The Real Climate Debate

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog

The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.

And not between Republicans and Democrats.

The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed.  Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.


The real rebate is between two groups:

1.   A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions.  I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)

2.  A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests.  They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.  I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).

There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.

Jamie Margolin of Seattle talked about an apocalyptic future, with “corporations making billions” while they destroy the future of her generation.  Of feeling fear and despair.  Of a planet where the natural environment is undergoing collapse, where only a few years are left before we pass the point of no return, and where only a massive political shift can fix things, including the Green New Deal.  Watch her testimony to see what I mean.
Compare Ms. Margolin’s testimony to that of University of Washington senior Benji Backer.
Mr. Backer, leader of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative/moderate group of young people supporting action to protect the environment, approaches the problem in a radically different way.  Instead of despair, there is optimism, recommending more scientific and technical research, a bipartisan attack on the problem, a rejection of an apocalyptic future, the building of new energy industries with potential benefits for the American economy, and a dedication to follow the science and not political expediency.  His testimony is here.
Both Ms. Margolin and Mr. Backer care deeply about the environment and want effective measures to deal with global warming.  Both their approaches and attitudes could not be more different.

We see the difference between the optimistic ACT group and the despairing ASP folks here in Seattle.

On one hand, there is the Clean Tech Alliance, which brings together technology companies, university researchers, and the business community to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for.  Headed by Tom Ranken, the Alliance does a lot, including a highly informative breakfast series where you can learn about fusion power, new battery technologies, the future of solid waste recycling, and much more.  Non-political, optimistic, and exciting.  These are clearly members of the ACT group.
In contrast, there is Seattle’s group.  They are into climate strikes, staging protests (like their recent blockade of a branch of Seattle Chase Bank), trying to muzzle climate scientists they don’t like, advocating political solutions to greenhouse warming (Green New Deal), pushing divestment of energy companies, and even a Pledge of Resistance to stop energy exports by whatever means necessary.  Their “science” page has all kinds of extreme (and unfounded) claims regarding global warming impacts, like a sea level rise of 10 feet in as little as 50 years.  ASP group all the way.

I should note that the Seattle group and their “allies” oppose the Tacoma Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Facility that will help replace the extraordinarily dirty “bunker fuel” used in ships traversing Puget Sound. LNG will also reduce carbon emissions. Scientists and regulators at the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency support the LNG facility.  But facts and protection of the health of Puget Sound residents are not priorities for highly politicized groups like
A good example of the differences between the ACT and ASP folks is found in Washington State’s recent carbon initiatives.
Initiative 732 was backed by Carbon Washington, a non-political group whose bi-partisan proposal would have increased the price of carbon fuels but was revenue neutral, giving all the funds collected back to the citizens of the State.  Carefully designed and impactful.  The work of the ACT group all the way.

But the ASP folks were unhappy.  There was no money for their climate justice and political initiatives, so they opposed it, and were joined by Governor Inslee and the environmental left.  Unforgivable, nasty attacks were made on Carbon Washington leadership by the ASP folks.   732 lost.
The ASP collective decided it was their turn, so they created a Frankenstein carbon initiative (1631), with a lowered (less effective) carbon fee, but one in which climate justice groups and political allies on the left would have control, and were hardwired for much of the funds.   The main advertising line of the 1631 ads:  catastrophe was around the corner and the big oil companies were to blame.  1631 was an election day disaster, losing by 13 points, and the ASP folks have probably killed any hope for an effective carbon tax/fee in our state.

What about the media?  Which side are they on?  ASP or ACT or neither?
Much of the “mainstream” media parrots the message of  the ASP side.  The Seattle Times is a great case in point, with headlines of massive heat related deaths (750 die per event!) and catastrophic wildfire seasons that have no basis in good science.  But there are plenty of others, such as the LA Times and the NY Times.    There are some major media outlets that are more balanced (such as the Wall Street Journal).   A major issue for the media is the hollowing out of science reporting, with most climate stories being handled by general reporters with neither the time, background, or inclination to get beyond parroting the press releases of activist groups or evaluating the claims of speculative research papers.  It has gotten so bad that a recent headline story in the Seattle Times kept on talking about the WRONG GAS (carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide).

A Religious Movement
In many ways, the ASP group appears to be a religious movement, not unlike the many millennialist movements of the past.  As other groups in the past, they predict an apocalyptic future (including fire and brimstone!) and that one must “believe” in their viewpoint or be rejected as a “denier.”  The ASP folks have a holy viewpoint that comes from authority (they claim based on the views of 97% of scientists).  There is no debate allowed, the science is “settled.”   Sounds like religious dogma.
The ASP movement describes a world that is teetering on the edge, with mankind’s days numbers (10 or 12 years according to several of their leading prophets) unless immediate steps are taken.  They constantly repeat that the threat is existential.
They believe it is ok to distort the truth to get folks “to do the right thing.”   The ASP group has well defined “enemies” that represent true evil (Trump, Republicans, Big Oil, Koch Brothers) and they support attacking and silencing those they disagree with (my past blog gives you some documented examples of such behavior).  ASP has their priests (Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann) and even young saints (Greta Thunberg).  As in many such movements, members are guided to act in approved and enlightened ways, but the leadership does not need to follow the rules (e.g., many ASP “leaders”  have huge carbon footprints from flying).  Importantly, ASP sees their work going much further than a technical fix for technical problem, but as a “social justice” movement that will change the very organization of society.
Disturbingly, the ASP folks are against key technologies that could really make a difference, such as nuclear power, and are relatively uninterested in working on adaptation and resilience to climate change.   Many do not support dealing with our forests in a rational way (e.g., restoration with thinning and prescribed burning) but would rather blame it all on global warming.

By pushing a highly political agenda the ASP movement is undermining bipartisan efforts–and nothing important will be done unless both sides of the aisle are involved.  ASP folks love to say that the Republicans are unwilling to deal with climate change, a totally unfair claim.  I have talked personally to leading WA Republicans, like Bill Bryant and Rob McKenna.   They acknowledge the seriousness of global warming and the need to act.  In my talks in highly Republican eastern Washington, growers and others accept the problem and want to work on solutions.   Under a Republican U.S. Congress, funding for climate research has been protected and increased.  But partisan attacks by the ASP group is seen as a way to promote group cohesion and the “evil” of the other side.  Calling others names is not an effective way to secure their cooperation.
A problem for the ASP group is that their message is so dark, pessimistic and depressing that it tends to turn others off.   And it has a terrible psychological effects on its adherents and those that listen.  Fear, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, despair, and rage.  There are even classes on dealing with eco-anxiety and climate grief.  Greta Thunberg said that the worry ruined her childhood.

And yes, there is President Trump.   Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate.  Republicans in Congress do not follow his lead.  But he is a convenient foil for the ASP folks, who use him for their own purposes.

The Bottom Line
Progress on climate change is being undermined by the efforts of the highly vocal, partisan, and ineffective ASP group.  They are standing in the way of bipartisan action on climate change, efforts to fix our forests, and the use of essential technologies.   They are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
In contrast to the ASP folks, the ACT group generally tries to stay out of the public eye, quietly completing the work  needed to develop the technologies and infrastructure that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to climate change.  In the end, they will save us.  That is, if the ASP folks don’t get in their way.

445 thoughts on “The Real Climate Debate

  1. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    Yes it is , and no they don’t

    The paradigm both empirically and theoretically is BS .

    • Correct. There is a third group – GR perhaps? (Get Real) – that follows the science and realises that the climate models don’t.
      [No that’s not a typo or a grammatical error!]

          • And how many more decades will it take for “skeptics” to stop rejecting the scientists and finally face the overwhelming opinion that tells us we have 2 years *max* to act before climate systems are out of our control? There’s a fine line between skepticism and denihilism, and that line ends at the point when you hear about the science. Ignorance was an absolute defense for not believing the scientists 40 years ago, because you didn’t know who you were not believing or what you weren’t believing them about. But once they tell you, that excuse vanishes. A real skeptic agrees, because skepticism means following the authoritative view wherever it leads, whether you like the implications or not. A denihilist just keeps demanding to see their working. It’s almost as though certain people, not mentioning any names, don’t even *want* to be persuaded.

          • Brad:

            Ignorance was an absolute defense for not believing the scientists 40 years ago.. blah..

            All those years ago they were telling us a new ice age was on the way and there was “consensus”, apparently. We’re tired of shifting goalposts and putting up with lunatics that make everything more expensive for no valid reason.

          • If only the “overwhelming majority” was as majorly correct as they are underwhelmingly persuasive.

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N,

            Impending Reglaciation Consensus? That zombie canard, really?

            Oh, I used to suffer the same False Memory Syndrome too. But did I blindly trust the testimony of my own brain? No, I had the humility to know my limits. I’m not a historian of science.

            Are you? Great, so I’m sure you won’t mind providing us with a complete list of your peer-refereed publications in the relevant historical sciences and, just to be safe, some evidence of your legitimacy in the form of a photocopy of your parents’ marriage license, will you? Nothing personal, you understand—just being skeptical. That’s meant to be a good thing according to you guys, right?

            Anyway, I decided to check the facts first, before I risked spouting misinformation that would only play into the hands of history’s best-funded anti-scintific industry lobby.

            So I did what scientists do. I went to SkepicalScience. It’s a blog you’ve probably never heard of ever (hence your denihilism), but the great thing is it’s fully science-based, and if I thought the facts were welcome at WUWT I’d paste my 15 or 20 favorite slabs of information below, to help broaden your horizons. But you and I both know such an antidote to anti-scienec would “conveniently” get lost in moderation.

            The whole encounter is described here.

            But in a nutshell: when I got there, I apologized for my uncertainty and told the resident science-based bloggers what I [thought I] remembered from the 1970s, with the caveat that I’m not a practicing climate scientist any more. Then I asked them to please tell me what science had to say about all this.

            And you know what? It was a major learning moment. They didn’t just disagree, or correct me, or explain, point by point, why the 1970s didn’t happen the way I seemed to recall. None of that. Instead they took the very rare step of deleting my comment immediately, without a trace, so that nobody else would get misinformed by it. (I found out later that that’s almost never been necessary over the many years they’ve run the blog!)

            That’s how wrong I was, apparently.

            Ouch. Talk about embarrassing. On the bright side, they’d spared my blushes by expunging any record of the howler, for which I’ll be grateful as long as the Internet exists.

            I can’t help but notice the proprietors of the present venue seem to have no such qualms about being associated with urban myths, or so it seems because your alt-historical assertion is STILL there. Ladies and gentlemen, draw your own conclusions about the standards of rigor at “the world’s most-read so-called science site.” I’m not saying a word!

            Anyway: there is a cure for False Memory Syndrome. You just have to want to get better.

          • A real skeptic agrees, because skepticism means following the authoritative view wherever it leads

            No, blindly following authority is the antithesis of skepticism.

            That is yet another appeal to authority fallacy. Skepticism means questioning what self proclaimed “experts” say they believe and demanding to see the data ( without it be falsified ) and checking results.

            What you are proposing is faith based “science” which is an oxymoron. You are obviously a faith based oxy yourself.

          • @Brad Keyes:

            “So I did what scientists do. I went to SkepicalScience.”


            Funniest line in this entire thread.

          • Brad Keyes-
            “And how many more decades will it take for “skeptics” to stop rejecting the scientists and finally face the overwhelming opinion that tells us we have 2 years *max* to act before climate systems are out of our control? “.

            And there we have it in a nutshell. The problem is an “overwhelming opinion”.
            Since we’ve been at it now for some 30-40 years it will take another 30-40 for the troublemakers to die off. It will happen much faster if the next 10-20 years are colder due to the Grand Minimum that seems to be developing in the sun.

            In the mean time most normally intelligent people will realize that the climate isn’t getting dramatically warmer. Storms aren’t worse or more frequent. The sea level has only risen a couple of centimeters.

            A really nastier alternative is if the cold Grand Minimum sticks around for a number of years we may realize that the world is falling into another glaciation. Time to dump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible.

          • Brad Keyes sez:
            And how many more decades will it take for “skeptics” to stop rejecting the scientists and finally face the overwhelming opinion that tells us we have 2 years *max* to act before climate systems are out of our control? (bold mine)

            Oh, OK, you just forgot the sarc tag. For a minute I thought you actually believed such nonsense.

          • Brad sez:
            “And how many more decades will it take for “skeptics” to stop rejecting the scientists and finally face the overwhelming opinion that tells us we have 2 years *max* to act before climate systems are out of our control? ”
            The more times I read this, the more awestruck I become.
            But I know when I am licked, and am ready to admit it now: Climate systems are out of our control!
            There, I admitted it.
            I feel so much better!
            Look folks, if it takes you all several decades just to face the run-of-the-mill opinions of experts, let alone their overwhelming opinions, who knows how many times between now and then we will have blown our last chance? I just hope in twenty years, we still have two years to act, is all. Oh, sure, the two year deadline has not budged for the past 30 years, but how can we be sure that by the time 2040 rolls around, the doomsday window will not have shrunk to 18 months, or even a year?!

            And since we are “finally” “getting real” about “it”, I just want to say that I am also gonna confess that beyond my brazenly skeptical inner façade, I have always wanted to be persuaded, I really have.
            It is just so damned difficult!
            You see it do you not, Brad?
            Opinions of evidence, are not evidence of opinions!
            And you can misquote me on that.

        • Wow Lyle, is there any lie that you won’t repeat?
          The only thing Exxon knew is the same thing everyone knew. That CO2 was a weak greenhouse gas.
          The only thing Hansen nailed was his reputation.

          • Brad said
            “So I did what scientists do. I went to SkepicalScience.”

            I t is a good thing I was sitting down, or I would have fallen about laughing…

            Good scientists go to the data.

            Only total idiots go to skepticalscience.
            Because it isn’t. Sceptical, or science.

          • Hilarious!! Somebody who actually believes Cook knows what he’s talking about!

            Try this, Brad! Go to Pierre Gosselin’s site: It’s a blog, just like Cook’s “anythingbutSkeptical Science”, but don’t let that put you off! Take a look at the sidebar and follow any of the links to any of the more than a thousand, scientific, peer-reviewed papers from the last half-dozen years that call into question the more extreme claims by the climate “establishment”.

            Now, I’m sure you’re going to do that because I’m sure you are a genuine seeker after truth so you will be giving those equally well-qualified climate scientists and their research conclusions the same consideration you give to Mr Cook and his blog, won’t you?

            Then you can come back and tell us what you found out. We’ll still be here, as will the planet which has been through more turbulent times than this, with more CO2 and less CO2 and higher temperatures and lower temperatures and not one single shred of empirical evidence that today is any different!

        • PS: The climate models show 2 to 3 times more warming than has actually occurred. Anywhere outside the climate alarmist community, that counts as broken.

          • There´s only one old book “Mein Kampf” proven skillful in this climate farce, and it´s written by Adolf Hitler. It´s very good quide book to proof propandas power. That power we see and hear everyday. Word by word.

            And they call us deniers.

          • Skillful at cooling the past and manipulating/altering data. Not the kind of skillful that one would hope for.

          • Skillful means that the results aren’t accurate, but they are close enough that I can use them to scam other people for more money.

            PS, I love the way that even the climate scammers admit that the models are useless for regional predictions, but when averaged together they kinda look like what we want to see.
            Only in climate science can all your answers be wrong, but when averaged together, they are kind of right.

          • Steve, go take care of Greta.
            Or hang out with XR.
            The models are crap and your denial of this doesn’t make you look brighter.

        • Lyle,
          All alarmist “climate scientists” rely on computerized models of the General Circulation Model (GCM) variety to support their activism and push for “solutions” like the Green New Deal. The problem is that the inherent estimation variance is so high in GCM predictions that the results are useless! You coukd get similar results from a dart board, which would also be a much cheaper method and one that has recreational benefits, too!

          Putting it bluntly, now that you know how terrible the computerized GCM results are, how can you possibly support anything the alarmist “climate scientists” say or do? Their whole movement is based on deception, and that is potentially more dangerous because while they worship at the carbon alter, nature will likely have other disastrous consequences in our future!

          How dare you??

        • Lyle—” Exxon and Hansen nailed it from over thirty years ago.”
          Please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. Otherwise you appear to be just another paid shill of the TRILLION DOLLAR Climate Alarm Industry.

        • One cherry picked graph from Exxon doesn’t mean anything. It was a reproduction of another scientists work from 10 years earlier. Exxon did 100s of similar graphs and studies all copying existing studies to present all angles. So one was kinda semi close but still wrong because the science was wrong but it got the warming amount similar vs 100 that didn’t.

          Is just a joke to claim a copied study is proof.

        • Wrong Lyle:

          Hansen presented three predictions of the near future temperature, and the change in CO2 levels.

          One of the three temperature predictions was in the ballpark, and so was one of the three CO2 predictions, but the “best” of three CO2 prediction was not associated with the “best” of three temperature predictions.

          Yesterday I made a bet about a stock — I predicted it’s price would go up, or go down, or stay the same. Three predictions, just like Hansen — I bet one of them will be right !

        • The only thing Hansen nailed was bullshit to a wall.
          And your idiocratic swipe at Exxon is so ignorant it is not merely wrong.

        • I’m in Climate Change Denier-Asshole group because I see what is motivating the many stakeholder groups promoting the Climate Scam.
          And they all hate that I can today afford to fill my Chevy Silverado and completely waste the fuel on recreation activities. I’m a deplorable middle class white male.

          • I’m in the astonished group. I read Brad Keyes long close minded diatribe about how only SkepicalScience has the real truth. That’s not unlike trying to learn about how Republicans think by restricting oneself only to what Nancy Pelosi says about Trump. I will give him brownie points for caring about us skeptics so much.

          • Justin,

            Brad likes to make fun of alarmists by taking their positions to their logical conclusions and dialing the rhetorical flourishes up to a Spinal Tap 11. It is how he amuses himself. The reactions are pretty good, but it does tend to hijack a thread from time to time.

      • I’m in your GR group, Mike. What about the flawed historical data? And the sparse planetary coverage? E.g., there were only 1,100 weather stations in Africa as of 2017. So each station covered an average of 10,000 sq miles. Guess how many there were when Stanley met Dr. Livingstone?

      • Yes, the CAGW nuts of both the revolutionary and the slow but steady type have decided to win the debate by declaring that nobody believes CAGW is not happening. They say that I don’t exist rather than their answering the arguments that show that they haven’t proven their hypothesis.

      • And a fourth held by many computer modellers that are interested in the subject that says that the day it became climate change instead of global warming the computer models are an expensive and unreliable way of deciding if climate change is man made or not.
        With one world you have to model the other option if the change is global. The day it became regional it becomes a simple engineering heat transfer and gas movement problem that could be decided by and average person with reasonable observational skills and intelligence.
        Emissions are concentrated at source and disperse from there so both initial heating and greenhouse effect have to be greatest where fossil fuel is used and hence the heating anomalies also have to be greatest in these areas. Yes there are a few provisos of collection points for the gases and delayed heating but these have to be slow rise rates as they will be low emission densities and therefore not much greenhouse effect.
        I believe just two sources prove it is not man made. One from Boaty Macboatface and the UN presentation claiming climate change will cause civilisation collapse. Whoops sorry the wrong way round; the boat was renamed Attenborough and democracy ridden over rough shod again by the establishment. Cause clearly does not match effect and has dispersed anyway before reaching the highest anomaly region.
        The other is sea anomalies from NASA.

        Whole article.
        Relevant picture.
        NASA anomaly.

      • Brad Keyes,
        So now, after about 100 years of tipping points being only a few years away you actually say in writing that we only have two years to prevent….what exactly?
        There is no data based rational science to support your claim.
        There is no tipping point. There is no climate emergency. There is no mass die off, no mass deaths from climate or weather, no increases in famine. No increases in storm severity of frequency. There is no increases in Forest fires, severe heat wave intensity or duration.
        You believe, and are repeating, untruths.
        The answer as to why you choose this is up to you to find out.

    • After so many years of predictions, show me the ones that point to a Co2 problem.
      Last night I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger say that millions of people are dying from climate change, if so, show me the evidence.
      I hear predictions of this century will will have reached the point of no return? I agree the BOM in Australia have adjusted historical temperatures so much that we no longer see the truth, and if those records are lost there is no way back.
      I would love the climate sides to have a fair and televised debate where only data can be presented that has been fact checked and tested to be true.
      I would like to see un-adjusted data be presented and overlaid with adjusted data and an open review taken place before it can be used.
      I would like to see all sides have an equal voice and people or organizations that falsify data be locked up.

      But then I am naive and like to think that people still have morals

      • “Unless action is taken.” So go ahead, ASP’s, “take action.” Show us the way you want us all to live! Lead by example. Be living exemplars of the better way, the new age of the “green” future. Don’t use heat, AC, autos, planes, or meat. Grow your own vegan food on your own windowsill. Put up a windmill to charge your phone. Invest in insulation, geothermal, solar, set an example by being willing to put your money where your mouth is and PAY FOR IT.

        Instead of juvenile costumes, lighting dumpster fires and impeding workers’ morning commute SHOW US the “action” and “fundamental change” you desire! Show us a viable Better Way! Trouble is, you can’t and you won’t.

      • Funny, they can’t show me the bodies for the people killed by climate change, nor for the “mass-extinction” species that are gone. Without a body, detective work becomes very hard!

        I tell people all the time that if they want to know why I don’t support this bovine scat, that they should look at the temperature for July of 1933. The problem is that the reported number for that date in ancient history changes depending on when you look at it. It was quite high in the first graph I looked at in the 1970s, but has gone down with each monthly update since. 1930s data doesn’t change month to month in 2019 in the real world, but in the global records, they change with each homogenization run. It isn’t like we are in a quantum interval where the energy waveform collapses with each observation. We are no where near hbar energy precision here.

      • That’s the issue. Even those that agree with the basic premise are turned off by the clear and absurd falsehoods. They’ve been shouting “The sky is falling” for so many years that they don’t see that it’s not working anymore.

        That’s why I never say “Global warming is a hoax”. I say it has been “exaggerated to the point of falsehood”. People instinctively understand this, as there have been so many exaggerated climate scares over the years. They often compare it to acid rain. “Might be a problem, and we should address it in an effective manner, but we aren’t going to all die, despite what the media claims”. Argue to wisdom and people will follow

        • “That’s why I never say “Global warming is a hoax”. I say it has been “exaggerated to the point of falsehood”.”

          I think that is a good idea.

    • Why do we need to stop global warming?

      4C warming is the end of civilization? No it means I have to shovel snow in Dec to Feb, instead of in September and May.

      The earth has been much warmer in the past and we are all still here. In fact many climate activists, politicians, and celebrities vacation in places that are 10 to 30C warmer than their home towns.

      Why does Greta et al want me to freeze?

      • I see. If you don’t agree with Cliff Mass, you are excluded from the ‘debate’. Simples.
        If you won’t accept the multiply flawed AGW premise, you can’t be part of multiply flawed debate!
        He doesn’t call you a ‘denier’. No. This arrogant elitist just thinks he can exclude you from any further discussions on the climate change debate because, from his tunnel vision perspective “Both sides of the real climate debate agree on… global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed”.

        I won’t waste further time on this backhand sneering elitist. Nor will I offer any support in his further struggles with the university of washington suppressing his speech when Cliff Mass directly acts to suppress legitimate debate of the AGW hypothesis’s many flaws.

      • “Why do we need to stop global warming?”

        Wow, that ticks off a complete row of my Conservative Bingo card.

        Fair enough. So you don’t believe in the science. Good news: you don’t even have to.

        It’s still in your best interest to act on climate change, whether or not you accept the evidence, because the longer we leave it, the more expensive it’ll be. And it’s already a grievous hecatomb that the science is asking us to sacrifice, so just imagine those trillions (yes, twelve zeros!) *doubled* because we decided to wait a couple of hundred years first. Do you really want to look your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids in the eye and explain that just because the science was wrong, you decided to ignore the economics as well?

        So the worst that can happen, EVEN assuming—counterreally—that some small part of the science was somehow flawed or uncertain—is that we’ll save money by spending it today, not in the future, when everything costs more.

        There’s no reason both “sides” can’t agree to just get on with it. Something seriously disingenuous is obviously behind all the perpetual dawdling and cunctation.

        • It’s not in my best interest or yours, Brad. Gads, man! Listen to yourself. You sound bat shit crazy! Get a grip on your self-induced delusions!

          • Heh, on the contrary. Satire is one of the best ways to attempt to stay sane in these times, loony as chiropteran excrement as they are.

          • GETTA CLUE, …… Gard R. Rise, ……. Brad Keyes has not been writing what you perceived to be “satire”. His posted commentary is as serious as a heart attack.

            Like most all “religious fanatics”, …… including the Christian, the Islamic and the Anthropogenic Global Warming kind, …… their commentary is normal and correctly presented ……. BUT only makes sense to their like-minded family, friend and/or associates.

            And it does one no good in attempts at correcting their “misbeliefs” because they have nurtured themselves to totally ignore any contrary facts, evidence or opinions.

            In other words, …….. “THEY CAN’T HEAR YOU” ……. cause they don’t want to hear you.

          • Hey J Mac, I think we should all get together and provide Brad with a nice dinner of crow for Thanksgiving 2021, when his two years will be up.

          • I guess you guys never checked out Mr. Keyes’ Climate Nuremberg blog; you should, it’s really hilarious. Of course it’s all satire, and at its best damn good satire, too. English is not my mother tongue, but I know enough to be able to detect satire and sarcasm even without the presence of a /sarc tag. For a while there, I was afraid Mr. Keyes had retired, but I’m happy to see him still going strong 🙂

          • Samuel C Cogar,

            mad props and many thanks for being just about the only person here who’s able to grasp the totally non-satirical nature of my “normal,” “correctly presented” arguments. I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the point I’m making, which is “serious as a heart attack.” Can I borrow that phrase, by the way, for my climate-change talks? It neatly sums up what the latest scientists are now believing. When will your fellow denihilists realize that they’re kidding nobody when they call my style parodical? I’m sure it’s just a defense mechanism. Nobody enjoys thinking about heart attacks… until they have one.

            While I disagree with your science and will fight to the death for the scientists’ right to stop you expressing your sincere opinion, I acknowledge your opinional sincerity. It won’t change the facts, though.

          • Samuel,
            Brad proves with his every post that people do not read very carefully.
            Or, more specifically, the people who do not understand Brad’s devotion to proving Poe’s Law do that.
            As suggested, go to the Climate Nuremberg site:
            “Whoa—don’t get all judgy! Several factors are at play.
            The simplest one is that on the Internet, readers don’t actually read anything writers write.
            They scan. And once a given text has activated either of the 2 known climate-rhetoric schemata (Affirmative or Negative), it becomes all too easy for the reader’s brain to start missing or actively suppressing the little deviations from the template that a satirist includes in order to be… well, satirical.
            Such blindness to detail isn’t necessarily a bug in the reader’s neural software—you could even think of it as a tribute to her built-in powers of noise correction and tolerance—but it does make it a lot harder to get subtleties across to her.
            Another thing nobody likes to talk about, because it isn’t funny, is that parody and satire come from a place of respect, even affection. You can’t take the piss out of people whose mentality you can’t relate to, at least on some level.
            We all have someone in our lives who’s a climate believer—a mother, a brother, a friend, a colleague—and hopefully we’ve figured out by now that it’s not really their fault. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid, gullible or immoral. It only means they never learnt how science works, which is hardly an indictment of them. After all, 98% of the population has never been taught.”

            Or read one of his posted articles here, like this one…the most definitive take down of the consensus studies I have ever read:

          • Nicholas McGinley – October 22, 2019 at 8:09 am

            We all have someone in our lives who’s a climate believer—a mother, a brother, a friend, a colleague—and hopefully we’ve figured out by now that it’s not really their fault. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid, gullible or immoral. It only means ……………….

            Nicholas, it only means ……… “You are what your environment nurtured you to be.

            And here is an example of …. “environmental misnurturing”, to wit:

            Brad Keyes October 20, 2019 at 10:33 pm – “It’s still in your best interest to act on climate change, whether or not you accept the evidence, because the longer we leave it, the more expensive it’ll be. And it’s already a grievous hecatomb that the science is asking us to sacrifice, so just imagine those trillions (yes, twelve zeros!) *doubled* because we decided to wait a couple of hundred years first. Do you really want to look your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids in the eye and explain that just because the science was wrong, you decided to ignore the economics as well?

            Nothing stated in the above infers, implies or suggest the author’s intent was “satirical”. On the contrary, most every science learned individual should/would consider said commentary …. if not misnurtured or miseducated, …. then surely delusional.

            And even the religiously delusional individuals will attest to the fact that they can not control the “weather” from one day to the next, let alone one week to the next, ….. but are firmly convinced that they know how to control the “climate”.

            “HA”, there is a better chance of them being rewarded with “20 virgins” after their demise.

          • Samuel,
            I am not at all getting how you can read this:
            “Do you really want to look your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids in the eye and explain that just because the science was wrong, you decided to ignore the economics as well? ”
            …and then say you see nothing that indicates satirical intent.
            Granted, his satire is written in a style which is often convoluted and subtle.
            This means you need to read it carefully.
            Hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, coupled with industrial strength vocabulary.
            Non-obvious satire is satire nonetheless.
            Beyond that, just try reading the entirely of what Brad writes, here on this site and elsewhere.
            I want to just ask straight out: Do you think Brad is a skeptic, or not?

          • And Brad!
            You are truly incorrigible.
            *tries to stop sniggering*
            Why do you torture people like this?
            Maybe aim that big cannon at the Kristi Silber’s of the world for a while, eh?

        • There’s no reason both “sides” can’t agree to just get on with it.

          No reason at all apart from destroying our economy , way of life, foregoing democracy and submitting to the dictates of non elected , non accountable, UN officials with total immunity from prosecution.

        • Brad Keyes

          There must be science to believe in science. Without science there´s only believe. If there´s only believe it´s called religion.

        • ‘The science’ – we must believe in ‘the science’!
          Brad, you don’t get it.
          The way that scientific research works (and yes, I worked for several years on a commercial research project) is to present findings and to have them discussed openly. A critical attitude is essential, plus a willingness to accept that something once believed to be correct may later be shown to be in doubt or in fact incorrect.
          The media machine and the scientific illiterates who have access to it bear a heavy responsibility for the CO2 scare, and the unimaginably huge amounts of money that been wasted on ‘mitigating climate change.’
          The IPCC was formed in 1988. What’s changed since that time? Here in the UK, the Met Office has data from the real world (not a computer fantasy) going back to 1659. I’m 70 years old, and I’ve lived here all of my life. The British climate subjectively hasn’t changed – I go outside, and it’s a typical autumn. You want proof? Have a look at the Met Office data in this link:

          Now tell me – where is the so-called ‘climate emergency’?
          Yes, of course climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon – look for example at the Schnidejoch pass in Europe which was under ice for hundreds of years, and where medieval artefacts have been found since the retreat of the ice. But a ‘climate emergency’ caused by mankind? Now? Absurd, yet people believe it because they are being lied to.
          Consider ocean ‘acidification’ – do you know how the pH scale works, and that some so-called scientists would deem a change from pH 14 to pH 13.99 ‘acidification’ rather than a minor change in an extremely alkaline solution? I challenged one of them years ago about this – an American, and he would not budge from this nonsense. Because of this, members of the public are duped into believing that the oceans are turning to acid – but never mind, a good scare makes it possible to get more government grants to ‘mitigate’ imaginary problems.
          I confidently predict that fifty years into the future, we’ll still be here, doomsday will not have occurred as predicted – and PhD theses will be written on what one prominent scientist with around 500 published papers to his name (Dr. Nils Axel-Morner) has called ‘the greatest lie ever told’.

          • carbon 500.
            Your comment about the mediaeval artifacts(I believe some have now been redatedto much earlier times) found under the ice of the Schnidejoch pass ,suggest so me that the pass was ice free at that time, as the artifacts were discovered after ice had melted.The ice therefore must have been deposited after they were lost or abandoned& remained buried for centuries, until recently discovered .
            Logically ,this tells me that temperatures at that time were similar to today followed by a much colder intervening period .

          • kendo2016 – October 22, 2019 at 8:43 am

            carbon 500.

            Logically ,this tells me that temperatures at that time (Medieval Warm Period) were similar to today followed by a much colder intervening period (LIA).

            kendo2016, …. better yet, ……. an d just as soon as a lot more snow and ice in the Alp Mountains, north of Italy, melts away because of “global warming”, ….. one might easily find artifacts of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps in 218 BC with his 20-40,000 infantry, 6-12,000 cavalry and 40 elephants.

        • “… some small part of the science was somehow flawed or uncertain …”.

          The science is very uncertain, because we do not have sufficient instrumental and global data, over a long enough time span to know exactly what is happening with the planet’s climate system, which is probably one of the most complex things that the human mind can engage with.

          Your post is repeating, somewhat ad nauseum, just the same old CAGW narrative that most of us have heard and investigated for years and it’s a little past its sell-by date.

          Right now, the warmers say that doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of between 1.5C and about 4.0C. Meaningful future climate scenarios cannot be based on that.

          The should be no “sides” in this. The only “side” worth bothering with, is, imo, the one that’s really trying to figure it all out.

          • Mike in England October 21, 2019 at 5:12 am

            Right now, the warmers say that doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of between 1.5C and about 4.0C.

            But the conducting of actual, factual physical experiments have proven the above claim is utter nonsense and has thus been relegated to the status of “agitprop” (lies/untruths).

            And don’t be telling all the tens-of-thousands of educated people who claim they don’t believe in CAGW ….. because damn near every one of them keep quoting said “1.5C to 4.0C increase” ….. as if they believed it was “right as rain” …….. and/or an undeniable truth. Ells bells, … most every one of them is constantly inferring their belief that ……. current atmospheric CO2 ppm is causing “warming” ….. but they can’t measure it, prove it or justify their silly insinuations.

        • For Brad at 10:33 PM.

          Science tells us that there have been times in the last 5 million years when the earth has been warmer than it is now.

          And life still exists just fine.

          Please have the “scientists” run their models with a CO2 level of 300 ppm out for a period of say 30,000 years. Let’s see when these models predict the next ice age, if they do.

          Why the above remarks? Natural warming can and does occur. And we cannot stop it. So why spend trillions trying to do so?

          At some point in the relatively near future there will be another ice age. I’ll be dead, but my home (Canada) will be buried under 100s if not 1000s of feet of ice. No animals, no plants, no people. The UK will not be an island. The precious Great Barrier Reef will be a low lying hill. Now that will be climate change! And we have no idea when that change will start.

          • Salute!
            Thanks, Joe.
            Unless we cool off, the increased ability of air to hold and move water vapor might trigger the next glaciers.
            How did the continental glaciers get their snow?
            So maybe the alarmistas have a point, but not that a few more degrees will kill us all.
            As Carlin put it, “they just want their own little habitat”. I just want them to get it by giving up their HVAC when the wind does not blow, and ride to work on a pony, and grow all their food.
            I also wanna know the optimal temperature the warmistas are striving for.

            Gums sends…

        • Hecatomb?…. Cunctation?….

          Brad, you’re killing me here. When I have to keep the Oxford English Dictionary by my side to read your comments, I say you’ve gone too far. Time for you to absquatulate.

        • Gee, Brad, that argument would be also good for sacrificing virgins in order to prevent or forestall bad joss.
          Fortunately, we do have a lot of money to spend and nothing really important to spend it on. Unfortunately, we have rather a scarcity of virgins. So the skinflints among us can’t really make any argument for the latter.
          Of course, we could just look at 1929-1931, when human CO2 production went down by 30%, CO2 did not interrupt its languid rise, and temperatures kept rising to 1941. During the WWII years and postwar reconstruction, of course, when we did produce a fair amount of CO2, atmospheric CO2 stabilized, and temperatures declined. Only slightly, but enough to raise the calls of alarm for The Coming Ice Age! See Time and Newsweek and ScienceNews in the early ’70s.

          There really isn’t much of an argument to make is there. Is there? Do you really want to try another worldwide depression?

          Of course, for the devout, if the ritualistic fix doesn’t work, you obviously need to apply more of it.

        • I do not “believe” in science. Science is not my religion. I do consider science a useful and powerful branch of human intellect, though.

      • Quite. Even warming of 4C is only potentially dangerous, and still might be a net benefit to the planet.

    • “And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate. “

      I would say that Donald Trump is very much part of the debate.

      Donald Trump, among other things, is a graduate of economics and he can see clearly that, unless there is a substitute for current carbon fuels, at the same or lesser price, there will be simply world economic collapse or in other words wide spread starvation and privation.
      Therefore, considering the uncertainty of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” and the shrillness of uninformed debate, he prefers to look after the current economic problems as well as find alternative fuels like fracking, which ironically caused the US to have the best reduction of its “Carbon Footprint” in the world.

      Do not under-estimate this man!

      Also read this link carefully. If you do not understand it – read it until you do. This is the real science either ignored or misunderstood by the UN and unknown by the many thousands of activists and so called experts.

      • Good call, Roger, right to the point re President Trump. “not part of the debate” and yet he withdrew the USA from the Paris Agreement, which is certainly part of the debate. President Trump is a counter-puncher, leave him alone and nothing happens, attack him and you should duck.

      • The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

        I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Do you include Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, or John Christy, just to name few, in that group? I don’t get the impression they would agree with the “serious problem that must be addressed” part. Like all good scientists that engage in scientific questions, they would agree it’certainly needs to be investigated. I do admire your desire and efforts to depoliticize the issue.

      • “Do not under-estimate this man!”


        Are you listening, Democrats? Are you listening, Deep State? Are you listening, Dictators and Predators of the World?

        Senator Graham wasn’t listening a few days ago, but now he has gotten his hearing back.

        Also, don’t underestimate Trump’s 63 million supporters, whose numbers are growing.

    • Bob,
      Apparently their new solution to the debate problem is simply to Deny the existence of true climate skeptics.

      • yup. that’s it. very insightful.

        “Deny the existence of true climate skeptics.”

        brushed aside with a single sentence and drowned into non-existence with a tsunami of rhetoric.

        real propaganda about the so-called ‘real climate debate’.

        exclude the “real” opposition and the “real” science.

        really insidious.

      • Bryan A:

        Not just denying the existence of true climate skeptics but also denying both factual data and all of the uncertainty.

    • Yep, that is exactly where the real debate is: At low sensitivity CO2 is a net benefit to the planet, and high sensitivity it is *potentially* a risk.

    • The real debate, which Mr. Mass clearly does not understand, is over this true statement: Real climate science does not consist of repeated for many decades, always wrong, wild guesses, about the future climate !

      Wrong climate predictions falsify the climate change physics beliefs used to program the climate computer games, but they seem to live on forever, at least since the 1979 Charney Report, like a climate zombie !

      Wrong guesses of the future climate are climate astrology, not real climate science !

      After many decades of failed predictions, using computer games, the obvious answer is “long term climate predictions are just an opinion, very likely to be wrong””.

      The next debate is whether to trust observations of past, mild, harmless global warming … or ignore them, and wild guess that future global warming will be at a MUCH faster rate.

      No one with sense should believe the computer game climate models after so many decades of over predicting global warming.

      They are not really climate models — real models must be based on a thorough understanding of climate change physics.

      Such an understanding DOES NOT YET EXIST.

      Therefore, the computer games, falsely called GCMs or climate models, are nothing more than the opinions of the people who programmed them,
      converted into complex math and data to impress laymen !

      Anyone with sense would study the climate in the past 68 years — adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1950 — and at least determine if the mild ,intermittent global warming had been good news or bad news (good news).

      Why does FUTURE global warming have to be bad news?

      It doesn’t — future climate change could be good news, greening the planet like never before, producing more food than ever before.

      Why is it that people who have no idea whether the climate will be warmer or cooler in 100 years, are so SURE future climate change MUST BE BAD NEWS, even though past climate change, such as the mild warming since the late 1600s, was 100% good news for over 300 years ?

      Past experience with climate change suggests the global average temperature might be +0.1 degree C. ( +0.2 degrees F. ) warmer (or colder)
      ten years from now — or maybe +0.2 degrees C. warmer (or cooler).


      “Existential Crisis Example”:
      I can easily tolerate a 90 degree F. summer day here in Michigan, where I live, but 90.2 degrees F. would be intolerable — my shoes would melt on the sidewalk !

      At 90.2 degrees F., I would panic, sell our house to the first bidder, and move north to Alaska !

      The “coming climate crisis” is the biggest science fraud in the history of our planet — the “crisis” is always “coming”, but it never arrives !

      Some scientists started predicting it in the late 1950’s — the scaremongering increased a lot in the 1970’s.

      The future climate can NOT be predicted, so anyone claiming to KNOW WITH HIGH CONFIDENCE that a climate crisis is coming in the future, is either lying, or is a fool.

      And I don’t listen to fools.

      By implying ‘everyone’ recognizes global warming is a “serious problem”, Mr. Mass completely disregards polls on the subject of climate change, and is distorting what people believe.

      If Mr. Mass is SURE that climate change is a “serious problem”, and he seems quite sure, then he is f-o-o-l on the subject of climate change, completely ignoring the improving climate from the global warming since the late 1600s, probably up +2 degrees C. from that cold period.

      Stick to meteorology Mr. Mass, where you do a good job.

      But your articles on climate change have never been worth reading.

      My climate science blog,
      with over 45,000 page views:

    • I agree, not a significant problem. It has been much warmer, there has been higher CO2. Simple fact is, CO2 forcing is not going to be enough to stave of the next glacial cycle indefinitely.

    • I was thinking the exact same thing. I also don’t want a “carbon free” future either. I like being alive.

  2. global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
    Another false assumption.

    • These come from the Mitt Romney RINOs that work for corporate elites. There is very little daylight between the actual policy positions of Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Hillary Clinton that would continue to ship North American manufacturing jobs overseas to cheap labor and no environmental standards.

      • …and as long as the “we”…in “we”have to do something…is directed at us and first world countries

        it’s a con job

      • I find it fascinating that the very people who demand cheap stuff and get upset with “big” business doesn’t provide it, then turn around and whine when “big” business tries to save money by having stuff manufactured overseas.

        The jobs belong to the companies, they don’t belong to the workers and they most certainly don’t belong to the government.

        • The “unionized” autoworkers will certainly disagree with you about who the jobs belong to.

      • If the RINO-DEMO alliance was truly concerned about the Climate THEY WOULD ADVOCATE CUTTING OFF TRADE WITH CHINA.

        They do the opposite, of course.

    • CORRECT Garland, furthermore, what global warming? ~20 years of zero stat-sig warming is well past IPCC Santer’s “Temp records of at least 17 years required to falsify AGW” claim.

      MASS is a big part of the problem claiming that there is a problem with CO2.

  3. “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that”.

    You cannot be serious.

  4. I disagree. The fossil fuel funded denier community is swinging as hard as ever, and needs to be shut down. They are creating enough delay that it’s actually making it difficult to have real debate, and generate real solutions based on science and available technology.

    And since you mentioned “wings”, it seems to be right wing voters who are to blame for this. Where are their leaders? ignoring it and giving them a nod and a wink.

        • $558 million from 2003 to 2010 vs. $2 billion per year for climate scientists who claim the science is settled. If I were a climate scientist who could be bought, I’d go to where the real money is, government grants.

        • Haven’t read the paper, but the Scientific American article doesn’t seem to support this.
          Back in my old science teaching days would not have allowed this no matter what the politics was. It’s called innuendo. It is dark.

          “It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years….Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were “heavily involved” in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn’t made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch’s efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said. ……In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources”

        • That link doesn’t say what you claim.

          But let’s pretend it did. Surely, you aren’t trying to do compare 10s of millions per year to 10s of billions per year.

          If you can’t win a debate with those numbers, you don’t deserve to win.

          • “That link doesn’t say what you claim.”

            What a surprise. There seems to be a lot of that going around, when it comes to alamrists. I guess they hope the people won’t go to the trouble of reading the link, or else, they can’t read and understand the link themselves and actually think they are providing supporting evidence for their claim. 🙂

        • A six year old article based on data at least 10 years old that says no fossil fuel industry funding in more than 10 years.

          Well done.

        • The report has no basis for claiming the “dark money” is supporting the “deniers”. From his report: “In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.”
          Yes these organizations are unidentifiable, probably because they do not exist.

        • Lyle: Here’s your rebuttal:

          “Claim: Dark Money Conspiracy – star “deniers” are scripted performers
          Anthony Watts / December 23, 2013
          Guest essay by Eric Worrall
          Prof. Brulle (Drexel Uni, Phil) claims IRS helped track secret donations
          Prof. Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist of Drexel University, Phil., has published a study allegedly accusing “deniers” of being sock puppets in the pay of “dark money” from big oil.

          Marc Morano: “This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true:”

          Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’

          FergalR December 24, 2013 at 12:48 am
          “Hard not to laugh when The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are listed as funding the denial machine. And the Chamber of Commerce of The US’ entire revenue is part of the conspiracy?”

          A. Scott December 24, 2013 at 2:00 am:
          The [Brulle] paper is available here:

          markx December 24, 2013 at 2:25 am
          Elaborate Orwellian bulls***.
          “And exactly what has that money supposedly been spent on? A few dozen skeptical blogs?”

          M Courtney December 24, 2013 at 5:37 am
          “The paper assumes that the funding determines the activity and not the activity attracting the funding. In short Brulle assumes that everybody has no integrity and everyone can be bought.”

          DirkH December 24, 2013 at 6:12 am
          ” I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle”

          rogerknights December 24, 2013 at 6:19 am
          For twenty-some reasons why contrarians are not well organized and well funded, see my year-old WUWT guest-thread, Notes from Skull Island, here:

          Ron House December 24, 2013 at 6:45 am
          “I read the paper. Here’s a summary:
          Find all organisations that have ever donated a cent to the side of this argument that you don’t like, then assume they are “bankrolling” a “movement” in the face of clear evidence that the major individuals who are achieving something important (e.g. Anthony Watts) are simply promoting their sincerely held beliefs, and also put down their entire budget as part of the “bankroll” even if they only once ever gave a penny. Then, don’t give any actual evidence, don’t “show your working”, just tell us ABOUT what you did (We used this method and that theory etc.) Show a hazy connection diagram. Then write a damning conclusion.
          In short, it’s rubbish and merely adds to the proof that peer review has become worthless in modern science.”

          Patvann says: March 29, 2011 at 7:46 pm
          “Environmental psychologist”
          Are you freakin kidding me?!?!?!

        • Why don’t you look at a fossil fuel website. There will be a page or more on climate change. And it certainly won’t be about why it’s not happening or why it isn’t a problem.

          Plus there are all those full-page ads that show up in just about every high-end magazine. Haven’t you ever noticed them?

          The dirty little secret about the fossil fuel industry is that they’re all on board the AGW train.

          It would seem that your comments have the same insularity that is typical of the warmist side of the debate.

        • lyle and chaamjamal,

          I have been opposing the nonsense of damaging human-made global warming since 1980. My publications and insights have been obtained and used by policymakers in several countries; see, e,g.

          However, I have not yet obtained my share of the so-called “dark money” which you say is funded by the “climate denial industry”. Clearly, this is an error and I wish to correct it.

          You purport to be authorities on this “dark money” and, therefore, I am writing to ask you how I can claim what you say I am owed.


          • I’m still waiting for my dark money. I haven’t seen a single penny. I haven’t got a cent from the world wide organization of Evil Zionists for my support for Israel either. Maybe Lyle can give me an address to complain to.

        • Chaamjamal-you start from the false premise that there should be some “climate action implementation”. You’d have to prove that first.

    • There is no real debate. The CAGW hypothesis has been disproven. There simply no problem. Not a single piece of the CAGW theory has been shown to be true, and much of it has already been disproven.

        • I would but I know it’s fruitless with religious people like you. In time the light will come on for you too. But in the meantime you should remember a few important terms. Homogenization, Urban Heat Island effect, Funding, Correlation, The Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, the 30’s, Logarithmic co2 IR absorption, The Sun, The AMO.

        • You don’t know what CAGW stands for, yet you pretend to know enough to comment intelligently?
          The belief that climate change is going to be catastrophic has been completely disproven.

        • The ‘C’ in CAGW means that something bad will happen if something isn’t done. There is no evidence for that. It’s not that that thesis has to be disproved by skeptics, but that those who posit that thesis have to prove it. That’s the way science works.

        • I wish I could put it as succinctly as Sunny did on another thread but I’ll give it a go…
          The thought that on a planet the size of earth with over 70% of it covered by oceans and water, enveloped by a thin layer of gas, that a trace gas in that atmosphere (0.04%) can be effected by man’s contribution to it (3% of that) and that is what is driving our temperatures up is simply daft. My add to Sunny’s comment… So out of 400 molecules in 1 million molecules and we are adding 12 to that yearly, you think that is changing our temperatures? But not that (visually) small (but actually quite large) nuclear fusion reactor a mere 93 million miles away, that has no effect. Yeah, I’ll go with Sunny and say, you’re daft if you believe that.

        • “What’s “CAGW””

          CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) Gone Wild!

          When you hear alarmists (falsely) talking about how CO2 is making weather more extreme, they are talking about CAGW.

          AGW = Benign

          CAGW = Look out, Momma!

    • Lyle, get your facts straight before you spew such garbage. Do even a tiny bit of homework and you’ll find that the the enviro propaganda complex is funded a thousand times more than the realists are. Nobody on this forum gets a check from an oil company.

    • Why is a 1℃ increase in GMSTs since the end of the Little Ice Age (1450-1850) such a big problem? That any skepticism about activist climate science hysteria “needs to be shut down” sounds a lot like eco-fascism to me. Scratch an environmentalist and you’ll reveal the authoritarian within.

    • Sigh. Sorry Lyle but calling us deniers and saying we “simple folk” are the problem when almost every prediction made in the last 40 years has turned out to be wrong and all the consensus models have been way off, but provides these “serious scientists” with bushels of grant money. I don’t have any oil money but I have a car that runs well and efficiently and cheaply, and I occasionally take a vacation trip by plane. I don’t have Al Gore or Tom Steyer mansions around the country or world, but when it is cold I have heat and when it gets hot I have a/c. I’m happy. I don’t deny climate change, it has always changed. It has been a lot colder than now (worse), and warmer than now (better). CO2 has been higher and lower, and lower is worse. The end of the world is NOT nigh.

    • Real “solutions” to what problem exactly Lyle? The uneducated and unscientific are so easily misled and think they know it all because they were “told” something. The Goreacle says nobody needs to be a scientist to see climate change, just look out the window. Wow.. He heap big clever man..


    • How typical, you can’t refute the argument so you declare that the other side is somehow contaminated and must therefor be ignored.

      If you could come up with some evidence that us skeptics are in the pay of big oil, I would love to hear. You would also be famous as the first person who could actually produce said evidence.

      PS: Once again the totalitarian nature of the climate alarmist community comes to the fore. Demanding that those who dare to disagree with you must be forcibly silenced. Next comes the re-education camps, then the disappearing.

    • “denier community is swinging as hard as ever, and needs to be shut down”

      The devil is in the details. Exactly how do propose that this “community” be “shut down, Lyle?” By what means?

    • Lyle, the only thing being ignored is the endless propaganda. Propaganda is not science. If you have to resort to name calling the facts are not on your side.

    • You cannot be serious!
      “fossil fuel funded denier community”

      OK, for those of us who are not as well informed as you:
      – In that community specifically who are the “funders” and what amounts have they funded?
      (As an additional exercise please compare these amounts to the funding provided to activists by governments and tax exempt organizations as well as corporations.)
      – In that community, who are are the receivers of that largesse?
      Do you think WUWT is a recipient? If so, how much do you think they receive?

      BTW, if you think WUWT is part of that community, what is your recommended way of “shutting it down”?
      – Show the actual financial links between funders and recipients in that community.

      Hint: Using Michael Mann as a reference is not sufficient.

    • fossil fuel funded denier community

      Wow! Lyle went full retard. A “fossil fuel funded denier community” is right up there with up there with the faked moon landing in the pantheon of alarmist bugaboos.

    • Lyle

      *They are creating enough delay that it’s actually making it difficult to have real debate….*

      Climate “scientists” have refused real debate all these years. They said “debate is over”, before it started.
      Let´s start it, with facts. You lose of course, because opinion is not fact. And you know that. So let´s keep political opinions outside the real debate.

    • As one of the original CAGW skeptics, I must confess to contributing to the “dark money” supporting skeptic blogs, authors, oil companies and FF utilities. Being an old, retired guy who made a pretty good living, but not a really, really great living, I have a limited amount of (dark) money to contribute to the fight against the warmists. I suppose I donate between $100 and $200 a year to my favorite skeptical blogs, and the Heritage Foundation. I buy books by climate skeptics, gasoline for my 1986 Tahoe SUV, and have supported FF and power companies that provide heat, power, and air conditioning to my home. I also contribute small amounts to politicians who think as I do and who do what they can to stop subsidizing windmills, solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. These same politicians are also the ones who support capitalism and oppose the socialist/communist, social-justice goals of the Green New Deal.

      If I had been more successful and accumulated enough money to fund a foundation, I’d

  5. BTW, “solid waste recycling” is denier-speak for “burning plastic”. It’s just another way the fossil fuel industry gets away with producing more garbage AND more CO2.

    • We’ll just have to “recycle” our solid waste by throwing it into your yard Lyle, seeing as you haven’t come up with a solution yourself but sit there expecting everyone else to.

    • So that is green-speak, where you just make junk up

      Two posts with zero facts and nothing but troll value

    • Poor Lyle, he actually believes whatever his handlers tell him to believe.
      Plastic decomposes to CO2 and water in a few decades anyway. Why not get some energy from it before that happens.
      Or are you one of those idiots who believe that mankind must be made to suffer for the sins of being wealthy.

    • Lyle, incineration is indeed an excellent technique for recycling solid waste, including plastics. When properly done, it returns harmless water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen to the atmosphere whence they came, leaving a far smaller mineral residue which can then readily be treated further if necessary. Many European cities use incineration as the most sensible method of solid-waste recycling. Groundless fears based on environmentalist lies and exaggerations currently prevent it being implemented in many other locations.

      Similarly, many liquid semi-organic wastes are disposed of in cement kilns. Lyle, there already exists a whole world of useful industrial technologies which recycle waste streams efficiently, economically, and cleanly. Try opening your mind to what already works and what is already done. Environmentalist ignorance, negativity, nihilism, and despair is of no service to either humans or the rest of creation.

    • I took 400 pounds of stuff to our county’s transfer station today.
      Most weight in my load was paper. Saw lots of wood from construction
      projects, none of it mine.
      I had about 5 pounds of plastic and 10 pounds of glass.
      Also some cotton and a little wool — old clothes.

      None of what I took will be “recycled” nor burned.
      It all will go in a land fill.

      Never having to live without plastic or electricity,
      I wonder what that is like?

    • Perhaps Lyle is another skeptic, trolling to show how empty and non-sensical believers really are.

  6. Very nice framing of the arguments, but still misses the even the more fundamental point that most of even the IPCC claims in its SR 1.5 report are hogwash and were a political appeasement to the ASP fanatics. Additionally, most of the IPCC’s WG2 and WG3 reports could be tossed into the ASP-clown waste bin.

    And even though he can’t admit it, all of what Cliff Mass says basically is an argument to do exactly what Trump is doing… ignore the shrill cries and wailing coming from the climate change religious fanatics to his Left on the political spectrum… the Elizabeth Warren’s, the Markey’s, AOC-Bernie … they are all part of ASP-clown show.

    But we in fact need the ASP-clown show to continue on, so that Canadian and US voters can see what the Left has to offer, no more hiding what they really are or represent. Their agenda needs to remain on display: economic destruction for the middle class and social re-organization towards Socialist power structures for politically favored groups.

  7. “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”
    Then both of these sides are founded upon erroneous understandings. There are several proofs from first principals that our emissions are not responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and all the good statistics on emissions or total CO2 content causing warming fail to find coorelation. Now the Connollys have shown that the 20 million radiosonde records prove the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium so the greenhouse effect is not present in it. Does that mean that there must be another side to this debate that sees no problem and no human cause but fears the actions of either of the two sides listed in the quoted sentence?

    • You are right ! What Marcel Leroux wrote in Global Warming : myth or reality ? is completely true.
      And warming is stopped, we are going to a cooling period due to the solar activity !

  8. From the article: “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”

    Hold it right there. Warmer is better. Who is dumb enough to argue that colder is better? Who is to say that we are at a Goldilocks temperature right now? There are thousands of Siberians who might beg to differ.

    Absolutely warmer is better. I’ll maybe, maybe start to cast a watchful eye when temperatures exceed the Eemian high temps by 4 or 5 (C).

    No matter which way the temperature goes, there will be winners and losers. For example, Canada and the Sahel stand to win big if we warm up a good bit more. If we cool to the point that another stadial cycle starts, then the big winners will be the tropics and sub-tropics. And just think of all the new real estate that will be exposed.

    I’m going to leave word for my heirs to be prepared to jump either way; be ready to buy in early on the Doggerland land rush, otherwise snap up some choice lots in Yellowknife.

    • Canada will lose big because we will have more storms and more erratic weather. That’s not good for agriculture. Look what happened in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan this past year. I’m glad to see you admit that AGW is happening, but it’s a high stakes game, with likely more losers and few winners.

      • Meanwhile, the real world still fails to follow the path predicted by the models. The weather isn’t getting more severe or more erratic. However the paid trolls still claim otherwise.

      • Erratic weather is going to come, and is already here, from the meridional jet stream that has nothing to do with CO2.

      • They ALL had FREEZING temps long into spring/early summer and now an early start to winter – where’s the heat?

        We have family from BC to Nova Scotia and quite a few provinces in between – so go peddle your lies elsewhere.
        You liars are everywhere with such ignorance – show me a green house that has 70% water in it and frozen walls or roof or floors…
        If C02 was so bad why are commercial green houses pumping it in ??
        Now that Trudopia has made Can gov dope dealers and allowing home MJ grows – c02 emitters are being sold to home growers too – why are you all stopping that?

      • What happened? Well for example, the wheat yield in Manitoba was 29,984 million metric tons (MMT) in the 2017-2018 season, increased to 31,800 MMT in the 2018-2019 season and is estimated to rise to 33,300 MMT during the 2019-2020 season. Do you mean that Manitoba? I could look up Saskatchewan but I will leave that to you. Of course, the data is from the US Department of Agricultures Foreign Agricultural Service at They are part of the US Government which is heavily funded by tax receipts from the fossil fuel industry as you doubtless know. On the other hand, the data were approved by Canadian Agricultural Attache. Over to you.

      • Lyle: ” I’m glad to see you admit that AGW is happening, but it’s a high stakes game, with likely more losers and few winners.”

        Don’t attribute words to me that I didn’t write.

        I have no doubt that there are localized and some regional effects on temperature, some of the effects being warming, and can be attributed to anthropogenic causes. UHI comes to mind immediately as well as some of the massive water reservoirs that have been built. Then there have been some changes due to deforestation and reforestation.

        But Global? I’m afraid the jury is still out on that one. Let me know when atmospheric CO2 starts leading temperatures. I’d be interested to know when it happens.

      • Lyle—“I’m glad to see you admit that AGW is happening,”
        Please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

      • The only people who lose due to enhanced CO2 are those who will have to move their sea side homes in 900 years rather than 1000 years.

      • Lyle,
        AGW is not happening. However, GW happens then GC happens then GW happens then GC happens. Repeat until the end of time.

      • Lyle I hate to break it to you, but the recent Manitoba storm I just survived personally was not record breaking in anyway. There were both worse storms overall and worse snowstorms from Colorado Lows, earlier in the year snowstorms, and storms with more snow in 1947 and three times in the 1960s. There have probably been others before them but Manitoba wasn’t settled by White folks with scientific measuring tools for my area much before WW1. It was a nasty storm. However it was just typical Manitoba weather.

    • H.R.

      Why are you ignoring the cold people who live in Greenland, Mongolia, Russia, Finland, Norway, Canada, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Belarus, Latvia, Faroe Islands, Lothuania, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Germany, Isle of Man, Ireland, Belgium, Armenia, Tajikistan, North Korea, Serbia, Hungary, Channel Islands, Mecedonia, America, Slovenia, France, New Zealand, Bulgaria, San Marino, Azerbaijan, Chile, Uzbekistan, South Korea, Geotgia, Croatia, Italy, Monaco, Boznia and Herzegovina, Losotho, and China?

      Over 2.5 billion people (1/3 of humans) live at an average temperature of 15.0 degrees Celsius, or lower.

      Please note, that is AFTER the approximately 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming that we have had over the last 100 years. They used to be even COLDER.

      If you want to see graphs, maps, and tables showing how cold countries are, there are many articles on my website:

      • Thank you very much for the offer and links, S. Walker, but I’ve lived long enough to know where the cold lands are without resorting to graphs and charts. Surprisingly enough, they are all located towards the poles and as you get closer to the poles, the countries tend to have colder average temperatures.

        If it gets warmer, all those people in cold lands will get over it. Back when, the Vikings seemed to be okay with a warmer Greenland. And if it goes the other way they can leave, much the same as most of the Greenland Vikings did.

        Some like it hot. Some like it cold. The world is a much more mobile place. People have options they didn’t have two or three centuries ago.

        They key is to keep energy affordable so people have the ability and money in their pockets to adapt to any significant changes or leave if they choose.

        You write: “Please note, that is AFTER the approximately 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming that we have had over the last 100 years. They used to be even COLDER.”

        Yes, good point. It truly is a marvel how adaptable we hominids are. They survived a 1 (C) change. I’m sure they are game to face 1 or 2 degrees more, up or down.

        Thanks again.

        • But you’ve got to deal with Medieval Warm Period Deniers before a warmer Greenland becomes an accepted fact.

        • Don’t forget that we survive 30 degree F diurnal swings and about 100 degree annual swings. Would 31 and 101 degrees kill us?

  9. When was the last time you heard someone talking about progress? Progress was rescuing us from mankind’s historical misery. I’m not sure why some folks think that’s a bad thing.

    • You just never know when to expect the next spanish inquistion.

      In the original the rulers of Spain asked the Pope to start the Inquisition to catch Jews who pretended to be Christians. Now we have the Inquisition to catch deniers who pretended to be CAGW believers.

      History always repeats.

  10. I agree that Mr. Backer presents a more practical, cool and calm approach–a better representation of rational thought, BUT it’s too bad that he has bought into it, none-the-less. “It is accepted that humans are having a negative impact on our climate. As a proud American, as a lifelong conservative, and as a young person, I urge you to accept climate change for the reality…” I am not sure that it is accepted that
    1. the warming is harmful and
    2. that humans have that much to do with it

      • Perhaps it would be better to ask that farmer how his or her yield has increased (or decreased) over the past 25 or 50 years. We are after all talking about climate, not bad weather.

      • In Lyle’s world, there was never a cold wet spring before.
        To the weak minds of the alarmists, any weather that is different from the year before, is proof that CO2 is going to kill us.

      • A growing season bracketed by a cool, wet spring that delayed planting and anomalous cold that ended the growing season early. Doesn’t sound like warming to me.

        • “It rained all night the day I left,
          the weather it was dry.
          The sun so hot I froze to death,
          Susanna, don’t you cry.”

          Climate Weirding, the early days.

      • RE: Ask a Midwestern farmer how their season went this year.

        That would be me. So how did it go this year? Cold and wet. A late, cold spring and an early fall freeze. GDD (growing degree days) and soil temps way below average until late in season and still 3–4% low. If CO2 causes short, cool growing seasons then I’m on your side, but somehow I don’t think so. Much more likely you are a spoiled useful idiot who has swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker and has no clue what he is talking about.

  11. Debate team affirmative: Radiative Green House Effect theory:

    Step 1: The atmosphere warms the earth much like a greenhouse. Average w/ 15 C, 288 K – w/o 18 C, 255 K = 33 C cooler with.
    What is the warming mechanism?

    Step 2: The GHGs “trap” upwelling LWIR surface energy and “back” radiate LWIR 333 W/m^2 to the surface in a 100 % efficient perpetual loop. More molecules, more “trapping” means less leaving ToA and the earth warms.
    Where does the GHG loop get this 333 W/m^2?

    Step 3: The surface radiates as an ideal black body, 16 C, 289 K + S-B = 396 W/m^2. The surface balance 160 – 17 – 80 = 63 rises to ToA leaving 333 W/m^2 for the loop.

    Debate team negative: Debunk RGHE

    Debunk Step 1: The 288 K is a WAG from WMO. K-T diagram uses 16 C, 289 K. UCLA Diviner mission says 71.5 F, 295 K. How does anybody know where the average is going when can’t even agree on what it is?

    255 K is the S-B equilibrium temperature at 240 W/m^2 which assumes the naked earth keeps a 30% albedo. W/o atmosphere there would be no: water vapor, clouds, ice or snow, oceans, vegetation or 30% albedo.

    Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA Diviner all suggest that w/o atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon; 0.11 albedo, 390 K on the lit side, 90 K on the dark, S-B equilibrium temperature of 271 K, -2 C).

    Debunk step 3: The non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules render the BB upwelling 396 W/m^2 impossible. 396 W/m^2 is a theoretical “what if” calculation with no real existence. As demonstrated by classical experiment:

    Debunk Step 2: No step 3 = no step 2.

    Zero RGHE = Zero GHGs = Zero CAGW

    • You’re just showing your ignorance, even if you do have more or less correct conclusions. “Step 3” is completely wrong.

      You must look at Earth as an open system in a vacuum. It receives energy from the Sun, with a very minor component coming from internal heating from the core, and emits Planck radiation into space. The issue at hand stems from the fact that the emissivity of the visible Earth’s surface is not that of an ideal black body and indeed what is the “visible” surface depends highly upon what wavelength you’re considering and what atmospheric conditions are (esp. regarding clouds). In addition, different levels of the atmosphere behave differently.

      In some bands the atmosphere is transparent and the Earth’s oceans and soil emit directly into the 4K heat dump of space; here, it is their temperature that is of major concern. In others, the atmosphere blocks the radiation from the ground and is itself the radiating surface, with the air temperature being the major concern. Of course since the lowest layer of air and the ground/oceans are in physical contact, there is significant heat exchange between the two which effects both scenarios.

      CO2, like water vapor and the other “greenhouse gasses”, effect the latter scenario and change the effective emissivity of the atmosphere in certain bands. This is not really in dispute. The question revolves around secondary effects, namely whether human CO2 emissions can drive a “positive feedback loop” WRT water vapor enough to significantly raise the lower atmospheric temperature levels by lowering overall emissivity in the significant wavelength bands.

      • The atmosphere cools the earth it does not warm it.
        You are explaining a phenomenon that does not exist.

      • The atmosphere does not warm the earth it cools it.
        You are explaining a mechanism for a phenomena that does not exist.

        • Nick you’ve been spouting this bs for way long enough, and not for the first time someone who knows what they’re talking about has just given you a succinct and accurate picture of the ‘greenhouse effect’ and why you are totally barking up the wrong tree. Drop it, you’re not even wrong.

          ” even if you do have more or less correct conclusions”

          I presume you are talking about the C in CAGW. There I would suggest it is too early to call. Are things catatrophin now? Of course not but if current trends (accellerating CO2 emissions) continue for another decade of three, then there will be more than enough C to go around and it will be far too late to prevent a whole lot more C thats in the pipeline. Thats why trying to frame this issue as a debate between the sensible technofixers and the hand-wringing lefties has nothing to do with science. I could just as easily try to frame it as being between eco-realists and flat-earthers (or GHE disbelievers) but how is that enlightening? The only interest is sensitivity and at the moment the science is saying an ECS of about 3°C and that would not go well.

          • Loydo:

            The proposition that “the science is saying an ECS of about 3°C” is a falsehood. The proposition that “the pseudoscience is saying an ECS of about 3°C” is a truth. One reaches this conclusion after examining the nature of the argument that is made by a modern day climate model. This argument violates the law of the excluded middle. A model that is “scientific” satisfies the law of the excluded middle as well as the law of non-contradiction. The two laws are among the three classical laws of thought of Aristotle and his followers.

  12. Cliff Mass—“The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed.”
    What the heck are you trying to feed us?

    The real debate is why the alarm industry is unable to show any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

    Further, what is the actual evidence that man’s Co2 is causing the CO2 increase, since 1)our current CO2 increase is timed about the same as historical increases that result from warming. 2) CO2 FOLLOWS, NOT LEADS temperature. 3) CO2 residence times are a decade, not centuries like the alarm industry claims.

    Even further, The rate of warming seems independent of CO2 concentration, suggesting that CO2 has NO EFFECT on climate.

    AND we have no real, accurate worldwide, climate data before the satellite era, so it is impossible to say if today’s climate is unusual, a prerequisite for claiming CO2 is harmful.

    Cliff Mass—” Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”

    • jim,

      You say,
      “The real debate is why the alarm industry is unable to show any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.”

      YES! Well said!
      There will continue to be no reason – none, not any reason – for alarm unless and until there is some – any – evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are having any affect on climate changes that have always happened naturally.


      • I’m sure there’s a name for it, but, in this article and others they always start with the axiom that “Since A is true then …” with “A” being “Man’s CO2 is causing ‘Global Warming’ (or “Climate Change” if you prefer) therefore we must …”
        The problem is that they’ve never proven that “A”, and only “A”, is actually true.
        “Repeat a lie often enough …”

  13. Someone please ‘splain to me: what in the blue-eyed gopher-loving world is “climate justice”, other than a scam to get money out of you?

    • Climate justice is where all the oppressed gender fluid types and drowning pacific island nations are given brown paper bags of cash for there historic crimes. The fact neither group has got the joke being played on them just adds to humor of the situation.

      Unfortunately the whole joke if likely to end this December when it gets voted out like human rights did at last GOP. I am holding out hope they somehow delay the vote for a 3rd time and we can get another year from the comedy skit.

    • They believe everybody is entitled to “good weather”. So in their world view of apocalyptic warming where the oceans boil and the earth dies; the weather isn’t so “good”. This is called “an injustice”.

      They therefor believe they’re smart by reminding the government that there is a justice system in place, and that the government must make sure everybody has equal justice, which is to say, equally good weather all round. This is Climate Justice.

  14. Cliff Mass—” Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”
    Lets review some CLIMATE FACTS from NASA, IPCC , AMS

    1. The Earth only warmed 0.78degree C since the start of the industrial age.
    Pg. 209 of

    2. Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%).
    Add the numbers on this NASA diagram:

    3. CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%) (based on Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997 )

    4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
    pg 178 of

    5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
    pg 178 of

    6. Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently.
    Page 306 of

    7. There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.
    pg 230 of

    8. Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness
    pg 178 of

    9. Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    Page 774 of (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section, page 774)

    This shows that there is nothing unusual about our climate and thus NOTHING to blame on CO2. That means NO AMOUNT OF CO2 action will affect the climate.

    • @ jim

      How reassuring to see all the outrage (not) caused by your unassailable facts from the trolls.
      Nice one! 🙂

  15. Oh dear it’s that overton window nonsense again. There is of course a third grouping of science literate history buffs, who have seen this type of nonsense repeated periodically throughout history, and hate seeing money and lives wasted on useless solutions to overblown scare stories. We don’t have a sexy acronym describing us, so we get ignored by the politicians

    • “Climate has awakened and given fuel to the eco wacko vegans who neither understand nor care about the details of agw theory but know deep in their heart that humans are anti nature and evil.”

      That statement says way more about you than anyone else.

        • It’s measured by satellite

          Link to NASA/RSS numerical anomaly on water vapor

          The above sequence of 3 links leads to this one with last digits of last number being the latest month available. They only post the latest month by about the middle of the following month. This one gets Sept, 2019. It will not be available when they publish Oct.

          • Alarmists will never accept anything that isn’t peer reviewed yet present all kinds of articles and graphs that are not peer reviewed. The article at “NASA/RSS numerical anomaly on water vapor” is not peer reviewed and doesn’t have a date on it. The product validation graph appears to be a cherry picked graph in that it’s for the tropics only for the period 1993 to 2003, and is a water vapor vs. temperature graph, not a water vapor vs CO2 graph. Nobody I know would deny that water vapor increases with temperature. That’s why humidity is referred to as relative humidity isn’t it?

            Freeman Dyson points out that water vapor is very abundant in the tropics and the water vapor absorption spectrum partially overlaps the CO2 absorption spectrum so that CO2 will have very little effect in the tropics. On the other hand, CO2 will have a greater effect in the polar regions because there is very little water vapor there.

          • Fred,
            I see it as a kind of vicious circle. The peer reviewers of the top journals are alarmists and reject papers outright which disagree with their perceptions. Thus the plethora of papers agreeing with their perceptions and paucity of papers that don’t. The lessor journals are not so much afflicted and there is a growing number of peer reviewed papers e.g. listed at which support the skeptic position.

            I did not use the ‘product validation’ graph. I only gave the link to the home page because it’s…the home page. The second link is to the numerical data which I plotted in EXCEL to get a graph of measured TPW. I assumed that % increase in vapor pressure is the same as the % increase in TPW to get the calculated TPW plots in Figures 2.8 and 2.9 in (or click my name)

            Relative humidity matters for comfort etc. but average global TPW is what matters to average global temperature.

            I agree CO2 rules at the poles and for the reason you give. My analysis has shown no significant influence of CO2 elsewhere and no proof that it is not negative.

          • So, help me understand your position. In para. 2.6 of your blog you state “This demonstrates that average global temperature increase has been driven by water vapor increase, not the reverse.”

            Also, I was under the impression that every gas, whether precipitable or not, had its own partial pressure, yet you claim that only precipitable water vapor has a partial pressure. How is that?

            You claim that the increase in temperature is caused by an increase in water vapor and that CO2 has very little to do with it, so why all the fuss about CO2? Shouldn’t we simply deindustrialize and go back to picking roots and berries?

          • Fred,
            Water vapor has been increasing faster than it would if calculated on the basis of temperature rise. Something other than just temperature increase has to be causing the WV increase. Because WV is a ghg, WV increase is causing the warming.

            Using Hitran and the increase of WV and CO2 for the time both have been accurately measured worldwide, since Jan 1988, WV has been about 37 times more effective than CO2 at increasing ground-level average global temperature. The calcs are in para. 2.8. The added cooling from added CO2 well above the tropopause is compensating for the tiny added warming from added CO2 at surface level. (Second para after Fig 1 in )

            Of course every gas in the atmosphere has its own partial pressure. But only one exists also as a liquid (or solid) so it has a vapor pressure. Tell me where I claimed otherwise and I will fix it.

            I have concluded and am trying enlighten others that CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate.

            In case your last sentence was not simply in jest, the answer is no. Unfortunately there are some folks out there that are apparently oblivious to the disaster which would ensue from abandoning fossil fuels.

          • What’s the difference between partial pressure and vapor pressure?

            There are many very good scientists who are skeptical of manmade global warming that accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You yourself said you agreed with me that CO2 will have a greater warming effect in the polar regions than in the tropics for the reasons I stated. Therefore, your claim that the only way that CO2 affects temperature is by increasing atmospheric pressure is incompatible with the claim that the polar regions will warm more than the tropics.

            I myself believe that CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases, that water vapor is far more abundant than CO2 and that the absorption spectrum of water vapor partially overlaps the absorption spectrum of CO2, and therefore that the effect of CO2 on global temperature is highly exaggerated by climate scientists.

            Your blog mentions wavenumber several times, but if gases can only effect temperature by increasing atmospheric pressure, how is wavenumber even relevant?

          • Fred,
            Again you falsely claim I said something I did not say. Apparently you simply do not understand the terminology. If you don’t know the difference between water vapor and vapor pressure, look it up. When and if you acquire understanding you might recognize the explanation I gave “Of course every gas in the atmosphere has its own partial pressure. But only one exists also as a liquid (or solid) so it has a vapor pressure.”

            I never said and would never say that the only way CO2 affects temperature is by increasing atmospheric pressure.

            There are two valid scientific bases for why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. One is described at Section 2 paragraph 8 and the other in Section 8. Neither of them involves the overlap.

          • I did not ask what the difference is between water vapor and vapor pressure. I ask what the difference is between partial pressure and vapor pressure. Since atmospheric pressure is the sum of all partial pressures, I would conclude that vapor pressure would add to atmospheric pressure.

            You said in an above comment: “I have concluded and am trying enlighten others that CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate.”

            As for overlap of water vapor absorption spectrum and CO2 absorption spectrum it is shown here:

          • Fred,
            Water vapor, like all other gases in the atmosphere has a partial pressure. Vapor pressure is a property of liquid water and all other liquids and is significant for some solids. Vapor pressure increases with temperature as shown as Fig 1.7 in my blog/analysis. At 15 °C it is about 1.7 kPa which is 0.247 psi.

            The paper you linked is misleading. It does not mention thermalization and might not be aware of it. They appear to have an obsolete perception of how the atmosphere works.

          • Google describes vapor pressure as the pressure of a vapor (i.e. a gas) in contact with its liquid form.

            The link I posted shows the overlap of CO2 and water vapor absorption spectrums.

          • Fred,
            The GOOGLE definition is incomplete. There is an added constraint that it be at saturation (sometimes called equilibrium).

            I am well aware of the overlap. It does not change anything in my blog or that I have posted. All it means is that absorption in the frequency range of the overlap happens very slightly closer to the emitting surface. Thermalization and outward directed photons emitted by WV molecules below about wavenumber 550/cm, high in the troposphere make it more and more with increasing altitude all the way to space as I describe in my blog, mostly in sections 5 & 6..

          • It seems to me that vapor pressure, as you describe it, would be relevant to steam turbines or pressure cookers, but not to an open atmosphere. If there is a column of air above a body of water, how high up does vapor pressure have an effect on atmospheric pressure? If a low pressure system develops in the atmosphere it may increase evaporation while a high pressure system may suppress it, but that does not mean that vapor pressure is a cause, rather it’s an effect.

  16. The climate debate has lost the flavor of a debate. In a debate there is a clear proposition being debated.
    The skeptic in me says that dogma is not a Good Thing. Religious dogma is dangerous; it allows people to do evil thinking it is good. Political dogma is dangerous; communism in USSR, socialism in Venezuela, [crony] capitalism in USA. Scientific dogma is just as dangerous.
    There is a huge spectrum of belief regarding climate. The two extremes, the advocates of CAGW and the ice-age-by-2030 crowd, are both extraordinary claims. Both unlikely. To be doubted until the evidence is compelling.
    The claim of some here is that there can be no doubt. It is the consensus. Just like modern evolutionary theory, no sensible person doubts it. To express doubt out loud is insanity. Evolution is real. Catastrophic Humanity-Caused Global Warming is real. We must do something about it. It is too dangerous to ignore.
    The claim of others is that it is political dogmatic hogwash. The data has been manipulated. Follow the money; there are careers at stake. No science is ever settled. Consilience, not consensus is science; when the experiments from disjoint fields all agree, the probability goes up. Models, from mathematical ‘models’ (F=ma) to scale models (wind tunnel), to computer models (simulated wind tunnel) are all artificial simplifications which must be verified by experiment. For a predictive model to be judged accurate it must have a history of repeated success at prediction. One month Atlantic storm predictions have a larger error bar than one week storm predictions; one day predictions are quite accurate. The error bars on newspaper-reported consensus catastrophe prediction science (The Ice Age Cometh, the Arctic will be ice-free by 19xx) have been huge.
    My opinion is that we should be skeptical.

    There is a solution regardless of your fandom. If you are on team CO2-is-gonna-kill-us or on team Ice-Age or even on no team at all we can just Nuke the problem. Turn our smartest with the white lab coats loose on that problem instead of studying weather.

    • “the advocates of CAGW and the ice-age-by-2030 crowd, are both extraordinary claims. Both unlikely. To be doubted until the evidence is compelling.”

      One of those is not just “unlikely” it is vanishingly unlikely. Too early to say “C” is unlikely, but if we find the “evidence is compelling” then unfortunately its all a bit late. Not really equivalent I’d suggest.

      • CO2 at 7000ppm wasn’t catastrophic, so there is absolutely no chance that CO2 at 500ppm is going to be catastrophic.
        Most of the last 10000 years has been 3 to 5C warmer than it is today, and no catastrophe, so there is absolutely no chance that warming up 2C is going to be catastrophic.

  17. A new Conservative group has been formed to take on Get Up and other left wing extremist groups across Australia. But the unhinged E Reb Loons are their first target. About time.

    Date: 16/10/19
    The Australian

    “The new voice of Australia’s conservative movement has vowed to go after radical left-wing groups in a national campaign against “clim­ate alarmists”, after accusing members of activist group Extinction Rebel­lion of being criminals who pose a menace to society.
    ‘They are a menace to society’: new Advance Australia boss Liz Storer in Sydney on Tuesday. Picture: Chris Pavlich

    Liz Storer, a 36-year-old former Liberal councillor and ministerial adviser, will be announced on Wednesday as the new national director of ­centre-right campaign machine Advance Australia, which has positione­d itself as the political counter to GetUp.

    Her appointment comes as GetUp’s national director, Paul Oosting, fronts the National Press Club on Wednesday amid internal inquiries into its failed campaign to unseat a list of targeted conservative MPs at the May election.

    But Ms Storer said while GetUp was on her radar, her first campaign­ would be aimed at Extinctio­n Rebellion, which has risen from obscurity to promin­ence in the past week by closing down traffic in the CBDs of Brisbane and Melbourne.

    These people are seriously unhinged­,” Ms Storer said. “They are going to be one of our first campaigns­ … These guys are very strategic but the truth is they are not a climate change action group.

    They may market themselves that way. They are hell bent on deconstructing society as we know it … they operate on a manifesto of delusions based on a rejection of European colonisation and trad­itional values that most mainstream Australians hold dear.

    They are a menace to society … We saw last week the Victorian police saying they had to stop ­normal policing to deal with them. ER are proving to be the real crim­inals …. Gluing themselves to streets (and) hanging from ­bridges.”

    Ms Storer, who has a masters degree in human rights and was elected to the suburban Perth council of Gosnells before becoming an adviser to conservative federal Coalition senator and assist­ant minister Zed Seselja, said the militant advance of climate activism had not been effectively ­challenged and that Advance Australia’s mission was to be the voice of “mainstream Australia”.

    It would also run counter campaigns against MPs with “radical agendas” and run lobbying and public campaigns against state governments over activism in the education system”.

    A mate of mine called me this morning to tell me his daughter had texted him from school to tell him that her teacher said a third of their class would be dead by 2050 because of climate change,” Ms Storer said. “Climate anxiety is becoming­ a real thing.”

    “While Advance Australia is heavily outgunned by established groups such as GetUp, it quickly raised $2.5m in donations with a 45,000-strong supporter base in its first 12 months of operation since being formed in November last year with the backing of prominent businessmen including Maurice Newman and James Power of the Queensland brewing dynasty”.

  18. One has to understand that with the left the “issue” is never the real issue. At it’s root this is about globalism.

    • No it’s about the lefts crazy idea of wealth distribution, the act of being born entitles you to a percentage of earths resources. It’s like the other left idea of a non nuclear planet, where all the nuclear powers give up there nuclear weapons. The fact neither is ever going to happen makes for all the comedy.

      • None so blind one that cannot see. The successful selling of “climate change” offers the potential for the government to hold sway over every aspect of our lives. It is being enabled through the auspices of an International effort. Agenda 21 etc. Wealth redistribution is just a part of the plan to set up a permanent global ruling class over us serfs.

      • LdB, rah is correct. Wealth Redistribution is just a part of it. As is “social justice”. and all the other crazy things lefties have been spouting lately. It’s total global control of every aspect of your life that the left seeks, all those other things are just wedges they use to get there.

  19. A chemist from the UN went around the world trying to promote the benefits of nuclear energy in the mid 50s. A tough task considering the damage inflicted by atomic bombs and testing. He also started seeding the idea that the world had warmed one degree and it could be due to the rise in carbon dioxide in the air due to human emissions.

    Soon after, someone began measuring global carbon dioxide levels from the side of a volcano. Then in about 1960, a group of nuclear scientists formed a government advisory group that also began pushing a global warming scare.

    Fast forward to recent times. I noticed something strange about HadSST going from v2 to v3, which WUWWT did have a little laughter about. But its no laughing matter. The hemispheres get switched. How do people who need to be geniuses to reconstruct a GTA from data not fit for purpose do something like that? If the hemispheres were not switched, the adjustments would show very little change outside of the 1940 to 1970 period, but so large in that period that linear fits to the 1960- 1991 period change dramatically. This is the base period the anomalies are calculated from and yet all four, both versions of the two hemispheres, have the same anomaly for the peak of the 1998 warmth. Then there also is the seasonal signal that appears after 2000, in one of the hemispheres (depends on the version). This reconstruction was done by clowns.

    I fitted a simple model to HadCrut4 GTA a few years ago because I was annoyed by linear fits to discuss the pause.
    There was some criticism of calling it a model instead of people wondering why a simple equation fits the data so well, except for the pause. There was also a post on Climate Audit that showed how Callendars projections from 1938 fit the GTA better than modern modelling. Even his 1961 estimate of GTA was better than preadjusted attempts of more recent times.

    WUWT kindly posted my musings on how good the correlation of the rate of global CO2 change was with SH SST. Too good to be measured even if it physically occurred. A recent paper did a better job of showing how good the correlation is, although assuming that it was real and showed that the warming seas caused CO2 level rise. To me, its a correlation that is extremely good for even a complex experiment in a laboratory where you expect the result, but the seas haven’t warmed enough to be responsible for such a large amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. The calculations must have inputted the temperature anomalies before they existed, but how?

  20. There are more than two sides. There are at least three – maybe five … more … The first is the possibly fairly small contingent of appeasers including Mr Mass, who go along with the false meme of climate change but have been demonised because they do not show the required level of fanaticism. Then there is the side of the fanatics, who have realised that their doomsaying over the last 50 years have produced no action, and have resorted to doubling down, now demanding extinction rebellion. Their demand will certainly RESULT in extinction if it was possible for it to be realised, which fortunately it is not. So they will likely transit to further violent action before they finally come to their senses. A third group, for want of a better word, I term the carpetbaggers. Those who benefit financially as a result of subsidy payments for useless technology. This unfortunately includes a very large proportion of companies and agencies who actually produce something useful, and pay lip-service to the fanatical demands in order to deter, or more likely defer, attacks by the fanatics. These differ from the appeasers because they benefit financially from the meme. The fourth group are the realists. They know that there is no reason for the fanatical demands, and they are concerned about the vast damage to the prosperity of humankind that the fanaticism is trying, and succeeding, in generating. The fifth group are the misanthropists. Those with vast personal wealth at their disposal that they are prepared to dispense to the fanatics because they hate humanity and enjoy bringing about mayhem and destruction. There is a sixth group. The elitists in the UN and other wannabes who actually believe they are superior, they can save the world, they claim to promote a New World Order, but are actually promoting a return to the Old World Order.

  21. Climate improvement is not a problem. Anybody have the number of the telephone booth this guy lives in?

  22. Don’t give your money to THOSE alarmists, they’re crazy. Give it to us, we’re rational alarmists.

  23. If you use the NASA Ground Measurements and control for Urban Heat Island Effect, you will find that CO2 has no impact on temperature. This video demonstrates how anyone with a computer can do a very simple experiment to debunk this nonsense. Best of all you can use NASA’s data to disprove the theory they are pushing. It also totally debunks the Hockeystick chart. WUWT, you may want to commission an article demonstrating the experiment detailed in this video. Lawyers may also want to watch this video if they are involved in Climate Litigation.

    Complete Global Warming Science Fair Project

    • This is an excellent but a bit long video which could do with improved presentation. Good solid facts and logic which might be better in a written article which would be faster to read. Well done and well suggested!! If you need funds to put this together I would be very happy to make a contribution.

    • I agree, a more polished presentation would be great.

      Using NASA’s data to show NASA’s conclusions aren’t correct is poetic justice.

      Suggesting proper science methods should be used will probably be blasphemous to the CAGW religious zealots, especially those posting in this thread.

  24. Professor Cliff Mass is clearly living in a make-believe world at the University of Washington. That means that he cannot or will not acknowledge that there are very credible scientific objections to climate hysteria, whether that hysteria comes from the radicals he despises or from those who want to seem a little more moderate like himself.

    They are all pushing a false narrative and cannot defend it in a fair forum.

    Hence, their strategy is to marginalize out of existence scientists who are skeptics. That simply will not work in science, as the truth always comes out in the end. Cliff’s reputation will suffer severely, when the truth that there is no climate crisis is widely recognized. He may win the immediate skirmishes that are ongoing at UW, but will lose the battle for truth, now that he is into completely denying the scientific opposition to his approach. More than five hundred scientists (including me) signed the “European Declaration” against climate hysteria. That is far more scientists than a competing alarmist petition was able to gather.

    Whenever we have offered to discuss the subject with Cliff Mass at UW or elsewhere he finds some way to duck. Is he really being more moderate or just taking a different political approach that is just as radical and wrong in the end?

  25. I keep hearing that global warming is a problem, but I never see anyone describing how the Thames freezing over every year or the Delaware doing the same is a good thing. Or why increased aridity from cooler, drier air is good. Or why lowering CO2 levels so plants can’t breathe is good.

    Don’t talk to me about the “real” climate debate if you’re not going to discuss reality.

  26. 2. A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them.

    The biggest omission in this category 2 is that of the hopes and intentions of its group members to gain sufficient power as to heavily influence, if not control, the transfer of private companies who produce goods and services to the administration of an unaccountable, quasi-governmental body (QGB) who will act as a high priesthood with final decision authority over the diverse economies of the ‘world community’ to prevent runaway global warming.

    Said QGB would claim the authority of science as its co-pilot, and would begin attacking the ‘root causes’ of AGW by shuttering first the coal industry, then oil, then natural gas (and with them the concept of privately-owned transportation devices), then by stupendous subsidies attempting to create a ‘green’ network of non-fossil power generation, together with the ancillary storage and transmission facilities necessary to supply some fraction of current energy consumption.

    This will not be pretty, and will rapidly decline in utility to the average human.

  27. Fossil fuel companies only make billions because us millions of others love what they can do with their product. Even other companies like Apple or Amazon. We love using the power – especially electricity. hundreds of businesses go broke because too few want or need what they provide. Simple supply and demand. Watch the irrelevant go broke and dissappear.

  28. Just popped over to the NASA GISTemp web pages to see what the latest was, and even their graph, with it’s scary climb, actually represents only a 1.1C rise in the average global anomaly since 1880.

    That’s 140 years with 1.1 degree rise. Catastrophic? I think not!

      • That says it all loydo
        There is no proof that CO2 controls the climate and the constant propaganda that our news media is showering us with proves how desperate the climate doomsters have become .
        Look at the facts .
        One degree Celsius rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age .
        The little Ice Age was just that a cold period in the last 1000 years of the worlds history .
        The real deniers are those scientists that deny history and try and erase the Medieval Warm period because it wont fit their theory .
        I sympathies with you loydo as the constant propaganda has affected you and you are so concerned about CO2 and we are all gonna cook .
        I will say to you there is nothing to fear about CO2 but and if the doomsters were sincere they would be advocating the rapid advancement of nuclear power plants as the population of the world can not survive without plentiful affordable energy .
        Restrict energy and billions would die of starvation ,freezing to death .lack of clean water and sanitation .
        With billions living in cities around the world , energy is absolutely essential for modern civilization.

      • Not over? It never got started in the first place.
        Most of that 1.1C occurred before mankind started putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Of the rest, anyone who assumes that all of it must have been caused by CO2 is to stupid to be allowed on the streets by themselves.

  29. ASP & ACT are like Stan & Ollie :
    – one always paniks, is emotional, often tearful, the other is more rational, self-confident, but actually, both are clowns.

  30. with the world series starting tuesday isnt it time to discuss the problems caused by these constantly changing batting averages? and the ERA’s of the pitchers…….see those stats constantly CHANGE! and just how big an impact on this world series will they have?

    • They don’t make sense, either. It’s like, having a high batting average is GOOD, but having a high Earned Run Average is BAD. Don’t lots of good battings lead to earned runs for the battor?

      • Earned Run Average indicates how many earned runs a pitcher has allowed.
        The two numbers are for two different positions.

        • and neither average controls this upcoming world series, they have ZERO control or impact on the future outcome……same as climate it is not a force, has no power and does not control or cause any weather event

    • Yes, they constantly CHANGE as players have more at bats and pitchers throw more pitches – as time passes.

      So, to, do the weather/climate statistics change as time passes.


      • you found the point, weather constantly changes so stats derived from weather will constantly change…… blame humans that the climate changes is stupid and insane.

  31. On page five (5) of the Carbon Kleptomania Report ( it has a good chart listing SEVEN different positions on Climate Change (see “The 2-degree-C Delusion”). Contrast this to the silly two positions in this piece.

    I’m reminded of the saying that golf wagers are won or lost before hitting the first shot. That’s essentially what Cliff attempted to do here.

  32. Another blog post where the participants are assigned categories.
    Indeed, it paints a world where everyone is convince global warming must be addressed and money thrown at it.

    I find that I do not fit either category.
    Again, the post is wrong.

    Then there is the statement:

    “And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate. Republicans in Congress do not follow his lead.”

    Indeed there was a party of GOP activists who were anti-Trump and rabidly against president Trump’s refusal to address global warming.
    Every one of those GOP Congressmen are gone during the last election cycle.

    Current GOP members who are anti President Trump’s actions are sidelined. Especially when actions like throwing money at global warming are loser issues when facing the American public.

    Then there is this tidbit:

    “Initiative 732 was backed by Carbon Washington, a non-political group whose bi-partisan proposal would have increased the price of carbon fuels but was revenue neutral, giving all the funds collected back to the citizens of the State.”

    Really!? “Revenue neutral”?
    There is no such thing in government!
    It takes government administrators to collect money, verify receipts, verify residents, verify income, mail checks to deserving people, chase fraud…

    Government does return funds in a revenue neutral manner, ever!
    And, every year their administrative and enforcement costs increase.

    Nor do Congresspersons and Senators allow most bills to keep money separate and isolated from Congress.
    These government representatives want all monies to be deposited into the general fund, so they can pay bills; like employee salaries who are employed all year to watch the financial process…

    Multiple falsehoods or oversights in one article. And my blood pressure spikes after reading another “everyone sensible likes this idea” and “this is revenue neutral” series of fallacies.

  33. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    Did not need to read any further. Wrong twice in first graph.

  34. What about the realists, those who recognize that there is no need to reduce, much less eliminate, CO2 emissions?

  35. Here’s the Connolly’s latest study about temperature change and greenhouse gases using balloon data .×9-format.pdf

    Here’s their conclusions. See point 4 below.

    1) “The neglect of through air mechanical energy has led to the hypothesis that the atmosphere is only in local thermodynamic equilibrium i.e. conduction convection and radiation cannot transmit energy fast enough to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium with altitude . This was a mistake. 2) If the atmosphere can transmit energy quickly enough to restore thermodynamic equilibrium, our results say that it can, then as Einstein showed in his 1919 paper the rate of absorption of radiation by IR active gases is equal to their rate of emission i.e. IR active gases ( so called greenhouse gases) do not trap or store energy for systems in thermodynamic equilibrium . 3) However greenhouse gases do absorb and emit radiation and can also absorb and loose energy due to collision with other gases . But as can also be shown from Einstein’s 1919 work, that where a thermal gradient exists, due to the photo induced emission component of Einstein’s equation the net effect of greenhouse gases is to increase the flow of IR radiation from hot to cold and not the other way round. 4) Einstein’s 1919 work and our balloon work shows that increasing the concentrations of the so called greenhouse gases does not cause global warming”.

    • In my opinion this is the most important analysis of the last thirty years because it falsifies the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis. There are lots of others that pokes holes in the assumptions and projections of the GCMs that assume this hypothesis is true and many others that show the assumed cause is not correlated to the assumed effect but this one concludes that there is no greenhouse gas effect in our atmosphere. Thus it invalidates any effort to control it by reducing emissions.
      Here is a video where the Connollys are presenting the slides you linked. ( )

  36. And still the DEBATE skirts blindly around the FACTS.

    Key Scientific members (e.g. Michael Mann) in the Alarmist Camp have made a lot of PREDICTIONS and all of them have been WILDLY INACCURATE…like orders of magnitude wrong. Not a single prediction has been accurate…many have the wrong sign.

    Meanwhile, severe weather events are not getting worse, and most telling, the number of days above 100 degrees, and 90 degrees and 80 degrees has steadily fallen for the last 50 years (at unbiased stations). It’s not getting hotter during the day. (WAY hotter in the 1930’s wherever there were thermometers in the world…weeks at a time above 100 degrees across whole countries…We’ve NOT SEEN THIS since then ).

    It’s only getting a wee bit warmer overnight (higher lows) and that is a good thing. And most of the warming is in the Arctic (but not also in the Antarctic – as was predicted). And historical records in the Arctic chronicle low ice extents prior to 1940 similar to now.

    The Climate today is the best in history and getting better. Deaths from “Climate Events” continue to decline significantly. There is NOTHING WRONG AT ALL.. nothing at all like a Crisis.

  37. Both of these groups would be warmists, the only difference being the ACT group is rational but deluded while the ASP group is raving emotional idiots incapable of reason.

  38. From the article: “And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate.

    Well, some of what Trump says about the climate might be nonsense but he just does that to jerk the chain of the alarmists.

    Trump understands the climate better than the alarmists. The alarmists think the climate just keeps getting hotter and hotter, but Trump knows the “temperatures go up, and then they go down”.

    Trump’s signature resembles the real global temperature profile: It goes up and down and up and then down, up and down, up and down. Just like the temperatures do, unless you are a delusional alarmist and believe in fraudulent Hockey Stick charts. Alarmists think the temperatures never go down. Alarmists think climate scientists back in the 1970’s must have been delusional forecasting a new Ice Age cooling when no cooling shows up on the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

    Trump is definitely part of this debate. Try getting anything done without him onboard. We’ll see how much Trump is part of the debate once we find out who the Democrat nominee is going to be. Then we can focus on the issue.

  39. Ah, of course – the “real” debate can only be held between two Cardinals of the Church of Holy Climate Change, about whether the vestments shall be of cotton or of silk.

    Either way, they agree that they must be the vestments of the dictators.

  40. “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.” Disagree that BOTH SIDES agree on seriousness of CO2 greenhouse gas. Article appears to be written by a lefty who attempting find common ground in the hopes that something can be done. If CO2 is a minor if irrelevant greenhouse gas. Sun along with the flux in the strength of our magnetic field are the key players.

    • Indeed, and like most all lefties, he seems to think that “finding common ground” means the other side agreeing with him.

  41. “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia!” This illusion of agreement is aiding republican globalists to align with democrat globalists in a lockstep march toward eco-techno-totalitarian world government. AGW as a monstrous fraud on so many levels it boggles the mind, and we can add this shameless trickery to the list.

  42. So the author considers one side as sincere, rational, otherwise capable people who are acting “… to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for.” Producing a carbon-free future is an absurd goal to begin with, so these proponents of action have already been badly misled. I’m not looking for a carbon-free future. Are you? Why would you want that? Perhaps they simply cannot or do not yet see that whatever warming trend may exist could just as easily be natural and have little or nothing to do with carbon dioxide. So the real test of rational thinking is yet to come, as I see it, when nature finally makes it unequivocal that the diagnosis was wrong all along. This may take a while. Let’s see what happens. In any case, there can still be common ground in the meantime with those who challenge the climate crisis claims. It’s not a carbon tax. It is nuclear power in its latest, safest configurations.

  43. Cliff: Your article is quite appalling. When you wrote your last article complaining about academic harassment by the University of Washington faculty and leftist radicals who hang at the university who wanted you silenced and fired for not being wiling to lie about the current state of the climate and the fake “ocean acidification” nonsense, several from my group, including myself, came to your defense in the name of defending the rights of free academic speech and ideas that advance science and in particular for being truthful.

    While I am miles apart from ever agreeing on your belief about CO2 changing the climate ( based upon failed climate models that you partake in constructing ) I defend your right as a scientist to state your beliefs and reasons for them so long as you and any others in your group can defend your hypothesis and answer the tough questions.

    Little more than two years ago I challenged you and the scientists at the University of Washington to a seminar debate and discussion about failed climate models and radiative transfer theory employed in them and you refused to debate the issue with us as did the rest of the University faculty.

    Now I see that your position is to want it both ways. You demand academic free speech, which I support, but you are now engaging in the same sort of reprehensible behavior that you accused those in the University of Washington faculty of doing to you by censoring and bullying you about the current state of the climate. But now you are refusing to defend your beliefs as any reputable scientist would be happy to do by deliberately marginalizing any who question the accuracy of your claims about the future climate and CO2’s role in it according to failed climate models that you strongly believe in as a modeler yourself.

    Marginalizing the opinions of those who do not support or believe your claims about CO2 and climate by calling them a fringe and unimportant position is the equivalent of wanting to censor and cut out of the discussion all together evidence from your critics that involves exposing how badly these models you have faith in are performing and discussing the physics employed in them that many of us know are faulty and causing the failures. When so much is at stake that will be very costly to the general public from poor policy making decisions coming out of running failed climate models that you insist are accurate, but evidence shows otherwise, and your refusal to explain yourself and answer the tough questions goes directly to irresponsible behavior and misleading the political class.

    You are losing a considerable amount of support having wrote this article which exposes you for speaking out of both sides of your mouth. To put it mildly, you have become a hypocrite and no longer a trustworthy scientist.

  44. As for Cliff’s ASP acronym, I would term them DSP.
    They aren’t “anxious.” They are “Deranged.”
    Anxious is just being too polite about their chronic psychological problems. A Steady pharmacological intervention with alprozalam (Xanax) would benefit everyone around them.

    • Millions of rational, non-delusional, informed, intelligent, literate* people with no clinical history of mood or thought disorders believe the proposition that we need to Do Something, and we need to do it yesterday.

      Writing them off as mentally ill would—besides being a bit of a dog act reminiscent of Lewandowsky—close off the only path we have to reconciling with, and deprogramming, half the population. If we abandoned the presumption of mutual rationality, we’d rule ourselves out of any conversation with our climate-concerned friends and neighbors.

      If you can only explain the societal state of affairs by assuming the existence of a pandemic (literally) of mental illness unparalleled in medical history, I humbly suggest you need to think a bit harder.

      I say “if,” because it’s also possible I’ve misinterpreted you, and that you’re talking about a much more specific demographic than I had in mind. If so, sure, it’s not beyond the bounds of plausibility that a relatively small group could be in the grip of something like a folie a plusieurs. So let me preemptively apologize in case that’s what’s you meant.

      * …albeit not scientifically literate.

      • Brad,
        You are confusing/conflating Cliff’s ACT with his ASP grouping defintions.

        By definition, Cliff’s ASP is an anxiety disorder. And Xanax is an anti-anxiety med.

        Alprazolam, sold under the trade name Xanax, among others, is a short-acting benzodiazepine. It is most commonly used in short term management of anxiety disorders, specifically panic disorder or generalized anxiety disorder.”

        So take a “chill pill”. Weather events are not climate.

        • Joel,

          You’re quite right, that’s what happened. Mind you, I didn’t really confuse or conflate them, both of which would imply elision: falsely treating two distinct things as the same thing. Rather I mistook each for the other. There’s no word for that as far as I know, but suffice it to say I got my ACTs ASP-backwards.

          It’s a good thing I apologized in advance for misunderstanding you. In retrospect, let me apologize in hindsight.

      • Members of the ACT and ASP groups are alike in suffering from a delusion. In the line of research that I have conducted over the past three decades I have discovered the nature of this delusion. It is to mistake a logically unsound argument for a logically sound one and is understandable because the logically unsound argument is dressed up to look like a logically sound one.

        The logically sound argument is of the form of a predictive inference. The logically unsound argument is of the form of a “unit-measure-equivocation,” that is, an argument made by a model in which a term changes meaning in the midst of the argument and the term that changes meaning is “unit” in the phrase “unit measure.” “Unit measure” is the axiom of probability theory which states that “1 is the measure of a sure event.”

        For a predictive inference, “unit” means “1 thing” but for a unit-measure-equivocation “unit measure” means “0 things,” or “2 things.” For the argument that is made by a modern-day climate model “unit” can be shown to mean “0 things” but this argument is dressed up to look as though “unit” means “1 thing.” This deception leads members of both groups to mistake a unit-measure-equivocation for a predictive inference. That they fall for this deception does not signify that members of both groups are crazy but only that they have been deceived.

  45. It’s a shame Cliff’s taxonomy neglects the scientifically-trained, honest demographic (STH), which rejects the rather comical idea that there’s a problem at all, choosing instead to devote their lives to the war on the numberless host of non-imaginary enemies of sentient life, from paediatric cancers to canine distemper, male pattern baldness, the non-reheatability of pizza, and other agents of suffering and inconvenience.

    Scientifically-trained but *dishonest* people have the option of keeping their laughter to themselves and pretending to buy into the climate narrative for career advancement or social prestige. In credal terms, they move into the pseudo-believing crypto-den*al (PBCD) niche. You can’t throw a live grenade at a Conference of Parties these days without killing a few partygoers of this persuasion.

  46. Case in point: Cliff writes of ASPies that…

    “They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.”

    …whereas PBCD types, who are left out of Cliff’s dichotomy, often reason conversely.

    They see social change and the very reorganization of society as necessary, and “dealing with global warming” as a means to achieve that.

  47. I hate to impose on Anthony’s good nature so I will not share the public relations document of my new book. The book is on climate change and written so anyone can understand it; without lots of charts and graphs. The title of the book is: Climate Change: A Convenient Truth. Not a long book and easy to read covering all the major areas of climate change. If you want more information just drop me a note to: Jim Hollingsworth The book should be listed on Amazon in about a month. Thanks. Jim Hollingsworth

  48. The actual real bona fide rational climate debate is between those who wrongly think (or pretend to) that CO2 is a problem, and those who know that it is not only not a problem, but a life-giving benefit which we actually need more of, not less.

  49. You can tell the perversely-motivated types from their reaction to novel approaches to pseudo-solving the non-problem of global warming.

    Ask them if they’ve read that bombshell new Nature paper yet, the one everyone’s talking about which demonstrates how to permanently “stabilize” the “climate system” using a $5 widget available at any Radio Shack.

    Anyone sincerely worried about climate change will hope it’s legit, and react with some combination of skeptical curiosity and cautious relief.

    But if they shoot the messenger instead, it’s because they don’t want it to be true, and if they don’t want it to be true, it’s because they really had their hearts set on a revolution to sabotage the modern industrial economy. They’d hate to have to go back to the drawing board and invent a whole new pretext for doing it, especially after the three decades they’ve sunk into pulling off the climate scam.

      • That trick would be: Do Nothing!

        If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And the Earth’s climate ain’t broke, at least as far as anyone can demonstrate. Speculation is not a demonstration of anything.

  50. The debate between the ASP group and ACT group has tended to focus on the magnitude of the so-called “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) but without asking the question of whether the model for which ECS is the proportionality constant makes a logically sound argument. Upon critical examination this argument is found to violate the law of the excluded middle and in this respect to be logically unsound.

    • Yes, and how logically sound is it to assume that ALL current warming is caused by CO2?

      That’s what the alarmists do, they assume that all the current warming is caused by CO2 which makes the ECS much higher. The more natural warmig there is, the lower the ECS is. Alarmists don’t want us to believe in natural warming anymore because they want to pretend that the ECS is skyhigh.

      But the alarmists can’t explain why the warming of the 1930’s reached the same or higher temperature levels (in the case of the United States) than today without CO2 being a significant factor. Something other than CO2 raised the temperatures in the 1930’s. Is it logical to assume that this mechanism is completely inoperative now and only CO2 is a factor in the warming of the atmosphere? The answer is: No, that is not logical.

      The alarmists can’t explain the warmth of the 1930’s in the context of human-caused climate change so instead of trying to explain it, they just erased the record of that warmth from the official global surface temperature record and produced the fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature graph that erases the warmth of the 1930’s and erases the cold of the 1970’s.

      Here’s an example of the true global surface temperature profile, the Hansen 1999 chart on the left in the link, and an example of a fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature chart on the right in the link.

      The Hansen 1999 US chart on the left is what I call the True global temperature profile. Just about every regional, unmodified temperature chart from around the world resembles the Hansen 1999 chart where the 1930’s show to be as warm as the temperatures today. This shows us that we are not, as the alarmists claim, experiencing unprecedented warming today. It was just as warm in the 1930’s without the benefit of large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which means the human-caused climate change scare stories are science fiction and CO2 has much less of an effect on the Earth’s atmosphere than the alarmists claim.

      Thus, the impetus for the Climategate Charlatans to modify the surface temperature record so it appears that the temperatures are getting hotter and hotter and are the hottest temperatures in history today, and they created the bogus, bastardized, fraudulent Hockey Stick chart in order to lie to the people of the world about a climate crisis that doesn’t exist.

      NO unmodified regional surface temperature chart resembles the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. There’s a reason for that. The regional unmodified charts record the truth, and the Hockey Stick chart tells a huge lie.

      The Data Manipulators changed the charts that look like the Hansen 1999 chart into the chart that looks like the Hockey Stick in order to perpetrate their Big Lie.

      This Lie is the only thing the Alarmists can point to as their “evidence” for a climate crisis, and it’s all made up out of whole cloth. It’s a figment of the fevered imaginations of some very dishonest people.

      The Data Manipulators should be required to justify their manipulations. Trump could order NASA Climate and NOAA to do so. I don’t know that he will, but he could. Wouldn’t you love it! 🙂

      • Since the has the only long term, reliable, continent-wide coverage, of historical temperature data, and since this data set matches up very well with other data sets that were extant prior to global warming alarumism, and also matches up very well with individual long term station data from widely dispersed locations around the globe, AND also matches up very well with historical written accounts, there is very little reason to think that the unadjusted US record should not be taken as a proxy for the entire globe.
        For one thing, no one can explain how an entire continent can have a trend which runs counter to global trends for well over a century. I say that it cannot: It is impossible for a whole continent to be cooling overall, on a world which is warming overall.
        Besides for the utter lack of any (plausible or even barely possible) explanation for how this could be the case, is the coincidence factor: What are the odds that the only place with excellent long term data over an entire continent, also happens to be the one place with a trend different than the rest of the planet as a whole?
        To do actual science, one must examine all available evidence.
        Rejecting any and all dispositive evidence is as unscientific as it gets.

  51. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics clearly states,
    first and foremost:

    “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”

    And specifically directs journalists to:

    Label advocacy and commentary

    So, what is one to conclude when one sees this?:
    (Columbia Journalism Review)

  52. Wow, Dr. Mass has changed a lot, since he was an unhappy warmist pushing some dubious woe to us warming scenarios into the future like so many of the others speaking a similar language, now he is speaking a very different message these days for something different, one with a moderation of views for the future that can be addressed with a positive frame of mind.

    Dr. Curry was once a person who one thought Skeptics were unsavory people beholden to special interests, now she knows better, which is why she has grown up about the real world of skepticism, a people who does care about the environment and about good science research.

    He is on the road Dr. Curry once traveled, when she too was mistreated for being an honest person about climate change stuff.

    Welcome to the rational side, Dr. Mass

  53. I’m all for research into competitively priced energy. But I’m also for as much plant food as we can put into the atmosphere as we came close to ending all life on earth at during the last full glaciation period as the plant food percentage in the atmosphere came way to close to 150ppm.

    But as for this current slight warming which still much below all of the prior higher temps bumps in this inter-glacial, as we came out of the little ice age (yep, that hockey stick graph was lying propaganda), this is much to do about nothing. There is not a single bit of evidence I’ve yet seen that shows that C02 is driving temps, storms, etc. Dis-proven models are not evidence.

    And if people don’t realize the models are dis-proven, or are unaware that the hockey stick was propaganda, go start your paleo-climate education and get your head out of the useful idiot sand.

  54. You cannot be serious!
    “fossil fuel funded denier community”

    OK, for those of us who are not as well informed as you:
    – In that community specifically who are the “funders” and what amounts have they funded?
    (As an additional exercise please compare these amounts to the funding provided to activists by governments and tax exempt organizations as well as corporations.)
    – In that community, who are are the receivers of that largesse?
    Do you think WUWT is a recipient? If so, how much do you think they receive?

    BTW, if you think WUWT is part of that community, what is your recommended way of “shutting it down”?
    – Show the actual financial links between funders and recipients in that community.

    Hint: Using Michael Mann as a reference is not sufficient.

  55. Cliff’s point is that the alarmists and fear-mongers are trying to shut down any real debate and any real science. He grouped together “deniers” and lukewarmers, which offended both, but that was not his point. Deniers and Lukewarmers have more in common than either admits. BTW “deniers” was always a biased label, on purpose. A better name would be climate atheists, for those who do not believe in the new climate change religion, aka Hell on Earth.

    • Neither “deniers” or “lukewarmers” believe that we have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, a statement that Cliff claims everyone has agreed with.

  56. Brad, thanks for the h/t.
    I went to Radio Shack and purchased that widget. (It has a much more technical name but I can’t remember it.)
    The great news is that the climate around my home has indeedstabilized.
    (Nary a change in the last hour.)

    I am now going door to door to neighbors so our whole street will be without climate variation.

    Thanks Again!!
    from Ol’ George.

    • Must be nice, having half a dime to casually immolate on the altar of rank superstition. I hope your neighbors pitched in. Remember that episode of the Simmo where Lisa sells Homer a rock that keeps tigers away? Actually, I think he begged her to take his money once he noticed the lack of tigers in the vicinity of the rock. I don’t know why I’m thinking about that episode. Human brains are funny, innit? Good luck finding a butcher who stocks them these days, but.

  57. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    So you start by dismissing those who take note that the models have all failed, that the predicted hotspot is absent, the predicted higher H2O atmospheric content is lower, and that the predicted reduced radiation to space is higher, and who therefore conclude, not unreasonably, that the theory is false.

    This is an example of moderates taking the “bridge not far enough” approach. I.e., conceding their ground before the debate even starts. Another example to clarify: “Feminism has gone too far / gone off the rails.” NO! Feminism was always bad from the outset: We should be concerned about everyone, not only people with some unavoidable genetic distinction, be it sex or race.

  58. As many of the comments here suggest, the OP’s assertion that there are two groups, or two sides to the debate, is erroneous. Any such division of people into discrete groups is liable to be simplistic. It’s a spectrum, but even so, people may have characteristics that fall at an extreme as well as some the are relatively centrist at the same time. For instance, people can be anxious about climate change, yet not subscribe to the Green New Deal. People can recognize the role that technology and investment can play, while also believing that we can all play a role as individuals, or that government needs to play a role in regulation, or investment to get new technologies off the ground – just as it plays a role in helping American industry through tariffs, or tax breaks for fossil fuel.

    Climate change is not just a “technical problem,” it’s a human one, with tangible human costs.

    Anxiety and fear about climate change is natural when the effects are broad, well-substantiated, and potentially devastating to countless people, yet so many disbelieve it and are against addressing it, and when people see policies to do so abandoned. A “solution to the global warming issue” is only possible if people work together to deal with it now, even if it comes at a price – and still, it will proceed. We cannot possibly stop it from happening in the coming few decades; the cost would be too high. The most we can hope to do is slow it down. Why denigrate young people because of their realistic fears?

    It’s a complex problem. First and foremost, the science needs to be seen on its own merits, apart from politics. It needs to not be viewed in terms of what policies may result from scientific conclusions – setting policy is dependent on the science, not the other way around. And we cannot rely on the media, politicians, think tanks or biased internet websites to give us a thorough, accurate picture of the science. Expertise is important, and that’s why scientific consensus is important. At the same time, we must recognize that science is an ongoing process, and that we must expect there to be uncertainty about some aspects of climate science – but that doesn’t mean, either, that we should wait until all answers are precisely known to take action.

    There are alarmists out there – those who think that the planet and humanity are doomed. There are also deniers – those who deny the fact of human-induced climate change. Neither position is helpful, productive or scientific. Among those who believe AGW theory and evidence, there are those who think adaptation is the only answer, and those who think that mitigation is the only answer. But it’s not an either/or question – mitigation can be used to make adaptation more feasible and less costly (economically and in terms of human welfare) by slowing the effects of climate change. Technology can be used to develop more efficient and economical ways of lowering emissions and CO2 sequestration. It’s a huge mistake to view mitigation only in terms of the technologies we have available, or the costs of implementing them. Solar energy costs have decreased so much that in many situations they are comparable to, or cheaper than, energy from fossil fuel, especially if one takes into account the costs of constructing something like a coal-fired power plant. In many areas of the developing world microgrids are cost effective and people can use them to access electricity sooner than they would if they had to wait to be connected to a grid originating near urban areas, where most power plants are built.

    Moving forward, the keys will be flexibility and innovation: increasing the alternatives, and applying those alternatives wisely. That means taking politics out of the equation, and viewing the situation realistically. It means ending the animosity, accusations and condemnation, and trying to work together. It means accepting that the scientific community in general deserves our trust, even if there are a few bad apples and abrasive personalities, and even though errors are made. Scientists are human, after all, and are subject to mistakes, egotism and ambition like the rest of humanity – but that does not mean that the conclusions of the scientific community in general should be doubted. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate sources of bias, and to root out error. Even contradictory results can be revealing, since they can be caused by mistakes (which can lead to improvement in methods) or by factors that hadn’t been considered (which can lead to greater understanding). The Hockey Stick, for example, may not have been perfect in its first representation, but the general shape has been reproduced many times since by different researchers using different methods.

    By all means, have skepticism! Questioning is good. Searching for truth is good. Assuming you know the truth better than those who have greater expertise, or that others are biased and you aren’t, is not skepticism, and not rational. Real skepticism acknowledges one’s own limits and biases, and questions one’s own assumptions and ideas. This is what science is all about.

    P.S. Using common gauges of climate change such as temperatures, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity, etc. to argue that it’s not happening is futile. You can ignore all of them and still find a vast amount of evidence that it’s happening. The biotic world alone is full of it (migrations, ranges, changes in plant flowering times, etc.).

      • That you anyhow. This debate is like Greta against seasoned scientists but it does not matter who you are. If data does not comply with your hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong and you must reject it. And we are surprised that the CAGW hypothesis does not die. Here comes the politics. In propaganda, emotions rule, not the facts.

        Coping is the right strategy in handling complex adaptive problems not all-in when you have not seen your cards in the Poker table. So: decentralize power, add freedom, deregulate, decrease taxes, subsidies and entitlements. Decrease them more. And finally independent, sovereign people and nations start to prosper with joy.

      • Kristi Silber
        “EDIT TO ABOVE:

        Oh, never mind. That was a waste of time, considering the audience.”

        No, it was a waste of time because CO2 is not causing the earth to warm. CO2 is plant food and is in short supply. CO2 is innocent of any wrong doing. It was the Sun that did it.

      • Like most leftists, Kristi gets so darned frustrated that the rest of us don’t agree with her just because she keeps telling us how stupid we are.

        • The only people less worthy of our time and attention than the dive by one liner warmistas, are the long winded ones.
          I would rather debate global warming alarmism with my dumbest cat than with Kristi Silber.
          At leas they act like they are paying attention.

    • Kristi: “First and foremost, the science needs to be seen on its own merits, apart from politics. ”

      This single sentence reduces a lot of the rest of your post to substantial drivel.

      If we want to examine the science. Cliff Mass needs to tell us why his climate models have failed to accurately predict the climate’s temperatures. Then address Dr. Pat Frank’s concerns about propagating climate model error that far exceeds delineating the Co2 signal sought after.

      Then explain why NOAA and NASA GISS seem not interested in the truth by manipulating the surface temperature records to fit failed modeling predictions.

      Once these questions are answered, then there doesn’t look to be a lot of “science” left on the pro-warming side of this issue.

    • ”There are also deniers – those who deny the fact of human-induced climate change”

      Fact? Why is this word misused again and again. The only fact is that AGW is NOT a fact. It is a supposition. Therefore to ”believe” it is illogical. To deny it in the absence of any proof – logical.

      • I don’t deny the “fact” of human-caused climate change. What I do is deny that any evidence has been put forward demonstrating human-caused climate change. And since we have been looking for this evidence for a very long time, it is likely that CO2 effects on the Earth’s temperatures are minimal.

        There’s no evidence demonstrating human-caused climate change, Kristi. You seem to think there is but I don’t know what you would be putting in that category. It can’t be much, so I’m puzzled at your certainty.

        And I’ll put out the standard challenge to the alarmists: If any alarmist has any evidence of human-caused climate change please direct us to it. I don’t expect to get any useful answers. The usual reply is either no reply at all, or insults. But no evidence. Ever! Not once have any of these alarmist climate experts been able to meet this challenge. They won’t meet it this time, either. I guarantee it.

    • ‘Science’ became political when Maurice Strong weaponized it to find solely for human-caused catastrophic change. The sun was taken out of consideration, as was water vapor! ‘Climate science’ that ignores the two main drivers can not be valid. When Strong devised the scheme, the motive was to frighten the world’s population into accepting a global tax on air. We are there.

    • “… P.S. Using common gauges of climate change such as temperatures, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity, …” rah rah rah

      Kristi, if any of your conceited utter claptrap was true BOM would not have to constantly cool the past by corrupting temp data, en-echelon, to try and eek out a “highest evah!” record or three next Summer.

      Your brain seems to be on the blink or you’re just willfully ignorant, i.e. not innocently ignorant.

      If you have any shred of honesty at all (which at this point I’m fairly certain you don’t) you would read this post about BOM’s on-going history of data corruption, and get a bit of a basic clue.

      Who knew? The Australian Bureau of Met just made last summer hotter, and history colder (again)

      Herein is revealed the non-existent quality level of BOM’s heavily UHI corrupted T ‘dataset’, in all its fake and thoroughly contrived and transmogrified laughably corrupt stupidity:

      • PS: There has been no increase in either storm intensity of frequency.

        Once again Kristi has to lie about the data in order to make her point.

    • Once again Kristi indicates that either she is a very shallow thinker, or she believes the rest of us are.
      Very few people deny that humans can affect the climate.
      What we deny are the claims of you alarmists that the amount of change is enough to cause us to worry, much less turn over everything to the government.

    • All there is to support the GHE is Feldman et al (2015)

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”

      And it failed to do even that.

      The “evidence” lies only in the models and Greta’s ability to see carbon dioxide.

    • Kristi,
      Nice to see have someone from the Gish Gallop school of Annoyingly Obfuscatory Debating grace us with their time wasting prattle.

  59. Beneficiaries are another group in climate debate. Huge amount of money can be made if people are submissive to rate and tax increases due to climate policies. Think about a corn farmer. No climate change results in no need for alcohol as a fuel. Price of corn goes done.

    Straw man arguments are common in climate debate. Very small is not zero, but in physics we often ignore contributing factors that are orders of magnitude too small. Impact of emissions can be practically zero even if the climate is changing. Be accurate and speak about the same things.

  60. Good grief. More gibberish. I love global warming and I love CO2. The part not to love is how the IPCC is manipulating science for political agenda.

  61. Amen to several above. The “third” group doesn’t see a “global warming issue” that needs any “solution”.
    No evidence that there is.

  62. If Greta (and all her silly admirers) wants to see what will control her future–and it sure ain’t climate–she should stop cackling like a Chicken Little and turn around and have a sober look at her country’s debt clock.

    Canadians tomorrow, and Americans next year that are old enough to vote might do the same. We can’t break the bank chasing foolish ‘climate change’ remedies; it’s already busted.

  63. Then there is reality. The reality is that climate change has been going on for eons. Climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up weather cycles that are part of the current climate with true climate change. The reality is that based on paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing 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. There is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So all of this effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. What I am saying is all a matter of science and it is all a matter of reality.

  64. Perhaps Bjørn Lomborg might help us understand how we should find solutions to problems as a result of Earth’s changing climate regardless of what the causes are.

      • (Snipped the personal attacks on the two people above, stick with the debate instead, also dial back on your comments to Kristi Silber, stick with the debate idea instead) SUNMOD

  65. Many of you suggest that there is a third group–those who believe that there is no problem, with little impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. Remember my title–it is about the REAL CLIMATE DEBATE. Those who believe in no impacts are simply not involved in the REAL DEBATE. The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. Not there has been a huge amount of hype by the global warming “advocates” and the global climate models have serious issues–trust me, I know about those. But to say there will be no effects is not serious and anyone claiming that is not part of the “real debate.”

    • Cliff Mass: “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. ”

      Nonsense, Cliff! You had to have studied the founding principles in atmospheric science as I did because you were in school at roughly the same time.

      Those founding principles, taught at every major university until climate modelers like you showed up in the 1980’s never suggested CO2 would have an effect on the climate system. It all goes to water vapor feedbacks and the founding principles suggest they must be negative with respect to CO2 as adding more of that increases atmospheric emissivity and cools the troposphere in exchange for any GHG effect at the surface. The warming effect was considered as a stand alone constituent that does not occur with the hydrological cycle in the way.

      The only thing that changed this was the shelving of these ideas by Elsasser from Harvard and a host of others who did all the founding work post Einstein. You nor anyone else has ever disproven the founding work. But you did supplant this work with failed climate models and claim without offering any proof that the model output is superior to empirical calculation. And the evidence and record shows how badly in error you are. Your refusal to discuss this and marginalize any who dare question it is but an offer of proof your position has lost any scientific merit and has deteriorated to one of political nonsense.

      • Chuck….please no name calling. All the “founding principles” are found in the radiation codes of modern models. They produce warming, resulting from changes in radiative fluxes, when CO2 is increased. Now climate models have all kinds of problems…which I note all the time (e.g., problems with clouds, poor convection, etc.) but the impact on radiation when CO2 is cranked up is in all of them. So you are saying that the radiation codes in modern models are missing something? Any proof of that? What are the problems? And you are entirely wrong that the curricula taught at universities changed regarding CO2 impacts on radiation. ..cliff

        • Cliff: You’re making things up again. I never called you a name like many warmers call those like myself, ie. “denier”.

          I did state that you have lost a lot of credibility with your post because you are marginalizing the opinions of many credible scientists and meteorologists by stating they are not part of a relevant or serious discussion about the climate. That is a preposterous position and very self serving to attempt to duck having to answer the tough questions through exclusion, which means you are hijacking science to advance your own perceived political “solution” to this “problem” which will and is misleading the political class who want to tax and regulate all forms of energy as their fraudulent Rx. That is also very self serving and attempting to create perpetuity in climate modeling funds paid for by the universities client, the taxpayer, through the political class that somewhat desires the sort of “solution” you are proposing.

          Cliff Mass: “So you are saying that the radiation codes in modern models are missing something? Any proof of that? What are the problems?”

          Me: You are again engaging in double speak. You just identified some key ones:
          ” Now climate models have all kinds of problems…which I note all the time (e.g., problems with clouds, poor convection, etc.) ”

          Without an adequate ability to calculate convection , the hydrological cycle itself, which means instantaneous cloud fractions both in terms of density and area coverage, how could you and why would you expect that the signal from increasing atmospheric CO2 could really be represented or even found? Without knowing the precise radiative feedbacks from the hydrological cycle which includes cloud fractioning, the results produced by the models are worthless. They are overrated heaps of junk and you, if anyone, should understand this. You should also understand, the very climate models you keep protecting are not closed physical systems that do not need help from the operator. They are tuned “adjusted” continuously and re-initialized to get a curve fitting match to the real temperature trends. That is not a model with any predictive skill. Did you read the latest paper on model error propagation authored by Pat Frank? Here is the reference:

          The founding principles in atmospheric science post Einstein that were derived by those such as Elsasser were very clear and you apparently did not understand what I was telling you. This entire argument goes to water vapor feedbacks. If they are positive, as failed climate modeling predicts, you get a significant warming result. If they are negative, meaning increased water vapor in the hydrological cycle from CO2 radiation is used up in precipitation, increasing cloud fraction, blocking solar insolation, and further radiating temperature induced vaporization from the earths surface released as latent heat out of the troposphere through cloud fractioning IR emission and solar insolation blocking which maintains a stable optical depth.

          Cliff Mass: “And you are entirely wrong that the curricula taught at universities changed regarding CO2 impacts on radiation. ”

          Me: They most certainly did. The founding expectations were that water vapor and the hydrological cycle completely dominates the IR spectrum and dwarfs the effect from atmospheric CO2. Precisely through the feedbacks I just mentioned that are anticipated to be negative. Climate models are completely backwards and increase atmospheric water vapor through time and create spurious warming that the records do not support. Plain and simple. CO2’s contribution to warming is as a stand alone constituent. It counts little in the presence of the hydrological cycle because cloud fractioning and precipitation act to reduce total optical depth integrated across all IR wavelengths including blocking incoming solar radiation as a response to increasing CO2.

          Here is the reference to Elsasser’s work:

          He actually developed the first graphical IR radiative transfer model that predicts the surface cooling rate based upon a water vapor optical depth that includes CO2 radiation as a proper IR proxy due to its ability to lower the water vapor optical depth through negative feedbacks.
          From the sound of your response, I doubt that you ever studied this important work and I know all the modelers from today never disproved it with the constant unsatisfactory results obtained by running failed climate models that I have now named the Oz machines.

        • Cliff,
          Do you know of any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is actually causing serious global warming? Or is the totality of the “problem” in the future as predicted by climate models?

      • Chuck Weise,
        By definition, Cliff Mass is right. Because it’s Cliff Mass’s defilade definition of the REAL CLIMATE DEBATE. If you don’t agree with his interpretation of the unverifiable and uncertifiable climate models, he excludes you from debate of the multiply flawed ASP and ACT assertions. Aversion to an honest, open debate drives him to deny by definition anyone not adhering to his rigid, narrow perspectives. Also, the capitalization REALLY adds AUTHORITY without SUBSTANTIATION, don’t you think?

        All tarted up, in the latest propaganda techniques…..

    • We may not be part od the “real debate”, but it is you who is not serious. To say there will be (significant, measurable) effects is not serious. It is naive and ignorant. Time will show this.

    • ” … The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. …”

      And yet as Ian Plimer pointed out on the weekend on Sky News Outsiders program, the Earth went through 6 Ice Ages when CO2 levels were scores of times higher than right now. But you are talking about fractional increases, where the heating occurs before the CO2 increase.

      So who are you to say who’s having a “real debate”?

      The facts of the Earth’s history trump all such limited ‘real debates’, and self-appointed gate-keepers of what the bounds of debate are. And re the meme about CO2 causing proportional heating, if any at all is not consistent with models, and at odds with Plimer’s geological facts, so falls into the area of highly-questionable ‘knowns’, at the best.

      I also take issue with your view that we need “saving” from climate-change – you presume way too much.

    • Cliff Mass,

      You assert,
      “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

      So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
      “Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
      In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.

      There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.

      Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
      This is indicated by the studies of
      Idso from surface measurements
      Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
      and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

      I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.

      A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.


    • Those who believe in no impacts are simply not involved in the REAL DEBATE

      Wrong on all counts. It’s those who believe in the AGW nonsense that are simply not involved in the “REAL DEBATE” because they, like *you* (as Chuck Wiese pointed out), *actively* refuse to debate whenever climate skeptics invite them to debate.

    • Cliff,

      I know I’ll be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe the “third group” is those of us who accept/agree that more atmospheric CO2 may somewhat warm the atmosphere but that warming is very minimal compared to the natural warming.

      This “third group” recognizes the uncertainty in the “settled science” you describe that bases its’ conclusions on “both theory and modeling”.

    • It really is sad when someone who once was a respected scientist has to reduce himself to lying in order to protect his paycheck.

      In his first statement, Cliff references those who don’t believe that the change is enough to cause any problem. Then Cliff jumps to arguing against those who believe there is no change.

      Dishonesty at it’s highest, but what I have come to expect from the global warming cabal.

      There are very, very few who claim that more CO2 won’t result in more warming.
      Cliff knows that he can’t defend the lies he has been making, so instead he lies about what others believe.

      Really, really pathetic. But when someone’s paycheck is on the line, they often lose what little was left of their integrity.

    • Actually, no.
      Carl-Otto Weiss has done the spectral analysis of the temperature changes for the last 2000 years, [With two colleagues, a mathematician/statistician and an astronomer, he published this paper in 2017: “Spectral Analysis Of Climate Data Shows: All Climate Change Is Due To Natural Cycles”. 2013 version
      and has found major components related to solar activity: He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature. Modification, yes, though not as much as the major GHG, water vapor. Not causality. A carefully worded conclusion does not say that CO2 cannot cause global climate change, just that there is no evidence that it ever has. He notes that all climate change (in that period, so far) is due to natural cycles, and there is no signal at all from our [or any] CO2 emissions.

    • Cliff wrote: “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

      That’s a start. Then the negative feedbacks need to be added to the equation. CO2 is not the only actor. There is a possiblity that CO2 adds no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere after negative feedbacks are included. Would you argue with that statement?

      Cliff wrote: “But to say there will be no effects [from CO2] is not serious and anyone claiming that is not part of the “real debate.”

      I don’t think very many people at this website deny that CO2 has some effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. The nature of that effect is what is in doubt. Is it large or small? Noone knows. Do you agree that noone knows this answer? Estimates are not knowledge. And the estimates keep getting smaller as time goes along.

      What do you think of the bastardization of the surface temperature record? Do your local regional temperature charts look like a Hockey Stick? Or do they look like Hansen 1999 US chart, where the 1930’s show to be just as warm as today?

      • Tom Abbott wrote: “There is a possiblity that CO2 adds no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere after negative feedbacks are included. Would you argue with that statement?”

        No reply from Cliff Mass. It’s a simple question. it’s one all alarmists should have to answer.

        If Mr. Mass is thinking clearly then he would have to agree that there is a possiblity that CO2 adds NO net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, no alarmist worth his salt would admit to such a thing because doing so would show that “The Science” is far from settled since all these expert climate scientists can’t tell you whether CO2 will or will not add net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. They don’t want the general public to know just how little they know about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.

        Cliff can’t answer because it would affect his job prospects. I understand, Cliff.

    • sunmod, what about these attacks by Cliff and steve on those who don’t worship as they do?

      (Will reply this once, they aren’t personal attacks on anyone by name, YOU however do name them, and attack them personally for opinions good or bad they make. Stick with the debate format or don’t reply to them at all) SUNMOD

      POLICY: “Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;….”

      • SUNMOD,
        I don’t know what MarkW said, but I trust your judgement. Maybe you personally agreed with what MarkW said but, the rules are the rules.
        (Ever think of running for the Supreme Court? 😎

        Yes, they’ve called/dismissed a whole group of us as idiots and not worthy to be considered. BUT, they haven’t singled out the individual out as an idiot (or worse).
        I think that’s the sometimes fuzzy tightrope SUNMOD is walking here.

    • Like most paid alarmists, neither cliff nor steve attempt to refute the arguments given.
      They just assume an air of authority and declare that those who disagree with them aren’t worth debating.

  66. Clearly Mr. Mass (SNIPPED the rest of the unnecessary attack, focus on the debate, not on the person) SUNMOD

  67. The commenters are right. The premises are wrong.
    There is nothing to be done about climate change since it is a given, has been ongoing for more than 550 million years. CO2 mitigation is not a solution, it is a problem of our own creation. There has never in the last 550 million years been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change – and that is, you know, a prerequisite for causation…

    There have been some tortured reconstructions that postulated that CO2 and temperature changes were “virtually simultaneous” (i.e. within a couple of hundred years) but there has NEVER been even a SUGGESTION that CO2 change ever preceded a downturn in temperature.

    This discussion is nostalgically medieval. And the True Believers are winning.

    • The True Believers are whining. Not winning.

      To wit: Trump. Brexit. Leaving Paris2015.
      And Soon: Goodbye Justin Turd’eau.

  68. I have read every comment but still want to know where this denier can get his money from big oil? Did they misplace my address or what?

    • I think they mixed up our addresses.
      I’ll send you your’s (as soon as I get it) and you send me mine (as soon as you get it).

  69. Thanks to Cliff Mass for commenting here, for jumping into the lion’s den.
    For all you lions out there, relax. Cliff is not a threat. Don’t worry, he probably won’t convince you.
    You don’t need to call him names.

    BUT, name any other climate scientist who speaks out against the alarmists. Granted there are a few, but not many. If anybody on “the other side” is willing to engage in the debate or in a conversation, he might be your best chance. Make friends with him. Ask him scientific questions. Cliff is not the enemy here.

    It’s time we did have a real scientific debate.

    • Yeah, such as where in the hell is the Troposphere “hot spot”? The overrated climate models predicted/projected it over 15 years ago, where is it……., in hiding behind warmist cloaks or eaten by hungry dogs?

      Where is it Dr. Mass?

      Where is it!!!

    • Cliff isn’t speaking out against the alarmists, he’s one of them.
      Anyone who believes that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions is by definition an alarmist who wants billions to die.

    • PS: Where is this debate?
      All I’ve seen is Cliff posting 2 or 3 times in order to insult those who don’t agree with his central premise that CO2 is a huge problem that has to be dealt with. (Which by the way is the core of the alarmist position.)

  70. … effective carbon tax/fee…

    An oxymoron if I ever saw one, at least as it relates to climate. Now if the goal is to massively increase government even beyond its already bloated state, and increase temperature related deaths due to energy poverty, at those things a carbon tax is pretty effective.

  71. The Real climate debate should be between the results from empirical data and the fiction generated by ignorance of that data.

    1. Analysis of lower tropospheric temperature and CO2 concentration shows that temperature is independent of CO2 concentration, ie CO2 has not caused global warming.

    2. Analysis shows that temperature determines the rate of generation of CO2 whence it is impossible for CO2 to be causing temperature change.

    3. The mechanism for the Greenhouse Effect does not produce enough energy to create the imaginary 33 degree Effect.

    4. The model used to determine the base temperature of -15 deg.C for an Earth without greenhouse gases is a totally implausible attempt at calculating the Greenhouse Effect.

    5. If there was a Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would have cooled because of back-radiation of the Sun’s incoming infrared out into space.

    6. The UN IPCC deviously created the false notion of ‘short wavelength in, long wavelength out’. In fact 51% of the Sun’s irradiance falls within the infrared range and it is twice the amount of energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

    7. Temperature change always precedes CO2 change so it is impossible for the latter to cause the former.

    8. The Fourier spectrum for CO2 rate of change and temperature are practically identical confirming the causal relationship between the two and the resultant periodicities indicate that temporal variation may be driven by the ever-changing configuration within the Solar System. Even the periodicity of the Moon can be detected.

    9. The seasonal variation for the temperature and the CO2 concentration move in opposite directions to that proposed by the global warming proposition. As CO2 increases, temperature falls and as CO2 decreases, temperature rises as a result of the seasonal variation of life.

    10. At Cape Grim, Tasmania, the rate of change of CO2 correlates with the Pacific Ocean El Nino Index, showing that climate drives CO2 generation not the reverse.

  72. @cliff maas @toto
    The science of CO2 was noted by Arrhenius, with an exponential decline in the GHG effect of CO2. That is: 50% in the first 20 ppm with an exponential decay thereafter. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline. That means that when/if CO2 doubles to 800 ppm, its GHG effect will increase by less that 2%.

    Are there any actual scientists here?

    • Actually no, with all due respect to the great man. 480 million years ago arthropods (including lobsters) had already diverged from the lineage leading to chordates and eventually us. I think our body plan is upside down relative to the arthropods. But communal behaviour appears spontaneously in all animals of whatever type. No surprises there.

  73. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    I’m not at all convinced any warming and increased CO2 wont turn out to be a net positive for the planet. All indications so far suggest its being good for the planet. If the alarmists were being honest, we’d be hearing a lot more about the greening of the planet but instead any hint of greening is always followed up by “lower nutrition” and “will be worse in the future”.

  74. Cliff M
    Thanks for commenting here.
    Your description of the ACT and ASP groups is accurate and helpful.
    To be honest though – I’m not sure 🤔 which side I would want to win.
    Yes the ASP side are irrational and have the potential – and desire – do do great damage to the economy and to frustrate sensible policies.
    Because of their actions real people will lose their jobs.
    Real children will be pushed into poverty and social marginalisation. Real people will commit suicide. They themselves are generally privileged so will only laugh at all this.
    But bad as this is, there is an even worse threat on the ACT side. That is the threat of geo-engineering. If in a mood of technically confident yes-we-can, a grandiose geo-engineering scheme is agreed globally, then the potential will be created to cause massive damage both to the environment and to the economy, beyond the dreams or capabilities of the ASP group.

    So with ACT and ASP going at it inside the wire cage – I’m rooting for ASP.

    • I don’t want either side to win. If either wins energy costs are going to skyrocket and billions will die.
      All to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.

    • Mark
      You’re right, that’s the point.
      Both of those groups propose “cures” many times worse than the disease.
      But the most frightening error of hubris would be geo-engineering.

  75. global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    Bull. Utter Bull

  76. “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”

    I stopped reading after that.

  77. It’s like a battle between the “science” inspired nasties, and the “Pol Pot” inspired Khmer Rouge. Maybe we should just build a wall round then

  78. Lot of opinion without hard verifiable facts here. In particular the assertion of what a real climate debate is that tis whole wibble is based on. I challenge the fundamental premise of the post about what is a real debate.

    For me that would be the one where theory matches observation, which in fact the modeller’s theories do not. Empirical analysis has also provided a much closer match with the reality we observe. Its results predict a forecast of declining temperatures, following a perfectly normal rise in temperature consistent with the record of multi centenial variation over 10Ka, a rise over 300 years since the Little Ice Age, which followed a similar few hundred year fall from c.1Ka BP. Check out the record, it goes up and down all the time, is our rise different from all the others, its certainly not as high. Fact.

    That’s the observation based empirical approach, not theoretical computer models that have wrongly amplified a tiny AGW effect by assuming positive feedback from water vapour while underestimating clouds, and ignored the lithosphere. And are wrong, in the fact of “real” observation.

    1. All of the models, except the Russian model, are wrong in fact. By a factor of 3 on average. As proved by the NASA observations of the GHE. This is the hard satellite and balloon evidence from the NASA scientists who set up the recording and were part of the IPCC until they pointed out the inconvenient truth – the observational science facts. One member now run the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Climate Science Faculty.

    The models are wrong, in fact, not opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Prove me wrong.

    Where are the observational facts that prove the models correct? BTW Experts agreeing with each other is not scientific proof. Only theories agreeing with observations, for all observers, every time, is.

    2. Also, the recent change we observe, when analysed in 2016 using well established and prudently applied Fourier analytical techniques, shows all recent change – recent being the tiny period of 2Ka within the short 10Ka interglacial warm spell of the current ice age – is dominantly accounted for by 3 well defined cycles.

    These directly correspond with known solar cycles, and the results also show no signal as would be expected from recent human activity – monatonic signals from CO2, Methane, Heat or whatever. “All we see is cycles”.

    The paper is easy to find, this short presentation gives the insight from it.

    • One of the best videos I have seen for quite a while. It elegantly shows just how feeble the co2 argument is. Everyone should watch it. Thanks for posting!

  79. Brad Keyes said, “So I did what scientists do. I went to SkepicalScience. It’s a blog you’ve probably never heard of ever (hence your denihilism), but the great thing is it’s fully science-based, and if I thought the facts were welcome at WUWT I’d paste my 15 or 20 favorite slabs of information below, to help broaden your horizons. But you and I both know such an antidote to anti-scienec would “conveniently” get lost in moderation.”

    So, Brad, why don’t you present these scientific “facts” from Skeptical Science so they can be evaluated instead of just saying you have them. They will undoubtedly be debunked.

    • Lynne, Brad doesn’t have any such “facts” because Brad was taking the mickey, and was not at all serious. One clue would be referring to SkepicalScience as a blog no one here probably ever heard of (it and Cook have been the subject of numerous posts and comments here at WUWT) another clue should have been the asking for “a photocopy of your parents’ marriage license” as a form of proof of someone’s scientific credentials. Another big red flag pf a clue, of course, being the claim that “skepticism means following the authoritative view wherever it leads” which is the exact opposite of skepticism.

    • Absolutely right, Lynn. I’ll go with Trenberth’s contribution: “There is an absence of warming,and it’s a travesty we can’t explain it.” But you shouldn’t have to, should you? All you need do is point to the data for the last 600 million years and show that when CO2 goes up, temp then goes up, and when it goes down, temperature follows. But the reverse is what happens. Temperature and CO2 are correlated without causality, like sex and marriage.
      I’ll go with the 80-20 rule:
      80% of the climate warming is due to natural Earth cycles.
      80% of the remaining 20% (16%) is due to Solar Cycles.
      80% of the remaining 4% (3.2%) is due to Anthropogenic activity, including CO2 production.
      1.8% is pure chaos.
      What they want us to believe is that the top 80% is Anthropogenic (give us all your money now) and the 3rd cut was natural Earth cycles.
      1/ Is global warming happening?
      2/ Is it a bad thing?
      3/ Are we causing it?
      4/ Is there anything we can do about it?
      Answers seem to be:
      1/ A little bit, still.
      2/ Not necessarily – there are real benefits as well as potential problems.
      3/ Doesn’t seem so – CO2 is not a major factor, and even if it is, mankind is a very small contributor to CO2.
      4/ Because we are a small contributor to CO2, which is at these levels and at this rate of rise a very tiny contributor to GW, then our actions to reduce this will have virtually no effect, except to impair our economies.

  80. The comments on this article are what I come to WUWT for: the reasoned destruction of the alarmist religion. Bravo!

  81. “The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”

    I think the two sides even agree on THIS! Clive Best argued that all we have to do is stabilize CO2 output by humans, and atmospheric CO2 will quickly reach a balance.

    Some might argue that stabilizing human CO2 emissions may not stabilize the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, because it might be the oceans rather than human emissions that are the controlling factor:

    • Sorry, second paragraph should start “I DON’T think the two sides even agree on THIS! “

  82. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

    Since everyone agrees, in your opinion Cliff Mass, then perhaps you can answer one simple question: what is the optimal climate/temperature? Because for “global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem” to be true that means we’ve strayed from the optimal climate/temperature and need to return to it and order for us to know that and do that we must know what the optimal climate/temperature is. so what is it Cliff Mass? and when was the climate at that optimal climate/temperature?

    • John….I have no idea of the ideal temperature. But rapid change of temperature is obviously a problem for society and the ecosyste,. That is the immediate problem..cliff

      • That’s a fairly unusual view IMHO, is there a scientific consensus on the derivative of temperature being the problem?
        And to differentiate the question John asked also: How large must the rate of change of temperature be to cause an immediate problem*?

        *I would define problem as immediate enough to require catastrophic anthropogenic global mitigation.

      • Cliff Mass, if you don’t know what the ideal temperature is then you don’t know that any change is good (bring us closer to the ideal) or bad (taking us further away from it). Your feelings don’t make it one or the other.

        And what rapid change? 1 degree since the little ice age is hardly rapid, and not a problem for either society or the ecosystem. Both have survived such changes (and even greater) in the past (from the MWP on the warm end to the LIA on the cold). So your “immediate problem” is a non-scientific feeling not a scientific fact and is ignorant of the history of climate on our humble little planet.

      • Good thing there has been no rapid change of temperature. Nor is there any evidence that more CO2 can cause such a thing.

      • To put it into perspective, there’s an image I’ve seen before that overlays the temperature trend onto a thermometer to put the “rapid change” into context. I haven’t been able to find the image but this one from suyts (from an article titled: how global warming looks on your thermometer) makes the same point:
        Again I ask: what rapid change?

      • The DO events (Dansgaard Oesger) take place during glacial intervals – there were about 20 of these in the last glacial between the Eemian and the Holocene.–Oeschger_event#/media/File:Ice-core-isotope.png

        DO events are “micro-interglacials” in which temperature of the NH at least spikes upwards – and then quickly back down again – over a range of 10 degrees or more.

        Ten degrees. In a few centuries only.

        If 20 fast excursions of 10 degrees within the last glacial interval did not cause a mass extinction, then why would a 2 degree excursion now cause one?

      • Cliff Mass wrote ” But rapid change of temperature is obviously a problem for society and the ecosyste,”
        But CET shows MORE RAPID changes in the past. Looking at peak temperature to the next peak:
        1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
        1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
        1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
        1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr
        All faster than now, without man’s CO2.
        Data from CET

    • It hardly makes sense when we have humans living on the planets surface with a temperature range of 100 degrees F.

      We can live where the average high is near freezing to other areas where the average high is nearly 100 F in July.

      Yet some people are terrified of a 1 C warmer temperature in the next few decades……., when it was about THAT warm at the Climate Optimism (that word!) around 6-8,000 years ago……..

      We live in a CO2 starved world, yet some are scared of it, must be the munchies?

      • It’s not like we have any actual influence over climate change. All we’ve ever done is adapt, and that quite successfully.
        There is no evidence ever produced for control of climate by CO2, and we are not in control of CO2.

  83. This is GREAT news. They’re eating each other. I predicted it, but only in private conversations, so I can’t really prove it. Kind of like AGW that way.

  84. With all due respect I think it is imperative for Cliff to respond to the highly germane post by Richard.
    Cliff’s feedback can only be more enlightening.

    Richard S Courtney October 21, 2019 at 2:38 am
    Cliff Mass,

    You assert,
    “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

    So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
    “Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
    In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.

    There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
    This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements
    Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.

    A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.


    • He will avoid this completely, it is why so many warmist scientists have so little credibility, when they overlook or bypass the EMPIRICAL research method, in favor of far into the future climate modeling fantasies, that lacks forecast skill and fails the Falsification criteria.

      They have fallen too deep into the ever changing modeling games, it is a serious detriment to good science research that normally runs on Reproducibility, that enhances future science research. A bunch of new climate models published every 5 years using the same end year 2100, with the now well known cascading failures of previous climate models, is a perfect example of pseudoscience that now runs as an industry for a living. It is no surprise why climate modeling science by a small group of people has been able to hijack the overwhelming number of published research that doesn’t agree with the AGW conjecture.

      This is where the problem lies in.

      • Sunsettommy,

        You say of my post copied by Steve Oregon, “He (i.e. Cliff Mass) will avoid this completely” etc.

        It seems you are correct because Cliff Mass has subsequently made replies in this thread (e.g. at October 21, 2019 at 12:10 pm) but not to my post nor to the repetition of my post by Steve Oregon.

        This is disappointing because when Cliff Mass was recently complaining at his views being censored by his university I posted on his blog to proclaim I would do all I could to defend his right and his ability to oppose my views.


        • It was not a difficult prediction because most of them do that, they ignore contrary arguments everywhere I have visited.

          They are soooo deeply in love with Modeling constructs, that empirical evidence is like a virus to them. They avoid it by trying to ignore it, which is why they either ignore YOU or violently react with a nasty reply and a block or ban on you if they could.

          Dr. Mass has a lot of education and experience, but lets many down because he is on the AGW Modeling construct bandwagon.

      • Cliff Mass,

        Your attempted deflection fails.
        I commented that there is no evidence for a climate emergency, but I did NOT say you were claiming there is a climate emergency. I said to you,
        “Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.”
        And I cited and linked to three completely independent analyses which demonstrate that.

        Also, your assertion of “No political posturing” is factually incorrect. You may not have intended to do it, but I explained that you did do it when I wrote to you,
        “You assert,
        “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

        So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
        “Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
        In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.”

        Having said that, I am grateful that you have responded to what I wrote but I regret that you have not attempted to answer any part of what I wrote.


  85. I’m sorry Dr. Cliff Mass, but I disagree with your silly assertion that all reasonable experts are in lockstep on the function of so-called greenhouse gasses driving climate change. The GHG effect is real, I agree. But as for small increases in CO2 driving the bus, you simply have not made your case. In fact, the long ice core measurements rather refute this hypothesis. How could the world possibly cool into subsequent periods of glaciation, when the CO2 levels where at their peaks during the inter-glacial periods? According to your hypothesis, and according to the mathematics built into CMIP computer models, this is impossible. Yet it happened in every dip seen in the long ice cores. This suggests that CO2 was an effect of climate warming, not a cause.

    Where is the CMIP computer model that examines THAT hypothesis? Where is the CMIP computer model that properly models the water cycle and captures the real facts of cloud based albedo changes? I’ll tell you where. In the same place where the magical invisible unicorns are hiding.

    I’ll think any “expert” who’s definitively saying NO to idea that the water cycle is primary and that CO2 is secondary in the variability of climate, or who thinks current CMIP non-scientific computer models are properly capturing the water cycle, or that I must accept his word without him showing his work, is a self-serving, pompous, unscientific bag of wind. This is not directed personally at you, mind you. I think you’re trying to be fair, and that you want to do good science. But ask yourself if the water cycle been given a fair hearing by the CO2 zealots and CMIP climate modelers? If so, you need only show where this has happened, and how the conclusion of CO2 being primary and the water cycle secondary, was made, and why this decision is so persuasive to you. If you show me that, and you’ve been thinking about this properly, then your conclusion will probably be persuasive to me, too. So, show me. If you can’t, then I think you owe the skeptics of CO2 catastrophe a huge apology.

  86. ASP — The cure is worse than the disease. We must destroy western civilization and the economy NOW in order to save it. (politics)

    ACT — “the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue”. Including the determination that there is no need to panic? In fact, that there might not be an issue? (science)

    Dr. Mass is an expert in weather modelling. He knows how many days in the future can be accurately forecast. I am not clear how much he knows about climate modelling. I doubt that his own weather models use any CO2 information. I would like Dr. Mass to explain why he believes CO2 to be an issue. Or is it an “everybody knows” thing?

    I invite Dr. Mass to a real climate debate. Here.

    PS. nuclear power. If fossil fuels are bad, the only viable alternative is nuclear. Therefore anybody who is CAGW and rejects nuclear has some other motive, not saving the climate. As if. CAGW is the new rain dance.

    • Toto….thanks for asking. I do climate modeling too. Weather models do have CO2 in there and when I run them for 130 years, greenhouse gas concentrations change in time. CO2 is an issue because it changes the radiative balance and the atmosphere warms up during the upcoming century. Radiation codes are quite solid…..I know that from the excellent results using them over contemporary periods. So we have a clear radiative forcing, but climate models with known deficiencies–which I will not hide. So there is going to be warming, but the uncertainty is large….cliff

      • Cliff Maas: “clear radiative forcing”

        Why don’t we have charts allowing us to compare the ‘clear radiative forcing’ by altitude, by humidity, by atmospheric tides, etc. Why aren’t we measuring it at all?

        How does this “clear radiative forcing” manifest itself on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2? Why aren’t we measuring it on Mars?

        What other physical properties are there that can’t be measured?

      • “CO2 is an issue because it changes the radiative balance and the atmosphere warms up during the upcoming century. ”

        Where is your evidence that CO2 warms up the atmosphere by radiation? Currently there are 2,500 air molecules for every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. How does one CO2 molecule raise the energy levels of 2,500 other air molecules? How does adding a few more anthropogenic CO2 molecules make this negligible situation worse?

        The atmosphere is warmed by conduction at the earth’s surface aided by convection not by the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 that is transparent to 92% of the earth’s emission spectrum for longwave radiation and absorbs that radiation in the 15 micron band only.

        Cargo cult science is alive and well.

        • “Cliff Mass October 21, 2019 at 12:10 pm

          So there is going to be warming, but the uncertainty is large….cliff”

          The uncertainty is so large as to make any possible reaction and/or mitigation impossible to determine.

          Welcome to the “third group” Cliff.

      • Thanks for replying. Radiation is pretty well known (although there seems to be some disagreement with those numbers in climate science). This is where some would pop in and say “it’s all basic physics” and consider that the winning zinger. More heat retained, temperature goes up. But we know it’s more complicated than that. The oceans also store heat and move it around. Is that in your climate models? We know that The Blob has a huge effect on the Pacific Northwest weather. What I am asking is how can you be sure there are not higher order processes which respond to or even regulate temperatures after whatever perturbations happen (CO2)?

      • Cliff Mass: “Radiation codes are quite solid…..I know that from the excellent results using them over contemporary periods. So we have a clear radiative forcing.”

        Me: No we don’t, Cliff. The so called “forcing” you reference is a fixed computation that can only be done in clear sky conditions with a fixed amount of water vapor. When that is always in change on a global scale along with changing cloud fractions including a height dimension, the “radiative forcing” you are talking about becomes a physically meaningless number that has no relevance to any climatic effect without knowing how the hydrological cycle responds to any increase in radiative absorption in the narrow CO2 window.

        The radiative flux must be integrated across all wavelengths in the IR and the inability for any of these heaps of junk you call climate models to accurately place cloud fraction and cloud fraction depth in the correct spacial coordinates along with the changing water vapor flux makes the task virtually impossible to do. And because the current limitations of these “climate models’ have no hope in coming close to a correctly integrated answer that can project these variables to space and depth requirements to get an accurate integrated flux, these failed models have no possibility of getting any future prediction correct and the actual climate record proves this out.

        It appears that the founding principles from atmospheric science and expectations about the hydrological cycle totally dominating atmospheric CO2 are correct, and on the face of it, anyone who believed otherwise was and is staring in the face of overwhelming evidence just by inspection that climate model output that has been giving rapid and spurious temperature changes cannot be correct. The water vapor feedback must be negative and if it were the other way around, I never get a satisfactory answer from those that believe this modeling flaw of positive water vapor feedback as to why under that premise there would not be a runaway and unstoppable climate warming from increasing atmospheric CO2.

        You are behaving like every warmer I know. Complete faith in your failed models over actual measurements along with an unfounded and unrealistic belief in your ability to model the climate with the presently known mathematical limitations that no modeler has broken through and defeated.

  87. It’s just like the real space alien debate is between those who claim they’re already here, ready to destroy humanity, and those who calmly, rationally say no, they aren’t here yet, and if we put our heads together and buckle down we can come up with the technology to defeat them when they do come. That is the essence of debate, is it not? One side is irrational, and the other is rational. It is up to the rational ones to show the irrational ones how wrong they are. Socratic method. /sarc

  88. Late to the conversation, but thank you so much for posting this. I’ve been thinking the same thing for some time. Look, whether you believe in climate change or not is somewhat irrelevant at this point. Getting rid of carbon based fuels has additional benefits above and beyond climate change that make that make such a goal worth pursuing. Such as:

    Less dependence on foreign energy sources
    Less air pollution
    Lower potential for soil and water pollution
    Greater resource efficiency

    If I could create a energy system overnight that would replace fossil fuels it would certainly be a subject worth pursuing, climate change notwithstanding. So there is nothing innately wrong with pursuing solutions that reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In fact we have pursued such solutions for decades before climate change was glimmer in Jim Hanson’s eye, if only to reduce dependence on middle eastern oil, and lower energy prices.

    So the goal is perfectly rational. What we are arguing over is the urgency that goal must be achieved, and the best method for doing it.

    The problem I see is that the ASP group is entirely and wholly innumerate regarding energy sources, costs, needs, distribution, etc. Nothing they propose as a solution will work. At all. In fact much of it is counterproductive to our mutually agreed on goals and objectives. They contribute nothing worthwhile to the conversation, but continue to wreck havoc with the process of moving forward toward a carbon-lite future.

    A rational plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would involve rapid license renewal and upgrades to hydro power plants, rapid deployment of small nuclear power plants with minimal delay and protest, extension of licenses for existing nuclear power plants, rapid pursuit of molten salt power plants to burn existing stockpiles of nuclear waste, more geothermal power, improvements to existing thermal power plants using supercritical carbon dioxide generators, capping solar and wind at 20% of the total energy mix, etc. there is a definite mix of technologies that will get us a long way toward our goal at minimal cost and disruption. Maybe not to 100%. But 50%, or 75% is well within our reach if we are just smart about it.

    The main problem with the ASP group is they seem to want to…punish us. Solutions that don’t hurt, or cause pain, or bankrupt major corporations are ignored or dismissed.

    • As an example, take compact fluorescent light bulbs. I was perfectly happy with Edison’s old invention until it was declared pear-shaped and mostly removed from the market. So we were offered CFLs. I detested them at the time, I still do. Now we have LED available. Why didn’t we wait a bit longer and avoid going through that dark CFL period? It’s often a mistake to rush in. Too many fools…

      Same for electric cars. They show promise, maybe someday they will be great and affordable. Meanwhile, it is too soon to even think of banning fossil-fuel vehicles. We are not there yet.

      Some would ban ICE cars anyway and tell us to ride the bus or bicycle. Those people have some green blinders on. Most people would rather drive than ride. Just because it is greener does not make it more pleasant. Not to mention that to replace all those cars, the current mass transit systems wouldn’t be able to handle the increased load.

      • It’s all find and dandy to say ride a bike when you live in a big city where the distance between biking destinations can be measures in a few city blocks. Not so much when you live in the rural heartland and the distance between destination is measured in the 10s or even 100s of miles.

        And that Mass transit (Buses & trains) is mainly only viable in big, overcrowded cities. Out in the vast rural areas, mass transit is mostly non-existent and certainly not convenient (where it does exist) for most rural citizens needs (which is why there is so few mass transit options).

        • It’s not “just fine and dandy to say ride a bike,” even in Seattle. As someone with multiple sclerosis who cannot use a two-wheeled vehicle in good weather let alone during a Seattle winter, I find the utter heartlessness of the “progressives” toward the disabled, the elderly, and others who cannot just climb on a bicycle to be one of their very worst attributes.

  89. Cliff,
    Thanks for posting here. You’ll get a lot of comments from people like me, attempts at humor, insults, etc., but you’ll also get comments from competent people outside your “consensus box”.
    “Blog review” rather than “pal review”.
    Smile or grimace at comments from people like me, but please address the others, with data and evidence that “Man’s CO2” is the verified and only cause of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” that is claimed will lead to “Catastrophic” Man caused anything that requires a Man caused catastrophic political/economic response?

  90. I post on Cliff’s blog under the name “Placeholder.” Me, of so many pseudonyms I have trouble keeping track.


    The “debate” reminds me of Reagan’s famous quip that “sometimes the right hand doesn’t know what the far-right hand is doing.” In substance, I see little underlying difference between the leftists “solutions” proposed by Cliff and those proposed by his far-left opponents: They both want to raise the cost of energy, and the working middle class be damned.

    The difference is stylistic. Like Reagan, Cliff wants to slap a smiley-face sticker on the agenda. His far-left hand wants to do it with a puritanical scowl. But the goals are the same.

    If the scientific method were at play, the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis would have been discarded a long time ago for failure to meet its own predictive tests about the effect of rising CO2 levels on global temperatures. Instead, we see an increasingly desperate clinging to the favored hypothesis, even though it’s not valid on its face.

    The Original Sin here was to disregard T.C. Chamberlin’s Masterwork, “A Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” The academic establishment coalesced around AGW too quickly, and has backed itself into a corner in its defense. Research grants and academic sinecures are at stake; the consequences of an admission of error would be too great.

    The statistical basis for the IPCC’s reports was utterly demolished several years back by Douglas Keenan, the prominent and peer-reviewed statistician who, among other things, blew the whistle on the conspiracy to manipulate the world’s benchmark interest rate, the London Interbank Offering Rate. As a consequence, banks had to cough up billions in ill-gotten gains, and executives went to prison.

    The AGW “consensus” of 97%? Disproven a long time ago, yet still repeated.

    And what about “consensus” anyway? Right here in Washington State, we have the answer in the form of Harlan Bretz, the lone geologist who shattered the prior consensus behind “uniformitarianism,” the idea that all major geological features on the planet were formed over millions of years. Bretz, fighting a lonely battle for decades, eventually prevailed in his belief that the scablands of Eastern Washington were formed by a series of catastrophic floods at the end of the last Ice Age.

    Bretz’s struggle should be a cautionary example that a “consensus” is not infallible, and that academia has a strong pull toward groupthink. It’s not the only example. Others would include the fallacy that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, and that ocean waves taller than 65 feet occur only once every 10,000 years. Those beliefs, the former which is still widespread, have been responsible for all kinds of mayhem and loss.

    I have vociferously defended Cliff Mass in his battle against the Red Guard at his university, but not his adherence to the invalid AGW hypothesis. Because he’s not a drooling nutcase, and out of respect for his preeminence in his chosen field, I’d be interested in any book he’d write about AGW. I would expect it to display the same combination of rigor and readability that made his masterwork, “The Weather of the Pacific Northwest,” the UW’s best-selling book of any kind.

    What will it take for Cliff and others to re-examine the basis of the failed AGW hypothesis? I give him credit for refraining from the insults flung by that far left-hand, but that credit only goes so far. He needs to forthrightly, and in detail, take a fresh look at the AGW hypothesis that holds him and the academic, media, and political establishment in thrall to a failed idea.

  91. Ronald Reagan simplified his vision of Cold War Soviet outcomes as follows;

    “We win, they lose.”

    All this “bi-partisan” hair split nonsense with Neo-Marxist climate cargo carriers is post normal nonsense. The US should exit the UN Climate Framework as the contrived theory and junk science standards (models) have failed. Fraud, for political goals, represent failed Soviet science levels in this case. The decline of Western reasoning skills must be restored.

    • “The US should exit the UN Climate Framework…”
      Let me fix it for you: The US should exit the UN.

  92. Let me simplify it further. Two mantras should follow every skeptic climate comment in the current hyper partisan culture;

    “Carthage must be destroyed”


    “The US must exit the UN Climate Framework” as it is based on junk science political fraud.

    Over time the coded synonym will be culturally understood. There will be no “grand bargain”, no “bi-partisan”, no “precautionary principle” appeasements to luke warmer fifth columnists of the Judith Curry variety or spineless RINO cultures. The climate cult goes the way of virulent Marxism which it is derived. Annihilation….. “Carthage must be destroyed”

  93. “What will it take for Cliff and others to re-examine the basis of the failed AGW hypothesis?”
    It’s conceivable that he is taking this position to keep the climate nazies off his back, especially since he just had a run in with them at his University.

    • As someone who lived in Seattle for 16 years before making the Great Escape two years ago, I’d caution you against thinking that Cliff Mass is somehow getting ready to jump the AGW ship. I would be shocked if he did, and think a better explanation and prediction involves Seattle’s folkways.

      Cliff is emblematic of what could be called “Seattle Nice,” which shares a lot in common with “Minnesota Nice.” He has his viewpoint and I don’t think he’ll budge. He’s simply much more polite than the Red Guards at his university. I give him credit for that, and respect his expertise when it comes to atmospheric science and his application in forecasting and explaining the weather, but I think a) he’s got it wrong on AGW, and b) is not going to change his mind.

      He differs with the Red Guards around the edges, but that’s all. He’s every last bit as committed to their fallacies as they are, his sin being that he’s not insulting about it. I do appreciate that part of him, but if the Red Guards can be likened to hard-core Stalinists, I’d put Cliff in the “democratic socialist” category, i.e., the same thing but in slow-motion.

      The foregoing is by way of analogy as opposed to a deeper critique of Mass’s personal politics, which is to say that it shouldn’t be interpreted as my calling him a slow-motion communist any more than my Reagan analogy was a matter of calling him a conservative Republican. From what I can tell, he’s a standard-issue liberal Democrat in the older-school Seattle mode, willing to battle it out in the world of ideas.

      So: Those of us who aren’t buying the validity of the failed AGW hypothesis should not harbor any illusions that Cliff Mass has somehow seen the light. He hasn’t. He’s just not enough of a screamer for his Red Guards, but nevertheless shares much more in common with their views than he does with yours or mine.

  94. Cliff,
    Not to pester you but it is quite disappointing to see you engage many and yet avoid responding to Richard’s highly germane post.
    As a long time reader of your blog I find this to be in consistent with your otherwise open and frank commentary.
    Please do take the time to address Richard.
    Again, here is his query.

    Richard S Courtney October 21, 2019 at 2:38 am
    Cliff Mass,

    You assert,
    “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

    So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
    “Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
    In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.

    There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
    This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements
    Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.

    A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.


  95. Well, I fail to see why the climate Changing debate is morphed into is the climate change caused by human activity or some natural cycle! While that is an interesting question I suppose, the truth of importance is the world climate is changing and changing pretty fast! There is little to no evidence that industry and “ACT” folks are doing anything that will work to limit the changing climate in a favorable way; rather they seem to imply that a magic bullet will come, but for today and tomorrow, let’s do everything we can to exploit our world for personal monetary gain, even if this increases the risks and dangers from climate change! It seems to me, no matter what is the “cause” of global climate change, the human species has a vested interest in doing whatever it can to slow down and reach some sort of equilibrium point where we humans can survive well. If that implies some short term economic cost and some loss of personal monetary gain to some individuals…well guys take one for the team!

    • Leo,

      If climate change is natural (and it is) then there is no action that would “limit climate change”.

      Please say why you want us to “slow down” and suffer “economic cost”.


    • Cliff Mass,

      Your attempted deflection fails.
      I commented that there is no evidence for a climate emergency, but I did NOT say you were claiming there is a climate emergency. I said to you,
      “Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.”
      And I cited and linked to three completely independent analyses which demonstrate that.

      Also, your assertion of “No political posturing” is factually incorrect. You may not have intended to do it, but I explained that you did do it when I wrote to you,
      “You assert,
      “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”

      So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
      “Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
      In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.”

      Having said that, I am grateful that you have responded to what I wrote but I regret that you have not attempted to answer any part of what I wrote.


    • You can always sniff out bad faith when someone tells his interlocutor to read a textbook. If the interlocutor did so, Cliff would simply provide a longer list.

  96. I stopped reading this post right after the very first sentence. The only way that we can address how the Sun drives our weather patterns and ocean phases, is to predict it, and which is the pathway to effectively predicting global change. Not that global change matters much anyway, it’s actually the weekly NAO/AO anomalies and ocean phase changes that we need to know about. The mean is meaningless.

  97. I appreciate seeing Dr Mass here to defend his article. Thanks for putting in the effort.

    With that said, I have serious problems reconciling what I have been taught science is, vs the basis and nature of the claims for AGW.

    First off, the climate record shows it has already been hotter in the current interglacial than what we have been told is a disaster we’re causing. And for centuries and millennia, in fact. This falsifies the doom claims for species existing now, and man. After all…they’re still here, and so are we.

    Secondly, I have serious doubts as to the idea of the supposed semi-stability of the coefficients for feedbacks in the system. If the system was so easily perturbed it could never be stable to begin with, given the planetary scale disruptions of volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. In electronic terms (EE here), the system would have ‘railed’ long ago, and be stuck until some large scale change.

    Third, the nature of the modeling is suspect at best. It is in no way testable or falsifiable, because hindcasting is not a valid test. Models of things you cannot completely reproduce and falsify, are NOT empirical evidence in any way, shape or form.

    Fourth, all of the current conditions are within the range of natural variation, and the sole evidence that there is something else going on…is not evidence, because models are not empirical evidence. That changes happening which are consistent with natural variation can be attributed to man because of a model does not make them evidence of human caused warming.

    Fifth..the reason that these issues cannot be resolved is because the ‘science’ simply cannot seal the deal. In other sciences, arguments are *falsfiable*…the gold standard. None of this is. You don’t see physicists or mathematicians claiming ‘consensus’ is evidence..they make falsfiable claims which are then…not falsified, in the case of physics, or simply show a proof, in the case of mathematics. There is no never ending argument because those fields have the proper process to simply close off alternatives and show they are not correct, or at least the practitioners, when pushed, will *admit* they cannot (yet, or ever)prove their contentions. (proving in the context of falsifiable tests using negative logic, etc).

    I understand that the claims being made are too large to ‘prove’. But that is not simply a fundamental flaw you walk past because it is not convenient. You do not get to choose to worry about something un-falsifiable and then claim using standard proper method can’t apply, so don’t worry about it and listen to us. If that was allowable, then ghost hunting is a perfectly valid science because they too claim that standard science cannot be applied.

  98. Cliff,
    In finally responding to Richard’s post without answering anything he wrote you have vividly displayed the true “Missing Link” for progress in the climate debate.
    The debate which you attempted to explain, and yet became exhibit A in why there can be no progress.
    Unlike your foggy attempt to detail two sides there is much more clarity in your avoidance.
    Avoidance that has been THE central impediment to progress.
    When you cannot, or refuse to, address Richard’s cogent and germane specific challenges that speaks volumes about where the climate debate really is.
    There are reasons you cannot be frank and respond by addressing reasonable query.
    One is left only to assume they are much like others who similarly avoid honest engagement.
    Fearing it will lead to unwanted conclusions is the only possible excuse.
    This where the real climate debate resides and why there can be no progress.

    Progress on climate change is being undermined by the deliberate avoidance of effective exchange.
    This reluctance of yours is standing in the way of the sound conclusions and cooperation needed for very progress you call for.
    This is the biggest problem in the way of any solutions.

  99. After all the research from Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, and others, informing us that CO2 is NOT the issue, you suddenly present an expose, that states that we are all on the same side, but trying to work it out by different means? sorry, but you are preaching to the wrong congregation!

Comments are closed.