Halloween Horror: Naomi Oreskes Just Called for WG1 Climate Science to be Shut Down

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Naomi Oreskes: – “if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?”.

IPCC, You’ve Made Your Point: Humans Are a Primary Cause of Climate Change

It’s time to redirect your major focus to how we deal with the problem

By Naomi Oreskes | 

But this raises a question for the IPCC: What now? The answer is for scientists of Working Group 1 to declare their job done and pass the baton to the rest of the scientists who populate the organization. Many people don’t realize that the IPCC has three working groups. Working Group 1 (WG1), which issued this summer’s statements, addresses the “physical science basis” of climate change. WG2 deals with “impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability,” and WG3 looks at mitigation. Put another way, WG2 explores in detail why climate change matters, and WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it. Now that we know that DAI is fully underway, it’s time to focus on preventing the problem from getting even worse and figuring out how to adapt to the changes we can no longer prevent. One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.

After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing? Closing WG1 would answer that question and would allow climate scientists to refocus on basic science, which is, after all, what most of them are trained to do. And it would encourage public and policy attention to shift to solving the problem. This change in focus will require us to pay closer attention to what our economists, sociologists, urban planners and biologists have to say than we have to date, and these experts are mostly to be found in the IPCC’s other two working groups.

Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-youve-made-your-point-humans-are-a-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Oreskes has a point. If we truly have only ten years to save the world, why do we need another report next year saying we now only have nine years?

Congratulations guys, you identified the problem. Now it is time to step aside with grace, and allow all academic climate funding to be diverted to addressing the problem you identified, implementing Biden’s zero carbon vision.

4.9 32 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 31, 2021 10:12 am

I’ve called for climate research funding to be stopped ever since they announced that “the science is settled”.

I mean, it’s like continuing to pay to download a movie you’ve already stored on your drive and already watched 4 times.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Mr.
October 31, 2021 11:01 am

There is ‘need to know’ and there is ‘want to know’. Once you have the answer in hand that fits your agenda you the move into ‘don’t want to know’ territory, just to be safe.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
October 31, 2021 11:30 am

I think Naomi Oreskes has realised that there is a clear and present danger of totally overdoing the alarmist rhetoric and the focus must be changed before it completely runs out of steam. There is only so much waffle that you can unload onto even the most gullible before they wise up – they’ve cried wolf just too often now.

Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 11:55 am

I think you hit it right on the head.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 12:18 pm

Oreskes is motivated by the takedown of the climate Alarmist rhetoric by what Roger Pielke, Jr did last week with his analysis of the WG1 report. Roger pulled directly from the actual AR6 WG1 chapters and refuted item by item the alarmist’s fantasies. Oreskes understands that the WG1 details do not support claims of climate crises happening today.

The climate scammers like Oreskes depend on the reporters not doing any investigation themselves when they report climate porn stories.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 1:41 pm

Yes. Im with that theory.

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 1:43 pm

And don’t forget the Hockey Stick front page of Guidance for Policymakers but not in the report. Torn to bits by McIntyre at climateaudit.org. In sum. a gross fraud on the taxpayer.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 9:46 pm

Link please.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 1:22 pm

Not quite. Oreskes is saying they’re done with the indictment and trial phases. She wants to get on to the executions.

The latter term to be literal in her future-historical sense.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 2:06 pm

I expect they are planning to keep going with as many executions as are needed to get “morale” to the appropriate level!

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 4:54 pm

“Put another way, WG2 explores in detail why climate change matters, and WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it.” Stopping it is the policy job, all scientists do is evaluate. Scientific American lost much of its credibility long ago, nothing left since their main goal is now policy.
From the article—
“This change in focus will require us to pay closer attention to what our economists, sociologists, urban planners and biologists have to say than we have to date, and these experts are mostly to be found in the IPCC’s other two working groups.” I’m principally a biologist, don’t do sociology, urban planning or economic analysis. Done lots of evaluations, never did it her way, never will. I know personally biologists who lost their credibility over such not even literal “executions.” Never know for sure about indirect ones.

Doug Proctor
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 6:30 pm

Once the plan is in operation, the arguing and demanding, easy and exhilarating parts are over. We rant and rave about the need for a new ring road for our city, then only whine while it is being built, and end with some grumbling it could have been done better. Old people complaints.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 1, 2021 9:29 pm

Until she has more weapons than I do that ain’t gonna happen.

Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 2:09 pm

Yes. A bit like Greta and her blah, blah, blah

Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 5:56 pm

Plus, as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation goes into the cool phase, the warming rate will certainly decline or might even stop. Can’t have a new IPCC AR pointing out that things aren’t nearly as bad as they thought. That also might explain the Alarmist’s carnival barking calling governments to immediate action.

Reply to  Richard Page
November 8, 2021 5:13 pm

They have been crying wolf for over 50 years now. I was a kid when the great scare in the early 1970s was global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. Living in Alaska at the time, that didnt sound too good, but alas i was all the usual BS.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Mr.
October 31, 2021 11:32 am

Isn’t there always an incoming group of schoolkids needing to be convinced, so hat they can join their older brothers and sisters on their protest marches? Somebody has to be trained to make all those placards.

Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 31, 2021 12:50 pm

Yes alarmists have to target the young & naive to get traction with their propaganda.

I rejected recently on their alarmism about bushfires by comparing my lived experiences with such major events over my lifetime – the 1966 ones, the 1983 ones, the 2009 ones, plus many more lesser impact ones.

They have all been horrific.

But the alarmists say they’re going to get worse.

I reckon it’s just history repeating itself, again, once more, another time . . .

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 31, 2021 2:09 pm

I am amazed at the output of commercial-quality, professionally printed signs that our current crop of high school kids can make for their protest marches.

Perhaps there is hope for our future after all!

/sarc off

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
October 31, 2021 4:51 pm

Like this one, maybe, of Princess Jacinda

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 31, 2021 7:19 pm

Maybe if they went to school they could have their teachers explain it too them.

Seems Greta may have created a paradox. If the Kiddlings don’t go to school, how will they know that It May Already Be Too Late(tm) in order to skip school to protests.

Gosh. Thanks to Greta this might Be Worse That We Think!(tm)

Greta!? You have Destroyed Our Future! How Dare You!

Also, Let’s Go Thunberg.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
November 8, 2021 5:17 pm

Be careful…or they will sic the Gretamonster on you.

Reply to  Mr.
October 31, 2021 12:17 pm

Well ,you see the same pattern with ,vaccines and lockdowns.

No matter how many reports,vaccines,lockdowns you already endured,
it’ ll never be enough.
They will always ask for another one ( + you have the ” privilege ” to pay for your own branwashing/enslavement/ intoxication ).
It took them so much timeand effort to establish this crap on a global scale.They would never forgo these powertools of philanthropic tyranny .
And if one of them would end,then only to be replaced by something worse.

Reply to  SxyxS
October 31, 2021 1:40 pm

Vaccines and lockdowns do work and are proven. No need to wait till 40 years. They can see results in 40 days
Vaccines have been around 150 years or so , lockdowns even longer as the word quarantine comes from Italian for 40 days as used in Venice in 14th century against the plagues of the era.
Climate science for a global scale just isnt known enough and of course the ’causes’ are multiple. A virus is a mostly known entity and spreading in humans is clearly happening.

Reply to  Duker
October 31, 2021 2:19 pm

“Vaccines and lockdowns do work”

Nice conflation of two very dissimilar things, using terms you know nothing about.

Problem is, you don’t know what the word “Vaccine” means, and you don’t know what the word “lockdown” means and you don’t know what the word “work” means.

There is no comparison to Pasteur’s work (or for that matter Edward Jenner’s or of the non European peoples of the first Millennia) and the mRNA injections. The CDC had to dramatically change the definition of “vaccine” to allow the term to even be used in the same sentence as the mRNA injections.

Even if you recommended killing everyone that might get C19, you still have animal reservoirs of the chimera.

You don’t understand anything at all about viruses. You are just parroting an empty political slogan that serves only as a way to emotionally manipulate the State’s chattel.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AWG
October 31, 2021 4:42 pm

I got the smallpox vaccine . . . didn’t have to wear a mask or practice social isolation after that, nor was the US in any “lockdown” before, during or after. No subsequent “booster shot” required, either.

I got the polio vaccine . . . didn’t have to wear a mask or practice social isolation after that, nor was the US in any “lockdown” before, during or after. No subsequent “booster shot” required, either.

I got the chickenpox vaccine . . . didn’t have to wear a mask or practice social isolation after that, nor was the US in any “lockdown” before, during or after. No subsequent “booster shot” required, either.

. . . I could go on and on, but need I?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 9:28 pm

Would it be fair to say that the primary avenues of infection for the diseases you mention are by ingestion of bodily fluids, contaminated surfaces including hands, versus aerosolized droplets that are taken into the lungs?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 1, 2021 8:55 am


There are primary and secondary (less common) paths of infection, so the relevance of your question to the effectiveness of vaccines is dubious.

Anyway, the simple answer to your question is “NO”, as is revealed by a quick, basic Web search.

For example, here is what a Google search for “method of transmission of smallpox” gives as its first hit (noting that the variola virus in the root cause of smallpox):
“Human-to-human transmission of variola virus occurs by inhalation of large, virus-containing airborne droplets of saliva from an infected person. Infectious virus particles are released from the sloughing off of oropharyngeal lesions . . . Transmission via contact with material from the smallpox pustules or crusted scabs can also occur. Scabs are much less infectious than respiratory secretions . . .”— source: https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/clinicians/transmission.html (my underlining emphasis added)

Reply to  AWG
October 31, 2021 6:02 pm

The word would “vaccine” would not have even existed originally so should people not have been injected because they had to define the term?

Your argument is non sequiter .. try again with a more logical argument.

Reply to  Duker
October 31, 2021 3:41 pm

Now that we have statistics, we know lockdowns only work as long as people are locked down. It has been abandoned by most sane governments, because all it does is leave you with a perpetually nonresistant, vulnerable population. As far as vaccines, it depends on how you define the word “work.” They “work” until the virus finds its way around the vaccine, which it will. From that point on, the vaccine merely “helps.”
Quarantine and lockdown are two very different things.

Reply to  accordionsrule
October 31, 2021 8:01 pm

Actually, lockdowns do not work, period.

October 31, 2021 8:03 pm

Unless lockdown is applied to the infected, i.e. a quarantine.

Clyde Spencer
October 31, 2021 9:31 pm

How does one determine who is infected when so many have mild symptoms or are completely asymptomatic? COVID doesn’t have the obvious indicators like measles or chicken pox.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 1, 2021 8:45 am

That is why there is no quarantine for flu.

It is kinda of silly, no!

Reply to  Duker
November 1, 2021 5:49 am

A “vaccine” is made by disabling the bacteria or virus to the point that it can no longer self replicate. Then it is injected into patients in small doses. The first vaccine was naturally occurring- the cowpox virus is a weak cousin of small pox. Milkmaids were observed to not develop the pustules all over the body if they had contracted cowpox first. Doctors spread cowpox to fight the deadly “small pox”.
Modern vaccines are made by disabling the bacteria or virus. Usually a fractions of the bacteria or virus are separated that have the most activity in the human body. The biological bits are treated to make them non-factious. They are mixed with various chemicals called adjuvants that help the body to start producing antibodies and others to control the rate of antibodies being made to prevent the many possible side effects.

The currently offered “shots” are made by using mRNA bits as templates that match one particular part of the virus. In the case of Covid that is the “spike” protein on the outside. The “spike” is the structure that enables the process of the virus that gets it taken into the cell.
The “shot” is based on an mRNA molecule to trigger the immune system to reproduce the proteins and structures that will neutralize the “spike” protein. The mRNA can be produced in quantity fairly quickly and profitably.

The reason the mRNA treatment is not often used is that it only attacks one single part of the virus. It must be repeatedly injected to maintain that function. It is essentially an antiviral chemical that attacks one very specific part of the infectious virus. The mRNA effectiveness fades rather quickly because the body is continually “cleaning up” foreign substances and getting them excreted.

A “conventional” vaccine stimulates the body to react to multiple parts of the bacteria or virus, making it more effective. It also stimulates long lived “T cells” in the immune system that maintain the immunity and can resurrect the original antibodies if needed. mRNA doesn’t do that which allows its effectiveness to go down fairly rapidly.

Once the current crisis abates the TOP priority should be the development of a true vaccine for the whole spectrum of Corona viruses that can kill people.

Reply to  Philo
November 1, 2021 9:49 am

the vaccine, in the proper meaning, and not by the proposition of a “live” virus, does only one positive work, same almost as a blood plasma antibody treatment.
It just gives the immune system the info required for production of the coresponding antibodies.

Is less effective and not as good as antibody treatment, with extra risks and side effects… but more cost effective in mass production and mass application though.
More cost effective for industrial scale production and utilisation than blood plasma antibodies treatment.

The blood plasma treatment does not carry the specific risk, which some times it may be a very very high risk, in an individual case or the case of herd penetration.
The risk of secondary effect of a vaccine.
The blocking effect.

For most of viruses that happens to be low risk, but in case of pulmonary viral infection that has a very high chance to become a very very dangerous condition, as it will jeopardize and degrade the symbiotic immunity.
A condition that will consist as one of IDS (Immunity Deficiency Syndrome)
Technically acquired, artificially.

Technically a vaccine simply consists mainly as an immunity upgrade treatment.
Which in the case of an already infected individual consist almost always as an immunity downgrade…. with a high risk of causing an autoimmune response condition.

To a degree, the antibiotics may be considered as vaccines,
but are not in reality, as the immunity upgrade, in case of antibiotics, is short lived, temporary, not permanent.
Also Technically consisting as a different support and boost immunity mechanism… not a proper upgrade.

The new experimental “vaccines” consist more in line with the antibiotics, in consideration of the operational mechanism and support boost offered to the immune system.
Kinda of very very potent antibiotic treatments, with quite an elongated extended residence time in consideration and comparison with other classic antibiotics.

Oh well this already a long response to your comment.


Reply to  Philo
November 4, 2021 8:24 pm

The earliest form of vaccination is variolation for smallpox. This consists of taking material from the pustules of a smallpox patient with a mild form of the disease and scratching a small amount into the skin of another person. Most of the time, the inoculated person gets a very mild form of smallpox and is then immume.

It was popularized in England from 1720, China and India from the 1500s. Some Chinese sources appear to show the process used in 200 bce.

Reply to  Duker
November 1, 2021 6:34 am

In the Middle Ages “lockdowns, both spontaneous in some villages and enforced by the local baron or sheriff happened. It took awhile for them to start sporadically. They didn’t do much to stop the small pox but they did save some isolated villages from destruction.

Problematically, the recent rage for “lockdowns” has done much to damage the functioning of the country and seriously affect education, all at great expense and little effect in the end.

Modern practice, until this epidemic, was usually “quarantine”. The premise was: isolate the sick and restrict them to home to prevent others from getting ill. Doctors and nurses would identify the smallpox and the legal authorities would post a notice on the dwelling to limit the outside activities of the residents.

In most place neighbors helped by getting groceries and other necessities. The doctors and nurses coached the residents in palliative care for the sick and sterilization methods to, as much as possible, keep the “pox” contained until people either died or developed immunity.

Trying to “lockdown” millions of healthy people in their homes was futility from the beginning. Draconian regulations had a small effect, but the “superior” types had no qualms about surreptitiously socializing, sharing booze, going visiting as they pleased.

Children were suddenly “schooled” via computers with no really effective ways of making it work. Trying to learn from a TV set of talking heads was never started because it was effective. It kept the teachers out of the class rooms and the children were isolated losing much of the educational effect from learning right next to each other. For most, they lost the whole year or more of educational progress. Some smarter children, with parental help, kept up their studies and continued to learn.

The overall effects were disastrous damage to the schools and children, major damage to the movement of food and other necessities, huge economic losses, and in some places mass movements of desperate people and/or wars or skirmishes.

Overall the official plans were worse than useless and had little effect on the course of the epidemic. The only “positive” was some officials, police, politicians, and rioters had their own autonomy and got to cause trouble everywhere.

Reply to  Philo
November 1, 2021 10:34 am

A quarantine or isolation of a village or a town or a city does not consist as a lockdown Philo.

There never ever was a lockdown proper, either by mandate or individual choice ever before 2020.

Stop confusing real given conditions by means of terminology deformation.

Lockdown is lockdown, as it does not happen to be a condition either of quarantine or isolation, regardless of territory or population size.


Reply to  Duker
November 2, 2021 11:17 am

False Logic,

A) The vaccine mandate is for the good of the public health.
B) You still must wear a mask, for the public health.
C) Why? Because you still might transmit the disease.
D. So, the vaccine doesn’t protect the public from the virus.

Reply to  Duker
November 8, 2021 5:20 pm

The so-called COVID vaccines are no such thing. They do not provide immunity. Doubt what I am saying? Then why does the polio vaccine, which is a real vaccine, provide immunity? No one ever needed a “booster” shot for that.

Reply to  Mr.
October 31, 2021 2:06 pm

Or like a board of film censors saying, “We’ve watched this film 28 times and it is definitely pornographic.”

It doesn't add up...
October 31, 2021 10:12 am

Do we know the effect on unemployment rolls and university funding?

I’ve a shrewd suspicion this will be met with a lot of opposition.

Reply to  It doesn't add up...
October 31, 2021 1:25 pm

Yes, 100% agree. NASA, our Universities and most of our government agencies have been repurposed to study climate change and it’s effects… and stopping that is going to be near impossible. Institutional inertia will now take over.

Also, if Oreskes knows it is all dodgy, then I can see her witnessing all of this cash flowing and wanting to redirect the spigot. She is looking at the issue as judicial issue: “how many times do we need to try and convict the same defendant?” We got the verdict we wanted (checked that box) and now it is time to move on to sentencing. For whatever the reason, she definitely seems to be looking for “closure” here.

The thinking here is both naive and bureaucrat. It reminds me of the way they settled the vaccine issue. If she could only get climate change in front of an FDA panel. for a final ruling, that box would be checked, and like the vaccines, the wind farms & solar plants could be rolled out worldwide.

I hate to bring up the USSR again, but the leadership acted the same way: declared Lysenkoism true, genetics false and then proceeded to vernalize the entire nation’s seed stock.

Our current crop of elites / tptb seem to be completely impervious to contrary data, negative feedback and even reality itself. They have reduced it all to an engineering problem, based on a scaffolding of wishful, false and shoddy science.

It doesn't add up...
October 31, 2021 10:15 am

Meanwhile here is an excellent video from actor turned politician Laurence Fox, explaining why and how net zero will cost you everything


Michael in Dublin
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
October 31, 2021 1:35 pm

An excellent lecture by Michael Kelly, “Energy Utopias and Engineering Reality,” (2019 GWPF Annual Lecture) illustrates the unbridgeable gap between competent and sensible engineers and climate academics with their heads in the clouds.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
October 31, 2021 2:06 pm

While this is an excellent video an important matter has been overlooked: Net zero will cost the very small, extremely wealthy elite nothing. In fact they are likely to grow their fortunes like they did with the government imposed covid lockdowns. The rest of us will become impoverished peasants. Yet how many of these extremely wealthy billionaires who say climate change is going to destroy the world are prepared to sacrifice all their wealth to save the world? If the twenty richest did so and proved their money could make a difference then we would reconsider making sacrifices.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 1, 2021 4:22 am

Perhaps one of the filthy rich will move into a “tiny house” to prove their faith.

October 31, 2021 10:16 am

Although the chances are minimal, WG1 might finally become aware of the nonsense they were producing the whole time. I mean assuming a surface emissivity of 1, and ignoring clouds and their overlaps with GHGs. If they had done it correctly, the GHE would rather look like below..

comment image

And consequently, there is no way to yield any significant warming by doubling CO2, with an ECS < 0.5K. That’s sure a lot of good reasons to stop digging, if you are all political on the issue.


Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 1, 2021 1:59 am

As Einstein proved in 1917.

October 31, 2021 10:29 am

COP26 has been announced as “The last chance saloon” by that famous climate scientist Prince Charles.

Presumably there will be no more COP’s after this one then.

It appears there are two options, either solve the ‘problem’ over the next two weeks or, abandon our fate to the Gods.

Gonna be a bit difficult to solve the problem if Xi and Putin aren’t interested though, so it appears the future is in the lap of the Gods, in which case disband the IPCC, sack Mann, Oreskes and all the other climate ‘experts’ and just get on with life……….

Mike Lowe
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 11:34 am

…and tell Boris to kick Carrie out of number 10!

Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 31, 2021 12:38 pm

And then use the upstairs window to remove himself. Although euthanasia has a lot to offer in his case!

Reply to  IanE
October 31, 2021 2:31 pm

Boris is far too cowardly, to take the cowards way out.

Reply to  IanE
October 31, 2021 4:58 pm

Defenestration! Love that word

Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 31, 2021 2:30 pm

That’s almost a given as, by marrying his mistress, there is now a vacancy.

I’m all for leopards changing their spots, I have done it myself, but when it come to affairs of the nether regions, the vast majority of men are the same.

John VC
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 11:47 am

apparently, there is always another “last chance”

alastair gray
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 12:06 pm

Never beeen a fan of La Oreskes especially since her hatchet job on Willie Soon in the Beeb MiniTruth propaganda porn recently spewed out.Could be that they are running scared of maybe having to face up to data. After all even brainwashed students must ultimately rebel against their brainwashing. It is the prerogative of youth to call out the old fossils. They always did eventuially in bygone days
In teh meantime meet and share my Glasgow mascot Goreball teh Donkey. Ridicule is a fantastic tool for deflating the pompous patronising and preposterous.
So GO BOJO JOHNSON- Figuratively, but litterally in thesense ” and close the door behind you(And Nut-nut)”


Michael in Dublin
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 1:18 pm

Unfortunately the crown (clown) prince is not even funny.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 2:14 pm

The idiot Prince has been saying that same thing for over a decade now. Long Live Elizabeth, but it is looking like the end of her time is getting close now.

Stephen Skinner
October 31, 2021 10:44 am

Naomi Oreskes: – “if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?”.
Well. Korean Airlines 007 was shot down over Soviet Sakhalin Island. The flight started deviating from the correct course almost from the beginning and the crew failed to check where they were at any time. Even though the course was known and put into the onboard computer they should have checked at regular intervals and kept checking all the way the their destination.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 31, 2021 10:55 am

And your point is?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 31, 2021 1:09 pm

How to male bad analogies

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 31, 2021 2:09 pm

Why would you even ask someone that who writes such gobblygoop? Obviously cognitive dissonance is the force with this one.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  rah
November 1, 2021 6:44 am

It is? How so?

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 1, 2021 6:43 am

On reflection not a great comparison, but I interpreted Ms Oreskes demands as similar to ‘The debate is over’/’the science is settled’, meaning no further need to keep checking where we are. I was trying to point out (probably preaching to the gallery) that where ever it is considered that no further checking is required it usually ends badly. Of course, she is saying why do we need loads of reports saying the same thing, but that is still in the same ball park as no further checks are required because she will not be open to reports that say something different.

Richard Page
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 31, 2021 11:23 am

Not a valid argument. Not being aware of having a problem is not remotely the same as thinking you have a problem when you really don’t.
If they HAD been aware of a problem, then doing something about it (ie – wg2 and 3) would have been an immediate response.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 1:21 pm

Non sequitur?

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Richard Page
November 1, 2021 6:47 am

But checking and working out whether you do or don’t have a problem should continue irrespective of knowledge of a problem or not. All those checks are switched off with AGW core team, there are none, which means things will end badly.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 31, 2021 1:14 pm

Who or what shot down that plane?

That is not the first time that some like that happens.

Reply to  whiten
October 31, 2021 1:27 pm
Reply to  MarkW
October 31, 2021 1:49 pm

I think, I know enough about that incident, I think.
If I remember correctly… it was a simple navigation error… as far as the civilian airliner concerned.

There was a similar incident case, with a USA military flight trespassing China airspace… and also many other incidents similar in nature… similar but mostly not with the same innocent error.

It is not fair or just to justify the perpetrator by means of shifting the blame, fault or guilt to the victim.

I am against of arbitrary, lynching and unjust treatment against even a perpetrator.
But justification of a perpetrator by vilifying and condemnation of the victim, is for lack of better word fully 100% narcissistic.


Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 31, 2021 1:41 pm

A better analogy would be an airliner that noticed their flight path did not align with their designated route, so instead of correcting their flight path they rewrite the route. When they end up over Antarctica they blame the passengers.

October 31, 2021 10:58 am

What, and stop the never ending concoction of misrepresentations that keep the narrative alive? After all, without any real proof or observable consequences of CC what would maintain the fear in the people?

Curious George
October 31, 2021 11:12 am

Professor Oreskes is too modest. We should not shut down just WG1. We should shut down the IPCC, and probably the whole UN. What good did the UN do in the last thirty years?

Richard Page
Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2021 11:25 am

Exactly the same as the PBSG – when they realised their work was on a non-problem, they produced reports to justify their own existence and continuing paychecks. Keep the gravy train running at all costs.

Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 12:41 pm

Not unlike the US Acid Rain Commission, or whatever its official title is. Their first report was fairly short and to the point, was based on some real investigation, and made pretty clear that the scare mongering was unwarranted. OMG, they almost dropped the ball. Now they produce huge yearly reports about the potential of a non-problem and all their political appointees have a clear retirement path.

Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2021 11:28 am

The UN is a quango strayed far from its’ mission and taking on the roll of world governance. And we’re letting them play out their scam.

R Terrell
Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2021 12:31 pm

More like seventy+ years!

Robert Heath
October 31, 2021 11:21 am

I am British. I do not know who she is, but she’s really not very bright, is she.

Reply to  Robert Heath
October 31, 2021 11:33 am

Indeed, she’s the opposite of “All things bright & beautiful”

Joao Martins
Reply to  saveenergy
October 31, 2021 1:26 pm

Among all things non-bright and non-beautiful there are some things which are very dangerous…

alastair gray
Reply to  saveenergy
October 31, 2021 1:36 pm

I think she is as bright as she is beautiful. Reminds me of Rosa Klebb from SMERSH in From Russia with Love

Dave Fair
Reply to  saveenergy
October 31, 2021 4:54 pm

Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.

Reply to  Dave Fair
November 1, 2021 7:18 am

I didn’t even have to skin her.
She projected ugly from the first glance.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert Heath
October 31, 2021 11:45 am

Well, she’s a professor at Harvard, which makes her an educated fool. She does have her own theme music though:

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Robert Heath
October 31, 2021 3:24 pm

Intellectually she is really very bright. Unfortunately she has no practical intellect whatsoever. She is the epitome of the Marxist feminist who never could work out that an ideology must start with a workable idea.

Reply to  Robert Heath
November 1, 2021 7:17 am

She’s a politician, not a scientist.

“a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.”

John Hultquist
October 31, 2021 11:48 am

If Working Group 1 is disbanded there will be no official future statement saying “Oh, we were wrong. CO2 is not causing warming, and we don’t know what is.”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 31, 2021 4:42 pm

The real problem is now going to move to regional and local mitigation. The models will be even more worthless than they are now. They will try to keep pushing the 3 degree temperature rise as an Global Average Temperature. But as we all know, the mean (average) indicates that 50% are above and 50% are below. Who will be the 50% below the average and won’t have to spend as much? Governments will want to know. Start the popcorn!

October 31, 2021 11:57 am

The consensus bears a semblance of reality until it doesn’t Then there are the outstanding issues of attribution, qualification, quantification, and error propagation. Welcome to the world of economic/social/political science.

R Terrell
Reply to  n.n
October 31, 2021 12:33 pm

Make that economic/social/political ‘science’!

Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 11:58 am

You can agree with someone on an action that has diametrically opposed rationales behind them.
The CMIP process is inherently unscientific. And is the CMIP that underpins the climate modellers’ scam to avoid direct comparison of ensemble average and the individual model outputs to observation in the reports.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 12:10 pm

The CMIP process is at the heart of the socio-engineering effort to create consensus between radically different climate sensitivity results between a dozen or more influential climate modelling groups. Everyone gets to play in the process, no one is kicked out of IPCC sandbox.
As the late Dr Michael Crichton put it, “If its consensus, it’s not science. If it’s science, it’s not consensus.”

The CMIP process is all about consensus generation, this is at the heart of WG1, where individually there are many good scientists. It’s just when they’ve been put in consensus engineered framework, a mob outcome results.

alastair gray
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 31, 2021 1:37 pm

A Plague on Acronyms. What does CMIP mean

Reply to  alastair gray
October 31, 2021 2:48 pm
October 31, 2021 12:04 pm

She is essentially claiming that once a human life is conceived (“consensus”), we remain viable until Her Choice (“skeptics”) or her Choice (“deniers”). I agree with her about a human life, but disagree that the same argument is applicable to the climate outside of a limited frame of reference from the observer.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  n.n
October 31, 2021 1:19 pm


October 31, 2021 12:21 pm

That includes you too, Ms Oreskes. Time to shut up, will you?

Reply to  ChrisB
October 31, 2021 12:47 pm

Good point, Chris.

Will she be riding her bicycle from Harvard Square to Glasgow? Just what exactly is she personally doing to solve the problem, other than not buying petroleum derived cosmetic products?

October 31, 2021 12:30 pm

Well, yes, but, come COP36, we will still have just 10years to save the world. Who questions the existence of the TARDIS now!?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  IanE
October 31, 2021 1:24 pm

This is like one of those annoying old gramophone records stuck on one track.

Peter Wells
October 31, 2021 12:37 pm

I have now spent approximately 15 years studying this climate change business, listening to both sides, and checking the various claims. I have also read “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer and Avery, and “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs, and watched a lecture on Milankovitch Cycles by Professor Helfand of Columbia University. After all of that, back in 2014 we put our lovely waterfront property in NH on the market and moved to Florida in order to, as I put it, get away from that terrible global warming up north.

Then this past December I took careful note of the fascinating evening sky conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn unusually close together in the evening sky, assiduously working to elongate earth’s orbit, followed by the brutal cold in Texas in February, and see that we are now having some unusual cold in November here in Florida. My observation is that the next BIG ice age has been activated, just as I feared back in 2014. It will be interesting to hear how the idiot liberals manage to blame the ice age on the human race.

In addition to the temperature chart in the Helfand lecture, take careful note of the chart of sea levels on page 58 of the Burroughs book. The so-called 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle is not a long-term gradual thing when it comes time to change phases.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Peter Wells
October 31, 2021 1:22 pm

Because Jupiter and Saturn do not have equal orbital periods, they work (gravitationally) just as assiduously to reduce Earth’s orbital eccentricity and they do to increase it.

As for the statement: “The so-called 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle is not a long-term gradual thing when it comes time to change phases” . . . I need only go so far as to point out the very gradual slope changes as a sinusoidal waveform changes phase from positive-to-negative and negative-to-positive.

Peter Wells
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 2:21 pm

Ignorant hogwash!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter Wells
October 31, 2021 9:41 pm

Just how many people do you expect to convince with a two word insult?

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 6:18 pm

Just so you know if we talk about maximal force Venus exerts more tidal force of Earth than Jupiter which is 4th the moon and sun comes in 1 an 2. Saturn is way down the list at 7. So if you want to play the cycle game then Venus should have the most profound effect of the planets and if you could detect a jupiter effect then a Venus effect should stand out like a beacon.

Maximum Tidal Forces on the Earth
Moon 2.1 
Sun 1.00 
Venus 0.000113 
Jupiter 0.0000131 
Mars 0.0000023 
Mercury 0.0000007 
Saturn 0.0000005 
Uranus 0.000000001 
Neptune 0.000000002 
Pluto 0.0000000000001

Peter Wells
Reply to  LdB
November 1, 2021 4:58 am

You have neglected to consider the actual masses of each of the bodies.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Peter Wells
November 1, 2021 7:30 am

Um, calculation of gravitational forces requires mass.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  LdB
November 1, 2021 9:51 am

Tidal effects are related to, but actually different from, net gravitational acceleration (“attraction”) between planetary bodies.

What you presented as a table of “Maximum Tidal Forces on the Earth” is not a table of actual forces, but is rather a listing of ratios of tidal forces with the Sun defined to be the base. Moreover, tidal forces do not create disturbances to the ephemeris of orbits of planets around the Sun.

A tidal force is a differential force that arises from difference in gravity that occurs over the physical dimension of object in question.

More specifically, considering an object 1 exerting a gravitational force on object 2 with both assumed to be spheres, the side of object 2 that is facing object 1 will be physically closer to object 1 than is the far side of object 2 by the diameter (d) of object 2.

Gravitational force scales by ((m1*m2)/r^2), where m1 and m2 are the body masses in question and r is the physical separation distance. So, tidal accelerations will vary far-side to near-side by [(r-(d/2))/(r+(d/2))]^2. For cases where d is negligibly small relative to r (as is the case for other planets gravitationally affecting Earth), this last tidal scaling relationship reduces to (r/r)^2 = 1.0.

It is the net gravitational force between other planets and Earth that can alter Earth’s orbital ephemeris, not the negligible tidal forces. 

Reply to  Peter Wells
October 31, 2021 7:56 pm


Yes true, as according to the M. cycles theory of climate… the phase change towards cooling is quite fast.

Due to the condition of the albedo effect turning into a runaway effect causing a runaway global dimming… which in turns set a path to a runaway global cooling, which in time will further increase the global dimming due to the decrease of global total sunshine… and set a rather long global cooling period,
which is called a glacial period. (glacial age)

But that consist technically as related and dependent to the condition of max seasonal dimming, when and where the max seasonal ice growth-cover possible under/due to the max seasonal dimming period, which results as to the seasonal sunshine variation reaching max negative… where in such a given condition, the seasonal dimming impulse in the NH very significant on triggering a runway global albedo effect.

At this point in time, this period, the state of cryosphere, especially in the NH, is no any where near the condition of triggering a runway albedo effect, ether global or otherwise… no anywhere near the max seasonal ice cover.

In consideration of an observed global dimming and also observed significant cryosphere cooling in relation and correlation, at this present period, it will mean not only a direct falsification of anthropogenic climate science but also a falsification of the M. Cycles theory of natural climate.


October 31, 2021 12:48 pm


10 years to save the planet is religious mumbo jumbo

alastair gray
Reply to  fretslider
October 31, 2021 1:42 pm

The more vociferous the climate pundit the less grasp on scientific reality they have . Let us encapsulate that into Gray’s Law
“Climate vociferousness is inversely proportional to scientific knowledge, and doubles every 10 years regardless of any evidence to the contrary”
Now if we have defined a entity called climate idiocy it must be defined by a unit like any other physicsal parameter.
I propose that that unit be called the Charles after a tree hugger would be king, of that name. His vociferous protestiveness is so great and his ignorance so vast that the unit is too large for normal mortals so I would vote the Met Office sea level lies as about 50 milliCharleses of idiocy. As a byword St Greta of Stocholm merits a Mega Charles on teh Gray scale

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  alastair gray
November 1, 2021 12:55 pm

Prince Charles is a poser when it comes to the science of climate.

He lost all credibility more than two years ago with this (firm) proclamation:
“I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival”, Prince Charles speech at a Reception for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers, July 11, 2019.

Note that July 11, 2019 + 18 months = mid-January 2021, so we passed that point-of-no-return more than 9 months ago.

It is impossible for the Prince, as an aged member of British nobility, to admit “Ooops, I made a misjudgment”, rather we are embarrassingly presented now with the farce of “Please, trust me this time because I really, really mean it.”

Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 1:07 pm

Naomi Oreskes is not smart enough to even appreciate the stupidity contained in her proclamations. To with this quote of hers taken from the above article:

“The answer is for scientists of Working Group 1 to declare their job done . . .”

As any true scientist knows, the work of advancing scientific knowledge in any given subject (i.e., “their job”) is NEVER “done”. There is always something new to learn . . . even existing scientific paradigms to overturn (ref: Thomas Khun, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

However, it is quite common for propagandists (e.g., scientist posers) to reach a point of proclaiming that there original purpose has been accomplished and that continuing on would provide diminishing returns . . . especially when they have been called out for their obviously false machinations.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 6:54 pm

“However, it is quite common for propagandists (e.g., scientist posers) to reach a point of proclaiming that there original purpose has been accomplished and that continuing on would provide diminishing returns”

That’s just what Oreskes is doing here.

Oreskes is one of the chief propaganda tools of the alarmist movement.

She adds a lot of garbage to Scientific American.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 31, 2021 9:43 pm

She adds a lot of garbage to Scientific American.

That’s actually quite an accomplishment, considering the state of SA.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 2, 2021 5:22 am

I looked at the new issue of Scientific American and they have a big writeup of Anthony Fauci.

Michael in Dublin
October 31, 2021 1:10 pm

I will trust an engineer working in the real world long before I even consider a scientist working in the halls of academia. An engineer is concerned about what is affordable, achievable and really works. I have not seen a single paper by a reputable engineer that has shown how these three goals can be achieved in climate engineering for each of the 30 climate zones and sub-zones. The complexity of simultaneously attempting this in all the very different zones is a delusion. Adapting to and even taking advantage of climate changes is the path of sober realism.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 31, 2021 5:09 pm

Engineers are also acutely aware of the magnitude of the consequences for failure, before designing the required safety margins. I do not see any evidence of engineering input for the so called “energy transition”

Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 1:30 pm

Eric, when do Australians rise up and forcibly eject Dan Andrews? It’s gone on far too long already.

Reply to  Pat Frank
October 31, 2021 4:02 pm

Many people are drawn to fear peddlers

Pat Frank
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 1, 2021 10:08 am

Good lord! The police are beating people in the streets for not wearing masks or for leaving their homes, and voters are worried about the risk of another party?

They’re insane. Literally. Dan Andrews is moving them into a police state.

October 31, 2021 1:47 pm

If confronted with this prospect, which would shut off the money, the IPCC would promptly erupt with thousands of “unsettled” questions.
“But..but.. but we don’t know this.. and we don’t know that.. and…”

Jim G.
October 31, 2021 2:06 pm

Perhaps she is concerned that the reports have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Since each subsequent report has shown a decreased temperature to CO2 sensitivity, if they continue to produce reports, they might end up with a cooling effect.

But of course, at this point they will say that we must stop burning CO2 to stave off the coming ice age.

October 31, 2021 2:31 pm

I agree with Orestes for once.

It’s time to move on and find Site Locations and find the $65 Trillion Funding to build the ~21,000… ~2.1 Gigawatt Nuclear Plants (that equates to ~3500 new Nuclear Plants needed in the US alone) we’ll need in operation before 2050 for “Net Zero”. (To be able to handle *peak* energy requirements to replace all Fossil Fuels.)

If they are AT ALL SERIOUS about saving the world and keeping everyone from a scorching death by 2030…that Mega Construction Project needs to start right Away….Oh, and we’ll need another $10 Trillion for the EV Batteries…and 6000 Lithium Mines for some of the raw materials.

The Climate Fraudulists aren’t talking about the real scope and $Costs of any REAL tasks ON THE GROUND…because it’s not about the Climate.

These Criminal Idiots invented a Fraudulent Climate Crisis that’s impossible to fix.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 31, 2021 2:43 pm

There will be heavy snowfall in the Scottish mountains tonight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 31, 2021 7:01 pm

Just limited to Scotland?

The jet steam is now south of the UK so this will let the cold air come in.


October 31, 2021 2:58 pm

The scientists do not state unequivocally that humans are the main cause of warming, so she has no point. For one, every line of of material from the IPCC is editing by government representatives, so there isn’t any real indication of what most scientists say. Of course, she knows this as her own study of the consensus defined it as merely humans causing some change in addition to natural variation.

October 31, 2021 3:06 pm

“Halloween Horror”

I assumed you meant the mask she’s wearing.

October 31, 2021 3:31 pm

Anyone have a clue what “DAI” is? As in “Now that we know that DAI is fully underway,….”

Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 31, 2021 3:59 pm

Dai Bando was a character in “How Green Was My Valley.”

Actually, Kip, it doesn’t seem to be an acronym.

It’s more like an organisation.


Reply to  leitmotif
November 3, 2021 11:01 am

leitmotif ==> Yes, and very successful (profitable as well …. they will apparently absorb a great deal of the non-existent 100 billion dollars of Climate Aid). Thank you.

Richard Page
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 31, 2021 4:33 pm

No idea. The only reference I can find that comes close is http://www.dai.com but although it might be relevant, I’m not sure it fits.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 4:39 pm

Oh hang on, this might fit Oreskes mindset: ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’?

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 5:08 pm

Although in Oreskes’ case, I’d be prepared to change it to ‘Dangerous Academic Interference’.

Richard Page
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 31, 2021 5:14 pm

Kip, it’s definitely dangerous anthropogenic interference. Mickey Mann has brought out a paper on “Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference” which might be well worth having a look at online – don’t think it’s paywalled.

October 31, 2021 3:52 pm

Oreskes was the scientist not able to google correctly when researching for AGW papers, had to admit it by an official corrigendum

Pat from kerbob
October 31, 2021 4:50 pm

Whenever I see her picture or in video I think of that old joke Gallagher once made:

“Does Joe Jackson HAVE to be in his own videos”?

October 31, 2021 5:47 pm

What’s the point of Naomi?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jphn
October 31, 2021 7:06 pm

She is a climate change propagandist.

Pat from kerbob
October 31, 2021 5:51 pm

To be serious though, this seems more like the communists concept of democracy.
One person one vote one time only.

She is saying they stacked the committee and got the desired result, now it is imperative to prevent further research, nothing good can come of it.

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
November 1, 2021 5:18 pm

Such a good comment, “She is saying they stacked the committee and got the desired result, now it is imperative to prevent further research” – because, as an anti-science propagandist/activist, the last thing she wants is for someone to find-out the truth.

Doug Proctor
October 31, 2021 6:26 pm

How well would the narrative survive if the focus were on practical matters, technical feasibility and economics?

Thunders would be put out of a job … her only position would be to say “Faster!”, to which the technocrats would say, “That’s what we are doing, dear.”

While achieving nothing.

October 31, 2021 7:00 pm

Oreskes speaks with forked tongue. Science is never settled or finished.

WG1 is the only part of IPCC that is reasonably sane and they tend to moderate the more strident claims that come out of the hyper-alarmists.

WG2 and WG3 are packed with nutters and they assume worst case scenarios.

Vincent Causey
November 1, 2021 12:55 am

Oh the irony. The same scientists who torture data to produce politically desirable conclusions, just so they can keep the funding coming and feed themselves and their families, could now find themselves out of work – all because they served their masters too well.

Alexander Vissers
November 1, 2021 1:13 am

Certainly you do not want to listen to what economist and sociologists think. And what could urban planners possibly contribute? Our world is shaped by technology and engineers economists and sociologists in the best case just describe it and the latter are best ignored. Urban planning works on a horizon of 25 years or more. In my view the focus should be on firstly, expand the world food programme to feed the drought sticken areas.Secondly: step up sea and ocean front water defenses and thirdly as Bill Getes very rationally suggested, invest in research and innovation of energy systems including nucear as well as carbon capturing as Bill Gates very rationally suggested. And foremost: stop the propaganda, it does not help anyone.

November 1, 2021 1:43 am

The shut-down of WG1 that Oreskes is calling for would be just in time to ignore the new Nature paper with data supporting Svensmark’s cosmic ray connection to cloud and radiative balance:


November 1, 2021 2:25 am

She seems to seriously believe that there is a way for humans to stop the climate from changing. That alone shows how ignorant she is about fundamental facts. ” WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it.”

Trying to Play Nice
November 1, 2021 5:17 am

Where did she get that scary mask?

November 1, 2021 5:49 am

Oreskes has a point. If we truly have only ten years to save the world, why do we need another report next year saying we now only have nine years?

You have completely missed the point. We need another report next year to tell us we have 10 years.

The climate apocalypse™ has been 10 years away for about 40 years. Why would any sensible person expect that to change next year?

November 1, 2021 7:47 am

They wouldn’t want to find or report errors in previous assessments and models in the current environment of agenda intolerance now would they. Shut them down for their on safety and that of the Great Advocacy Climate Crusade itself. Do it before cyclical ocean cooling becomes obvious.

Jeff Reppun
November 1, 2021 8:45 am

To undermine one of the greatest gravy trains in the history of science funding could have some unintended consequences, Naomi.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
Your 97% or 99% consensus could be at risk.

Steve O
November 1, 2021 9:14 am

It’s a shame many of us may not live long enough unraveling of this fraud.
When is the potential fall apart time? If there is no measurable AGW indication in yet another 10 years is it over? Or does the whole thing just perpetually reset with fresh timelines?

Jim Gorman
November 1, 2021 10:03 am

I want to know if any models predict a coming ice age. What combination of things must happen for this interglacial to end? Surely the models are adequate to properly assess this doom to humankind.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 1, 2021 10:06 am

We are already in an Ice Age, what you meant was when GLACIATION phase will commence….

November 1, 2021 11:58 am

She’s frustrated and lashing out. She’ll remain frustrated as the renewable miracles will not be provided. It’s a stage of grief. I am going to say anger. She didn’t win, she didn’t get her solutions. She pointing her finger at the IPCC. Also reminds me of Greta. She’s blaming.

November 1, 2021 4:06 pm

Ha ha ha . . .

Dale S
November 1, 2021 5:19 pm

Getting rid of WG1 would make sense if the “science is settled”, such as a hypothetical world where climate scientists not only knew ECS to doubled CO2 to the hundredth of a degree, but also could accurately and consistently project all other climatic effects.

We don’t live in that hypothetical world, WG1 through AR5 failed to narrow the ECS range at all, and AR6 after all these years narrowed it into a range that *excludes” some observational estimates. And that’s with the temperature anomolies, the only thing GCMs have actually collectively predicted “correctly”, if your expectations are low enough to be satisfied with getting the general direction right.

This doesn’t mean that getting rid of WG1 is necessarily a *bad* idea, of course. The problem is obviously too difficult for them to solve. If the computer resources involved in GCMs were redirected into improving weather models, we might actually seem some benefit to humanity.

November 8, 2021 5:11 pm

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights