After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science!

From The Fabius Maximus website

By Larry Kummer, Editor / 21 Comments / 12 December 2019

Summary: The climate policy debate has raged for 30 years, consisting mostly of propaganda and political games, with few results. Let’s try science, instead. Here is a first step to transforming the debate.

“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
– The basic text of Narcotics Anonymous. They know all about dysfunctionality.

Climate change choices - Dreamstime_50990297

ID 50990297 © Kiosea39 | Dreamstime.

The movement for public policy action to fight climate change hit the big time when climate scientist James Hansen testified before the Senate on 23 June 1988 (transcript). He stated the problem, the supporting evidence, and concluded with this.

“Finally, I would like to stress that there is a need for improving these global climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we’re going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena.”

Unfortunately, his advice was not taken seriously. More money was spent on research, and the IPCC dutifully collected the results. But it was uncoordinated, with scientists focusing (rationally) on career-enhancing findings. For example, countless studies focused on headline-grabbing forecasts about the likely consequences of the RCP8.5 scenario (the worst case used in the IPCC’s AR5). It is either improbable or impossible (see here and here), but its propaganda value is high.

Research was not focused on systematically providing the answers desperately needed by policy-makers, in contrast to the Manhattan Project’s focus on a clear goal.

Greta Thunberg: Time Person of the Year

Worse, each year the propaganda campaign grew larger. Much of this was directed by people seeking to use climate change as a means to gain power and achieve large-scale social change. At some point, it overshadowed the science, and much of the news became misrepresentations and exaggerations of the science – or outright fiction. Critics were often met with personal invective. This is like the American tourist in France who speaks English slowly and loudly, hoping to be understood.

Now the climate change campaign has gone full ClownWorld: Greta Thunberg is TIME’s Person of the Year. A 16-year-old who parrots what she has been told. Parliaments pretend to take her seriously. Climate activists believe we should learn from her.

I and others have documented the rising tide of climate propaganda. Here are a few examples.

  1. A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
  2. See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda.
  3. Scary but fake news about the National Climate Assessment.
  4. Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.
  5. Another climate scientist speaks out against the hysteria.
  6. Is climate change an existential threat to humanity?

What has three decades of playing politics accomplished in the US? Little policy action. Gallup puts a positive spin on the lack of change in public opinion with “Global Warming Concern Steady” and “Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming.” We can continue the same tactics for another 3 decades and fail again. Or we try something different. Let’s try science!

“Probably {scientists’} most deeply held values concern predictions: they should be accurate; quantitative predictions are preferable to qualitative ones; whatever the margin of permissible error, it should be consistently satisfied in a given field; and so on.”
— Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Karl Popper looks at the climate policy debate.

Karl Popper

How might science break the policy gridlock?

“First, science places the burden of proof on the claimant. Second, the proof for a claim must in some sense be commensurate with the character of the claim. Thus, an extraordinary claim requires ‘extraordinary’ (meaning stronger than usual) proof.”
— Marcello Truzzi in Zetetic Scholar, August 1987 (text here).

Imagine if climate scientists followed James Hansen’s recommendation by proposing a directed research program to produce evidence that would meet critics’ objections? Because any proposal to radically change the world economy – even society (go vegetarian!) – will meet fierce questioning. Rightly so. Obtaining funding for that would have been an attainable goal for climate scientists. The cost would have been pocket lint to the Federal government – and even less if other nations participated in the project. The cost of this research would have been microscopic compared to the stakes at risk for the world should the high-end impact forecasts prove correct.

There are some lines of research which might have had massive effects if done long ago – and might have big effects if done now. My guess as to the top priority: strongly validating the climate models whose predictions produce the warnings about climate change. So far models have been tested mostly by backtesting. This is a weak form of model validation. Tests should be made using data not used when building the model. This has been well-understood for generations, but ignored by climate scientists.

Milton Friedman in “The Methodology of Positive Economics“ from Essays in Positive Economics (1966).

“To avoid confusion, it should perhaps be noted explicitly that the “predictions” by which the validity of a hypothesis is tested need not be about phenomena that have not yet occurred, that is, need not be forecasts of future events; they may be about phenomena that have occurred but observations on which have not yet been made or are not known to the person making the prediction.”

In a WaPo op-ed on 6 Sept 2016, Lawrence Summers discussed how models can help public policy decisions better manage the economy.

“There is an important methodological point here: Distrust conclusions reached primarily on the basis of model results. Models are estimated or parameterized on the basis of historical data. They can be expected to go wrong whenever the world changes in important ways.”

From “Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change“ by David J. Frame and Dáithí A. Stone in Nature Climate Change, April 2013.

“However, the passage of time helps with this problem: the scientific community has now been working on the climate change topic for a period comparable to the prediction and the timescales over which the climate is expected to respond to these types of external forcing (from now on simply referred to as the response). This provides the opportunity to start evaluating past predictions of long-term climate change: even though we are only halfway through the period explicitly referred to in some predictions, we think it is reasonable to start evaluating their performance…

“One of the main problems faced by predictions of long-term climate change is that they are difficult to evaluate. …Trying to use present predictions of past climate change across historical periods as a verification tool is open to the allegation of tuning, because those predictions have been made with the benefit of hindsight and are not demonstrably independent of the data that they are trying to predict.”

A practical philosophy of complex climate modeling” by Gavin A. Schmidt and Steven Sherwood in European Journal for Philosophy of Science, May 2015 (ungated copy).

“…results that are predicted “out-of-sample” demonstrate more useful skill than results that are tuned for (or accommodated).”

We can run the models as they were originally run for the IPCC in the Second Assessment Report (1995), the Third Assessment Report (2001), and the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) – using as inputs observations of actual forcings after they were created (instead of scenarios). Then compare the models’ forecasts of temperature with observations since then. If accurate, it would provide a robust validation. For more about this, see …

  1. Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
  2. Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
  3. Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
  4. Deborah Mayo’s “Severe tests, arguing from error, and methodological underdetermination” in Philosophical Studies, 1997.

These older models were considered skillful when published, so a determination of their skill will help us decide if we now have sufficiently strong evidence to take large-scale policy action on climate change. As Karl Popper said, successful predictions are the gold standard of science. Success can have a transformative effect on the public policy debate. See more about this proposal …

There are other promising lines of climate research. They require only money to set them in motion, and the will to make that happen. Let’s not continue our political bickering for another 30 years, then wonder what we could have done differently.

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge.”
— Historian Daniel J. Boorstin, interviewed by the WaPo in January 1984 per The Quote Investigator. Copy here.

For More Information

Ideas! For your holiday shopping, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see 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. Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed.
  2. Fix the mistakes that killed the climate change campaign!
  3. Scientists show us why the climate change campaign failed – so far.
  4. A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.
  5. About the corruption of climate science.
  6. The noble corruption of climate science.
  7. A demo of why we do nothing about climate change.
  8. Climate science has died. The effects will be big.
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.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 13, 2019 10:26 am

Thank you, Larry, for preparing this, and thank you, Charles, for cross-posting it here at WUWT.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 13, 2019 10:47 am


Thank you for the kind word, esp valuable from someone with your experience on the front lines of the climate wars!

Jon-Anders Grannes
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2019 10:56 am

After 30 years of the left side failed politized climate “politics”, let’s try science!

December 13, 2019 10:32 am

The science is settled. How dare you! 😇

December 13, 2019 10:35 am

> There are some lines of research which might have had massive effects if done long ago – and might have big effects if done now. My guess as to the top priority: strongly validating the climate models…

The biggest bang would have come from reliable surface stations. Validating models doesn’t work. there are 104 models running and at most one is correct yet I’ve no doubt at least half could be validated. Most of the rest would tweak or add a few parameters and gain certification.

My personal preference would have been a massive historical survey to uncover any written records of weather observations as far back as possible.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 13, 2019 10:51 am


There are well-established methods for validation of an ensemble of models.

Models are used in countless applications in the sciences, government, and business. There are effective protocols about how to build, test, and use them. The problem is that climate science won’t use them.

This is a commonplace problem. Drug testing was a flawed and corrupt process before the FDA established regulations. It’s not perfect, but you get perfection only in the hereafter.

Reply to  Larry
December 13, 2019 11:38 am

Sorry about your climate condition diagnosis. 104 possible cures. We know at least 103 are wrong. So what we did was mix all 104 for you to take as mandatory medicine.

Did we mention we haven’t determined if your condition is a problem?

I disagree that there are ways to vet an ensemble of models. Models that do not align by definition declare at least all but one model as being wrong. Ensemble implies the models being melded are equally wrong and equally biased.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 14, 2019 12:06 am

Agree Rob, if as I pointed out the only test is observational and it takes 250 years to get an unambiguous global trend change out of the noise, then this means there is zero testing.

So many models exist because they represent a series of failures.

If they fail you try to build a better model version.

But if actual observation testing (the only testing there is) is impossible, and it is quite impossible, then you should at least construct you next models to more closely agree with the weather-cycle trends observed within the satellite era, including the Hiatus. But if they did that, the whole AGW milk-cow circus would get laughed off the stage!

No more pockets to pick, we can’t have that! So what do they do? They built “new and improved” models which diverge even more from the weather cycle observations trend!

What a bunch of appalling crooks.

Reply to  Larry
December 13, 2019 11:51 pm

You can not observationally test and refine a Climate-Model™ where the scale of the trend-change is measured in centuries!

And only observational testing is a real actual test, that, and that alone actually matters as a test.

All the rest of the alleged ‘testing’ is mere calibration (line-fitting).

These models, as they are, are ‘predicting’ short-term AGW theory presumptions, they are just AGW theory models, they are not climate models at all. There is no such thing as a real climate model, there are only pretenders and aspirants to that status. They have failed to track even the weather-cycle noise-scale trend changes! But they can predict centuries out … right?

There’s been zero actually testing. It’s all been “Emperor’s new clothes” level stuff, a projected fantasy, nothing more.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 13, 2019 11:46 am

Agreed, even if the models were perfect, without a large collection of accurate historical data it’s just going to be “garbage in, garbage out.”

Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 14, 2019 12:10 am

If they had a “large collection of accurate historical data”, can there be any doubt at this point that the first thing they would do is homogenize it and bias it to cool the past observational records?

December 13, 2019 10:42 am

The link in the first text box leads to a non existing page

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 13, 2019 12:23 pm


Thank you for catching that! NA reorganized their website. Here is a working link.

December 13, 2019 10:44 am

little policy action? like shuttering diablo canyon?

Reply to  billtoo
December 13, 2019 12:30 pm


“like shuttering diablo canyon?”

PGE did not decide to close the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors in 2024 and 2025 to reduce fossil fuel emissions. They’re nukes, after all.

It was closed due to safety concerns, which went white-hot after Fukushima – since D.C. is in an earthquake hazard zone. Whether that decision was prudent or not is over my pay grade.

Let’s not imitate the Left and blame everything on climate change.

Reply to  Larry
December 14, 2019 1:30 pm

It’s been a few years since Gov Brown worked with PG&E and the PUC to agree to a deal to close Diablio BEFORE any system wide benefit evaluations were conducted.

From my saved files=-

– ” It might be a good idea to out the less than honest way that Nuclear is being forced out of the picture in CA:
……”We have not run a sensitivity assuming Diablo Canyon operates for an additional 20 years…..”

From a recent post at CASIO:

“54. Diablo Canyon. Why does the analysis assume retirement of Diablo Canyon in 2025? Do you know how sensitive the results are to this assumption?
Diablo Canyon was assumed to retire at the end of its original 40-year NRC license consistent with the assumption used in the CPUC’s 2016 Long-Term Planning Process. We have not run a sensitivity assuming Diablo Canyon operates for an additional 20 years.
PG&E announced yesterday that they will be closing Diablo Canyon and not looking to relicense the units.”

PG&E would keep the plant operating IF the state valued the clean (as in co2 free) output of the facility like they do for the less than clean output from say Ivanhoe, etc. etc. etc.

The fix has been in for a while- to force Diablo to close that is. Not even to consider the value of the output when looking at various scenarios could be considered evil (depending on how you look at “People of the Lie- The Hope For Healing Human Evil” M. Scott Peck).

I wonder if Bill Gates and his foundation would consider supporting at least an honest evaluation of the benefits of keeping the facility open. If say Microsoft and the counties of X in CA all would go on record as being willing to purchase the output from Diablo for 20 years (starting in 2024) that might force an evaluation.. of the benefits. Just to be global in evaluating the benefits of Diablo one might even want to consider leveraging the hung sums of money we are putting into the transmission system and let the states of Wyoming and Idaho state their thoughts on the matter….. “

Kurt in Switzerland
December 13, 2019 10:49 am

Sorry, after reading the first Cliff Mass blog, I think you’re trying to keep both legs in two different pools.

While there IS indeed a massive gap between the CleanTech types (optimists) and the Extinction Rebellion types (pessimists with a totalitarian bent), the former are just troughers trying to capitalize on the Carbon Dioxide scare by demanding public handouts for their pet wind and solar projects (most all of which have far more negatives than positives).

If you want to do the Luke-Warmer argument (that human-driven Climate Change IS indeed detectable, and is a serious problem) then you have to first demonstrate that Climate Sensitivity is > 1.5-2.0

If you can’t do that, then you’re accepting as a truth something which hasn’t been demonstrated.

steve case
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
December 13, 2019 1:39 pm

Kurt in Switzerland … 10:49 am

I didn’t know that a “Luke-Warmer” regards CO2 emissions as a “Serious Problem”

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  steve case
December 13, 2019 3:09 pm

RE: I didn’t know that a “Luke-Warmer” regards CO2 emissions as a “Serious Problem”

Probably depends on your particular Luke-Warmer.
Certainly is the case for Cliff Mass, referenced by Larry above.

December 13, 2019 10:54 am

“What has three decades of playing politics accomplished in the US? Little policy action.” This article makes this sound like a bad thing. This would be a great outcome, if the next three decades also produce little policy action.
The bottom line is climate change is not a problem at all, and governments need to stay out of it.

Kurt in Switzerland
December 13, 2019 11:11 am

The burden of proof is on the claimant. An extraordinary claim demands an extraordinary proof.

Three decades plus and billions of $$$ later: the mid-range best estimate claims are off by a factor of two (or more), assuming ALL of the observed warming since the late 1980s was due to increased human GHG emissions. This is firstly a major FAIL of the Hansen model from 1988, which claimed an average decadal warming (GMST anomaly) of 0.2 – 0.5 ℃, with a best estimate of 0.3℃ (for Business as Usual, which corresponded to a CO2 emissions growth of 1.5% per annum). Actual human emissions have grown at 2.0% per annum, which is +33% over the BaU Scenario.

Actual GMST anomaly growth (smoothed 5y running mean) has been approx. 0.15 ℃ per decade.

That leaves you with a first order wet-thumb-to-the-wind estimate which would cap the Climate Sensitivity at 1/2 of the mid-range estimate of 3.0.

At a CS of 1.5, there is no problem.

Besides, none of the Carbon-Dioxide mitigation strategies seem to be having much of an effect on the Keeling Curve. What a colossal waste of time and money.

Playing the luke-warmer and pretending that human CO2 emissions are somehow damaging is disingenuous, unless you’re also sucking the government handout teat.

There exists no proof that this observed mild warming is due to anything besides natural factors.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
December 13, 2019 11:51 am

“Playing the luke-warmer and pretending that human CO2 emissions are somehow damaging is disingenuous, unless you’re also sucking the government handout teat.

There exists no proof that this observed mild warming is due to anything besides natural factors.”

A very nice summation. There continues to be no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 level does ANYTHING to the Earth’s temperature. If the “science” was properly done, they very notion that CO2 “drives” temperature would have been summarily dismissed a long time ago.

December 13, 2019 11:19 am

Some unexpected good news about polar bears:

Wasn’t unexpected from my viewpoint — I automatically assume everything from the left-stream media is a lie and opposite the truth, unless proven otherwise. This saves alot of time & misunderstanding.

Reply to  beng135
December 14, 2019 12:42 am

You have to read and examine things in media streams opposite to your viewpoint, then evaluate them and decide for yourself before rejecting or accepting any evidence presented.

which is why I’m reading this and not just the Guardian

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
December 14, 2019 6:06 pm

Go back to media articles at the beginning of the 20th century then Griff, get some historic perspective.

Kevin Kilty
December 13, 2019 11:20 am

If given a chance find of data that has not been used in a test of model skill, who will maintain data integrity? There is no one who can be trusted. Who will do an honest (fair) test?

I am sorry to point this out, but we are in a sort of Manchausen Trilemma here. There is no way forward to knowledge accurate enough for the purpose of sacrificing the modern world.

Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2019 11:40 am

The crux of the problem is to what extent the climate is changing. One of the easiest metrics to both measure and model is temperature, and it is important because chemical reactions and biological organisms respond to temperature changes. Also, the spatial variance is generally not as large as the variance in, say, precipitation.

Climate is defined by the average behavior over a relatively long period of time, such as 30 years, or about one generation. One of the issues with validating predictions is waiting for a generation because then apologists for the modeling community can dismiss failures as being the result of ‘archaic’ models that have been superseded by ‘modern’ models.

There are two things to consider. First, do the ‘modern’ models produce results that are significantly different from the old models for the same scenarios? If not, then the old models can serve as proxies for the new models, and the results of prediction for the period of time between when the old models were first run, and the modern models were developed, can be used to evaluate skill. Secondly, while it would be desirable to have a 30-year prediction, realistically, if by the time that 15-years has elapsed, it should be obvious whether or not the model is producing reasonable results. That is, 15-year old models (instead of 30-year old models) can be used to explore the skill of the model.

Something that Kummer touches on, but I think needs emphasizing, is that the preferred method of developing and testing models in all other fields is to only use half of the available measured data for empirical fitting, or tuning, and then determine how well the model fits the other half of the data for the same time interval that was used to construct the model. I suspect that the extant Global Circulation Models would not perform well under such conditions.

Walt D.
December 13, 2019 11:43 am

Failure is an obsolete concept.
Failure does not promote self-esteem.
This is why the education establishment is pushing to eliminate failing grades.
They even want to eliminate competitive sports.
(Who would want to watch Arsenal vs Chelsea if there was no possibility of one side winning? /sarc)
So perhaps the best way to halt the 30- year failure of Climate Models is just to eliminate the concept of failure and replace it with a politically correct euphemism.

Reply to  Walt D.
December 13, 2019 12:36 pm


+1. Babylon Bee-level humor!

Dale S
December 13, 2019 11:59 am

Improving the models is a nice thought, but it assumes the technical difficulties involved can be cancelled. Climate Science has failed to narrow the ECS range in decades of effort, it makes more sense to plan based on the observed TCR than to vastly increase the effort and money wasted in GCM.

Besides, the GCMs aren’t *that* bad, compared to the other two legs of climate policy — effects of warming and mitigation strategies. At least the GCMs managed to get the direction of the temperature anomaly right, though the impressiveness of this effort is reduced by the fact that the warming had been happening long before the models came along to predict it. Damage papers are in the uncomfortable position of trying to determine damage caused by warming in a world where nearly every factor of human life has radically improved during the modern warming period.

Even the headline grabbing impacts based on RCP 8.5 represent a vast differential between what has been demonstrated and what is publicized. In the economic models a 25% negative GNP impact is forecast for RCP 8.5–but that’s 25% less than *what it is projected to be* without the warming, and the actual projection is for a world far, far wealthier on average than this one. Indeed, to generate the massive emissions needed for RCP 8.5 you need all the poor countries of the world to rapidly industrialize on the strength of fossil fuels, lifting their citizens out of the grinding poverty they live in now — unrealistic, but in fact *highly* desirable.

The error bars are so large on the economic models that the most alarming thing that could be said is that they don’t exclude catastrophic effect. But the papers they rest upon examining various hypothesized impacts (as a rule, only the negative hypothesized impacts) are full of unalarming details from which to draw a catastrophic press release. I think every agricultural impact paper I’ve read has detected “damage” in the form of the massive productivity growth being less than it would be absent warming, and merrily projects that without taking into account farmers adapting crops, planting times, and locations (let alone the proven benefits of CO2 fertilization). It’s the equivalent of flood damage estimates from rising sea levels that assume no adaptation, as if New York City would be abandoned in the face of a very slow sea level rise rather than walling out the city or raising the city. One might as well project that sunbathers lying on the beach below the high tide mark will all be drowned if we don’t do something to stop the tide from coming in.

Which brings us to the final leg of policy — even if you grant that the world is warming due to anthropogenic effects (at a minimum, it has been modestly warming), and you grant that the effect of the warming will be a net-negative compared to no warming (the science isn’t *nearly* good enough to prove this), it still says nothing about whether mitigation is a better strategy than adaptation. This can only be done by comparing the costs and the effects. As mitigation strategies proposed to this point have either been ineffective, hideiously expensive, or both, this is rarely done, and when done has ignored the time value of the cost. An adaptation strategy also has the tremendous advantage of being applied to the *actual problems*.

The real anti-science politicians aren’t those who scoff at CO2, it is those who are claiming there is an *existential threat* through climate change. This has never been demonstrated by anyone anywhere, and the damage literature, low-quality though it is, says nothing of the kind.

Reply to  Dale S
December 13, 2019 1:42 pm


“Improving the models is a nice thought, but it assumes the technical difficulties involved can be cancelled”

All useful insights. But the first step is, as always, the key: test the models to see how they work. They might not work well, in which case we might better use a Plan B – such as these by Roger Pielke Sr. et al.:

Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth’s Climate System” by Jose A. Rial et al. in Climate Change, July 2004 (open copy here).

Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective” by Roger Pielke Sr. el al. in Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective (2012), Geophysical Monograph Series 196 of the American Geophysical Union.

Richard M
Reply to  Larry
December 14, 2019 7:09 am

We have the technology to test climate science/models. It was used in Gero/Turner 2011. What it showed is there had been no changes in GHG forcing across a 14 year window. It would have been a very reasonable project to extend these measurements globally. The climate industry has failed to even make the attempt. Why? Because it probably would have shown the same thing —- no change in forcing.

When climate science itself fails to move forward when they have a tool to provide real empirical data that could end the debate, you know it is a scam.

December 13, 2019 12:04 pm

More money for climate research would just perpetuate and worsen the problem. A much more reasonable and rational approach would be to cease current excessive climate research funding (since climate researchers themselves say the science is settled, meaning further expenditures are unnecessary) and apply those monies to carbon-free Gen 4 nuclear research, something that perfectly aligns with climate researchers’ recommendations. Win-win for everyone.

Reply to  icisil
December 13, 2019 5:38 pm

icisil- a great approach, but it does not give the politicians enough money and control over economies to make the cut.
The people pushing the climate agenda have NEVER been looking for solutions. From day One of the original UNEP program the push has been to be able to make a case for the UN imposing various taxes and controls over the world economy as a viable way of solving the “climate problem”.

December 13, 2019 12:50 pm

In the world of science the burden of proof is on the claimant. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” says Sagan. Bayes Theorem users would say the a low prior probability requires a large consequent probability to override it.

In the world of politics when a claim was made by a member of my team, my tribe, my party then I support that claim.

In the world of law the first position of any lawyer to the opposition’s claim (even when your client would not oppose [personal experience]) is to fight it. If the evidence can be bent so my client is better off we bend away.

Humans are susceptible to the Noble Cause fallacy. We — our team/tribe/party — agree that lying, spying, blackmail, assault and sometimes even murder in Fulfillment of our Noble Cause is just. Our cause is that important. We must prevail for the Good of Humanity by Any Means.

John Robertson
December 13, 2019 12:54 pm

The only use for science,that the IPCC has,will be to blame their “scientific Advisers” as the mob closes in.
They will defer to actual use of the scientific method,only when they are in full retreat.
Catastrophic Climate is the new religion.
A State Religion of the wanna be new world government.

December 13, 2019 1:23 pm

I differ with Larry’s view of the current and recent state of climate “science.” The practitioners of such have been producing evidence of their claims since at least 1998 or so, and continuing to this day.

A couple of synonyms for “producing” – “fabricating”, “creating”.

December 13, 2019 1:46 pm

Climate Change is just a name for wealth redistribution.

a) this is why activists do not support nuclear power

b) if climate change was a real problem, would activists, celebrities, and politicians fly all over the world to vacation?

Reply to  joe
December 13, 2019 3:32 pm

For Politicans it is a tax on air, that only leaves sex to go and they will have a tax on everything. For the left socialists it is about wealth re-distribution.

Nick Schroeder
December 13, 2019 2:05 pm

By reflecting 30% of the incoming solar energy the albedo/atmosphere render the earth cooler not warmer.

If that statement is correct the entire climate change debate comes to a screeching halt.

As this thread began – bring science.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 13, 2019 9:38 pm

What if the earth’s ability to reflect incoming solar energy reduced for some reason though? Say because sea ice in the polar summers substantially reduced for some reason. Wouldn’t we expect that to cause an increase in global temperatures?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 14, 2019 11:02 am

One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.

This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.

More albedo and the earth cools.

Less albedo and the earth warms.

No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

Robert B
December 13, 2019 2:58 pm

There is strong proof that requires only the data published so far, Excel and just passable skills in the physical science (with a good sceptical attitude) that the GTA, homogenisation of individual stations and even CO2 levels are not fit for purpose. My own opinion is that the evidence is strong enough for authorities to start investigations of (insert f word here).

Kevin kilty
December 13, 2019 3:07 pm

Mod: Why is it sometimes that comments of mine appear for a time, and then vanish?

OK, I’ll try another comment contrary to Mr. Kummer’s proposal. If it were true that a fair test would end the political stalemate and repetition of our climate wars, then it would also be so that no one would ever again suggest socialism or any other form of collectivism as their government. We have plenty of objective data that collectivism does not work on scale sizes from two guys sharing a refrigerator all the way to entire nations trying to share income, employment, and wealth.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kevin kilty
December 13, 2019 4:05 pm

I made a comment a couple of hours ago and it said “Awaiting Moderation.” I can’t find it now and there was nothing in the words or tone that should have caused it to be deleted.

James A. Schrumpf
December 13, 2019 3:33 pm

Imagine if the “continental drift” debate had been so politicized: UN commitees set up to stop the continents from moving about, raisng inconvenient mountain ranges here and there, splitting other continents asunder…

Reply to  James A. Schrumpf
December 14, 2019 12:45 am

Well continental drift was not generally accepted science until the 1970s… it was a new concept, overturning the previous orthodoxy.

so too with climate science: what we thought was happening in the early 1970s is now shown to be wrong – we have a warming not a cooling planet: the evidence shows that

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
December 14, 2019 6:03 pm

“griff December 14, 2019 at 12:45 am”

Complete demonstrable bollox again Griff. Alfred Wegener, an amateur geologist, first proposed the theory before his death in 1930. The theory was accepted as early as 1937 by other geologists, proven in the 1960’s from sea floor surveys conducted by the US navy among others.

Your second point. We have evidence we have a warming and cooling planet in cycles that no-one fully understands nor knows the driver(s) of that cycle. That’s why we have so many hypotheses and theories. Pinning the whole concept of warming on ~3% of ~410ppm/v CO2 alone is complete bollox!

Have you stopped howling “Not my PM!” yet?!

Jeff Alberts
December 13, 2019 3:50 pm

“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”

No, that’s stupidity, failure to learn. Insanity is something else entirely.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 13, 2019 5:42 pm

Jeff- it’s a common adage. Think about someone with a obsessive-compulsive behavior trying to wipe off the spot that isn’t there, or trying to shut a door that doesn’t latch and keeps swinging open.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Philo
December 16, 2019 11:19 am

OCDs don’t try to wipe off spots that aren’t there, they try to wipe of spots that no one else worries about. It’s not a mistake, it’s just misguided.

As for your door analogy, again that’s stupid, not insane. Insane would be shouting at the door for not latching.

James Clarke
December 13, 2019 7:05 pm

It is my observation after 30 years, that those driving the climate crisis narrative, and profiting from it, do not want ‘science’ to be much involved with the issue. They really have nothing to gain from a definitive testing of the models. At best, the models are found to have some skill, and they get to keep their jobs and presteege. But it is far more likely that science reveals that the doom and gloom has been exaggerated. That would kill the golden goose for the politicians, academics, media types and NGOs. “Science’ is the biggest threat to the Climate Industrial Complex. That is why they say the science is settled, when it clearly is not. The IPCC was not created to explore the science, but to hold it in check so that it does not destroy the narrative. They will never get behind the above suggestion.

Fortunately, science marches on, even against the obstruction of the Climate Industrial Complex. Individuals are keeping track and testing the hypothesis with real world observations. They have been doing this all along and are demonized for it. But they continue none-the-less, and here is what they have discovered about the climate models:

Coach Springer
December 14, 2019 5:36 am

Validation (and science) in service of policy will eventually be corrupted. Try in service to truth. (The whole truth. And nothing but.) Can a model be validated under conditions unknown and then have those conditions change? Haven’t they been working on validating/selling their models to policy makers who are also sometimes paying for them to make certain choices on what they look at and how they do it?

Nick Schroeder
December 14, 2019 11:04 am

Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent energy from the atmospheric molecules, 0.97 emissivity ideal black body long wave radiation from the earth’s surface is not possible.

That means:
No 396 W/m^2 “extra” energy upwelling from the surface
No 333 W/m^2 “extra” energy perpetual looping from cold to hot without work
No GHG warming
No man caused climate change or global warming.

It’s that simple.
It’s all science.
It’s backed up by classical science experiments.

(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 15, 2019 3:52 pm


Burl Henry
December 15, 2019 6:58 am

I keep reading that the Russian Climate Model is the best of the lot’

Can anyone provide a link to a plot of its temperature projections?

Or what parameters are being used in the model?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Burl Henry
December 15, 2019 4:18 pm
%d bloggers like this: