Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog
The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.
And not between Republicans and Democrats.
The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
The real rebate is between two groups:
1. A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions. I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)
2. A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests. They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society. I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).
There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.
Jamie Margolin of Seattle talked about an apocalyptic future, with “corporations making billions” while they destroy the future of her generation. Of feeling fear and despair. Of a planet where the natural environment is undergoing collapse, where only a few years are left before we pass the point of no return, and where only a massive political shift can fix things, including the Green New Deal. Watch her testimony to see what I mean.
Compare Ms. Margolin’s testimony to that of University of Washington senior Benji Backer.
Mr. Backer, leader of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative/moderate group of young people supporting action to protect the environment, approaches the problem in a radically different way. Instead of despair, there is optimism, recommending more scientific and technical research, a bipartisan attack on the problem, a rejection of an apocalyptic future, the building of new energy industries with potential benefits for the American economy, and a dedication to follow the science and not political expediency. His testimony is here.
Both Ms. Margolin and Mr. Backer care deeply about the environment and want effective measures to deal with global warming. Both their approaches and attitudes could not be more different.
We see the difference between the optimistic ACT group and the despairing ASP folks here in Seattle.
On one hand, there is the Clean Tech Alliance, which brings together technology companies, university researchers, and the business community to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for. Headed by Tom Ranken, the Alliance does a lot, including a highly informative breakfast series where you can learn about fusion power, new battery technologies, the future of solid waste recycling, and much more. Non-political, optimistic, and exciting. These are clearly members of the ACT group.
In contrast, there is Seattle’s 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s a shame Cliff’s taxonomy neglects the scientifically-trained, honest demographic (STH), which rejects the rather comical idea that there’s a problem at all, choosing instead to devote their lives to the war on the numberless host of non-imaginary enemies of sentient life, from paediatric cancers to canine distemper, male pattern baldness, the non-reheatability of pizza, and other agents of suffering and inconvenience.
Scientifically-trained but *dishonest* people have the option of keeping their laughter to themselves and pretending to buy into the climate narrative for career advancement or social prestige. In credal terms, they move into the pseudo-believing crypto-den*al (PBCD) niche. You can’t throw a live grenade at a Conference of Parties these days without killing a few partygoers of this persuasion.
Case in point: Cliff writes of ASPies that…
“They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.”
…whereas PBCD types, who are left out of Cliff’s dichotomy, often reason conversely.
They see social change and the very reorganization of society as necessary, and “dealing with global warming” as a means to achieve that.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKXthZhufwQ&w=597&h=315%5D
I hate to impose on Anthony’s good nature so I will not share the public relations document of my new book. The book is on climate change and written so anyone can understand it; without lots of charts and graphs. The title of the book is: Climate Change: A Convenient Truth. Not a long book and easy to read covering all the major areas of climate change. If you want more information just drop me a note to: Jim Hollingsworth jimhollingsworth@frontier.com The book should be listed on Amazon in about a month. Thanks. Jim Hollingsworth
The actual real bona fide rational climate debate is between those who wrongly think (or pretend to) that CO2 is a problem, and those who know that it is not only not a problem, but a life-giving benefit which we actually need more of, not less.
You can tell the perversely-motivated types from their reaction to novel approaches to pseudo-solving the non-problem of global warming.
Ask them if they’ve read that bombshell new Nature paper yet, the one everyone’s talking about which demonstrates how to permanently “stabilize” the “climate system” using a $5 widget available at any Radio Shack.
Anyone sincerely worried about climate change will hope it’s legit, and react with some combination of skeptical curiosity and cautious relief.
But if they shoot the messenger instead, it’s because they don’t want it to be true, and if they don’t want it to be true, it’s because they really had their hearts set on a revolution to sabotage the modern industrial economy. They’d hate to have to go back to the drawing board and invent a whole new pretext for doing it, especially after the three decades they’ve sunk into pulling off the climate scam.
Stabilize the climate of the entire world using one weird trick…
That trick would be: Do Nothing!
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And the Earth’s climate ain’t broke, at least as far as anyone can demonstrate. Speculation is not a demonstration of anything.
The debate between the ASP group and ACT group has tended to focus on the magnitude of the so-called “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) but without asking the question of whether the model for which ECS is the proportionality constant makes a logically sound argument. Upon critical examination this argument is found to violate the law of the excluded middle and in this respect to be logically unsound.
Yes, and how logically sound is it to assume that ALL current warming is caused by CO2?
That’s what the alarmists do, they assume that all the current warming is caused by CO2 which makes the ECS much higher. The more natural warmig there is, the lower the ECS is. Alarmists don’t want us to believe in natural warming anymore because they want to pretend that the ECS is skyhigh.
But the alarmists can’t explain why the warming of the 1930’s reached the same or higher temperature levels (in the case of the United States) than today without CO2 being a significant factor. Something other than CO2 raised the temperatures in the 1930’s. Is it logical to assume that this mechanism is completely inoperative now and only CO2 is a factor in the warming of the atmosphere? The answer is: No, that is not logical.
The alarmists can’t explain the warmth of the 1930’s in the context of human-caused climate change so instead of trying to explain it, they just erased the record of that warmth from the official global surface temperature record and produced the fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature graph that erases the warmth of the 1930’s and erases the cold of the 1970’s.
Here’s an example of the true global surface temperature profile, the Hansen 1999 chart on the left in the link, and an example of a fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature chart on the right in the link.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The Hansen 1999 US chart on the left is what I call the True global temperature profile. Just about every regional, unmodified temperature chart from around the world resembles the Hansen 1999 chart where the 1930’s show to be as warm as the temperatures today. This shows us that we are not, as the alarmists claim, experiencing unprecedented warming today. It was just as warm in the 1930’s without the benefit of large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which means the human-caused climate change scare stories are science fiction and CO2 has much less of an effect on the Earth’s atmosphere than the alarmists claim.
Thus, the impetus for the Climategate Charlatans to modify the surface temperature record so it appears that the temperatures are getting hotter and hotter and are the hottest temperatures in history today, and they created the bogus, bastardized, fraudulent Hockey Stick chart in order to lie to the people of the world about a climate crisis that doesn’t exist.
NO unmodified regional surface temperature chart resembles the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. There’s a reason for that. The regional unmodified charts record the truth, and the Hockey Stick chart tells a huge lie.
The Data Manipulators changed the charts that look like the Hansen 1999 chart into the chart that looks like the Hockey Stick in order to perpetrate their Big Lie.
This Lie is the only thing the Alarmists can point to as their “evidence” for a climate crisis, and it’s all made up out of whole cloth. It’s a figment of the fevered imaginations of some very dishonest people.
The Data Manipulators should be required to justify their manipulations. Trump could order NASA Climate and NOAA to do so. I don’t know that he will, but he could. Wouldn’t you love it! 🙂
Since the has the only long term, reliable, continent-wide coverage, of historical temperature data, and since this data set matches up very well with other data sets that were extant prior to global warming alarumism, and also matches up very well with individual long term station data from widely dispersed locations around the globe, AND also matches up very well with historical written accounts, there is very little reason to think that the unadjusted US record should not be taken as a proxy for the entire globe.
For one thing, no one can explain how an entire continent can have a trend which runs counter to global trends for well over a century. I say that it cannot: It is impossible for a whole continent to be cooling overall, on a world which is warming overall.
Besides for the utter lack of any (plausible or even barely possible) explanation for how this could be the case, is the coincidence factor: What are the odds that the only place with excellent long term data over an entire continent, also happens to be the one place with a trend different than the rest of the planet as a whole?
To do actual science, one must examine all available evidence.
Rejecting any and all dispositive evidence is as unscientific as it gets.
Omission:
“Since the (US) has the only…”
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics clearly states,
Quote:
first and foremost:
“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”
And specifically directs journalists to:
Label advocacy and commentary
So, what is one to conclude when one sees this?:
https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now
(Columbia Journalism Review)
Wow, Dr. Mass has changed a lot, since he was an unhappy warmist pushing some dubious woe to us warming scenarios into the future like so many of the others speaking a similar language, now he is speaking a very different message these days for something different, one with a moderation of views for the future that can be addressed with a positive frame of mind.
Dr. Curry was once a person who one thought Skeptics were unsavory people beholden to special interests, now she knows better, which is why she has grown up about the real world of skepticism, a people who does care about the environment and about good science research.
He is on the road Dr. Curry once traveled, when she too was mistreated for being an honest person about climate change stuff.
Welcome to the rational side, Dr. Mass
I’m all for research into competitively priced energy. But I’m also for as much plant food as we can put into the atmosphere as we came close to ending all life on earth at during the last full glaciation period as the plant food percentage in the atmosphere came way to close to 150ppm.
But as for this current slight warming which still much below all of the prior higher temps bumps in this inter-glacial, as we came out of the little ice age (yep, that hockey stick graph was lying propaganda), this is much to do about nothing. There is not a single bit of evidence I’ve yet seen that shows that C02 is driving temps, storms, etc. Dis-proven models are not evidence.
And if people don’t realize the models are dis-proven, or are unaware that the hockey stick was propaganda, go start your paleo-climate education and get your head out of the useful idiot sand.
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.
Cliff’s point is that the alarmists and fear-mongers are trying to shut down any real debate and any real science. He grouped together “deniers” and lukewarmers, which offended both, but that was not his point. Deniers and Lukewarmers have more in common than either admits. BTW “deniers” was always a biased label, on purpose. A better name would be climate atheists, for those who do not believe in the new climate change religion, aka Hell on Earth.
Neither “deniers” or “lukewarmers” believe that we have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, a statement that Cliff claims everyone has agreed with.
Brad, thanks for the h/t.
I went to Radio Shack and purchased that widget. (It has a much more technical name but I can’t remember it.)
The great news is that the climate around my home has indeedstabilized.
(Nary a change in the last hour.)
I am now going door to door to neighbors so our whole street will be without climate variation.
Thanks Again!!
from Ol’ George.
Must be nice, having half a dime to casually immolate on the altar of rank superstition. I hope your neighbors pitched in. Remember that episode of the Simmo where Lisa sells Homer a rock that keeps tigers away? Actually, I think he begged her to take his money once he noticed the lack of tigers in the vicinity of the rock. I don’t know why I’m thinking about that episode. Human brains are funny, innit? Good luck finding a butcher who stocks them these days, but.
So you start by dismissing those who take note that the models have all failed, that the predicted hotspot is absent, the predicted higher H2O atmospheric content is lower, and that the predicted reduced radiation to space is higher, and who therefore conclude, not unreasonably, that the theory is false.
This is an example of moderates taking the “bridge not far enough” approach. I.e., conceding their ground before the debate even starts. Another example to clarify: “Feminism has gone too far / gone off the rails.” NO! Feminism was always bad from the outset: We should be concerned about everyone, not only people with some unavoidable genetic distinction, be it sex or race.
As many of the comments here suggest, the OP’s assertion that there are two groups, or two sides to the debate, is erroneous. Any such division of people into discrete groups is liable to be simplistic. It’s a spectrum, but even so, people may have characteristics that fall at an extreme as well as some the are relatively centrist at the same time. For instance, people can be anxious about climate change, yet not subscribe to the Green New Deal. People can recognize the role that technology and investment can play, while also believing that we can all play a role as individuals, or that government needs to play a role in regulation, or investment to get new technologies off the ground – just as it plays a role in helping American industry through tariffs, or tax breaks for fossil fuel.
Climate change is not just a “technical problem,” it’s a human one, with tangible human costs.
Anxiety and fear about climate change is natural when the effects are broad, well-substantiated, and potentially devastating to countless people, yet so many disbelieve it and are against addressing it, and when people see policies to do so abandoned. A “solution to the global warming issue” is only possible if people work together to deal with it now, even if it comes at a price – and still, it will proceed. We cannot possibly stop it from happening in the coming few decades; the cost would be too high. The most we can hope to do is slow it down. Why denigrate young people because of their realistic fears?
It’s a complex problem. First and foremost, the science needs to be seen on its own merits, apart from politics. It needs to not be viewed in terms of what policies may result from scientific conclusions – setting policy is dependent on the science, not the other way around. And we cannot rely on the media, politicians, think tanks or biased internet websites to give us a thorough, accurate picture of the science. Expertise is important, and that’s why scientific consensus is important. At the same time, we must recognize that science is an ongoing process, and that we must expect there to be uncertainty about some aspects of climate science – but that doesn’t mean, either, that we should wait until all answers are precisely known to take action.
There are alarmists out there – those who think that the planet and humanity are doomed. There are also deniers – those who deny the fact of human-induced climate change. Neither position is helpful, productive or scientific. Among those who believe AGW theory and evidence, there are those who think adaptation is the only answer, and those who think that mitigation is the only answer. But it’s not an either/or question – mitigation can be used to make adaptation more feasible and less costly (economically and in terms of human welfare) by slowing the effects of climate change. Technology can be used to develop more efficient and economical ways of lowering emissions and CO2 sequestration. It’s a huge mistake to view mitigation only in terms of the technologies we have available, or the costs of implementing them. Solar energy costs have decreased so much that in many situations they are comparable to, or cheaper than, energy from fossil fuel, especially if one takes into account the costs of constructing something like a coal-fired power plant. In many areas of the developing world microgrids are cost effective and people can use them to access electricity sooner than they would if they had to wait to be connected to a grid originating near urban areas, where most power plants are built.
Moving forward, the keys will be flexibility and innovation: increasing the alternatives, and applying those alternatives wisely. That means taking politics out of the equation, and viewing the situation realistically. It means ending the animosity, accusations and condemnation, and trying to work together. It means accepting that the scientific community in general deserves our trust, even if there are a few bad apples and abrasive personalities, and even though errors are made. Scientists are human, after all, and are subject to mistakes, egotism and ambition like the rest of humanity – but that does not mean that the conclusions of the scientific community in general should be doubted. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate sources of bias, and to root out error. Even contradictory results can be revealing, since they can be caused by mistakes (which can lead to improvement in methods) or by factors that hadn’t been considered (which can lead to greater understanding). The Hockey Stick, for example, may not have been perfect in its first representation, but the general shape has been reproduced many times since by different researchers using different methods.
By all means, have skepticism! Questioning is good. Searching for truth is good. Assuming you know the truth better than those who have greater expertise, or that others are biased and you aren’t, is not skepticism, and not rational. Real skepticism acknowledges one’s own limits and biases, and questions one’s own assumptions and ideas. This is what science is all about.
P.S. Using common gauges of climate change such as temperatures, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity, etc. to argue that it’s not happening is futile. You can ignore all of them and still find a vast amount of evidence that it’s happening. The biotic world alone is full of it (migrations, ranges, changes in plant flowering times, etc.).
EDIT TO ABOVE:
Oh, never mind. That was a waste of time, considering the audience.
That you anyhow. This debate is like Greta against seasoned scientists but it does not matter who you are. If data does not comply with your hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong and you must reject it. And we are surprised that the CAGW hypothesis does not die. Here comes the politics. In propaganda, emotions rule, not the facts.
Coping is the right strategy in handling complex adaptive problems not all-in when you have not seen your cards in the Poker table. So: decentralize power, add freedom, deregulate, decrease taxes, subsidies and entitlements. Decrease them more. And finally independent, sovereign people and nations start to prosper with joy.
Was this the punch line to the joke you wrote above?
Kristi Silber
“EDIT TO ABOVE:
Oh, never mind. That was a waste of time, considering the audience.”
No, it was a waste of time because CO2 is not causing the earth to warm. CO2 is plant food and is in short supply. CO2 is innocent of any wrong doing. It was the Sun that did it.
Like most leftists, Kristi gets so darned frustrated that the rest of us don’t agree with her just because she keeps telling us how stupid we are.
The only people less worthy of our time and attention than the dive by one liner warmistas, are the long winded ones.
I would rather debate global warming alarmism with my dumbest cat than with Kristi Silber.
At leas they act like they are paying attention.
Kristi: “First and foremost, the science needs to be seen on its own merits, apart from politics. ”
This single sentence reduces a lot of the rest of your post to substantial drivel.
If we want to examine the science. Cliff Mass needs to tell us why his climate models have failed to accurately predict the climate’s temperatures. Then address Dr. Pat Frank’s concerns about propagating climate model error that far exceeds delineating the Co2 signal sought after.
Then explain why NOAA and NASA GISS seem not interested in the truth by manipulating the surface temperature records to fit failed modeling predictions.
Once these questions are answered, then there doesn’t look to be a lot of “science” left on the pro-warming side of this issue.
”There are also deniers – those who deny the fact of human-induced climate change”
Fact? Why is this word misused again and again. The only fact is that AGW is NOT a fact. It is a supposition. Therefore to ”believe” it is illogical. To deny it in the absence of any proof – logical.
I don’t deny the “fact” of human-caused climate change. What I do is deny that any evidence has been put forward demonstrating human-caused climate change. And since we have been looking for this evidence for a very long time, it is likely that CO2 effects on the Earth’s temperatures are minimal.
There’s no evidence demonstrating human-caused climate change, Kristi. You seem to think there is but I don’t know what you would be putting in that category. It can’t be much, so I’m puzzled at your certainty.
And I’ll put out the standard challenge to the alarmists: If any alarmist has any evidence of human-caused climate change please direct us to it. I don’t expect to get any useful answers. The usual reply is either no reply at all, or insults. But no evidence. Ever! Not once have any of these alarmist climate experts been able to meet this challenge. They won’t meet it this time, either. I guarantee it.
‘Science’ became political when Maurice Strong weaponized it to find solely for human-caused catastrophic change. The sun was taken out of consideration, as was water vapor! ‘Climate science’ that ignores the two main drivers can not be valid. When Strong devised the scheme, the motive was to frighten the world’s population into accepting a global tax on air. We are there.
“… P.S. Using common gauges of climate change such as temperatures, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity, …” rah rah rah
>>
Kristi, if any of your conceited utter claptrap was true BOM would not have to constantly cool the past by corrupting temp data, en-echelon, to try and eek out a “highest evah!” record or three next Summer.
Your brain seems to be on the blink or you’re just willfully ignorant, i.e. not innocently ignorant.
If you have any shred of honesty at all (which at this point I’m fairly certain you don’t) you would read this post about BOM’s on-going history of data corruption, and get a bit of a basic clue.
Who knew? The Australian Bureau of Met just made last summer hotter, and history colder (again)
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/who-knew-the-australian-bureau-of-met-just-made-last-summer-hotter-and-history-colder-again/
Herein is revealed the non-existent quality level of BOM’s heavily UHI corrupted T ‘dataset’, in all its fake and thoroughly contrived and transmogrified laughably corrupt stupidity:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
PS: There has been no increase in either storm intensity of frequency.
Once again Kristi has to lie about the data in order to make her point.
Once again Kristi indicates that either she is a very shallow thinker, or she believes the rest of us are.
Very few people deny that humans can affect the climate.
What we deny are the claims of you alarmists that the amount of change is enough to cause us to worry, much less turn over everything to the government.
All there is to support the GHE is Feldman et al (2015)
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
And it failed to do even that.
The “evidence” lies only in the models and Greta’s ability to see carbon dioxide.
Kristi,
Nice to see have someone from the Gish Gallop school of Annoyingly Obfuscatory Debating grace us with their time wasting prattle.
Beneficiaries are another group in climate debate. Huge amount of money can be made if people are submissive to rate and tax increases due to climate policies. Think about a corn farmer. No climate change results in no need for alcohol as a fuel. Price of corn goes done.
Straw man arguments are common in climate debate. Very small is not zero, but in physics we often ignore contributing factors that are orders of magnitude too small. Impact of emissions can be practically zero even if the climate is changing. Be accurate and speak about the same things.
Good grief. More gibberish. I love global warming and I love CO2. The part not to love is how the IPCC is manipulating science for political agenda.
Amen to several above. The “third” group doesn’t see a “global warming issue” that needs any “solution”.
No evidence that there is.
If Greta (and all her silly admirers) wants to see what will control her future–and it sure ain’t climate–she should stop cackling like a Chicken Little and turn around and have a sober look at her country’s debt clock.
https://commodity.com/debt-clock/sweden/
Canadians tomorrow, and Americans next year that are old enough to vote might do the same. We can’t break the bank chasing foolish ‘climate change’ remedies; it’s already busted.
Then there is reality. The reality is that climate change has been going on for eons. Climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up weather cycles that are part of the current climate with true climate change. The reality is that based on paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So all of this effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. What I am saying is all a matter of science and it is all a matter of reality.
Perhaps Bjørn Lomborg might help us understand how we should find solutions to problems as a result of Earth’s changing climate regardless of what the causes are.
Cliff you will find that the climate athiests are just as bad as the ASP types
Steven…I am learning that pretty rapidly!..clif
(Snipped the personal attacks on the two people above, stick with the debate instead, also dial back on your comments to Kristi Silber, stick with the debate idea instead) SUNMOD
And you’ll find the drive-by-trolls are even worse than all the rest combined!
Many of you suggest that there is a third group–those who believe that there is no problem, with little impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. Remember my title–it is about the REAL CLIMATE DEBATE. Those who believe in no impacts are simply not involved in the REAL DEBATE. The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. Not there has been a huge amount of hype by the global warming “advocates” and the global climate models have serious issues–trust me, I know about those. But to say there will be no effects is not serious and anyone claiming that is not part of the “real debate.”
Cliff Mass: “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. ”
Nonsense, Cliff! You had to have studied the founding principles in atmospheric science as I did because you were in school at roughly the same time.
Those founding principles, taught at every major university until climate modelers like you showed up in the 1980’s never suggested CO2 would have an effect on the climate system. It all goes to water vapor feedbacks and the founding principles suggest they must be negative with respect to CO2 as adding more of that increases atmospheric emissivity and cools the troposphere in exchange for any GHG effect at the surface. The warming effect was considered as a stand alone constituent that does not occur with the hydrological cycle in the way.
The only thing that changed this was the shelving of these ideas by Elsasser from Harvard and a host of others who did all the founding work post Einstein. You nor anyone else has ever disproven the founding work. But you did supplant this work with failed climate models and claim without offering any proof that the model output is superior to empirical calculation. And the evidence and record shows how badly in error you are. Your refusal to discuss this and marginalize any who dare question it is but an offer of proof your position has lost any scientific merit and has deteriorated to one of political nonsense.
Chuck….please no name calling. All the “founding principles” are found in the radiation codes of modern models. They produce warming, resulting from changes in radiative fluxes, when CO2 is increased. Now climate models have all kinds of problems…which I note all the time (e.g., problems with clouds, poor convection, etc.) but the impact on radiation when CO2 is cranked up is in all of them. So you are saying that the radiation codes in modern models are missing something? Any proof of that? What are the problems? And you are entirely wrong that the curricula taught at universities changed regarding CO2 impacts on radiation. ..cliff
Cliff: You’re making things up again. I never called you a name like many warmers call those like myself, ie. “denier”.
I did state that you have lost a lot of credibility with your post because you are marginalizing the opinions of many credible scientists and meteorologists by stating they are not part of a relevant or serious discussion about the climate. That is a preposterous position and very self serving to attempt to duck having to answer the tough questions through exclusion, which means you are hijacking science to advance your own perceived political “solution” to this “problem” which will and is misleading the political class who want to tax and regulate all forms of energy as their fraudulent Rx. That is also very self serving and attempting to create perpetuity in climate modeling funds paid for by the universities client, the taxpayer, through the political class that somewhat desires the sort of “solution” you are proposing.
Cliff Mass: “So you are saying that the radiation codes in modern models are missing something? Any proof of that? What are the problems?”
Me: You are again engaging in double speak. You just identified some key ones:
” Now climate models have all kinds of problems…which I note all the time (e.g., problems with clouds, poor convection, etc.) ”
Without an adequate ability to calculate convection , the hydrological cycle itself, which means instantaneous cloud fractions both in terms of density and area coverage, how could you and why would you expect that the signal from increasing atmospheric CO2 could really be represented or even found? Without knowing the precise radiative feedbacks from the hydrological cycle which includes cloud fractioning, the results produced by the models are worthless. They are overrated heaps of junk and you, if anyone, should understand this. You should also understand, the very climate models you keep protecting are not closed physical systems that do not need help from the operator. They are tuned “adjusted” continuously and re-initialized to get a curve fitting match to the real temperature trends. That is not a model with any predictive skill. Did you read the latest paper on model error propagation authored by Pat Frank? Here is the reference:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
The founding principles in atmospheric science post Einstein that were derived by those such as Elsasser were very clear and you apparently did not understand what I was telling you. This entire argument goes to water vapor feedbacks. If they are positive, as failed climate modeling predicts, you get a significant warming result. If they are negative, meaning increased water vapor in the hydrological cycle from CO2 radiation is used up in precipitation, increasing cloud fraction, blocking solar insolation, and further radiating temperature induced vaporization from the earths surface released as latent heat out of the troposphere through cloud fractioning IR emission and solar insolation blocking which maintains a stable optical depth.
Cliff Mass: “And you are entirely wrong that the curricula taught at universities changed regarding CO2 impacts on radiation. ”
Me: They most certainly did. The founding expectations were that water vapor and the hydrological cycle completely dominates the IR spectrum and dwarfs the effect from atmospheric CO2. Precisely through the feedbacks I just mentioned that are anticipated to be negative. Climate models are completely backwards and increase atmospheric water vapor through time and create spurious warming that the records do not support. Plain and simple. CO2’s contribution to warming is as a stand alone constituent. It counts little in the presence of the hydrological cycle because cloud fractioning and precipitation act to reduce total optical depth integrated across all IR wavelengths including blocking incoming solar radiation as a response to increasing CO2.
Here is the reference to Elsasser’s work:
https://archive.org/details/ElsasserFull1942
He actually developed the first graphical IR radiative transfer model that predicts the surface cooling rate based upon a water vapor optical depth that includes CO2 radiation as a proper IR proxy due to its ability to lower the water vapor optical depth through negative feedbacks.
From the sound of your response, I doubt that you ever studied this important work and I know all the modelers from today never disproved it with the constant unsatisfactory results obtained by running failed climate models that I have now named the Oz machines.
Cliff,
Do you know of any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is actually causing serious global warming? Or is the totality of the “problem” in the future as predicted by climate models?
Chuck Weise,
By definition, Cliff Mass is right. Because it’s Cliff Mass’s defilade definition of the REAL CLIMATE DEBATE. If you don’t agree with his interpretation of the unverifiable and uncertifiable climate models, he excludes you from debate of the multiply flawed ASP and ACT assertions. Aversion to an honest, open debate drives him to deny by definition anyone not adhering to his rigid, narrow perspectives. Also, the capitalization REALLY adds AUTHORITY without SUBSTANTIATION, don’t you think?
All tarted up, in the latest propaganda techniques…..
J Mac: Spot on and thank you.
We may not be part od the “real debate”, but it is you who is not serious. To say there will be (significant, measurable) effects is not serious. It is naive and ignorant. Time will show this.
” … The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming. …”
>>
And yet as Ian Plimer pointed out on the weekend on Sky News Outsiders program, the Earth went through 6 Ice Ages when CO2 levels were scores of times higher than right now. But you are talking about fractional increases, where the heating occurs before the CO2 increase.
So who are you to say who’s having a “real debate”?
The facts of the Earth’s history trump all such limited ‘real debates’, and self-appointed gate-keepers of what the bounds of debate are. And re the meme about CO2 causing proportional heating, if any at all is not consistent with models, and at odds with Plimer’s geological facts, so falls into the area of highly-questionable ‘knowns’, at the best.
I also take issue with your view that we need “saving” from climate-change – you presume way too much.
Cliff Mass,
You assert,
“The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
“Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.
There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.
A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.
Richard
Those who believe in no impacts are simply not involved in the REAL DEBATE
Wrong on all counts. It’s those who believe in the AGW nonsense that are simply not involved in the “REAL DEBATE” because they, like *you* (as Chuck Wiese pointed out), *actively* refuse to debate whenever climate skeptics invite them to debate.
Cliff,
I know I’ll be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe the “third group” is those of us who accept/agree that more atmospheric CO2 may somewhat warm the atmosphere but that warming is very minimal compared to the natural warming.
This “third group” recognizes the uncertainty in the “settled science” you describe that bases its’ conclusions on “both theory and modeling”.
It really is sad when someone who once was a respected scientist has to reduce himself to lying in order to protect his paycheck.
In his first statement, Cliff references those who don’t believe that the change is enough to cause any problem. Then Cliff jumps to arguing against those who believe there is no change.
Dishonesty at it’s highest, but what I have come to expect from the global warming cabal.
There are very, very few who claim that more CO2 won’t result in more warming.
Cliff knows that he can’t defend the lies he has been making, so instead he lies about what others believe.
Really, really pathetic. But when someone’s paycheck is on the line, they often lose what little was left of their integrity.
Actually, no.
Carl-Otto Weiss has done the spectral analysis of the temperature changes for the last 2000 years, [With two colleagues, a mathematician/statistician and an astronomer, he published this paper in 2017: https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44 “Spectral Analysis Of Climate Data Shows: All Climate Change Is Due To Natural Cycles”. 2013 version https://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf%5D
and has found major components related to solar activity: He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature. Modification, yes, though not as much as the major GHG, water vapor. Not causality. A carefully worded conclusion does not say that CO2 cannot cause global climate change, just that there is no evidence that it ever has. He notes that all climate change (in that period, so far) is due to natural cycles, and there is no signal at all from our [or any] CO2 emissions.
Cliff wrote: “The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
That’s a start. Then the negative feedbacks need to be added to the equation. CO2 is not the only actor. There is a possiblity that CO2 adds no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere after negative feedbacks are included. Would you argue with that statement?
Cliff wrote: “But to say there will be no effects [from CO2] is not serious and anyone claiming that is not part of the “real debate.”
I don’t think very many people at this website deny that CO2 has some effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. The nature of that effect is what is in doubt. Is it large or small? Noone knows. Do you agree that noone knows this answer? Estimates are not knowledge. And the estimates keep getting smaller as time goes along.
What do you think of the bastardization of the surface temperature record? Do your local regional temperature charts look like a Hockey Stick? Or do they look like Hansen 1999 US chart, where the 1930’s show to be just as warm as today?
Tom Abbott wrote: “There is a possiblity that CO2 adds no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere after negative feedbacks are included. Would you argue with that statement?”
No reply from Cliff Mass. It’s a simple question. it’s one all alarmists should have to answer.
If Mr. Mass is thinking clearly then he would have to agree that there is a possiblity that CO2 adds NO net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, no alarmist worth his salt would admit to such a thing because doing so would show that “The Science” is far from settled since all these expert climate scientists can’t tell you whether CO2 will or will not add net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. They don’t want the general public to know just how little they know about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.
Cliff can’t answer because it would affect his job prospects. I understand, Cliff.
Steven…I am learning that pretty rapidly!..clif
sunmod, what about these attacks by Cliff and steve on those who don’t worship as they do?
(Will reply this once, they aren’t personal attacks on anyone by name, YOU however do name them, and attack them personally for opinions good or bad they make. Stick with the debate format or don’t reply to them at all) SUNMOD
POLICY: “Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;….”
SUNMOD,
I don’t know what MarkW said, but I trust your judgement. Maybe you personally agreed with what MarkW said but, the rules are the rules.
(Ever think of running for the Supreme Court? 😎
MarkW,
Yes, they’ve called/dismissed a whole group of us as idiots and not worthy to be considered. BUT, they haven’t singled out the individual out as an idiot (or worse).
I think that’s the sometimes fuzzy tightrope SUNMOD is walking here.
Like most paid alarmists, neither cliff nor steve attempt to refute the arguments given.
They just assume an air of authority and declare that those who disagree with them aren’t worth debating.
Clearly Mr. Mass (SNIPPED the rest of the unnecessary attack, focus on the debate, not on the person) SUNMOD
The commenters are right. The premises are wrong.
There is nothing to be done about climate change since it is a given, has been ongoing for more than 550 million years. CO2 mitigation is not a solution, it is a problem of our own creation. There has never in the last 550 million years been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change – and that is, you know, a prerequisite for causation…
There have been some tortured reconstructions that postulated that CO2 and temperature changes were “virtually simultaneous” (i.e. within a couple of hundred years) but there has NEVER been even a SUGGESTION that CO2 change ever preceded a downturn in temperature.
This discussion is nostalgically medieval. And the True Believers are winning.
The True Believers are whining. Not winning.
To wit: Trump. Brexit. Leaving Paris2015.
And Soon: Goodbye Justin Turd’eau.