Changing Climate, Changing Minds

Guest post by David Siegel

How do we measure success in helping people understand the climate issue? I don’t think we can measure it by unique visits to WUWT or various videos that many of us know well. But they simply attract the same audience over and over. I think the only way to measure success is by somehow measuring minds changed. This is a quick announcement of a new video I recently released, my philosophy on how to change minds, and a request from the community to help me with some data science.

My name is David Siegel. In 1991, I wrote a book explaining how the greenhouse effect worked and how we have to cut back on CO2 emissions or suffer dire consequences. Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.” That prompted me to revisit the subject, and I was surprised to find that the data didn’t support the “common wisdom” that I had believed for so long. So I started reading papers, blogs, and web sites like WUWT.

In 2016, I published an essay called Climate Curious, which, thanks to WUWT readers, has now had about 300,000 views. Last year, I published Global Warming for Dummies.

My goal is to change minds. I don’t think preaching to the choir is useful. I don’t think being smug and using sarcasm helps anyone. In my Open letter to the Heartland Institute, I said they are probably causing liberals to raise even more money, because they look down on “liberals” and make fun of “alarmists.” They keep declaring victory, only to see another billionaire double-down on his commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.

How old are you? Very few young people discuss or debate about climate change. They simply believe what they are told. They don’t want to learn anything from 60-year-olds. When presented with the facts, their reply is “Okay Boomer.” Investors are now looking at “sustainability scorecards” that force CEOs to publish their carbon-neutral plans for the future. I’ve been speaking with people in the oil and airline industries, and they actually believe that they have to put themselves out of business for the sake of the planet.

I don’t think Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other prominent thinkers are idiots. I respect these people. I don’t think we should make fun of them. That just causes them to dig in deeper and raise more money. How can we have a reasonable conversation with people who believe what we don’t?

I want to see a world where the scientific method comes first. I don’t think our science should change when a new president is elected. I don’t support liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or religious groups, because I think their platform comes first, before science. Can there not be any liberals who are skeptical of climate alarmist claims? Should we take religious skeptics seriously? I would like to see a world where people consider each subject simply on the merits of the available evidence, not on what everyone else believes.

I recently released a video showing just the data on climate claims. I tried to put it into a format digestible for young people, and I’ve heard from a few young people that it opened their minds. I hope you’ll watch and share it:

I have a request. In my video, I say it would be great if we had a graph of average US historical temperature using only the uncontaminated level 1 and 2 stations from Anthony Watts’ Surfacesations.org project going back to 1900. Does anyone know if that graph exists? I can’t find it. If not, does anyone want to work on creating it with me?

If I could reach one person, it would be Bill Gates, who is writing a book on climate right now. I would ask him to support a public effort of adversarial collaboration to bring alarmists and skeptics together to debate and find solutions together, and to hold journalists accountable for reporting the results accurately.

We convert skeptics one at a time, usually after they turn 60, while alarmists enroll millions each year through text books, television, scary images, scientific journals, and massive public-relations campaigns.

I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change. We can’t do it forcefully or by calling names. If we truly want to change minds, we should be willing to start with our own.

www.climatecurious.com

115 thoughts on “Changing Climate, Changing Minds

  1. In the 70’s, I wrote a book on environmental issues, in which I included the greenhouse effect. Not published.
    How can people be influenced to understand science without bias?
    This week, I read THE END OF ICE. That book may influence people with extreme emotional content. I don’t think that is best, either, for getting a firm understanding.
    My 2-star review in Amazon may interest you.

    • We who are sceptical of the currently accepted orthodoxy, in general, are so for rational and logical reasons based on a sensible and pragmatic consideration of factual data.

      But we live in a society conditioned to be motivated, even manipulated, by emotion based arguments. That is the problem that must be dealt with if there is any hope this coup can be stopped.

      • Not just emotional – but by “consensus”. I have friends with advanced science degrees who say 97% of scientists can’t be wrong. As scientists, we often base our studies on theories. The Theory of Relativity comes immediately to mind. We don’t go back and revisit its underpinnings (although I seem to remember doing so during my BS studies). Likewise, I think due to laziness, many scientists do accept CAGW as a fact because of consensus and because they have not examined it and don’t have the time.

        Other emotional arguments can simply be (as in the case of a good friend) an attempt to stay connected to their children, who have been taught CAGW at university and consider deniers out of touch or uneducated. I watched him change his belief to favor CAGW as his kids gained PhDs in physics and math at UC Berkeley, UC San Louis Obispo and UC Redmonds, and subsequent years spent at Cern’s Large Hadron Collider, Laurence Livermore, and Los Alamos. He doesn’t want to look out of touch by his children, especially since his highest degree is a Masters in physics. So you look for every reason to believe… and you can convince yourself if the rewards are high enough / the penalties severe enough.

      • I think someone should come up with a climate version of my favorite joke

        A mathematician, an economist are asked “what is the answer to 2+2?”
        Mathematician answers 4
        Economist answers it’s somewhere between 3 And 5
        Statistician answers “what do you want it to be”

        Brilliant

    • David Siegel Focus on the strategic issue of developing cheaper dispatchable sustainable power – such as fusion – to provide for 1000 years. We have limited supplies of inexpensive Biologically Stored Solar Energy (aka natural gas, oil, coal). They have been our “training wheels” to get our technology and economies up and running – but they will not last 1000 years Now to develop cheaper sustainable energy.

    • David Siegel Strategically focus on the 1000 year time frame. Our natural supply of Biologically Stored Solar Energy launched us into our Industrial, Technological and Computer revolutions. aka natural gas, oil, coal. That enabled a massive increase in our quality of life, and longevity from subsistence farmers into abundant food. However, they will not last to the next millenium. Our challenge now is to develop cheaper dispatchable sustainable fuel, such as fusion. That should be an agreeable goal to Bill Gates et al.

    • A couple of months ago I posted a video on Youtube that was aimed at a high school audience and had the theme of an optimistic future, not the gloom and doom peddled to high school audiences by eco extremists. You can see it here:

      Video link
      https://youtu.be/OytsPc193PM

  2. “I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change”

    This is of course exactly what the climate movement has done and is doing and it boils down to activism and not science. Fighting activism with activism is what we have been doing and it has gone nowhere. Perhaps a better approach would be to tell information consumers not what to think but how to think. For example the observation that the crime rate in Thailand has been rising while at the same time the tourism business has been going up does not prove that tourism caises crime but to understand why one must have some education in statistics. What I propose is an education movement instead of the proposed change minds warfare against the other side’s change mind warfare.

    • chaamjamal, the debate is no longer about how, but about how much and how bad. The published science says the how much is probably about 3°C – thats the average, some areas may become cool er, some much warmer – the Arctic for example.
      https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/15/climate-sensitivity-research/
      Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increase of 3°C or possibly higher is running a huge risk? How comfortable would Bangkok be in April?

      • Hello Loydo

        A really good video published by the Canadian Climate Discussion Nexus on climate sensitivity and the 3°C question. It was put up on youtube about a week ago and is well worth a look.

      • Loydo,
        The chances of reaching 3°C are pretty well zero. But even if we did, most people wouldn’t notice it. That’s because most warming occurs in cold climates, at night and in the winter. I don’t think the good people of Bangkok need worry. And people who live in very cold climates would benefit greatly.

        After a century of global warming mankind is prospering as never before. Mankind always prospered during the warm periods – the Roman and Medieval periods and also the 20th century. It’s cold that kills, not warmth. Warmth also helps protect us against the corona virus.

        The planet is getting dramatically greener. As shown by a major NASA study several years ago, the main cause is the increase in CO2. And the second cause: global warming. Like most human beings, Nature prefers warmth over cold.

        Global warming isn’t a problem, it’s a huge benefit. The real problem is climate change alarmism, which is causing endless suffering and alarm, and the corruption of science. The alarmism is driven by vested interests for climate scientists, green extremism, a hatred of humanity and political activism.

        If you care about Nature and humanity you should look again at the data (e.g. deaths from extreme weather at historical lows) and think again. Many sceptics started as true believers, but when they looked at the data with open eyes they realised how they had been misled.
        Chris

      • My understanding is that any warming will largely be confined to the Norther/Southern hemispheres, affecting night time temperatures. Equatorial regions won’t be unaffected but will be less affected.

        So, an interesting observation:

        During the ‘unremarkable’ UK winter of 2017/18 there were ~50,000 Excess Winter Deaths in England/Wales. It was probably around double the average as it was a bad flu year. The UK is ~5th wealthiest nation in the world, and extreme poverty (internationally defined as one person living on less than $1.95 per day) is unknown. The English/Welsh population is around 50m.

        During the ‘unprecedented’ Indian heatwave of 2017 there were ~2,500 deaths attributed to heat. India has a population of 1.3bn with around 70m living in extreme poverty, more than the entire UK population.

        So whilst you run around with your hair on fire about warming of 3C, not even the IPCC claim it will be much of a problem for humanity.

        And whilst Michael Mann managed to erase the Medieval and Roman warm periods with some sleight of hand, claiming it wasn’t global, the fact is we know it happened across Europe at the very least. We also know they were periods of great productivity and wealth.

        So whilst it might not have been a global phenomenon, it did happen, and it demonstrates the immense benefits of a, warmer European climate.

        • HotScot – March 15, 2020 at 4:05 am

          So whilst you run around with your hair on fire about warming of 3C, not even the IPCC claim it will be much of a problem for humanity.

          “DUH”, …..warming of 3C a problem?

          I don’t think so, at least not for the thousands of “snowbirds” that migrate to Florida each winter to escape the freezing temps in the northeast US. Those “snowbirds” literally love a 3C, or a 4C or even a 6+C warming.

      • How comfortable would Bangkok be in April?

        …cut the crap…..almost all of the CO2 is coming from China

      • There is substantially more risk getting to work everyday and the risk is 100 years away. Just because a risk increases it is pretty meaningless unless you give context.

      • Interesting diverse viewpoints…..IPCC says CO2 doubling might cause up to 4.5 C global warming. On the other hand, Figure 2 of this recent paper based on climate model ECHAM 6.3……

        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1699387

        shows it would take 3 doublings, 3200 ppm CO2 to achieve 4C warming.

        This would change the “crisis” point to the economics of fossil fuel extraction sometime in future.

      • Loydo,
        According to satellite data from Roy Spencer’s page the linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade
        That equates to 1.13 C per century. Where do you get 3 degrees?

        • Ron
          Loydo assumes the average change accepted for the Arctic, rounds up to the nearest degree, and then implies that it is applicable to the entire world. While doing so, he/she ignores that the average is being driven primarily by increases in the Winter and nighttime lows, not the Summer and daytime highs. That is, by taking ‘facts’ out of context, and implying things that aren’t true, he/she can make a story that seems scary.

      • thank you loydo,
        but what is the climate sensitivity exactly? and if they know what the ECS is why do they need the TCRE? and if we think it will be 3C warmer than pre-industrial, then when was this pre-industrial reference year when agw began? and what was that temperature then? And how warm can we let it get before it gets bad? is it 5C? or is it 1.5C? or is it something in between?

        https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/25/earth-day-wisdom/

      • loydeedoe says:
        Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increase of 3°C or possibly higher is running a huge risk?

        About 97% chance that asking you this question is a waste of time, but even if it was 3C (it won’t be), why would you think that was a risk & not actually a benefit? It would be a benefit where I’m at, no question.

      • There is theory and then there is reality.
        The reality is that the increase is low and mostly due to natural causes which is about to change (cooling).

      • 1) Only activists believe that 3C increase even possible.
        2) 3C would get us back to the average of the last 10K years.
        3) Given how humid Bangkok is in April, it’s unlikely there would be any noticeable change in it’s temperature, even if the impossible did happen and the world warmed by 3C.

      • Loydo: “Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increas….” I do not believe activists think at all, nor do well over half the population of the US. Worldwide, I’d put it below 25%. Humans have the unique ability to think and they crap all over the idea and whine like children instead. It makes life a nightmare, but they never learn. Humans, by all rights, should be extinct. They emote but lack instincts for survival. Commercials on TV and the Covid 19 indicate they have no idea even how to feed themselves if Alexa dies and they can’t call out or order over the net. There’s so little thought in most humans, I often believe my dog has more sense. What you should have asked is “Do you really think activist are the only ones terrified and too stupid to question a global temperature average?” and the answer would be no, sadly, they are not. Even scientists don’t think anymore.

      • Loydo March 15, 2020 at 1:12 am
        chaamjamal, the debate is no longer about how,

        “No longer about how”?
        When was it ever?
        “The Cause” has always been touted as “Man is the cause of … whatever” therefore Man must be controlled.
        Short of setting off every nuke in the world, Ma’ Nature is responsible for our “climate” and our weather.
        (And even if we set off every nuke, she’d clean up Man’s “nuclear winter” eventually.)

        You skip over “the how” because if “the how” is natural processes and not Man, then there’s no DESPERATE need for stuff like the GND to “save the planet”.
        (Cue George Carlin …)

      • The Earth is (maybe) sensitive to co2 when there is nothing else happening. But there is always…..

      • As the Sun meanders around the galaxy, bobbing through the galactic plane, I sometimes think the Earth passes through clouds of stupidity. Physically undetectable, but none the less there. At times we had the beginning of agriculture, the rise of civilizations, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution – and then there were other times.

        I certainly feel stupider than I did 20 years ago, but some people just had a head start…

          • Mike, thanks for that — I’m a bit of a Poul Anderson fan, but wasn’t aware of that particular book.

        • I remember a short story I read many years ago.
          The story posited a cone of energy emanating from the core of the galaxy. Inside this code neurological activity dropped to a third what it was outside the code.
          The Earth entered this cone 65 million years ago (incidentally, that’s what killed the dinosaurs, they suddenly got stupid.)

          The story was what happened when the Earth left this cone and everybody (including farm animals) suddenly got 3 times smarter.

        • In his New Sun series of books, Gene Wolfe’s protagonist, Severian, opines:

          There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity.

          I think he’s an optimist. When you combine human stupidity, with the fact that most people are not logical thinkers but rely on emotion, you understand why the species is doomed.

    • Good comment chaamjamal
      As I recall during the police strike in New York back in the late 70’s or 80’s the crime rate plummeted to zero…. in much the same way Global warming would stop if they stopped reading thermometers. (sic)
      Cheers
      Mike

  3. I would ask him to support a public effort of adversarial collaboration to bring alarmists and skeptics together to debate and find solutions together, and to hold journalists accountable for reporting the results accurately.

    If you think there is a problem that needs a solution you have already drunk the koolaid.

    The only problem is that so many people have been convinced that there is a problem…

  4. I’ve been speaking with people in the oil and airline industries, and they actually believe that they have to put themselves out of business for the sake of the planet.

    Ignore what people say. Pay attention to what they do.

  5. Well done…a superb overview. The only thing missing for me was Solar Activity and Solar Cycles. Other than that, a great overview to send to those who still have at least somewhat of an open mind.

  6. “I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change”

    Minds don’t matter. The only thing that really matters is how humanity is progressing economically on the whole. Regardless of whether or not minds are changed, there will always be pockets of places where windmills prevail. But, on the whole, nothing’s happened for thirty years (except the fracking boom). Greta has nailed it. They’ve done nothing, but sit on their hands. That is the measure of success…

    • Sorta like the US Congress’s inability to get anything done on the contentious, partisan issues is a Feature of our System, not a bug.
      Most of these “partisan” problems will be solved by the passage of enough time and doing nothing about them. Most especially in that category is the Climate Change scam.
      For example: We just have to keep dithering on renewables. At 5%-10% of our total electricity from wind and solar, is costly, but not devastating, and enough to send our economy downwards like NSW, AU or Germany. And it is just enough for the real engineering and cost accounting to show they are more than worthless, they are harmful in terms of resource usage (grid transmission line distribution problems, frequency control, land use and financing). But at still < 10% of electricity supply, they aren't that harmful, and slow leaking them opens enough eyes over time to see their downsides to generate resistance to the renwable scam and thus limit further deployment of this waiting disaster at larger scales.

      • Joel O’Bryan
        You remarked, “… the US Congress’s inability to get anything done on the contentious, partisan issues is a Feature of our System, not a bug.” Congratulations! Very few people understand that. Mark Twain observed that, “No man was safe while Congress was in session.”

  7. A superb overview. The only thing missing for me was Solar Activity and Solar Cycles. A perfect gift for those true believers who still have at least somewhat of an open mind.

  8. I do it on a one-to-one basis, using Andy May’s superb chart showing the earth’s temperature over the last 500 million years – one of the best of the many excellent articles published at WUWT over the years.

    In a discussion over Greta Thunberg at my golf club (in the UK), I pulled my smart phone out and showed my fellow golfers the chart (which shows that the earth is in one of it’s coldest phases right now and that although currently our planet’s average temperature is around 14ºC, its actual average temperature is around 19ºC).

    The effect was stunning. Seeing the information presented in that format, by a scientist (I believe Andy describes himself as a geoscientist) really hit home with this group. One of them, a very successful local businessman, examined the graphic carefully and said he thought it was fantastic. “I’ve never seen anything like it” he said.

    Of course he hasn’t because the BBC – the UK’s dominant source of ‘news’ – does not allow information of this sort onto the airwaves. Now, my example relates to older people I know. But showing younger people that chart and asking them related questions such as what %age of earth’s history has our planet had ice at both poles (answer 9%) will have an impact.

    I’m very grateful to Andy and to WUWT for publishing the information in that format because it demonstrates very effectively the folly of making judgements about the climate based on the last hundred years or so (or ‘standing too close to the picture’ as I call it. You have to step back to make sense of it all).

    • “I do it on a one-to-one basis, using Andy May’s superb chart showing the earth’s temperature over the last 500 million years”

      There is no global temperature. There certainly isn’t a chart that shows such a thing over the last 500my. someone may be calling it that, but it’s just a numbers game.

  9. Take a look at Tony Hellers website, https://realclimatescience.com. He does a very nice job of showing the actual data around this subject (temps, ice, sea level, etc) and has recently. done some discussions of the actual data, not the ‘adjusted’ data.

  10. I noticed they don’t want to learn it from 19 yr old Naomi Seibt either…At least on my Facebook – get very few comments when I post her videos… but the choir likes them….

    JPP

  11. I don’t think we should make fun of them.”

    Oh I disagree. Some deserve to be made fun of and ridiculed mercilessly. Target #1: Bloomberg for throwing a fortune (for you and me) in 4 months on his Presidential campaign vanity project begs to be ridiculed. And his throwing many more millions of dollars down the toilet on his Buying State AG’s efforts has been a remarkable failure as well.

    The reason I say this is because people understood Bloomberg threw away a lot of money in a short time (close to $600 million) on all those ads that annoyed the Hell out of everyone for 2 months on every radio and TV you turned. They quickly understood this was guy who thinks everything can be bought. And his credibility is shot. And thus his climate message is much more widely understood to be a hypocritical at best with his jets and multiple mansions, even with the people who think climate is a problem. Bloomberg is a joke and he needs to be ridiculed at every opportunity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5iaEx74dXM

    As for other targets, well AOC, Greta, Bernie the commie, state level idiots like Gov Inslee of Washington state or former Cal Gov Moonbeam, and so many other pols and useful tools who couldn’t describe the Greenhouse effect to save their lives. Yet they want to impoverish folks like me to send my electric bill money to billionaire’s Green schemes, well… to Hell with them. I’ll ridicule those folks at every opportunity.

    As for David Seigel and his, ‘Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.”’ epiphany, where the Hell were you when Obama said exactly that in State of the Union address in January 2014? And former VP Al Gore had said that many times years before Obama. Alan Moran’s 2010 book “Climate Change: The Facts” took this claim head-on of “the science settled” being throw in skeptic’s face and debunked it then. So maybe you were sleeping on the “scientific method” then too. The GMAT hiatus of course was the big problem for the climate scammers in 2014 with Paris looming (and still is), which is why John Holdren was given the task of quarterbacking the 2015 TomKarl “pause buster” paper by flipping around SST adjustments na fake statistics from it to getting warming trend where there was none. The actual science was showing the climate change was a scam, and they had to make up disinformation to give Obama cover at Paris. The Obama admin was nothing but 8 years of fake narratives, from the ACA, the stimulus act, the give terrorists $150 B Iran Deal, and the climate scam with the Paris deal. Anyone who was being honest and objective from 2009 onwards could see the lies and disinformation campaigns (Basically anyone with a brain could see the set-up they were ptiching: “If you like your climate, you can keep your climate. Just fork over your most cherished liberties and all your disposable income, and we’ll do a little rain make that terrible climate problem go away.”) that spewing out the Obama White House on every subject they touched, not just climate.

    So if it took you until 2014 to realize there was something seriously wrong with the climate change claims, welcome to party. I guess better late than never.

  12. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    H L Mencken

  13. Good explanations, good data, good graphics. Unfortunately the sound is not good.
    Maybe it would be worth the effort to redo the recording in a professional studio?

    Good luck getting young people involved!

  14. I’m a physicist who’s been interested in climate since the 1970s. If the public could be convinced by the real science, given how very much it is in our favour, the argument would have gone away long ago. What influences the public is emotion, I wish it were otherwise, but when I explain radiative transfer theory to anyone their eyes gloss over, when I say that AGW alarm-ism is killing people,m they wake up.

    I’d like to see something along the lines of what Bjorn Lomberg does in his books, e.g state that for the sake of argument we can go along with AGW conjecture, but here’s 20 major really harmful things it does. If someone knows of a PPT like that, pls let me know.

    I do not think we need more books about why AGW is wrong, I think I now have about 100 on the shelves. I think we need one which says “AGW is real, but here’s how the polices are killing people and damaging the environment”

  15. Changing my mind about anything is like turning around an aircraft carrier, and I’m a lot more flexible than most people, and a lot more wary of bad argument. Unfortunately, somebody’s position on the severity of climate change is now linked with personal morality. The climate catastrophe people believe that they are good and that deniers (to use the current term) are wicked, or else really, really stupid.

    I think that the Theory of Evolution is bunk. I have never come close to being able to change anyone’s mind on that one, and the reason is that to disbelieve in Evolution is thought to be a sign of either outright stupidity or religious fanaticism. People just won’t hear the arguments against Evolution. (They think, for example, that the obverse of believing Darwin is to believe Genesis. You have to tell them that no, you don’t think the Old Testament is a history.)

    A man who can change his mind once he’s made it up is a very rare being. A mean who can convince him to change his mind (without a shotgun) is even rarer.

    • I would point out one major difference. Believing in the theory of evolution doesn’t cost them anything. Believing in AGW is getting ready to cost them both money, inconvenience and a reduced standard of living. Personal suffering changes minds a lot faster than a theory in which believing costs nothing.

  16. Given that the video is intended to change minds, the ocean acidification section which starts at 34min, will totally fail in this objective and in my opinion, fatally jeopardize the effectiveness of other parts of the presentation.

    Statements such as ‘there is no such thing as ocean acidification from carbon dioxide’ and ‘The notion of ocean acidification is made up and makes no sense to ocean scientists’ are simply untrue and need drastic qualification and justification.

    See https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification ‘Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world’s oceans.’

    This is the mainstream view from NOAA andis held rightly or wrongly by a majority of ocean scientists (check the hundreds of publications on this topic!) and to dismiss it without further ado with a couple of sentences is a huge strategic mistake and will invite derision.

    In other respects, the video is an excellent rebuttal to alarmists.

    • miha– The NOAA link is simplistic, but their pH link better explains it. There are still many alive that remember how difficult pH was to precisely measure and it suffers from even worse historical interpretations than temperature. pH was historically measured mostly during the daytime when it was higher and the most productive places tend to have lower pH. The semantics of the chemistry have been discussed here many times. There are a number of reviews on the subject, this one more recent–Esbaugh, A.J. 2018. Physiological implications of ocean acidification for marine fish: emerging patterns and new insights. Journal of Comparative Physiology. B. 188:1–13.

      Read these, give an idea of the complications, it is still a big ocean. Number of papers published does not necessarily prove much beyond popularity and funding, pushed by quantitative journal impact factors.

      Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle. 2009. Marine calcifers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification. Geology. 37(12):1131-1134.
      Borges, A. V. and N. Gypens. 2010. Carbonate chemistry in the coastal zone responds more strongly to eutrophication than to ocean acidification. Limnology and Oceanography. 55(1):346-353.

  17. “Deep state cut-outs such as Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other prominent “thinkers” are idiots.”

    There you go David Siegel, I’ve fixed it for you! 😉

  18. But I enjoy being smug and sarcastic. Believed the AGW rubbish in the 80’s but it does not stand up to any proper examination of the reality. Don’t see how you change the mind of anyone without A level physics. Much harder to convince people they’ve been fooled than to fool them in the first place. Polar bear numbers are a good way to start the red pilling.

  19. $Money is the only sure way to get large numbers of people interesred in a subject who would otherwise just go about their normal lives.

    Show them how much they will each have to pay “out of pocket” for some claimed benefit. Then clobber the veracity of the “benefit” with the facts…but only after you’ve gotten their attention by talking about the $money.

    A recent polls indicated that individuals would be willing to spend an extra $10 a month “for the climate”…but unless we “Decarbonize” with Nuclear Energy, the extra cost is going to be closer to $400 a month forever (if you extrapolate out the current costs in Germany TO the final costs to reach their CO2 Emissions Goals… including increased costs for electricity, heating, industrial heat, and transportation).

  20. David, regarding your interest in temperature records of the highest quality stations assessed by the surface stations project. I did an anlysis of temperatures from the 23 CRN#1 stations in the US, comparing unadjusted and adjusted GHCN data files.

    The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.

    Summary report with links to spreadsheets is here:
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

  21. Well David, you must start at the beginning. Why did Margert Thatcher ring the “Co2 is Bad Bell”?
    Why did “Co2 Causes Global Warming” change to just “Global Warming”?
    Why did “Global Warming” change to “Co2 causes Climate Change” then to just “Climate Change”?
    Why does the “Investment Banks” want a “Carbon trading market”?
    Why does the UN want a “International Carbon Tax”?
    Why do governments around the world want to pick “Winners and Loser” with the power of the “Purse”?
    Why since the end of the last “Ice Age” we have had warmer periods of time than we are experiencing now?
    Almost all the answers I get from people who want “Co2 Regulations” is “I don’t know”.

  22. Winning hearts and minds with mostly the scientific facts is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. My opinion of course. The video is instructive but what classroom will it be played in? Screeching the end of the world has usually proven to be effective at least for awhile. Sometimes long enough to cause great calamities.

    The climate fight requires slugging it out it while grasping their belt. The telling blows will come from exposing the lies, manipulation, and money grubbing. In this very political fight some provide the scientific ammunition, others use it.

  23. **I have a request. In my video, I say it would be great if we had a graph of average US historical temperature using only the uncontaminated level 1 and 2 stations from Anthony Watts’ Surfacesations.org project going back to 1900. Does anyone know if that graph exists? I can’t find it. If not, does anyone want to work on creating it with me?**

    Tony Heller has done some of this already on
    https://realclimatescience.com/

    • Sorry heller doesnt know how to do a spatial average.
      he averages temperatures which will give the wrong answer

  24. Mr. Siegel,

    “does anyone want to work on creating it with me?”

    Please view my website to this point.
    http://theearthintime.com

    I have the ~1-billion-record TMAX/TMIN adjusted GHDN as well as the USHCN dataset parsed into a powerful DBMS. I’m searching for a collaborator. I’m also searching for the missing 400+ US station data and a copy of USHCN saved out prior to 1989.

    Send me an email if so inclined. [my screen name at the website URL]

    ~ windlord-sun

  25. Should science change when Presidents change? No. But here is what NEEDS to change BACK to sanity. A demand for transparency in ALL science accepted and adopted by the EPA. And then a REVERSAL of the “endangerment finding” when that science is discovered to be dubious. Yes … we need an absolute return to the scientific method.

    And stop calling things “science” … that aren’t really science … but just statistical manipulation.

  26. “I have a request. In my video, I say it would be great if we had a graph of average US historical temperature using only the uncontaminated level 1 and 2 stations from Anthony Watts’ Surfacesations.org project going back to 1900. Does anyone know if that graph exists? I can’t find it. If not, does anyone want to work on creating it with me?”

    Thats Funny.

    1. A video does not allow you to look at data. It allows you to look at a graphic that PURPORTS
    to be made from data. The graphic is NOT the data. It is pixels on a the screen.
    2. Video prevents people from easily checking the data themselves.

    3. the graph you seek does not exist. It was never made.

    4. The ORIGINAL classification of CRN 1 and 2 has been replaced with a NEW classification in
    2012. That data has never been shared.

    5. The Analysis of the NEW classification was taken down after 1 day in July of 2012 because of a simple
    to fix data error made by Steve Mcintyre: he used the wrong file.

    6. An updated analysis ( a simple file change) has never been published, and the data behind the
    paper posted in 2012 is still being “worked” on.

    pretty sure this won’t change your mind

    • A graphic can make data easier to understand but can also be very misleading. A graphic can only use available data which should be of the same type. This largely restricts time frames.
      If all the available relevant data is not represented on the graph it is easy to mislead by simply picking data points that agree with your premise. That may even have the appearance of honesty by using data that is consistent as to source, such as only temperature on July 17, or only specific locations as long as the overall result supports your premise.
      Start and end points are also easily manipulated.
      That does not even consider the possibility of corrupted data, manipulated data, or the resolution of data.
      Don’t let me get stated on averaging.
      I know this leaves me open to a caustic comment by you, Steven but I think I am actually agreeing with you.

    • Well Steve, funny that you cannot produce it. Or maybe you do not want to as it will be too inconvenient for AGW.

      • Since I asked for the data back in 2012 and was denied, kinda hard to make a chart of hidden data.

        1. I would need a LIST OF THE CRN 1&2 stations.
        2. I asked for this PUBLICALLY in July of 2012

        denied

    • “A video does not allow you to look at data. It allows you to look at a graphic that PURPORTS”

      Of all the stupid things steve has written over the years, this has got to be the dumbest.

      Of course a video doesn’t present the raw data. In exactly the same way a paper doesn’t present the raw data.
      In both cases they provide links to the raw data or a least inform the people where they go to get it.

    • Mosher

      You remarked, “The graphic is NOT the data.” au contraire! One can do a one-to-one mapping of the ‘pixels’ with the original tabular data; they are equivalent, only displayed differently. Why do people go to so much trouble to plot an equation or tabular data? It is because the graphic tells us things about the underlying tabular data that is difficult or impossible to comprehend from the numbers alone. There may be a tradeoff of less precision in the graphic, but even that may be advantageous when trying to understand what the tabular data represent in the way of changes in the physical phenomenon. One doesn’t lose sight of the forest because of the trees.

      There was a time in my career (when I was still a college student) when I worked in the Data Processing and Analysis group for the Agena Satellite program at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. We received analog records of the sensors during launch of the rockets. That was our “data.” We then had to translate the hard-copy analog traces to numbers that could be used as input to a digital computer. Not all “data” comes in the form of tables!

      • “Mosher

        You remarked, “The graphic is NOT the data.” au contraire! One can do a one-to-one mapping of the ‘pixels’ with the original tabular data; they are equivalent, only displayed differently. ”

        only if you have the data. That’s the point

        Look we could have done this with CRU, but we wanted the actual data used.
        Not reverse engineering the chart

  27. The need to convert people one at time works both ways. While we are on religious analogies many have likened AGW to a religion. Indeed the analogy is apt. Just like any other religion the level of commitment varies. The vast majority are ambivalent. Like a any religion the measure of conversion is how much they are willing to sacrifice. Many will give lip service because it costs them almost nothing and they get praise for it. Virtue signalling is a human weakness.

    Nonetheless, in this case we find no willingness for people to really give up their alleged sins. Sins to the AGW religion being their fossil fuel enriched life styles and keeping their hard earned money, and keeping their God given rights as individuals. They need to be converted one at time.

    Thus we find the clergy of AGW wanting the enforcement powers of the state, and the ability to control markets to force the people into compliance.

  28. I don’t think changing minds is the goal we need to pursue. What we need to do is push the minds that are on the fence towards the more reasonable assumption.
    I believe most people do not fear or fully believe global warming is a threat. It is just easier to be agreeable. That explains the resistance of old people who are much less agreeable.
    It seems there are only a few very radical, very psychotic individuals actually are strongly convinced. Of course they are very noisy and very emotional and hard to ignore. Many more probably profess a belief that they do not strongly hold to avoid conflict or for personal advantage.
    If you try to bring up the subject in any gathering most people will gravitate away from you or make every effort to change the subject. They have doubts but do not want others to know of them. The subject is only discussed when it is obvious everyone is in agreement.
    We do not need to ridicule the idea of catastrophic climate change nor should we. We should be quick to ridicule those noisy individuals who pretend to more knowledge and superior morality.

  29. Years ago Bill Gates told the congress his company was non political, very strange comment considering that is what people told the Nazis. The congress then had him behind closed doors, when he came out he was supporting liberal causes.

    Just a guess but perhaps it is not a belief in climate change as described by the proponents but self interest which we all have to survive that is driving the wealthy.

    An old saying may apply: If you’ve got them by the balls hearts and minds will follow.

  30. The real issue is this, up until just recently the physical, and monetary costs to “Fight Climate Change” has been nothing but cheap platitudes, and virtue signaling. When the costs start to rise and the quality of life suffers then the reaction will be swift. Ask a millennial when they will give up their phone to save the planet, and the fright within their eyes will show the answer. Ask when they will stop traveling, stop having reliable energy, give up a climate controlled house, live in an 8×8 box next to their work, have only food available locally using 19th century farming, lose out on food stored in refrigeration, and they will balk big time.

    It is all fun and games till the rubber hits the road, and reality sets in.

  31. The article is at least honest, almost from the start.

    People talking loudly about increasing other people’s “understanding” usually mean no such thing. What they usually mean is how can they get you to agree with them. They assume their understanding is complete enough, but that yours needs a bit of reeducation to bring it up to their expectations.

    One of the biggest jokes is that website for academic pseuds calling it self “The Conversation”. Once again, it is no such thing. It is a monologue. A screed. Your comments are welcome as long as they toe the line. Opposing views will often get roundly criticized here at WUWT, but Anthony allows plenty of room for dissension.

  32. Kind of ironic that Heartland Institute is being cited for doing it wrong despite it’s honest debates successfully changing minds. To the “wrong” conclusion, apparently.

  33. An admirable goal, but I personally think the missing element in self-serving profit.
    The climate panicmongering movement is a huge revenue generator for any number of NGOs, scientists, government organizations, the UN etc.
    The movement is further used by entertainers and politicians for their own purposes.
    There is no such dynamic on the “realist” side; even the supposed funding by fossil fuel companies is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the climate panicmongers.
    Because of this, I don’t believe that the facts will matter in the short or medium term. What will matter is that the outlandish claims made by the panicmongers continue to fail.
    I’m not giving up the fight nor am I advocating anyone else do so, but I am saying that it is important to be realistic in understanding the balance of forces (and money).

    • Follow The $$ …
      I agree with what you just posted … and ask this:

      Does anyone have a link to an investigation of the actual? An objective, comprehensive list of all the funders, fundees, and $funds pouring into ‘climate science’?

      Especially, NOAA, which is “UN,” but doesn’t the US taxpayer fund the UN?

      I wish we had a link that piles on the numbers for this.

  34. It doesn’t work to screech at people, “You’re wrong!

    Mixing real questions with rhetorical questions may help to open people’s minds. Such as:

    Do you really want to pay more for electricity for dubious benefits?

    Do you want to give up cars and return to ox carts?

    Do you want farmers to give up tractors and return to mules? To picking cotton by hand? Do you want your unmarried sister to give up her fancy job and operate a wooden spinning wheel in a dusty attic?

    Do you know that’s where the word “spinster” comes from?

    I’m a firm believer that a week of trudging behind mules, dodging turds, and chopping cotton with hand tools would disabuse most city slickers of the wickedness of internal combustion engines.

    Do you know of a past climate that was better than this one?
    Disclaimer: “Camelot” was a show tune. There was no such climate, so it can’t be an answer.

    In the real world was the big ice age better than now? How about the little ice age?

  35. David Siegel’s idea of collaborative debate (or ‘adversarial collaboration’, as he calls it), might have some value, if concerned people on both sides of an issue could ever agree on any set of rules for an informed debate, and how to summarize ‘who won’, any conclusions reached — ‘adversarial teams’ approach anyone? Beyond that, I’m a bit puzzled by his bad review of skeptics at the Heartland Institute, or his bad impression of skeptics generally.

    As some sort of analogy, say we look at human caused Global Warming theory as a kind of secular religion, or belief system. To the extent that such theory has captured the globalist political stage, with all the adherents of globalism funding it, believing in it, etc, I wonder if we could then compare the current situation to the world situation back in the year 1500 ? At that time, as far as Western Europe was concerned, I’m sure the Roman Catholic Church was the closest thing we could imagine to a “globalist’ institution; it was everybody’s Christian church, and therefore everybody’s approved belief system, throughout Western Europe, anyway.

    Now, if I set up this ‘past history scenario’ like this, I’m sure that all you history buffs have some idea what comes next! Just as a very quick reference, say, I can easily go to ‘ Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses ‘, where it describes the reformer Martin Luther’s famous year 1517 publication, of ’95 thesis’. This was an extended argument against the Church’s sale of indulgences (which I understand were usually aimed at persons afraid of landing in Purgatory in the afterlife, and were seeking a ticket out of that — for some reason they usually weren’t so afraid that God would send them all the way to Hell, or so I’ve been told).

    One quotation from the Wikipedia article:

    “(Luther) argued that indulgences led Christians to avoid true repentance and sorrow for sin, believing that they could forgo it by purchasing an indulgence”

    So, anyway, you see how that goes, Luther was offering arguments to undermine, even ridicule, the prevailing, powerful hold that the Church’s promotion of ‘afterlife insurance’ had on the public imagination!
    One thing to notice here, is that, while Western society is, on paper at least, more secular today than it was back then, the Catholic/Protestant schism still remains to this day! As far as I know, no one ever figured out a way to debate things to a correct conclusion, to everyone’s satisfaction, not by a long way — no, not for religion’s sake, nor for any other politically sensitive sphere of interest really!

    Now, I have to say, I myself find it hard to tell just how entrenched the belief in the ‘sciency-ness’ of gloom and doom Global Warming really is! If the globalists ever really give up on this, maybe it is Globalism itself that will roll on forever into the future? The point I would make, is that if the nature of moneyed belief systems is such that you can never really defeat it, then how much deeper and more entrenched would the old ways have become, if Martin Luther and others had never come along to heckle those old ways? To me, it almost sounds like David Siegel is giving skepticism itself a bad review? This is not very helpful, Mr.Siegel! Maybe you should start a movie review website instead?

    If I’m perhaps taking a bit of a sharp tone there, one reason is that I myself am just shy of 60 years old, and I’ve been a bit of a skeptic for a long time now, and *more* than a bit of a skeptic for the last few years. I certainly don’t feel, as Mr. Siegel seems to think, that any really skeptical or ‘critical in tone’ arguments can only convince people who are over 60 years old! Siegel actually says this, and I quote him, here,

    “We convert skeptics one at a time, usually after they turn 60, while alarmists enroll millions each year through text books, television, scary images, scientific journals, and massive public-relations campaigns.”

    So they’ve got more money and a scarily influential hold on society, doesn’t that make it even *more* important to point out all the errors of their ways, to intelligent persons of all ages? I think, for instance, of the hold that a self promoting dreamer like Elon Musk has on some people. If we can’t heckle him and point out awkward realities with schemes such as ‘plug in’ trucks, what have we got?

  36. Good old Mom (nature) is the best at changing minds. Look at how all the doom and gloom promoters of the “new ice age” faded away as the earth started warming in the 80’s. many of those jumped onto the new band wagon, promoting dome and gloom about a warming world, along with a couple of generations of young people educated to believe what they are Told to think, as opposed to actually how to think. As the globe swings back into a natural cooling cycle (please not the next big glacial advance just yet), the warming hysteria will slowly fade away, probably with the cooling hysteria dusted off and brought forward once again.
    Seems it is a necessary part of the human experience to have the crap scared out of them over and over again, facing yet another unknown, but sort of believable boogieman ment to keep them in line and under control.

  37. Here’s the problem in a typical article-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-concerns-after-hottest-month-of-sea-temperatures-on-record/ar-BB11c4SC

    If you’ve been indoctrinated by the climate changers you’ll read that emotionally but if you’ve been brought up with the scientific method you’ll read it rationally and recognise something completely the opposite knowing that coral bleaching only really entered the scientific consciousness with large take-up of scuba diving in the late 70s and early 80s and some history of the GBR-
    https://dailygalaxy.com//?s=great+barrier+reef

    It’s always emotion vs reason so you’re coming at it from polar opposite perspectives. The only thing that will turn it around will be the failure of the climate changers’ prescriptions most notably with adding unreliables to power grids and attempts to electrify transport on top of that. That’s when e-motion simply wont cut it.

  38. I think you should concentrate on the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW) period if you want to dispel the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) claims.

    The period from 1910 to 1940 warmed at the same magnitude and reached the same high temperature level as the period beginning in 1980 to the present day. In other words, it was just as warm in the period around the decade of the 1930’s as it is today, all over the world. In fact, in the United States, Hansen said 1934 was the warmest year, warmer than 1998 by 0.5C, which makes it 0.4C warmer than 2016, the so-called “hottest year evah!”

    The UN IPCC (the official promoters of human-caused climate change) said that the warmth of the 1930’s was mostly caused by natural variation (Mother Nature). In other words, the 1930’s warmth reached those heights with CO2 being an insignificant factor at that time.

    So if Mother Nature can raise the temperatures to a level equal to today’s warmth without the help of CO2 in the 1930’s, then why should we assume that the current warmth, which is no warmer than the 1930’s, is caused by CO2?

    Answer: We shouldn’t assume that CO2 is the cause of current warming when past warming was equal to today’s warming without the benefit of 415ppm of CO2. We should assume that Mother Nature has caused these changes of today, just as She did in the past, until proven otherwise.

    This ought to be a very easy case to make. All you have to do is show the person you want to convince an unmodified, Tmax chart of any region on Earth and it will be easy for them to see that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and that means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, as the alarmists claim, and that means that CAGW is dead, dead, dead.

    Here’s a US unmodified Tmax surface temperature chart. As you can easily see, the 1930’s were warmer than today, and the US is currently in a temperature downtrend not in an uptrend of unprecedented magnitude, as the alarmists claim.

    The Modern-era Hockey Stick charts are the Big Lie (see below), and the only thing alarmists have to show people to back up their claim of unprecedented warming, and the unmodified Tmax charts from all around the world show that the Hockey Stick is a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world.

    Here’s the US chart. You don’t have to use the US chart, any unmodified Tmax chart from around the world will show this same basic temperature profile: That it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. We are not experiencing unprecedented warming. CAGW is not going to happen.

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USHCN-RAW-TMAX-Vs-Year-1919-2019-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Active-In-Both-1919-And-2019-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-USHCN-RAW-TMAX-vs-Year.png

    Just show your students the unmodified, Tmax charts from their region and ask them why is it that all the unmodified Tmax charts show one particular temperature profile, i.e., the 1930’s were just as warm as today, while the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart shows a completely different profile where temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter for decade after decade and we are now experiencing the hottest temperatures in human history.

    The only problem with that is it is all a Big Lie. The Data Manipulators changed the Tmax temperature profile into the fraudulent Hockey Stick profile in order to conform to the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. They made it look like as the CO2 levels go higher, the temperatures go higher. But it’s all a Big Lie.

    Here’s a comparions between the unmodified US temperature chart and the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

    All the unmodified, Tmax charts around the world resemble the US temperature profile (the one on the left), where it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. NONE of the unmodified, Tmax charts from around the world resemble the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

    The Hockey Stick chart is the only ammunition the alarmist have. It’s the only thing they can point to. Destroy the credibilty of the Hockey Stick chart and you destroy CAGW.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    • Hi Tom. I have never seen that Hansen page. I laughed out loud just now.

      However, let me one-up you:

      The point you are making comes alive even with the currently-posted, altered data in both GHCN and USHCN. Like this:

      http://theearthintime.com

      The GHCN-CONUS version is similar. Both show the 35-year period of 1920s 1930s 1940s hotter than the 1975-2012 era. With both GHCN-CONSU and USHCN, the “altered” datapoint count is in the millions. Hansen should have said to himself, “Hmmm. No warming in US, but the world is burning up. There must be something fishy about the world data.” Instead he constructed a miracle of an anomaly. At least he could have added, “This proves once and for all that the United States of America is exceptional!”

      • Didn’t you love Hansen’s lame excuse for why the fraudulent Hockey Stick doesn’t resemble the U.S. surface temperature chart!

        Yes, all the unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world have the same temperature profile as the Hansen 1999 chart, yet the Data Manipulators take all these unmodified charts from around the world and produce a global temperature chart profile that looks completely different from the unmodified (actual temperature readings) charts.

        If *all* the regional surface temperature charts show a similar, specific temperature profile, then *that* is the global temperature profile

        The bogus, bastardized, fraudulent Hockey Stick chart is the equivalent of starting out with a circle (original data) and ending up with a square (a bastardized computer simulation).

  39. David Siegel

    I was a convert from climate alarmism when I recognising something was badly wrong somewhere. That was several years ago. WUWT was principle in that as I made skepticalscience my first port of call, naturally. I found the ‘atmosphere’ on that site aggressive, asking a simple question would provoke an attack with sneering ‘experts’ dealing with queries as though they were challenges. I also found the site unnaturally complete; everything had a neatly packaged answer, no room for doubt, you either accepted their version of science or you are a denier.

    Whilst searching for information I stumbled on WUWT and, whilst fearing the worst (It’s a ‘denier’ site after all) I cautiously began asking questions. Now, I’m not a scientist, nor particularly well educated, in fact I’m a mathematical dunce however, my questions were answered politely and helpfully. It didn’t matter what camp I belonged to, I was never asked, the highly educated and tolerant folks here helped me to think through the subject of climate change myself. They didn’t preach, or condemn, they recognised my limitations, made allowances and treated me as nothing more, or less than I am.

    It’s taken me longer than most to grasp various concepts but I’m getting the hang of it, sans the mathematics.

    What has struck me forceably though, is that there a lot more of ‘me’ out there than there are educated, knowledgeable individuals, and this is extremely important. The scientific arguments have been raging for decades now on the subject of climate change with no sign of agreement. Yet the march to a ‘green future’ somehow progresses.

    Our politicians are in thrall to the green community despite them being in a tiny minority. For example, in the UK we have one solitary Green Member of Parliament (MP). So how does it work that our current, and previous Prime Minister (Boris Johnson and Theresa May respectively) have bought into the hysteria hook line and sinker when it is clear no one in parliament believes in CC.

    Why would they authorise £5bn being spent to refurbish Westminster Palace (which houses parliament) whilst it’s located on the banks of the River Thames, mere feet from it’s high water mark? If sea level is the problem, it’s not convincing that our government utterly ignores it.

    The long and the short of it is that whilst there are possibly less than 10% of the western world who are scientists, everyone (in the Democratic west) has a single vote each irrespective of their qualifications.

    Whilst the sceptic community has been squabbling over the science, the alarmists have captivated the 90% voting public who simply don’t understand science.

    To be quite brutal about it, sceptics need to stop obsessing about the science and get into the real world.

    Votes are what count. Nothing else. One of the sad realities of life.

    You can do all the science you want, but until you appeal to the 90% of tabloid readers, you are on a hiding to nothing.

    • “Whilst the sceptic community has been squabbling over the science, the alarmists have captivated the 90% voting public who simply don’t understand science.”

      The alarmists have some secret weapons: They own the Leftwing Media. And they have a lot of leftwing billionaires spending large sums of money promoting the human-caused climate change cause.

  40. I had much the same journey in 2005. The epiphany came when I did my yearly dinner with my former professors who had first told me about the respiration caused by man made sources in the 80s at college.

    The retired biology professors wanted to talk about CO2 in the context of the ice ages and key problems in the paleobotanical record including about why C4 grasses had evolved and why agriculture began. They had come of age when played tectonics was a fringe idea and were thus open to solving other key problems in earth science.

    I was shocked to hear them say the key question was now about how much CO2 we should target as a global level. They quoted 700 ppm or more. They said the Earth was on a long term trend to become like Mars. Cold and dead. It was Heresy to my ears. Then they ran me through the data from the clean weather stations they knew about. Then sent to to wattsup.

  41. From:

    In my Open letter to the Heartland Institute, I said they are probably causing liberals to raise even more money, because they look down on “liberals” and make fun of “alarmists.”

    To:

    We convert skeptics one at a time, usually after they turn 60, while alarmists enroll millions each year . . .

    And concluding with:

    I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change. We can’t do it forcefully or by calling names. If we truly want to change minds, we should be willing to start with our own.

    Well there’s nothing like opening with a contradiction to convince the thinking man you have something valuable to say.

  42. You, put this last. I would put it first.

    “I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change. We can’t do it forcefully or by calling names. If we truly want to change minds, we should be willing to start with our own.”

    Interesting.
    Apparently we skeptics force people and call them names.
    It’s a given you haven’t visited many skeptic websites and compared them to alarmist websites.
    Instead, you assume many gross assumptions and hold them in your belief system.

    “How do we measure success in helping people understand the climate issue? I don’t think we can measure it by unique visits to WUWT or various videos that many of us know well. But they simply attract the same audience over and over.”

    Which brings up huge questions.
    A) Do you have any clue how many visitors WUWT gets every day!?

    B) “many of us know well”: You lost me. I have no clue what videos you are referring to.

    C) “attract the same audience over and over.”; so much for “unique visits”, now all of us WUWT visitors are the same audience repeating our visits…

    Gross assumption after gross assumption. I get the impression you have not doe detailed homework. Instead, you for ‘Logical Fallacy’ assumptions that form you belief system.

    “I think the only way to measure success is by somehow measuring minds changed. This is a quick announcement of a new video I recently released, my philosophy on how to change minds, and a request from the community to help me with some data science.”

    There it is. As hinted in the first sentences and throughout the article; this is really all about you, not us skeptics.
    Most of the science has been done repeatedly.

    “My name is David Siegel. In 1991, I wrote a book explaining how the greenhouse effect worked and how we have to cut back on CO2 emissions or suffer dire consequences.”
    “… “the science is settled.” That prompted me to revisit the subject, and I was surprised to find that the data didn’t support the “common wisdom” that I had believed for so long. So I started reading papers, blogs, and web sites like WUWT.”

    Tens of thousands can make the same claim; more if you include the other skeptical websites.

    “My goal is to change minds. I don’t think preaching to the choir is useful. I don’t think being smug and using sarcasm helps anyone.”
    “…They keep declaring victory, only to see another billionaire double-down on his commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.”

    There it is agai, skeptics are smug and sarcastic. None of the skeptics ever explain the science in detail or provide solid science.
    Then we declare victory…

    Comments later on the billionaire(s).

    “How old are you? Very few young people discuss or debate about climate change. They simply believe what they are told. They don’t want to learn anything from 60-year-olds.”
    “… I’ve been speaking with people in the oil and airline industries, and they actually believe that they have to put themselves out of business for the sake of the planet.”

    Both of my sons and their extensive group of friends are skeptics.
    All it took was asking for the science. They themselves figured out that alarmists are belief and propaganda.

    My Father was a chemist. i.e. Lead chemist for a major company. One day, he read James Hansen’s book and started ranting about CO₂ dangers.
    That caused a several month discussion where I presented him access to databases, science explanations, CO₂’s limited radiation emission/absorption spectrum and then finally, all of lunatic Hansen’s predictions of doom and timelines.

    I knew I couldn’t lead off with Hansen’s doom predictions because I knew he’d ignore the whole discussion then. After getting him the science and finishing with doom predictions; well that incensed my Father no end.
    In the real world, chemists, well researchers of all stripes, have to produce value for their work.
    My Father knew exactly how much each of his research teams spent for their accomplishments.

    Liars, braggarts and laggards were fired. He was a firm believer in the “If you can’t do, teach” and sent many wastrels towards the teaching world.
    When my Father passed away, he was a firm skeptic without any worry for elevating CO₂.

    I don’t think Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other prominent thinkers are idiots. I respect these people. I don’t think we should make fun of them.”

    And the flip side of that coin is you don’t respect skeptics? That skeptics make fun of rich alarmists?

    &ell, why shouldn’t we? Billionaires waste more money than I will ever earn; and they waste that money of the silliest vanities.
    I do wonder why you accept Bill Gates building a huge house at sea level?

    Not that any of the billionaires you mention are any sort of experts on climate or weather.

    “I want to see a world where the scientific method comes first.”

    Odd, You don’t mention or use the concept of “scientific method” anywhere else…
    Istead, you have personal opinions that you’ve shoved skeptics into and condescendingly treat skeptics according to your beliefs.

    “I don’t think our science should change when a new president is elected.”

    The assumption here is that you are referring to President Trump.
    Which of the Presidents prior to President Trump do you believe had any concept or use for the scientific method?
    People who make to President type leadership positions tend to be bosses who decide issues on ten seconds worth of information, then refuse to revisit the question…
    Exactly what science from which President do you want America to accept? At least the Kennedy’s expected scientists to solidly prove their claims. Otherwise, America would never have made it to the moon.

    “I don’t support liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or religious groups, because I think their platform comes first, before science. Can there not be any liberals who are skeptical of climate alarmist claims?”

    All right you hate us all.

    I was liberal and democrat until Obama. During Obama’s abuse of justice and presidency I leaned Conservative. President Trump now has my backing as both Conservative and Republican.

    I never bought into the CO₂ global warming nonsense. All I had to request was the exact science and research proving CO₂ molecule not only heats up 9,996 atmospheric molecules and unstated massive amounts of surface matter.
    It can’t be done. Not on the scale alarmists believe.

    As an ex-programmer of models, I knew darn well that models do not “predict” squat. People predict! Usually, people predict based upon what they want.

    “Should we take religious skeptics seriously? I would like to see a world where people consider each subject simply on the merits of the available evidence, not on what everyone else believes.”

    Decrying a person’s religion?
    So, you immediate dismiss Galileo, Da Vinci, Darwin and tens of thousands of researchers who practice religions?
    Plus, you immediately dismiss anything a religious observant scientist because you believe they do not adhere to the scientific method?
    That is known as bigotry. All of the intolerance is yours.

    “I recently released a video showing just the data on climate claims. I tried to put it into a format digestible for young people, and I’ve heard from a few young people that it opened their minds. I hope you’ll watch and share it:”

    More all about you. Odd that you believe you are so convincing.

    “I have a request. In my video, I say it would be great if we had a graph of average US historical temperature using only the uncontaminated level 1 and 2 stations from Anthony Watts’ Surfacesations.org project going back to 1900.”

    There is that operative ignorance again.
    Besides wanting others to do the work you imagine is necessary, you display ignorance about what exactly you are requesting.
    When someone doesn’t really understand what they are requesting, I think of Dilbert comics and his “What color do you want that database to be?” question.

    A) Level 1 and Level 2 stations are ranked by their installation according to installation and site requirements.
    Not because they are the best sites for a representative temperature!

    Which is why so many official temperature stations are installed at airports where tens of acres of tarmac couple with jet engines play havoc with temperatures.

    James Hansen went on a massive temperature station purge. Reducing the amount of temperature stations from many thousands to just over a thousand.
    Hansen’s rationale appears to target those stations at higher latitudes, or higher altitudes, or very rural stations in favor of urban and airport locations.

    James Hanse also initiated the adjustment of temperature records and using thermometers/thermistors up to 1,200 kilometers away for that adjustment.

    You should check Steve Moshers web site, Joe D’aleo’s articles or “Wood for Trees”.

    “We convert skeptics one at a time, usually after they turn 60, while alarmists enroll millions each year through text books, television, scary images, scientific journals, and massive public-relations campaigns.”

    “convert skeptics one at a time”? I fail to understand your aside question here. Is that convert to skeptic or from skeptic?

    Generally, when someone “converts” to skeptic, it is because they’ve been following the scientific method and discovered the utter lack of argument for alarmism.
    Not because they believed a skeptic over an alarmist.

    “alarmists enroll millions each year through text books, television, scary images, scientific journals, and massive public-relations campaigns.”; brings us back to those billionaires mentioned earlier.

    Quite a few of those billionaires purchased or built their own propaganda machines.
    Bezos, Murdoch & Sons, and other billionaires purchased news outlets, ruined their hard earned reputations for thoroughness and honesty and converted them to propaganda machines.

    And you, Dave Siegel, expect us unfunded to somehow compete against these propaganda machines, how? Exactly!?

    As every advertising or news official can explain; money buys advertising and some portion of the population accepts that advertising/propaganda as gospel, simply because without obvious truth, lies win, always.

    “I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change. We can’t do it forcefully or by calling names. If we truly want to change minds, we should be willing to start with our own.”

    Again, you infer that skeptics are forceful and call others names?
    Tens of thousands visit WUWT frequently. Few call others by names.
    Unless, you refer to the unteachable trolls who are not here to learn, but to obstruct and distract?

    You need to open your mind and stop projecting your personal opinions and accusations at us skeptics

  43. As of today, 120,366 people have viewed or downloaded my peer-reviewed and published Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections.

    So far 1933 tweets from 1157 users have reached about 2,569,526 people.

    The paper shows that climate model air temperature projections are totally unreliable.

    It shows beyond any rational doubt that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

    In other words, it shows the IPCC literally does not know, and has never known, what it’s talking about.

    All the money misdirected by governments
    all the money absconded by tax troughers,
    all the anguish,
    all the accusations,
    all the excess winter fuel poverty deaths,
    all … all … has been for nothing.

    ________________________ F O R N O T H I N G ____________________

    • “In other words, it shows the IPCC literally does not know, and has never known, what it’s talking about.”

      It amazing how far along this CAGW fraud has gone. It demonstrates the power and influence of the Media/Propaganda combination.

      Although, if you go by the polls, the Media CAGW propaganda effort seems to affect the elites and the political classes more than the general population. For the general population, Human-caused climate change is about the last thing on their list of possible problems.

  44. Can anyone tell me a reference to a mainstream source of ACTUAL temperatures displayed in the media. What I am trying to find is one with the anomaly displayed on the same scale to show it in context as a threat level. The use of anomalies may be justified for a scientific audience but it is the trickery of a low charlatan when dealing with a non specialist audience as they have no idea of the significance or otherwise of the claimed man made changes compared to the level of random input change that exists regardless of emissions.

  45. The null hypothesis in this debate is that because the earth has swung in and out of ice ages for millenia, natural forces control climate, and recent changes in CO2 are irrelevant. The many natural factors were listed by the dozen in Ian Plimer’s 2009 book “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science”.
    To clearly establish that CO2 is relevant, climate scientists have to prove a cause-and-effect relationship relating one factor amongst many, in a complex, chaotic system. The criteria were debated when tobacco and lung cancer was a big issue in the 1950s. The seminal paper at that time was by Bradford Hill https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4291332/
    Even a cursory reading of these sources leads to the conclusion that the null hypothesis still stands.

Comments are closed.