Climate science has died. The effects will be big.

Reposted from the Fabius Maximus blog

By Larry Kummer, Editor / 17 November 2019

Summary:  Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess.

I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.

Climate scientist at work - Dreamstime-99364552

Photo 99364552 © Standret – Dreamstime.

At the time I thought this statement was daft. Now I see that she was spot on, but not in the way she meant it. And with results that she did not intend.

“The time for debate has ended.”
Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term. Since 2015, the debate about a public policy response to climate change has stopped in any meaningful form, because the activists who control it have abandoned science. Now the headlines describe reports by activists describing every form of extreme weather as resulting from rising CO2 – and making increasingly dire predictions of future weather. The former are largely bogus, for reasons described below. The latter are either based on the unlikely-or-impossible RCP8.5 scenario (see here and here) – or fantasies of ever more extreme scenarios. There is little or no effort to base these in hard science. They are presented to the public as certainties. The models making these predictions are presented as a modern form of haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice). Contrary opinions are seldom given, except in a pre-debunked form.

The goal is to arouse fear, even panic – not to inform.

“Do remember you are there to fuddle him.  From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!”
— Editor’s advice to a junior reporter in Hell. From The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis (1942).

The effect of this on climate science

Almost everybody works for a living. We have aspirations for a good life. Most of us have families to provide for. Almost none of us have any substantial way to influence the conduct of the institutions in which we serve as cogs. We are vulnerable to formal and (more important) informal feedback mechanisms of our rulers.

In climate science, the elites running its institutions – such as Marcia McNutt – want research that supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. After saying “the debate is ended,” she is not likely to support papers that call it into question. As Editor of the Science family of journals, that means they will not get published (damaging careers of junior scientists who did not get the memo). As president of the National Academies, that means no funding (wrecking the careers of upstart junior scientists). Even eminent and senior scientists are discarded if they challenge the narrative (e.g., Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry).

That is just good sense for McNutt and her peers. Journalists want doomster stories. Activists controlling the flocks of non-governmental agencies demand doomster research. Powerful political interests want doomster research (“conservative” politicians, organizations, and corporations do not care – knowing that they will have their share of gain from the expansion of government power). The incentives are tilted to one side.

So we get a flood every month of increasingly dubious research about the effects of global warming. Dubious statistical methods, exaggerated claims, endless predictions doom based on bogus claims that RCP8.5 is “business as usual” scenario. Models are used to make increasingly detailed predictions about regional effects and far future events – with little effort to validate them (there is a large body of knowledge of model validation, largely ignored by climate science). But climate science has a deeper and more severe problem.

“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963).

“Viewed as a body of substantive hypotheses, theory is to be judged by its predictive power for the class of phenomena which it is intended to ‘explain.’ Only factual evidence can show whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or, better, tentatively ‘accepted’ as valid or ‘rejected.’ As I shall argue at greater length below, the only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of its predictions with experience.”
— Milton Friedman in “The Methodology of Positive Economics“, from Essays in Positive Economics (1966).

Instead of making specific predictions about near-term (testable) weather, climate scientists now explain how current weather results from increased greenhouse gases. A big hurricane (e.g., Katrina in 2005, Irma in 2017) produces papers showing that more and bigger hurricanes are our future (here, here, and here). Large regional droughts are proclaimed the “new normal” (e.g., Texas, California) – until they end. The end of snow, more & bigger tornadoes, more & bigger wildfires (see them all here) – climate scientists seldom accurately predict them, but afterwards confidently forecast more of the same. Even outright falsification of predictions are evidence of global warming, such as the rising and falling of the Great Lakes. False predictions are ignored, preventing progress. My favorite: Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!

Climate scientist Richard Betts warned his fellows in a BBC op-ed (which they would not publish today): “Science must end climate confusion” (11 January 2010).

“Of course, we know that these things {extreme weather} happen anyway, even without climate change – they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event. Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda. …

“{D}o climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on ‘our side’ against the climate sceptics? …Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing. Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.”

But what about the ethics of science? Scientists’ sacred obligation to pursue truth. It is a chimera – a thing that is desired but in fact is imaginary. Biomedical research – with its massive direct effect on people – is severely corrupted. There is no Hippocratic Oath for scientists (and increasingly, nothing like it that is meaningful for doctors). We should expect any field of science whose fruits are valuable to the powerful to be corrupted.

  1. About the corruption of climate science.
  2. The noble corruption of climate science.
  3. A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.
Danger, journalists at work

Fame is money in our society. Journalists boost the careers of scientists whose work supports the narrative. Climate scientists would have to be saints to ignore this. Few are, and the rest cheer journalists who misrepresent or exaggerate their findings.

  1. A real-time example of the birth and spread of climate propaganda.
  2. Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
  3. A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
  4. Wildfires and climate change: fake news in action.
  5. See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda.
  6. How journalists helped wreck the climate debate – by climate scientist Roy Spencer.
  7. A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
  8. Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade.
The policy debate decouples from science

After the IPCC published its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014, activists took a fateful but brilliant step. AR5 did not support the doomster narrative, so they condemned the IPCC as “too conservative” (examples here and here). With the support of journalists and NGOs, they broke free from the tethers of science, birthing the Climate Emergency and Extinction Rebellion – based on false claims of mass extinctions occurring now (here, here, and here). Scientists have joined the parade with increasing bogus claims of dooms present and future. Those that are insufficiently enthusiastic are attacked (e.g., here).

Naked Capitalism, whose daily links are imo the premier source of news from a left perspective, gives a dozen such stories every week. Most are to some extent fake news. But their volume makes refutation, even verification of their claims, impossible for any individual or small group. And there is no money for skepticism (easily seen by comparing the amateurish skeptics’ websites with the lavishly funded, professionally run activists’ websites). A very few climate scientists have spoken out against the growing hysteria (e.g., here, here, and here), but one might as well have tried to save the Titanic with a bucket.

I and others have proposed rational responses to climate change that can get broad support (e.g., here and here). It is hopeless. The tide of alarmism continues to rise, often becoming self-parody. There are rumors that AR6 will go full doomster. The Bandwagon Effect generates positive feedbacks that in America today often converts concerns about real problems into moral panics (e.g., white slavery, satanic ritual abuse). There is nothing visible that can stop this escalation.


The response of our science and political institutions to climate change have been self-defeating – the opposite of what people expect from scientists warning about a severe threat (see here and here). So far they have little to show in America for their vast expenditure of time and money. And China has ignored them. But they have laid the foundation for victory. They need only some help from Nature. With their control of so many key institutions, a big bout of severe weather (e.g., a hurricane hitting downtown Miami or Washington) – blamed on Climate Change – might panic Americans into supporting the Green New Deal.

Mother Nature has been their foe so far. But she is fickle. Like any insurrection, climate alarmists need win only once.

But the damage to climate science is effectively forever. Generations of scientists have learned that success is political, and I believe the resulting long slide of research quality has just begun. Only great effort over long periods of time will reverse that. I doubt we will start in the foreseeable future. We might pay much for our folly when past extreme weather comes again.

“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …

  1. Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
  2. Scientists show us why the climate change campaign failed – so far.
  3. Experts now run the world using their theories. What if they fail, and we lose confidence in them?
  4. Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed.
  5. A demo of why we do nothing about climate change.
  6. Why climate skeptics will lose. How they can win.
Activists don’t want you to read these books

Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened by Susan Crockford (2019).

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., professor for the Center for Science and Policy Research at U of CO – Boulder (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Available at Amazon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R Moore
November 18, 2019 10:19 am

So what event or trend would convince the world that the current hypothesis linking rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere to long term climatic changes is false at the scale of CO2 change that currently exists and is projected? Would the temperature anomalies have to decrease or remain the same and if so for how many years? Given the current problems with precision of measurement of the various variables being followed is there any one or two series of measurements that are most valuable in noting significant long term change?

John McClure
Reply to  R Moore
November 18, 2019 11:39 am

… “noting significant long term change?”

Sorry dude – it’s a foolish wet dream for those at the funding tit(s).

Joel Snider
Reply to  R Moore
November 18, 2019 12:21 pm

Honestly – if Trump continues on as president after 2020, it will go a long way towards winning this battle – or at least putting the nuts back on their heels.
Unless you live in a blue state, of course.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2019 3:01 pm

Only if government funded climate Alarmists get defunded under Trump…and real science gets funding.

Trump has fought Climate Alarmism primarily by ignoring it. Most of the population ignores climate in their lives, so silence is probably better than open warfare which would mobilize even more opposition.

We Deniers should have infiltrated government science a decade ago. Get some moles in the labs with video recording equipment and record activist malfeasance. We’ll need ammunition (evidence) if the climate battle ever gets into the courts or into the mainstream (where a majority of people really care).

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2019 4:38 pm

Trump’s re-election will be blamed on climate change…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2019 9:10 pm

Honestly I don’t think he’ll get that much done. The screaming will get more and more shrill, and republicans won’t have the stomach for it. The won’t have the stomach for being called every name in the book, being screamed down at every campaign rally, screamed at anywhere in public, people camping on their lawns and screaming at them. They’ll fold.

Reply to  R Moore
November 18, 2019 1:25 pm

Eventually we may have a thirty year period of flat to declining temps, like roughly 1945-1975. This will abort the hysteria for global warming.

Of course, the usual suspects will then flip back to the coming Ice Age, and find a way to blame humans in general and free markets and free people in particular for our coming doom.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 18, 2019 2:31 pm

The Sun – which ALL climate scientists admit is the primary climate factor – has been on an extended
“calm” cycle (Maunder Minimum). This has caused problems for the global warming fans because of decreased ultraviolet radiation. However, within just a few years more the cycle will go on the upswing and the Sun will become more and more active in the ultraviolet radiation it releases toward Earth. This will heat the upper atmosphere and within a couple more years filter downward to the lower atmosphere. Then we will have increased global warming (and it might be significant!). It is not man-made however, but will nevertheless give lost of ammunition to the warming screeds of the scientists invested in manmade global warming diatribes. It’s definitely going to get HOTTER.

Reply to  Mortimer Zilch
November 18, 2019 3:08 pm

Citations, please.

I’ve seen no indications in the literature that solar minimums are short lived…or mercurial.

Reply to  Mortimer Zilch
November 18, 2019 11:59 pm

why has it caused problems for climate science?

The expected result of this should be cooling – which is absolutely nowhere in evidence. It is clear that human CO2 warming has overridden the cooling effect.

Reply to  griff
November 19, 2019 9:09 am

“It is clear that human CO2 warming has overridden the cooling effect.”

Besides being a circular argument, I doubt if this is true, but if it is, it seems like a good thing that we should be happy about. We certainly don’t want cooling and the mass starvation it would bring, so a bit of warming as a margin of safety seems like something we should be happy about. If we’ve been able to geo-engineer some warming, great let’s keep at it.

John Dilks
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2019 10:28 am


Wrong. The earth does not respond instantly to solar changes. The oceans act as a damper to slow the changes.

Reply to  R Moore
November 18, 2019 6:04 pm

In general all untested, non-validated models and thought experiments turn out wrong. Especially those modelled by people who cannot listen to their critics. Did Lee Smolin write that there could be 10e499 possible string theories? To compare the scale of that number: there are between 10e78 and 10e82 atoms in the universe. Given it’s untested and non-validated, why would I believe this Plass/Manabe/Wetherald/Hansen model? What about the David Evans and Ferenc Miskolczi alternative greenhouse gas models? Why not believe them? Then again, how many more greenhouse gas models could be written? So far, the most tested and best validated seems to be Miskolczi’s. Although we could all just be boring and act like scientists:- believe in the null hypothesis?

Curious George
November 18, 2019 10:22 am

I’ll believe it when Climate Change professorships get cancelled.

November 18, 2019 10:30 am

Preaching to the choir.

John McClure
Reply to  Sciwiz
November 18, 2019 10:56 am

Danger, journalists at work
Fame is money in our society. Journalists boost the careers of scientists whose work supports the narrative. Climate scientists would have to be saints to ignore this. Few are, and the rest cheer journalists who misrepresent or exaggerate their findings.

If We Had Some Global Warming – The Global Warming Song

November 18, 2019 10:32 am

The goal is to “arouse” fear. Looks like something I would do.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
November 19, 2019 7:07 am

Except that the public ignores it, or blows these alarmists off as nuts of the Purple Shroud ilk. It’s well known that “global warming” stories get no clicks online, and people change the channel on TV. It bores them and most sensible people decided long ago it’s a political agenda.

NO ONE is going to go back to living an 11th-century lifestyle to please barmy AOC and G. Thunberg. Even if there was real evidenc of AGW, which there isn’t. 15 minutes on the Internet and anyone can learn the truth!

November 18, 2019 10:37 am

“The goal is to around fear, even panic – not to inform.”

arouse fear.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Gary
November 18, 2019 11:10 am

. . . yes, its a fear narrative like WMD’s

Tom Holsinger
November 18, 2019 10:41 am

The title could be more succinct, and more accurate. Delete the word, “Climate”.

November 18, 2019 10:50 am

… long slide of research quality …

It’s been happening for a while. Most published research findings are false and cannot be replicated. Often, scientists cannot even repeat their own results. The crap exposed by the Climategate emails also happens in other fields. link

Science in general is sick. The perverse incentives that govern a career in science guarantee bogus results.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 11:32 am

According to the Lancet, 50% can’t be replicated. Bayer put the number at 75%.

Reply to  HotScot
November 18, 2019 3:46 pm

I would like to see this research repeated.

Ron Long
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 11:49 am

Please, not so fast, commieBob. All Science, and all Scientists, are not sick and receiving perverse incentives, and certainly not getting bogus results. David Middleton and I are Geologists, he of the Black Gold tendency, and me of the Yellow Gold tendency. We assemble a vast array of scientific data, analyze it, check our results with cleverly designed tests, then proclaim: Drill Here!” You have to be there when the drill enters the target zone and hit a gusher (never mind the blow-out preventers) or gold nuggets clink around in the splitter, and your recommendation results in tangible rewards, like money, often lots of money, thank you very much. The problem with the scientists you are mentioning, is that they are peer group oriented, their rewards derive from pleasing the other trolls, and they have changed their focus to political science, and I am not aware of any of them that are paid as well as us.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 12:15 pm

The thing is that most oil companies have an actual peer review process. Here at “T”, whenever we generate a prospect and get it drill-ready, we present it to the entire geoscience team. Everyone rates the prospect. The drilling calendar is prioritized by prospect economics and the peer review results.

However, that’s just the peer review to run the “experiment.” Drilling the well and producing it is the final peer review. Our hypotheses are generally tested within a relatively short period of time if they make it on to the drilling calendar. And then… We evaluate how the wells produce, relative to our probabilistic forecast. If our results barely tracked the bottom of the 95% band of our probability distribution, like climate models, we would call that a “failure.”

Oil and mining industry geoscientists don’t get to spend other people’s money on science projects. We spend our companies’ money (in which we often have “skin in the game”) and we have to generate verifiable results.

Ron Long
Reply to  David Middleton
November 18, 2019 2:06 pm

David, the presentation, peer review process, in mining company proposals was often brutal. What followed was different from the oil business, because often the group went to the field and stood on the claimed target signature and reviewed the proposal again. Oil targets are almost all quite deep and are without surface expression, so much more dependency on geophysics. Good Hunting!

Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 2:13 pm

And in the Gulf of Mexico, the targets are also underwater… sometimes a lot of water. 😉

Reply to  David Middleton
November 18, 2019 11:51 pm

Yeap what we call the “rotary lie detector”

Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 12:30 pm

Are you confusing science with engineering?

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 1:10 pm

CommieBob, the assessment principles & processes hold true for scientific pursuits, engineering pursuits, even my field – product development & marketing. (Or more correctly, to get the order of business right – product marketing & development)

Our fundamental guiding principle in product & services development is –
“make what you can sell, not try to sell what you have made”

In other words, test your products’ saleability in the real marketplace(s) before you launch headlong into a production line.

Those spruiking “action on climate change now!” should abide the principles of acting on demonstrable outcomes rather than misplaced enthusiasm.

Ron Long
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 1:37 pm


Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 3:07 pm

Geological Engineer:

Geological engineers conduct geological and geotechnical studies to assess suitability of locations for civil engineering, mining and oil and gas projects; and plan, design, develop and supervise programs of geological data acquisition and analysis and the preparation of geological engineering reports and recommendations. Geological engineers are employed in consulting engineering companies, electrical utilities, mining and petroleum companies and in government and research and educational institutions. link

Ron Long
Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Really, commieBob? I have 50 years experience working with engineers and geologists, everything from project level to President and Director of a company, and you are going to question my knowledge of the different role of scientists and engineers?

Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 7:03 pm

Ron Long November 18, 2019 at 5:15 pm

Really, commieBob?


My early career was spent in a research environment. What I learned then is that there is tremendous overlap between engineers and scientists. After I entered academia, I spent a lot of time working with the companies that hired our students. Again the lesson is that, for companies that push the technological envelope, PhD engineers and PhD scientists are functionally indistinguishable.

Ron Long
Reply to  Ron Long
November 19, 2019 2:01 pm

commieBob, later in my career I organized, supervised, and obtained spectacular results conducting research on the topic of adapting modern digital data, like from satellites, AI, Space Shuttle X-band ground-penetrating radar, into gold exploration, for one of the worlds famous billionaires. Again, I very clearly understand the difference between geologists and engineers, and the in-between hybrid: geological engineers. If you think different you are mistaken.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 19, 2019 6:08 pm

Ron Long November 19, 2019 at 2:01 pm

We got into this when I asked if you were confusing science with engineering.

The answer depends on your definitions of engineering and science. In North America, there is broad agreement that engineering is the practical application of science. various opinions

A confounding factor is the requirement for a professional engineering license. That is designed to protect the public. If the safety of the public is not at risk, you can do engineering without being a professional engineer. That is, of course, ignoring a couple of American jurisdictions with truly bizarre laws.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 2:36 pm

If the model does not predict reality, the model is junk.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2019 2:29 pm

Thing is Ron, you get well paid because you deliver vast profits to your client or employer.
But so do the climate shysters to theirs

William Astley
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2019 2:32 pm

It is worse than cannot replicate a study.

There is corruption to the level of Kafka evil. This is Kafka problems at all levels.

There is an entire field of ‘science’, chemical brain altering, where the patient’s recovery rate is 10 times worse on long term drug therapy, as opposed to letting nature take it is course to repair the brain.

Comment: This makes sense as no longer term studies where done when the drugs were approved. The tests were all chemical vs placebo six weeks. The short term studies also hide the serious side effects of the drugs. No one in their right mind would accept the serious side effects if they knew the chemicals were no better than a placebo.

Robert Whitaker found while researching the astonishing rise of mental illness in America that prior to drug therapy that more than 80% of hospital depressed patience recovered to no sign of depression in 10 months.

Whitaker found evidence of a change in depression from an illness most completely recovered from and those that did not still had long intervals between depression to an episodic man made illness that increased with percentage of the population that was given the mind altering drugs.

With drug therapy and similar patients (real world, hospital depression, dosage and drug picked and altered to try to maximum success rate, up to four drug changes) 3% of severely depressed recovered to no sign of depression in a year.

Depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. The evidence is that the long-term effects of drug therapy is to change the brain to cause episodic chemical depression.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  William Astley
November 18, 2019 5:27 pm

Far from your portrayal, Whitaker’s main stances:
-Try to avoid immediate use of meds, as there will be a significant percentage who will recover without the medications (but aided by other forms of treatment)
-If medications are used, there should be an effort to minimize their long-term use, with regular support for drug-tapering protocols.

I think most anyone would agree with those.

I like how you claim, “depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain,” then state people should be “letting nature take it is course to repair the brain.” Well if it isn’t a chemical imbalance issue, what in the brain needs to be repaired by nature?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 19, 2019 4:20 am

… what in the brain needs to be repaired by nature?

Wiring. 🙂

William Astley
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 19, 2019 5:04 pm

Emotional memory is stored in the lower brain.

The standard treatment for depression was prior to chemical treatment, exercise and walking in nature.

Prior to chemical treatment 80% recovered to no depression symptoms in 10 months using exercise and walking in nature.

Those who recovered from depression said they felt wiser, calmer.

The natural depression period removes emotional memory and helps a person resolve their life experiences emotions and thoughts. This natural period of ‘depression’ is good not bad.

The drugs do not stop depression or cure depression. The drugs alter the brain and cause chemical depression which increases in occurrence the longer the drugs are taken. There were a number of law suits concerning this issue.

Reply to  William Astley
November 19, 2019 3:08 pm

William Astley,
I found that comment to be quite enlightening when I finally managed to interpret it. Please, please pay some attention to punctuation. It makes a hell of a difference!

Reply to  commieBob
November 19, 2019 7:11 am

Take a look at nutrition “science” sometime. Somehow the endocrinology that makes skim-milk and grain-fed pigs fat is supposed to make humans THIN? How the hell does THAT work?

Observational studies based on “food questionnaires” filled out once 25 years ago aren’t worth the match to light ’em on fire, but every day the media keeps parroting the same party line–science is now absent.

I’m starting to see CAGW and stuff like EAT-Lancet are different faces of the same Old-Time Religion–depopulation and eugenics. Charming.

Kevin A
November 18, 2019 10:59 am

“haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice)”
Food for the mind, problem is if I call my Marxist neighbor a haruspicy spreader they won’t know how to respond other then to call me a denier, racist denier…

November 18, 2019 10:59 am

Time for a quote from H. L. Mencken

“The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins all of them imaginary.”

S.K. Jasper
November 18, 2019 11:00 am

“Journalists want doomster stories. Activists controlling the flocks of non-governmental agencies demand doomster research. Powerful political interests want doomster research….” Thus say the Doomster Divers

November 18, 2019 11:10 am


The point of science is to increase human knowledge—while decreasing delusion—about nature, something Climate Science ceased to do many years ago. (I use a capital C and a capital S here to indicate agnosticism as to whether it’s actually a field of science at all.)

I dare say it’s the only field with comparable manpower and budget of which you can ask, as I’ve asked, “what have we learned in the last 5 years?” and get no answer.

Functionally, C.S. has much more in common than theology as defined by the venerable Jorge, William of Baskerville’s Satanic antagonist in The Name of the Rose:

“But of our work, the work of our order and in particular the work of this monastery, a part—indeed, the substance—is study, and the preservation of knowledge. Preservation of, I say, not search for, because the property of knowledge, as a divine thing, is that it is complete and has been defined since the beginning, in the perfection of the Word which expresses itself to itself …

“There is no progress, no revolution of ages, in the history of knowledge, but at most a continuous and sublime recapitulation.”

Some of the climate movement’s finest minds, public thinkers like Dana Nuccitelli, literally identify new ideas with error, using the adjective flawed interchangeably with non-mainstream.

Understanding C. S. as an essentially ecclesiastical, not a scientific, program pays other theoretical dividends. For starters, it explains the hatred and fear of humor. The venerable Jorge puts it like this:

“Laughter is a devillish wind which deforms the lineaments of the face and makes men look like monkeys….

“Laughter, for a few moments, distracts the villein from fear. But law is imposed by fear, whose true name is fear of God. This [book of jokes] could strike the Luciferine spark that would set a new fire to the whole world, and laughter would be defined as the new art, unknown even to Prometheus, for cancelling fear. To the villein who laughs, at that moment, dying does not matter: but then, when the license is past, the liturgy once again imposes on him, according to the divine plan, the fear of death. And from this book, there could be born the new destructive aim to destroy death through redemption from fear. And what would we be – we sinful creatures – without fear, perhaps the most foresighted, the most loving of the divine gifts?”

Bruce Cobb
November 18, 2019 11:12 am

The Alarmist cabal declared war on the Truth, on Science, and on those who dared stand against them. They made their bed, so let them lie in it. They wanted war, and they got it. They just didn’t realize how badly it would go for them.

Clay Sanborn
November 18, 2019 11:18 am

Very good. So true.

Stephen Skinner
November 18, 2019 11:18 am

The human dynamics of this current phenomena or hysteria about ‘global warming’ are the same as financial cyclical events such as the South Sea Bubble and the Sub Prime Mortgage debacle. In every case the event gains an emotional gravity that pulls in anything that confirms the hysteria and expels anything that contradicts the hysteria.

Jonathan Ranes
November 18, 2019 11:22 am

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

I am seeing this slowly happening. Most everyone has seen the Emperor nude at this point, it’s just taking a bit for the info from the eyes to get to the brain and be processed. Give it another decade or so and a new hysteria will be installed more than likely.

Hopefully the next hysteria won’t be determined to destroy civilization and we can do something fun like go to war with robots.

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Jonathan Ranes
November 18, 2019 2:01 pm

“Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.” Edwards (soon to be Agent J)

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.” Agent K

November 18, 2019 11:23 am

What brings in more money? Happy, happy stories of people enjoying life? Or doomsday stories of people fleeing 1/2 inch of water in panic?

One might consider that the only thing at all that has kept the possibility of another episode of prolonged snow and cold IS the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that without the Industrial Revolution and the carbon load it created all by itself, we might be in the middle of Little Ice Age Part II. But this notion hasn’t occurred to the money-grubbing cash-seeking fabricators who pander to the lowest common denominator: news reporters, people with brains the size of a pea and a penchant for manufactured nonsense stories.

Follow the money. Always follow the money.

Reply to  Sara
November 18, 2019 12:50 pm

Just so you know Sara, one does not become rich if one is a researcher in climate science. In fact, considering the level of education necessary, it’s an unwise economic decision to enter the field, as there are much more lucrative areas of research one could enter.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 4:06 pm

Not really, Karl.
The more rewarding a field appears, the hotter the competition until there are no vacancies left. Your hypothesis applies to a smaller group which has the skills to make it.
Richard Lindzen noted years ago that climate studies attract the dullards. The really smart and rich have often invented their own fields and not entered existing structures. Geoff

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 4:42 pm

Yeah, Jagdish Shukla for example was only able to pull down $400K/year plus another $200K/year or so for his wife and daughter. Fortunately, he was able to get some money thrown to his family in India and he had to fly business class twice per year to international climate conferences in such places as Bali, Doha, Cancun.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:06 pm

Considering that many of these people get good salaries as well as grant money, I think it’s fair to say that they are well off. Being rich is not necessarily an objective here (unless you’re a Mann at a state university, who gets $3 million grants, only half of which goes to the school).

Reply to  Sara
November 18, 2019 6:18 pm

” good salaries as well as grant money”
The salary goes into the researcher’s pocket, the grant money does not. Unless you mean that the grant money pays their salary?

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 7:58 am

No, but grants allow them to conduct “research” and publish, which leads to promotions within their current institution, and/or the ability to move to a more prestigious and high-paying institution.

Reply to  Sara
November 18, 2019 3:31 pm

Climate Crisis isn’t even mostly about $$. It is currently one of the main globalist socislist programs to destroy free enterprise…and in due course to end nationalism (and nations).

Their prescriptions prove that the Climate Crisis isn’t about the climate, since none of their Rx’s would come anywhere close to achieving their stated goals.

Schrodinger's Cat
November 18, 2019 11:34 am

The Little Ice Age lasted about 300 years and ended around 1850, close to when the temperature measurements that later became known as HadCrut first started. It is therefore not surprising that we have been warming up since then and that current temperatures are at record levels for that particular database.

The UK Met Office and the BBC make a huge fuss every time a month or year produces the highest temperature ever recorded -for that particular database. The public believe it because the Met Office is the government agency responsible for the temperature record. They are not told about the LIA and the inevitability of the subsequent temperature rise.

When scientists use trickery to dupe the public you know they are not scientists.

Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
November 18, 2019 1:10 pm

” It is therefore not surprising”…..actually, it is surprising, since due to Milankovitch cycles, the LIA should not have ended, and in fact should be continuing on the downward slide. Can you explain why this is not happening?

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 2:50 pm

Solar output? Just entering a grand solar minimum. Volcanic heating? Can you explain, because the CO2 greenhouse effect is cobblers?

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 18, 2019 3:55 pm

Keep throwing explanations against the wall to see if they stick?
How about you come up with one that is better than AGW?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:20 pm

The 1970’s cooling scare where scientists were warning of an imminent Ice Age. That “inconvience” in the historical record demonstrates the cyclical nature of what is slow steady downward trend since the Holocene Thermal Optimum. We have millenial warm periods, and mid-millenial coolings. The happenstance of 0 AD occurs because of the Roman Empire and the need to support its Legions deployed, reaching a near maximal expanse in the warming Palestine/Syria region 2000 years ago. That “religious birth during a warm interval” set the “timing base” at a peak warm interval. So now we see a Medieval Warm Period, 900 AD -1200 AD, and also now a likely Modern Warm Period 1850 AD to ???. (2200???). With cold periods at mid-millennial time frames.

This is of course convolved with the 60-80 warming periods of the NH from the Ocean cycles (AMO/NAO). And then shorter ENSO quasi-cycles of more El Ninos or more La Ninas. Running the deconvolution to extract maximas and minimas from all those requires an a priori knowledge we don’t have.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:50 pm

There was no 1970’s cooling scare.

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 12:44 am

How old are you, Karl? Many of us lived through the 1970s cooling scare and didn’t believe that, which is why we don’t believe the 2000s warming scare either.

Joel is spot on; every warm period since the Holocene Optimum has been cooler than its predecessor. If you insist on starting records from a period known as one of the coldest since the last Ice Age and then claiming that such-and-such an event is the most extreme *ever* then you are deliberately misleading people.

In most other spheres of human activity that is called fraud and is a criminal offence. In climastrology it gets you kudos from like-minded fraudsters and a job for life!

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 1:04 am


There was no 1970’s cooling scare.

Naomi Oreskes disagrees.

Who to believe, who to believe: an annoying anonytroll, or a Harvard Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science plus everyone who lived through the 70s?

It’s all so confusing.

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 7:05 am

Joel, explaining to “Karl” the thoroughly documented cyclic temps on hundreds-year periods within the longer-term Milankovitch cycles must be too complex for him, so you’re wasting your time.

Yet again another low-grade troll.

November 18, 2019 11:34 am

The function of prediction in Climate Science no longer resembles its rôle in science (as in: actual, science science).

According to Feynman’s 63-second scientific method, we derive predictions from our hypotheses so that we can test them. A hypothesis (or in Feynmanese, a guess) is hostage to the empirical success or failure of its corollary predictions.

Experiments are effectively bets. What’s at stake is the hypothesis itself: whether it must be abandoned and improved upon, or (provisionally) accepted as Truth.

The end product of the scientific project is theory—a body of hypotheses whose predictions have a record of “winning” the bets we make about nature.

But in Climate Science, the prediction is the end product.

The climate-scientific method is a bit like the real thing, only dumbed-down beyond recognition and useless beyond redemption. On the plus side, you can say goodbye to tedious studies that can take more than a minute to complete. With Cli Sci, you’re finished by the 22-second mark:

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Brad, in 1896 Svante Arrhenius predicted that the increase of atmospheric CO2 would increase the temperature of the earth. This AGW hypothesis has proven to hold since. In fact each year that goes by with new GAST records being set only confirms this AGW hypothesis.

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 2:41 pm

Thanks for the belly laugh you just gave me. It is much appreciated on a Monday.

As CO2 increased heavily after WWII, the temperatures DROPPED until the late 70s, not increased. This alone disproves that CO2 drives temperatures in any meaningful way. Simply put, CO2 is a trace gas which simply cannot do what warmists claim it can. Arrhenius was completely wrong as has been demonstrated by multiple scientists over the past 100 years. If his theory was not politically expedient, it would have been sent to the dustbin long ago.

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 6:16 am

I don’t think GISTEMP is reliable, its constantly revising the past (checkout The most reliable long term temp dataset appears to be HADCRUT4.

The same plot you showed, but for HADCRUT4, shows a decrease over that period:

Reply to  Weylan McAnally
November 18, 2019 3:30 pm

But Weylan, if you look at the data from 1896 when the AGW hypothesis was first put forth:
We all know that the longer the time interval one looks at, the better picture of reality they get.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 5:44 pm

Explain rise in temperature from 1896 to 1950, it can’t be from CO2. One would expect global temperatures to rise from the extremes of the little ice age. Can you separate natural climate change from alleged CO2 induced change? And besides, warm is good, cold is bad.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:20 pm

“One would expect global temperatures to rise from the extremes of the little ice age”

What principles of physics are these expectations based on?

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 6:22 am


Explain the temperature rise from around 1905 – 1945. The climate models don’t explain it because if you subtract them from the temperature data that rise is still there.

And climate models contain all known forcings, including natural, apparently, so why do the residuals still show warming over that period?



Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 2:52 pm

What a load of nonsense. Learn some physics!

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 18, 2019 3:52 pm

Radiative physics explains how Svante Arrhenius’ hypothesis works.
Has there been a new development in physics that nullifies the AGW hypothesis?

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 3:13 pm

Karl, in 2009—after the death of climate science—the IPCC predicted the extinction of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

This prediction—while not empirically falsified yet—is a physical absurdity, as any glaciologist could tell you.

But watch the Feynman video again. What does he say?

If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong. Period.

So: what hypothesis did the IPCC abandon after its ridiculous prediction was exposed?

a) None, because the Himalayas are still on track to be glacier-free in 16 years

b) None, because the so-called falsehood was spotted by “voodoo scientists” using “schoolboy logic” and “denier logic” (h/t Rajendra Pachauri)

c) None, because the IPCC is headquartered on international soil in Turtle Bay, New York, and therefore has full immunity to the laws of science

d) None, because the prediction wasn’t even derived from a hypothesis in the first place—the IPCC just pulls these things ex posteriori, pardon my Latin

e) CAGW, because climate science is a science

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 18, 2019 3:51 pm

Brad, Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 prediction has come to pass. His hypothesis has yet to be falsified.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Brad, Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 prediction has come to pass.

What’s the point of your nonresponsive posts, Karl?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I’ve denied anything climate scientists ever predict could possibly come true. Which suggests you didn’t read my comment.

The triumphs of 123 years ago are all well and good, but let me simplify what I’m asking you:

Have we learned anything from climate science lately? As in, the last 10 years? 50 years? Century?

“Why of course, Brad! One thing they’ve discovered, which nobody knew before, is that _______________”

(If you can’t answer in the above form, please don’t bother.)

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:23 pm

Why of course, Brad! One thing they’ve discovered, which nobody knew before, is that nobody has falsified the original AGW hypothesis from Arrhenius.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:29 pm

PS Karl,

please don’t bring up Arrhenius again—or any climate science done while Queen Victoria was alive—as a misdirect from the MCQ about GlacierGate. We’re not going to forget the answer you owe us that easily.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 6:53 pm

Brad, the AGW hypothesis that Arrhenius put forth has never been falsified.

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 12:58 am

So we’re agreed. The last time climate scientists had a good idea, airplanes hadn’t even been invented.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 4:16 pm

It was about 15C in 1896 and it’s about 15C in 2019.

Reply to  Karl
November 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Let us not forget, Karl, that Arrhenius stated that the effect would be logarithmic. This is enough to put a lid on any serious outcomes re the climate.

Reply to  Karl
November 19, 2019 11:34 am


You’re conflating the fact that H2O, CO2, O3, CH4 and other gases are all GHG’s all of which make the surface a bit warmer than it would be otherwise with the size of the warming effect from incremental CO2 claimed by the IPCC. The controversy is all about the size of the effect, not whether or not the effect exists.

The IPCC claims an effect that’s so large, the next W/m^2 from the Sun will be at least 3 times more powerful at warming the surface and sustaining its warmth than any other W/m^2. This is a prima facia violation of COE, yet many consider the size of the claimed effect to be as certain as the fact that the effect is real. So much so that it blinds them to this obvious error.

This error first appeared in AR1 when they decoupled the incremental sensitivity from the average sensitivity such that the current temperature has no effect on the sensitivity allowing it to become as large as they needed it to be. Then they misapplied linear feedback amplifier analysis in a vain attempt to obfuscate their mistake with false plausibility.

Starting from absolute zero, the first W/m^2 of forcing increases the surface emissions from 0 W/m^2 to 1 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature increase to about 65K for a sensitivity of 65C per W/m^2. As the temperature increases, the sensitivity monotonically decreases as 1/T^3 which is the case for all matter absorbing and radiating energy! This 1/T^3 dependency of the sensitivity on the temperature is immutable physics yet is completely ignored by climate science in order to support science that’s so broken it’s an embarrassment to the legitimate pursuit of science.

At 20 W/m^2 of total forcing, the surface temperature is already up to 137K (GHG’s are still frozen, so the planet is relatively close to an ideal BB). At this point, 220 W/m^2 more will eventually increase the temperature to its current average of 288K, or 151C higher. Even a linear interpolation of the effect of incremental forcing is 220/115 = 0.67 C per W/m*2 is already less than the nominal value claimed by the IPCC even as the 1/T^3 dependency is ignored!

D. Cohen
November 18, 2019 11:38 am

I think the climate doomsters are vulnerable to a simple counter narrative — for example, the sun slowly cooling off has a more profound effect on the climate than CO2 can ever hope to have. Another possible counter narrative: Sure the world is warming up, and that’s good for us because the deserts will shrink, there will be longer growing seasons, glaciers will disappear giving us more land to live on, etc.

Even in the absence of new evidence, a counter narrative that is different and interesting will have a strong effect on what people talk about

Scientists, especially young scientists, do get tired of the same old stuff all the time. Eventually the notoriety that attaches to “bad boy” scientists — those who hold contrary opinions and push a counter narrative — will advance careers faster and further than just being one more conformist singing in the choir.

November 18, 2019 11:39 am

Climate science, at least almost all of the modern (post-Lamb) examples, were never alive, so they couldn’t have died.

Rudolf Huber
November 18, 2019 11:42 am

When my father was born, a new political trend in Germany was in full swing. A little more than 2 years before is birth, Adolf Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. His rise brought an age of certainty. Certainty about anything. Debatte was reviled, soon criminalized. Anything that questioned the dogma of the party was outlawed and there was a crushing majority consensus that this was a good thing. It all ended in the biggest war of all times and endless human suffering. Could this have been avoided if there were more questioning Hitler? We won’t know. What we know is that when a large group of people is so certain about something that they feel the need to kill any debate, horrible things tend to happen. Suppressing criticism is akin to a dictatorship.

Reply to  Rudolf Huber
November 18, 2019 12:29 pm

“Suppressing criticism is akin to a dictatorship.”

Not AKIN to a dictatorship, Rudolf, suppression of criticism is THE ESSENCE of a dictatorship.

Smart Rock
November 18, 2019 11:46 am

You are absolutely right, Larry. There is no debate. Really, there never was, although some of us might have thought there was a debate, preaching to the converted.

Our best hope is that the claims of the doomsters get so absurd that that start to marginalize themselves, and get ignored by the wider population. Extinction Rebellion is helping a lot in that direction. Prospective nominees for the US Democratic presidential candidate are falling over each other to make ever more radical and impractical “green” policy platforms.

I hope that we might be able to look back on this phase as the time when the climate movement began to collapse under the weight of its own absurdity.

One way this could start is that directly imposed carbon taxes are going to make people really angry at the politicians that created them. Gilets Jaunes are a good start. Three very angry provincial governments in Canada are another.

Another thing we can expect is that as the time frame to “save the planet” gets shorter and shorter and the planet doesn’t appear to be on life support, a lot of people are going to start doubting the alarmists.

We can hope………………….

I don’t think that “we” can do much against the green tide

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 18, 2019 1:08 pm

“You are absolutely right, Larry. There is no debate.”

When Naomi Oreskes isn’t too busy saying that, she’s saying the exact opposite:

“This thing about the peer-reviewed literature being closed, that’s just false. I studied the scientific literature on climate change, and there’s all kinds of debate going on,” said the historian on ABC Radio’s World Today.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 18, 2019 1:56 pm


That’s a great quote!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 18, 2019 9:38 pm

The only debate in the literature is whether it’s bad, or REALLY bad.

November 18, 2019 11:58 am

I wonder when peak fear will be reached? After AR6 is published? 2030? Inquiring minds want to know.

Peak fear will be a good time to buy coastal real estate, particularly in California.

Wait for the price to be driven down by the selling of the idiots in California and swoop in and buy.

With SLR rising only about 11 inches per century, you will probably have several centuries of enjoyment before you have anything to worry about. Shhhh – don’t tell anybody in California.

Oboma already figured this out and bought land on Martha’s Vineyard.

Should be lots of deals to be had from now till a bit after peak fear (whenever that will be).

Maybe we should wait for some idiot in California to build an ark – maybe that will signal peak fear?

Reply to  RickA
November 18, 2019 2:01 pm


“I wonder when peak fear will be reached?”

My guess (guess!) is that it will happen when we get a big bout of extreme weather. Multiple severe events – or one big one (eg, a Cat 5 hitting downtown Miami, a Cat 3 hitting Manhattan). It will, of course, be blamed on CO2.

Then we will learn of the alarmists’ 3 decades of work pays off, when they use their influence (control) of major institutions and attempt to ram through their agenda. I believe that today’s Americans are easily panicked, and guess (guess!) that they will succeed. They only need to win once.

Time will tell.

Emrys Jones
Reply to  RickA
November 18, 2019 3:51 pm

If the Northern US states continue to have cold winters, then the voters will rebel. More to the point, the Democrat voters will rebel, and the Democrat Aristocracy will have to drop Climate Change or get punished at the polls. If the Solar 25 forecasts are right, then my guess is that this will start to happen at the 2022 Mid-terms.

November 18, 2019 12:05 pm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not set up to investigate climate science, but to select from the evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change. The Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the Convention was to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that the government funded scientists guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures”
Apocalyptic forecasts and fear are used as the main drivers of demands for action and for enormous investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report and in the work of Nordhaus who advocates a carbon tax .Nordhaus is quoted in the NYT as saying “If we start moving very swiftly in the next 20 years, we might able to avoid 2 degrees, but if we don’t do that, we’re in for changes in the Earth’s system that we can’t begin to understand in depth. Warming of 4, 5, 6 degrees will bring changes we don’t understand because it’s outside the range of human experience in the last 100,000 to 200,000 years.”
It is a disgrace that so few western academic scientists have spoken out against the increasing actionable certainty assigned to the model forecast outcomes in successive IPCC SPMs.
For a summary of how this post- modern political science became dominant see:
Those politicians and scientists proselytizing the warming scenario are closely following the UNFCCC Agenda 21 political plan of action. Bernie Sanders says :” Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet. The debate is over, and the scientific jury is in: global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet. If we do nothing, the planet will heat up five to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. That would cause enough sea level rise from melting glaciers to put cities like New York and Miami underwater – along with more frequent asthma attacks, higher food prices, insufficient drinking water and more infectious diseases.”
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed taxing the wealthy as high as 70% to fund a climate change plan she’s pushing called the “Green New Deal.” She also says “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
Fortunately, Reality is finally beginning to intrude upon the dangerous global warming meme.
Curry, 2017 in “Climate Models for the layman” says:
“GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for
predicting global or regional climate change on time scales of decades to centuries,
with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of
justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy
Scafetta et al 2017 states: “The severe discrepancy between observations and modeled predictions……further confirms….that the current climate models have significantly exaggerated the anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect”
Hansen et al 2018 “Global Temperature in 2017” said “However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.
Page, 2017 in “The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.” said:
” This paper argued that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted.
When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
and an earlier accessible blog version at See also
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at
It is hard to counter this climate -industrial complex as Eisenhower warned in 1961 when he expressed his concern for corruption of the scientific process as part of this centralization of funding in the Federal government, and vice-versa:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a {self-appointed} scientific-technological elite.”
To help a little, readers might share this post and my comment on their social media and blog sites.

Brian Perrin
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
November 19, 2019 9:53 am

Yes Norman you detail a lot of studies and data but I think you missed a crucial point about the IPPC at the start of your comment.
Namely, as I understand it, the terms of reference for the scientific enquiry (Agenda 21 first version) called for science to study the impacts of CO2 on climate. Thus Presupposing that CO2 has the major impact. Thus all climate science has been directed at CO2 as the ‘most important’ climate driver. Other studies are not seriously considered as not seen as part of the Agenda 21 ‘brief’.

Old Nick.

Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2019 12:45 pm

This Science Mag editorial from NAS President, Ms McNutt, appeared in the 02 August 2019 on-line version of the magazine (several months ago). Her editorial was so full of mendacious claims (i.e. whoppers) that I could barely get through reading when I first saw it.

Here is her Editorial. I’ll refute her bigger whoppers in her Editorial below.

“Forty years ago this summer, a small group of atmospheric and ocean scientists met in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to project the future impacts on Earth’s climate from atmospheric release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion. Frank Press, head of the United States Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Adviser to President Carter, requested that the National Academy of Sciences conduct the study for the benefit of policymakers. On the basis of then-current trends, the 1979 committee, led by Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assumed that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reach double the preindustrial values sometime in the first half of the 21st century. They calculated that as a result, the average global surface temperature would increase by 3° ± 1.5°C, with the greatest warming at high latitudes—the first assessment of its kind. The Charney committee also noted in the models a lag on the order of decades between CO2 release and the resulting temperature rise. This delay, from disequilibrium effects with the ocean, masks pending temperature increases long before they are apparent.

Fast-forward to 2019, and these calculations of the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 have proven to be remarkably on target. Indeed, on the basis of today’s more sophisticated climate models, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the climate sensitivity proffered by the Charney report. Furthermore, the lag between emission and resulting temperature increases has contributed to society’s inaction on a degree of warming to which the planet is already committed from existing emissions. Four decades later, time is running out to control greenhouse gases. What else can scientists do to spur action to avert the worst impacts of climate change?

Back in 1979, without insight as to what revolutions might reshape the world economy their grandchildren would inherit, or how the biosphere might create feedbacks, the Charney committee focused on what they could estimate: the radiative effect of CO2 in the atmosphere; the negative feedback from clouds; and the ability of the oceans to absorb atmospheric heat. Since then, our scientific understanding of the impacts of climate change has grown well beyond just surface temperature change, and we have deepened our knowledge about the roles of clouds, oceans, aerosols, and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases. In particular, the science of attributing changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events to climate change drivers has been building credibility.

Whether the extreme event is a heatwave, flood, drought, wildfire, or hurricane, demonstrating to the public how climate change is amplifying the negative impacts of these events can spur more immediate action, even before the most catastrophic warming is upon us. Opinion polls reveal that a majority of Americans are worried about extreme heat, flooding, drought, or water shortages. However, even those who do view climate change as an important national issue rank it well down the list after health care, jobs, and the economy. Geoscientists must work collaboratively with health care professionals, economists, and engineers to link the changing impacts of extreme events and their aftermath to climate change while the effects are still being experienced. This approach could well convince people that climate change is about health, jobs, and the economy.

The Charney report demonstrates the power of scientific prediction. Since its release, scientists have built a formidable evidence base on climate change. At no time since 1979 has the science backed down from its dire predictions for the prospects of human civilization to prosper in a world warming well beyond limits encountered in all of human history. The scientific community must better connect the issues with what now matters to the public, so that the evidence is acted upon for the benefit of society.


Her first whopper:
…decades between CO2 release and the resulting temperature rise. This delay, from disequilibrium effects with the ocean, masks pending temperature increases long before they are apparent.”

– Two whoppers from the NAS President in one with that. According to Ms McNutt the models are wrong in their radiative equations and resulting forcings. According to GCMs, there is no “delay” (especially not decades) in trapping/delaying LWIR photons beyond a few hundred nanoseconds before they escape to space, but not before they raise the effective radiation level enough to warm the air and surface below rather quickly (hours to days – at least in the models). Her second whopper: CO2 rise lags temperature rise on all time scales studied. To claim the CO2 rises and then only decades later the temps will rise flies in the face of everything from paleoclimatology to the cargo cult GCMs.

Her next whopper was in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph:
and these calculations of the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 have proven to be remarkably on target. Indeed, on the basis of today’s more sophisticated climate models, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the climate sensitivity proffered by the Charney report.

Her Ms McNutt is spinning (that is, trying to put lipstick on a pig) the fact that, despite billions of US$D spent (including other countries’ monies on non-US models) over 4 decades, the Charney sensitivity of 1.5℃ – 4.5°C has not been narrowed from ho-hum no-biggee, probably net beneficial to catastrophic sensitivity.. That should in fact be a disgrace for a science modeling community — that 40 years of very expensive work has yielding nothing of value towards narrowing the range. And yet they keep modeling onwards with the same junk cargo cult science. And as far as her “on-target” claim goes, that is a lie too. Observations now suggest the likely ECS range is somewhere between 0.7℃ – 1.7℃, the low-end of, or below the Charney Range.

Her next whopper is actually a call to scientists everywhere should abandon caution and become political activists with this,
“What else can scientists do to spur action to avert the worst impacts of climate change?”

There we have the NAS President discarding any uncertainty or reasoned- approach for an emotion-laden “call to activism” for science. How can the NAS body have allowed someone like her to taken over their organization?

The her next whopper:
” In particular, the science of attributing changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events to climate change drivers has been building credibility.” (my bold)

There she goes again, totally off the rails and down the rabbit hole of lies, where any extreme weather event now must be have “climate change drivers.” The only thing the attribution community has been doing is nothing short of propaganda and half-truths. They’ve been ignoring things like moderating cold (low temps), fewer and less intense heat waves since the 1930s, the unprecedented major hurricane landfall hiatus of 2006-2015, Great Lakes were going to dry up and overflow, and every possible outcome is “climate change” attributable. She and the rest of her ilk of activists must know that is not science, yet still ignore it to push an activism and propaganda agenda.

She follows that whopper up into the next paragraph with,

Whether the extreme event is a heatwave, flood, drought, wildfire, or hurricane, demonstrating to the public how climate change is amplifying the negative impacts of these events can spur more immediate action, even before the most catastrophic warming is upon us. “

That’s total bonkers from the NAS President because now she claims every heatwave, drought, flood, wildfire, or hurricane has a detectable amplification signature from climate change (here must remember the definition they use for CC: the impact to warming of human anthrogenic CO2 emissions). That statement is so bogus it is hard to know where to begin. TheMagicMolecule™ must be so flexible, it can do anything. Permadrought claims became floods and end of droughts, and it was all due to magical Climate Change belief. End of snow has become too much snow. Cold outbreaks from polar vortex incursions are “evidence” of climate change drivers. Total junk.

She makes another call to activism with:
Geoscientists must work collaboratively with health care professionals, economists, and engineers to link the changing impacts of extreme events and their aftermath to climate change while the effects are still being experienced. This approach could well convince people that climate change is about health, jobs, and the economy.”

Essentially she is saying, that before the collection/evaluation of evidence is done (e.g. real science), “geoscientists” must make un-founded claims to media and to Doctors. This “sky is falling” alarmism is part of a carefully orchestrated propo campaign that time is of the essence after a weather disaster — don’t let a crisis go to waste. Propaganda works best when people are hurting, the wildfire flames are being shown relentlessly on news, etc, and the public is most sensitive to unfounded claims. It is obvious this nut-case NAS President wants more disasters and human tragedy to happen so that more un-established claims can be made for further the cause.

Her final whopper: “Since its release [the Charney Report], scientists have built a formidable evidence base on climate change.”

Here I suppose model outputs for 80 years into the future are “evidence” to her. Continuous cooling the past-warming the present adjustments (loss of station data leading to infilling) to 150year-old data sets is “evidence” to her. The 1920-1945 warm period apparently didn’t happen (ignored evidence). The 1970’s cooling scare didn’t happen (more ignored evidence). The failure of Permadrought claims are quietly ignored. Claims of worsening hurricanes are based on $’s lost, not the physical changes in atmospherics that drive them. The near complete destruction of Miami in 1926 by a hurricane didn’t happen, or the 8,000 – 10,000 lives lost in Corpus Christi hurricane in 1900 didn’t happen. Massive wildfires across Australia in 1920, 1880’s, and in the US in the first half of the 20th Century — none of those happened, or must be sent down the memory hole.

Conclusion: Ms McNutt at the helm of US NAS as its president is an utter travesty on science. She is a charlatan selling snake oil. Her calls for activism, her calls for ignoring evidence, or to have no evidence to make wild speculative climate change claims is not science. Her words in that Editorial clearly show her calls to advocacy are based on emotions and political/ideological-based advocacy. Failures to acknowledge healthy science skepticism, an acknowledgement of uncertainty, and any acknowledgement of past failed predictions, all highlight a clear unscientific mental state in Ms McNutt. She should resign immediately or she should be removed by an upwelling of disapproval from the NAS body membership and a call to heal itself of this activism that is destroying all of science.

– Joel O’Bryan, PhD

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2019 4:34 pm

A great post Joel! I will have to re-read…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MIke
November 18, 2019 6:06 pm

As for Ms McNutt, she came in July 2016, and she was only supposed to be NAS President < a year. She was supposed to fail upwards to an every higher level of incompetence like all her previous jobs and advancements. John Holdren was grooming her since he plucked her out of the Monterey Bay Aquarium like a rotting fish. One year at USGS where she was way over her head technically and managerially for government service. He quickly got her out of there as her incompetence became glaring, to help land her a job at Science Mag as Editor to guide through climate alarmism and gate keepout non-alarmist papers there. Then he helped get her on as NAS President as a quick stepping stone to the next level.
She was supposed to be President Hilly's White House OSTP by May-June 2017, as science advisor to the President/OSTP chief. Now the NAS will be stuck with her as its president until either her tenure runs out OR a Democrat defeats Trump next year so she can still fail upwards to more incompetence. She's been groomed as Holdren's replacement since at least 2011. She probably is much more willing to lie and use the coercion to block skeptics fundings (US Govt) grants than even her mentor Holdren. She'd fit right in a Pack of Lies White House with a Pres Pocahontas or even a moderate Dumbocrat like Deval Patrick.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 19, 2019 2:29 pm

So Sorry Joel it should have read “This is a great post Joel”!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2019 11:10 pm

This is a great post Greg.

I don’t have a PhD but even a common sense approach could be applied by those of us that don’t have an education in climate science. Mankind has only been around for a nanosecond in the scheme of things. The events that she is catastrophising have always occurred. You only have to research the population of an area that is commonly affected by such events and find out the population, say three hundred years ago. The damage would not have been as significant simply because there was less infrastructure and fewer people.

You can’t quote damage bills or even increased deaths, as sad as they are, as proof that these events are increasing or that we can do anything to stop them.

There are 7.6 billion people on earth now, that just means that many more people and their property are affected. Today’s damage bill is irrelevant, of course it’s going to be big. With the population ever growing next year the bill will be bigger.

Ending this push for ‘clean’? renewable energy would be better spent in other areas. But none of them really care about the environment or the poor, they are pushing to teach ‘climate change’ in schools along with PC saturation. We are well on the road to a global totalitarian society and I’m pretty sure that history is glossed over in the classroom.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 19, 2019 8:23 am

I hope you sent a much-condensed version in as a letter to the editor.

November 18, 2019 1:14 pm

Talking about past weather extremes, a “great frost of 1709” type event looks to be shaping up to happen in Russia over the next 6 days. As a jet stream flowing within the Arctic makes its exit down across northern and central Russia. This pattern is already taking hold in northern Russia and will spread down into central Russia over the next few days. Expect to see some very low temps over this area as the cold Arctic air makes its way across the cold Russian snowfields. But all climate science will be focused on will be the Arctic warming that this event will cause.

Reply to  taxed
November 19, 2019 9:49 am

Almost all of Russia (except the extreme west) is snow-covered now.

November 18, 2019 1:33 pm

“AR5 did not support the doomster narrative …”

They’re sure trying to fix this in AR6. One of my comments was why they mentioned policy goals so often in the chapter that was supposed to be the science supporting the climate sensitivity they claim will lead us to a catastrophe.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 18, 2019 2:04 pm

Co2 is not evil,

“They’re sure trying to fix this in AR6. ”

That’s what I hear, too. Not a surprise. The alarmists dominate most of the major institutions – climate, weather, academia, and news. Now they are putting that power to work.

As the old adage says, “fortune favors the well-prepared.” By that metric, they deserve to win.

November 18, 2019 1:38 pm

“I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“

A characteristic of climate science is their reliance on climate models that interferes with their ability to separate empirical evidence from theory. This deficiency in the science is seen most clearly in their obsession with the evaluation of Arctic sea ice dynamics in terms of climate models and therefore in terms of climate change without consideration of the relevant statistical details of the empirical evidence or of the known and documented geothermal activity there. Pls see

Reply to  chaamjamal
November 19, 2019 9:26 am


Theory? I wouldn’t call speculative, politically driven opinions theory. An opinion, i.e. a hypothesis, can’t rise to the level of a theory unless its testable, well tested and not falsified. Nothing that meets this bar is part of the alarmist lore they call climate ‘science’ which is more properly called political science, which itself is a misuse of the word ‘science’.

This illustrates the biggest impediment to getting climate science corrected. Far too many don’t understand the fundamental difference between a hypothesis and a validated theory. Even many scientists on both sides of the issue seem to have have forgotten this fundamental concept. As the article points out, if it doesn’t fit the narrative it must be false, but more importantly, if it does fit, it must be true.

For example, the claimed climate sensitivity of the surface in degrees per W/m^2 of forcing is readily falsified once you accept the fact that no one Joule is any more powerful than any other at warming the surface or maintaining its temperature, yet the IPCC’s self serving consensus regards this obviously wrong metric as immutable ‘theory’, not just because it fits the narrative, but because the narrative depends on this falsified hypothesis being valid.

Clyde Spencer
November 18, 2019 1:43 pm

“Doing something is better than nothing.”

Not so! Doing the wrong thing can make things worse. Even if doing something has no impact on what one is trying to improve, that means resources diverted from other deserving problems. Even doing the ‘right’ thing, if not done at a level that will accomplish the intended results, means a waste of resources. Imagine a conflagration that would require 5 fire companies to extinguish, and a single fireman shows up with a portable hand pump. He puts himself at risk with no apparent impact on the fire.

“Doing something is better than nothing” is as dumb as the Precautionary Principle.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 18, 2019 2:06 pm


Did you read the full sentence? It does not propose a random action, but a prudent and effective step that can gain support from a broad spectrum of Americans.

Let’s repeat it: “Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Larry
November 18, 2019 4:54 pm

The problem is, if you aren’t certain exactly what the problem is, and how the complex dynamic system works, one can’t be certain which of the three possible outcomes will result from any action, even if it has “support from a broad spectrum of Americans.” What you are proposing is action based on consensus, not on science.

Any attempt to solve a problem needs to qualitatively be of the correct type, and needs to be of the optimal quantitative amount. History may not be an adequate guide, and certainly the consensus of a random sample of people lends little support to the scientific challenges of coming up with “a prudent and effective step.”

I’m sorry, but the remark is much like suggesting that everyone should live a good life, without defining “good.”

November 18, 2019 1:50 pm

I wish the cites were more from sites other than the one by the reposter. I think cites should be more to “lukewarmer” climate scientists whose careers were damaged by the activists. One thing I am wary of is that someone or a movement who points out errors by the alarmists often does so to advance an agenda that is erring in the opposite direction. I think that would happen less if the “scientific community” was more of a community of scientists like they were before a few decades ago. Sadly, lately too many scientists have been going along with the party line of an “in-crowd” or having their careers downturned by not doing so. And the news media has been playing poorly lately, by uncritically favoring extremists of one end or the other of the spectrum, and throwing the most truthful climate scientists such as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr under the bus.

November 18, 2019 1:55 pm

When I was in high school, we were introduced to jujutsu in PE. This is the art of using the opponent’s own force against themselves, instead of confronting them.

Stop arguing with the righteous believers. Demand they take stronger action, e.g.:

“There is no political policy any country can pursue which will avert climate change unless China and India agree to, and initiate, a rapid zero-carbon policy, as well. Therefore, our policies must include a demand, in no uncertain terms, that these countries conform. All actions to achieve this must ‘on the table,’ from trade sanctions to armed force. The future of man is at stake, and we must take drastic action. Anything less is simply not worth doing at all. Are you willing to take serious action to save the planet, or not?”

Just throw the above at them everytime the make a demand. Then let’s see what policies the vast majority will want to pursue.

Reply to  jtom
November 18, 2019 3:19 pm

Political jujitsu seems to be the strategy Roger Pielke Jr. employs.

He “tows the line” saying that we must aggressively control CO2 emissions. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME pointing out with authority that:
1.) Extreme weather events are not getting worse.
2.) We need to start building 1 Nuclear Plant EVERY DAY between now and 2050 to cut CO2 in half.

By proclaiming that the climate problem is really bad and that a massive effort is required, Pielke is still allowed to speak his heresy (i.e. Actual Science) in public.

Chris Hanley
November 18, 2019 1:56 pm

Another Delphic post by ‘the Editor’.
Who knows what Larry is trying to convey here but back in 2014 he was a firm advocate for the IPCC, ‘major science institutes’, more funding for climate sciences and “… a well-funded conversion to non-carbon-based energy sources by the second half of the 21st century; for both environmental and economic reasons”.

November 18, 2019 2:44 pm

It is time to do a metaanalysis of all these published predictions against available evidence. Lets see how accurate they really are.

Mike McHenry
November 18, 2019 4:23 pm

I think that all democrat congress people should immediately go on an all plant based diet. This will prove to their constituents they are serious about climate change.

November 18, 2019 4:53 pm

Why not call it as it is?

The European-North-American-Euro-Anglosphere Swamp. Seriously! Conservatively, there are millions (maybe tens to even possibly 100 million) people who will profit materially by a huge, totally ineffective, compromised, duplicitious and ultimatly mendacious Green New World Deal. Trillions in future income over dozens of years.

The Euro-Anglosphere swamp’s millions of rah-rah advocates are positively salivating at the idea of defunding militaries world-wide, defunding fundamental government research on any topic except Green Green Green. The defunding of these arms of goverment in turn deliver trillions to the salivating masses who so desparately want to make more than low-five-figure income. The armies of the hardened stoics await their day … “in the sun”.

That conclusion really is the SOLE DRIVING FORCE behind the worldwide green swamp. The ever clever Chinese and Asians more broadly have divined that there is a LOT of coin to be made by producing the endless not-very-green container ships full of windmills and solar panels. Of batteries and crâhp-inverters. Of crâhp-software, obfuscating manuals, mind-melting after-installation insufficiencies. Getting the Green Camel’s Nose under the Tent, so to say.

President Eisenhowever left the sanguine and frankly immortal words, “beware the military industrial complex”. That’s when the military was the Big Spender. Now … it is the Green Swamp and the millions of slavering entrepreneurs waiting to write studied papers, engineer completely pointless systems, and do it over, and over, and over again as long as the Green Swamp remains full of foetid lucre.

That is what is driving this.

Not vapid climate non-predictions, not anti-science post hoc pastcasting, not the endless armies of university Climate Science departments churning out kids-AKA-new-adults that couldn’t find a solution to a series of dependent differential equations if they were holding both cheeks with both hands. Seriously!!!

I know this is a perhaps unkind rant.
But the underlying truth couldn’t be clearer.

And it ain’t pretty, Goats.
It Ain’t.

Just Saying,
GoatGuy ✓

Mike Dubrasich
November 18, 2019 5:38 pm

The author makes the case that climate skepticism has failed. He offers little or no strategy for countering that failure.

“It is hopeless. The tide of alarmism continues to rise… There is nothing visible that can stop this escalation.”

Commenters largely agree, although some make the same tired arguments that nobody but the choir hears.

I suggest that we strike back with the alarmists own medicine: memes and dire reports about the effects of climate alarmism.

For the last 20 years I have promoted the idea that Warmer Is Better. I should have trademarked that phrase and sold ball caps and tee shirts, but I didn’t. Instead I gave it freely to anyone who wanted it. Few have availed, even though it is the g.d. truth.

Hello! Major gains could be made with that simple meme. Break the backs of the Chicken Littles by pointing out that their dire predictions are actually beneficial! or would be if warming was to occur.

It might also help to point out the corollary, that a cooling planet would be an unmitigated disaster.

We might also cast a few dire reports of our own. For instance, the Green New Dealers wish to kill all the cows! They said so, right? We should delve into that. No more milk, cheese, or ice cream, no more pizzas, no more hamburgers, forever! Do you hear that, kids? My scientific models indicate that a minimum of 50,000,000 people would starve to death! Rotting corpses in the streets! Rampant cannibalism! How’s that for dire?

Fight fire with fire. Don’t be a boiled frog. Don’t wait for somebody else to do it. Now is better than never.

Greg Warneford
November 18, 2019 5:48 pm

Just after the Inquisition forced him to recant the heliocentric theory, Galileo muttered “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”). The meaning of the statement is clear; the Inquisition could force one man to deny the truth, but it couldn’t actually change the truth. Nature’s truths are always available for someone—anyone—to see. Man caused global warming is a religion based on faith not science. You must have faith in the “science based” man created Global Climate Models that were designed to validate the hypothesis that man is causing global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. If the models predict something at odds with the hypothesis government grant money is quickly cut off for that line of research. The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion has that as its dogma. Ignore the truth e.g. recent empirical data showing global cooling that does not fit the dogma… Send in the inquisition lock them up they blasphemed they dared to deny the faith. “Eppur si muove”

Steven Mosher
November 18, 2019 7:34 pm

“Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term.”

actually not.

The debate in science happens outside most of your view Larry. It happens in group meetings, for example.
At Berkeley around 12 people sat an debated in person every week, and via chats and mails. Yes,
including some skeptics. The debate happens informally at conferences where papers are given.
The debate happens between authors, between advisors and their grad students, and lastly between
authors, editors and reviewers. In fact, I would’nt even call these things “debates” in the normal
use of the term.

It is not a STRUCTURED process, where all sides get 5 minutes of time “for”, and 5 minutes of time “against.”
There is no moderator tossing questions. No cameras. No audience. No vote on who won.
In the end you OBSERVE who won by watching WHOSE WORK holds up. WHOSE WORK gets built upon

Wonder why no one builds on Lindzens work? No one trying to make a contribution considers it worthy.
Wonder why people built on Tyndall? Hansen? Wonder why they built on those foundations?
Because they were convinced by the debate that happened over that work. “Debate” in groups, “debate”
at conferences, “debate” in the literature, “debate” during office hours, “debate” during Phd defenses.
All unstructured. No cameras, no theatre, no audience.

The science “debate” is largely UNstructured. In our philosophical dreams of what science should be, we
imagine it to be something akin to structured, rule governed, rational process. Observationally,
empirically, it is not. Never has been, never will be, and its foolish to think otherwise. It is fallible
humans, using fallible institutions, and fallible processess to come to a better understanding of how
the world works. We can observe the winners of this “debate” by observing whose work gets used.
Some of the folks whose shoulders we stand upon are giants. Some are moral reprobates. The beauty of science is it doesnt care about your character. It cares only if your work is sound enough to build upon.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
As a scientist you have to ask yourself, whose work will I build upon? It is quite impossible
to check every reference, to audit every data source, to redo every experiement in the chain of
evidence that leads to your starting point. In the end you pick a foundation to start from.
In the blockchain world we call this the “heaviest” chain. The chain of transactions with the most
proof of work behind it. The longest chain. The deepest chain. You build on that; its beyond debate.
Its quite practical and pragmatic.

If you want to replace the chain of evidence for climate science, you have centuries of work ahead of you.
In the end folks will want to see your proof of work.
Not philosophy about about science, but actual work that can be built upon.

Skeptics won’t do this work. They can’t learn from their mistakes. So you are stuck with the existing
science, especially if you are a policy maker. Mere doubt is toothless in that arena.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 18, 2019 9:51 pm

“Skeptics won’t do this work. They can’t learn from their mistakes. So you are stuck with the existing
science, especially if you are a policy maker. Mere doubt is toothless in that arena.”

Painting with a broad brush, as usual.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 18, 2019 9:53 pm

Not so, Steven,

Many major science breakthroughs were far distant from “Upon whose work shall I build” (to phrase it in correct English). It can be the opposite, like “This problem has a solution that nobody known to me has explored.” Best you keep distant from home-brew science philosophies until you are older and have seen a broader view. Geoff S.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 19, 2019 1:22 am

Mosher’s problem is that he’s talking about climate science, but thinks he’s talking about science.

Try as one might to explain the difference, it goes in one ear…

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 1:54 am

Steven, thank you for this disturbingly vivid glimpse into the farcical, cargo-cult epistemology of the climate world.

In the end you OBSERVE who won by watching WHOSE WORK holds up. WHOSE WORK gets built upon

Wonder why no one builds on Lindzens work? No one trying to make a contribution considers it worthy.

You certainly have a way with words. I won’t soon forget the picture you’ve painted of the inner workings of climate science.

(Gosh, there are even one or two skeptics involved somewhere in the process, are there?)

I use the word “workings” loosely, of course, because what you’ve just told us—in some detail—is why climate science doesn’t work.

Meanwhile, in the world of real science, it’s not a popularity contest and the million-dollar question is not who won but which hypotheses work and which ones don’t. And the arbiter of THAT is not your thesis supervisor, a quorum of the faculty lounge, or the bean-counters who dole out grants.

It’s nature.

Your diseased theory of the march of science isn’t much better than Naomi Oreskes’. Just like you, she seems to think it works by social proof.

For the iron-stomached, here is Oreskes’ most recent denial of the existence of anything resembling the scientific method:

Why should we trust science? Is it because there is a “scientific method” that scientists follow?

There isn’t a single magic formula that guarantees results. We should trust science because it has a rigorous process for vetting claims. That includes the formal peer review of papers submitted to academic journals but also things like scientists discussing their preliminary results in conferences and workshops. Crucially, these practices are social in character. Consensus is key to when a scientific matter has been settled, and therefore when knowledge is likely to be trustworthy. We should also trust science because it is done by people who are experts in studying the natural world. It’s fashionable to be sceptical of experts but we rely on trained people every day for all kinds of things: dentists fix our teeth and plumbers unclog our drains. Science also has a substantial record of success – think of our medicines and technologies – suggesting scientists are doing something right.

I’m probably being a bit hard on Oreskes. I mean, this would be a great answer if the question was how did the early Church come up with its doctrines?

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 6:29 am

sorry to break it to you Steven, but 12 people sitting in their echo chamber is not a debate.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 6:51 am

“Wonder why no one builds on Lindzens work? No one trying to make a contribution considers it worthy.”

Or, it doesn’t come to an alarmist conclusion.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 19, 2019 10:25 am

Joanne Nova likes to say: scientific consensus isn’t a proxy for nature, it’s a proxy for funding.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 1:26 pm


(1) “The debate in science happens outside most of your view Larry. ”

That’s obviously false. As you note, much of it happens in small groups in unstructured fashion.

But it is odd that you deny the existence of the vast apparatus of conferences (and their output) – and journals (sitting on the large machinery of peer review and corrections).

As a thought experiment to test your statement, how well would the sciences work if all the structured elements were removed?

(2) As for the rest of your comment, that’s a different subject for another day. Broadly speaking, I agree that skeptics’ avoidance of the conferences and p-r journals has been a cardinal error.

(3) “So you are stuck with the existing science, especially if you are a policy maker.”

That’s grossly false. The people making a case have to prove it. That some folks say the world is ending, no matter what their credentials, does not compel others to accept that belief. Everybody has to go through the process of showing their work and responding to challenges.

The IPCC has done so, and its work justifies concern and some kinds of action. But nothing in the work of the IPCC’s WGI reports justifies the hysteria of the climate alarmists who now dominate the public spaces. Climate scientists’ silence to this exaggeration and misrepresentation of their work discredits them, by the ancient adage “silence means assent.”

Hence the current gridlock.

michael hart
November 18, 2019 7:53 pm

“The time for debate has ended.”
— Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

Just in time for “No-nut November”, though that may not be what the originators had in mind 😉

Steven Mosher
November 18, 2019 8:18 pm

““Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”

No event by itself can “refute” a theory. The reason is simple and was pointed out by the physicist/philosopher Duhem. See his 1914 work in which he critized the baconian notion of
“critical” experiment. Popper tried ( unsuccessfully in the Logic of Scientific Discovery) to answer Duhems objections. In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on,
it could be a PART of the theory, it could be a missing part of the theory it could be one of the many BACKGROUND assumptions that ALL theory relies upon. You don’t know,merely from the fact that the experiment “conflicts with” the “theory”. They always “conflict” in some way.

Even the great Feynman, in practice, realized that there was no simple
rule for “rejecting” a theory. When the theory of solar neutrinos conflicted with the critical experiment
that measured them, Feynman concluded that we don’t know which is correct. In the end it was the theory
that won out after DECADES of work. Theory won. Opps.

In “theories” about how science ought to work, ( Popper has a weird concept of science being reduceable to universal propositions “”The theories of natural science, and especially what we call natural laws, have the logical form of strictly universal statements” ) we might dream that science consists of doing critical
experiments ‘Find the black swan!!!!” But in practice, empirically, it is nothing like Popper’s dream.
Basically we can “falsify” his theory of how science works, by actually WATCHING what scientists actually
do. They hang on to theories that work 80% of the time until they have a better theory that explains more.
They adjust observations when the observations conflict with well known theories. Say WHAT?
Witness Romer in 1676. He was about validating newtons law of gravity. And when the observations
of the transits of jupiters moon conflicted with newtons law, Did he throw out Netwon?


he hypothesized that Light took time to travel. Up until then folks debated whether lights speed was infinite
or finite. So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed. An additional
ad hoc statement is added to square up theory and observation. eg, Light takes time to travel”. So he adjusted the observations assuming that light takes time to travel.

This is the type of ad hoc statement that Duhem is talking about in his critcism of Popper.
When Romer did his experiment his background assumption was that the speed of light was infinite.
When the observation conflicted with theory, SOMETHING was wrong? Note that LOGICALLY
you cant decide between the theory and the observation. One of the two or both need correction.
Or maybe its the BACKGROUND assumptions you made. oh? shit! I assumed that light travels infinitely
fast. If I change that assumption, I can SOLVE FOR the speed of light. and Presto!
A) Save the theory ( it was WORKING for a lot of things)
B) Save the observations. (whew I didnt fuck up)
C) Add something new.

So sorry. Philosophy doesnt help. Can’t help. and settles nothing.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 2:16 am

“All cats are white”.
I find a black cat.

“CO2 will make climate warm forever”
Climate fails to warm forever.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 2:30 am

Do you seriously think that Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory depends on experimental measurements always being perfect?
All you’ve done is shown that measurements are sometimes imperfect.
I can go further – measurements are ALWAYS imperfect.
But Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion in unaffected by this.
Newton’s gravity theory was confirmed by experiment.
Even though both theory and measurement were imperfect.
Einstein’s relativity was confirmed by experiment.
It’s possible that both relativity and related measurements are imperfect.
This affects Popper’s criterion in no way whatsoever.
Your thinking is unfocused – to quote Jordan Peterson.
Some good philosophy would help!
“Conjectures and Refutations” by Popper would be a good start.

Can measurements NEVER refute theory?
Is that what you’re saying?
If so, they welcome back Lamarck and Lysenko.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 3:13 am


So sorry. Philosophy doesnt help. Can’t help. and settles nothing.

Er, so why in heck did you just spend a whole page philosophizing about science?

(Surprisingly well, I might add?)

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 4:35 am


In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on,

Hmmm. I wonder how many scientists ever question the accuracy of their instruments when the experiment confirms their hypothesis.

That’s the problem with Duhemian wiggle-room—it’s all so convenient, which makes it a recipe for confirmation bias and incorrigible self-delusion.

There’s a reason you’re NOT allowed to decide post facto whether your experiment [dis]proved your theory or merely [dis]proved that your instruments were working properly.

That’s a slippery slope towards Hiding the Decline—because, hey, we know what the truth is, so if and when the proxies don’t match our theory, that means they’re obviously wrong and we should just substitute thermometer readings instead. (On the other hand, if the proxies do line up with our preconceived theory, circa 0 AD – 1960 AD, then they’re obviously reliable during that period… right?)

Basically we can “falsify” his theory of how science works, by actually WATCHING what scientists actually do.

No you can’t, not even in principle, because you can’t possibly know the scientists you’re watching are being scientific.

Absent a prior philosophy of science, you’d have no basis on which to decide whether you’re watching science WORK, or simply watching it malfunction.

If I had to formalize/codify/theorize the norms by which ‘science works,’ I would probably put honesty fairly high up on the list. Suppose you then “watched” someone like Michael Mann, and noticed he was confabulating his ass off.

Which of the following would it prove?

a) that science doesn’t require honesty after all!
b) or that Mann isn’t actually doing science—he’s a ‘scientist’ for tax purposes only

What would win, Steven: the theory (science works by honesty) or the observation (a ‘scientist’ can lie his ass off and still get tenure and awards up the wazoo)?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 7:44 am

Charles Darwin put it very nicely:
“About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!”

Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 19, 2019 9:11 am

Separation of logical domains. Speculation begins as philosophy, and with observation and replication, transitions to the scientific (i.e. near) logical domain, or one of the two other logical domains: fantasy (improbable, but not impossible), faith (unattainable without external support).

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  n.n
November 21, 2019 7:47 pm

Speculation begins as philosophy, and with observation and replication, transitions to the scientific (i.e. near) logical domain, or one of the two other logical domains: fantasy (improbable, but not impossible), faith (unattainable without external support).

“Speculation. It makes a spec out of u and some guy named ‘lation.'”

Dr. Gregory House, House

Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 19, 2019 10:22 am

Phil, thanks, I hadn’t come across that passage before. Writing was just one of Darwin’s six-sigma talents. He’s captured one of the harder ideas to get one’s skull around when one is a novice scientist: the idea that an experiment doesn’t evaluate nature, it evaluates a hypothesis.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 9:26 am

So sorry. Philosophy doesnt help. Can’t help. and settles nothing.

Or it can help because we need something of a philosophy of science to serve as a background encumbrance against epistemological suicide, as, with all due respect, your Duhemian (h/t B.K.) Theosophy of Scientific Theory seems to advocate here.

For example, you suggest that scientists “adjust observations when the observations conflict with well known theories. Say WHAT?

Yup, emphasis added, because that’s what I’m (still) asking after the two test cases you offer as evidence of your theory – ain’t:

When the theory of solar neutrinos conflicted with the critical experiment that measured them, Feynman concluded that we don’t know which is correct. In the end it was the theory that won out after DECADES of work. Theory won. Opps.

Call me a quibbler, but not having a good method to properly empirically observe a theoretical something isn’t the same thing as adjusting the observations of that which hasn’t yet properly been observed is it?

Regardless, what finally objectively resolved our issues with solar neutrinos seems to be the capability of objectively measuring them. Admittedly, I haven’t a clue about solar neutrinos, but what I’ve read about them contradicts your theory of theories. Here’s a summary (emphasis added):

“Recently, however, the GALLEX experiment, using a gallium-solution detector system, has observed the PP1 neutrinos to provide the first unambiguous confirmation of proton-proton fusion in the Sun.”

“There is a “neutrino problem”, however, and that is the fact that every experiment has measured a shortfall of neutrinos.”

“The one missing element in this 1994 article is the new and extraordinarily precise agreement between the predictions of the standard solar model for sound speeds in the Sun and the recent accurate measurements of those sound speeds over nearly the entire volume of the Sun.”

And then finally, the “missing neutrinos” appear to have been “found” by empirical measurements as discussed here:

Can you help me understand how observations were adjusted to fit the solar neutrino theory as per the above? I don’t see it. I don’t see anyone saying, e.g., the original neutrinos that went missing no longer exist before they’re missing (adjusting observations), but rather, I see them waiting for a better measurement system before making any dogmatic statements.

You know, NOT climate “science” and NOT your theory of theories.

Then your next example:

Witness Romer in 1676. He was about validating newtons law of gravity. And when the observations of the transits of jupiters moon conflicted with newtons law, Did he throw out Netwon?


Fair enough, and I doubt anyone would object to Romer’s NOT completely tossing Newton, unless they’re nobody in the first place. But by your own admission, Romer himself must’ve been a moron, because neither did he adjust the empirical observations to fit his theory. Instead, “he hypothesized that Light took time to travel…So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed.”

Agreed. In other words, and contrary you, Romer adjusted the theory to fit the observation rather than the other way around, i.e., the wrong way around.

In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on, it could be a PART of the theory, it could be a missing part of the theory it could be one of the many BACKGROUND assumptions that ALL theory relies upon. You don’t know,merely from the fact that the experiment “conflicts with” the “theory”. They always “conflict” in some way.

Yeah okay granted, but for goodness’ sake so what? Skepticism is plenty healthy as long as it’s rational skepticism, but denying any and all knowledge (or the capability of it) simply for the sake of denying it isn’t scientific, it’s Bohemian, or maybe better said, “Duhemian,” or even best of all said, “Stupid.”

I recall my Modern Philosophy professor remarking that a particular branch of empiricism posited the notion that all human thoughts were a random firing of neurons in the brain. That’s right, random. Conversations between individuals were just a random firing of neurons in the brain, without any direction or purpose. And they really believed it. I asked him until he shamed me in class for continuing to ask the same question. The reason these morons believed what they believed was because of their rabid empiricism.

We can see a thought on a monitor, in so far as the monitor can show the firing of a neuron when a subject is asked to think about something. But if that’s true (and it is), from where comes the thought to cause the firing of the neuron in the first place? They obviously can’t happen at the same moment in time. Something needs to fire the neuron, or so goes common sense. Because some couldn’t figure that out, they went Duhemian.

Anyway, back to the point, can you give me another scientific discipline besides climate “science” where objectively verifiable empirical observations are adjusted to fit a theory?

Reply to  sycomputing
November 19, 2019 3:12 pm


What Mosh has done is describe the exceptions that prove the rule. And has also shown that modifying a hypothesis (eg the solar neutrino example) is a subset of refutation. Refutation as a philosophical concept does not have to mean throwing out babies with bath water. Popper’s rule remains intact.

Romer found that he could confirm Newton gravity if he took light speed to be finite. Fine. He just calibrated his instruments, making a useful observation along the way – light having finite speed. Newton’s gravity did not involve light speed (Einstein would make that connection later). That observation led in turn to another – falsifiable – conjecture. So far that conjecture has survived – light speed is about 3E8 ms-1. Poppers rule remains intact.

Mosh: In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on,
it could be a PART of the theory, it could be a missing part of the theory it could be one of the many BACKGROUND assumptions that ALL theory relies upon.

This is a “get out of jail free” card for a scientist who wishes for his / her hypothesis to be irrefutable. Take away the logical possibility of refutation and use a web of multiple interacting logical elements to blur the experiments outcome in a “cloud of unknowing”. Duhem was ahead of his time – he would be a rockstar climate scientist today. That is exactly the conjouring trickery that Popper was guarding against – weaving a “scientific” narrative that is immune to falsification. That’s why Mosh is right – they must get Popper out of the way if the alarmist climate indoctrination is to march on unimpeded.

The examples that Mosh uses are in cosmological or physical cases where measurement is extremely difficult and the measurement actually has theory bound up in it. But for the measurement to be meaningful in Darwin’s sense it needs to be engaging with hypothesis even if some of the hypothesis is tied up with the experimental method. None of this challenges Popper’s rule of falsification.

Scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable. Even if that is hard. If they’re slippery like eels that can secrete copious mucus and tie themselves in semantic knots if you try to get hold of them (I speak from a fisherman’s experience) then it’s not science that is taking place, but fraudulent sophistry.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 19, 2019 4:30 pm

Many thanks for that confirming analysis, Phil. You’ve taught this poor humble layman a thing or two about fishin’ for scientific truth!

Reply to  sycomputing
November 20, 2019 9:44 am

Your questions killed it; very nicely done.

Reply to  sycomputing
November 20, 2019 1:40 pm

Hey thanks buddy, but I reckon I’m just another springer compared to you, the Keyestone [sic] of this thread.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 19, 2019 5:58 pm

Brilliant comment, Phil.

Took the words right out of my mouth, redacted the profanities, edited for punchiness and flow, added lots of even better ones and took the time to type them up as a mitzvah to all mankind.

The climate believalist’s contempt for Feynman and Popper—if “contempt” is the right word for the hatred a dung beetle’ feels for a rhinoceros, which it isn’t—makes good sense.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  sycomputing
November 19, 2019 6:15 pm

Shhh! You’re raining on Mosher’s parade!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 19, 2019 2:42 pm


“No event by itself can “refute” a theory”

I think everybody is clear that refutation is usually a process, seldom a single event. Your comment isn’t clear why you believe that is news.

Popper didn’t say that refutation was an “event.” Paying attention to the exact quote you are attempting to refute – not adding stuff – would make your efforts more rewarding.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 21, 2019 7:29 am

“So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed. An additional
ad hoc statement is added to square up theory and observation. eg, Light takes time to travel”. So he adjusted the observations assuming that light takes time to travel.”

Mental gymnastics fail.

He didn’t adjust the observations, since no one had observed light traveling at infinite speed. He adjusted the assumptions.

November 18, 2019 10:05 pm

Aborted or never was. The theory of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change, and its subsidiary characterization of carbon dioxide in isolation, does not conform with reality, without regular injections of brown matter. Either the theory is not viable or it was posed to operate in an improper frame of reference, dependent on hypotheses rather than observation, liberal license to assumptions/assertions, inference in lieu of deduction, and, of course, a sociopolitical consensus to force its normalization.

November 19, 2019 12:01 am

There is currently an election campaign in the UK.

Every single party has based part of its programme on ‘fighting climate change’ and are competing to set dates for net-zero emissions in the UK.

I give that as an example that the science is in most parts of the world/society absolutely accepted, on its merits and that there is NO roll back on public opinion or the science.

Reply to  griff
November 19, 2019 9:59 am


There are countless examples of science being wrong. This is why we have the scientific method. The alarmists refuse to accept the scientific method as the true arbiter of what is and what is not science because the IPCC/UNFCCC requires the science to be wrong, otherwise, there’s no cause for alarm and no legitimacy for their agenda of replacing free market capitalism with centralized control under the auspices of the UN. Anyone who can’t see that this is the stated goal of the IPCC/UNFCCC either isn’t paying attention, wants to destroy western economies or has a serious intellectual deficiency, i.e. green goo on the brain. It’s not like the IPCC/UNFCCC is trying to hide their nefariously destructive agenda.

BTW, the only reason the many scientific lies have become accepted by a gullible public is because our politically biased media fails to report the truth and too many suckers buy in to emotionally supported, politically driven alarmism because having been wildly misinformed, they just don’t know any better.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 19, 2019 12:59 pm

We’re not all gullible, but you’re right, there is very little media attention given to any opposing view. We live in country Australia and are being sh@t on by renewable energy. We don’t have much of a say and I’ve been doing some considerable research and have learned quite a lot about the negative aspects of RE. Apart from the fact that they are not in any way cost effective, the toxic side of them is horrendous. All in all a criminal waste of money.

The ecological impact is not spoken about in the media and we have been trying for months to get some form of media to take up the story. The gatekeepers are not passing it on. Government representatives promise they’ll pass on the information to the environment minister and no one wants to have a conversation.

This blog is at least one platform I can go to to feel that I am not alone.

The general public deserve to be given a balanced view, we are so tired of constant propaganda and catastrophising. Totalitarianism is already here if you have no say.

Reply to  Megs
November 19, 2019 5:51 pm

“We’re not all gullible, …”

It’s a good thing. No matter what foolishness the IPCC/UNFCCC and its self serving consensus applies to push the fake science supporting their narrative, skepticism that they have any legitimacy whatsoever at establishing what is and what is not climate science will never go away.

John Dilks
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2019 12:20 pm

I accept it as an example of politicians doing what they do best. They are doing what they think will get them the most votes. It has nothing to do with Science or Public Opinion. It has to with their perception of what will get them elected.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Dilks
November 21, 2019 7:30 am

It’s about politicians going with the flow to gain more power.

Reply to  griff
November 20, 2019 4:24 pm

Just a random UK politics related (old) link for you:

Ukip MEP sparks outrage with report denying human role in climate change

Report blames climate change on cosmic ray fluctuations and sunspot activity, drawing derision from climate scientists

A European parliament report that blames climate change on cosmic ray fluctuations, sunspots and planetary gravitational pulls, is so hackneyed and ill-informed it would “make the dinosaurs blush,” climate scientists say.

The non-binding opinion written by Ukip MEP, John Stuart Agnew, has shocked EU lawmakers for its dismissal of climate science – and the support he received to write it from mainstream rightwing and liberal political blocs.

That’s for your “UK is a clean place where diversity of thoughts doesn’t exist” claim.

November 19, 2019 2:12 am

I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.

Under this category would fall the continued cooling and growing of Antarctica (except for the small western volcanic part) while the establishment continues to report falsely that it is warming and melting.–D3dO0kks10iRPS6K7KIYy66jFyIefMr8f73Wx2lLEKu6g3dU

November 19, 2019 3:25 am

Earlier in the thread Karl made repeated references to Arrhenius’ theory of 1896.
Strangely he makes no mention of Arrhenius’ revised version of 1906 (ish) in which he dramatically reduced his estimations of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 to levels similar to the modern sceptic position.

November 19, 2019 9:37 am

“But the damage to climate science is effectively forever.”

The abject failure of climate science will damage all pursuits of science for generations to come.

John Robertson
November 19, 2019 11:32 am

Climate Science is not science.
We have a mishmash of undefined terms and no units of measurement.
What form of measurement is an Estimated Global Average Temperature?
And if this is a actual measurement ,how is it compared with the past?
What is this Climate Change?
Defined how?
What is the “ideal global temperature?

Do we even have a coherent and falsifiable hypothesis ?

Brad Keyes highlights this
“The point of science is to increase human knowledge—while decreasing delusion—about nature, something Climate Science ceased to do many years ago. (I use a capital C and a capital S here to indicate agnosticism as to whether it’s actually a field of science at all.)

I dare say it’s the only field with comparable manpower and budget of which you can ask, as I’ve asked, “what have we learned in the last 5 years?” and get no answer.”
Users of the scientific method do not shriek and hurl abuse when their speculation is questioned.

The history of Climatology since Herbert Lamb has been astounding.
We did not develop an accurate history of climate, but we did so much speculation with so few facts,that Mark Twain might have been impressed.

So is it warming?
Or cooling?
Why is the answer still lost in the error bars of our proxies?
My own intuition is that the Cult of Calamitous Climate is in decline and the promoters and propagandists are frightened.
People in general will tolerate all kinds of BS, until you demand their money.
The taxpayers are only now beginning to grasp the $$$ level of theft and dishonesty of this Government Orchestrated Fraud.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 20, 2019 9:54 am


it’s often been said by me that climate science is responsible for a historically-unprecedented explosion in human belief about the natural world.

November 19, 2019 1:23 pm

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
These eight links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights