“The Climate Is Changing, And Human Activities Are The Cause”: How, Exactly, Do We Know That?


Francis Menton

“The climate is changing, and we are the cause.” That is a statement that is so often-repeated and affirmed that it goes way beyond mere conventional wisdom. Probably, you encounter some version or another of that statement multiple times per week; maybe dozens of times. Everybody knows that it is true! And to express disagreement with that statement, probably more so than with any other element of current progressive orthodoxy, is a sure way to get yourself labeled a “science denier,” fired from an academic job, or even banished from the internet.

The UN IPCC’s recent Sixth Assessment Report on the climate is chock full of one version after another of the iconic statement, in each instance of course emphasizing that the human-caused climate changes are deleterious and even catastrophic. Examples:

  • Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence); fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence); and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). (Page A.3.5)
  • Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale. (Page A.3.4, Box TS.10)
  • Some recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. (Page A.3.4, Box TX.10)

So, over and over, it’s that we have “high confidence” that human influence is the cause, or that events would have been “extremely unlikely” without human influence. But how, really, do we know that? What is the proof?

This seems to me to be rather an important question. After all, various world leaders are proposing to spend some tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars to undo what are viewed as the most important human influences on the climate (use of fossil fuels). Billions of people are to be kept in, or cast into, energy poverty to appease the climate change gods. Political leaders from every country in the world are about to convene in Scotland to agree to a set of mandates that will transform most everyone’s life. You would think that nobody would even start down this road without definitive proof that we know the cause of the problem and that the proposed solutions are sure to work.

If you address my question — what is the proof? — to the UN, they seem at first glance to have an answer. Their answer is “detection and attribution studies.” These are “scientific” papers that purport to look at evidence and come to the conclusion that the events under examination, whether temperature rise, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, or whatever, have been determined to be “attributed” to human influences. But the reason I put the word “scientific” in quotes is that just because a particular paper appears in a “scientific” journal does not mean that it has followed the scientific method.

The UN IPCC’s latest report, known as “Assessment Report 6” or “AR6,” came out in early August, loaded up, as already noted, with one statement after another about “high confidence” in attribution of climate changes and disasters to human influences. In the couple of months since, a few statisticians who actually know what they are doing have responded. On August 10, right on the heels of the IPCC, Ross McKitrick — an economist and statistician at the University of Guelph in Canada — came out with a paper in Climate Dynamics titled “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment.” On October 22, the Global Warming Policy Foundation then published two Reports on the same topic, the first by McKitrick titled “Suboptimal Fingerprinting?”, and the second by statistician William Briggs titled “How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There.” (Full disclosure: I am on the Board of the American affiliate of the GWPF.).

The three cited papers are of varying degrees of technical difficulty, with McKitrick’s August paper in Climate Dynamics being highly technical and not for the faint of heart. (Although I studied this stuff myself in college, that was 50 years ago, and I can’t claim to follow all of the detail today.). But both the McKitrick and Briggs October papers are accessible to the layman. And in any event, the fundamental flaw of all of the IPCC’s efforts at claimed “attribution” is not difficult to understand. In simple terms, they have assumed the conclusion, and then attempted to bury that fact in a blizzard of highly technical statistical mumbo jumbo.

First, let me express the flaw in my own language; and then I’ll discuss the approaches of the other two authors. Here’s the way I would put it: in real science, causation is established by disproof of a null hypothesis. It follows that the extent to which you may have proved some level of causation depends entirely on the significance of the particular null hypothesis that you have disproved, and the definiteness of your disproof; and it further follows that no proof of causation is ever completely definitive, and your claim of causation could require modification at any time if another null hypothesis emerges that cannot be excluded. The UN’s “attribution” studies universally deal with consideration of null hypotheses that are contrived and meaningless, and whose disproof (even if validly demonstrated) therefore establishes nothing.

Of the three linked papers, Briggs’s is the easiest for a layman to understand, and if you are going to read one of the three, it is the one I would recommend. Here is how Briggs expresses the same concept I have just described:

All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.

In other words, the “attribution” study consists of invalidating a null hypothesis that is itself a counterfactual model with no demonstrated connection to the real world as it would have existed in the absence of human influences. The people who create these counterfactual models can of course build into them any characteristics they want in order that the result of their study will come out to be an “attribution” of the real world data to human influences. Why anyone would give any credence to any of this is beyond me.

By the way, there are hundreds upon hundreds of these “attribution” studies, all following the same useless formula. Could it really be that the hundreds of “scientists” who produce these things are unaware of and/or can’t perceive the fundamental logical flaw?

Ross McKitrick’s August 10 paper is, as noted, highly technical. If you are unfamiliar with the jargon and notation of econometric studies, it may make no sense to you at all. But his October paper for the GWPF puts the main points in terms much more accessible to the layman. I would summarize the main points as follows. The first is that the methodology of these many, many “attribution” studies always goes back to a seminal 1999 paper by Allen and Tett, referred to as AT99. The second is that the AT99 methodology would only be valid in a particular study if it could be demonstrated that a series of conditions for something known as the Gauss-Markov Theorem has been fulfilled. And the third is that the fulfillment of the conditions of the Gauss-Markov Theorem cannot be demonstrated in any of the climate “attribution” studies. Indeed, the climate “attribution” studies make no attempt to identify or deal with this problem. Thus, they are all meaningless.

The final step of the methodology of AT99 that supposedly supports “attribution” is something called the “Residual Consistency Test,” or “RCT.” From McKitrick’s August paper:

AT99 provided no formal null hypothesis of the RCT nor did they prove its asymptotic distribution, making non-rejection against 𝜒2 critical values uninformative for the purpose of model specification testing.

I think that McKitrick is making there basically the same point about meaningless, straw-man null hypotheses that I am making here; but then I can’t claim to fully comprehend all the jargon.

Anyway, when you read, for example, that scientists have demonstrated that the severity of the past year’s hurricane season is due to human greenhouse gas emissions, you may find that you are asking yourself, how could they possibly know that? After all, there is no way they could possibly know how many and how severe the hurricanes would have been absent the GHG emissions. Well, now you know how it is done, They just make up the counterfactual world in order to create a straw man null hypothesis that will get the result they want from the AT99 “attribution” methodology.

Read the full article here.

4.7 34 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 29, 2021 2:07 pm

The Telegraph seems to have succumbed to the hysteria building up with COP26 just round the corner. It is an example of the shameful misuse of statistics.


Curious George
Reply to  StephenP
October 29, 2021 2:56 pm

Right on the head. It is a one-time-only-use document specifically conjured to whip up a hysteria ahead of COP26. It is meant to cause no more than 50 suicides of teenagers.

Last edited 1 year ago by Curious George
Dave Yaussy
October 29, 2021 2:17 pm

Is anyone keeping an annotated list of these sorts of skeptical responses to alarmist allegations? I feel certain someone is, but don’t know where it is for easy reference. There is so much good information on sites like WUWT, Climate, Etc., and it would be helpful to be able to go to and get their solid responses to alarmist claims. See, e.g., Roger Pielke’s recent statements regarding [the lack of] catastrophic weather caused by climate change.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 29, 2021 2:49 pm

I agree would be useful. Sceptical Science has something like that. Regardless of what you think about what they are saying, at least you can guide yourself to the topic you want to look into. WUWT is full of great resources.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Boblo
October 29, 2021 3:08 pm

Go to the WUWT header bar. See the Q to the far right? Click and it opens the WUWT post search tool for most posts going back a decade. Use it wisely.

Reply to  Boblo
October 29, 2021 3:09 pm

The usefulness of such a list is based on sadly naive presupposition that facts actually matter to the alarmist mentality.

You do not need an annotated list of all the knives you are planning of bringing to that particular gun fight. Just buy a gun.

Reply to  Greg
October 29, 2021 4:19 pm

Normally, we aren’t trying to convince the alarmists. What usually happens is that somebody asks us to explain why we are skeptics. In that case we have to be able to come up with the science.

We have to be able to accurately describe the alarmist position and tell people why it’s wrong. Then we have to be able to answer folks’ questions. Very often, if you give the big picture answer to a question, people won’t have the background to understand it, and they’ll accuse you of hand waving.

I suggest a Socratic approach where you become the one asking the questions. If nothing else, it lets you quickly understand the student’s background and you can tailor your discussion to that.

Reply to  commieBob
October 30, 2021 9:40 am

A good place to start is with one of the only verifiable metrics : tide gauges and sea level rise . Even that’s an uphill battle against the sciency satellites

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 29, 2021 3:06 pm

Yes. I have been since 2011. Mentally. And writing many simplified versions here and at CE. You can search my many posts here to create your own list. See a relevant example in my comment below. At some point, you have to put in the work yourselfon the basics if you want to learn, rather than regurgitate others. Else you won’t know if I am reliable, a troll, or a BSer.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 30, 2021 5:15 pm

I wrote a law review article in 2014 on the subject of the global warming scare. I’ve written for several publications since then. I helped put together a debate that both Judith Curry and Michael Mann appeared at. I believe I have put my work in. Even so, it is helpful to have somewhere to go to to quickly find that important datum or article that supports your point.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 31, 2021 12:16 pm

I believe I have put my work in.”

I believe you’ve misinterpreted Istvan’s statement.

Rud, is referring to the specifics regarding mathematics, statistics, research, studies on that research, Whether the research is validated and in use by commercial interests, research replications, formulae used, formulae verified, Logic of the assumptions, etc. etc.

Rud, has established himself as an expert on a number of topics, published here and elsewhere. Each with intensive deep dives into history, data, data collection and all metadata, mathematics, statistics, research, etc.

As such, Rud, advised you where to find the information for which you asked. Yet, somehow you apparently expect someone else to do the hard work of tracking all research, keeping cross referenced lists, updating all links; all while making the lists and research available 24/7 online.

Is anyone keeping an annotated list of these sorts of skeptical responses to alarmist allegations? I feel certain someone is, but don’t know where it is for easy reference.”

Or, are you volunteering to develop such a list?
A list where usage is generally the sole appreciation.

John Garrett
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 29, 2021 6:32 pm
Barry James
October 29, 2021 2:20 pm

The last “definitive, scientific” claim that I remember the Climate Mafia making was that they had eliminated all other possible causes. Our use of fossil fuels is the only one left so it must be that. All of their “scientific” modelling uses that premise as their starting point so it’s not surprising that they can’t produce one model that’s worth a pinch of faeces.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Barry James
October 30, 2021 12:01 am

Golden Rule No1. whatever it is, it cannot possibly be of natural origin, therefore it must be Human caused!!! See, easy peasy!!! 😉

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Barry James
October 30, 2021 2:45 am

Of I think 16 publications on the sun’s effects on climate, only two of them rated the sun’s effect as non-significant. Only those two were selected by the IPCC for their first report. Is that what they call “eliminated all other possible causes” ? The recent “elimination” of the past warm periods to give rebirth to an even worse hockey stick also goes along those lines.

Reply to  Barry James
October 30, 2021 9:24 am

I guess in their in depth studies they, somehow, overlooked the specific heat of water; the solubility of CO2; that the Earth is 3/5ths covered with water; the polarity of water molecules; Earth’s magnetic field; Solar radiation; and EMP flux lines over Earth….which only, of course, leaves man-made causes…got it….

Reply to  Barry James
October 30, 2021 6:23 pm

These guys believe they have something like the laws of electromagnetism but for climate, and any measurable deviation is evidence of … something. For climate, they have the laws of … Nostradamus!

Reply to  niceguy
October 30, 2021 11:09 pm

I haven’t seen any new sustainable entries in the Quatrains Weekly Report in quite some time.

Pat Frank
October 29, 2021 2:25 pm

But how, really, do we know that?

We don’t.

I have communicated that linked paper to the IPCC through their official error-reporting protocol. By email followed by hard-copy. Their obligated response time is 2 months. After nearly 5 months, their reply remains silence.

As you’re on the Board of the American affiliate of the GWPF, you may know that I communicated that paper to the GWPF as well. Their response has likewise been silence. And they never refer to it in their jousts with believers. One can only wonder why.

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value. Their air temperature projections are physically meaningless.

Climate models are useless for detection, attribution, or prediction of the impact, if any, of CO2 emissions on the climate.

The IPCC does not know what it’s talking about.

That is a physically correct statement. It is not the pdf of some meta-science statistical appraisal.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pat Frank
David Dibbell
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 29, 2021 2:52 pm

Pat Frank, glad to see your comment here. It is greatly appreciated that you remain tenacious on this point. Please keep on, no matter how long it takes for folks who should know better to own up and to speak up.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Dibbell
Pat Frank
Reply to  David Dibbell
October 29, 2021 5:51 pm

Thanks, David. Your encouragement is appreciated.

Reply to  Pat Frank
October 29, 2021 3:35 pm

You shoulda’ read the IPCC protocol, Dr. Frank.

” It must also not be invoked to reflect a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information presented in the assessment.”


If they had to yell back at every one of the Old Men Yelling At Clouds about their various bizarro worlds of statistical analyses, they would have no resources left for real error evaluations.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 29, 2021 4:45 pm

” It must also not be invoked to reflect a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information presented in the assessment.”

Ha ha!

In other words, the IPCC will listen to you only if you don’t challenge their existing pre-ordained conclusions. Science? I don’t think so.

We need to defund the IPCC, and the UN as a whole while we’re at it.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 30, 2021 12:09 am

I fear it may be too late for that. Their goal is for a one-world globul guvment with a bunch of self-serving, self-appointed, un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, & un-sackable, useless bureaucrats on the global taxpayers payroll!!! Well, when I say global taxpayers, I meant every taxpayer in the free democratic West!!! It’s a classic Socialist wealth transfer programme with typically no safeguards or verification systems in place. The main reason why these jamborees fail each time is because the recipients of this wealth transfer don’t want to enter into any form of verification programme whereby the Western world won’t know where its loot is being stashed away!!! You put money on the table corruption will be involved somewhere down the line!!!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 30, 2021 1:06 am

Their goal is for a one-world globul guvment with a bunch of self-serving, self-appointed, un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, & un-sackable, useless bureaucrats on the global taxpayers payroll!!!

Yeah, I agree, the EU is a basket case.

Oh, sorry, you were referring to to UN. It’s difficult to differentiate…

Pat Frank
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 29, 2021 5:57 pm

Wrong again, bob. My report to the IPCC does not invoke new knowledge. It invokes critical regard of their own purported knowledge.

I used their own published knowledge, as they published it, to show the IPCC that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

In that light, one can understand their attraction for your regard.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 30, 2021 12:27 am

You brave man, telling them they don’t know what they’re talking about!!! Scientifically I agree, they don’t, but politically they know exactly what they’re talking about, they just use scientific sounding language to make we plebs think they know what they’re talking about!!! I learnt many years ago that a computer & it’s associated programmes are simply a tool to do a job, BUT, they are not infallible & are open to misuse & abuse!!! Think Agenda 21, dumbing down of the education systems around the world!!! The globalists want precisely this, but dumbing down is not for the wealthy ruling intellectual elites’ children. I think I mentioned this a while ago, but throughout the EU there are/were around 13 or so European schools, created to educate the next generation of EU bureaucrats because the vast majority of pupils/students were/are the offspring of said bureaucrats!!! The UK’s EU school was/is based at Culham in Oxfordshire costing a small fortune to send the offspring there at taxpayers expense naturally!!! The circle is almost complete!!!

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 30, 2021 3:04 am

Thank you Allan! In Switzerland we were asked to reform the education system or rather to homogenize it so that vacation days and the education programs between the different cantons are compatible. Of course, the people voted yes. Then the left took that as a mandate to completely reform the education system (which is NOT what we voted for). And do you know what this was called? Lehrplan 21 ! Your comment helped me to realize that this was not only Switzerland, but that it was a globally coordinated assault on the education systems.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 31, 2021 2:30 pm

Soros at work.
He’ll have seeded corrupt lawyers throughout your legal system too.

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 29, 2021 5:57 pm

BoB, even the UNFCCC and the IPCC admit that their charter is a foregone conclusion in search of supportive rationale.

Of course their existential premise is non-negotiable as far as questions / challenges are concerned.

This is their interpretation of the Scientific Method –

Last edited 1 year ago by Mr.
Reply to  Mr.
October 30, 2021 6:24 am

I have learned that the “modern” definition of the “the science” is the OPINION of those “experts” who follow our narrative. All other “experts” are deniers.

Prove me wrong.

Nullius in verba.

Reply to  George Daddis
October 31, 2021 2:36 pm

“modern” definition of the “the science” is the OPINION”

Opinion is not science.
Your attempt to reverse the null argument and disquise foolish alarmist beliefs as a current standard is not science anything. Just a silly belief.

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 29, 2021 7:03 pm

So even if that dissent was correct, you can’t consider it?

Reply to  LdB
October 30, 2021 6:35 am

“So even if that dissent was correct, you can’t consider it?”

Not in the error section. They were very clear on that. Rather, if Dr. Frank’s alt.stats had had any above ground impact, then they would have been adopted over 10 years ago when he first started pimping them. But instead, they were repeatedly, technically, refuted, over and over, in superterranea, and even, mostly, below ground, here.

The IPCC has no obligation to repeatedly pig fight with badly wired Dr. Evil conspiracy theorists who can’t calculate the chances that the almost all* credible respondents who have poked fatal holes in his paper, are collusively packing up together to keep him under double secret probation.

Dr. Frank is lucky to to be tucked in to a tax paid sinecure with a DOE contractor – one who has probably held that contract forever, no less. To fully understand their tolerance for mediocrity and eccentricity, you just need to know that the fire for cause rate at the DOE is less then 0.0001*yr-1. Have you ever had it so good?

  • Yes, every new advance and finding had to start somewhere. Our current understanding of AGW is a good example. The forcings were first postulated, and then validated from decades of observations, and the case by case elimination of any other cause for the rapid climactic changes. It’s acceptance has INCREASED over time, per round earth and Piltdown man refutation. OTOH, AGW denialism has steadily shrunk, as it becomes sillier and more incredible by the year. This in spite of continued industry funding, and the fact that any those posing any credible alternative would be knocked unconscious with the gold bars being thrown at them.

My fav expressions of this are Mr. Middleton’s periodic whines that this or that org that he used to belove and belong to is now abandoning him. Yes, they are…. 

Last edited 1 year ago by bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 30, 2021 8:18 am

Sorry folks. My gov’t fire data is dated from the early ’90’s. The gov’t has been doing a much better job lately. They are up to over 1/1000/year. Just like your employer, right…..

Pat Frank
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 30, 2021 10:25 am

bob: “Rather, if Dr. Frank’s alt.stats had had any above ground impact, then they would have been adopted over 10 years ago …

And admit they have nothing to say? And volunteer to forego their further money flow? And demonstrate integrity? Fat Chance.

… when he first started pimping them.

You’ve a natural talent for ugly phraseology, bob.

bob: “But instead, they were repeatedly, technically, refuted, over and over, in superterranea, and even, mostly, below ground, here.”

I’d call that a lie, except that you haven’t the analytical skill to understand your own claim.

Granting that charity categorizes you with the IPCC as not knowing what you’re talking about. Malign ignorance is incurable, alas.

Your champions of refutation don’t grasp even the distinction between precision and accuracy. That level of ignorance consigns them to middle-school standing; perhaps accounting for your fond affinity.

The IPCC has no obligation to repeatedly pig fight …

An appropriate allusion to the IPCC.

…credible respondents who have poked fatal holes in his paper,

Credible only to you, bob — Mr. Analytical Ignorance.

Your heroes have invariably failed. That you continue disgorging their wrongheadedness merely re-embarrasses them, discredits you, and adds a local stink to the WUWT comment section.

… a tax paid sinecure …

With several lay-offs, all of which I survived.

… their tolerance for mediocrity and eccentricity,…

My latest paper. My long-time collaborator, Maurizio Benfatto, is a theoretical physicist. He doesn’t share your opinion. Maurizio knows my work. You don’t.

The Supporting Information of this paper has an assessment of systematic errors in X-ray absorption spectra. Free download. Given your low opinion of my ability at physical error analysis, there’s your chance to show my incompetence. Have at it.

You don’t even understand the work you’re criticizing, bob. You’re clueless. All you’ve got is your bile. And your sycophantic regard for Nick Stokes. Let’s not forget that.

Typically, opprobrious personal attacks such as yours indicate a rejected inner realization of offense. Weak personalities divert inner fault into external abuse.

… 0.0001*yr-1.

Those you admire deny the existence of a per-year denominator.

The forcings were … validated from decades of observations,…

Observations of a climate indistinguishable from unperturbed and ever within natural variation.

…case by case elimination of any other cause for the rapid climactic changes.

Using error-ridden temperature measurements, subjectivist narratives decorated with mathematics (climate models), and physically indeterminate bio- and geochemical time series.

All feverishly misapplied to a modestly warming climate.

Yup — you’ve got it nailed, bob. Pathology on parade.

It’s acceptance has INCREASED over time…

Which, of course, is the sine qua non of demonstration in science pseudo-science.

…AGW denialism …

Doesn’t exist. AGW chicken-littleism does, however. One of two major neuropandemics plaguing modern society.

The other is progressivism. One surmises you to suffer acutely from both, bob.

…continued industry funding…

A standard canard that cannot produce stubs of the payment checks.

Great rant, bob — exemplifying the bitter frustration of an inadequate performer. All opprobrium, no substance.

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 30, 2021 6:11 pm

Hey BOB, who will pay to decommission all the solar and wind crap.

Asked and unanswered I am sure.

Reply to  Drake
October 30, 2021 7:14 pm

IMO, the installers. They should be responsible for their asset retirement obligations, just as the fossil fuelers are – in theory.

But costs will be MUCH lower. It’s all above ground. The big whine is about turbine blades, which are mostly silica (sand) and can be hauled away and buried, on land or at sea. No significant site contamination, and – the big hitter – the sites are, by definition, the best available, and farmers will be collecting rents on them for centuries, as new generations of improved designs are installed.

FYI, just in the CONUS + Ak + offshore, there are 11-12 figures worth of unfunded fossil fuel asset retirement obligations. It’s not a secret, just conveniently ignored. A nice present for your kids…


Reply to  bigoilbob
October 30, 2021 1:04 am

Lol…government SCIENCE 😉

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 30, 2021 6:35 am


No one (old, young, man, woman, whatever) would have to yell at clouds if the IPCC and their modeling enablers got clouds (or any other climate attribute) to agree with actual data in the first place.

Reply to  Pat Frank
October 29, 2021 3:46 pm

Sadly, no one seems to do error propagation any more…

Reply to  Ebor
October 29, 2021 4:58 pm

Certainly, not correctly.

Reply to  Ebor
October 29, 2021 6:20 pm

It doesn’t allow pseudoscientists their 15 minutes of fame in the media, so it has been dropped…along with error range, and significant digits.

Reply to  Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 2:20 pm

“a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.”

Great statement, Pat Frank!

WUWT visitors have discussed alarmist failures to identify every possible error, include and track resulting error bounds while they pretend the “errors cancel out”.

Coupled to alarmist’s foolhardy assumption are the failures:
To test and verify their climate models using comprehensive data test decks.
To seek certification for their entire suite of models.
To treat temperature data as unique instances of data that are seriously harmed when adjusted/infilled.

Basically, climate prognostications by government sources aren’t worth one of the electrons wasted on them.

Last edited 1 year ago by ATheoK
October 29, 2021 2:25 pm

If global warming is causing extreme events to increase, why aren’t extreme events increasing?

Reply to  MarkW
October 29, 2021 4:01 pm

Those extreme events are being caused by folks like AOC and Greta.

Reply to  John Shewchuk
October 30, 2021 1:06 am

And BigOilBob

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
October 29, 2021 6:19 pm

Mark, they rely on the fact that somewhere on the the earth a local record is being broken and they go to these and make a big deal about it. They tend to miss most of the new cold records!

If you check back, you see these areas ignored if they’ve become cooler. ~15 yrs ago, the snow on Kilimanjaro was receeding quickly. Several years later and to the present, the snow is back to its historical coverage.

The sahel (arid grassland strip south of Sahara) was in severe drought and ‘scientists’ said it was global warming and it would become uninhabitable. Actually Lake Chad was shrinking severely. Today, the lake has filled up and withered fertilizing effect of higher C02 it is greening the sahel. Today nobody talks about it.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 29, 2021 6:22 pm

dang spell helper. NOT withered- but ‘with the’

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 30, 2021 12:48 am

Used to get the same thing with my mobile around 15 years ago as I had apparently switched auto-text on, it took my (then) 17 year old daughter to correct it, accompanied by the expression, “Oh Dad!!!!” I felt very humbled when my children explain the technology to me, I used to think a phone was for making & receiving telephone calls!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 30, 2021 6:27 am

“..I used to think a phone was for making & receiving telephone calls!!!”
Imagine our surprise at Eastman Kodak!

Reply to  MarkW
October 29, 2021 6:31 pm

The formula is

Increase in Events=Increase in Media stories MINUS stated news stories attributed to other Media outlets.

The invention of CNN, AlJazeera and other media outlets has caused an increase in recorded extreme events amongst those who use the media to record worldwide events. Which is everybody.

So extreme events will likely increase as long as the number of media outlets increase….

Alan the Brit
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2021 12:43 am

You must remember it’s the voices in their collective heads telling them these events are happening!!! AtB 😉

Joao Martins
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2021 3:15 am

If global warming is causing extreme events to increase, why aren’t extreme events increasing?

They are increasing! You must count them using an alternative arithmetic! For some time I am trying to understand it: it introduces a new prior operation that classifies events as “countable” and “not countable”.

October 29, 2021 2:26 pm

Good post. Notice that the alarmists never say how much “humans” have altered the global temperature. To do so would expose their fraudulent agenda, which of course is all based on the source fraudulent document — the EPA Endangerment Finding.

James Beaver
Reply to  John Shewchuk
October 29, 2021 3:16 pm

The IPCC’s entire charter is to show that humans are causing climate change.
Vast sums and many thousands of jobs depend on that finding.

You can’t persuade someone to change their opinion about this when their job depends on them not accepting your verifiable facts and reasoned arguements.

For the hoi polloi, Climate Change is their adopted religion. … and they are fanatical about.

Reply to  James Beaver
October 29, 2021 10:18 pm

Wrong Beaver: If you study it carefully it is worse than you say: The IPCC’s entire charter is to show what effect human caused climate change is having.and advise government on the appropriate actions.
Questioning whether or not humans are causing climate change is simply not part of its remit.

Cf ‘Assumptive close’

Last edited 1 year ago by Leo Smith
October 29, 2021 2:31 pm

“Because everyone says so” is proof of nothing but ‘everyone’ believing the same thing. Like the earth being flat in 500 BC.

Reply to  markl
October 29, 2021 3:16 pm

The idea that the Earth is flat is slightly more convincing than the idea that CO2 is the control knob of the climate.

CO2 controlling climate is the flat-Earth version of thermodynamics.

Any and all climate variables are reduces to a straight line “trend”. This in then determined by spurious correlation with the natural logarithm of CO2 concentration to be caused by human industrial emissions.

Then massive resources are spent trying to explain the residual wiggles as the result of everything else we barely understand about climate.

Listening to someone trying to explain the total failure of climate models to even match the recorded observational data is like listening to a flat-earther explain how you can believe you have flown around the world but in fact its just a circular path on a flat disc surounded by a wall of ice.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg
Reply to  markl
October 29, 2021 6:00 pm

Earth flat in 500 BC ?

No mate, the only question was how big it was and Eratosthenes sorted that in 240 BC.

However for most people, then as now, it wasn’t a problem of daily life.
If you think that Antarctica forms an edge around the outer rim of the disc, well and good.
There’s a map to prove it so…https://www.abebooks.com/Map-World-Plane-Flat-Earth-David/20793253718/bd#&gid=1&pid=1

It’s not going to influence your choice between buying some of Gwyneth Paltrow’s latest cosmetic or going for a a chai latte.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  markl
October 30, 2021 12:57 am

I always love being called a “flat-Earther”, because the engineer in makes me reply, of course the Earth is flat, except where there are hills & mountains, but everywhere else it’s flat!!!

Tom Gelsthorpe
October 29, 2021 2:39 pm

As long as you “believe the science” or believe in computer models, or believe in something, cause and effect is whatever some quack says it is.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
October 29, 2021 9:46 pm

Hypothesis testing does NOT, repeat NOT, prove causation. It may reveal correlation, statistically, but not causation. Cause is a much more complex thing.

That being said, testing hypotheses with imaginary models reveals absolutely nothing about the real world. Zip, nada, the empty set. And close inspection by McKitrick demonstrates that the those doing the imaginary comparisons didn’t even get the math right.

October 29, 2021 2:42 pm

There is nothing that happened in the past 35 years that comes even close to the climate catastrophies that happened from 1921 with the floods in china till the start of the dustbowl dustbowl.

And if we take the first 35 years of the last century ,starting with the Galveston hurricane 1900,
the global drought from 1911 and so many smaller events which are nowadays forgotten
as they were too irrelevant but would have been sold these days as absolute catastrophie if theyd happen now ,
than it is save to say that todays climate is supersoft and the best mankind has experienced in centuries.
But as AGW is religion that shall replace all other religions incl. the concept of original sin (guilt as brainwashing tool )and indulgencies (save your soul by paying carbon taxes)
and perpetual mantras (peace be upon him)
we are all forced to pretend that the current climate is hell on earth and will only get worse if we don’t listen to the upper class of high priests in the new classless atheist society.

Reply to  SxyxS
October 29, 2021 8:28 pm

Carbon credits, emissions trading, more examples of crony capitalism based on the climate hoax.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dennis
October 30, 2021 3:18 am

Yes, those were the REAL catastrophies! And they were anthropogenic!

Last edited 1 year ago by Joao Martins
Steve Case
October 29, 2021 2:49 pm

We are being told that a warmer world with longer growing seasons, more rain, more arable land and increased agricultural production due in no small way to more CO2 in the air is a looming disaster. Really? A warmer greener world is bad?

There has been about a degree of warming, and most of it is in the winter and at night. Most of the claims of things caused by climate change has occurred in the past or like sea level rise have been occurring right along, or not happening at all like the polar bears becoming extinct.  

We have been systematically lied to for a long time. 

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2021 1:08 am

Apparently satellite data since 1979 has shown that the Earth is greener today than it was back then, deserts are shrinking, crop yields increasing as has already been said, where’s the disaster/catastrophe/breakdown/emergency/crisis in the climate?

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 30, 2021 7:05 am

Well sir,that is the desaster .
A greener planet + more food = global population increase.
that’s the ultimate desaster for Malthusians.

Chris Hanley
October 29, 2021 2:51 pm

… when you read, for example, that scientists have demonstrated that the severity of the past year’s hurricane season is due to human greenhouse gas emissions …

They are ‘begging the question’ rather:
“… when you read, for example, that scientists have demonstrated that the severity of the past year’s hurricane season is due to human greenhouse gas emissions a post-industrialization purported GAT increase of ~1C …”.
There is an alternative counterfactual: instead of overall warming, if the global climate had continued to cool after ~1880 no doubt there would have been an increase in extreme weather events but probably of a different kind.
It follows that the global climate in ~1880 was the best of all possible global climates 😉.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Hanley
Joao Martins
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 30, 2021 3:23 am


Open the natural gas tap, please, because the clime is so good that we are shivering with cold!

Last edited 1 year ago by Joao Martins
Rud Istvan
October 29, 2021 2:58 pm

Human caused CO2 increase as the AGW (aka now climate change since the expected warming never showed up) is a speculation known as the ‘attribution’ or ‘fingerprint’ problem.

There are two macro ways to address the warmunist anthropogenic belief without getting into the data weeds.

First, there was a medieval warm period followed by an LIA. We know the former from Vikings in Greenland and the latter from Thames Ice Fairs. The counterargument that these examples were not global fails using more complicated other region and Southern Hemisphere paleoproxy data, but most warmunists do not even think of that possible counter. This general fact is why Mann was so eager to erase the MWP and LIA in the handle of his hockey stick.

Second, there is the SPM to AR4, wherein Figure 4 showed the rise in T from about 1920-1945 was equivalent to the rise from about 1975-2000, yet claimed the later was anthropogenic based on model forcings. Their logic was backwards. The rise in the two periods is equivalent (visually and statistically indistinguishable), but they said the former could not have been AGW; not enough Delta CO2. So the latter period could have been mostly natural also, the opposite of what IPCC AR4 claimed. I have posted this observation here twice before in separate comments with much more detail—visuals and references.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 29, 2021 5:04 pm

The CO2 level in 1960 was 3/100th of one percent of the Atmosphere and in 2020 it was 4/100th of one percent of the atmosphere, an increase of only 1/100th of one percent of the atmosphere in sixty years. Human activity contributed only 1/20th or less of the increased CO2 level. This makes a drop in the bucket seem huge in comparison.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Bill Everett
October 30, 2021 1:14 am

A 1.1°C over 150 years = 1/7000th of a degree per year!!! Not worth the sweat!!! Nobody but perhaps an Inuit would notice a change of 1.1°C!!!

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 29, 2021 5:06 pm

Absolutely correct. These simple and straightforward examples of T changes, one of which MUST be “natural” and the other is claimed to be “man-made” destroys the AGW hypothesis. It defies logic to argue otherwise.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  DrEd
October 29, 2021 5:24 pm

Not necessarily, it is more or less accepted that an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, all else being equal, will result in an increase in the GAT of ~1C per doubling of that concentration.
Therefore increasing CO2 is a sufficient cause of GAT increase but not a necessary cause.
Assuming that because the GAT can fluctuate due to other factors at other times doesn’t rule out the possibility that CO2 is probably a factor in the post 1945 warming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Hanley
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 29, 2021 6:51 pm

Not probably. Maybe. CO2 may be net cooling the atmosphere.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 29, 2021 10:33 pm

yes, BUT….

…in order for any future projections of disaster to be real. CO2 has to be the dominant cause of amplified climate change.

it would be a strange perversion of traditional science that would claim that CO2 has absolutely zero influence on global climate, when a butterfly flapping its wings can.

As per usual we have the problem of the Boolean ArtStudent™ Mind.

Boolean Art Student: Does CO2 affect climate?. Yes.
Analogue Engineer: Does CO2 affect climate in any important way? No.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 30, 2021 2:11 am

Its a reasonable pragmatic principle, as a working hypothesis, that same effect observed is probably attributable to the same cause.

The logical problem faced by the alarmists is that we have repeated episodes of warming which aren’t distinguishable by scale, duration, intensity. They are the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm, the LIA, the modern warmings of the early part of the last century and the later part of the last century.

So, you are trying to justify the hypothesis that the last episode was due mainly to something that we know was not a cause of the previous ones, because we know it was not present: human CO2 emissions.

It is logically possible that the present episode, though looking identical in all measurable parameters, was caused by something different. But it requires very strong evidence, and probably also requires an account of what caused the earlier episodes, and some proof that its not present as a cause of this one.

Its a bit like illness. Imagine for instance that we have waves of cholera in an undeveloped country. We can identity half a dozen of them over the centuries. There is a recent outbreak.

We attribute this outbreak to (for instance) increased literacy. Or less infant mortality. Whatever. We know there was not increased literacy in any of the previous ones, so they had some other cause, but we do not know or even speculate what it was.

You can imagine the same situation in farming, good and bad harvests, for instance. We claim that the latest bad harvest has a cause which we know not to have been present in any other episodes.

This is essentially unscientific in approach. You can only make it plausible either by the Argument from Ignorance or by begging the question, assuming what is being proved.

The Argument from Ignorance also fails because of lack of knowledge about what caused the earlier episodes. If you say, about the present warming, we can’t think of any other cause, that is fallacious. But if you also say that while saying that we don’t know what caused the other episodes, it is doubly fallacious. There’s a double dose of ignorance in the argument!

Hence the desperate attempts to deny RWP and MWP, and to hide the warming of the early 20C. They destroy the logic of the argument, all the more when we can’t explain them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michel
October 30, 2021 4:25 am

“It is logically possible that the present episode, though looking identical in all measurable parameters, was caused by something different. But it requires very strong evidence, and probably also requires an account of what caused the earlier episodes, and some proof that its not present as a cause of this one.”

At a minimum, this is what is required. And we don’t have anything close to this in climate science.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 30, 2021 6:12 am

Tom Abbott,

YES! Please see my reply to Rud Istvan above.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 31, 2021 4:28 am

I always pay attention to your posts, Richard. 🙂

Jim Ross
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 31, 2021 5:04 am

I agree. I wonder if Michel’s reference to “all measurable parameters” includes the 13C/12C ratio of the additional atmospheric CO2 over both periods. This is one possible fingerprint of the source(s) and the available evidence says it was identical (at -13 per mil in δ13C terms). It is hard to see how that is compatible with an increasing influence from anthropogenic emissions in the latter period, estimated to have a 13C/12C ratio of -28 per mil.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 30, 2021 8:40 am

An increase of atmospheric CO2 of 1/100th of one percent over sixty years (1960-2020) isn’t going to influence anything.

Reply to  Bill Everett
October 30, 2021 5:47 pm

not even plant growth?

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 31, 2021 6:14 am

an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, all else being equal, will result in an increase in the GAT of ~1C per doubling of that concentration”

I’ve only ever seen convincing calculations of this kind done for a cloud-free atmosphere. Unfortunately, cloud free skies only account for ~1/3 of the Earth’s surface. Calculations for the other 2/3 of cloudy skies is clearly immensely complex – and Vahrenholt’s recent analysis of the CERES data shows that things are very different in the areas of cloudy skies.

Moreover, even the clear skies calculations only apply where there is no significant temperature inversion in the atmosphere. The large area of Antartica is a classic case of a major and long-lived temperature inversion – and it is possibly this physical fact that leads to Antartica having essentially zero warming over the period for which we have reliable measurements.

Following from these facts, I doubt that we can put any reliance on the calculation of “~1C per doubling of CO2”. Put very simply, it’s much more complex than that.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  DrEd
October 29, 2021 5:36 pm

However the fact that the rate ~1910 – 1945 is almost identical to the rate 1980 -2015 does negate the IPCC’s claim that the post 1945 warming rate is historically unique.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Hanley
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 29, 2021 7:00 pm

Yes, the rate of warming for both periods was equal, and if you go by an honest temperature chart, the high temperatures of the 1930’s were just as warm as today.

So, equal magnitude of warming, and both periods warmed up to the same degree of warmth. The IPCC says in the earlier period CO2 was not a major factor in the warming.

If the temperatures warmed at the same rate and to the same high temperatures, then both periods could have warmed for the same reason the earlier period warmed, when Mother Nature was assumed to be dominant in the warming.

It would be plain to see if the official instrumet-era temperature record had not been bastardized to minimize the temperatures in the past, and make things appear as though we are living in the hottest times in human history.

But history, and the written temperature records show us it was just as warm in the recent past, so CO2 is not much of an influence on temperatures if there is more of it in the atmosphere now, but it is no warmer now than in the recent past.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 29, 2021 8:33 pm

The hypothesis proposes that an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, all else equal, will directly cause ~1C increase in the global average temperature, it does not say CO2 is or can be the only temperature ‘forcing factor’.
There may be good logical arguments against the hypothesis that increasing GHGs cause increasing GAT or that CO2 is not a GHG or that human emissions did not contribute to the measured increase in the CO2 concentration, but the fact that the temperature trend before human emissions were significant was the same as after (about 1945) is not one of them.
None of that implies that human CO2 emissions are totally responsible for the post-1945 warming or on balance harmful let alone must be curtailed at all costs, besides it is increasingly obvious that is impossible and will not happen.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 30, 2021 1:14 am

What caused the warming in the 30’s?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
October 30, 2021 4:33 am


The IPCC says it wasn’t CO2, or at least that CO2 had much less of an effect during the 1930’s, since there was much less of it in the atmosphere at the time.

So something else other than CO2 caused most of the warming from 1910 to 1940. It wasn’t human-derived CO2, so the only other option for being the cause is Mother Nature.

Alarmists want us to think Mother Nature has gone on vacation during the modern warming era (1980 to present) and CO2 has taken over Her job.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 30, 2021 6:04 am

Rud Istvan,

You rightly say,
Second, there is the SPM to AR4, wherein Figure 4 showed the rise in T from about 1920-1945 was equivalent to the rise from about 1975-2000, yet claimed the later was anthropogenic based on model forcings. Their logic was backwards. The rise in the two periods is equivalent (visually and statistically indistinguishable), but they said the former could not have been AGW; not enough Delta CO2.”

I agree but with respect I think you present the matter in a complicated manner. I submit it is more easily conveyed like this.

The estimates of global temperature (GISS, Jones, et al, etc.) all show show most of the measured global warming happened before 1940, but 80% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were after that. Indeed, the start of a global cooling period coincided with the start of the major GHG emissions. 

Advocates of man-made global warming excuse this problem by attributing

(a) almost all the global temperature rise before 1940 to be an effect of the Sun,

(b) the global cooling from 1940 to 1970 to be an effect of human emissions of aerosols, and

(c) the global warming after 1970 to be an effect of human emissions of greenhouse gases, and saying

(d) the time after 1998 is a period of containing record hot temperatures (although it has no significant warming trend).

Evidence is lacking for this convoluted story to excuse the disagreement of the emissions with the temperature history.


October 29, 2021 2:59 pm

The 1982 observational study of global CO2 termite emissions is here: Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563. Termites emit 10 times the amount of CO2 that humans do.

There are 8.7 million species living in the earths biosphere and all of them emit CO2. Spending all research dollars only on human emissions and claiming “settled science” is the epitome of hubris.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Doonman
October 29, 2021 4:56 pm

In the far tropical North of Australia, there are about 10,000 termite mounds per square km. Many of these are 5m tall.

The sheer mass of termites completely dwarfs humans.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 29, 2021 5:47 pm

ZZW: The sheer mass of termites completely dwarfs humans.”

Shhh…. Let’s not give the termites any ideas, eh?

Mum’s the word.

Reply to  H.R.
October 30, 2021 7:13 am

Maybe termites already got the idea and created the climate movement to achieve their goals as the behavioal patterns of the woke already mimic insinse

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 29, 2021 6:08 pm

If we can get rid of those pesky termites Australia is well on the way to meeting and exceeding its Paris, Glasgow, Sharm El Sheikh, somewhere yet to be announced emissions targets.

J Mac
October 29, 2021 3:02 pm

“Oh we got Trouble. Right here in River City! It starts with T and that rhymes with CC and that spells Climate Change! Yes we got Trouble!”

Time for a remake of the Music Man?

Last edited 1 year ago by J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
October 29, 2021 4:03 pm

I just so happens that I’m working on that.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Shewchuk
M Courtney
October 29, 2021 3:21 pm

The IPCC uses the same logic for attributing temperature rise to CO2 emissions too. They used to use the hockeystick (back in AR3) but that turned out to be junk science so they retreated to this argument:

A) We ran our models without including the effect of CO2 emissions and they didn’t match reality.
B) We ran our models with including the effect of CO2 emissions and they did match reality.
C) We can’t think of any other factors being involved so everything is explained by CO2.

The failings here aren’t just that the effect of CO2 is defined as being the gap between the models that don’t include CO2 effects and reality (a circular argument). That is a failing but not a critical one. It would still make the attribution sound for practical purposes.

The failing is that they are attributing the gap to CO2 because they cannot thin of anything else that may be involved. That’s a description of the IPCC’s lack of understanding and creativity.

Q1) Could there be another factor they haven’t included that would confound the attribution to CO2?
A1) Obviously, there could be.
Q2) Has there ever been climate temperature changes that weren’t related to the effects of CO2?
A2) Yes, The LIA, MWP, back in the Roman times and before… although if you go back far enough Ice Age effects that are not relevant interfere. Even so there must be other factors than CO2.
Q3) As Chaos Theory was developed by looking at the sky and sea, and a butterfly’s wing can cause a hurricane (sometimes) can we ever model all the factors?
A3) No, We cannot.

So the IPCC AR6 approach to attribution cannot work.
Even so, the IPCC chooses to quote this approach and not the hockeystick anymore.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 29, 2021 5:55 pm

Yes, its the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance, known to the Scholastic logicians as an invalid form of argument, and classified by them as one of the invalid forms.

David Dibbell
October 29, 2021 3:38 pm

Good post. Attribution is indeed a mess of absurd claims.

I am sharing a link to a 30-frame mp4 video I made recently. The 30 plots are for each day of the month of September, giving the 5-year centered mean of the mean of all daily Tmax values from the list of 1,218 USHCN stations (United States Historical Climatology Network). This is for the contiguous U.S. Not all stations report a value for all years. Missing values are ignored. The raw data is for 1895 to 2021, so the centered mean values are from 1897 to 2019.


The point is that the long-term raw data shows strikingly different trends and cycles for different days of the month. This implies a strong influence of timed effects, producing warming and cooling trends for some days or series of days, and not so much for others. Ocean tide patterns? Ocean circulation cycles? Atmospheric tide patterns? Solar cycles?Constructive and destructive interference as cycles of different periods interact? Who knows? But you would think climate investigators would want to know, so as to properly recognize natural variation and not rule it out by unsound modeling.

Credit to the author of the realclimatescience[.]com website for the concept. I analyzed the data and constructed the plots independently using R scripts from the files contained in NOAA’s ghcnd_hcn.tar.gz file downloaded 10-1-21.

Other months I have looked at show similar behavior.

Robert of Texas
October 29, 2021 3:48 pm

Excellent write up. Too bad most of the world seems incapable of understanding your points.

Peta of Newark
October 29, 2021 4:00 pm

The Climate is changing because Eisenhower told us it would.
(Huxley also)

We ignored him

When the monster did show its ugly head, in a hearing room with a sabotaged air-con system, The Good Men sat on their hands and said nothing

There’s now nothing can stop the bolted horse short of it fatally crippling itself, or via Biomass and enforced vegetarianism, crippling the planet

Ma Nature will stop the runaway horse but not for a while.
The Climate is changing, Climate does change – via the slow and inexorable process of Soil Erosion.
Soil Erosion causes Ice Ages

When the Liebig Limiter of most plants on Earth comes into desperately short supply yet they continue struggling to grow, A Singularity is created.
viz An attempt is made to make something out of nothing – a division by zero if you like.
The plants die en-masse in a geologically short time frame.

That is the upset, that is the trigger, that is the non-linearity.
IOW The thing that all oscillators need. When the trigger is pulled, when the division by zero is attempted, it is THEN that tipping points tip and the Climate ‘flips’ into Ice Age.

But how do you tell anyone that deserts are cold places?
Or that a warming Troposphere is a cooling Earth.
Or that ‘temperature‘ is not ‘climate‘, energy is.

Our problem, The Problem is very real.
We have massively accelerated the naturally occuring process of Soil Erosion.
What we observe via dust storms, torrents of brown muddy water, huge palls of wild-fire smoke and of course rising CO2 levels are Ma Nature applying sticky plasters to the damage we are doing. Moderately effective so far. e.g. Global Greening

But even she will run out. Ma Nature will find herself running out of Elastoplast and thus: dividing by zero
Then, the runaway horse will have nowhere left to run. Calm will prevail.

If you call constant laminar flow 90+mph winds blowing over continent sized slabs of ice ‘calm’
But you wont be there will you
ho hum

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 29, 2021 6:34 pm

Interesting. I for one support work to maintain or even improve soil quality, water quality and other no regret ecological measures.

And the good news is that despite the misdirection by climate warriors there is some genuinely productive ecological work taking place.

Patrick MJD
October 29, 2021 4:16 pm

I really would like to see some actual evidence that we are causing climate to change.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 29, 2021 7:04 pm

I’ve been waiting on evidence of human-caused climate change since the 1970’s. Haven’t seen one shed of evidence yet. And I’ve looked. 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 29, 2021 7:45 pm

Me too. And I have in that time studied physics, atmospheric physics, IR spectroscopy and planetary science and can see no “signal”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 30, 2021 4:38 am

If there were a signal, we could expect the alarmists to jump in here and educate us, but we know that won’t happen, don’t we. 🙂

Nick Schroeder
October 29, 2021 4:38 pm

I’m in Seattle visiting son and family and away from office and lap top.
But y’all know my drill.

October 29, 2021 4:40 pm

Too many years since I studied stats so I went looking . Found this- ‘

What does it mean if a hypothesis is null?
The null hypothesis is a typical statistical theory which suggests that no statistical relationship and significance exists in a set of given single observed variable, between two sets of observed data and measured phenomena.


What is the assumption of null hypothesis?
The null hypothesis is the default assumption that no relationship exists between two different measured phenomena.

If you would like a longer explanation try

Let me take it a step further.
Is it correct to say the null hypothesis for climate change is that CO2 does not affect climate. And if this statement is disproved then climate change is proven?
So the starting point is a graph of CO2 vs temperature?

Reply to  LittleOil
October 29, 2021 6:21 pm

I reckon the null hypothesis for agw is as simple as –

has the planet seen climate conditions such as observed today when atmospheric CO2 was at higher levels?

Reply to  Mr.
October 29, 2021 10:45 pm

strictly no.
it is ‘would the pattern of climate we are seeing now be the same if we had not done what we have done’?

It runs slap bang into the problem of induction: we have no idea what the climate would have been. Heck we are arguing over what it is now.
Hence the papering over of the argument with the ‘precautionary principle’ i.e. the outcome could be so dire, that we have to act anyway,

Personally I am far more scared by an asteroid hitting the earth, and don’t see why we aren’t spending trillions on space lasers etc.:-)

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  LittleOil
October 29, 2021 6:37 pm

I’d be looking at some spectral analysis first. The question there is whether CO2 has already reached the point where more makes no difference.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  LittleOil
October 29, 2021 7:17 pm

“Is it correct to say the null hypothesis for climate change is that CO2 does not affect climate. And if this statement is disproved then climate change is proven?”

That’s correct. The Earth’s climate should be assumed to be controlled by Mother Nature until proven otherwise.

“So the starting point is a graph of CO2 vs temperature?”

Yes, that would be the starting point.

Unfortunately, early in the process, a group of Charlatans dishonestly modified the historic, written temperature records, in an effort to make the rise of CO2 coincide with a rise in temperatures.

So if you compare CO2 rise to temperature rise using a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick global “temperature” chart you will be fooled into thinking they are moving in lockstep.

Which is just what the Data Manipulator Charlatans want you to think, and is the reason why they modified the temperature charts in the first place. This way they can sell their “hotter and hotter and hotter” meme.

Unmodified temperature charts from around the world do not show a correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

CO2 levels climbed from the 1930’s to the 1980’s, yet temperatures cooled by 2.0C during that time period.

And today, although CO2 continues to climb, the temperatues are just barely managing to remain positive, when they should be higher than the highpoint of 2016, if CO2 was the driver of temperatures, yet we are currently 0.4C cooler than 2016.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 29, 2021 10:49 pm

And today, although CO2 continues to climb, the temperatures are just barely managing to remain positive, when they should be higher than the highpoint of 2016, if CO2 was the driver of temperatures, yet we are currently 0.4C cooler than 2016.

And that is the easiest way to inform the debate.

If CO2 is the single most dominant driver of climate is CO2, how come CO2 has risen and climate has cooled in the last 6 years?

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 30, 2021 6:16 pm

Who do you want to convince? The majority of people in the US, and I suspect most or all western countries, get all they know about the subject from frequent “news” casts proclaiming “highest ever”? Therefore they know you are lying if you say no warming has occurred. That is as far as you can possibly get with them.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 30, 2021 6:12 pm

0.4 degrees different than temperature measurements accurate to +/- 0.5 degrees?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
October 31, 2021 4:54 am

The 0.4C temperature drop figure I referred to, comes from the UAH satellite chart. The people who handle the UAH satellite data claim their margin of error is 0.1C.

Richard M
October 29, 2021 5:00 pm

The 3 new papers covered here recently completely destroy their null hypothesis. All the papers show warming in the 21st century was primarily solar in origin which increased due to a decrease in clouds. Loeb et al 2021 mentions the PDO. Dübal /Varhrenholt 2021 mentions the AMO. Neither of those are part of their models.

October 29, 2021 5:18 pm

There is a fun way to see this in the AR6 SPM. Figure 1b claims to prove that global warming is caused by humans (attribution) just as described in this article. There are two model runs, one with and one without human causation. The human caused one matches the observed warming, so they claim we must have done it.

But figure 2 lists all of the “drivers” of warming, presumably used in the model. All are human! So of course the model finds the warming must be human caused because that is the only way for the model to warm.

But this is an assumption, not a proof. “Assuming only humans can cause warming, we find the warming to be caused by humans” is indeed meaningless. It certainly is not science.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  David Wojick
October 29, 2021 6:39 pm

A little off on a tangent but does this mean there is now a climate model which backcasts correctly?

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
October 30, 2021 4:04 am

I think they are tuned to match observation, but that does not affect the forecast. They use aerosol cooling to curb past CO2 warming. But still all past warming is human caused.

Reply to  David Wojick
October 30, 2021 4:05 am

This is just for adjusted surface temps, which are much hotter than the satellites show.

Reply to  David Wojick
October 30, 2021 6:18 pm

match “observations” of the rectified data

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
October 30, 2021 5:01 am

“does this mean there is now a climate model which backcasts correctly?”

That depends on what they are backcasting. Is it the bastardized Hockey Stick chart they are backcasting, or an honest chart like the unmodified U.S. regional chart?

If the models are accurately backcasting the instrument-era Hockey Stick temperature charts, then the models are Science Fiction. The only way they could accurately backcast a fraud is if the models, themselves are frauds.

October 29, 2021 5:38 pm

*All* of the Sciences have been corrupted…”to the limit” of corruption. The Climate Fraud reached new heights of corruption all on its own….but ALL THE REST OF SCIENCE shows their complicity and their OWN corruption by letting all this really bad science stand without critical comment. On the contrary, they mostly support the lies…the True Scientists are few.

Even Newton’s Royal Society is “All In”…supporting all the very unscientific fraud.

Criminal Damages would be in the ~$20 Trillion range if Justice was ever served.

All the rest of Western Civilization’s Institutions have been similarly corrupted: The Press, Social Media, K-12 Education, Academia, The Justice System, The Law (mostly through crooked Prosecutors), Entertainment, Sports, Medicine, GOVERNMENT (Unelected Deep-State), Elections, The Church, Military Top Brass….Etc…Etc.

ALL our Institutions eccept the Military Rank and File, and Law Enforcement are corrupt…and they are under constant attack.

These Corruptors of Civilization have launched a 50+ years undeclared war against our Civilization BY INTENTIONALLY BREAKING ALL THE MECHANISMS that keep it running. And ALL of the corruption is based on lies…there can be no goodness underlying a system built only on lies. Truthful Persuasion would not work. Lies are the only way to “Sell” what they are offering.

If we cannot restore the integrity of our Elections, the only way to save our Freedoms and our Civilization is unthinkable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DocSiders
October 30, 2021 5:15 am

Excellent comment.

As time goes along, I keep getting the feeling that there is a big political backlash coming for the Democrats. I think the radical Democrats have misjudged average Americans, and they are going to realize that in the near future.

Average Americans are going to take back their country from the radicals.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 30, 2021 6:23 pm

Not by elections if the elections are run the modern way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
October 31, 2021 5:04 am

Let’s hope the Republicans understand the situation we are in and do something to prevent election cheating in the future.

Many Republican States, including Battleground States have passed new laws tightening restrictions on voting and limiting voting to legal, eligible voters.

This is why you hear the Democrats complaining so much about these new laws. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) just came out and advised all black athletes to refrain from going to any Texas university because Texas’ new election laws supposedly prevent legal voters from voting.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The new laws restrict voting to legal voters and attempts to prevent illegal voters from voting.

And the NAACP is going to have to put out complaints about other States, too, because Texas is not the only State trying to eliminate illegal voting.

You see, the Democrats survive on illegal voting so that’s why they are complaining about the elimination of cheating. Democrats, on a national scale, can’t win without cheating.

This next election is going to be interesting. 🙂

mr bliss
October 29, 2021 6:11 pm

“How, Exactly, Do We Know That?” – to help us understand that – the BBC are helpfully broadcasting A ‘Global Warming Debate’ (Mon @ 23:35 UK time). The BBC have assembled a panel of ‘leading political figures’ to take questions from a young audience.

Apparently scientists aren’t the people needed to explain the issues – only politicians have the skills, knowledge and experience to explain this complex problem

Reply to  mr bliss
October 30, 2021 6:26 pm

Politicians will no doubt be carefully chosen

Tom Abbott
October 29, 2021 6:27 pm

From the article: “And in any event, the fundamental flaw of all of the IPCC’s efforts at claimed “attribution” is not difficult to understand. In simple terms, they have assumed the conclusion, and then attempted to bury that fact in a blizzard of highly technical statistical mumbo jumbo.”

Oh, yes! That’s exactly what they are doing. They are substituting assumptions for facts and hoping nobody notices.

Well, some people notice.

October 29, 2021 6:35 pm

Climate is changing, just as it always has and always will. Humans are not causing it to change and can not stop it from changing. Period. Full stop. 33


Gary Pearse
October 29, 2021 6:38 pm

Here is a good way to test the strawman null hypothesis. Probably McKittrick or Briggs could have fun with it. Go back a decade and a half ago to when ‘Gulibal Warming’ was causing rapid recession of the snow on Kilimanjaro. Do the analysis to see if the mountain would succumb to G.W. then fast-forward several years to find the ‘snows of Kilimanjaro’ have remarkably returned and the warming went away.

Do the same with the parching drought in the sahel with a shrinking Lake Chad, which today is full of water again and CO2 greening is encroaching on the Sahara.

There are many others readers could think of.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 30, 2021 6:28 pm

Even if the global climate models really worked well, there is wise spread agreement, from experience, that they can not do anything useful on regional levels i.e. they cannot conclude anything about any particular place.

October 29, 2021 7:05 pm

“The Climate Is Changing, And Human Activities Are The Cause”: How, Exactly, Do We Know That? Point one the climate is always changing with or without humans. Point two we don’t even know which way. It has been warming for the last 200 and yet it been dropping for the last 8000 and we no where near the high of the last 8000. Is just one of the upticks that happen many time in the last 8000 or is it because something we are doing. God only know and if he does not exist no one knows.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  MAL
October 29, 2021 9:00 pm

The climate has always changed and in the past CO2 has been an effect rather than a cause of warming as seen in the ice core record.
However the GHG hypothesis has it that increases in the GHG concentration will cause warming all else being equal.
The fact that the climate can change through natural processes does not logically exclude a possible human-caused effect.
That is the logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct, just because two possibilities exist and one is proven to be true it doesn’t follow that the other possibility must be false.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 30, 2021 6:30 pm

both might apply but the new one, based on much historical and physical evidence, cannot cancel the older one

October 29, 2021 7:23 pm

The warmunists have their models, but they cannot provide experimental or empirical data to support their hypotheses of cause and effect, and to disprove the null hypothesis.

Ironically, in the early days of the warmunist crusade, the warmunists always pointed to the “precautionary principle”, which held that since the null hypotheses to warmunism could not be proven true, and given the potentially catastrophic consequences to mankind if warmunism was actually real, then the conservative approach is to assume that warmunism is real and act accordingly. But warmunists gave up on that message decades ago because it didn’t sufficiently scare the bejeesus out of enough people to get them to kowtow to warmunism. Instead warmunists changed their tune to “catestrophic global warming is now a certainty, and precaution no longer applies.”

But even the claimed certainty of impending doom turned out to be insufficient to motivate public surrender to warmunism … so consequently warmunists have kept cranking up the hysteria day by day, leaning on the certainty of imminent doom ever more shrilly with each new increment of hysteria. That tactic, of course, is also doomed to fail, in accordance with the “cry wolf” principle … eventually the people tune you out when doom does not actually materialize.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
October 30, 2021 5:28 am

“That tactic, of course, is also doomed to fail, in accordance with the “cry wolf” principle … eventually the people tune you out when doom does not actually materialize.”

I think this is why most people don’t get too exercised over a climate crisis. They look around and everything seems normal to them. And it is normal. There is no visible crisis, so what is there to fear? The crisis is only in the heads of those who believe in this climate change hoax. That amounts to a lot of people, but it doesn’t make the hoax true, and apparently, judging by the polls, most people are not believing in the hoax.

October 29, 2021 8:09 pm

OK, I think I understand how this works: it’s a movie script or a TV episode script. You create the “world” you want to put the characters into and it has always been “this way” and won’t change because that will upset something called “The Balance” (whatever that is) and Hoomans will have caused The Planet to flop over so that it is off its axis, rotating sideways. The odd part is that the script ignores the Chaos Factor present in planetary construction. Even Jupiter has a chaos factor, and astronomers get upset when the Great Red Spot appears to be having the hiccups or maybe shrinking, as if they think they can make it go back to its original configuration.

Got it. I’m trying to remember which Star Trek episode that was.

So this article tells us that the chaos factor – which runs this and (so far) other planets is something that scares the heebie-jeebies out of the climate science crowd, because they can’t control the planet’s agenda or write the script/formula to make it into a steady-state thing.

They can’t control it. That frightens them. So they create The Straw Man argument (GHG, etc.) and ignore reality because the Truth is that They can’t handle or control Reality, and They can’t handle the Truth: that they have no control of this planet at all, never have had it, and never will. Scares them the way the Closet Monster used to scare them, along with those funny noises when the house creaked in the wind at night.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sara
October 29, 2021 8:23 pm

The last major climate change was around 130,000 years ago for Australia, a different land mass then to what is here today above water. During the last Ice Age many of the small population of tribes gathered to live around a lake that is now the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia not far from Papua New Guinea that was on then far Northern other side of the lake.

Before the gradual change of climate and weather conditions the land that is now called Australia was covered in Rainforests, they died out as conditions became drier and hotter and were replaced by Eucalypts, Rainforests today amount to about 3 per cent of forest.

Since the Little Ice ended during the 1700s warmer conditions returned, naturally.

What’s next, indications are that a new cooling cycle is underway?

Climate hoax is all about politics and redistribution of the wealth of developed nations.

October 29, 2021 9:05 pm

The social, political, economic, and religious climate, yes. We are not pleased.

Mark Pawelek
October 29, 2021 9:12 pm

Man-made climate attribution studies are wrong. Mário Barbosa Villas Boas explained the reasoning and why it’s wrong. Email him for an RVP to watch his presentation if my links does not work.

My summary of his basic argument is:
The assumption of AWG involves 5 steps. Each step must be shown to be the case, in order to progress to the next. The steps are dependent. One can’t take the next step unless the previous was valid. The 5 steps were:
(1) Atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing
(2) Burning carbon fossil fuel makes CO2 increase
(3) Mean temperature of earth has recently increased
(4) Atmospheric [CO2] increase causes global temperature increase
(5) An increase in earth’s mean temperature will cause climate catastrophes
Villas Boas used the same data as the AGW advocates. He shows that only assumptions (1) and (3) are valid.
His disproves (2), (4), (50 are along the lines of:
(2) The increase in Atmospheric [CO2] is stepwise. During one season, it falls. Humanity burns fossil fuel all year round. The total carbon in the atmosphere is 800 bn. tons, and the total in the ocean is 38,000 bn tons. Each year 120 bn tons of carbon are emitted as [CO2] due to respiration from all life on earth. In 2010 6bn tones of carbon were emitted (as CO2). So although burning carbon does make CO2, the amount made by man is insignificant and cannot be the cause of (1). There’s no clear proof that [CO2] increase seen at Mauna Loa is man-made.
(4) Look in the earth’s temperature history and atmospheric [CO2] history. The relationship between the two correlates best when there’s a gap of 800 years between each. It shows atmospheric [CO2] changes follow global temperature changes with an 800 year lag. Temperature changes cause atmospheric [CO2] to change; not the other way around. Although he doesn’t say it: As oceans cool, the solubility of CO2, in water, increases. But sea/ocean water is not well mixed; it’s layered. It clearly takes 800 years for it to mix properly, and for the temperature change beginning at the surface to propagate evenly throughout the oceans, including the bottom. 
(5) According to warmist data, the warmest period in the last 1000 years was about 1600, 421 years ago, when, they say, it was warmer than now. Looking at historical records show no catastrophes back then. Yet beginning 15 years into the 17th century, as global temperatures began to cool, we find the first reports of persistent bad weather in the last, and most extreme period of the Little Ice Age. [Citation: “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century“, 2014, by Geoffrey Parker]. The further the historian goes into the 17th century, the cooler average surface temperatures got, the worse the reports of bad weather and climate catastrophe. Cooling cause climate crisis; not warming.

October 30, 2021 1:17 am

Well let’s see: there’s an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the isotopic signature on that tells us it came from human activity i.e burning fossil fuel.

The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.

Physical observation of heat in the atmosphere, temperatures and radiation into space, etc confirms the atmosphere is warming.

Multiple long term observations of weather, ice, temperature confirm a warming planet.

Other drivers of climate change known from the past can be shown not to be driving temperature.

Science shows us humans are heating the planet.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 5:43 am

“The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.”

Dang! You got two up votes, Griff! That must be a first.

We know how CO2 works, it absorbs and emits energy, but we don’t know how that interaction affects the Earth’s atmosphere. At the present time, there is no detectable effect on the Earth’s atmosphere from CO2, including increases in temperatures which could be caused by other things besides CO2. Increasing CO2 has not prevented the globe from cooling 0.4C since the 2016 highpoint. CO2 and temperatures don’t seem to be correlating.

Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 6:01 am

Oh, really?
See Figures 5 and 9 in Part 2.
Looks like Griff’s favorite talking point is finally SOL.

Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 6:09 am

Other drivers of climate change known from the past can be shown not to be driving temperature.”

1) Demonstrably false, for instance, cloud coverage has a much stronger correlation to temperature than CO2 ever did;
2) That assumes every single possible driver of temperature is known to us, which is total hubris;
3) The almost total lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature on a geological scale (see the Ordovician Ice Age happening when CO2 was spiking, or the ice core records showing CO2 lagging temperature) disproves CO2 as a significant temperature driver in the past (at invariably much higher concentrations) and makes it unlikely to be one in the present;
4) We ought to want to heat the planet. If only the AGW hypothesis were true so in addition to improving human wealth and refilling Earth’s dangerously depleted stockpiles of atmospheric CO2 we could also make the climate more agreeable for every living thing… Well, as Meat Loaf sang, two out of three ain’t bad.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 9:15 am

Dear Mr. Griff, and are you sure, that the “other drivers of climate change known from the past” are ALL the drivers of climate change? Would be the list of “other drivers of climate change known from the past” exhaustive? Your argumentation is eventually equals to the statement: “What I don´t know doesn´t exist”. Or the argumentation of a criminal in a trial: “I it was not known for me that robbery would be a crime, soe I felt to be free to do robbery, and I am unguilty”. Or what about the “unknown unknowns”? What if there or other drivers of climate change which are currently unknown?

Jim Ross
Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 10:50 am

“the isotopic signature on that tells us it came from human activity i.e burning fossil fuel”

It is a simple isotopic mass balance calculation to show that the incremental atmospheric CO2 since the start of observations has had an average net δ13C of -13 per mil, whereas burning fossil fuels is estimated to generate CO2 with a δ13C of -28 per mil; i.e. a much lower 13C/12C ratio. In addition, the Law Dome ice core data also shows a δ13C of the incremental atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (or thereabouts) to be -13 per mil. I find this remarkable and yet it does not appear to be discussed anywhere in the literature. Of course, the explanation might be complex, but I can find no recent published models that are able to replicate both the general (average) trend and, simultaneously, the short-term fluctuations in δ13C that appear to be driven by ENSO and Pinatubo, which must form part of any explanatory model.

So, griff, please share with us your isotopic mass balance model.

Reply to  griff
October 30, 2021 6:41 pm

The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.

Rather radiation transfer physics is well documented.
Validated models, very useful for engineering, show that increasing atmosphere CO2 can have only very limited temperature results. AGW depends on the idea that those limited results will be multiplied by other factors. That multiplication is not established and seems either not to exist, is very limited, or may be negative.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  griff
October 31, 2021 6:22 am

The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.”

Show us a paper that details how CO2 works in the 2/3 of the atmosphere that is cloudy.

Vincent Causey
October 30, 2021 2:05 am

The article misses the last point that was in the full version, which I find interesting. It posed the question of how all these scientists can just take this logically flawed attribution study methodology without realising the flaws? But how many scientists would actually think about the methodology they have been handed? Many were probably given this “tool” in undergraduate class, and told that it was good. Then they just use it uncritically.

But that is the problem with science. It is so specialised that no scientist will take the time to understand the “tools” they have been given that were developed by somebody else.

Eric Vieira
October 30, 2021 2:33 am

A video made for the COP26 meeting is going viral with a Velociraptor talking (with a female voice) to the UN assembly, saying that humans should avoid extinction… It is so ridiculous and at a kindergarten level. They could have just as well taken Big Bird from Sesame street to do the job.
And do you know what? They made a capital mistake: a Velociraptor is a predatory dinosaur and eats meat !!! They didn’t even think about taking a plant eating (uh.. vegan) dinosaur !

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 30, 2021 7:12 am

The teeth should give some huge clues…

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 30, 2021 7:47 am

You mean like those of grandma in little red riding hood ? …

Last edited 1 year ago by vieirae
October 30, 2021 7:19 am

Consensus is not scientific fact. Moreover, according to satellite empirical data, the change in the earth’s temperature has been negligible for the last 21 years. Who started the “global warming” hoax? 
“The common enemy of humanity is man.” 

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. 
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” 

-Club of Rome -1993 
Premier Environmental Think-Tank 
Consultants to the United Nation. 

Everything is taken as proof that global warming is happening, and the repeated failure of sophisticated climate models to predict the actual, observed results is hardly noticed. Even the name of the phenomenon itself has been changed from “global warming” to “climate change” to fit the contradictory outcomes ascribed to it. 

Since real time data doesn’t fit into their theories, climate alarmists now claim that there is a “Climate Pause” that wasn’t foreseen in the original global warming “models” conceived in the 1990’s. 

Philosopher Karl Popper described the essence of a scientific theory as “falsifiability”–i.e., it must be possible to conceive of a way to disprove the theory, so that its validity can be demonstrated and defended. 

Climate change, at least in popular discourse, is not falsifiable. 

If Global Warming was scientific fact, then it would behave like… boiling water. We know generally (based on altitude, temperature, barometric pressure, water purity and other specifics at the location) that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit. It happens on every test

Boiling water has 100% predictability. The falsifiable proof is that if you heat water to 180 degrees Fahrenheit or 70 degrees Celsius then water will not boil. 

Global Warming advocates cannot say that about their theory. Proponents have not presented a theory where it is possible to conceive of a way to disprove the theory, so that its validity can be demonstrated and defended.

Lacking this characteristic, the theory remains a probability that allows for “randomness.” 
The global warming movement has a cult like character. You have to believe it to see it. Probability cannot control randomness. It cannot “settle” the issue. 

Climate change proponents cloak themselves in a zealotry that they condemn in the religious. They berate and belittle “climate deniers” as if the unbeliever ignores the obvious at his own peril. That smug arrogance built on a flimsy platform of rickety computer models would be laughable if they weren’t so convinced of global warming’s virtue. 

Carbon DIOXIDE is plant food. It is a necessary ingredient when plant life use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water to convert it into OXYGEN through a process called photosynthesis. Eliminate it and we can’t breathe. Or is that the goal? 

Carbon MONOXIDE is poisonous and is emitted from burning carbon-based fuels. Taken in sufficient quantity it is lethal. These are the emissions that must be reduced. 

Do these people understand what they are for and against? 
I don’t think so. 
Discredited “Hockey Stick” computer models are not the stuff of scientific fact. 

“Computer models do a good job of helping us understand climate but they do a very poor job of predicting it.” 

That is according to the late mathematical physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey who spent 37 years studying the problem. 

Dyson said, “As measured from space, the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests and it’s increasing growth in the biological world, and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.”
He acknowledged that human activity has an effect on climate but claims it is much less than is claimed. He stresses the non-climate benefits of carbon are overwhelmingly favorable. 

The essential truth is that climate change theory is sophistry at its base core. It is barren of physical support and relies on the adherent to “buy in” that man is the root of all ecological damage to the environment. If man’s activity were curtailed, the effects would go away. Taken to its extreme by irrational believers and the Club of Rome, the elimination of the human species would be the best solution to climate change. 

It adds up that climate change is not fact or theory. It is a cult that requires its acolytes to suspend belief and accept a narrow and illogical screed. 

Presenting the “chicken little” fable to children is a life lesson. Living it and promoting it as an adult is a pathology that requires psychiatric treatment. 

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  GaryB
October 30, 2021 6:57 pm

Water will boil at less than 70 centigrade at the top of Everest.

Reply to  It doesn't add up...
October 30, 2021 10:59 pm

I’ll remember that the next time I’m up there. Know any good restaurants that have opened recently?

Bill Halcott
October 30, 2021 7:34 am

Because the Sun told us.

Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2021 8:59 am

Reminds me of the Dylan song, The Climes, They Are A-Changin’:

Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the climes, they are a-changin’

Yes, of course the climate is changing. How do we know? Because it is always changing. But of course, that isn’t what they mean, is it? No, they are talking about human-made change, implying that we know that that “is happening”. Er, no, we don’t know anything of the sort.But, but, they say, “it’s unprecedented!” Pure, grade-A bollocks. But, but, “look at the weather – it’s extreme!” Again, pure, grade-A bollocks.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2021 11:04 pm

Earth got hammered by a mid sized Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) Saturday afternoon. I haven’t heard any results from it but, it points out, that the big yellow ball in the day sky has an effect on weather.

October 30, 2021 9:03 am

if the science is solid, why constantly get caught gaming the numbers? GW is about Power, control & taxation. A watermelon – Green on the outside but commie red on the inside

October 30, 2021 9:59 am

If variations in climate were not naturally occurring then we’d still be up to our hips with snow, ice and the Wooly Mammoths here in North America. Not many humans around back then to change that and it’s not reasonable to believe that Mammoth flatulence was the cause. Of course that won’t stop the Dimocrats from pushing their climate change hoax in support of their real globalist agenda. Don’t fall for the BS.

dai davies
October 30, 2021 4:55 pm

The basic key to this is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. It is assumed to be 33C. After years of my challenging ppl to show any published research that supports this assumption, nobody has. All that exists is radiative spectra that show that it exists. I don’t dispute that.

FWIW, As far back as 2011 Nahle (Biological Cabinet Online??) calculated it to be less than 1% of the assumed value. My calculations agree, but it’s not up to us. Science requires the alarmists to make a case for their assumption, which can then be directly critiqued.

A direct local measurement of the GHE is possible. Why has it not been performed or published?

William Haas
October 30, 2021 8:52 pm

But the AGW conjecture is clearly false. The AGW at first sounds quite plausible but upon closer examination I find that it is a conjecture based on only partial science. For example, molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere than is CO2. So H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. So according to the AGW conjecture, adding more H2O to the atmosphere should cause warming. So one would expect that the adding of H2O to the atmosphere must cause the lapse rate to increase yet the opposite is true. Because the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere adding H2O must cause cooling and not warming. Any CO2 based warming would cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere but that additional H2O must act to reduce any warming that CO2 might cause. Also consider the whole process where H2O evaporates at the Earth’s surface and then condenses into clouds. The entire process moves heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where that energy is more radially radiated to space. so instead of the primary greenhouse gas causing warming it really causes cooling. So because of that problem alone there must be something very wrong with the AGW conjecture. And the problem with H2O is not even the biggest problem that the AGW conjecture actually has. Am I saying anything that is wrong here? I guess that a lot of would be scientists just assume that the AGW conjecture is correct but it is not.

Chris G
October 31, 2021 12:58 pm

Can anyone explain why the mainstream theory, which I understand as follows, is wrong? Is it actually wrong or is it right but other things are compensating?

  • GH gas both absorbs and re-emits radiation
  • Radiation is passed upwards by successive absorption and emission, like a relay race, to where it finally escapes the Earth
  • Increasing GH gases raises the altitude where this happens
  • Due to the lapse rate this gives a pro rata increase in surface temperature

Using the above theory I get circa 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, right in the middle of traditional claims.

%d bloggers like this: