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.

feedback-2466829_960_720

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 350.org 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 350.org 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 350.org.
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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
445 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 20, 2019 2:06 pm

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 .

Editor
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 2:43 pm

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!]

Lyle
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 20, 2019 3:36 pm

Which climate models don’t? Exxon and Hansen nailed it from over thirty years ago.

Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:19 pm

Which climate models don’t? Exxon and Hansen nailed it from over thirty years ago.

🤣
That in itself says it all . 3 decades of ever impending catastrophe .

& btw: Hansen et al 1981 paper https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html is a non-quantiative embarrassment to NASA .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 8:02 pm

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.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 8:35 pm

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.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 9:13 pm

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

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 9:55 pm

What Brad said.

Hoo-Rah!

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 10:20 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 11:45 pm

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.

sunderlandsteve
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 12:30 am

Brad,
You really must stop winding people up who don’t know know your modus operandi 🤣🤣

JohnWho
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 6:03 am

@Brad Keyes:

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

LOL

Funniest line in this entire thread.

Philo
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 9:17 am

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.

beng135b
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 9:59 am

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.

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 4:39 pm

” I went to SkepicalScience.”
Be sure to also go to http://debunkingskepticalscience.com/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 25, 2019 8:38 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:55 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 11:28 pm

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.

Newminster
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 3:46 am

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

Try this, Brad! Go to Pierre Gosselin’s site: https://notrickszone.com/. 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!

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 5:35 am

Newminster I suggest you read Brad’s post with your sarcasm detector turned up to 11.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:56 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 8:48 pm

err no they dont.
The metrics that matter ( land and ocean temps) have been skillful

Joel Heinrich
Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 10:21 pm

only if you change the data, Steven.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 11:07 pm

“have been skilful”

WOW are you deluded or what !!!!

F1nn
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 3:23 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 5:33 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 8:10 am

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.

hunterson7
Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2019 8:02 am

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.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:28 pm

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??

jim
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 6:34 pm

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.

EVILMONK
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 9:11 pm

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.

Reply to  Lyle
October 21, 2019 11:22 am

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 !

hunterson7
Reply to  Lyle
October 22, 2019 7:52 am

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

taptoudt
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 20, 2019 4:21 pm

I’m in the third group.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  taptoudt
October 20, 2019 5:13 pm

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.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  taptoudt
October 20, 2019 7:25 pm

I’m in the fourth, I want to get CO2 up to 800ppm and wish it would cause 2deg of warming.

Justin Burch
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 21, 2019 4:34 am

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.

Dylan
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 21, 2019 6:36 am

Justin Burch, I just read his comment too and realized almost immediately that he was kidding.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 21, 2019 7:17 am

I’m with you – CO2 isn’t destroying the plane its saving the planet.

Bring it on.

OweninGA
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 21, 2019 7:41 am

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.

John Q Public
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 22, 2019 10:11 am

Do you live in Canada or Greenland?

John Krill
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 21, 2019 5:08 am

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?

beng135
Reply to  John Krill
October 21, 2019 2:36 pm

Guess how many there were when Stanley met Dr. Livingstone?

None I presume?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  beng135
October 24, 2019 3:30 am

I noticed what you did there, beng. 🙂

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 21, 2019 8:33 am

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.

David Cage
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 21, 2019 10:18 pm

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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6454607/Collapse-civilisations-horizon-without-climate-action-Attenborough.html
Relevant picture.
comment image
NASA anomaly.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/AMSRE_SSTAn_M

hunterson7
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 22, 2019 7:59 am

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunterson7
October 24, 2019 3:40 am

Brad is a skeptic. He just plays the role of a doofus alarmists for fun.

R vdS
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 2:47 pm

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

Goldrider
Reply to  R vdS
October 21, 2019 6:51 am

“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.

OweninGA
Reply to  R vdS
October 21, 2019 7:50 am

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.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  R vdS
October 21, 2019 10:29 am

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

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 24, 2019 3:49 am

“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.

Zack
Reply to  R vdS
October 22, 2019 12:49 am

Look how the Atlantic pillories the crazy deniers who eschew the 50 years settled science about moths developing better hearing to avoid echolocation. The nutters claim it’s genetically assbatwards and they get taken to town.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/textbook-evolutionary-story-wrong/600295/

Joseph J Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 2:56 pm

Why must they always start out with lies?

joe
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 3:33 pm

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?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  joe
October 20, 2019 6:06 pm

Believers believe if we don’t we will turn Earth in to Venus.

J Mac
Reply to  joe
October 20, 2019 8:00 pm

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.

Reply to  joe
October 20, 2019 10:33 pm

“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.

J Mac
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 20, 2019 11:22 pm

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!

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  J Mac
October 21, 2019 2:11 am

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  J Mac
October 21, 2019 8:00 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  J Mac
October 21, 2019 8:14 am

The most insane religious fanatics of all are those who claim to be atheists.

JON SALMI
Reply to  J Mac
October 21, 2019 10:47 am

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.

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  J Mac
October 21, 2019 1:19 pm

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 🙂

Reply to  J Mac
October 22, 2019 7:51 am

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.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  J Mac
October 22, 2019 8:09 am

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.”
https://climatenuremberg.com/me/

Or read one of his posted articles here, like this one…the most definitive take down of the consensus studies I have ever read:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  J Mac
October 23, 2019 6:14 am

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.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  J Mac
October 25, 2019 5:43 am

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?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  J Mac
October 25, 2019 5:51 am

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?

Greg
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 12:03 am

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.

F1nn
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 3:40 am

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.

Carbon500
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 4:48 am

‘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:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
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’.

kendo2016
Reply to  Carbon500
October 22, 2019 8:43 am

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 .

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Carbon500
October 23, 2019 6:48 am

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.

Mike in England
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 5:12 am

“… 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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Mike in England
October 22, 2019 4:29 am

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.

joe
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 5:52 am

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.

Gums
Reply to  joe
October 21, 2019 8:39 am

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…

Wharfplank
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 10:56 am

Is this satire? Let’s peer review.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 11:45 am

Brad Keyes, you are a first class troublemaker, who reminds me of a Johnny Carson fictional character from long ago, named Floyd R. Turbo.

WBWilson
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 2:13 pm

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.

jimmww
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 21, 2019 7:50 pm

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.

jimmww
Reply to  jimmww
October 21, 2019 7:55 pm

And, unlike Pascal’s Wager, there really is a serious downside.
Jim

hunterson7
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 22, 2019 8:08 am

Brad,
Keep up the good work.
Best trolling ever.

John Q Public
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 22, 2019 10:14 am

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

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  joe
October 21, 2019 12:25 am

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

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 4:03 pm

“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.

Chaamjamal
Reply to  Roger Surf
October 20, 2019 5:08 pm

Hi roger. You refer to a link but i don’t see a link in your comment.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 21, 2019 2:28 am
Ron Long
Reply to  Roger Surf
October 20, 2019 6:05 pm

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.

Lloyd P Corle
Reply to  Roger Surf
October 20, 2019 7:26 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Roger Surf
October 24, 2019 4:08 am

“Do not under-estimate this man!”

Exactly!

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 5:30 pm

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

a right-minded lefty
Reply to  Bryan A
October 20, 2019 9:56 pm

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.

JohnWho
Reply to  Bryan A
October 21, 2019 6:10 am

Bryan A:

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

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 20, 2019 11:50 pm

Yeah. It didn’t start off too well.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 12:24 am

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.

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 5:25 am

Thanks, Bob…

Buckeyebob
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 8:46 am

That’s where I stopped reading the article.

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 11:16 am

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).

OMG, THAT’S AN “EXISTENTIAL CRISIS” !

“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:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Roger Ayotte
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 21, 2019 3:25 pm

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.

Eric
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 22, 2019 4:31 am

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

Garland Lowe
October 20, 2019 2:16 pm

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.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Garland Lowe
October 20, 2019 2:29 pm

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.

Latitude
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2019 3:52 pm

…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

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2019 4:15 pm

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 9:04 am

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

DocSiders
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2019 4:27 pm

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.

Sam Capricci
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2019 4:34 pm

+1
I’m in the- I think this is a lot of BS group so I’m not in either of their groups.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sam Capricci
October 20, 2019 6:03 pm

And as far as they’re concerned, you don’t matter.

Scissor
Reply to  Garland Lowe
October 20, 2019 3:43 pm

I’ll take my “rebate” though.

Reply to  Garland Lowe
October 20, 2019 5:48 pm

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.

Frank from NoVA
October 20, 2019 2:19 pm

“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.

Lyle
October 20, 2019 2:22 pm

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.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:15 pm

Lyle,
Can you provide some examples of the fossil fuel industry funding deniers? Geoff S

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:47 pm

$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.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:49 pm

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”

Mark Cates
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:51 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Cates
October 24, 2019 4:21 am

“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. 🙂

DHR
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:53 pm

And you actually believe that? Absolutely amazing!

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:58 pm

Truly pathetic, but then again, consider the source.

Taphonomic
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:03 pm

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.

Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:28 pm

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.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 11:37 pm

Lyle: Here’s your rebuttal:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/23/claim-dark-money-conspiracy-star-deniers-are-scripted-performers/

“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:
http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

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:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

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?!?!?!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Lyle
October 21, 2019 5:33 am

Green Giants: Axios Finds Skyrocketing Donations to Enviro Groups
By Spencer Walrath, Energy In Depth, Sep 24, 2019
https://eidclimate.org/green-giants-axios-finds-skyrocketing-donations-to-enviro-groups/

rw
Reply to  Lyle
October 22, 2019 11:14 am

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.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 20, 2019 7:49 pm

Hello Lyle and Geoff Sherrington

There is a significant research interest in the idea of “dark money” funded climate denial industry. It is recognized that the climate denial industry has proven to be a significant obstacle to climate action implementation. Here is an overview of this area of research.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/21/denialfunding/

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 21, 2019 3:37 am

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. http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2208-letter-to-senator-james-inhofe-about-relying-on-ipcc-richard-courtney-uk

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.

Richard

Justin Burch
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 21, 2019 4:38 am

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.

Carbon500
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 21, 2019 4:52 am

Who ‘denies climate’?

Jl
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 21, 2019 9:38 am

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

Andrew Kerber
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:15 pm

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.

Lyle
Reply to  Andrew Kerber
October 20, 2019 3:37 pm

What’s “CAGW” and what’s been disproven, exactly? Please show us both.

Mike
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:55 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:59 pm

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.

icisil
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:00 pm

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.

ldd
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:03 pm

Where’s the heat? CO2 has risen but not global temps…

Sam Capricci
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 6:19 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Lyle
October 24, 2019 4:38 am

“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!

CoolEngineer
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:32 pm

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.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:37 pm

ROFL.

Wayne Milligan
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:39 pm

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.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:39 pm

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.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:47 pm

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..

/sarc

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:26 pm

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.

Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:28 pm

“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?

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:01 pm

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 6:01 pm

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.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 8:16 pm

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.

F1nn
Reply to  Lyle
October 21, 2019 4:57 am

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.

Bob Cherba
Reply to  Lyle
October 21, 2019 9:14 am

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

Lyle
October 20, 2019 2:23 pm

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.

Derg
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:36 pm

Lyle why do you hate CO2?

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
October 20, 2019 5:02 pm

Why does he hate poor people?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:38 pm

Of course you do not use any Fossil fuels or their derivatives yourself, do you?

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:50 pm

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.

LdB
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:52 pm

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

Two posts with zero facts and nothing but troll value

Scissor
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 3:57 pm

I suppose your comment was drafted on a hemp keyboard. No, it wasn’t? What a surprise.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:22 pm

Do you have ANYTHING besides Ad Homs ?

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:28 pm

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 4:38 pm

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.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 11:07 pm

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?

hunterson7
Reply to  Lyle
October 22, 2019 8:13 am

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

Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2019 2:25 pm

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.

Chaswarnertoo
October 20, 2019 2:28 pm

So we have the rational vs the insane. Why are the insane given publicity?

Dave Anderson
October 20, 2019 2:28 pm

Just ignore half the people with an opinion.

Just don’t think that will
make us go away.

Neville
October 20, 2019 2:31 pm

Dr Christy puts their so called CAGW to the test in a recent talk at the GWPF in London.
He covers everything and I’d be interested to know what others think here at WUWT? Plenty of graphs and data but minus the usual BS and con tricks.
Upside down Mann would not be amused.

https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

DMA
October 20, 2019 2:31 pm

“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?

French geographer
Reply to  DMA
October 21, 2019 2:30 am

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 !

H.R.
October 20, 2019 2:33 pm

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.

Lyle
Reply to  H.R.
October 20, 2019 3:35 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:04 pm

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.

Greg Woods
Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 5:52 pm

The Alarmists, indeed, are growing more severe and erratic….

icisil
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:07 pm

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

ldd
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:16 pm

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?

DHR
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:22 pm

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 https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Grain%20and%20Feed%20Update_Ottawa_Canada_8-9-2019.pdfa 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.

H.R.
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:59 pm

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.

jim
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 6:30 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 6:39 pm

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.

John Dilks
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 8:42 pm

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

Natalie Gordon
Reply to  Lyle
October 21, 2019 4:49 am

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.

Reply to  H.R.
October 20, 2019 3:41 pm

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:
https://agree-to-disagree.com

H.R.
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
October 20, 2019 5:48 pm

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.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  H.R.
October 21, 2019 12:20 am

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

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  H.R.
October 21, 2019 1:27 pm

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

commieBob
October 20, 2019 2:35 pm

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.

LdB
Reply to  commieBob
October 20, 2019 4:09 pm

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.

October 20, 2019 2:35 pm

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

Lyle
Reply to  shelly
October 20, 2019 3:38 pm

It is, and it is. Ask a Midwestern farmer how their season went this year.

DHR
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:01 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:05 pm

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.

Taphonomic
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:05 pm

Weather is climate?

icisil
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:11 pm

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.

Curious George
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:42 pm

Sure, it was hot and dry, just like the Global Warming predicts 🙂

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Curious George
October 20, 2019 7:56 pm

“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.

Scissor
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 5:48 pm

It was in line with rising productivity and better than expected. To the extent that climate change has anything to do with this, certainly increasing CO2 boosts yields, farmers benefit from this trend.

https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/Article/Corn-Yields-in-the-Midwest-in-2019-USDA-Report-Shows-Better-Yields-than-Expected

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Lyle
October 20, 2019 9:11 pm

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.

Nick Schroeder
October 20, 2019 2:38 pm

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:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

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

Zero RGHE = Zero GHGs = Zero CAGW

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 20, 2019 4:30 pm

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.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
October 20, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
October 20, 2019 7:24 pm

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

Loydo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 20, 2019 10:21 pm

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.

Reply to  Loydo
October 21, 2019 8:23 am

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.

jim
October 20, 2019 2:39 pm

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.”

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  jim
October 21, 2019 12:49 am

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.

Richard

Gunga Din
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 21, 2019 3:27 pm

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 …”

Sara
October 20, 2019 2:40 pm

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?

Chaamjamal
Reply to  Sara
October 20, 2019 3:39 pm

Good question, Sara.

Maybe the answer is blowing in the wind.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/06/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind/

Sara
Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 20, 2019 4:48 pm

Ha! Thanks for the reminder!

LdB
Reply to  Sara
October 20, 2019 4:00 pm

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.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Sara
October 20, 2019 10:05 pm

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.

jim
October 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Cliff Mass—” Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”
NO WE DON’T
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 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

2. Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%).
Add the numbers on this NASA diagram: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php

3. CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases (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 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

6. Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently.
Page 306 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

7. There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.
pg 230 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

8. Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

9. Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Page 774 of https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2, 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.

Luc Ozade
Reply to  jim
October 20, 2019 11:06 pm

@ jim

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

Sparko
October 20, 2019 2:45 pm

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

Chaamjamal
October 20, 2019 2:46 pm

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.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/05/16/171/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/13/ice-algal/

Loydo
Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 20, 2019 10:30 pm

“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.

Fred Hubler
October 20, 2019 2:48 pm

This is total BS. Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas.

Reply to  Fred Hubler
October 20, 2019 5:34 pm

And measured water vapor (TPW) leads that calculated from temperature (feedback) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHLxE8aUcAE2p5H?format=jpg&name=small

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 20, 2019 7:25 pm

Measured how, by who?

Reply to  Fred Hubler
October 21, 2019 9:46 pm

It’s measured by satellite

Link to NASA/RSS numerical anomaly on water vapor
http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product

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.
http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201909.time_series.txt

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 22, 2019 8:04 am

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.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 22, 2019 6:46 pm

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 https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/17/consensus-200-new-2019-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism 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 http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com (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.

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 23, 2019 6:32 pm

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?

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 24, 2019 7:04 pm

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 http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com )

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.

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 25, 2019 8:32 am

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?

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 25, 2019 3:04 pm

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.

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 25, 2019 5:25 pm

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:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 25, 2019 7:16 pm

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.

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 25, 2019 7:44 pm

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.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 26, 2019 9:49 am

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..

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
October 26, 2019 6:30 pm

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.

George Steele
October 20, 2019 2:48 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  George Steele
October 20, 2019 10:39 pm

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 21, 2019 8:22 am

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.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2019 12:58 pm

Your arm-waving nonsense does not become more convincing by repeating it.

Neville
October 20, 2019 2:50 pm

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”.

https://www.thegwpf.com/conservative-alliance-targets-climate-alarmists-down-under/

rah
October 20, 2019 3:01 pm

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

LdB
Reply to  rah
October 20, 2019 4:04 pm

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.

rah
Reply to  LdB
October 20, 2019 10:11 pm

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
October 21, 2019 6:02 am

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.

Robert B
October 20, 2019 3:02 pm

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.
https://postimg.cc/MX5VwWQt
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.
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/02/callendar_fig1.png
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/75-years-after-callendar/

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?

October 20, 2019 3:03 pm

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.

Mike McMillan
October 20, 2019 3:06 pm

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

Rich Davis
October 20, 2019 3:14 pm

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

Reply to  Rich Davis
October 20, 2019 4:03 pm

😂👍

CO2isLife
October 20, 2019 3:31 pm

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
https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o

LittleOil
Reply to  CO2isLife
October 20, 2019 4:30 pm

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.

JohnWho
Reply to  CO2isLife
October 21, 2019 6:56 am

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.

October 20, 2019 3:41 pm

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?

Peter Morris
October 20, 2019 3:42 pm

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.

Insufficiently Sensitive
October 20, 2019 3:43 pm

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.

Macha
October 20, 2019 3:43 pm

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.

James Schrumpf
October 20, 2019 3:50 pm

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!

Loydo
Reply to  James Schrumpf
October 20, 2019 11:03 pm

You think global warming is over? The CO2 spigot hasn’t even finished being opened.

Gwan
Reply to  Loydo
October 21, 2019 2:24 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 21, 2019 8:34 am

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.

Petit_Barde
October 20, 2019 3:55 pm

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.

Bill Taylor
October 20, 2019 3:55 pm

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?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Bill Taylor
October 20, 2019 8:06 pm

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?

MarkW
Reply to  James Schrumpf
October 20, 2019 8:30 pm

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

Bill Taylor
Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2019 9:54 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  James Schrumpf
October 21, 2019 8:41 am

You may be thinking of RBIs, Runs Batted In. Having a high RBI is a good thing for a batter.

JohnWho
Reply to  Bill Taylor
October 21, 2019 7:00 am

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.

Hmm…

Bill Taylor
Reply to  JohnWho
October 21, 2019 8:51 am

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

October 20, 2019 3:59 pm

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.

ATheoK
October 20, 2019 4:02 pm

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.
Wrong

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.

Robert Jacobs
October 20, 2019 4:02 pm

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.

Jl
October 20, 2019 4:09 pm

Wow-who agrees that it’s a serious problem that must be addressed? What would that serious problem be?

MarkW
October 20, 2019 4:11 pm

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

Neville
October 20, 2019 4:12 pm

Here’s the Connolly’s latest study about temperature change and greenhouse gases using balloon data .

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-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”.

DMA
Reply to  Neville
October 20, 2019 8:47 pm

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. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY )

DocSiders
October 20, 2019 4:18 pm

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.

Cube
October 20, 2019 4:25 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
October 20, 2019 4:28 pm

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.

October 20, 2019 4:32 pm

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.

John Sandhofner
October 20, 2019 4:53 pm

“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.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Sandhofner
October 21, 2019 5:58 am

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

Linda Goodman
October 20, 2019 4:57 pm

“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.

David Dibbell
October 20, 2019 5:01 pm

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.

Chuck Wiese
October 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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 dire