Public ClimateBall

From Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

by Andy West

Although a game played on a relatively tiny stage, ClimateBall™ points to fundamental processes, which across the vastly larger global public stage and involving billions of meme transactions annually, have caused the emergence of a cultural belief-system based upon the narrative of ‘certain catastrophic climate-change’.


Climate blogger ‘Willard’ has put significant efforts into a large taxonomy of skeptical challenges (the ‘Bingo Matrix’ or ‘Contrarian Matrix’) and brief rejoinders to same. Along with the very useful characterization of especially the rhetoric aspects of the conflicted skeptic / mainstream climate-change blogosphere, as an engagement not based primarily upon rational argument leading where it will, but one with different rules, a kind of ritual or game: ClimateBall™. Everything herein is my own view of ClimateBall, and what it points to. 

Willard’s site describing this game, with its interlinked plus well laid-out taxonomy of challenges / rejoinders, has been slowly developing for some time and from its own description is still at an early stage. I’ve found it most interesting, not regarding the domain-related points themselves but from an overall conceptual point-of-view. Although highly aligned to a particular ‘Battleground’, i.e. exchanges that occur within the climate-change blogosphere plus associated forums / knowledge-rich venues / social-media (in the spirit of the game I will term this the Clogosphere[1]), ClimateBall captures some essence of the critical processes that also occur in the much vaster and far less constrained global public sphere (which is not at all climate-science literate).

This article draws comparisons between the battleground of ClimateBall, and the enormously amplified battle playing out across the global public stage: ‘Public ClimateBall’, or ‘ClimateBall Big’. Games have rules, and although there are many constraints in the Clogosphere compared to the global public stage, some of the rules and indeed some of the very same subject material, are present in both environments; yet with very different outcomes. ClimateBall Big is a different league.

In the FaQ for ClimateBall, blogger ATTP (Professor Ken Rice) is quoted regarding the spirit of ClimateBall: ‘[I]t’s a game whether we like it or not. If you’re going to get involved, it’s best that you understand that it is [a] game, how to play the game, and what the rules[2] are.’

The Contrarian Matrix

Each skeptical challenge in the Matrix has its own link, boiled down to the essence of what the challenge is about. For example Historical TimesConsensusExtreme EventsRenewables, etc.


Each skeptical challenge has the word ‘but’ added in front of it. So, ‘But Historical Times’, ‘But Consensus’, etc. This is of course a rhetorical device in itself, yet usefully serves as caution that the challenges might be more about rhetoric and bias than about rational content. This is as seen from an orthodox PoV, but this PoV is the widest net for catching skeptical rhetoric, should this indeed form a main component of the challenge. And if any skeptics arguing each point are tripped over by such a very simple device, maybe the device found out their own rhetoric, or maybe instead they’re just ClimateBall novices, losing the play but not necessarily the point. And the game operates in both directions of course. One could add the ‘But’ precursor to every orthodox challenge, laying the gauntlet that maybe these are not well-founded. While this is hardly the way to proceed with rational debate, an element of ritual gaming has been a part of the Clogosphere for years, in part nourished by newer players sucked in.

To separate the game from rational exchange that has also occurred, it would actually be pretty useful to have a map of it. And a map from any PoV is a useful start. Whether some of the ‘buts’ are actually false positives (in the detection of rhetoric sense), and how much the given rejoinders to each skeptical challenge might also lean upon rhetorical devices and bias rather than full objectivity, is likely recursive within the game. Some points include domain knowledge that itself is disputed plus isn’t easy to untangle from ‘pure’ rhetoric. A similar mapping from a skeptical PoV would be helpful and might not be a mirror image, which itself would be interesting. The identification of as many known fallacies as can be found, would I think help to make maps from any PoV more convincing. Yet much more important than maps, is what the perceptive notion of a game points to.


The heart of the matrix and highest profile skeptical proposition is: ‘But CAGW’, where CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The first rejoinder is: ‘“CAGW” {1} is a contrarian strawman of the scientific established view’. Usage and controversy regarding the ‘CAGW’ acronym is discussed in detail at Climate Etc. here (with a pre-cursor / partner post here); which posts also point out that indeed mainstream science (the IPCC technical papers) does not support certain global catastrophe from anthropogenic climate-change or global-warming, the general meaning of the acronym. But while skeptics might often and inappropriately lay it at the door of mainstream science, they certainly didn’t invent this position. On a massive scale and with a landslide victory (as confirmed below), this is the winning thread in ClimateBall Big. ‘CAGW’ is a focus for both leagues.

Accelerant and inhibitors for the game

If there was no game, fully rational debate would lead only to withheld judgement in the absence of enough evidence, or with sufficient (overwhelming) evidence to choose between candidate theories, the emergence of provisional (almost certain) answers consistent with the evidence. There would be no ritual repetitions, no rules outside the normal process of testing candidates against the evidence. So, what fuels the game? What leads to different rules? A clue is in the frequently emotive nature of many exchanges (unfortunately, often negative emotions).

Many different fallacies and detailed bias mechanisms have pervaded the Clogosphere, these always occur systemically in conflicted domains where group identities are at stake. And the ultimate driver of group or ‘tribal’ identity is emotive (so not rational) conviction about accepted group-values. This is accelerant for the game, which in principle can literally bypass rationality for group adherents. This leads to rules that are more to do with emotive selection and an evolving population of false narrative variants, than with rationality. And ultimately, can create an environment in which emotive content and rhetoric devices have more power than evidence. Oppositely, where emotive convictions are resisted, exchanges drop out of the game and progress rationally. Rational exchange promotes more rational exchange; it’s a game inhibitor.

Battlegrounds: The Clogosphere and the Global Public Space

Having noted all the above, the Clogosphere is actually a place of relative sanity. On average the Clogosphere is pretty climate-literate, hugely so compared to the public domain, which means there is knowledge to feed rational exchanges even if that doesn’t always happen. And notwithstanding enough emotively driven plays to earn their own taxonomy (I look forward especially to the forthcoming sections of the ClimateBall Manual: IV-Climateball Tricks, V-Climateball Strategies, and VI-Climateball Principles), arbitrary evolution of narratives is severely constrained.

To this extent I disagree with ATTP’s quote above; the writ of ClimateBall in the Clogosphere is very far from all-powerful. While there are emotive redoubts and a significant proportion of emotively driven exchanges, and indeed it’s more than handy to have an idea of the game, playing is by no means compulsory and there’s a great deal of rationality too. While a never-ending-audit[3], another useful concept expressed by Willard, can be a very negative phenomenon when executed by a mono-culture, in a domain where everyone of every cultural loyalty and position audits everyone else, a never-ending-audit is net healthy and severely limits the extent to which emotive memes can depart from reality. Without this limit, such memes can achieve run-away evolution, hence asserting an arbitrary mono-culture based upon complete falsehood. For instance, a constant fire-watch on ‘CAGW’ by both skeptics and the orthodox (from very different perspectives and for different reasons[4]), prevents this meme from ever gaining purchase in the Clogosphere. Even as it remains an incessant bone of contention, which contention helps stop the fire-watch from ever lapsing.

Which leads us to what must happen on the battleground of the global public space. This space is essentially devoid of climate knowledge, subject to less rational audit as decades pass, and fosters demonization of any remaining audit functions. Nor is it constrained by any sense of ‘doing science’ or weighing evidence. Plus, it is also several orders of magnitude larger than the Clogosphere. As there are now few countries left where sizeable portions of publics haven’t heard about climate-change, the number of memetic transactions that occur annually in the global public space must be in the billions. Transactions = transmits, receives (much bigger than transmits due to various broadcast functions), and modifications. While smaller, the latter rise as transactions rise, which leads to faster rates of evolution; so narrative variants can swiftly pivot to challenges (such as covid, for instance). From a ‘selfish meme’ PoV, the burdens of evidence, inconvenient rationality and never-ending-audit that clog up the Clogosphere, are all absent; only the gaming ruleset applies.

The game uninhibited: ClimateBall Big

Emotive selection is a major part of that ruleset. Although it isn’t so simple as ‘the most emotive meme takes all’, nevertheless such a meme rises to the top-dog position. And it’s difficult to be more emotive than certain global catastrophe for the planet. In practice, a whole population of associated variants implemented by a plethora of rhetoric devices live under the top-dog narrative, which directly or indirectly sponsors them. This allows for many potent emotive ‘cocktails’ (e.g. ‘hope and fear’) that leverage more support, plus reduces the effect whereby highly emotive variants induce not only emotive conviction, but also emotive rejection at the same time (cultures are polarizing). ‘Softer’ narratives still linked to the top-dog can increase the number of adherents ‘on the sly’, prompting less rejection and pulling in wider (albeit less ardent) support for the overall cultural agenda. A key sub-theme is ‘salvation’ (via a crash Net-Zero program).

So, as a result of runaway narrative evolution the CAGW fairy-story dominates the global public space. As it has slowly captured institutions and the machinery of governments plus mainstream media, church leaders, influencers and uncle Tom Cobbly and all, then less and less rational audit prevents its spread. Relative to the Clogosphere, this is not at all a rational space. Rationality is effectively vanquished. For full clarity, from here on I add the implied ‘certain’ catastrophe (absent salvation via crash Net-Zero) to the acronym, so ‘CCAGW’.

Being free from all encumbrances causes different sub-narrative variants to be surfaced compared to the Clogosphere (which is mainly about science and policy even where exchanges fall prey to ClimateBall). I term the population of narrative variants sponsored by the top-dog theme of CCAGW, ‘Catastrophe Narrative’.

It’s more intuitive that in the Global Public Space, the processes driving masses of individuals to the tune of emotive narratives are largely subconscious. Cultural drives are the oldest and most potent way of aligning human activity, for which no deliberated hoax / conspiracy / nefarious plot is required. Notwithstanding that in any barrel there’ll be a few bad apples, there’s no reason to suppose that this is different for the gaming aspects of the Clogosphere. People aren’t emotive because they’re knowingly pushing a false agenda, but because they deeply believe they’re pushing the truth, and against what is frequently perceived as deliberate resistance; yet such strong (group) belief can blind any of us.

Measuring the game

The overall effect of ClimateBall to date is very difficult to measure, maybe impossible. Particular encounters can be catalogued, but they’re often highly entwined from multiple positions, may well be inconclusive, and the Clogosphere remains stubbornly riven with rationality that undermines or even short-circuits plays. Nor are formal surveys generally carried out on the Clogosphere. Some attempts to characterize websites and traffic seem too simplistic to tell us anything that denizens didn’t already know. From purely the gaming PoV it has a word-war one-ish character, a stalemate punctuated by ritual exchanges that achieve little.

However, measuring the effect of ClimateBall Big is certainly possible. There are quite a number of relevant surveys covering the global public space. And while public authorities are not separately surveyed, for the higher-profile ones at least their clear statements are frequently recorded on the internet, which means a useful catalogue can be compiled. Authority stances both indicate the level of cultural penetration achieved, plus for any given period, what narrative is pushing corresponding publics via authority influence. The section below covers such a catalogue, which indeed demonstrates ubiquitous Catastrophe Narrative from public authorities; the section after that covers the mass response of global publics. Overall, ClimateBall Big has an early world-war two-ish character, a constant conquering of territory – so far memetic Blitzkrieg is winning.

The Catastrophe Narrative Matrix

The Climate Etc. guest post here briefly describes some of the Catastrophe Narrative variants as propagated by many authority sources (from presidents and prime ministers and UN elite on downwards) across many nations, plus supplies an archive file containing many more (179 quotes from 157 sources). I list the more common categories here, and in the spirit of the game that operates uninhibited on the battleground of the global public space, I precede the paraphrased typical variants in each with ‘But’. For precise quotes see the archive, which I reattach here (I’ve never had time to add more quotes since 2018, but there are now many internal links for moving easily around the file). Some particular phrases are more explicit / extreme than in the summary below.

While some seem more obviously emotive memes than others (it’s hard to mistake ‘Earth is a car heading for a brick-wall’), the persuasive potency for all comes from the sponsoring narrative. So, ‘save the children’ from CCAGW. ‘Extreme weather’ because CCAGW (whatever the state of attribution science for any particular event, using CCAGW to emotively convince of its veracity is a memetic falsity). But ‘X is bad anyway’ and it’s causing CCAGW. Nefarious doubters betray us to CCAGW. The new world is ushered by fighting CCAGW. But ‘listen to the children’ who spout CCGAW. And so on. Even in a CCAGW context some make no sense (e.g. blaming earthquakes on CCAGW); since the top-dog sponsoring them all is false anyhow, that’s a side-show.

  • Basic / CCAGW.
    • But certain man-made catastrophe! But no Planet B. But save the Planet. But all life on Earth. But climate-change catastrophe is real. But the future of every human-being. But “this apocalyptic reality is the elephant in the room”. But a question of survival.
  • Emotively overwhelmed conditionals.
    • But scary. But passion. But sorrow. But listen to FEELINGS (not the qualifications). Panic! (I dropped this in as it’s now explicit from Greta).
  • Fear plus hope.
    • Incredibly scary, but “Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen”. But new and better world! But new green economy. But one-world government! [Insert to taste].
  • Engaging anxiety for children.
    • But save the children! / grandchildren / next generation.
  • Moral association.
    • But noble cause. But climate justice. But climate criminals. But greed. But sacred duty. But willful denial.
  • Agenda incorporation.
    • But X is BAD anyhow!  X = Capitalism / Democracy / Flying / Frakking / Power-stations (even nuclear) / eating meat. Whatever. [Insert to taste].
  • Terminal metaphors.
    • But Earth is on life-support. But Earth drowning. But Earth burning. But Earth cancerous. But Earth is a car heading for a brick-wall. But heading for train-crash. But heading off a cliff. But into the abyss. [Insert to taste]. But we are “at the limits of suicide”. But we are playing Russian roulette. But unleashing Hell. But giant asteroid equivalent. “About a decade ago I realized we were putting the finishing touches on our own extinction party.” (2011).
  • Merchants of doubt.
    • But don’t heed doubters! Doubters are immoral / lining their pockets / greedy / dishonest. Doubters = deniers / corporations / fossil-fuel purveyors / mavericks / right-wing. [Insert to taste, essentially anyone out-group on CCAGW]. (Essentially, but don’t listen to the Devil).
  • The voice of innocence.
    • But listen to the children!
  • Attribution reinforcement.
    • But extreme weather. But Natural Disasters.
  • Deadline deployments
    • But Doomsday clock. But the cost of inaction is catastrophic! But only X years / months / days / hours to act! [insert interval / dates to taste, very many have passed].
  • Miscellaneous: Cute icons, Ultimate out-group action, No-hopers.
    • But Polar Bears. But Penguins.
    • But “You cannot pick and choose — if you don’t accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor…”. Greg Skilbeck, essentially because it’s an “existential threat to civilization”, and science is an all or nothing proposition.
    • “But any which way, barring miracles, this civilization is going down. It is time we stopped engaging in the absurd contortions and pretences of ‘climate-optimism’. It’s time now for climate-realism. That entails not only an epic struggle to mitigate and adapt, an epic struggle to take on the climate-criminals, but also starting to plan seriously for civilizational decline and collapse”. Rupert Read.

The mass response of Global Publics

Public surveys don’t generally ask what people think about climate apocalypse and simultaneous salvation, the core of Catastrophe Narrative. However, many questions / answer-options approach this to various emotive degrees by asking about, say, national harm or personal harm, or offering terms like ‘extremely serious’ to describe climate-change, or offering a list of national or global issues from which climate-change can be picked as the single-most or 1 of N most important issues. These allow us to see emotive convictions in publics across nations[5], who have been soaked in Catastrophe Narrative for decades. As Catastrophe Narrative is cultural and contradicts mainstream science (and skeptical science), we expect responses to dominantly conform to a cultural pattern if it has indeed won ClimateBall Big. So, is this the case?

The chart below shows a basic summary (less series, less features) of climate-change ‘most supportive’ responses across national publics, to various survey questions. Text of the questions is listed at the end of this post. Two features of the chart shout out that a strong ‘climate culture’ is indeed being interrogated here; religiosity is acting as the ‘lens’ via which we can see it. But first, some nomenclature and context.

The grey trends are climate-change supportive responses to reality-constrained questions, i.e. those asking about climate-change relative to other real-world issues / policies / financing. Such questions have different strengths of constraint. E.g. picking climate-change (or a related policy) as a single priority from 9 issues, is a stronger constraint than picking climate-change as one of 5 priorities from 12. Picking from national issues is a stronger constraint than picking from global issues (less perceived personal impact from the latter).

The black trends are climate-change supportive responses to unconstrained questions. These are free from the above constraints, allowing full expression of cultural commitments absent any clash or compromise with reality. Such questions have different strengths of emotive alignment to Catastrophe Narrative. And in regard to posited climate-change harms, the emotive ranking is: personal beats national beats global. Because cultures are emotively polarizing, all the black trends should intersect somewhere. This isn’t the case for the reality-constrained responses, as long as each represents a unique and non-equivalent reality.

So, the trendline key is: ‘SA’= Strongly-Aligned, ‘MSA’ = Medium-Strong-Aligned, ‘MWA’ = Medium-Weak-Aligned, and ‘WA’ = Weakly-Aligned. ‘FC’ = Fully-Constrained, ‘SC’ = Strongly-Constrained, ‘MC’ = Medium-Constrained, and ‘WC’ = Weakly-Constrained. Note: the ‘MC’ trend is intuited; I haven’t yet found a series roughly bisecting the space between ‘SC’ and ‘WC’. Note: due to noise, the RH end of ‘MWA’ lands bang on top of ‘WA’. Hence, 1 unit (+1Y) is added to MWA, in order to make the conceptual situation clearer.

The first shout-out is that the systemic differences between the grey and black trends should always occur when interrogating a strong culture. The two different response types will be similarly grouped, and the unconstrained trends will intersect while the reality-constrained ones won’t. For instance, this exactly occurs when interrogating religion (and with basic enough values, across all main Faiths). In one-dimension so to speak, i.e. when plotting faith supportive responses to questions on religiously-orientated values against the same X-axis of National Religiosity, then all the trends must slope the same way. But otherwise, the features are the same. And we know that religion is wholly cultural.

The second shout-out that attitudes to climate-change are cultural, is the apparent paradox that those nations expressing by far the most concerns about climate-change (RH ends of black trends), also express the least priority for climate-change relative to other issues / policies (RH ends of grey trends). And the opposite is true at the LHS, albeit the grey and black trends overlap more. Such a pattern can’t possibly come from the climate or climate exposure of nations, or climate-science or related policy aims, or indeed anything rational. Yet this can arise from cultural motivation; cultures feature fundamental contradictions that may sometimes achieve blatant expression. In this case, it’s due to a dual interaction between religion and ‘climate culture’.

Together, these shout-outs tell us that public attitudes to climate-change are indistinguishable from those for any other strong culture. In the global public space, climate-change is essentially a secular religion. This is the result of ClimateBall Big to date, a memetic game in which Catastrophe Narrative, with it’s top-dog theme of CCAGW, has triumphed.


The victory of Catastrophe Narrative in ClimateBall Big isn’t just an academic matter, because real-world phenomena are driven by the cultural attitudes of national publics to climate-change. For instance, the level of climate-activism per nation also follows a simple and dominantly cultural pattern. Perhaps not a complete surprise. Yet so does the commitment to renewable energy (Solar and Wind) per nation, meaning that this does not depend primarily on the climate or climate exposure of nations, nor science or engineering issues, nor objective policy generally. This ought to be a concern to everyone across the spectrum of climate-change opinion, from the skeptical to the highly concerned. Via emotive selection, cultural entities steer us en-masse to pour resource into not solving their touted problem, which maximizes their spread and influence, while a genuine solution would kill the culture. This is likely the main source of animosity in various green groups (and Greta) to nuclear as the heavy-lifter in Net-Zero solutions. And all this is why I probe the big league that determines events, not the little league; yet the concept of ClimateBall is nevertheless a helpful one.

Table and notes

QuestionMeasured (CC supportive) responseData-points, R2, pThose who choose…Measured (CC supportive) responseData-points, R2, p
How much of an impact, if any, do you believe climate change will have on your life?‘A great deal’ SA240.87, 2.2E-11Climate-change as important in 1 of Y (National issues)Point samples confine below5, *, *
How concerned are you, if at all, that global climate change will harm you personally at some point in your lifetime?‘Very concerned’ MSA260.45, 1.7E-4Fully-Constrained upper estimate from WC (Divide by 6)FCn/a
Because of human activities, the Earth is close to ‘tipping points’ in nature where climate or nature may change suddenly, or may be more difficult to stabilise in the future.‘Strongly agree’ MWA17, 0.66, 7.4E-5‘Climate-change’ as important in 1 of 9 (Global threats)SC160.33, 2.1E-2
How much power, if any, do you think International bodies (e.g. the United Nations) have to combat climate change?‘A great deal’ WA240.8, 4.6E-9‘Action on climate-change’ as important in 6 of 17 (Global issues)WC480.57, 5.7E-10  
How serious a problem, if at all, do you think climate change is?‘Extremely’ WA1370.49, 1.4E-6

Link to Catastrophe Narrative Archive.

[1] From the ClimateBall Manual‘More Dance than Sport’. A clog-dance seemed appropriate: Climateblogosphere.

[2] Willard has on occasion noted transgression of the rules, e.g. ‘ClimateBall malpractice’. But purely in a gaming sense, true rhetoric competition driven by emotive bias is never malpractice whatever path it follows. Or from an alternate perspective, compared to 100% objectivity and rationality it is always malpractice, so separating out one ‘transgression’ due to bias from all other transgressions, is not too meaningful.

[3] A key tool of ‘the grey men’ in the 1973 novel Momo, by Michael Ende, via which they steal time.

[4] Both sides in the Clogosphere disbelieve this meme. They disagree only about its source. Skeptics often presume it must be mainstream science that produced and underwrites ‘CAGW’, which as noted earlier is not the case. The orthodox often presume it must be a skeptic strawman, rather the winner of ClimateBall Big. It’s notable though that science has consistently turned a blind eye to the rise of ‘CAGW’ / Catastrophe Narrative in the public domain.

[5] Excluding those where a one-party state suppresses religion, as this warps the lens of religiosity through which we are looking. So China, Vietnam, North Korea. And also for different reasons the US; the same cultural principles hold but there is more complexity due to a 4-way cultural dance (Rep/Con culture, Dem/Lib culture, religion, and ‘climate-culture’). In the rest-of -world it’s only a 2-way dance, religion and ‘climate-culture’. The US scenario can still be tied to the pattern in the chart, but it’s outside the scope of this post.

3.1 10 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
November 27, 2021 2:12 pm

What a great image, a bat hitting a ball. However, I can’t be tricked into further analogy.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ron Long
November 27, 2021 4:48 pm

Do you see a different image being implied Ron?

Oh wait…
But do you see a different image being implied Ron?

Curious George
November 27, 2021 3:13 pm

A wrong approach. It assumes that the “climate apocalypse” is a rational construct. No. It is based strictly on an irrational fear.

Reply to  Curious George
November 27, 2021 4:15 pm

“But CAGW” is indeed the central square of the Climateball Bingo, George:


Reply to  Willard
November 28, 2021 1:35 am

It’s curious to see the attempt to wriggle out of the carastrophist element of climate catastrohism. Take that away and there’s nothing left. The political climate movement is uniformly catastrophist.

Even the supposedly more rational and level-headed scientific literature has a generous scattering of genuinely catastrophe-predicting papers.

Obviously as year follows year and no semblance of any climate catastrophe appears anywhere on a widening horizon, it’s easy to understand this loss of confidence and attempt to row back from and deny prophecies of doom. But it’s far too late for that to be credible.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
November 28, 2021 6:22 am

theres plenty left,

uniformly catastrophist.” nope.
watch me

  1. co2 warms the planet
  2. warming will produce harms and benefits
  3. warming will produce winners and losers
  4. ON balance harms exceed benefits, losers outnumber winners
  5. we can prevent or mitigate harms or adapt to changes or both.
  6. in worst case scenarios climate change will be a seriuous challenge to civilization
  7. mitigation is cheaper than adaptation.
  8. it makes sense to prevent change if we can do it at a low cost.
  9. we should work together to find ways to manage the harms of climate change (warming and cooling) while preserving our freedoms ad way of life

THERE. not one word about catastrophe your challenge is to escape the matrix!! you cant think originally. because you are not free

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 8:10 am

ON balance harms exceed benefits, losers outnumber winners

But did someone put their thumb on the scale? Again?

Reply to  yirgach
November 28, 2021 8:59 am

thumb on the scale? jesus thats a tired skeptical trope do you have any original thoughts or are you merely reciting formulas and modelling discourse

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:44 am

AND 7. mitigation is cheaper than adaptation. What a crock!

WE, as in the world, are spending hundreds of billions US$ on mitigation for NO benefit. Adaptation only costs WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO ADAPT, which has yet to happen ANTWHERE in the world.

And that is the central fallacy of your religion Steven.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
November 28, 2021 6:31 pm

“Adaptation only costs WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO ADAPT, which has yet to happen ANTWHERE in the world.”

I think that is the heart of it. We’re still waiting for the bad things to happen. There’s nothing to adapt to as of yet

Many of us think there will never be anything related to CO2 that humans will have to adapt to as far as the Earth’s weather is concerned. Nothing so far, and we are well down that CO2 road. When are these CO2 problems going to start cropping up?

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 1:55 pm

Next time use some actual numbers, OK?
And don’t forget the error bars, OK?
And don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, OK?

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 11:08 am

Your scheme looks fine – have you discussed it with Extinction Rebellion, or Greta Thunberg?

The best outcome of climate mitigation is the return of modernised (and modular) nuclear power generation.

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 1:34 pm

Mr. Mosher: I watched. Too wordy. 1. co2 warms the planet in an amount too small to measure to date. Please show me the measured amount, or 2-9 is the usual warmist trope, without the “c” word. Show us the measured amount or you can stop at 1.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 6:21 pm

1″warming will produce harms and benefits”

What harm has human-derived CO2 caused?

2″warming will produce winners and losers”

How has human-derived CO2 produced losers? I’m not talking CO2 policy decisions, I’m talking just CO2.

3″ON balance harms exceed benefits, losers outnumber winners”

What harms and losers are you talking about?

Btw, I thought your “Climategate” book was exceptional.

Where can I get a copy of that Briffa graph in your book? The one that shows the missing data that Michael Mann excluded in making his Hockey Stick chart.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 6:47 pm

Escaping the matrix.
Firstly in point 6, “in worst case scenarios(unspecified) climate change will be a serious challenge to civilisation.”
No definition of “serious challenge”.
Is that “an existential threat” or “an unliveable planet” as we read daily or just that after the ravages of climate change the citizen of 2100 will suffer some damage to his country’s GDP (Garnaut Report and Stern).
And to address your 3 points on “concern” leading to “fear for some” and your rational construct.
How rational is it for many, not “some” to be reduced to irrational fear?
How rational are Greta and XR and the “climate clock”?
There are many matters about which I am concerned but not fearful.
I am concerned about not winning the Oz Lotto tonight but not fearful because, like global warming, I have experienced it often without seeing any (unprecedented) catastrophes appear.
Here is a concerned but not fearful scientist-
“My first heresy is that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.
Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models….
( Here follows his famous passage about scientist not going out into the ‘muddy, messy world filled with things we don’t understand’).
…..There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer but the warming is not global.
I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems.Obviously it does.
Obviously we should be trying to understand it better.
I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.
They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as timely construction of adequate dykes around the City of New Orleans.”-
“A Many Coloured Glass:Reflections on the place of Life in the Universe”- Freeman J.Dyson.
I don’t think he is trapped in the matrix.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Curious George
November 28, 2021 4:26 am

with a lot of greed- by the wind/solar industrial complex and their friends in governments – the fear is their tool

Reply to  Curious George
November 28, 2021 6:31 am

its a totally rational construct. the concern is totally rational.

  1. its a concern not a fear
  2. its rational, meaning there are reasons to be concerned.
  3. the fear is a result of the concern. the concern is based on facts and reasons.

so the apocalypse is a concern based on science and reasoning that gives rise to fear in some.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:46 am

It is a “concern” created from a religious belief system not from rational analysis, so NO, not rational.

Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 4:05 pm

Science supports the skeptics. Irrational public fear in the West supports the profiteers.

That will all change when average people become seriously hurt by disrupted energy systems and warped economics. There is no free lunch.

Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 4:36 pm

Perhaps I am too harsh or too obtuse, (likely both), but the entire project seems like meta-analysis of meta-analysis, utterly divorced from utility.

Far too academic for my tastes. What comes to mind is a scene from Big Bang Theory where we hear Sheldon and Amy apparently engaging in their semi-annual “coitus”, and Amy says something like “Oh, that particular form of stimulation is particularly efficacious!”


Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 6:33 am


your argument is “buts its not useful”

assumes that utility is the only or prime value. are you a utilitarian?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:50 am

Am I a utilitarian? No, I would say that on balance I am not. I suppose that I am pragmatic and somewhat contrarian. I certainly appreciate art for its own sake and seek knowledge for the joy of understanding. I am always skeptical of popular ideas.

There is always a practical balance to be struck. If there is beauty or whimsy, then utility is not necessary. Where there is ugly disorder and rancor with a palpable ill will, utility is a necessity for a thing to have any value.

This exercise is little more than an sophisticated attempt to prove that the skeptical case may be dismissed because those skeptics are deplorable. Never mind that we can’t show that they are wrong. We have catalogued their arguments.

November 27, 2021 4:44 pm

You never learn anything starting from false assumptions …when you defy physics by saying temperature follows co2…or that the level of co2 is a threat when actually 400ppm is an uncomfortably low amount in the atmosphere….. your not going to learn anything but the ignorance of real science by those who play …No thanks. I’m going to have to take a pass… I have more productive plans , like changing the air in my tires .

Reply to  DougDanhoff
November 28, 2021 6:42 am

physics says c02 both leads and lags temperature and ice cores show this, your
trapped in the matrix

Our current period is not unprecedented. An alternative concept of carbon cycle reduces the anthropogenic influence to little. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide changes.

see how it works? you think temperature change comes before the c02 rise. you repeat this
because you heard it
you never checked
you didnt thik for yourself
your trapped in the matrix
so you never were skeptical of yourself

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 1:40 pm

Mr. Mosher: Looks like you took the colored pill that gives you an “ATTP” personality today.

Rich Davis
Reply to  paul courtney
November 28, 2021 3:16 pm

Acute Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura?

That’s awful! Hope you can get effective treatment.

November 27, 2021 5:51 pm

The problem with rules is that one side has proven time and again they cannot be trusted to play by the rules.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 28, 2021 9:09 am

this is

basically a rhetorical trick of playing the referee and score keeper in your own fight!!!!

ironicly then accusing others of cheating, while breaking the foundational rule of all games.

in games that require judgement, the players are not referees or scorekeepers.

whe you argue ask yourself
am I playing the ball, playing the ref, playing the crowd, playing the man

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:08 am

First of all, you’re not the ref, as much as you imagine yourself to be. You’re more like Anakin after meeting the Emperor.

Second of all, to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose. Just because someone revels in some ad hom fun from time to time, does not invalidate other times when they make a dispassionate case with evidence.

So, yep. Here I am playing the man and playing to the crowd.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:17 am

Said Steven, playing the referee and score keeper, while accusing others of cheating, while breaking the foundational rules of the game, in his own fight.

Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 6:19 pm

Nice try, but naw. I disagree.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 9:10 am

but no

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:18 am

Let’s not forget “Shut up”, she explained.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:31 am

but no

No shit, I kid you not. I really do disagree.

November 27, 2021 6:56 pm

But how do we terraform Mars?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  gbaikie
November 28, 2021 12:23 am

Hope you are keeping well.
The hard scientist is interested in whether her/his hypothesis is “right” or “wrong” (in crude terms), not so much about who is on-side or off-side or even why.
It is an observation/measurement/interpretation course, not a popularity contest. Ever so much more has been written about miscellaneous topics like popularity, very little attention is given these days in climate work to that vital question of right or wrong.
That upsets the class of sceptics that includes me.
Geoff S

Reply to  gbaikie
November 28, 2021 12:48 am

You can’t. Unless you can restart it’s core, there’s no terraforming Mars.

November 27, 2021 7:35 pm


one of the precusors of climate ball and the matrix would be discussions willard and I had on climate audit
about “lines” in chess. AND classical tropes in skepticism. and then also discussions about calvin ball.

the points made were these.

  1. there are certain limited “lines” in skeptical arguments. just like attacking ad defending lines in chess. nothing original, all easy to ducument and memorize, like the sicilian nadjorf. the defender and attacker will follow very predictable lines.
  2. there are also well defined skeptical arguments known as the tropes.

basically there is a cookbook of arguments or tricks that skeptics can ALWAYS use against any claim to knowledge. again othing unquie or substantive about these.

related phenomena soveriegn citizen bingo

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 27, 2021 9:20 pm

And yet without scepticism there is no scientific progress. Go figure! You are correct that the consensus doesn’t need no dang scepticism. It’s the reason science is stalled in case you are wondering.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 6:54 am

thats the whole point of climate bingo!!!!

skeptics havent had an original thought in decades.

except for willis

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 6:48 pm

“skeptics havent had an original thought in decades”

I don’t think a skeptic necessarlly needs an original thought, they just need to be able to discern what is evidence and what is not.

Skeptics take original thoughts of others and put them to the test. That’s a skeptic’s job, not generating original thoughts.

The skeptic’s job is to say “prove it”, and then know enough about the subject to know if proof has been provided or not.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2021 12:24 pm

In other words, be a Leonard! (Big Bang)

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 9:12 am

And yet without scepticism there is no scientific progress

with competent scepticism, not cookbook skepticism.

ive said it many times skeptics need to upgrade their arguments

make a case outside the matrix and bingo

that entails reading the actual science

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:59 am

So, regardless of you belief system, please tell us all WHY we should attempt to mitigate co2 instead of waiting to initiate remedial measures if anything NEGATIVE ever happens.

All your “science” does not answer this simple question.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 10:22 am

The very fact that the CO2 increase has been the foundation of greater and greater food growth which lessens starvation is worth considering as an offset to much of the possible warming problems. Even you fail to show that CO2 increasing will KILL many people. It may inconvenience people needing to move inland, but starvation won’t be a problem. It may forestall the next glaciation which will also be beneficial. Lastly, you fail to show how moving back to 180 ppm of CO2 with the loss of currently increased food will be a good thing.

Andy West
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 2:22 am

Thanks, Steve. In principle all such lines (and from any side of any conflicted topic) will eventually result in narrative competition rules, where essentially emotive memes win out and cultural belief results, as long as ‘too much rationality’ doesn’t prevent this from happening. The problem being that plays of this sort encourage rhetoric advancement and emotive bias. Notwithstanding which, the environment of the Clogosphere stubbornly contains enough rationality to stop such a runaway process occurring (in part via every loyalty and position auditing every other). But the global public domain does not. Hence a dominant and measurable culture there (see the chart) based upon the winning narrative of certain catastrophic climate-change.

Reply to  Andy West
November 28, 2021 6:53 am

whats lacking is original well argued skeptical positions

people are trapped in the matrix

Andy West
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 8:12 am

But at least most on both sides in the climate blogosphere are *only* trapped in a stalemate matrix. Because there’s enough rationality to prevent narrative evolution. In the public domain, fantasy has measurably won, and as noted this leads also to (again measurable) culturally dominated policy.

Reply to  Andy West
November 29, 2021 10:09 am

Hear! Hear!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:48 am

When 97%, or whatever majority agree on a science a few decades old, it is prima facie evidence that science is not being done! When most of them believed in the science at the outset, this is akin to belonging to the Masons or Knights of Columbus.

It is an entirely wrong idea that sceptics need to come up with a detailed alternative. It’s sufficient for them to point to failures in their predictions, improper use of statistics, actual climate data that falsifies main aspects of their claims: frequency of droughts, hurricanes, floods, doubling and redoubling of harvests… the sceptical process is a discipline that scientists are supposed to have internalized.

They have unwittingly outsourced it. It is an auditing process. It provides restraints in that forces them to abandon notions and shift direction toward different outcomes. The walk-back is reluctant and in baby steps, particularly when outsourced, but inexorably it corrects and matures the science.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 11:02 am

You want an elegant sceptical critique? How does this stack up:
comment image

You can answer these questions yourself. Is present or even projected temperatures unprecedented? Was the earth, ecology, human condition harmed by 2-3°C hotter than today?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 6:55 pm

That’s looks like rock-solid evidence of past warming above the warming we are experiencing today.

Where’s the repository for the Tree Stump data?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 30, 2021 1:24 pm

Tom, there is an abundance of this kind of evidence across the circumpolar region. Even in the Rockies in Canada they have found broken, very large trees from a forest dated as the Holocene Optimum appearing under some retreating mountain glaciers.

Here is a Medieval Warm Period big tree forest emerging from under a receding Alaskan glacier and you know the dissembling by climateers over that warm period

There is a 9500yr old spruce alive (!!) in northern Sweden standing high above the scruffy northern scrub of today that shows growth ring thicknesses year by year, including through the H Opt.

These trees are avoided like the plague by the ‘dendrocriminologists’ because the state of climate through the years is self evident to the бuтcher the baker and the candlestick maker. No dodgy statistical criмes or cherry picking in the analysis can cloud the real story and s child can understand the implications.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 6:53 pm

“It is an entirely wrong idea that sceptics need to come up with a detailed alternative.”

Yes, this is the flaw in Steven’s argument.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2021 12:39 pm

Part of the problem is that there currently no way to monitor or track the entirety of climate in detail sufficient to resolve what is happening let alone what is going to happen.

This results in the wishy washy claim of “projection” instead of prediction. In other words, the climate folks would like everyone to believe they know what is going to happen but are too unsure to say lay bets on it happening. Basically like saying 50% chance of rain tomorrow. They are right whatever happens.
“We forecasted that it might or might not rain, so we were correct.”

I would like to know when Mosher is going to begin making annual FORECASTS for the next 30 years. If he can’t make predictions, then what he puts out is not worth anymore than each and every sceptics predictions.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 29, 2021 10:29 am

It is important to remember what the weather was where mankind originally evolved.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 10:01 am

Why will Willard wonder weirdly?

November 27, 2021 7:46 pm

For brief moments I almost felt as if I understood what this essay was about. There was a tantalising impression that something important was being said but like the old dog sleeping by the fire, the earnest discussions wafted over my head, carried away by the heat of recently stored and released energy. The reason that rhetoric exists as one of the fundamental foundations of education is that the public is never swayed by logic alone but rather by a complex interaction of hired wired behavioral responses designed to benefit the group and just a very tiny smattering of logic. I believe the game is rhetoric played on a global scale.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  BCBill
November 28, 2021 6:57 pm

“For brief moments I almost felt as if I understood what this essay was about.”

You mean you read the whole thing!?

After I read a little bit, I started feeling like I was falling down the rabbit hole. So I stopped reading and went to the much more interesting comments. 🙂

November 27, 2021 7:56 pm

the best way to understand climate bingo is to compare it with sovereign citizen bingo

  1. layperson arguing with an authority.
  2. lay person misunderstanding the authorities they cite and the arguments they make.
  3. reciting words rather than understanding concepts.
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 27, 2021 8:28 pm

Mosher, you’ve described Greta, Gore, Obama, Biden, and the entire alarmist lot to a T. Well done.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 28, 2021 2:13 pm

no I havent, you need to demonstrate your claim with evidence

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 27, 2021 10:31 pm

What pompous twaddle. Most of the AGW “authorities” aren’t nearly as clever as they believe they are. If the media wasn’t running interference for their constant errors and egregious bloviating they’d look even sillier than they do.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 3:23 am

Rory, I agree. We are dealing with a catastrophic lack of quality. The authorities can get away with any old twaddle.

Reply to  Jay Willis
November 28, 2021 6:52 am

 catastrophic lack of good original skepticism

Richard Page
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:14 am

No, it’s completely true – even by your own admission. If the sceptics are unoriginal and unable to advance better arguments then why haven’t the zealots swept the board? It’s because both sides are at stalemate – there has been nothing new, no new arguments in climate science either. Neither side has a winning position or argument and, as far as this whole article is concerned, is utterly irrelevant anyway.

BTW – I deny the perpetual game.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
November 28, 2021 11:41 am

Mosh’s whine is basically that we skeptics have a set of unfair tactics called logic and evidence that we employ by rote without any originality. We don’t have any original mathematics like 1+1=4.2. Exasperatingly, we keep saying 2. What rubes!

We unimaginatively keep relying on the tired old trope that if a hypothesis predicts a result and it doesn’t come about then the hypothesis needs to be adjusted. We are oblivious to the creative option that the data can be adjusted to fit the hypothesis.

Let’s face it, we’re just a bunch of engineers and science geeks, not art students. And predictably, many of us hold deplorable views on politics to boot.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 4:55 pm

Exactly. Simply put, it doesn’t matter how creatively they deconstruct the science and then massage the proxy reconstructions, adjust the data and fine tune the algorithms, they’re stuck with falsifying the null hypothesis. Even Kevin Trenberth understood this when he argued for altering it to suit “climate” science (demonstrably outside the confines of actual science).

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:17 am

Unnoticed is the large contribution numerate sceptics have made to climate science. 30yrs ago, projections were made that proved to be ~300% too warm, even with egregious fiddling with temperatures to support this, the worst being erasure of the 35yr cooling period to 1979 and the pushing down of the 30S-40s 20th century high.

An added response of the consensus was to push the datum back to 1850 (from 1950) to bankroll 0.6°C of recovery from the LIA, and recently, 1750 was mentioned in a few instances

The third thing to rehabilitate the over-hyped temperatures was to reduce the threshold of “harm” to 1.5°C, which puts us on the doorstep to hell on earth today. Then CAGW became CC when snow didn’t turn out to be a thing of the past, and new cold records began to pop up. Sceptics are more vilified than they used to be, but also more grudgingly respected as the tiny steps of the walk-back are taken. The consensus has simply outsourced scepticism instead of embracing it in the science.

Steven, science is easy. It even has more than a bit of boredom in it. It has real rules, restrictive rules like accountancy does. Philosophy is more fun for the mind and has little in the way of restriction. It is clever and fanciful and largely of little moment in reality. Philosophers generally see science as much more plastic than it is.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 10:51 am

Steven, the climate doesn’t care about the blogosphere, it just keeps doing what it’s doing. This bingo BS seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof. CAGW is not my theory, it’s someone else’s. If those folks want me to believe, they have to demonstrate that it is true. In 20 years of researching, I have seen no evidence that sways me towards belief. As far as I can tell the only evidence is climate models. But w
e all know they are wrong, we just don’t know how wrong.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 2:19 pm

pompous twaddle? bald assertion without evidence is not an argument

constant errors?

ill ick an authirity–tim palmer– please list 1 od his constant errors

you cant because youre stuck in the matrix

but the media covers for them..

here is what you need to do

  1. pick an authority
  2. find an error without any help or googling
  3. explain the authorities position
  4. get others to agree that you understand the issue
  5. point out the error in your own words..

you cant.
no skeptic can

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 4:47 pm

Ouch … hit a nerve, did I?

bald assertion without evidence is not an argument

And yet there is a notable dearth of evidence supporting AGW.

constant errors?

There is no climate change that cannot be reasonably explained by natural variation.

ill [sic] ick [sic] an authirity [sic]–tim [sic] palmer [sic]– please list 1 od [sic] his constant errors

Sorry, I can’t get past your own errors … LOL

here is what you need to do

Who says? The burden of proof is yours, not mine. In nearly 80 years I have experienced no climate change at all, let alone the anthropogenic kind. No one has demonstrated the existence of any nor explained successfully how we would recognize any if it happened (never mind if we are causing it).

Here is what you need to do“:

Take your five tasks and put them where the monkey put the peanut. First I’d have to find an authority who believes in AGW … an impossibility. The two concepts are contradictory.

you cant.

no skeptic can

“bald assertion without evidence is not an argument” … sound familiar?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 5:06 pm

Ouch … hit a nerve, did I?

bald assertion without evidence is not an argument

And yet there is a notable dearth of evidence supporting AGW.

constant errors?

There is no climate change that cannot be reasonably explained by natural variation.

ill [sic] ick [sic] an authirity [sic]–tim [sic] palmer [sic]– please list 1 od [sic] his constant errors

Sorry, I can’t get past your own errors … LOL
You need to demonstrate that Tim Palmer is an authority

here is what you need to do

Who says? The burden of proof is yours, not mine. In nearly 80 years I have experienced no climate change at all, let alone the anthropogenic kind. No one has demonstrated the existence of any nor explained successfully how we would recognize any if it happened (never mind if we are causing it).

Here is what you need to do“:

Take your five tasks and put them where the monkey put the peanut. First I’d have to find an AGW true believer who is also an authority. The two concepts are contradictory. I can only find skeptical authorities

you cant.

no skeptic can

bald assertion without evidence is not an argument” … sound familiar?

This is an edited version.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 5:13 pm

Looks like both the edited and the unedited version were posted.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 8:31 am

How hard were you working at being obnoxious, mosh? Is that just a natural talent?

Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 2:21 pm

you played the man, not the ball. climateball 101.

skeptic demand rationality until its their turn to move

you got a problem with my personality
then YOU have a problem.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 3:00 pm

Just because you’re obnoxious doesn’t mean we don’t love you, man. It just makes you look kind of childish, pretending that every skeptic is the same. It’s a very sophomoric thesis. And then you admit that there’s Willis. So I have to assume that you’re just being provocative for effect.

I have to take it on faith that if Charles likes you, there’s still a chance you’ll turn back from the Dark Side, Anakin.

Geoff Sherrington
November 27, 2021 8:28 pm

One of the first, fundamental claims behind climate change hypotheses is that we know the link between air temperature and CO2 concentration, expressed commonly as the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS.
After 30 years of expensive research, there is no agreed figure for ECS, only a wide range of estimates, but nothing proven to a standard usual in the application of science.
On deeper examination, claim after claim is eminently disputable. Sea level change, ocean acidification, incidence of droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes making landfall, bushfires, polar bear numbers … the list goes on and on.
For each claim, there is far from adequate hard science or engineering of the type usually found in exercises outside of climate change studies. Customary aspects are often missing or misunderstood by authors, such as proper statistical analysis more advanced than fitting a line to an Excel graph, proper use of estimates of uncertainty, confusion between error and precision, misuse of extrapolation of measurements … the list goes on and on.
It is trite to ask “Would you fly in an aircraft designed to climate change science and engineering standards? Where near enough is not good enough?
This is no game. This is a very serious scam that is being thrust upon the general public, pushed hard by some big money and ruthless, unscientific tactics of silencing alternative science and general research.
You are not a learned person if you cannot see the many failures of the climate change story, not a qualified engineer if you cannot see the harm to society of ending fossil fuel electricity generation abruptly, in favour of windmills.
You are surrounded by modern comforts that you might not appreciate enough as benefits from the work of proper, hard chemists, physicists, engineers and so on. You should be asking for climate change workers to adopt and maintain similar professional standards, or to bugger off out of your life and mine.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 27, 2021 8:30 pm

Well said, Geoff, even if you do spell yer name funny. 😉

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2021 9:17 pm

Yeoss, he does…

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 28, 2021 9:39 pm

Jeff A,
It was folk in the US who took the ancient and honourable name of Geoffrey (as in Chaucer and earlier) and changed it to Jeff. Geoffrey Chaucer has been described as “the father of English literature” (Wiki search).
There’s not much in a name. I have made many visits to the US and enjoyed the rich variety of expressions and accents. Folk in the Southern US tend to call me Gee Off!
as in instructions to a mule. But That is no insult, you should not hear what I call them in return, esp after a couple of hours of chequebook religion by holy rollers on Sunday radio. Best to you, Jeff.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 28, 2021 12:01 am

Great insight. Few people see the real seriousness of such an elaborate fraud, intended to further enrich the wealthy and further enhance the power of the already powerful. In fact, it’s criminal, but the justice system is playing for the other side, out of ignorance, greed or ideology.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 28, 2021 10:55 am

George. Maybe there is no such thing as a single-valued ECS. Maybe the climate is so chaotic and complex that ECS can have many values. Under some set of initial conditions, it might have one value, under another set, a different value, etc.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Thomas
November 28, 2021 9:45 pm

Thomas, If there is a case for a many-valued ECS, it should be put to the public, examined, accepted or rejected. It should not be hidden under blankets of obfuscation as if it was not a problem.
The lack of an accepted sensitivity number is one of the main hurdles for those wanting to believe climate science. How can you mount a whole new hypothesis like global warming when one of its primary planks is missing in action for 30 years?
Hard science is being drowned by volumes of words from journalists, broadcasters, poor scientists, economic opportunists, even Presidents who do not have a fu**ing clue what it is all about.
Why? Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 28, 2021 2:23 pm

, unscientific tactics of silencing alternative science and general research.

nobody ever silenced me when i was a skeptic.
rather they paid me to be skeptical.

nobody ever silenced anthonys research

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 7:19 pm

“nobody ever silenced me when i was a skeptic.
rather they paid me to be skeptical.”

Who is paying you to be a skeptic, Steven? Can any skeptic get in on that? I could use a little extra spending money, what with Bidinflation and all.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:52 pm

Times have changed. I have corresponded with a German engineer who wrote a month ago of his plight, trying to publish an important new paper on measurement of global temperatures. There are many more stories like his. The ‘truth’ is being submerged by those who are not very interested in hearing it. Geoff S
 “ …  it is rather difficult to find people who are interested in this topic. You may be the first person in the field who has read my manuscript. At least the first person who responded. I find this rather surprising given that climate change is on radio, newspapers and television seemingly 24/7. A colleague of mine has contacts with Meteo France and sent the manuskript to them, but they did not respond, at least not to me. I also tried to contact several people whose work I have potentially “corrected”, but I also did not get any response from them. Not even a negative response. I also tried to get the manuscript peer reviewed at a few journals, but all rejected the manuscript before review. I received the quickest rejection only 5 minutes after receiving the automatic confirmation email that they received my manuscript. Even though I tried to stick closely to the formatting guides of each of the journals, it is not well received. Maybe because I am not a member of a scientific institution? Do you have experience with publishing in scientific journals? Do you know what I could improve?”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 29, 2021 1:17 pm

Right on, dude!!!!!

Gary Pearse
November 27, 2021 8:40 pm

It’s a shoe that doesn’t fit. I used to criticize Larry Kummer of Fabius Maximus website who submits articles to WUWT now and again, for seeing the ‘battle’ as between two points of view, basically founded in two different political persuasions. He used to offer advice and critiques to sceptics on persuasion strategies to ‘win the war’ or say why we weren’t winning. Larry’s interaction with WUWT over time altered his own view and he is a sceptic now.

Like Larry, Willard is not a scientist/engineer and so doesn’t deal with the actual logic and science. (I don’t have to be told he is not a technical person from his prose – “recursive” sticks out like sore thumb!). Both failed to see that each team has two populations, one, a scientifically literate faction and the other a ‘believer’ a political PoV person (on the sceptical side, there is a third category – contrarian).

The essay applies only to the innumerate contingent on both sides. Ironically, scepticism is a venerable keystone to true scientific practice, and the crucial ‘battle’ is between what is now a minority of numerate sceptics and a large majority of scientists (in name) who have abandoned the rigorous scientific method. Oh, there is nothing small about the game. All of science is at stake, as is civilization as we know it.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 12:52 am

But now we have to explain why the numerate minority, in possession of the facts and analysing them rationally, do not come to the same conclusions.

“But CAGW” is surely a slap in the face of the “orthodox” climateballers that they can’t get up from: unless they actively and publicly deplore the CAGW pronouncements Andy has collected, that is. Do they?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jit
November 28, 2021 10:01 am

Jit, no numerate skeptic needs to be in posession of the (climate) facts to note that proper science (and supportive statistics) is not being done by consensus science. ‘Not coming to the same conclusions’ is a venerable outcome when doing real science. Having over 90% all in full agreement is prima facie evidence that real science isn’t being done.

Reply to  Jit
November 28, 2021 3:12 pm

But CAGW” is surely a slap in the face of the “orthodox” climateballers that they can’t get up from:  cant get up?

skeptics declaring victory!!!!

you should know declaring victory in a debate and trying be your own referee or scorekeeper
means you lost!!!!

nature bats last in science

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2021 3:08 pm

Like Larry, Willard is not a scientist/engineer and so doesn’t deal with the actual logic and science. 

most engineers and scientist dont understand logic

willard is actually trained in logic both formal and informal

and published professionally in informal logic

you didnt even know there was a difference

willard takes his name from wvo quine

have you read quine?

please explain 2 dogmas of empiricism

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 30, 2021 2:38 pm

Wifty-poofty navel gazing of no use in reality is what your betters are engaged in -Nassim Taleb’s very intelligent idiots. Read his “Black Swan” for a categorization.

Regarding your other betters in the climateering field, I wholeheartedly agree with you that a large number of scientists not only are much lacking in logic but also in the application of the scientific method.

Look around you Steven. Everywhere you look you can’t avoid seeing or hearing, or feeling the wonders of engineering, brought to you through logic by those who elegantly translate the concepts of real scientific endeavor into the magic of products seamlessly woven into the meaningful, indispensable part of your life. Continue taking it for granted. We insist.

November 28, 2021 12:49 am

There is an interesting analytical account of the climate movement waiting to be written, but this is not it.

I think its mainly a social movement, and mainly within that a rhetorical one. It consists mainly in the repetition of a smallish number of incantations, and one suspects the main aim of these utterances is to display membership of the group.

This was plainly on display during the BBCs coverage of COP26. An atmosphere has been created in most of the UK mainstream media where its essential to give lip service to two attitudes: 0ne, that CO2 driven global warming is real, dangerous and imminent. Two, that local and often individual choices here in one’s own country are necessary, justified and effective in averting the imminent danger and pending catastrophe.

A proper analytical account would note that acceptance of the need to testify on climate to affirm one’s qualification for group membership is very similar to other witnessing to other belief systems.

Consider the role of ‘witnessing’ by public statement in the former Soviet Union (where one testified to Marxism-Leninism). In many Evangelical churches (where one testifies both to belief and to one’s own saved state). In matters of gender in the last few years, as when the current leader of the UK Labour Party was brought to the ritual affirmation that uttering the proposition that only women have cervixes was a wrong thing to say. In matters of race, where belief in the existence of race and of skin color as its marker is essential to social acceptance in liberal circles.

An analytical account of the climate movement on these lines would obviously not confine itself to climate, because the essence of the underlying phenomenon is not specific to the ideas that acquire this role.

But it would have to go further than simply analyzing the phenomenon of ritual witnessing by the public utterance of absurdities, interesting and important though that it. It would have to explore a much harder question about the content of such attitudes in contemporary society.

Why is it that there is the coalescing of such attitudes on widely different and logically unrelated subjects, so that we can predict what view someone takes of climate from the view (for instance) that they take on race or gender? Why is it that those subscribing to CAGW also appear to be completely sold on the practicality and cost effectiveness of running modern economies on wind and solar power?

I suspect if we looked at consumer choices, we would find not only do such attitudes cluster, but also that they are associated with consumer product choices, professions, where people are living and in what sort of housing (suburb, dense urban, small town etc).

We know that the political split liberal/conservative, or Republican/Democrat is associated with attitudes to many of the above topics, and is also associated with where in the country people live. But why? We know that American society has an unusually high level of geographical mobility, and that people have and still are moving to places where they can live with ‘people like them’, that is people who go to the same churches and associations and think similarly on political and social topics. Is this entirely a recent phenomenon and what is it due to?

The world is in desperate need of a serious analytical, evidence based account of this topic which would explain what is going on. And offer some idea about how to get back to a world in which reasonable discussions are possible and common, where the objective of the participants is to discuss and not to prevent any opposing view from being published or heard.

November 28, 2021 12:52 am

What I’m trying to say in the previous comment is that this is not primarily about the arguments and the counterarguments on the subject of climate. Something quite different is going on, to do with social circle membership. No amount of theoretical analysis of argument patterns is going to help us understand the really important aspect of the phenomenon.

Andy West
Reply to  michel
November 28, 2021 2:44 am

I think the concept you are trying to get to is that of cultural entities, which arise around emergent (emotive) narratives and exhibit in-group / out-group behaviours (consensus policing, out-group demonization etc). The ‘argument patterns’ indicate whether cultural narratives are emerging and whether or not a culture is in charge, and end results within the *public* can be measured to confirm (or not) that this is the case. See the chart in the post. The characteristics of a cultural entity (founded upon a group of people who align their worldviews as you note above), and expressed in terms of the climate culture case, are here:

Reply to  Andy West
November 28, 2021 9:14 am

Yes, that’s right. I am struck by a world in which debates are largely conducted in terms of arguments on particular issues, when it seems that the rationality of the arguments is immaterial to the participants, they are using the arguments as ‘witnessing’ to their beliefs and memberships in what you call a cultural entity.

And I’m puzzled about why the particular ideas that cluster together do that. Why is it that if you fully buy into the climate emergency you are also likely to buy into the 1619 approach to this thing called ‘race’? Why is it that if you buy into both of these its highly likely you think a woman is whoever says they are one?

Andy West
Reply to  michel
November 28, 2021 12:58 pm

Be careful. Cultural entities form alliances and oppositions. Some are weak, some are strong. In the US, all the cultural narratives you note are in alliance with the tribal left there. The climate / Dem-Lib alliance is strong (as is the cultural opposition of Rep-Cons to climate culture), but if the core narratives of CC ever came to conflict with extreme trans rights culture or so-called ‘anti-racist’ culture (ARC), they would not be friends at all. It’s only because they can exist in different bubbles at the moment that they don’t conflict, and they also have a common enemy in the right. Yet the US is unique on most of these issues to the rest-of-world, where from the chart you can see for instance that religion and climate-culture interact at the national level without serious interference from politics. Indeed in the UK all main political parties are full-on green, and this is a far more common circumstance than the situation in the US. And likewise any fraternity between climate culture and trans / ARC believers in rest-of-world is very thin skin-deep at most. They have different existentialities and different victim heirarchies and so on. The climate culture dwarfs all the others in terms of authority capture, world resources and money tied into the culture etc. If there came a need to stamp on one of the uppity others, it could do so without even blinking.

Reply to  Andy West
November 28, 2021 1:40 pm

You make interesting points – the contrast between the UK and the US is striking. Yes, its probably true in the UK that in both political parties and all of the mainstream media the climate story is unquestionable. Its not just the Guardian. Its the Telegraph and Mail too. There is I think some real skepticism from the Republican, and there is from the polls I have seen a real difference on climate issues between voters of the two parties.

You’re right to say there is minimal difference in the UK between the party lines of Labour and Conservative. Whether there is a difference between their voters or the sort there is between Republicans and Democrats? Don’t know.

The thing about climate that strikes me most vividly about both countries is this. People quite commonly advocate doing personal or local measures because climate.

When you point out, on rigorously rational and well evidenced grounds, that what they are doing or advocating cannot have any effect on the climate, the result isn’t wavering or hesitation. Its a look of discomfort, but its also an unwavering commitment to continuing to do it, and to do it because climate. This is really weird, its a classic mark of a religious belief, and its also a classic mark of behavior as witnessing rather than action in pursuit of an objective.

It would be really interesting if only one were able to question the Extinction Rebellion / Insulate Britain demonstrators to find out if I am right, if they really are equally persuaded of self definition of gender, and also ARC. I’m confident that they will be, but I don’t know any proper studies that have shown it.

Are they disproporionately Apple Mac users as well….?

Andy West
Reply to  michel
November 28, 2021 3:02 pm

Whether there is a difference between their voters or the sort there is between Republicans and Democrats? Don’t know.”

I’ve seen a few polls, which are quite variable (indicating a lot of “don’t knows” who can be swayed either way by the exact question type). But overall I’d say a much milder gradient than in the US, albeit there *is* a gradient (less climate support from the Cons).

“its a classic mark of a religious belief”


XR supporters are so tiny they’ll never figure in a general survey. And if someone does survey them separately, those’ll likely be the last questions get asked. And even if they give a nodding support, I bet this would be withdrawn in a flash if it clashed with their own aims; but indeed I’m guessing too!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andy West
November 28, 2021 4:47 pm

It seems self-evident that layperson opinion on many complex issues defers to their preferred thought leadership.

Tribal membership comes first for most. To the extent that the tribe has a creed on a topic, most tribal members will suspend individual thought in order to avoid being at odds with their tribe. At minimum they will self-censor like a pro-life Democrat or a gun-wary Republican.

Only if the topic becomes personally important will the tribe member dare to become a dissident, possibly leading to a change of tribes. At which point it is not unusual to see a flip flop on many other opinions.

Another factor is that while there are generally always two broad tribes each with a potential to be a majority, each of those broad tribes are coalitions of smaller tribes each organized around a key idea. To belong to the coalition, each small tribe tacitly agrees to be supportive or at least tolerant of each of the coalition members’ hot button issues.

People will only swallow nonsense for so long. Typically long enough to win an election and then the infighting begins.

Why the UK and EU have broad agreement on climate across major party lines but the same is not the case in the US is in my opinion because climate change is part of the new dominant religion in Europe. The replacement religion sometimes wears a new and improved Christian label but is shorn of any historical moral views. (Christian-branded paganism).

In the US there is still a remnant of traditional Christianity (at least nominal, social association with Christianity and Christian values if not actual belief) among the Republican/conservative tribe.

Leadership of the Democrats are functionally or aggressively atheist and culturally antagonistic to traditional Christianity. As recently as 2008, Obama had to pretend he was opposed to same-sex marriage because there was still a substantial part of the Democrat tribe that was not hostile to traditional Christianity. Either that is no longer the case, or the Democrats are at risk of losing a big slice of their support.

So my thesis is that support or opposition to the climate change hairshirt agenda is driven by which religious affiliation you hold. In the US there is a real albeit lessening division on religion while in the UK and the EU , religion plays little role. To the extent it does, there is a civic religion of climate change and covid which is similar to the 90%+ professing to believe in God back in the 1950s. It’s a faith that is a mile wide and a quarter inch deep.

Reply to  Andy West
November 29, 2021 3:49 am

the culture is definately in control of the discourse. skeptics are the least free
and their discourse is the most predictable and reducible to simple rules and patterns.
that doesnt make them wrong, just boring and predictable. they actually dont have to interact with data or the world. just spout the “lines” they learned from others

Andy West
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 4:22 am

Steven, what skeptics, or indeed the mainstream / orthodox do or think in the relative stalemate of the climate blogosphere, is largely irrelevant. The culture based on CCAGW won long ago in the global public space, and drives policy with no reference to science of any flavour. (There is below the surface also bulk rejection of the culture, which constrains policy especially in religious countries – see the chart – yet this is likewise emotive and not rational, and not dependent on knowledge). So whether blogosphere skeptics take your advice or not and to what degree you may turn out to be right, will make no difference to the public domain. As noted at the end of the head post, everyone of every opinion from skeptic to highly concerned should have a problem with a culture being in charge. But it won’t be thwarted from the blogosphere.

Reply to  michel
November 28, 2021 3:29 pm

exactly the arguments are merely tools or tricks or moves you learn as part of your identity as a skeptic.

lets consider this argument

  1. there was a little ice age
  2. the temperature record shows warming, now is warmer than the LIA
  3. increases in c02 explain this warming
  4. to reduce future warming we should cut co2.

now consider all the ways you can attack this argument.

you only need to attack one step in the argument.lets say you focus ON 3
and argue

  1. there was a little ice age
  2. the temperature record shows warming, now is warmer than the LIA
  3. increases in c02 do not explain this warming
  4. to reduce future warming we CUTTING CO2 THEREFORE WONT WORK.

why doesnt any skeptic make this arguement?







Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 5:19 pm

My, my mosh. So much shouting. I’m not aware of anyone here who denies the temperature record.

This is broadly consistent with most people’s view on WUWT:

1. There was a little ice age that was natural climate change.
2. The temperature record shows warming, now is warmer than the LIA
3. Increases in CO2 do not fully explain this warming
4. Therefore, cutting CO2 probably wouldn’t work to reduce future warming
5. Cutting CO2 while China and India increase emissions definitely negates the possibility that our reductions could help
6. So far the effects of fossil fuel burning have been mostly if not exclusively beneficial, especially in terms of agricultural output
7. It will be cheaper by far to adapt to any negative impacts of climate change than to collapse our economy now
8. There are no viable solutions to the intermittency problem. By all means keep researching and if you have a solution, then talk about deploying more weather-dependent generators. Deploy the storage first.
9. Nuclear power is a no-regrets option if we want a path to lower carbon energy. Deploy it first before banning ICE vehicles.
10. African lives matter. We don’t have any right to deny them affordable energy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 7:37 pm


Which temperature record are you talking about? You showed in your book how the bogus Hockey Stick temperature record has been debunked, so that must not be the temperature record you are referring to.

The real temperature record, the one that shows warm periods before the Little Ice Age and warm periods after the Little Ice Age do not show that CO2 caused any warming, because it is no warmer today than in the not-so-ancient past.

There is no evidence of unprecedented warming today as the alarmists claim.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2021 12:04 pm

Oh now I see where Mosh was going with that. We question why the adjustments have cooled the past, warmed the present, and eliminated the MWP, so that means we deny the temperature record even though we acknowledge that there has been warming. I see how that game works. Talk about rote rhetorical tricks!

Ron Graf
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 8:39 pm

Hi Steven, why am I not surprised that you had a hand in the inspiration for Willard’s climateball, matrix and bingo. Let me see, you coined “Lukewarmer,” were on the scene for climategate and were literally in a blog comment with Robert Way when Gavin Schmidt visited Climateaudit to shatter the tropospheric hotspot theory in order for you and Robert not to make the logical step to divide the LTL trend by a factor of 1.4 in order to project the expected secular GMST way lower than HadCRUT..

I am waiting and hoping that at some point you will come to your senses and realize that the political zealots can do great harm to our freedoms and the credibility of science and institutions by getting the science wrong. As Geoff wrote above, this is serious business. Did you see that Mann just published another book? You should read it and decide from what you know about MBH whether you want to support his narrative. And don’t be mistaken. You are supporting him by allowing him to represent your consensus.

Cheers, Ron

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 4:17 pm

Try again starting with:

  1. there was a MWP

Provide Mann’s hooky stick NOT SHOWING THE MWP.

Explain how that happened.

THEN carry on from there, not with your red herring of starting with the LIA.

And in the end explain WHY we should spend hundreds of billions to “combat” co2 instead of waiting for something BAD to happen and then dealing with it, IF it ever does happen..

Peta of Newark
November 28, 2021 2:23 am

Insulin may help

Joao Martins
November 28, 2021 4:24 am

Each skeptical challenge has the word ‘but’ added in front of it.

Starting the presentation of an argument with “but” is assuming a defensive position: first rule, avoid starting a discussion assuming you are or may be wrong: you should fight for your ideas; and renounce to them if you become convinced that you were wrong; nevertheless, fight with all your heart until that moment.

Start by formulating assertively what you know, and the evidence behind; then, ask the opposition to explain the discrepancy between its statement and the scientifically established facts that you have put forward.

I.e., like in justice, DO NOT ACCEPT the burden of proof on your side, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the challenger side. In this case, on the side of those (negationist) who contest science and pretend to replace it with a narrative of human cause of climatic change with no support but on a theoretical, ideological construct. It is them, not you, who must demonstrate that all scientific achievements in the knowledge of climate are wrong.

November 28, 2021 6:12 am

this is instructive

  • Basic / CCAGW.
  • But certain man-made catastrophe! But no Planet B. But save the Planet. But all life on Earth. But climate-change catastrophe is real. But the future of every human-being. But “this apocalyptic reality is the elephant in the room”. But a question of survival.

the difference between skeptics arguments and these “arguments” is huge

  1. the case for climate action can be made WITHOUT any of the memes you represent
  2. while no skeptical argument can be made without
  3. a) the matrix
  4. b)the bingo card
  5. C the but memes

in other words skepticism isnt thinking, its play a stupid game with memorized rules, moves, etc.

like so. c02 warms the planet. our best science tells us this warming will come with harms that exceed the benefits. it may be catastrophic for some class of people i some areas, on average everyone will be worse off if we do nothing. therefore some measure of climate action is required to mitigate potential future damages.

there i made an argument with any reference to planet B or any other cagw appeals

respond back and the rulz are dont be a robot
dont use the matrix
dont use the buts
have an original thought
begin by restating my argument in your words
dot quote me, use your words to show you understand

Andy West
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 8:16 am

Steven, these are *public* domain narratives which have measurably won. Because there was not enough rationality constraint in the public domain, hence emotive selection operated unhindered.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:22 am

Oh yes, it really does help when the zealots organise, get clued up then purposefully set out to pick an opponent that is an uninformed sceptic in a carefully selected arena of their choice. You are just reinventing asymmetric conflict as a climate debate.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 11:27 am

Steven assumes facts not in evidence “our best science tell us,” etc. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Stating wild suppositions as fact, does not make them facts. You have to make the case conclusively enough that other reasonable people will find them believable.

If you think about it, I’m sure you will agree that you do not have the authority to arbitrarily dictate the manner in which skeptics are allowed to respond to your suppositions.

I believe the experiment is complete. We substantially increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature when up slightly over a period of time in which human’s flourished. There was no increase in dangerous weather, no catastrophic heat waves, no mass extinction events, no ice-free Arctic, no snow free winters, no tropical hot spot, etc., etc.

To put the recent warming in perspective, if all the warming that has occurred over the span of your lifetime was to suddenly happen in the room in which you are sitting in, you probably would not be able to detect it.

Also, temperature is not a measure of atmospheric heat content.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Thomas
November 28, 2021 7:45 pm

“Steven assumes facts not in evidence “our best science tell us,” etc.”

Yes, he does.

Alarmist climate science is made up totally of assumptions and assertions. There is no evidence that any of what the alarmists claim is true.

If they had any evidence, there wouldn’t be any skeptics.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 2:47 pm

Best science?
Oh please Moshe, you know better, or should and could. So why not know better?
Alas, I fear the true answer.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 29, 2021 2:22 am

Steven, don’t try to throw sand in our eyes, please!

You state, as if true:

our best science tells us this warming will come with harms that exceed the benefits

It is NOT true! You claim it, you MUST demonstrate it! Please show “the best science” that supports that assertion! No IPCC junk, please: real science, produced by real scientists, physicists, etc., not by human or social sciences “experts”.

If, (IF! And what a big “if”!…) it is true, it is not self evident, to borrow Thomas Jefferson’s words; so it does NOT fulfil the requirements of a collective internation, not even national, mass movement and engagement.

Please, don’t use the cheap demagoguery that is characteristic of the alarmists! Do some justice to the people you try to convince: they are not stupid, they can think, so give them your arguments, not your statements.

November 28, 2021 6:25 am

wuwt has an essay contest
i wager no writer can write an essay and
1 the matrix

  1. the bingo card
  2. the but memes

in short none of you have an original thought. none can think for themselves.

you like freedom, but none are free original thikers

Richard Page
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 9:25 am

What exactly is a thiker? Is it some form of recreational walker with a penchant for a particular beverage? Or perhaps an insulting slang word to denigrate the readers intelligence? Or perhaps you just can’t spell correctly?

paul courtney
Reply to  Richard Page
November 29, 2021 12:36 pm

Mr. Page: As we learn in this comment string, a “thiker” is a person who thinks he’s the free thinker surrounded by fools, who believes falsified records are “reliable”. Like Inspector Clouseau-sher.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 11:43 am

“In short none of you have an original thought. none can think for themselves.”

What a rashly arrogant and offensive statement. WUWT is full of articles and comments with original thoughts, and many authors and commentators who are clearly able to think for themselves.

Steven is so devoid of actual, rational argument, that he has fallen into a fit of illogical, amoral, name-calling and mud slinging; using his silly bingo-matrix as a crutch.

But none of that changes the fact that the burden is on the CAGW-ists, and they don’t get to reinvent the rules of engagement. Avoiding logical fallacies is enough to qualify an agreement as valid. We don’t need a social-sciency, bingo-matrix.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Thomas
November 28, 2021 8:02 pm

“We don’t need a social-sciency, bingo-matrix.”

We don’t need no Rulz!!! 🙂

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 3:21 pm

Mr. Mosher: You are mistaken, I wrote that very essay, titled it “Should the paper roll out over or under?” I avoided all three of your tropes, and had an original thought- verticalize the post and roll it sideways!
Is there anything more hilarious than the pompous ass who fancies himself the only “free original thinker” in the class? Or are you just giving us a little display of this climateball game?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 7:51 pm

“you like freedom, but none are free original thinkers”

Unlike you?

At one time in the distant past I started wondering if I ever had an original thought. I thought about it for a long time, and I think I came up with one original thought, but I can’t remember what it was now. This was many years ago. Maybe I’ve come up with an original thought since then. Maybe. 🙂

Danley Wolfe
November 28, 2021 7:47 am

IMO not really worthy of taking 30 minutes of my time to wade through… especially when this is a re_post of Judith Curry Climate etc. post…. so 2 x 30 minutes of time.

November 28, 2021 8:57 am

andy argues “or maybe instead they’re just ClimateBall novices, losing the play but not necessarily the point. “

not all novices, as you show fall prey to the easy rhetorical play of “but” and you tossed in the uncertain maybe to insulate yourself from making false claims, maybe

see the allusion to not all men

what you should see in these but examples is the formula used. again this is not a rational mind engaging data or dialog in an opn manner.

its a cog turning in a skeptical aparatus. not thinking

you lost the point and the play.
game set match

Richard Page
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
November 28, 2021 11:34 am

Yours is not the position to determine the outcome, nor what is a winning argument or conjecture, nor is it even to arrogantly assume you might have actually done something clever. If this was anything meaningful or relevant then it would be for an independent referee to decide, not for some spoilt petulant child to jump up and down yelling “you lost, I won; look, mummy, I’m a winner now!”

Geoff Sherrington
November 28, 2021 6:34 pm

The pity is that almost all people fervently committed to the “cause” (climate change) have next to no idea of what they are rooting for, or why they are cheering for a “side”.
We have seen sporting matches like soccer and football where ordinary folk get so excited for their side that they can get violent and hit and damage each other. Where someone gets so emotional about the game that a fire is lit, the grandstand burns, people are killed.
In the heat of the moment, people have not the faintest clue why they are fighting, what they are fighting for or what a win means. They are intent on not being losers.
This style of conflict has happened forever. Catholic versus Protestant, Nazi versus Jew, left-wing versus right in politics, Tribe A versus Tribe B, even sometimes as basic as Man versus Woman.
Climate change enthusiasts are more aware of not being losers than of gaining a future where their surroundings are more beautiful. They cannot, will not connect that closing nuclear plants to build windmills will most definitely NOT produce more beautiful surroundings, but that does not matter, the “cause” says they have to do what the cause does.
How can a 16 y o school girl gain adulation from the masses with a concept that is dominantly scientific, with hard concepts of photons and radiation that are central to the hypotheses behind global warming?
This is not a game. This is a deadly earnest competition for correct science to emerge as winners or humanity will have a bleak future.
For a start, there needs to be a sudden and complete end to two scientific matters.

  1. Those scientists who are simply following the cause, but have reservations, need to open up with honesty as a matter of urgency.
  2. Those scientists and other technical people like journal editors who are active in silencing others, need to quit this repressive activity or be faced with law suits and apt punishments.

Of course, there are longer term problems like increasing the quality of education of youngsters, but a start has to be made somewhere and soon, or it will likely become a matter of violence, even limited warfare. We simply do not need the lies, the evasions, the mixed messages that current society is getting over both climate change the Covid virus. (Either the virus started at Wuhan Lab or it did not, surely the world is entitled to know with a simple yes or no).
Geoff S

November 30, 2021 10:31 pm

Willard never criticizes alarmists, that is the giveaway.

Chuck no longer in Houston
December 7, 2021 2:44 pm

So much sophistry at play here. Meta-meta arguments. All word play.

Verified by MonsterInsights