where that heat is dumped into ice and space. That is likely why you are seeing more heat in the arctic but its still well below freezing.

      I used to accept AGW until the mid 2000s when it was clear the GSMT was not matching the models. When the institutions began retroactively changing data and pretending warm spells in the past were not actually there — that is when it was clear to me that this is more of a funding scam than a real phenomena.

          • You mean grow up, unlike millions of poor brown children who are starved to death annually by alarmists?

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            Why do you hate poor brown people ghalfrunt?

          • gator this guaranteed useless market would be a more sensible one to hit 7 times as much money!:

            How much is the cosmetic industry worth 2018?
            The global cosmetic products market was valued at USD 532.43 billion in 2017, and is expected to reach a market value of USD 805.61 billion by 2023, registering a CAGR of 7.14% during 2018-2023.
            And that does not include the research looking for new cosmetic names to scam the uniformed
            https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=30351

          • What a dumbass strawman argument. Nobody wants your cosmetics ghalfrunt.

            Let’s see if you can get it right, with yet another tutorial.

            Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
            Speaking at the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said that if humanity really understands the science of climate change and still fails to act, we’re “evil.” This is because climate change means “people are dying.” Helpfully, she also told us what we must do to act correctly: In a bit more than eight years, we will have exhausted our remaining allowance for carbon emissions, so we must shut down everything running on fossil fuels by 2028.
            While this claim is not uncommon, it is fundamentally misguided. Yes, global warming is real and human-caused, but her vision of climate change as the end of the world is unsupported. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by the 2070s, the total effects of climate change, including on ecosystems, will be equivalent to a reduction in average income of 0.2 to 2 per cent. By then, each person on the planet will be 300 to 500 per-cent richer.
            We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent. Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.
            Just a century ago, life was back-breaking. Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities. Life expectancy doubled. Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.
            That is not evil – it is quite the opposite.
            Ms. Thunberg believes that climate change means people are dying, but the fact is that weather-related disasters just a century ago killed half a million people each year. Today, despite rising temperatures but because of less poverty and more resilience, droughts, floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures kill just 20,000 people each year – a reduction of 95 per cent. That is a morally commendable achievement.
            Ending global fossil-fuel use by 2028 is a flawed plan because green energy is simply not in a place in its development where it can take over what fossil fuels leave behind. A hard by-hook-or-crook transition would cause a real, global catastrophe, sending most of us back into back-breaking poverty. That’s why developing countries, especially, want more fossil-fuel power, not less; they want to lift more people into comfortable lives.
            What we need is low-CO₂ energy that can outcompete fossil fuels – which would make everyone, including China and India, switch. This means dramatically increasing global investment into green research and development, something that we have conspicuously failed to do these past decades, exactly because activists have consistently demanded solutions before they are ready.
            Finally, Ms. Thunberg tells us that if we don’t cut off fossil fuels by 2028, the young generation will never forgive us. This, however, is reflective of a blinkered first-world view. When the United Nations asked 10 million people around the world what they prioritize, they highlighted five issues: health, education, jobs, corruption and nutrition. In sum, they care about their kids not dying from easily curable diseases, getting a decent education, not starving to death.
            Climate came last of 16 choices. That’s not because it is unimportant, but because for most of humanity, other issues are much more pressing.
            The problem is that climate is increasingly trumping all other issues. A third of all development aid, for instance, is now spent addressing climate, in direct defiance of the priorities of the world’s poor.
            While we should address climate through higher investments in green-energy R&D, it seems truer to say that most of the world’s young will never forgive us if we prioritized climate above our duty to tackle poverty, health, education and nutrition.

            Still think it is better to sacrifice humans for your agenda?

            Do tell! LOL

    • But it isn’t warming. It isn’t getting as cold in the winters. There is a big difference. The range of temperatures is getting narrower, but the temperatures have stayed within the same upper and lower boundaries for decades.

      In this case, it is even clear that the number of days temperatures stay below freezing have not changed. So just what impact is there when temperatures average around 248 degrees K in the winter instead of 243?

      If this is essentially the meat of ‘global warming’, then all I can say is, “drill, baby, drill.”

      • Jtom,

        Of course the Arctic is warming. You said as much yourself.

        “It isn’t getting as cold in the winters.”

        The impact of that is that (amongst other things) sea ice doesn’t thicken as much thermodynamically as it used to over the winter.

        • Jim, are you referring to sea ice levels during the 20’s and 30’s as your “as it used to” reference? [Obviously not.] After that minim, and ice peaking in the 70’s (global cooling), there is a decrease in ice from that later peak time. What we will see in the future is in dispute.

        • Lack of cooling is not warming. There is no energy being added to the system (winter, no sun). Air masses flowing into the Arctic simply are not cooling as fast as previous years. Energy is being retained. Does a thermos bottle warm anything?

          The climatic range of Arctic temperatures is between -240 and 275 (eyeballing the graphs). That has not changed over the decades. Where’s the warming?

          Unless you know far more of the dynamics of the water, you can’t make any judgment about the ice thickness. Water freezes from the top down, forming an insulating barrier between the water and the air. The difference in the thickness of the ice at these temperatures will be determined far more by the specifics of the water than the air.

    • And a few decades ago the arctic was cooling a lot faster than other areas of the planet.
      Do you have a point, or are you just fascinated with random bits of worthless knowledge?

      • MarkW October 11, 2019 at 3:19 pm
        And a few decades ago the arctic was cooling a lot faster than other areas of the planet.
        ——–
        how many decades ago?
        there is not-so-accurate date from the 70s 5 decades ago see 4th plot down I see no evidence of cooling!:
        picture-

        address
        “https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l5-4IbO4pZ8/XZ2-nI07uaI/AAAAAAAACoA/6nH_qoWjUjATitjoKDT9DMtVXvW1Ns9SwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sea%2Bice%2B19-9-10.jpg”

    • Jim Hunt, how about creating a WUWT post articulating your concerns about the Arctic? Make sure you include references. I can’t speak for Anthony but he’s usually fine with publishing posts which diverge from his POV.

      (Jim has been banned) SUNMOD

      • Hi Eric,

        Thanks for your suggestion, but based on past experience Anthony would be anything but fine with publishing a post articulating my divergent point of view! Plus there’s the small print (sic):

        Stories submitted may or may not be published at the discretion of the editorial stuff. Those that are published may be edited for size, accuracy, content etc. and become to property of WUWT.

        FYI here’s a partial list of my references:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/

    • Jim Hunt,
      For a start, it was just a short piece, it obviously can’t include everything climate-related.
      One of the things he didn’t mention is that the polar bears are thriving, their numbers are close to 30,000, a dramatic increase in recent decades.

      Yes, I’m sure there have been changes in the Arctic. But very similar changes occured in the twenties and in the 19th century. And are you seriously claiming that Nature is static and unchanging? There are lots and lots of magazine and newspaper reports about the very low Arctic ice in the 1920’s. You could print many of those reports tody, you’d just have to change the dates. Similarly, there are large numbers of newspaper reports from the 1970’s telling us we were doomed by global cooling. The science was laughably wrong then and it probably is today. Actually, it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Because of this nonsense the world is squandering trillions of dollars incompetently trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

      In a nutshell, we have enjoyed the modern warming because we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age since about 1850. Without that warming we would still be in the LIA. That really would be a catastrophe.

      And how do you explain the dramatic fall in deaths due to extreme weather as shown by the graph? It completely contradicts all the absurd claims from the likes of XR and Saint Greta. Note that this is data from the UN, probably the world’s biggest climate doomsters.
      Many other sources (e.g. the OECD’s human welfare data) show that mankind is prospering as never before (healthier, living longer, more prosperous, better fed, higher farm productivity etc). If there is a climate crisis, why doesn’t it show up in the global data? Can you actually point to data that shows there is a crisis?
      ***********************************************
      This is an excellent piece by Professor Sharp. In a way it’s even more powerful because he is not a climate sceptic. He believes climate change is still a problem, but not a life-threatening one. Like many sceptics, I believe the modern warming is real, but it is primarily natural and a huge benefit to makind and the world. Deep down, we all know that cold is bad and warm is good.

      I have been fascinated to read accounts by sceptical scientists (e.g. Judith Curry) who originally were true believers, but who had the integrity to change their minds when they examined the data – and, in some cases, when they realised how corrupt the IPCC is.

      It does seem that climate alarmism has massively increased this year. But it may be a sign that climate realism is slowly, slowly advancing, despite the shockingly one-sided propaganda from virtually all of the media. It may be that the boy is shouting wolf louder and louder because he thinks he’s being ignored.

      The 20th century warming is not a problem, it’s simply the world emerging from the terrible times of the Little Ice Age and prospering as an almost direct result. The real problem is the insane climate change alarmism that threatens us all, particularly the poor. It is not just wrong, it is utterly immoral. The money being squandered on useless wind farms and useless computer models could have been spent on really useful things, such as clean water. In fact I would be fairly confident that the money wasted on the climate models alone would have been sufficient to give every man, woman and child on this planet abundant clean water.
      Chris

      • Hi Chris,

        Please excuse my ignorance, but what have polar bears got to do with the physics of Arctic sea ice?

        “Very similar changes” did NOT “occur in the twenties and in the 19th century.”

        If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide some links to the peer reviewed evidence.

        Note that I am already (all too!) familiar with Steve/Tony’s cherry picking activities:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-great-white-con-2015-new-einstein-award/#Heller

        At the risk of repeating myself, why does:

        Prof. Sharp neglect to mention the Arctic, which is of course warming significantly faster than other areas of the planet?

  6. “Short summary: I now worry less about global warming than I did, the scientific evidence is that it’s not going to be catastrophic. PS Our best course of action is to adapt to the effects and to invest in R&D to develop new low carbon energy.”

    “Adapt”, yes.

    “develop new low carbon energy”, Why?

    • That struck me as well.

      I see a need to eventually find the energy source that will replace burning hydrocarbons, as we will eventually (in the next millennium or two) run out of convenient sources to burn, not because of carbon dioxide emissions. It may even be a carbon intensive process, but I doubt it. Besides, we will need a vastly different source of power if we are ever going to travel beyond the bounds of the solar system. I don’t see a steam-punk spaceship making it very far.

    • We could do ourselves a favor by developing the already known ways to make cheap low carbon energy, like hydropower dams and nuclear power plants, and by developing I mean building more of them.
      Not that we need to for any reason regarding climate, but it is logical to conserve resources that are essential, and keep prices low by making use of the full range of options we have at our disposal.
      More hydro and nuclear power will reduce demand and hence enhance supplies of the current means of producing power, which is mostly fossil fuels at the present time.
      It makes no sense to wait for them to be running out or incredibly expensive to do so.
      And CO2 has nothing to do with any of that.

      • No, that is not logical. The logical thing to do is to build the cheapest option possible that will satisfy all the requirements. Always. If hydro or nukes are cheaper, then go for it. Otherwise, use natural gas or coal. When the day comes that something else costs less, then build it.

        Conservation of non-renewable resources does nothing. Eventually, they will run out, regardless. The logical thing is to use the cheapest methods first, and strive to find the most cost effective alternatives. To spend money now that could be delayed until sometime in the future only reduces your wealth; wealth that could be used more productively, increasing your wealth, and making the change to alternatives in the future less of a burden. Besides, has anything ever ‘run-out’ before a better alternative was found?

        • Prices fluctuate, and this is harmful to economies.
          You are not looking at the big picture.
          Besides how does one compare the cost of two things which are not equivalent.
          Do we use the cost of nuclear that includes layers of ridiculous regulations?
          Where you paying attention to the price spikes of energy back in the first decade of this century?
          Having all ones eggs in one basket is not logical, nor is trying to guess what is the cheapest way to make power and assume it will always be the same.
          Building new power plants cannot be done quickly, nor can one source be easily and painlessly switched out for another because the costs just changed relative to one another.

    • The only other part of the article I had an issue with was:
      “but the problem has been misrepresented, and over-hyped (by people with good intentions).”

      Many of the people and organizations doing the “misrepresenting” have anything but good intentions.

  7. No, Byron, you are no climate realist, though you’ve made a good start in that direction. You still seem to believe there is a problem with our climate, and that we are to some extent, causing it. But keep going, and you’ll get there eventually, unless you still have “skin in the game” of warmist ideology.

    • He’s a believer, just not an orthodox believer. To an orthodox believer he is a heretic because the core dogma defining the faith is climate catastrophism, not climate change.

    • I don’t think Byron realizes it, but the CAGW faithful will still call him a denier. Someday he will be so sorry that he repeated that pejorative.

    • There is a problem with our climate, Mr. Cobb.

      It is a fantasy problem, but many people believe it.

      The proposed solutions to this non-existent climate problem are the real existential problem.
      .
      .
      My favorite philosopher had this figured out long ago:

      “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
      Groucho Marx

    • Bruce,
      I agree he is no realist.
      I am not interested in taking the time to go line by line through the whole posted article.
      But we can easily find incorrect statements sprinkled throughout, such as this one:
      “Global warming means the world is getting hotter (milder winters, hotter summers).”

      Hotter Summers is not a global reality long term reality.
      Especially not if you take the word “hotter” to mean daily high temperatures.
      Average daily temp is not the same as daily high temp, and “hotter” means something specific.
      He is incorrect, not to mention vague.
      And without vague statements, every word of alarm can be easily refuted with data.
      Vague statements are thus an important part of the purposeful obfuscation that is the lynchpin of alarmism.

      • Yes. I like to confuse some AGW supporters by pointing out that high temperatures could go up, and the average, down, at the same time; or, high temperatures could go down, but the average, up.

        Then I move on to explain how temperatures could get colder, but glaciers shrink, if there is less winter precipitation, and conversely, glaciers could grow during warming temperatures (especially if the warmer temps are still below freezing), if there is more winter precipitation. At the very least, they go away realizing things are more complex than they have been led to believe.

        • Engaging in conversation for the purpose of confusing people seems unlikely to be a productive use of time, or to win anyone over, or to be in any way persuasive.

  8. Thank you for an excellent, calm post that neatly summarises where we are today.

    You touched on the real problem – many scientists are no longer able to debate the real issues because the ‘alarmist’ tribal incantations tell them only to focus on topics that presuppose the AGW narrative.

    This is what first made me wonder if there was something fishy about the whole AGW narrative – if they are so absolutely right, why not argue their case rather than shutting down debate?

  9. Professor Sharp:
    Maybe I missed it, but it wasn’t obvious how long (years) you believed the climate alarmists, before becoming what I would describe as a “lukewarmer”.

    I got interested in climate science in 1997, and in one day I no longer believed anyone living on this planet had the ability to predict the climate 100 years in the future, or 10 years, or 1 year.

    Perhaps I started with the advantage of almost never believing predictions of the future — I thought people claiming to “know” the climate in 100 years were just seeking attention.

    I still do.

    Another advantage was living in the Detroit suburbs, covered by ice glaciers 20,000 years ago, which certainly did not melt from too many SUVs on the road 10,000 years ago.

    I would like you to completely open your mind, and consider the possibility that adding CO2 to the air is GOOD NEWS for this planet, especially for the C3 plants used for food.

    Consider that actual global warming in the past 300 years, since the cold 1600s, has been good news.

    Consider that the climate has been changing — intermittent warming — for your entire life — has that been bad news for you and your family?

    My advice:
    (1)
    Ignore long term predictions about anything, and
    (2)
    When you hear the phrase “scientists say”, start laughing !

    My climate science blog:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • ‘When you hear the phrase “scientists say”, start laughing !’
      When you hear the phrase “experts say”, start laughing !

  10. When I was young I was a socialist and a malthusian. I also believed that oil was going to run out any day.

    • When I was young, I didn’t care about the various economic, social and environmental theories/projections. Still don’t.

    • When I was young my grandpa was a hard left socialist and by uncle was a soviet refugee, who had to leave in a hurry after the NKVD noticed he was a capitalist.

      Made Christmas dinners way interesting.

  11. ” We have about 20 temperature sensors in the tank… ”

    For perspective, that number is about one half of the total number of stations in the entire southern hemisphere (~100 million sq mi) that continuously recorded temperature data from 1880-1950 (70 years, or half of the temperature record), and most of those were concentrated in SE Australia. All other data for half of the planet for half of recorded history are made-up fiction. It’s better for the northern hemisphere, but not by much.

    • Right, icisil. And they’re not re-calibrated every year, and no one takes account of their limits of resolution, and their systematic measurement error is ignored.

      So, apart from mal-distribution, poor siting, insufficient number, non-calibration, neglected resolution limits, and neglect of non-random systematic error, the air temperature numbers are believable.

      And what have the Romans ever done for us?!

      • Yes, aside from those small, insignificant, minute, infinitesimal little problems, the “surface temperature record” is firmly established to an accuracy measured in tenths, or even hundredths of a Celsius degree. With largely instruments with full degree increments of measure./sarc

        😀

        • With poorly sited observation stations in America, and progressively worse globally. With an ensemble of models… hypotheses, that require regular injections of brown matter, in order to sustain a semblance of consensus with reality.

      • Pat, even if all that were fixed, there still wouldn’t be a meaningful “global average temperature”.

    • Well Gary it probably it probably only cost about twenty bucks Australian. I met a hotel owner in Gladstone Au. that owned two properties. One was 200,000 acres and the other was 800,000 acres. He was cleaning out the dryer vents in the hotel he owned.

    • Australian bush land is “dirt” cheap and not known to be a high yield asset, particularly if he set it aside. No wonder he wasn’t swimming in cash.

  12. Sounds like he is just another herd animal. He believed in global warming when it was cool to believe in it. So easy to go along with the crowd. Now he realizes he bought into a lot of junk science and that he was wrong. He should have been thinking for himself and not let the herd think for him. It doesn’t take a genius to look out your window and realize that the weather today is no different than it was thirty years ago. Or that the whole thing about a trace gas at 400 ppm altering the climate was absurd on its face. Rather than admit that he was a fool that he got bamboozled he is looking for a graceful exit.

    • I think you’re being rather harsh and don’t fully understand the paths of learning and healing. Confessing the truth as restitution is good for a formerly wayward soul, and it strengthens understanding and knowledge.

      • Well said, icisil. Here’s someone who used his brain to reach a truth that wasn’t immediately obvious to him. We should celebrate his conversion, not make him pay penance for what he formerly believed in good conscience.

      • David and Icisil – Point taken. You are right.

        I believe that in the years to come we will see a lot of these “me too” people come around. They have done a lot of damage by going along with the global warming crowd and lending it support. But what are you gonna do? Who knows, perhaps they have learned something.

    • It’s still cool to Believe, and it’s unjust of you to suspect the author of enslavement to fashion, on my fallible reading at least.

      icisil says it beautifully below.

      Or, as the godless cop and the preacher man in True Detective, Season One, manage to agree:

      Compassion is ethics.

      • We are all believers in climate change, with minor quibblings on doctrine here and there. What sets us apart from the orthodoxy is rejection of the doctrines of Climate Catastrophism and Tipping Point, which form the core of the orthodox faith.

        • Ha! You speak of the quibblings of Quislings. Are you man or Gelfling, gelding? There exist but the Elect and the Reject. The wheat and the chaff. In the courts of Judgment, there are but two doors: one marked Male (denihilist Dominionist), the other Fewomyn (liberyl consensualist/science-submissive). There will be no Third Bathroom!

  13. “Global warming is not a existential threat. Global warming means the world is getting hotter (milder winters, hotter summers)”</blockquote)

    A) Now prove that the warming you allege is not caused by water vapor; which is vastly more abundant in the atmosphere.
    • A side adventure here is demonstrating how CO₂'s alleged back radiation warms ocean waters… A physical process that demonstrates why light waves warming ocean waters is restricted to a very shallow ocean layer; from fractions of an inch to several feet, (millimeters to two meters).

    B) The warming you allege, is not hotter days! The slight increase is shown in higher night time low temperatures and increases in winter high temperatures. Again, impossible to prove it is caused by CO₂ instead of water vapor (H₂O).

    C) Global temperature increases depend upon higher polar temperatures. Keep in mind that except for UAH satellite temperatures, Polar temperatures are dependent upon very few temperature stations located in human population centers. Again; impossible to prove the temperature increases are caused by CO₂ instead of water H₂O.

    D) Keep in mind that water is infrared interactive through all three physical stages; liquid, solid, vapor.
    • 1) e.g. water vapor radiative interactivity swamps the entire infrared spectrum, including CO₂'s tiny portion of infrared frequencies activity.

    Without water vapor's convective processes, the alleged greenhouse effect is impossible to achieve in Earth's environment.
    Water vapor rising, condensing, then falling as rain or ice is Earth's reactive mechanism to cap daily temperatures and one of the keys to moving heat into the upper atmosphere. This process also explains why Earth's tropics do not show rising temperatures.

    Keep learning, Professor Sharp!
    It is a path many of us followed to keep our skeptic status.

    • Better yet, this guy should look at all the variables affecting the planet. Why not look at solar data. These people disregard the sun, which is solely responsible for the earths heat. How about the solar wind/cosmic wind battle that determines high thin cloud cover and solar albedo.

      NASA just announced that our atmosphere actually seeps into the vacuum of space.

      I also have to add in the phenomenal traits of H2O’s heatsink properties of large bodies of water. Even if the surface is warmed, it does not remain on the surface, or radiate heat back.

      Or, the geothermal properties of the planet itself, gravitational pressure spinning our core and liquefying massive amounts of rock. Heat bubbling up and melting Glaciers from beneath, also, superheating the water beneath the north and south poles.

      The list is long as to why Climate Science needs to be completely disregarded in its current form. Any model that does not factor the variables mentioned above and then some is not a valid model.

      (PS, is too short for a username) SUNMOD

  14. “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” — Charles MacKay

    Welcome back to the sane world Prof. Byron.

  15. From the article: “Now ten years isn’t long enough to be definitive, but it’s important because it was a predictive test. Modellers love to play with their models, tweaking this and that, trying to get better and better fits to historic data (achieving lots of academic publications and grants along the way). This sounds sensible but there is a very high risk of “over fitting” where the model is modelling noise/error in the data, so the fit to historic data is better but it’s even worse at predicting the future, and therefore not correctly telling us what really causes what.”

    In the case of climate science, the climate scientists are trying to fit their climate models to bogus, bastardized “historic” data, so maybe that might be one reason the models don’t forecast the future very well. Garbage in, garbage out.

  16. Laudable, but not much impressed. Why would anyone believe the global warming bullcrap in the first place? I suspected newscasters on TV were lying out of their teeth when I was a youngster.

    • beng, I’m also a Never-Believer.

      It’s surprising, though, that even among skeptics, the default assumption is that I must have been “converted” from alarmism to derision thereof, the only question being what was it that did it? I’d been hearing about global warming occasionally since school, found it inherently difficult to be afraid of it, but other than that I had no real opinion one way or the other for a few years. Then I heard that “the scientific consensus” said I should believe. That was enough. What a bucket of barf.

      • No conversion here either. I’m a skeptic because I was young enough to remember the 1970s when they were banging on about “the coming ice age” before they were banging on about “global warming”and in both cases it was the same cause: man’s use of fossil fuels (and the fact that both ideas were being banged on about by some of the very same people!) and the more I learned about “global warming” the more it became obvious that it was mainly agenda driven nonsense.

      • After having fought the Acid Rain and Ozone Hole wars, I was already primed to dis-believe the latest crisis that only more government can solve out of the green lobby.

  17. Proper forecasting techniques is not the only knowledge of which climate scientists are ignorant. They could do with some acumen in basic physics.

  18. I, too, have seen the light. I used to believe the space alien alarmists with their claims of imminent attack by space aliens wiping out all humanity. But I’ve changed my mind. I no longer believe attack is imminent, and believe rather that we do have time to build up our defences including high-powered lasers. The idea that Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call” will make their heads explode is, of course nonsense. These aren’t Martians (more silliness), but rather from another galaxy. As such, I am now a Space Alien Realist (SAR).

    • Funny Slim Whitman reference — there was a Twilight Zone episode where a serial liar/storyteller actually got abducted by aliens, and he paralyzed them in the flying saucer by playing his harmonica & escaped. Of course, everybody laughed at & didn’t believe his story afterwards.

  19. Typical liberal – he seems to think that “good intentions” of the alarmists outweigh all the wasted capital and resultant suffering. He needs to acknowledge that acting in ignorance the alarmists have wasted billions (maybe it’s trillions now) that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives lost to poor water supplies and disease. And given how government operates, that waste is going to continue for decades. Good intentions cause a lot of suffering and are no excuse for ignorant behavior.

  20. Dear Prof. Just imagine if you’d eaten meat, so much more brain development and then you’d have worked it out earlier. DKUATBT! More joy in heaven over one sinner repenting etc.;-)

  21. I base my assessment of climate change not on models and predictions, but on observed, recorded data over recent decades.

    From which it is perfectly plain it is warming and that there are already climate impacts.

    but do note:
    “deaths due to extreme weather events have declined a staggering 96% over the past century, and that’s in spite of population growth. Why? How? Largely due to better buildings and infrastructure, better emergency services, better hospitals and so on.”

    some here in these columns have used this evidence to claim a decrease in extreme weather must be taking place – rather it is our improved response to it which is saving lives

    • Prove it!

      Show us extreme weather is getting worse. If you do not you are worse than a fraud..you are a deplorable

    • It’s well documented that weather was worse in the US in the early part of the 20th century, and before that, than it was in the latter part of the century until now. Storms, heat, floods, drought, you name it, were worse when CO2 was lower.

    • That it has warmed over the last 150 years was never in doubt.
      That CO2 caused it isn’t proven by just noting it has warmed.
      That goes double for the claims that CO2 is going to cause massive warming some vague time in the future.

    • That there is a decrease in extreme weather is not documented by fewer deaths, it is documented by fewer extreme weather events.
      Perhaps if you ever managed to find your way out of your echo chamber, you would have known that already.

    • No Ms Griff you do not. You base your assessment based upon ideology that kills the poor. Period.

      If you cared about humanity, you would not keep supporting this anti-human, poor brown people hating scam.

      • Gator October 11, 2019 at 3:42 pm
        No Ms Griff you do not. You base your assessment based upon ideology that kills the poor. Period.
        If you cared about humanity, you would not keep supporting this anti-human, poor brown people hating scam.
        —————
        Just how much electricity grid have you built for these “poor brown people”?
        How many cookers have you provided for these “poor brown people”?
        how many fridges have you provided for these “poor brown people”?
        how many roads/factories/ hospitals/schools have you built for these “poor brown people”
        how much cash have you given to for these “poor brown people” to pay for the bounty you have provided?
        How much of your excess food have you sent to these “poor brown people” ?

        Have you actually stopped exploiting these “poor brown people” and stopped claiming their resources as your own?

        • I have made a monthly’s donation to feed poor brown people for decades now. I never miss a payment. So yes, I have built infrastructure and supplied food for these people you hate.

          I also work tirelessly to educate people on just how deadly climate alarmism is, and how it kills millions annually.

          Thanks for asking!

          My turn.

          Why do you hate poor brown people ghalfrunt?

          • yes. good on you I have donated monthly to MSF more than I should
            perhaps you need to convince the world to stop wasting money on useless cosmetics, buying vehicles bigger than needed, buying new phones, “the poor brown people” would then be able to live happier lives. But of course you also need to force the public to buy shoes and clothes so that the “poor brown people” making their luxuries can get a living wage.

          • Nice strawman argument ghalfrunt! But there is not a single government that uses billions of tax payer money to buy useless cosmetics, buy vehicles bigger than needed, or buy new phones for us. What an incredibly stupid case you have tried to make, a case against saving human lives.

            This is exactly why I enjoy this line of debate, because some of you ninnies are too stupid top know when to shut the Hell up. I simply use your crazy comments to show people just how far out of touch with reality you loons are. People do not want to associate with movements that are anti-human.

            But please do us all a favor, and argue against wisely using resources, and for sacrificing millions annually to your leftist pipe dream. It makes you look so noble and smart! LOL

          • “perhaps you need to convince the world to stop wasting money on useless cosmetics, buying vehicles bigger than needed, buying new phones, “the poor brown people” would then be able to live happier lives. But of course you also need to force the public to buy shoes and clothes so that the “poor brown people” making their luxuries can get a living wage.”

            Rubbish. “poor brown people” are poor largely due to corrupt governments, but also due to age-old, pervasive superstition, internal ethnic wars, etc. They need to pull themselves out of their own perpetual dark ages. Only then will they live happier.

            It matters not what we do with our lives, but what they do with theirs. They don’t need handouts, they need to come to their senses.

          • They need cheap and efficient energy. Imagine your life cooking over a fire with zero modernity. How would your kids fare under the same circumstances? Would you want help?

          • Gator October 12, 2019 at 9:29 am
            They need cheap and efficient energy. Imagine your life cooking over a fire with zero modernity. How would your kids fare under the same circumstances? Would you want help?
            ———————–
            poor brown people are by definition poor

            You suggest they need a cooker – £100 min
            you suggest they purchase electricity
            I assume your modernity would include a refrigerator £50
            fridge would consume 230watts/24h = 84kWh= £6.3/year

            Whole builds the infrastructure (grid/transformers/policing of same) and who pays?

            To improve “poor brown people” living will require money – simple as that. Just saying let them build coal burning power stations will not help “poor brown people”

            ———
            g
            But there is not a single government that uses billions of tax payer money to buy useless cosmetics, buy vehicles bigger than needed, or buy new phones for us.
            ——–
            gh
            you seem to be saying that it is ok to throw money at useless product rather than send it to help the poor? your beef seems to be about the government using your taxes to help the poor. a strangeness

          • Wow gahlufrunt! You are as stupid as Genocide Jim! So I guess I will have to spell it out for you too. What tipped me off was your idiotic argument against helping millions who starve to death annually. Only an extremely moronic self absorbed arsehole would do that.

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            You see moron, I didn’t just come up with this on my own. And yes, I am name calling, as it is well warranted.

            But again, feel free to continue to prove me right. LOL

          • Gator you lack of knowledge astound me as does your dh claims. Its the end of this!!!
            DH

            Right! Me, Lomborg, the world’s population, and a panel of Nobel Laureates are all wrong and you are right. LOL

            Yeah, what were we all thinking? Let’s spend trillions on something that helps nobody, or spend billions and help millions? Hmmmmm…. what a dilemma! I just can’t figure out what to do! LOL

            Gator you lack of knowledge astound me as does your dh claims. Its the end of this!!!
            DH

            So you’re saying the science is settled and there is no debate? Sounds strangely familiar.

            Just why do you hate poor brown people?

  22. “…articles that don’t get much coverage in newspapers (which prefer bad news)”

    The author seems to be under the illusion that both sides are honestly assessing the issue. If that were true, you would have warmists taking on skeptics in head to head debates, trying to convince them that the facts are on their side. But there are no such debates. In fact, his own change of mind illustrates exactly why they will not debate: the facts favor the skeptics.

    As for the news media, the reason you don’t see news of the sort the author mentions is not because they “prefer bad news,” but because most of the media has chosen to represent one side.

  23. Knowing about the dry adiabatic lapse rate, I was partial to the “Sky Dragon” argument. This post on “WUWT” by Robert Brown convinced me that I was wrong:

    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/

  24. This guy’s really confused. He may call himself a “climate realist” but to the true believers, he just firmly established himself as a denier.

    Welcome to the club.

  25. I have long thought that farmers should lay CO2 emitting pipelines on the windward side of their fields. When the breeze is right, open the valve and give the potato plants some nutrition!
    Greenhouse operators do this as a standard. Of course greenies arriving there to buy a few lush beefsteak tomatoes, would not know what that white, frost covered tank contains!

  26. Byron, I take issue with this statement “It’s not that global warming isn’t a problem, but the problem has been misrepresented, and over-hyped (by people with good intentions).” You can’t possibly know their intentions and assuming that all these people have good intentions ignores the real world. Many of these climate scientists are wholly owned by globalist and socialist politicians, just look at climategate emails, peer review buddy systems and groupthink, emeritus scientists describing being bullied while in academia. Look at NGO’s and their funding, Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion and others. Most of the people you are attributing “good intentions” to are very smart and very sophisticated, they know they are misrepresenting and over-hyping and are doing it for a purpose. People with truly good intentions would not use the methods currently being employed in order to achieve the end results they desire.

  27. A great article, by a thoughtful man who stopped to consider the evidence (which is what real science is all about) before jumping on the scaremongers’ bandwagon.

    The article mentions the decline in deaths due to extreme weather events. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the article, another reason for the decrease is the use of weather satellites which can spot and track tropical cyclones while they are far out over the ocean, and give people living along the coast several days’ warning to get out of their way. The residents of Galveston in 1900 had no such warning, which is why thousands of them drowned in the hurricane.

  28. “So because of the evidence, I’ve gone from being a climate alarmist to a climate realist. I hope that both ‘alarmists’ and ‘deniers’ will do likewise. ”

    Can you please refer us to evidence that the Professor was once an “alarmist” as he claims. Presumably he wrote some articles as he is now doing for a site widely recognized as being in the “denier” domain.

    I suspect this is a fake conversion story. But I am willing to be proved wrong….

    • If you read the article, you already know what his “alarmism” consisted of.

      and for him writing for “a site widely recognized as being in the “denier” domain”, what are you talking about? Medium (the site that he wrote the article for) is not “widely recognized as being in the denier realm” (honestly I don’t think it’s all that recognized as being the in realm of covering climate, one way or the other, period). If you search Medium for articles on climate change you’ll actually find articles from all perspectives both for and against.

      If you are going to bash the guy and the site he wrote for, at least get your facts straight first, otherwise you just show yourself for the troll that you are.

  29. I was born into a pacifist Quaker family. It took me into my 20’s to realise that you have nothing if you cannot defend it, and sometimes this includes violence – police with truncheons or guns, boarder guards, locks on doors, and an army. 50 years later, I still cannot talk to my family about this, despite the fact that they also expect their property to be theirs.

    The problem of defending what you have extends from keeping brothers out of one’s space (they will harass and take unless sanctions exist) to having a nicer house than some of the community (policing and locks necessary) to having a nice country. I do not feel we should feel guilt about this and invite all the world to share, but that we should do whatever possible to improve the lives of those who have not. Hopefully what I have was not taken from others, but the fruit of my labours – of this no one can be 100% certain.

    Signed The Redneck of the Family

  30. Climate changes over irregular intervals. The range is unknown, but inferred from physical myths, folklore, etc. However, in the near-domain (i.e. science), the range is known to be wide, with fast transitions. That’s not in question. That said, the issue is anthropogenic causes, including, and especially, minority carbon dioxide emissions, and the so-called “greenhouse effect”, which was characterized in isolation, and has failed to live up to its potential in the wild. The issue is also models or hypotheses, that have demonstrated no skill to hindcast, let alone to forecast without regular injections of brown matter. Denier has a colorful history.

  31. That was very interesting article by Byron Sharp. He may be missing something in his explanation of decreasing deaths due to weather.

    In his article he says: “deaths due to extreme weather events have declined a staggering 96% over the past century, and that’s in spite of population growth. Why? How? Largely due to better buildings and infrastructure, better emergency services, better hospitals and so on.”

    If you follow the link, it shows the largest decreases in death were decreases in the extremely large deaths due to draughts and floods. What should be first on his list of helping factors is better transportation which is primary do to use of fossil fuels.

    The ability to transport food and water to draught stricken areas is the major reason for decreases in deaths along with ability to irrigate the land to prevent loss of crops again using fossil fuels for pumping water (maybe with some electrical pumps using wind and solar electricity). The transportation of food and water could be included under “emergency services”, but why are emergency services now “better”? Could it be the use of fossil fueled vehicles?

    As for flooding again the major decrease in death is better transportation to evacuate the people at risk coupled with better forecasting. Again, fossil fuels are responsible for better transportation.

    It might be a good idea of keeping some of these fossil fueled means of transport around in case of emergencies, instead of relying on electric trucks, boats, airplanes, ambulances, and helicopters to deliver help with weather disasters.

  32. Thanks for the story. Fact checking takes many forms and time frames. Some never get it and get more thrill from not getting it.

  33. I did not believe in global warming at first, then I changed my mind about 15 years ago to believe in it, and few years ago went back to not believing in it.

    My thoughts are that co2 warms the earth by small amount, nothing to worry about and it’s probably a net positive due to better crop yields.

    I’m am open minded that I could be wrong and it is a big problem but I think if it is, we can solve fairly cheaply with geo engineering.

    I believe most of the greens don’t actually care about the temperature but really only care about destroying industry.

  34. Professor Byron Sharp states that he was a “greenie” in his younger days on the farm back in NZ. I too can make that claim as a city kid who joined the ‘Values Party,’ as an 18 year old. The Values Party was the forerunner to the Greens in New Zealand back in the 70’s & 80’s. Back then our concerns centred around real pollution of the air and waterways.

    As I grew older I retained those concerns, but I also moved toward a pragmatic outlook. I could clearly see that it would take money to fix those problems. This has been dramatically shown by the way the US has successfully cleaned up its act over the past 45 years, not that the current greens ever acknowledge this fact. This is in contrast to developing nations striving to get to the so called, first world status. Until that goal is achieved those countries will continue to live with real pollution. Thanks to the greens those developing countries are being denied the chance to lift themselves up on the back of fossil fuel prosperity as we have. That is the real hypocrisy of the modern green movement.

    Getting back to the professor and his journey into the light, that most of us here have been standing in for some time, and given all of the evidence of the failings of the models and modelers, Professor Sharp still gives them the benefit of the doubt as in, “It’s not that global warming isn’t a problem, but the problem has been misrepresented, and over-hyped (by people with good intentions).” Many of us might dispute the ‘good intentions’ of those involved.

    Most readers here will be somewhat bemused by the professors conclusion here, “Most concerning is how preoccupied people are about “what side you are on?” rather than wanting to discuss facts.” Haven’t WE been saying this from the start? Nice of you to catch up Professor!

    One of Professor Sharp’s final statements leaves me a little cold though, “I hope that both ‘alarmists’ and ‘deniers’ will do likewise. Then we can all move on to working out feasible solutions that don’t harm people and the environment while trying to save them.” A noble sentiment spoiled by the ad hominem slur of ‘denier.’ If the professor is really interested in creating a climate (pun intended) more suited to constructive dialogue, then perhaps he could start a trend by calling us by our real descriptors, “Man made climate sceptics?” Despite all of the points the Professor makes about there being no climate scare, he still sees the need to spend time and effort fixing the non-problem.

    The professor is getting there, but he is not there yet.

  35. This is the first in a series of blogs where I describe how and why I changed my mind about something. I hope to encourage myself to change my mind more often. And to encourage others.

    I think this and future articles by Prof. Sharp could be a Change My Mind, Change My Life!™ event for a great deal of humans. At least I hope so, and I’m encouraged by that. Whatever works I guess.

    According to me personally, in my own Truth-World that no one else but I can see, hear, or understand, I’ve endured for years an internal struggle with the idea of CAGW simply on this admission by the IPCC:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

    See p. 774, section 14.2.2.2, here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

    From the above, I just couldn’t (and still can’t) seem to get past the admission that: 1) as yet everyone knows nothing very predictively useful about the physics of earth’s climate; 2) the statistically [in?]significant ensemble results of a plethora of software models coded with all of the assumptions against that nothingness define “Climate Change;” 3) the hardware required to run the plethora of software models that might (but as yet, don’t) offer anything very predictively useful regarding the climate still doesn’t exist; and 4) even if we had 1), 2), and 3), we don’t have a method of diagnosing the plethora of software models that can’t be run because there isn’t any hardware to compute the physics we don’t yet know.

    But that’s just me. I’m encouraged at the hope that one day I’ll be a brighter bulb in the box.

    • Statistics derived from unknown processes is cargo cult science. Mathematics applied to garbage is garbage, no matter how “sciency” it sounds.

  36. Thanks for an excellent article and comments.

    Would it be possible to add a graph plotting CO2 and world temperatures since 1880 please?

    And another graph with world population and CO2? Use NOAA data even though it is corrupted. World temperatures up about 1 degree C since 1880.

    And the list of planned and under construction power stations too.

    USA =0. Russia = 8. Germany = 2. UK= 0.

    https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/

  37. My experience is probably unique.
    I was totally unaware of the “global warming” issue until I attended a luncheon lecture in 1998 by an emeritus Professor (who was apparently a revered academic “Jack of all trades” in various science fields).
    He was asked to give a lecture to a group of retired corporate managers (most with advanced science degrees, e.g. Chem PhDs). Fishing around for a topic he decided to talk about the work he was currently engaged in as a favor to a friend at MIT, a guy named Richard Lindzen (who meant nothing to me at the time.)

    We were told Prof Lindzen was alarmed at what was being advanced by some of his colleagues under the label of “Global Warming” and asked his friend for just a little assistance (since he now had some free time smile).

    The approach they were following combined an analysis of the science (including general modeling of which our lecturer was also an expert) with logic. Overly simplified (which the good Prof had to do in a short talk to old corporate types who just had had a good country club lunch) they were laying out a logic tree (if you accept this, then you have to accept that, and then……) and using hard data to assign probabilities to each of the branches. The probability of a harmful outcome was looking like it would be extremely low.

    The talk was sufficient to awaken in me an interest in the subject with an initial assumption of “How could any rational person believe otherwise?”.

    So, I was initiated as a skeptic*, and nothing I have learned since has convinced me otherwise.

    * As I constantly argue with my academic son, being a skeptic does not mean I deny any of the “consensus” outcomes; only that they have not yet convinced me that those outcomes are worthy of destroying our economy; or even that the “outcome” will be a warmer world rather than a cooler (or colder) one.

  38. The reality is that the Earth’s climate has been changing for eons yet the change is so small that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. One must not mix up true global climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.

    AGW is not a proven theory but rather a conjecture. AGW sounds plausible at first but upon a more detailed examination one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example there is the idea that CO2 acts as a thermostat and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming because CO2 has LWIR absorption bands that cause CO2 to trap heat. CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O also has LWIR absorption bands and hence causes H2O to trap even more heat. So according the ths AGW conjecture H2O acts to amplify any warming that CO2 might cause. Al Gore in his movie, “The Inconvenient Truth” presents a chart showing CO2 and temperature for the past 650.000 years. There is an obvious correlation between CO2 and temperature which Al Gore claims shows that CO2 works as a thermostat and that more CO2 in our atmosphere causes warming. But a closer look at the data shows that CO2 follows instead of leeds temperature. It is higher temperatures that cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water does not hold as much CO2 as does cooler water. Contrary to what AL Gore claims, there is no evidence that the additional CO2 causes warming. On the plot, Al gore included where CO2 is today. CO2 is much higher than one would expect form the warming of the oceans and the proximate cause of the increase in CO2 is mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. According to the chart, if CO2 were the thermostat of global warming then it should be a heck of a lot warmer that it actually is but it is not. If anything, Al Gore’s chart shows that CO2 does not cause global warming as Al Gore claims.

    H2O is actually a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis. According to he AGW conjecture, the idea is that CO2 warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so forth. This positive feedback effect does not really require CO2 based warming but will operate on H2O based warming alone. This positive feedback effect, if true, would make Earth’s climate very unstable with H2O based warming causing more H2O to enter the atmosphere causing even more warming causing even more H2O to enter the atmosphere until all the bodies of water on Earth boiled away. Such an event would cause the barometric pressure and temperature of the Earth’s surface to be much higher than it is on Venus but such has never happened. What the AGW conjecture ignore’s is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where heat energy is more readily radiated to space. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of providing a positive feedback amplifying any warming that CO2 might provide, H2O provides negative feedback and retards any warming the CO2 might provide, Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for over the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.

    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping gases but rather stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convectime greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. No radiant greenhouse effect has been observed, So too on Earth where gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere acts to limit cooling by convection. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be roughly 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere no on any planet in solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well, This is all a matter of science.

    Then there is the “scientific” consensus argument. But there is no real consensus. It is all is all just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. The AGW conjecture must really be on shaky ground if “consensus” is one of the reasons for us to believe in it.

    But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet no tipping points ever happened. In the past, the Earth’s CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today and no tipping points ever happened. There is no real evidence that a climate emergency exists. It is all a matter of science.

  39. I’ll stop being a “denier” when NASA and the Climate Cognoscenti stop BLEEPING with the data.

    Until then, I give no quarter, not even a nanometer.

  40. As a Yukoner living in the Canadian north, I am very interested in the repeated claims that the Arctic/North is warming XX times faster than the rest of the planet. I find these declarations to be extremely suspicious on their face, given the paucity of measurement stations in the north and particularly in the Arctic – a problem only worsened the further one goes back in time.

    Official records for the Yukon hardly exist at all before the building of the Alaska Highway. Even today, official weather monitoring stations in the Yukon number in the low double digits, and are usually sited in (small) communities due to convenience rather than representative locations. And, above the Arctic Circle there are almost no monitoring stations whatsoever. The situation certainly does not improve in Canada’s other northern territories (Northwest Territories and Nunavut).

    I suspect that most all northern/arctic areas, regardless of country, are subject to these problems.

    Recently, Canada’s Minister of the Environment claimed warming in Canada (2x global mean) and accelerated warming in the North (3x global mean), but much of the historical data was based on models – not actual observations – because, historically, there weren’t enough stations. The link to Environment Canada’s document is here:

    https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/Climate-change/pdf/CCCR-Chapter4-TemperatureAndPrecipitationAcrossCanada.pdf

    I would be very happy if WUWT members would critique this document. The Whitehorse City Council, the Yukon Legislature, and the Canadian Parliament have all declared a “climate emergency” – it would be very useful to have some informed counters to this ongoing clown show.

  41. Regarding the temperature, Adelaide is not too bad, as it has a strong sea breeze .

    But inland, away from that sea breeze it does get hot, here in the town of Gawler we ling in a retirement village, and it get up to 45 C on the odd few day in the summer. But we elderly residents adapt, we retire into our units and turn on the air conductors.

    So no one here has died of the heat.

    So apart from very high electricity bills, part die to 40 % of renewable , we are all comfortable.

    MJE VK5ELL

  42. I have little interest in conversion confessions from so-called scientists, because no competent scientist should have ever been to the Green side. Those who have are merely demonstrating a weakness of the mind. An acceptance of messages sold by advertising.
    There has never been a scientific reason to go along with global warming theory because its fundamentals have never been validated. Therefore, there is no point in reading about forecasts and hindcasts because they are synthetic constructs, cardboard ideas rather than hard steel.
    You need go little further than the century-long failure to prove a quantitative link between atmospheric temperatures and CO2 concentrations. It is a fraudulent science that refuses to accept failed hypotheses. Geoff S

  43. $200 Trillion (through 2100) wasted on the global warming fraud WOULD HAVE SOLVED EVERY OTHER real PROBLEM encountered by mankind.

    Opportunity costs never enter the Climate Crisis Fraud equations.

  44. We would not have called ourselves experts in computer modelling but merely computer modellers. We did however qualify as such by our expertise. I would bet you several thousand pound that our forecasts of the chip behaviour were considerably better than any better than average could hope to be.
    Why? Because the physics was known and manageable complexity with the computing power available. The input data was treble checked by a sceptical team of, in our case feminist led with a point to make, QA examiner who let nothing slip in any shape or form. Finally and most importantly the result checked against reality with a really quite hard line committee investigation into even quite small deviations as to the reason. Probably as far from the climate science ethos of arrogance, lack of verification and totally unjustified self confidence as you could get if you tried.

  45. ” Yet, if you ask someone to name an important belief that they have changed their mind about, in response to evidence and/or logic, most struggle to give even one example.”

    I my case, that’s because I was completely right about everything to start with. Evidence and logic simply supported me, so I never had to change my mind.

  46. “It’s not that global warming isn’t a problem, but the problem has been misrepresented, and over-hyped (by people with good intentions).”

    Good intentions? As a famous businessman used to say in Australia “pig’s arse!”

    The massaging of temperature data tells a different story. And the data starting from 1958 tells more about the motivation than what human emissions do. It started a few years after scientists started taking Global Warming seriously, but ones looking to promote nuclear power.

  47. “Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were wrong, and how to improve them…”

    Touchingly naive.

    They spend vastly more time trying prove why the real-world must somehow be wrong.

    And getting paid handsomely for it, thank you very much.

  48. Byron Sharp, what a joke…

    Who won the climate bet, Armstrong vs Gore?
    Gore, not participating, was assigned the “IPCC trend 3 C/century”
    Armstrong claimed no change, 0 C/century
    Dataset UAH, period 2008-2017 (ten years)

    Outcome: The trend for UAH v6 2008.0 -2018.0 was 4.74 ±4.35 °C/century (2σ)
    according to: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    A convincing victory for the non-participating Al Gore, who actually underestimated the trend. Notice that the trend is statistically significant despite the conservative accounting for possible autocorrelation.

  49. I happened upon this site and am new to the discussion. I have read many interesting comments back and forth and am left with a few questions.

    First – Are all those concerned about the climate considered alarmists, all who are not concerned or don’t believe considered to be lacking in scientific rigor or is there a middle ground where you are concerned but still sorting out the details?

    Second, I somewhere missed why someone called someone else Genocide Jim and why it is surmised he hates all brown people.

    An observation – I am highly skeptical regardless of the “side” of the discussion when I see the words – always, never, all and anything ad hominem. My high school debate team training taught me to avoid all of those so as not to weaken my position.

    • I have a long history with Jim. He just cannot seem to grasp how alarmism kills. I have repeatedly posted the Lomborg TED talk that details this anti-human activity, along with my own explanations, and yet he alone does not get it. Occasionally someone comes along and is slow on the uptake, and requires some additional explaining. But all rational humans understand that spending trillions on a minor issue over which we have virtually no control instead of spending it where it saves millions of lives annually is not logical.

      The vast majority of those who suffer and die due to alarmism are poor brown people. Starving a demographic to death is not an act of love.

      Jim has earned his moniker the hard way.

      • I would be one of the first to say that we cannot simultaneously excoriate indigenous peoples for clear cutting a forest while at the same time refusing any investment or other support that would allow them to attain a decent standard of living by any other means. I am not sure exactly where that puts me on the scale of reasonable person to genocidal but hopefully towards the end of reasonable.

        On the other hand, I am not sure there are many on the earth short of a few well known examples that can “earn” such a moniker. As I mentioned above, I am trying to learn about climate change and especially about the non-obvious aspects of the debate.

        I am from the US which likely explains my lack of familiarity with certain terms used here (i.e. sockpuppetry). It seems I can learn much here : )

        • Scott, you sound like one of the good guys, so far. Might I suggest you look into the Lomborg TED Talk, this part of the debate does not get near enough attention. Lomborg believes man is responsible for warming, and that this could be a problem, but he also realizes that we have much larger issues we can address with an enormously larger ROI. Logic and compassion work well together.

          Jim does not understand, or does not want to understand. Or doesn’t care.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

  50. Gator, I will definitely watch the TED talk (I love those in general) and am realistic enough to understand the whole point of ROI (I am a math guy). One thing that is often overlooked when thinking about ROI is that there are many types of “capital”. There is the obvious like actual funds but there are some that aren’t so obvious like time and even the capacity for outrage. It is easy to get numb to any specific situation because there are so many situations that can outrage us. I am an animal lover and the ads showing animals being abused affect me deeply but I am going to “spend” my capital on things that matter even more to me such as a hungry child.

  51. Scott, I meant to address a couple of your thoughts yesterday, but I was too overwhelmed with life to get to them.

    I happened upon this site and am new to the discussion.

    Do you mean that you are new to the skeptical side?

    First – Are all those concerned about the climate considered alarmists, all who are not concerned or don’t believe considered to be lacking in scientific rigor or is there a middle ground where you are concerned but still sorting out the details?

    Alarmists are just as the name describes, they are those that are making claims that our very normal climate change is an “existential threat”. It isn’t.

    The middle grounders are likely what we call “luke warmers”, who believe in man made warming, but do not believe that it is a threat.

    I have an extensive background in Earth Sciences. I lived in the US and Europe during the ice age scare, and yes it was a real thing, on both continents. This inspired me to take my first geology class forty years ago, and I worked my way through the Earth Sciences department, including climatology. I have spent the rest of my life studying this issue, it is nearly an obsession with me, as I hate seeing science being so grossly misrepresented. There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here. Our climate is constantly in flux, and we are still rebounding from possibly the coldest period in the past 10,000 years. If we had seen no change in our climate since the end of the LIA, that would have been unusual. Anyone who tells you that our climate should remain stable truly has no idea of what they speak. That is delusional and ignorant.

    Welcome to the discussion of the century Scott!

  52. Gator, I have a long standing “rule” I try to live by – if I find that I have accepted a position because “it sounds right” and/or most of what I know is anecdotal (however compelling) without having fully examined the underlying data, I always make it a point to seek out that data so I can come up with my own conclusions.

    The above led me to this site and I am making every effort to use these comments to read and attempt to make sense of the original source studies. I hope that makes sense.

Comments are closed.