By David Wojick
The new “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition” from the Federal Judicial Center has a chapter “How Science Works” that was written by a climate alarmist, and it shows. It is trying to sell the nonsense that science is all about consensus, when it is really all about debate. Nor is there a consensus supporting climate alarmism.
Another chapter — “Reference Guide on Climate Science” — was withdrawn after a letter from 27 state attorneys general pointed out that it was pure alarmist advocacy. The “How Science Works” chapter should be withdrawn for the same reason.
The “How Science Works” chapter is pages 47 to 111 in Volume one.
One of the two authors, Professor Michael Weisberg is a leading alarmist activist. His university website calls him a “climate diplomat” because he is active in UN climate negotiations including the infamous “loss and damage” reparations funding scheme.
“How Science Works” gets off to a quick bad start. The very first paragraph contains this gem of alarmism: “…. public relations campaigns have misled the public about the true state of scientific consensus regarding certain scientific issues.” Citation: Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” (2010)
This ridiculous Oreskes book is a pillar of climate alarmism. So, the bogus thrust of the chapter is that climate alarmism is a consensus and skepticism is a public relations stunt. This is pure advocacy.
Most of the rest of the chapter is a long, false claim that science works by consensus. It mostly works by debate, as scientists struggle to explain how the natural world works. These proposed explanations are debated by the scientific community, sometimes in complex ways and often for a long time without resolution.
Consensus does have a very long-term role to play because science is an ever-growing body of knowledge. But scientific activity is mostly a lively marketplace of argument.
The fundamental scientific method is very simple. Given some observations people propose various hypotheses to explain them. These hypotheses are then tested against additional observations. In theory, if the testing observations do not support the hypothesis, it is rejected.
In modern science, this seemingly simple process can become very complex, especially when trying to explain complex natural systems. For example, individual scientists may perform just part of process. Then, too, observations are often “theory laden,” so they can be challenged. In addition, hypotheses can be very complex, making it hard to know where the error lies.
Not only are hypotheses and observations often debated, but these debates can also last a long time. In major cases, they lead to alternative schools of thought (which is where human caused climate change is today).
For example, the hot debate between particle and wave theories of light lasted over 200 years. The climate change debate is now well over 40 years old.
Note that you cannot see the debates using the journal literature because criticizing or disagreeing with another scientist is generally not allowed in journal articles. Articles just report specific research results. Of the 3 million or so articles published a year very few are likely to refer to the ongoing debates.
It used to be that the widespread debates were publicly invisible. They mostly occurred during conference presentation question periods or via personal correspondence. The rise of online debating of science has changed this a lot. Chatbots might be useful for finding these debates. For example, there are hundreds of distinct controversies in climate change science, many of which are publicly debated.
The unscientific term “consensus” occurs over 70 times in “How science works.” The key word “debate” occurs just four times near the end. Ironically, one of these is a statement that “in science, debates relating to scientific evidence generally play out over many years….”. Max Planck put it very nicely: “Your ideas will (only) be accepted when your students become journal editors.” The climate science debate has lasted even longer, so the claim of consensus is wildly false.
This chapter on “How science works” is basically a misleading attempt to advance the false claim that there is a consensus supporting climate alarmism. As such, it is political advocacy, not sound judicial guidance. The chapter should be removed just as the advocacy chapter on climate science has been removed.
Good points here!
That quote and citation – “Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” (2010)” – is just a brazen in-your-face assertion from the activist camp!
It’s plain that NASEM cannot be trusted to be neutral and impartial, sad to say.
I can’t think of an institution today that can be trusted to be neutral and impartial.
Good point!
I think that the Federal Bureau of Prisons does a good job.
If only!
Pat,
That claim about modern absence of neutrality and impartiality in institutions is important and fundamental to the progress of society.
The institution as a body seems to be going through change much like the individual in western society is. Former past favoured personal concepts like honesty, trust, care, willingness, self discipline seem to have weakened after about year 2020. There are difficult factors to measure and study so it is hard to create ways to improve. (Please excuse my use of “feel”).
Society can reach a new normal that allows investigation to diminish because social research is often about departures from normal, however defined.
As a result, it is hard to find and introduce corrections for unwanted societal shifts because we do not know their causes. Personally, I feel that personal addiction to substances like legal and illegal drugs such as alcohol and opioids has to be part of the modern story. I link this to a decline in personal self discipline because self discipline is a low interest topic in social education. I link that to governments that are far too large and too full of using your tax monies to do your self discipline for you, their way.
A horribly complex problem. Geoff S
From what I have read, the Founding Fathers were not strangers to the consumption of spirits. In part that may have been out of necessity because potable water was difficult verify, so at least drinking alcoholic beverages reduced the probability of consuming viable parasites and bacteria. That is much less of a concern today, but the habit persisted and led to our Prohibition era. I’m unaware of any similar excuse for using recreational drugs.
Most of the institutions belong in an institution!
I have been aware of the Oreskes & Conway claim for some time. I reached out to Copilot with a request for substantiation of the alleged amounts of money, specifically paid by what fossil fuel companies to what recipients and when. I initially got back consensus boiler plate that attempted to impugn anthropogenic-climate skeptics by association with the tobacco industry scandal. I reminded Copilot that I did NOT ask for evidence of guilt by association but asked for specifics about the fossil fuel industry’s alleged payments to sow seeds of doubt in the public’s mind. It came back that it was unable to find any public record of payments by fossil fuel companies to that end.
Many of the same frauds (eg Fred Singer) were involved in the attempt to convince the public that smoking does not cause cancer, instead of the robust science that concluded otherwise, and in the Climate Denial movement which spews disinformation in an attempt to undercut the 99.9% scientific consensus that:
1) the planet is warming
2) human activities are the cause
3) Scientists agree, and
4) We have the technology to fix it
2) No proven evidence that humans are the cause. CO2 is ASSUMED.
3) Not all scientists agree
4) Not proven at all, mere supposition. No empirical evidence.
The IPCC 5th Assessment concludes that human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels)
are the cause of all the warming since 1970.
All empirical evidence confirms that theory. In fact, no contradictory evidence has ever been found.
99.9% of peer reviewed research confirms or affirms the theory.
Pretty vague stuff you are quoting. Show us the functional relationship that was confirmed by empirical evidence.
This is physical science. It requires mathematical derivations derived from an hypothesis.
Simply saying “my magical wand makes the temperature rise – see the temperature is rising” is not proof.
The IPCC assessments are one sided briefs not reliable assessments.
The satellite record shows all warming since 1978 occurring in steps coincident with big El Niños. There is no warming due to GHG increases or other human forcings.
There’s no theory to give a meaningful link of CO₂ to air temperature
There are lots of theories but no empirical relationship that can be confirmed. If climate scientists were interested in science, there would be reams of studies examining the absorption of insolation into the soil and the oceans, where and how heat is stored, and how it is released. Ag science is the only folks looking at soil and their concerns is the temperature itself, not how it got there.
Lots of theorizing, which is orthogonal from lots of theories.
Good point, Pat. Vague speculation is not science. That the climate models contradict one another quantitatively falsifies them.
They don’t, nor can you cite any evidence
CMIP5/6 climate model equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) varies over a factor of 3.
I need to either
1) reduce the length of my posts, or
2) learn to type faster, or
3) both of the above
Easy to see,isn’t it. And thank-you. 🙂
I don;t see any proof of that in your post.
I’m not surprised, Warren, that you don’t see the contradiction evident in the fact that climate models project incommensurate air temperature trends despite identical forcing inputs.
The contradiction would be obvious to any science-minded person.
Any collection of models of complex physical systems project different trend profiles. If they had identical outputs, by definition they’d be identical models. The question is are the models sufficiently accurate to be useful. The IPCC concludes they are, in CMIP5&6 by comparing their projections of current warming.
More dogma from the CAGW Bible.
Climate models are tuned to reproduce historical warming.
You claimed climate models don’t contradict one another.
Except, they do.
So now you’ve changed your story to models “project different trend profiles” as though that saves your argument. It doesn’t.
Whatever Warren can be your new sobriquet. Because you claim whatever suits your immediate purpose, even if that means contradicting yourself.
David Wojick : That the climate models contradict one another quantitatively falsifies them.
Warren Beeton : They don’t [ contradict one another quantitatively ], nor can you cite any evidence [ of numerical contradictions between models ]
Me : IPCC AR6, WG-I assessment report, FAQ 7.3, Figure 1 on page 1025 (copy attached below).
The most recent set of climate models producing a quantitative ECS range of “between 3 and 7 degrees Celsius” looks pretty “contradictory” to me. Even the IPCC had to step in and narrow the range a bit with their “expert judgement”.
You would have been better off protesting that “falsifies” is maybe going too far when it comes to the hypothetical concept of ECS, given that the real-world observation is that “climate changes naturally on all timescales” (IPCC TAR WG-I report, 2001, Chapter 1 … around pages 90-95 IIRC …), so the actual Earth’s climate can never achieve “equilibrium” in practice.
A more suitable phrase might be that the climate models are “unfit for purpose” or “completely useless for predictive purposes”.
The conclusion of the IPCC is that the probable range is 2 – 4.5 C. This is based on estimates using three different methods —
1) multiple paleo climate calculations, 2) modern day climate data, and 3) physical models. So a range estimate of 3-7 from only one of the three methods you think is contradictory?
Multiple paleo climate proxies show temperatures much higher than now. Show us the calculations that indicate they are NOT applicable.
Extractions from models that have shown no ability to predict accurately and the SSP8.5 has been thrown away as implausible.
It is well known that the models have serious problems with clouds and humidity. They also have ocean data that is lacking for any long term accuracy.
If this is what your bible contains, it is seriously lacking in enlightenment and is way too heavy on prognostication based on entrails.
Is it any wonder why there are so many sceptics who follow the scientific requirement of functional relationships that make accurate predictions?
1) The issue I was discussing was ECS, not absolute temperature. So this point is irrelevant.
2) This method uses DATA, not models. So that’s another fail by you,
3)False. The public analysis of CMIP5/6 shows the models accurately predict current warming.
Aren’t you getting tired of trying to prove to us that you know something about science, yet end up showing us the opposite?
Aren’t you getting tired of being shown that you are unable to show work of your own.
A disciple quotes from doctrine. A leader does his own work and presents his findings.
Show us the thermodynamic work you have done in the past. Show us the measurement uncertainty budgets you have created for weather stations.
Show us the graphs that you have created to do the grunt work climate science hasn’t done. I’ve shown you a couple of mine. Can you begin a thermodynamic equation that cnnects insolation to surface temperature. How about the heat transfer from 5 cm to 10 cm or from surface to 5 cm. The data is out there in CRN data bases just waiting for you. CRN data has sufficient data to let you calculate enthalpy, a true measure of contained heat in the atmosphere. Show us what you have done.
Nice attempt at diversion. . You failed in every one of your three arguments. And continue to demonstrate you don’t really have any engineering ability, much less scientific.
So you HAVE memorized Rules for Radicals.
Rule #5.
Be careful you are running into Rule 7.
Pointless, Jim – WB has repeatedly shown that he only believes what his chosen clergy tell him and won’t employ any independent thinking to consider anything outside that orthodoxy.
“Independent thinking” is the term you apply to non experts proclaiming “Aha, I’ve uncovered fundamental flaws in the work of peer reviewed scientists publishing in scientific journals”. Analogous to the local janitor shouting “‘Eureka, I ve explained why F equals ma^2! So believe ME, not Isaac Newton or those modern day peer reviewed cultists who submit their work to expert review. In contrast, I alone can do science!” (even when it’s gibberish).
Too bad your analogy actually describes independent research that discovers an actual scientific fact. That is what science students do in labs every day during their education. It prepares them for being able to verify future claims and to discover their own conclusions.
They don’t need to read from a CAGW Bible to indoctrinate themselves with questionable conclusions. You just discovered what sceptics do, and the world is a better place for it!
“fundamental flaws in the work of peer reviewed [hacks]”
Everyone and all of your priestly caste ignore systematic error. Their entire body of work is a study in false precision.
“This method uses DATA, not models.”
Applying generalized meaning by induction from instances. Scientifically invalid.
Your 1) – Paleoclimate data and simulations lack the resolution to make a valid comparison with the present.
Your 2) – data, do not have more than factual meaning absent an explanatory theory. Data alone carry no information about causality.
Your 3) – climate model simulation error is orders of magnitude larger than the perturbation from GHGs. The statistical skill of tuned models is not an accuracy metric.
Dana Nucitelli has debunked your claims, including your unsupported claims on resolution, on the advanced tab here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
Dana doesn’t mention resolution anywhere in that article, which is no more than an expression of IPCC hackery.
You’re clueless, Warren.
You need to click the links to the research he cites
Actually, you need to click them, read them, and then show quotes and your own conclusions from what they say. Otherwise, you are just pointing people to entries in your CAGW Bible and saying – BEHOLD THE TRUTH AND BELIEVE SINNERS!
None of them recognize systematic error, much less deal with it.
I’d like Warren to show us the calculations that convert proxy metrics to degrees centigrade.
I didn’t do any such calculations. The authors of the peer reviewed papers do that. And if you’re interested (I expect not), you can review those papers.
You ARE an acolyte! You believe in the CAGW Bible and quote from it as religous dogma. We all knew it from your responses because they are always lacking in evidence.
You are not worth arguing with. You have no personal knowledge ther than chapter and verse from the CAGW Bible!
So you’re just arguing authority from a state of ignorance.
Your experts are expert because you say so.
Their pronouncements are correct because you say so.
Faith is belief without evidence. You have no evidence because you lack the capacity to evaluate evidence.
And yet, you assert.
You exhibit cult-like behavior, Warren.
Argument From authority? You know (or should know) that the only fallacy here is if one argues by citing an authority without expertise. Citing peer reviewed literature or its findings is no fallacy. To the contrary, it’s how science progresses — by building on the body of peer reviewed research.
“the only fallacy here is if one argues by citing an authority without expertise”
None of your experts possess the expertise to evaluate the physical reliability of their own data or models.
And you’re equivalently expert in not understanding the problem.
My experts are peer reviewed scientists publishing their work in top scientific journals. Yours seem to be the Denizens of WUWT like Gorman and Karlomonte. And of course yourself. With haphazard references to a few crackpots like Singer, Happer and Koonin. . I think you’re hoping that some of their career notoriety would rub off on you.
You own experts? Are you a slaver?
“My experts are peer reviewed scientists publishing their work in top scientific journals.”
Who are unable to distinguish precision from accuracy, whose self-serving assumptions about the structure of error empowers their entire body of work, and who invariably indulge false precision.
“Yours seem to be the Denizens of WUWT” who generally know what they’re talking about, unlike you.
“And of course yourself.”
See above.
“With haphazard references to a few crackpots like Singer, Happer and Koonin.”
The ignorant slander of a mean-spirited fanatic.
“I think…”
Wrong from the outset.
Citing peer-reviewed work from a position of ignorance and critical neglect does not constitute an argument.
You’ve no idea whether your references are correct or wrong. And, as an advocate, you don’t care.
Peer-review is not a totem of truth. It merely marks passage through the first critical (one hopes) marker.
These are peer-reviewed:
Climate models have no predictive value.
The historical air temperature record reveals nothing of the rate or magnitude of the change since 1850 (or since any other time).
They’re also correct.
Speaking as a published expert in an actual physical science, your experts are a stable of methodological hacks.
1) multiple paleo climate calculations,
That assume what should be demonstrated.
2) modern day climate data,
That assume what should be demonstrated.
and 3) physical models.
That assume what should be demonstrated.
You ve gone off the deep end. Those are vacuous, absurd claims.
All your points start with the physically unjustifiable assumption that CO₂ emissions affect the climate.
Each of your entire set of arguments is logically circular. Each one assumes what should be demonstrated.
You’re submerged in the deep end, and don’t even know you’re in a pool.
You believe that CO2 emissions don’t affect the climate? We’ll write that one down as evidence of your ignorance of the basics of atmospheric physics , known since the 19th century.
I do not think that CO2 has any effect on what is scientifically known as climate. CO2 does have a very minor effect on the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface/atmosphere interface.
Here is the graph from Happer and Wijngaarden showing the effect of a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm. You have yet to make any claim that it is incorrect, I wonder why.
Anyway, it shows a 3 W/m² change for the doubling. I am going to show you some calculations so clutch your CAGW Bible very tightly.
Assuming the earth radiates as a black body:
288.7K = 15.5°C –> (288.7⁴ × 5.67×10⁻⁸) = 393.9 W/m²
393.9 + 3 = 396.9 W/m²
(396.9 ÷ 5.67× 10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 289.3K
289.3K – 288.7K = 0.6K
Considering that none of the predicted terrible things like hurricanes, forest fires, starvation, etc. have come true, it is pretty difficult to believe that this small increase will cause the CAGW Bible predictions to come true.
Maybe your CAGW Bible needs updataing.
“known since the 19th century.”
Wrong.
And you continue to demonstrate your ignorance Frank.
The first scientific understanding of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate began in the mid-to-late 19th century, starting with foundational discoveries in the 1820s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)
1824: French physicist Joseph Fourier first described the concept that would become known as the greenhouse effect, suggesting atmospheric gases trap heat. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560), (https://www.knowyourh2o.com/water-blog/the-history-of-carbon-dioxide-co2-in-the-climate-change-debate), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)
1856: American scientist and inventor Eunice Newton Foote conducted experiments showing that carbon dioxide significantly absorbs heat from the sun. (https://byrd.osu.edu/featured/history-corner/who-first-concluded-rising-co2-levels-could-cause-climate-change)
1861: Irish physicist John Tyndall demonstrated experimentally that gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb infrared radiation, proving the physical basis for the greenhouse effect. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560), (https://byrd.osu.edu/featured/history-corner/who-first-concluded-rising-co2-levels-could-cause-climate-change)
1896: Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius published the first quantitative calculation showing that burning fossil fuels and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming. (https://www.cleanenergytransition.org/post/chronicling-global-warming-milestones),(https://www.imperial.ac.uk/a-z-research/towards-net-zero/a-brief-history-of-carbon-and-climate-change/), (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560)
Your list of work defines the opening stages of the radiation physics of CO₂.
None of it represents a physical theory of the climate.
None of it indicates increased CO₂ will warm the climate.
The hydrological cycle drives the climate. The most added CO₂ can do is slightly increase the turnover rate.
You: “None of it indicates increased CO₂ will warm the climate.”
I’m writing that comment down as more evidence of your cognitive decline, Frank.
Write it down and stare at it, Warren. You’re bound to remain clueless.
Oh, my bad. I forgot a few more:
Guy Callendar (1938): “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature” – Connected industrial CO2 emissions directly to modern global warming trends.
Gilbert Plass (1956): “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change” – Formulated the modern spectroscopic basis for how increased CO2 impacts infrared transmission through the atmosphere.
Modern Assessments and Mechanisms
Lüthi et al. (2008): “High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present” (Nature) – Provided multi-millennial ice-core data establishing the baseline correlation between CO2 and paleoclimate temperatures. Dietrich et al. / IPCC Assessment Reports: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report offers comprehensive evaluations of radiative forcing, carbon budgets, and projected climatic responses to varying emissions pathways.Soden et al. (2023): Research from the University of Miami detailing how stratospheric cooling increases the heat-trapping potency of subsequent CO2 additions over time. And. .Pat Frank (2026): “No physical or scientific theory links CO2 to Climate” Unsupported assertion on WUWT
The comments at the end of Callender’s article show why he was wrong.
Plass’ work included radiative transfer only. He did not include collisional thermalization or the transfer of KE to water vapor, or any thought of increased convection or rate of the hydrological cycle.
All showing there’s no physical theory of the terrestrial climate
Frank 2024, the CO₂ record of the entire 66 million years of the Cenozoic can be understood as driven by external changes in the temperature of the marine mixed layer.
You’re utterly ignorant of science, Warren. You haven’t a clue.
Do you mean to say there’s no scientific theory that links atmospheric CO2 concentration to the temperature of the atmosphere?
No physical theory. Correct.
You should start with Arrhenius, then advance to the research done in the 20th and 21 st century. You seem quite ignorant of that work.
How about Max Planck, the father of quanta and still the guru of heat radiation. You seem ignorant of his work.
You never quote from his Theory of Heat Radiation. Is the math too hard for you to understand? His book can be obtained free at many locations. I have the Kindle copy that allows searching, highlighting, etc. I’ve spent many many hours studying that book, other books of his, and his lecture notes. An undoubtable pillar in the annals of physics. Arrhenius is a minor footnote in history.
Tell us what he says about a reflective body that is that is inserted next to a radiating body. Can you find the quote that says new rays are simultaneously radiated as “back radiation” is absorbed. What does that do to your dogma that it warms the surface.
In the dense lower atmosphere, a CO2 molecule that absorbs infrared heat from the Earth does not just sit there; it immediately bumps into other gas molecules.
Down here in the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and tightly packed. When a CO₂molecule absorbs infrared radiation rising from the Earth, it instantly bumps into neighboring nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
These fast collisions transfer the captured energy to nitrogen and oxygen, which cannot absorb infrared light on their own. This process warms the entire surrounding air mass.
In the upper reaches of the troposphere, where molecules are less densely packed, the dominant mechanism is that CO2 molecules continuously emit (re-radiate) infrared energy outward, and when CO2 absorbs infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the energy back in all directions. About half of the energy is returned to Earth as heat.
As explained by Columbia Climate School, this multi-directional emission sends a large portion of that thermal energy back down toward the Earth’s surface. Higher up in the thin stratosphere, where collisions with other molecules are rare, the CO₂ molecules do the only thing they can: they re-radiate that energy back out into space.”
Another untruth that acolytes have no way refute. Eli Rabbit spreads this information.
A body emits equally in all directions based on either Planck’s Law or Stefan-Boltzmann. Got that? Equally in all directions based on its temperature. Not half up and half down. The same full amount up, down, and sideways. Planck explains this. A single molecule radiates in random directions, however if the chosen volume is large enough for a macro assessment, there are sufficient molecules that all directions appear.
Another acolyte misrepresented misinformation. CO2 molecules absorb and emit at basically one wavelength. Got that 1 wavelength. The main one is at 15 μm. Its absorbtivity/emissivity is about 1 at this wavelength. At 14/16 μm, it has fallen to .42 and at 13/17 μm it falls to 0.2. These numbers are from memory but are close.
Happer and Wijngaarten found that doubling CO2 from current means the wings will absorb/emit just a very small amount. 3 W/m². That is at 800 ppm! It will be less at 600 ppm.
CO2 DOES NOT ABSORB OR EMIT AS A BLACKBODY. THE 300+ W/m² by CO2 is a joke.
Here is a graph you didn’t address earlier. Now is you chance!
See those little yellow areas- those are CO2 emitting as compared to the whole area under the Planck curve.
Let’s see you refute any of this with your own knowledge.
Another example of your failure to understand basic concepts and then mistakenly attribute your ignorance to a “CAGW” conspiracy!
If the remission is in all directions, then how much returns to earth, Gorman? And what is that called? Try ‘back radiation.
You can’t even discuss the issue completely. Your CAGW Bible apparently doesn’t have the appropriate texts that you can quote.
The issue is not what is returned but what happens if and when it reaches the surface.
First point, if CO2 can absorb upward radiation at 15 um and the optical path is about 20m for all the earth’s 15 um to be absorbed, then the same process occurs for downward radiation. Which leaves you to answer how much actually reaches the surface to cause additional warming.
Second point, if the surface absorbs 15 um radiation, it reradiates it based upon a Planck curve which largely dilutes any further interaction with CO2.
Third point, there is no physical theory that explains this. the GHG theory simply discusses “heat being trapped”. Heat is never trapped. Even experiments with cavities have to deal with REAL insulators that leak heat.
Part of the problem in your CAGW Bible is that much of it assumes static conditions. It doesn’t deal with conduction, convection, clouds, Coriolis forces causing wind, various albedos, on and on. Heat moves around. It requires equations with transients based on time.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about Gorman. Just like the janitor.
What’s the matter Acolyte Beeton, no answer to my detailed primer in your CAGW Bible. I know that as a dedicated believer in the CAGW Bible you will continue in your duty to damn unbelievers, but you should realize that without detailed refutation you will convince no one of value of your protestation.
“I , Janitor Gorman, hereby declare that I am the author of all science, and any university level or peer reviewed science is invalid. Furthermore, I declare that knowing something about physics, chemistry, or other basic sciences is not required for my geenyus to work and in fact expertise is the mark of the devil! “
“In the upper reaches of the troposphere, where molecules are less densely packed, the dominant mechanism is that CO2 molecules continuously emit (re-radiate) infrared energy outward,”
The altitude at which the radiative decay rate of CO₂* equals the collisional decay rate is ~74 km. Well into the stratosphere.
Where’s Arrhenius’ physical theory of the terrestrial climate, Warren?
Where, in the IPCC ARs, do they describe or reference a high resolution physical theory of the climate?
A physical theory so complete as to predict the effect of an average annual 35 mW/m² perturbation?
Sounds like you have many questions and a lot to learn.
So, you can’t answer.
No surprise. Arrhenius had no such theory.
Nor does the IPCC. Or anyone else.
The entire AGW claim is just a tendentious inferential speculation; not science at all.
A physical theory and scientific theory are different?
Physical theory is more specific.
IPCC ignored all natural causes..
…that is written in its actual mission statement.
The models also ignore natural causes. It is part of the alarmist paradigm.
Natural forcing are included in climate models. You are wrong again.
“Natural forcing” is a straw man diversion, and in any case do not exhaust natural causes.
Your comment illustrates your abject incompetence in climate science. “Natural forcings” are the same set of phenomena as natural causes.
“Natural forcings” are the same set of phenomena as natural causes.”
Wrong. Natural causes include responses.
No, those are feedbacks, and are not considered as direct causes.
A forcing changes cloud cover; changed cloud cover goes on to change the climate energy-state. A causal impact.
Back to your original claim: the models include all natural forcing and feedbacks
How would anyone know? There exists no complete physical theory of the climate.
Natural forcings huh?
Tell us all the items that are parameterized in the model. Those aren’t natural by any means, especially the ones that are modified so that a run doesn’t go off the rails.
You are just quoting from the CAGW Bible. No wonder you deal in vague misdirections, you don’t have any personal knowledge.
Christopher Essex pointed out that fixed parameters are ad hoc conservation laws.
They impose the assumption that the climate is in the static state represented by the fixed parameters.
Static state! Yeah, I’m looking out my window, and the sun is shining and it’s raining. I think John Fogarity described best.
That never happened, friend. I detailed all the faults with your unsupportable talking point back in 2017, which you’d never otherwise have known about because you do not question any of the climate orthodoxy you are fed. Meanwhile, do you ever plan to acknowledge the psychological projection you suffer from when it comes to spreading disinformation – as in confirming that the Citizens Climate Lobby dispatches you to come over here into WUWT to waste your time spewing stuff you have no way of supporting to a crowd who can rebut what you say with science facts and political facts all day long?
Meanwhile, try this on for size: Did you know Naomi Oreskes has every appearance in the world of fabricating her story on how she supposedly ‘discovered’ who Fred Singer was? You cannot dispute anything I show about that fatal problem, can you? Point out to your pals at Citizens Climate Lobby that Erik Conway would have needed to use a time machine to travel back in time to warn Oreskes who the ‘attacker’ was of her Dec 2004 Science article …. and then you become the heretic to be shunned from CCL, they’ll accuse you of taking Heartland Institute oil money to speak of such heresy.
Fred Singer actively tried to cast doubt on the health risks associated with tobacco smoke, specifically focusing his efforts on secondhand smoke.
As detailed in the book and documentary Merchants of Doubt by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Singer was a prominent physicist who used his scientific credentials to challenge established medical and environmental consensuses.
The Strategy of Doubt
Rather than directly tackling primary smoking (which already had an overwhelming, decades-long consensus by the 1990s), Singer heavily targeted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after it classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in 1993.
Broader Legacy
Singer’s work on tobacco was part of a broader, repeatable playbook often referred to as the “Tobacco Strategy.” The core philosophy of this strategy was that the industry didn’t need to win a scientific debate; they merely needed to convince the public and policymakers that the science was “inconclusive” to delay government regulation. Singer deployed these exact same contrarian tactics to attack the scientific consensus on acid rain, the ozone hole, and anthropogenic climate change.
Quoting Naomi Oreskes to smear Fred Singer is like quoting David Irving to smear Primo Levi.
It is like a cult member of the Branch Davidians at a Native American Pow Wow yelling that you are all going to hell and burn forever!
No, he didn’t. And you did not read a word I wrote on how that talking point of yours implodes around the people who pushed it, did you? I actually feel embarrassed for you, all show and no go, with your emotion-driven enslavement to accusations which you only believe to be true which you could not prove to be true if your reputation depended on it, thus your reliance on A. sub-I. regurgitations of the drivel put out by the folks who knew they had no chance of disputing Dr Singer’s science-based assessments on what constitutes Class A carcinogens / ‘acid rain damage’ / ‘ozone layer damage’. Those folks figured out their science expertise deficiency at the start, and knew they had to find a way to silence the man by any means possible.
Singer publicly questioned and attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessments regarding environmental tobacco smoke, labeling passive smoking data as “junk science” and alleging that numbers were manipulated.
As documented in the book Merchants of Doubt, Singer—along with other physicists like Fred Seitz—used his scientific credentials to frame regulations and consensus as uncertain, mirroring strategies used by the tobacco industry.
Singer was included on tobacco industry lists for writing defensive op-eds and was linked to groups like the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, which aligned with Philip Morris’s public relations.
In other words, Singer (and Seitz) were scientific frauds who spewed disinformation in order to collect from tobacco companies and fossil fuel interests.
Companies have a responsibility to defend themselves from unreasonable attacks that use bogus science.
Of course. But when companies use scientific frauds to con the public into using their dangerous products , the public has the right to sue.
That second hand smoke per se increases cancer risk has not been established and is likely false for typical exposures. Think dosage. Fred was right.
False. Singer and Seitz were paid shills for the tobacco companies.
Show the receipts.
You’ll find the receipts in “Merchants of Doubt”. You find them. It’s time for you to do the research.
You made an unsupported claim. When asked to document, you cavil.
The trait of a hack.
It’s supported in “Merchants of Doubt”. You seem familiar with the book, so you can find the attribution.
Right. You can’t evidentially support the defamation you posted.
More dogma from the CAGW Bible by the acolyte that has memorized Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Irony in spades.
I met Fred Singer. I’ve heard him talk. There was nothing dishonest about him. He was an accomplished scientist and recognized as such.
Only by the tobacco companies and fellow travelers.
Fellow travelers of what? I worked closely with Fred for many years. He was an outstanding skeptic, one of our leaders. Your claims are ridiculous, as others have already explained.
Singer was a fraud. He misrepresented the science of secondhand smoke as well as human caused climate change
The EPA misrepresented the science of second hand smoke, just as the IPCC is misrepresenting climate science.
The IPCC is an organization of fraudsters. You promote them, and you perniciously defame a good man.
Your “argument by assertion” is simply stupid.
You just keep asserting the wrong thing over and over. Fred certainly did not misrepresent climate science, quite the opposite. I worked closely with him on climate science which I have been tracking and critiquing since 1992.
I can certainly appreciate why two Deniers would agree on most things.
Use of a descriptive pejorative (Deniers) manufactures an enemy and gives you psychological leave to abuse.
Classic demagoguery.
Fredrick Seitz (pdf): “Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
“In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues”
Fred Singer was an accomplished professional. Singer’s disagreement with the AGW claim was entirely science-based.”
Fredrick Seitz (pdf): “Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
“In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues”
Fred Singer was an accomplished professional. Singer’s disagreement with the AGW claim was entirely science-based.”
.
Of course Seitz and Singer would praise each other. That’s what Deniers do. You can see that paradigm at work on WUWT.
So, you’re denying that Fred Singer established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
You’re claiming Fred Singer didn’t earn a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
It’s your position that Fred Singer didn’t serve for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA).
You’d have it that Frederick Seitz lied about all of that, despite that Fred’s accomplishments are all matters-of-fact..
You’re a real case, Warren, defaming your way to virtue.
Fredrick Seitz (pdf): “Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
“In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues”
Fred Singer was an accomplished professional. Singer’s disagreement with the AGW claim was entirely science-based.”
Of course Fred Seitz would say that about Singer. They were partners in crime.
So, you’re denying that Fred Singer established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
You’re claiming Fred Singer didn’t earn a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
It’s your position that Fred Singer didn’t serve for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA).
You’d have it that Frederick Seitz lied about all of that.
You’re a real case, Warren, defaming your way to virtue.
“partners in crime.”
“Crime” in your neck of the woods being adherence to the scientific method.
All evidence is that they retained professional integrity. To your shame.
A lifetime of career accomplishments. And credibility ruined by corruptly serving the interests of the tobacco and fossil fuel industry with disinformation and misleading analysis.
“A lifetime of career accomplishments.”
So you now admit that your claim Singer is a fraud was a lie.
“serving the interests of the tobacco and fossil fuel industry”
In what way? Be specific, with citations.
“with disinformation and misleading analysis.”
Disprove Singer’s analyses showing EPA’s second hand smoke statistics were manipulated.
Relate the “disinformation” you claim he promulgated.
Fred Singer was an accomplished professional. Singer’s disagreement with the AGW claim was entirely science-based.
One of his papers. Suppose you expose the fraudulent parts.
A small-minded debater, lacking an argument, attacks the opponent’s character.
You fit that bill Warren.
Your declarative 2) is a lie by the knowing, and evidence of incompetence among the rest.
Singer was arguing the second hand smoke issue which is still controversial. Nothing to do with smoking increasing the risk of cancer.
Overview No, the harm of secondhand smoke is not considered scientifically or medically controversial; major health organizations worldwide agree it causes severe diseases like lung cancer and heart disease.
Major health organizations worldwide agreed that SARS CoV-2 is a dangerous virus, that injections of modified spike mRNA in NLPs is safe and effective, that social distancing is a valid caution during a pandemic, that masks work, that schools should be closed, etc., etc., etc.
Also that Ivermectin is horse paste and hydroxychloroquine is worthless against Covid-19.
They’re your friends, Warren. You can go ahead play with them.
Here you go Pat Frank:
1. Video by Dr Robert Seheult, a critical care pulmonologist, explaining the risks and impact of Ivermectin on the heart in COVID-19 patients https://youtu.be/HR_irr2zyaQ The video also covers other COVID subjects.
2. FDA Statement as to why Ivermectin is not approved for COVID-19. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
3. CDC Statement as to why Ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19. https://essentialhospitals.org/policy/covid-19-cdc-recommends-pfizer-vaccine-warns-ivermectin/
4. Manufacturer (Merck) statement as to why Ivermectin should not be used for COVID-19. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
The bottom line: After nearly years of experience with COVID-19, Medical Science has not approved Ivermectin for COVID-19 because the studies show it lacks efficacy, and there is a risk of adverse heart interaction on COVID-19 patients.
and indeed, I am aligned with science — and against those who claim , without evidence, that they’ve discovered fundamental flaws in the work of thousands of scientists publishing their work on peer reviewed journals. Dunning Kruger syndrome seems to be the only explanation.
So, you skipped over the falsehoods spread about the danger of Covid-19 and the criminal malfeasance of the institutional response, to jump on Ivermectin.
Transparently a dodge.
Meta analysis of 66 studies from 60 independent teams in 28 different countries using the most serious outcome shows 62% [52‑70%] and 84% [75‑89%] lower risk for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results for higher quality studies, primary outcomes, peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.
“I am aligned with science” A study in delusion.
“who claim , without evidence”
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
You brought up Ivermectin Frank.
Since the manufacturer, the FDA, the CDC, and the evidence conspire against your position I think your outlier position is no more than another example of science denialism:
No large, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that ivermectin provides a clinically meaningful benefit for treating or preventing COVID-19.While early, small-scale studies and some initial meta-analyses suggested potential benefits, these early findings did not hold up when subjected to rigorous, large-scale scientific testing. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/), (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8248252/)What the Large, High-Quality Trials FoundSeveral massive, peer-reviewed, randomized placebo-controlled trials—the gold standard of medical research—specifically evaluated ivermectin for COVID-19:The PRINCIPLE Trial (University of Oxford): This large-scale UK trial found that ivermectin did not speed up recovery times or reduce the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths. [1] (https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment)The TOGETHER Trial: Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, this large trial found that treatment with ivermectin did not lower the incidence of hospital admissions or prolonged emergency care compared to a placebo. [1] (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869), [2] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/15867/)The ACTIV-6 Trial (Duke Clinical Research Institute): Testing both standard and higher doses over longer durations, researchers confirmed no significant benefit in symptom resolution or reduction of severe outcomes for mild-to-moderate COVID-19. [1] (https://dcri.org/news/study-confirms-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms)
Ivermectin was one of several topics raised. You chose to jump on ivermectin and ignore all the others.
COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century – DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein
Meta analysis of 66 studies from 60 independent teams in 28 different countries using the most serious outcome shows 62% [52‑70%] and 84% [75‑89%] lower risk for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results for higher quality studies, primary outcomes, peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.
I haven’t ignored the others. You are as wrong on those as you are wrt everything else you touch, Frank.
Who pays you to post these lies?
Notice that the guy didn’t address my jab about his Citizens Climate Lobby association above. He never has in my prior encounters with him in WUWT comment sections. Irony is he accuses me of sinister associations which he could not prove true if his reputation depended on it.
Quite correct, and quite noticeable, you brought the receipts.
He has nothing.
I have the body of published science to support my posts. You are the one who has nothing.
So you say, from Beetonworld.
I met Fred Singer. I’ve heard him talk. There was nothing dishonest about him. He was an accomplished scientist and recognized as such.
Frederick Seitz (pdf): “Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership.
“In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues”
Fred Singer was an accomplished professional. Singer’s disagreement with the AGW claim was entirely science-based.
One of his papers. Suppose you expose the fraudulent parts.
A small-minded debater, lacking an argument, attacks the opponent’s character.
You fit that bill Warren.
Your declarative 2) is a lie by the knowing, and evidence of incompetence among the rest.
Corporation managements have a fiduciary obligation to fight unsubstantiated attacks. Exxon and Koch both put a little money into fighting alarmism a decade or so ago but both quit.
Yes sad to say NAS et al are now America’s leading alarmist organization.
‘For example, the hot debate between particle and wave theories of light lasted over 200 years.’
The debate’s apparently still on in Cli-Sci wherein photonic confusion reigns within the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory.
What about getting it clear that we do NOT understand the nature of spacetime and matter/energy. We know that there is a deep connection between all parts of the system. There are no things exactly like marbles which alone or together exist as matter – protons and neutrons are models. Look deeper and they act like regions of energy in the form of waves.
Now, what are waves? Wobbling energy travelling inside, on top of or through a medium. What medium? Empty space? Is any space empty?
All the attempts to detect the medium, see Michaelson/Morley give a negative answer.
We recognise gravity, we have no idea what gravity IS. Same for all the other ways of talking about action at a distance. There is even now spooky relationship between things travelling away from each other, one change in one instantaneously manifest change in the other, not limited by the speed of light.
The more we know, the more we know we don’t know.
64 pages aren’t necessary to explain how science “works,” and consensus has nothing to do with the explanation.
Science works by deductive hypothesis, unique prediction, and empirical test. Period. End of story.
All the rest is window-dressing.
Maybe the judges should just be given copies of a book explaining the classic considerations of “First Principles”?
https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/the-first-principles-of-marcus-aurelius-7773ea8ac24f
Link broken: 404 Page not found
because I bolded some of the typeface.
Try this –
https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/the-first-principles-of-marcus-aurelius-7773ea8ac24f
How many times throughout history has “The Consensus” been shown to be wrong about something?
It is more of a case of, “When was it right?” Even when it was ‘right’ under certain circumstances, Paradigm Shifts have occurred when we understood it better, such as changing from Newtonian Physics to Relativistic Physics.
the relevant question today is how many times have you been proven wrong about the role of cosmic rays in global warming?
If by “you” you mean me, I don’t recall ever saying anything about “cosmic rays in global warming”.
(There’s something to be said for Old English such as used in the KJV and is still used by the Amish. It preserved the difference between second person singular, “Thou”, and second person plural, “You”.)
I meant it as a reply to Pat Frank. My mistake.
I’ve never expressed a position on cosmic rays.
That’s a double mistake. You need to pay better attention, Warren.
Far more often than non experts who dream they’ve uncovered fundamental errors in mainstream science. Often they are prime examples of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
So if instead of agreeing, scientists disagree about the cause (or existence) of global warming, that means what?
“The Science” isn’t settled.
It’s less than honest to imply to judges that it is.
Science is quite certain about the basics (because all evidence confirms the basics, and no contradictory evidence has ever been found):
Earth is warming rapidly
Human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) are the cause
Has the earth warmed as rapidly in the past, prior to 1800? If so, then the cause of that warming must be dismissed before one can say that it has no effect in the present. You are big on peer review, find a paper that conclusively rules out past conditions not being relevant today.
The research shows the earth hasn’t warmed this fast in a thousand years, and one study has extended this as likely in up to 385 million years. I see no published research by Deniers.
“The research shows the earth hasn’t warmed this fast in a thousand years, and one study has extended this as likely in up to 385 million years.”
Another guy totally clueless about data resolution.
“I see no published research by Deniers.”
I see a guy dishonestly tarring by rhetorical abuse of Holocaust denial.
“Human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) are the cause”
Zero evidence.
The radiation physics of CO₂ is not a theory of the climate.
“no contradictory evidence”
Let me fix that: ‘no evidence.’
That’s not what I argue.
“Note that you cannot see the debates using the journal literature because criticizing or disagreeing with another scientist is generally not allowed in journal articles.”
Not true in any healthy science. In a healthy science, in the pages of journals is exactly where the debate does rage. The debate may be impersonal, and passive-voice grammar may be used, but debate between scientists is real and arguments are based in empirical science.
The debate about non-classical ions in Chemistry, among George Olah, Saul Winstein and Herbert C. Brown is exemplary. It was fierce. It was protracted (decades). It involved difficult experiments and data that were open to alternative explanations.
And to some degree, it was personal because both sides were passionate about their ideas.
But it was terrific science, and it was all hypothesis, deductive prediction, and experimental test.
The controversy was recently resolved with a crystal structure, showing Winstein’s non-classical ion. So H.C. Brown’s classical ion hypothesis didn’t prevail. But not by consensus. It prevailed by weight of evidence.
One may add that a crystal structure does not necessarily reveal the structure prevailing in solution.
I’ve found that exact phase-state structural dimorphism in investigating the solution structure of dissolved cupric ion. Solution-state and solid state structures differ. So, the classical/non-classical controversy is not yet definitively settled.
The basic problem is that organic chemistry is too complex to allow a fully mathematical theory. Low-uncertainty quantitative predictions are unavailable.
The outcome is a bit an impasse although, generally, the classical-ion explanation is now abandoned.
But in science conclusions are always contingent upon the next experiment.
Did they actually debate in their journal articles? Can you point to one as I have not seen this done. Normally only an expert can see that what one article says contradicts what someone else says. The contradiction is never made explicit.
No scientific holds barred.
And one of mine.
Good examples! Maybe it is field specific. For example in some fields journals will not publish articles that have appeared as preprints while in others preprints are a submission mechanism. A fine research issue! How much debate is visible in each field, and why?
So What if untrained non experts can’t see the debate among experts? Do I care about orthopedic surgeons debating and finally agreeing on the best surgical practices?
You should care. I read a number of articles on various subjects to learn about how the data is handled and analyzed. Only cult members are taught to not look outside their little space.
It is important to know what is debated. Especially when bogus consensus claims are made in policy related science.
To assure that a paper represents valid science before publication acceptance, experts (the peer reviewers) need the opportunity to debate and refine the paper. Non experts should be (and are) excluded because they cannot make informed criticisms or contribute meaningfully. To allow them into the discussion is to introduce spurious inputs that can only degrade the final result. Editors of peer reviewed journals enforce this process.
I never said anything about peer review, or even about articles. But on that topic peer review excludes all the experts except 2 or 3 carefully chosen reviewers, who may themselves not be experts on the paper’s research area. Then too peer review is just about acceptability and given that the academic journals are dominated by alarmists this means alarmism. Alarmism is a closed system.
Also expertise is not binary. It comes in complex varieties and degrees. Many of the WUWT commenters are experts in some aspects of climate science, especially physics. Conversely many alarmist scientists are biologists who know no physics.
Your simple minded assertions are simply false.
I’ve engaged with the likes of Jim Gorman, and others on WUWT, who don’t understand the basics of thermodynamics, physics or heat transfer, yet maintain fixed ideological opposition to anything found in a textbook or reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, or NASA. It’s clear that Deniers are either informed or more likely, are committed to defending their rejection of science. And I mean basic science and physics, not just peer reviewed climate science.
it’s apparent that some have training in the sciences, or engineering. Nevertheless, they too are caught up defending the likes of Gorman or others that will argue against well established science.
And so it goes. “Denier” is a descriptive term that connotes what they are — Deniers of Science or scientific principles that might open up a vulnerability to their truly dysfunctional understanding of science.
Oh, woe is me. I have entered the den of iniquity and tried to save the evil members of the sceptic club. They are unbelievers and will never reach enlightenment. /sarc
Here is the truth dude. No one disbelieves that there has been some warming. It has occurred mostly at night thereby lengthening growing seasons and providing more food for the world.
Increasing CO2 has fertilized flora of all kinds and resulted in a 20%, 20% is a big number by the way, growth of greenery all around the globe. This is a good thing.
The crux of the problem is that warm periods have occurred in the past. What caused them? It certainly wasn’t humans. Little to no evidence has been presented that those temperature variations are different than what has occurred. In fact, CO2 concentrations have been higher and life on the globe survived quite well.
I have spent hours attempting to find climate research on insolation heating soil and the thermodynamic effects thereof. It is either hidden or basically non-existent. Don’t refer me to ag papers, they are not interested in the thermodynamics, only in the effect on crops.
Happer and Wijngaarden verified what I was finding. 3 W/m² out of 1000 W/m² of insolation is peanuts. That is 0.3%, not 3 percent, 0.3 percent. And that is for a doubling which will never be reached. It is simply too small to cause massive changes.
I never see you present detailed quotes from references, you never present any results of your own study, I never see any calculations you have done. No graphs of data you have collected and attempted to analyze. That is a dead giveaway that all you have are generic Argumentative Fallacies to present.
I spend two to three hours every other day, pulling CRN data for insolation, soil temperatures, humidity, dew points etc. and trying to analyze them into a coherent whole including enthalpy. CoPilot saves hours by generating Python scripts to manipulate varied pieces of data. Attempting to find a coherent path when insolation varies from 1000 to 400 depending on clouds, air temperatures changing with help from fronts whil soil temperature do not, missing data, etc. is work. It is work climate science AND YOU could and should be doing to find a coherent whole.
I have a BSEE, one of the tougher degrees needing vector calculus to deal with Maxwell’s equations for radiation, radiation in the atmosphere by the way. I am qualified by my degree to assist in the design of high-pressure boilers for electrical generation, requiring thermodynamics.
Let’s hear your qualifications that allow you to make denigrating remarks about myself and others as to our knowledge. Do you have the training to deal with Maxwell’s partial differential equations of radiation? Do you have the training in thermodynamics to analyze the necessary steam components to determine how much power can be extracted in a turbine? Have you ever seen or looked at steam tables? If not, you have no idea what enthalpy is and neither do most climate scientists. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be tossing around “climate change” based solely on temperature.
Mr. whatever: So what if untrained non experts, like myself, can see (in fact have seen) the debate among “experts”; it’s transparent enough for us to see that your “experts” are exposed as liars and frauds, and that you are well-trained to post your non expert CliSci talking points. Even we can see it, Warren, did you ever figure out if you belong at WUWT?
I can see the obvious reasons you don’t have any peer reviewed publications.
Mr. whatever: I stated the reasons so that you could see them. You’re that easily trained??!!
I had always thought that the function of publication was to elicit a broad range of constructive criticism from peers. That is, actual peer review and not just academics acting like gate-keepers to save publishers from the embarrassment of publishing a worthless paper. It is difficult to not take it personally, even if couched in the third-person, when one or a small group inductively develop a new hypothesis. That is precisely why The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses was recommended by T. C. Chamberlain: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.148.3671.754
Publication is to inform others of your results. Typically, scientists kill themselves to get their work right, prior to submission.
The best peer-review is constructive – critical commentary meant to strengthen the results perhaps by suggesting further experiments or analysis, to improve the manuscript and and to assist the process of publishing reliable clearly stated results.
Disputes do arise. But they’re typically resolved in journal pages. The interested scientific audience is able to judge the evidences and interpretations, and eventually decide on which explanation is correct. The interpretation judged incorrect eventually fades from view because it’s not cited.
It’s only in politicized science (climate, Covid, now vaccination) where reviews become hostile and reviewers and editors become gate-keepers. Politics destroys professional integrity.
Hypotheses are not by inductive inference – generalizing extrapolations from past observations. They are intuited constructs – mental jumps to generalized explanations in the form of a deductive hypothesis permitting testable predictions.
See Einstein (pdf).
The philosopher C. S. Peirce argued that hypothesis formulation was a third form of inference which he called abduction. For example unlike induction and deduction it often involves creating new methods and concepts, sometimes even new math like calculus.
So far as I can tell, physical hypothesis formation involves intuiting an explanation that can be developed in a quantitative way, and from which deductive prediction of observables is forthcoming.
Looking up abduction, the description appears to require some prior organizing theory that justifies the ‘best explanation’ from instances. That process does not correspond to how hypotheses emerge in science.
Here’s Feynman: “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess. … Then we compare the results of the computation to nature. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
A guess to hypothesis doesn’t seem to map onto abduction.
“Another chapter — “Reference Guide on Climate Science” — was withdrawn after a letter from 27 state attorneys general pointed out that it was pure alarmist advocacy.”
I’ll bet every peso I have that the state of Wokeachusetts is not amongst those 27 states. 🙂
Your pesos are safe. My state, West Virginia, led the charge.
Yes, one of the least educated states in the country.
Sort of like you.
When one person makes a new scientific discovery, they are the only one that “knows” the correct science.
The consensus of everyone else on planet Earth is wrong.
THAT is how science works.
More than 100 years ago there was a nonsensus called ” 100 scientists against Einstein “.
“Why 100?” – asked Einstein.
“If I’m wrong 1 is enough.”
When there are no active climate researchers disagreeing, what does that mean?
I would point out that there are many folks that disagree. Here is a list of some of the most renowned. Perhaps your own academic credentials allow you to denigrate their findings?
Dr. William Happer, PhD Physics, Instantaneous Clear Sky Radiative Forcings of Halogenated Gases (2023)
Dr. William. A. van Wijngaarden, PhD Physics, Radiation Transport in Clouds (2025)
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., PhD Atmospheric Science / Meteorology, A Parameterization of Heterogeneous Land Surfaces for Atmospheric Numerical Models and Its Impact on Regional Meteorology (1989)
Dr. Willie Soon, PhD Aerospace Engineering, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years
Dr. Paul Ridd, PhD Physics, The input impedance of horizontal linear antennas above a layered ground plane (1988)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD Applied Mathematics, Atmospheric Tides (1969)
Freeman Dyson, Physics Professor, Statistical Theory of the Energy Levels of Complex Systems (1962)
Dr. S. Fred Singer, PhD Physics, Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends: Climate Models vs Observations (Geophysical Research Letters, 2004)
Dr. Steven E. Koonin, PhD Theoretical Physics, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate (DOE, 2025)
Dr. Pat Frank, PhD Chemistry, LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air-Temperature Record (2023)
A tired old list of Frauds, who no longer do active research and instead look for clicks or fossil fuel money.
Said the ankle-biter!
The WB troll-person is a boring one-trick-pony: “IPCC” … “peer review” … “denier”.
Rinse-repeat ad nauseum.
Most Deniers are more comfortable living in their own silo where they can imagine the world as they would like it to be instead of the way it is.
Mr. whatever: Most deniers? So some “deniers” (made up word) are NOT??
Gonna stop now, this lame troll not worth reading.
*retch*
You are a tired old fraud unable to compose cogent responses to anything scientic. You need to visit your therapist more often.
There have been many “peer-reviewed” excerpt posted that prove his nonsense totally wrong.
He “denies” peer-reviewed articles.
Only accepts peer-review when it is pal-climate-review of obviously flawed and contrived non-science.
He is comfortable in his imaginary little padded “climate” cell, where reality can never be allowed to enter.
I’m guessing he’s well-paid for his verbage.
He doesn’t even seem to understand that “peer-review” is mainly about journal publication, NOT science.
You are a tired old fraud unable to compose cogent responses to anything scientic. You need to visit your therapist more often.
All the best climate scientists have been driven from the field by the arrogant incompetents who have taken over and ruined it.
There is a standard manufacturing recipe: 1. Produce a pamphlet pushing your point of view. 2. Slap a “Science” label on it.
You forgot step 3 )
Stiffle opposing views.(a monopol on propaganda is usually not enough to establish a new manufactured reality. The Challengers must be isolated and Shamed, if necessary,start a proxy-debates about completely irrelevant stuff to show the world that you are tolerant and open to criticism)
How Science Works
Is how we say it works – and when we say it works….
David —
Your target is right: the judges’ chapter describes a finished product, not the process. The scientific process includes hypotheses that change an assumption and then have to fight their way past a closed reporting shop. Peer review, as currently practised in the climate science field, often functions as a fortress consensus. Work that does not start from TOA radiative imbalance as the independent variable is not refuted. It is not even admitted.
Zenodo and WUWT are the safety valves. They are not used as such by the community that writes manuals for judges. That community treats those venues as non-science by definition, then cites the resulting silence as evidence that no serious alternative exists.
The Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis is an example of the thing that shop will not carry. It is not a fringe end-member. It asks one legitimate modelling question: what if the independent variable is the observable phase-equilibrium level of the condensing volatile — the lifting condensation level / dew-point height — rather than the radiative residual at the top of the atmosphere? Surface temperature and pressure then become dependent variables, obtained by integrating downward along the appropriate adiabat under hydrostatic balance. That is ordinary inverse modelling. It is the same class of move a geoscientist makes when the boundary condition was misspecified.
Andy May and Philip Mulholland have already tested that assumption against radiosondes here on this site. The moist-adiabatic description holds through the lower and mid troposphere and fails where ice-phase processes take over — near the same layer where the CMIP ensembles diverge from observations. The papers are on Zenodo. They will not appear in the journals a judge is told to treat as Science, not because the question is unscientific, but because the reporting process does not accept a change of independent variable as a live debate.
A manual that said “how science works” would have to mention that such hypotheses exist, that they can be tested, and that institutional literature is not a complete inventory of them. This chapter cannot do that. It has already defined the closed shop as settled science.
Well put, Philip. Well over 90% of academics, including academic scientists, are Democrats so Democrats own the journal literature.
The basics are as well settled as relativity, smoking causes cancer, or the earth orbits the sun.
Warren,
Relativity has a mechanism: mass-energy curves spacetime (GR) and the Lorentz transformations follow from the invariance of c. GPS clocks, gravitational lensing, and perihelion precession test it quantitatively.
Smoking has a mechanism: specific carcinogens (PAHs, tobacco-specific nitrosamines) form DNA adducts, mutate genes such as p53, and produce a clear dose-response in both epidemiology and controlled studies.
The Earth orbits the Sun because gravity supplies the centripetal force; Kepler’s laws drop straight out of the inverse-square law plus conservation of angular momentum.
Now apply the same standard to the claim you just equated with those three. The spectroscopic forcing from extra CO2 is not in serious dispute (~3.7 W m⁻² for a doubling). What is not settled to anything like the same degree is the net system gain after water-vapor, cloud, lapse-rate and other feedbacks. That is why published equilibrium climate sensitivity still spans roughly 1.5–4.5 °C (and some observational estimates sit even lower). “Fastest warming in millennia” further depends on contested paleo-reconstructions whose uncertainty bars are routinely larger than the claimed signal.
So, this question is not rhetorical: by what quantitative mechanism, with what tested gain factor, does a 1.2 °C no-feedback response become the catastrophe you treat as equally certain as orbital mechanics? Until that number is constrained the way G or the speed of light is constrained, the analogy fails.
The quantity of evidence for human-caused climate change is enormous. And no contradictory evidence has ever been found. That’s the classic case of a scientific hypothesis being supported by overwhelming confirming evidence (and no contradictory evidence), leading to wide acceptance by the scientific community as a valid scientific theory.
I suggest you read the IPCC Assessments, reports by the National Academy of Science, NASA, any of the other 79 National Science Academies in the world, reports by major research universities, or any University textbook (eg, Principles of Planetary Climates by Pierrehumbert of Oxford). You’d be hard pressed to find one example of disagreement on the post industrial temperature trend, or that it’s human caused.
And I add the point that mean equilibrium sensitivity is 3C, not 1.2C, just as I add the point that there is no scientific research I’m aware of that backs your ideas on human caused climate change that you have expressed here.
Warren,
The post-industrial rise in GMST is not the dispute. Neither is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The dispute is the size of the net response after feedbacks — exactly the quantity you now treat as settled at 3 °C.
IPCC AR6 itself does not treat 3 °C as a measured constant like c or G. It gives a best estimate of 3 °C, a likely range of 2.5–4 °C, and a very likely range of 2–5 °C, and it still cannot rule out values above 5 °C (medium confidence on that upper bound). That is an assessed range, not “no contradictory evidence.” CMIP6 models themselves span roughly 1.8–5.6 °C; AR6 down-weighted the hottest of them rather than treating the multi-model mean as gospel.
Energy-budget studies using observed warming, forcing and ocean heat uptake (Lewis & Curry and subsequent updates) have repeatedly produced central ECS values nearer 1.5–1.8 °C, with 5–95 % intervals that overlap the lower half of the AR6 range. Later work on LGM pattern effects has also pulled paleo-based estimates downward. Those papers exist in the peer-reviewed literature. You can dislike them; you cannot say they do not exist.
The 1.2 °C figure is the no-feedback Planck response to a doubling. The jump from 1.2 °C to ~3 °C is almost entirely assumed positive feedbacks, chiefly water vapour and clouds. Cloud feedback remains the largest single uncertainty in the assessments you cite. That is why the range has not collapsed to the precision of orbital mechanics or the smoking–cancer mechanism.
Institutional statements from academies and NASA are consensus documents. They are not a substitute for a tightly constrained, independently measured system-gain factor. Relativity and Keplerian orbits do not still carry a factor-of-two uncertainty on the central number after 40 years of intensive work.
If you have a derivation that turns the spectroscopic forcing into a unique, observationally confirmed 3 °C equilibrium response with uncertainty comparable to those other theories, post it. Citing the existence of textbooks and press releases is not that derivation.
Excuse me, but i said ‘no contradictory evidence’ with respect to the warming and the cause. As far as the estimates of ECS are concerned, I accept the IPCC’s range of likely ECS (I think that’s 2- 4.5C, with a median of 3C. I don’t accept yours or Currys or Lindzen’s because they are not peer reviewed (in fact, Lindzen’s was retracted by the Author because the reviewers found errors he could not correct).
And it’s utterly absurd to claim that feedbacks — an essential part of the calculation of the ‘likely range’ of ECS — are assumed by the IPCC. That’s clear Denier-speak.
Warren,
Lewis & Curry 2015 (Climate Dynamics) and Lewis & Curry 2018 (Journal of Climate) are peer-reviewed. You can dislike the method; you cannot say the papers were not reviewed. Both use IPCC AR5 forcings and observed heat uptake.
Lindzen & Choi 2009 in GRL had errors Lindzen later called embarrassing. The 2011 revision was rejected by PNAS and published elsewhere. That is not “the author retracted it because reviewers found errors he could not correct.” If you have a DOI for an actual retraction notice, post it. Lindzen & Christy 2024 is also peer-reviewed (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences). Misstating the publication history does not erase the energy-budget numbers.
On the range: AR6’s likely ECS is 2.5–4 °C, very likely 2–5 °C, best estimate 3 °C. You are mixing AR5 and AR6. Even on your preferred figures the interval is still a factor of two. Relativity and Kepler do not work that way.
On “no contradictory evidence” for cause: a detectable anthropogenic contribution is not the same claim as “100 % of the post-industrial rise, settled like orbital mechanics.” Pattern effects, aerosol forcing uncertainty, and the mismatch between many high-ECS models and the historical energy budget are discussed inside the reports you cite. That is evidence about magnitude and attribution fraction — which is what the original analogy required.
On feedbacks: nobody said the IPCC invents them. The Planck response (~1.2 °C) is tightly constrained by radiation physics. Water-vapour, lapse-rate, albedo and especially cloud feedbacks are assessed, not measured to the same precision. Clouds remain the largest term in the 2–5 °C range. “Assumed” was shorthand for “not observationally pinned down the way the CO2 spectrum is.” A satellite-era closure of net cloud feedback to ±0.2 W m⁻² K⁻¹ would settle it. Labelling the point “Denier-speak” does not.
Insults are not valid arguments.
I stand corrected on the fact you cite that Curry’s 1.5C estimate for median ECS was indeed peer reviewed. However, the IPCC chooses 3C as the current most reliable estimate of the mean of ECS.
And Lindzen resubmitted his paper after trying to correct the errors but the paper was again rejected for failure to fully correct the errors.. So Lindzen chose an obscure journal abroad to publish where his remaining errors presumably would not have received the same scrutiny.
And contrary to what you imply, the IPCC estimates (AR5) the human contribution to warming as 109% — 100% of the temperature elevation above the baseline, and 9% to offset the natural cooling that would have occurred in the absence of any anthropogenic contribution. That cannot be characterized as merely ‘detectable’
And you did indeed say that the feedbacks are only assumed. However, although I have no problem with the idea you put forward that the estimation of the effect of feedbacks is less precise than the calculation of the Planck response, that doesn’t mean the most likely value for ECS should be 1.2 or even 1.5.
Such low estimates seem hardly supportable given the current state of the research as cited by the IPCC.
And my apologies for using the term “Denier speak”.
Warren,
Noted on Curry, and thanks for the apology.
IPCC’s 3 °C is an assessed central value from combining lines of evidence, not a measurement that retires other published estimates. AR6 still carries 2.5–4 °C (likely) and 2–5 °C (very likely). Energy-budget papers are one of the lines AR6 itself uses; they pull the distribution down. Saying the assessment “chooses 3 °C” does not make 1.5 °C unpublished or illegitimate. It means the authors weighted process, paleo and model evidence more heavily than the raw historical energy budget. That weighting is a judgement, and it is contestable — which is why the range remains a factor of two.
On Lindzen: Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a Springer journal with peer review. It is lower-profile than PNAS or GRL. That is not the same as “published where errors would not be scrutinized.” If remaining errors invalidate the result, cite the specific residual error and the paper that quantifies it. Journal prestige is not a physical mechanism.
On “109 %”: that figure is an interpretation of AR5 attribution diagrams (anthropogenic best estimate slightly larger than observed warming because assessed natural forcings were slightly negative). The AR5 SPM wording was “the best estimate of the human-induced contribution is similar to the observed warming,” with GHG 0.5–1.3 °C and other anthropogenic (aerosols etc.) −0.6 to +0.1 °C against ~0.6–0.7 °C observed (1951–2010). Those are wide intervals. A central value near 100 % of the observed rise is not the same as “settled like the Earth orbiting the Sun.” AR6 is tighter, but it still reports a likely human-induced range of 0.8–1.3 °C against observed ~1.06 °C (2010–2019 vs 1850–1900). Overlap and residual natural/internal terms remain.
On 1.2 / 1.5 °C: 1.2 °C is the no-feedback Planck response, not a proposed ECS. 1.5 °C is a historical energy-budget median (Lewis & Curry 2018), rising toward ~1.8 °C if you allow time-varying feedbacks. Nobody here argued that the most likely value must be 1.2. The argument is that you analogized the whole package — warming, cause, and a 3 °C catastrophe-grade sensitivity — to relativity and Kepler. The Planck term is in that league. The net feedback factor that triples it is not. IPCC-cited research includes both the 3 °C synthesis and the lower observational estimates. Selecting only the former does not make the latter “hardly supportable.”
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I’m not sure I understand if you believe the IPCC’s most likely and likely ranges for ECS are overstated, or not.
I don’t have the expertise to assess the work done by the IPCC on ECS, nor to assess your analysis. My belief, however, is that estimates made by scientists looking at the body of research, and being reasonably consistent in their estimates from year to year, is likely to produce estimates that are more reliable than estimates that are substantially lower (or higher).
You make a distinction between a “synthesized” value of ECS and lower observational estimates. However, I am reading this written by Dana Nucitelli, summarizing work by Stephan Ramsofriif and others, in which (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models are considered. Here is Dana’s summation, which implies considerable complexity and a lack of certainty. However, I don’t see much support for ECS mean values of 1.2-1.5C.
“The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”
Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. In fact, as climate science has developed and advanced over time , estimates have converged around 3°C. A summary of recent climate sensitivity studies can be found here.
A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded “many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C” (Rahmstorf 2008). Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can’t be ruled out.
A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to “fast feedback processes” is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheetdisintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6°C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.”
Mr. Mulholland: Very well done! They say you can’t polish a turd, but you polished this one off!
And he won’t get it, still.
What I get is that views like yours are unsupported in the peer reviewed literature.
Warren,
Short answer to your question: I think the IPCC range is an honest synthesis of mixed evidence, and I do not treat 3 °C as a measured constant. I think values near 1.5 °C remain live in the peer-reviewed energy-budget literature you have now acknowledged. I do not think 1.2 °C is an ECS estimate. That is the whole distinction I have been making. We will not close the gap by trading AR4-era summaries against later papers.
You trust the institutional average because it is stable from report to report. I put more weight on the observational constraint and on the fact that the net feedback still spans a factor of two. That is a difference of judgement, not a missing citation.
You will want another round. Ideologues usually do. I am happy to leave you the last word; the host’s comment thread is not a perpetual motion machine.
Paul — thanks. I’ll stop polishing.
Philip,
If you want to be the outlier with your synthesis of a 1.5 ECS, go for it. I trust the IPCC, not only for relative consistency , but more importantly, for the willingness of its scientists to debate and submit their work to other expert reviewers.
And since you brought it up, I believe the worse kind of ideologues are those non experts that reject the work of real experts even though they don’t have the training or skills to understand the research, because it doesn’t fit their agenda of climate denial. It also seems to me that those that have the skills , yet traffic in denialism and associate with that crowd , must have some motive other than science.
“Short answer to your question: I think the IPCC range is an honest synthesis” by people who show no understanding of physical error analysis or data reliability, and who evidently are comfortable with false precision.
Pat,
Thanks — that is a fair distinction.
“Honest synthesis” was only aimed at Warren’s charge that the range is made up. I meant they put the combined estimate on the table in public, not that their treatment of physical error and data reliability is adequate.
Your point on false precision stands. That is a separate argument from the one I was closing, and I am leaving Warren where he is.
TTFN
I don’t recall ever making a charge that the “range was made up”. What I said was “However, although I have no problem with the idea you put forward that the estimation of the effect of feedbacks is less precise than the calculation of the Planck response, that doesn’t mean the most likely value for ECS should be 1.2 or even 1.5.”
Got it, thanks Philip.
The false precision ubiquitous in consensus AGW papers puts paid to Warren’s claim of standing on “the body of published science.”
The body of published pseudoscience.
…speaking of pseudoscience:
Here’s what several reviewers have to say about your 2019 and 2023 papers on temperature measurement error:
1) Bob Loblaw —
“The[2023] paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong, but the entire discipline of introductory statistics would need to be wrong. If you want to understand uncertainty in global temperature records, read the proper scientific literature, not this paper by Patrick Frank.”
2) NigelJ:
“Pat Frank sounds like a classic case of a person promoting crank science. Scientific crank for short.”
3) ‘Then There’s Physics’ re: your 2019 paper:
Pat Frank argues that there is an uncertainty in the cloud forcing that should be propagated through the calculation and which then leads to a very large, and continually growing, uncertainty in future temperature projections. The problem, though, is that this is essentially a base state error, not a response error. This error essentially means that we can’t accurately determine the base state; there is a range of base states that would be consistent with our knowledge of the conditions that lead to this state. However, this range doesn’t grow with time because of these base state errors.
As Gavin Schmidt pointed out when this idea first surfaced in 2008, it’s like assuming that if a clock is off by about a minute today, that tomorrow it will be off by two minutes, and in a year off by 365 minutes. In reality, the errors over a long time are completely unconnected with the offset today.”
4) ‘Then There’s Physics’: “Pat Frank’s analysis essentially suggests that adding energy to the system could lead to cooling. I’m pretty sure that this is physically impossible. Anyway, I think we all probably know that Pat Frank’s analysis is nonsense. ”
5) There’s more. Much More.
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html
1)Refuting Bob Loblaw, not that you’d care. Or understand.
2) NigelJ. sounds like a know-nothing hack.
3.1) Ken Rice (Mr. AATP) exploded. He operates on the particularly self-servingly fatuous assumption that model error is a constant offset. He also doesn’t understand calibration.
3.2) Likewise Gavin Schmidt, self-servingly presumes a constant offset error.
4) Mr. ATTP (Ken Rice) doesn’t know the difference between a (plus/minus) uncertainty and a physical variable. And this is the guy you take as an unimpeachable authority.
You’re clueless, Warren, and so are they.
Nigel went on to say this. ( Might he be talking about you?)
Pat Frank sounds like a classic case of a person promoting crank science. Scientific crank for short.
I’m no expert in scientific cranks, or crank science, but …..I have observed that cranks have certain attributes.
1)They are usually moderately intelligent, sometimes highly intelligent. This helps them come up with inventive nonsense.
2)They are very stubborn and dont admit they are wrong, either to themselves or anyone else.
3) They also frequently tend to be egocentric, arrogant, very confident and somewhat narcissistic. Some people have a disorder called NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) or lean that way:
“Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.” (mayo clinic)
Narcissists are usually overconfident and very arrogant and they can sometimes be very dishonest.
Ad hominem attacks all. Not one reference to accepted texts on uncertainty, not one example, etc. It’s all “Believe me, I know what I am talking about”.
That is not a refutation. It is whining. If that is all you have, you will never win an argument!
My conclusion exactly, Jim.
Nigel commented with no substance. Rather like you, Warren. Personal attacks instead of critical thought
He offered nothing substantive. Zero. A waste of time.
Beeton says “What I get is that views like yours are unsupported in the peer reviewed literature.”
Yes but the peer reviewed literature is strongly alarmist. A classic case or paradigm protection.
And your alternative? Uneducated bloggers whose work is digested by the equally ignorant
I know of no actual empirical evidence for human caused global warming, except UHI of course. The AR6 SPM gives none rather it presents biased modeling results. Can you provide a single example of empirical evidence?
I’m not surprised you don’t recognize the overwhelming evidence cited by the IPCC, NAS and NASA. Eg, the rapid warming of the planet, the correlation with the atm CO2 trend, and the physics of the greenhouse effect discovered by science in the 19th century. Plus much more.
A theory with no functional relationship that can be experimentally verified. All blow and no go.
Yes you are all blow and no go, Gorman. You are hereby thoroughly spanked (In another post, I showed how Scientists weight intensive temperature measurements to determine the global average temperate, a 2nd thorough spanking of you). Also note that the Greenhouse Effect is experimentally verified in high school science labs all around the US — if you study hard, they might let you attend such a class — although you would struggle.
“The greenhouse effect was first demonstrated experimentally in 1856 by American scientist Eunice Newton Foote, who showed that carbon dioxide and water vapor trap solar heat. Irish physicist John Tyndall further verified and measured the infrared absorption of these gases in 1859.
Show us a physics reference that allows averaging intensive values without converting them to extensive properties even with weighting them spatially.
You are the one always touting peer reviewed papers. Give some that experimentally have observed this and developed a functional relationship from the experimental observations! High school experiments certainly don’t meet your required need of peer review.
You can’t spank without something physical to use. Show us your peer reviewed sources. None of your sources to date have any experimental observations of the actual atmosphere so they don’t count.
You require a peer reviewed paper to show you how to WEIGHT temperature measurements to find the weighted average. Gorman, you are a lost cause. Did u go to high school, much less university?
That is not what I asked you for. Here is what I asked for.
Show us a physics reference that allows averaging intensive values without converting them to extensive properties.
I then qualified it for even when using spatial weighting which basically includes different things.
Your answer is nothing more than a “the dog ate it” excuse that school children try and quickly learn isn’t going to be accepted. If you can’t find a reference, simply say so.
The historical air temperature record is so ridden with systematic measurement errors as to make it climatologically useless.
Says the non expert expounding outside of his field of expertise with an agenda , and can’t get his flaky ideas published.
I’m a physical methods experimental research chemist, Warren. Dealing with systematic error is central to my profession.
You, on the other hand, haven’t the competence to comment on the training of others.
I’ve published 8 peer-reviewed papers on the poor data integrity parlayed in consensus climatology. A ninth is now in review.
And you?
And 13 were rejected. I think Bob Loblaw nailed you:
““The[2023] paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong, but the entire discipline of introductory statistics would need to be wrong. If you want to understand uncertainty in global temperature records, read the proper scientific literature, not this paper by Patrick Frank.”
If you want to be a critic, then document in factual terms what is incorrect. None of the resources analyze Dr. Franks work in mathematical terms. Just the same old Ad Hominem attacks you copy as a good acolyte. Do us a favor and show mathematically how each uncertainty is erased.
You have neither the education nor the knowledge to make this statement. It has nothing to do with statistics, per se. It has to do with measurement uncertainty and how it is propagated. I sincerely doubt that you know what an input quantity to a measurement actually is, nor how the uncertainty surrounding it should be treated.
Tell us what Measurement Uncertainty tetbooks you own or studied. I have never seen you or any of your references describe an uncertainty budget concerning LIG, MaxMin LIG, MMTS, ASOS, or CRN stations or how it is propagated.
You cannot claim proper uncertainty treatment if different stations at different times do not carry their own uncertainties into temperature datasets.
Many of us learned measurement uncertainty/error decades ago while obtaining physical science degrees in physics, chemistry, and engineering. We have dealt with it in real physical jobs and under legal constraints throughout our careers.
“If you want to be a critic, then document in factual terms what is incorrect.”
With pleasure: (read Bob Loblaw’s critique of Frank’s paper, towards the end of the link)
“The problems with Patrick Frank’s paper?
Well, just a few of them. Enough of them to realize that the paper’s conclusions are worthless.”
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html
You have shown nothing. Do you know how to cut and paste?
You do know that the quote marks in the reply box marks your paste as a quote and “I” will make it italic, right?
Try it and show us YOUR refutation.
So I take it you never read Bob Loblaws refutation of Franks paper I cited? Or more likely, you couldn’t understand it,
I have read it. I want YOU to pick out what think the refutation is.
Four hints:
Measuring different temperatures violates the single measurand requirement. Single measurements require an uncertainty budget to evaluate a common uncertainty value.
Your favorite resource knows nothing about measurement uncertainty. Not referencing the GUM is a dead giveaway.
I did see one thing that should open your eyes. He showed the following.
When X and Y are rendom variables, and
X ± Y = Z
Var X + Var Y = Var Z
Would you like to tell us where this combined variance disappears to when using anomalies?
You’re a liar Gorman. You never read the link because Loblaw’s refutation referenced GUM here:
“So much of a “standard” that the ISO produces a guide: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. People familiar with it usually just refer to it as “the GUM”.”
etc, etc.
You’re a liar Gorman.
No, he mentioned the GUM but never referenced a single paragraph to show that any of his claims came from there.
Why did you not refute my comment of his using the proper method of adding/ subtracting means and variance. That was in his response, did you not read it?
Loblaw fully refuted.
Thirteen were not rejected. All were published.
“I think …” No, you don’t.
“…Bob Loblaw nailed you” Loblaw nailed his biased pseudo-analysis to a mast in full view of everyone.
Metrology is a discipline of its own and is applied in all physical science domains. You would know that if you had any physical science lab training. One of the metrology purposes is to determine measurement uncertainty. You would know this if you had taken any higher level physical lab classes.
Ys, and as Loblaw, NigelJ, and Ken Rice have observed: Pat Frank doesn’t grasp freshman-level statistics; his conclusions (and yours) are worthless.
What is the saying? I’m rubber and you’re glue. What you say bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU.
That’s how childish your whining complaints are.
When posting the links to falsification of Loblaw and Ken Rice, I noted in passing that you’d not care.
Now you’ve proved it out. You just endlessly repeat the words of those who say what you already believe. Mindless. Cultish. Ignorant. Arrogant.
As to Nigel, he’s demonstrated nothing. And yet, undeterred, you chant him, too.
Here’s what several reviewers have to say about your 2019 and 2023 papers on temperature measurement error:
1) Bob Loblaw —
“The[2023] paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong, but the entire discipline of introductory statistics would need to be wrong. If you want to understand uncertainty in global temperature records, read the proper scientific literature, not this paper by Patrick Frank.”
2) NigelJ:
“Pat Frank sounds like a classic case of a person promoting crank science. Scientific crank for short.”
3) ‘Then There’s Physics’ re: your 2019 paper:
Pat Frank argues that there is an uncertainty in the cloud forcing that should be propagated through the calculation and which then leads to a very large, and continually growing, uncertainty in future temperature projections. The problem, though, is that this is essentially a base state error, not a response error. This error essentially means that we can’t accurately determine the base state; there is a range of base states that would be consistent with our knowledge of the conditions that lead to this state. However, this range doesn’t grow with time because of these base state errors.
As Gavin Schmidt pointed out when this idea first surfaced in 2008, it’s like assuming that if a clock is off by about a minute today, that tomorrow it will be off by two minutes, and in a year off by 365 minutes. In reality, the errors over a long time are completely unconnected with the offset today.”
4) ‘Then There’s Physics’: “Pat Frank’s analysis essentially suggests that adding energy to the system could lead to cooling. I’m pretty sure that this is physically impossible. Anyway, I think we all probably know that Pat Frank’s analysis is nonsense. ”
5) There’s more. Much More.
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html
1)Refuting Bob Loblaw, not that you’d care. Or understand.
2) NigelJ. sounds like a know-nothing hack.
3.1) Ken Rice (Mr. AATP) exploded. He operates on the particularly self-servingly fatuous assumption that model error is a constant offset. He also doesn’t understand calibration.
3.2) Likewise Gavin Schmidt, self-servingly presumes a constant offset error.
4) Mr. ATTP (Ken Rice) doesn’t know the difference between a (plus/minus) uncertainty and a physical variable. And this is the guy you take as an unimpeachable authority.
You’re clueless, Warren, and so are they.
This fellow doesn’t even understand themodynamics. Adding energy doesn’t guarantee heating. It doesn’t make the loss of energy impossible. FYI, adding latent heat energy can also make a system appear to not have warmed.
Adding energy and losing energy are two separate processes that must be combined to determine the final condition. You obviously have not studied thermodynamics or you wouldn’t repeat a statement like this.
Ken didn’t realize that ±C uncertainty is not a physical temperature.
He saw the ± uncertainty bounds and decided they were projections of positive and negative air temperature.
That misunderstanding is embedded in his awful analysis.
That’s how clueless he is. And I’ve run across that exact level of ignorance repeatedly among climate modelers.
They’ve no idea how to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
Pat Frank, Your delusions extend back to August 2008, it appears:
Marcus: “Wow. Pat Frank, I have to say that I am astounded by the number of different misconceptions you demonstrate in your various writings. You claim that because you can match the ensemble average response of GCMs to one forcing scenario you have generated an “audit” which you can use to tell the people who run the GCMs that their models don’t have heat going into the ocean? Despite the fact that they are the ones with access to their model outputs, and that they can in fact go in and tell you exactly how much heat ends up in the oceans?
You think that because the year-to-year variability in the GCMs average out, that they can’t represent any physical reality? Let me ask you something: I have a hundred computer models which represent ten rolls of a six sided die. The “ensemble average” of these models is a line that equals 3.5 from roll 1 through roll 10. So, in your universe, I could use an “audit” equation equal to 3.5, because all these models that produce “noise” between 1 and 6 aren’t really physical because they don’t agree with each other?
You think that you can propagate baseline uncertainty (from cloudiness or whatever) and apply that uncertainty anew every single year? Let’s say I go up to the top of a mountain that is 5000m high (plus or minus 100m). Now I take 1m high bricks. Every year I add one brick to the top of the mountain. In your universe, I wouldn’t be able to predict the trend in height changes of my tower because we’d have to throw in 100m of uncertainty every single year??? And, by the way, why did you choose a year as the unit of time to use to propagate your uncertainty? You could have used a day as your unit of time, and then your uncertainty would have grown 365 times as quickly!!! (oh, wait, that would make no sense, would it? Much like the rest of your analysis)
I can’t believe I actually wasted valuable time reading your stuff. I’m off to do something useful now.”
Now, me too.
This whole rant ignores what occurs in an iterative process. The uncertainty of the radiation value is inserted at each iteration. It is no different that laying objects end to end. Each new object has its own uncertainty, and it adds at each iteration.
The standard use of RSS takes into account that there may be some cancelation in the whole process, but one must also recognize that there is a maximum uncertainty of simple addition of each uncertainty.
RSS is taught in every metrology textbook I have, and in every online resource that deals with uncertainty. Even the last resource you attempted to use showed that with random variables X ± Y = Z, the standard deviation is √(VarX + VarY), and that my friend is RSS. It is the square Root of the Sum of Squares.
You are not refuting anything without showing the mathematics that supports your position. The rants you post that never mention functional relationships nor the GUM are not persuasive either.
Whoever your know-nothing expert is, Warren, he’s wrong on all counts.
He misrepresented the finding — that a linear expression successfully emulates every single transient air temperature projection from every single climate model driven with every single forcing scenario- not just his “ensemble average.”
He then confused statistical probability with physical uncertainty.
He then shows he doesn’t understand the meaning or import of a calibration experiment.
He also doesn’t understand that uncertainty scales with magnitude.
In short, your expert is so left-field he’s not even wrong. He knows squat about physical error analysis.
I see. So in your view, you are correct, and all scientists of stature are wrong. Might you be a bit jealous, or realize that you never made your mark? So instead you’ve left the trail of a crank who has been wrong on even basic freshman statistics.
“all scientists of stature”
It is to laugh.
Every time you lose a point, you run away and find another champion – who turns out to be as impotent as all the others.
You’ve been propagandized, Warren. You’re not in charge of your own mind anymore. Someone else has taken command of it.
“the overwhelming evidence” of circular reasoning.
Assume increased CO₂ will warm the planet. Build models that say increased CO₂ will warm the planet. Therefore, increased CO₂ is warming the planet.
That’s the entire IPCC ball of wax.
And overwhelming evidence that Pat Frank is completely clueless about science
The overwhelming evidence says that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Warren. As usual.
I have thousands of peer reviewed scientists on my side, Frank. In contrast to the handful of cranks you seem to align with.
No you don’t because you haven’t and more likely can’t find any mathematical treatment of uncertainty in any of the peer reviewed papers you have other than finding the SD of the final average and then dividing by √n. Any uncertainty prior to that just disappears. It doesn’t matter if it is thr GMST or a model output.
So you made the same elementary errors that Frank makes. Those are errors a college freshman wouldn’t make. In other words, Gorman, just like Frank, you’re a crank.
Yeah, more made up Ad Hominem attacks. You are sounding like an elementary school playground child.
Science is neither a democracy nor a consensus, Warren. You have nothing.
It appears yet another scientist has debunked your methodology. Patrick Brown, PhD, Carnegie Institute, Stanford University, concludes his analysis with this:
Evaluation of uncertainty in climate model Calculated Global Temperature projections is critical. The method proposed by Dr. Frank is inadequate for this task:
“Another“? You haven’t found one, Warren. You’ve posted up a set of long-since-falsified attacks; all of which you believe in fixed cultish fashion.
Refutation of Patrick Brown. Another guy who’s confused about the difference between an uncertainty and a physical variable.
Evaluation of uncertainty in climate model Calculated Global Temperature projections is critical. The method proposed by Dr. Frank is inadequate for this task:
The “error” has the same intrinsic timescale as the value. You cannot separate the value ±uncertainty into separate numbers. The uncertainty is part and parcel of the value. This is the same as saying the value is 100% accurate and lets throw away the uncertainty.
Uncertainty is not limited to spatial values. This is insane. Again, if a value has an uncertainty, you can’t erase the fact that the value is 100% accurate. One must deal with the fact that an interval exists around the value and it must be evaluated.
More insanity. How do you calculate the net energy imbalance without using the uncertain energy value? If the net energy and it has an uncertainty, and is then used in a functional relationship of some kind, the uncertainty of the calculated value exists.
Again, more sophistry. If the base state value has uncertainty, it must be propagated through the entire sequence of calculations where it is used.
So contradicting history makes something incorrec! Geez, I am glad surgeons wash their hands, that surgeons no longer bleed people to cure sickness, that Einstein contradicted Newton.
Why didn’t this refutation include one simple calculation example of how uncertainty should have been treated? Not one GUM reference discussing functional relationships or input quantities. Lastly, it sounds like this person has never moved into the new paradigm of uncertainty being used to categorize measurement values. The constant use of the term error is passe in the 21st century. Error requires the knowledge of the true value of a measurand. That has never been true and is why the JCGM documents have been agreed with internationally.
What basics are these? Almost everything in climate science is debated.
Only by non expert denizens of WUWT
Mr. whatever: Well, the experts here hold their own- that’s why I keep reading articles and comments here. The declared non-experts like me denizen here to shoot down buzzards like you. What easy prey you are, just circling around the dead husk of CliSci, Inc.
Many of the WUWT commenters are experts, including me.
Yes, you imagine you are experts. When will we see some of your ‘expert’ debunking of climate change appear in ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’? (We won’t hold our breath)
Nature or Science
Now living on past glory.
Not until the academic alarmists lose their control over the journals. Citing the journal literature to support alarmism is a losing argument. You might as well cite the Democrat platform. They are indistinguishable. The demographics are clear that the vast majority of academic scientists are left wingers. Their climate conclusions are predictable from that fact.
Just to be clear my field is complex reasoning and I have tracked the climate debate since 1992, especially the confusions and fallacies which are numerous. I probably know more about this than anyone else.
Ah, the mark of Dunning Kruger syndrome. Common among Science Deniers.
An unimpeachable irony.
Publish!
You wish. Here is a graph from CLINTEL published from the Happer and Van Wijngarten paper on radiative greenhouse effect.
It shows a 3 W/m² increase for a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm.
Let’s see what that gives for a temperature rise.
(5.67× 10⁻⁸)(288.7K⁴) = 393.9 W/m²
(393.9 + 3 = 396.9 W/m²
(396.9 ÷ (5.67× 10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 289.3K
289.3K – 288.7K = 0.6K
You see too many in climate science make the assumption that CO2 emits over a broad spectrum determined by integrating Planck’s equation over the entire spectrum. That integration results in the SB equation which in then used to determine what CO2 emits downward. As you can see from the graph, CO2 emits only over a very, very small part of the integrated Planck equation. It is simply not large enough to have much of an effect.
Since peer reviewed papers are your mainstay and the only source you trust, you should know that CoPilot could find no peer reviewed papers that specifically refute the findings of this paper.
This is too expert for Beeton. He specializes in simplistic alarmism.
Thank you. The real experts were the two who did the work on the study.
I am glad it verified what struck me when I found this image that shows how a gas only radiates at specific wavelengths based upon Planck’s equation.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the end result of integrating the Planck equation over the entire spectrum and gives the total power radiated by a blackbody. It cannot be used to determine the power radiated by a gas in the atmosphere. It makes the Trenbirth radiation diagram and others like it a joke.
Sorry, but you’re the joke , Gorman. You’re not fit to shine Trenberth’s shoes
So says the Acolyte of the CAGW Bible.
By the way Gorman, here’s how global avg temperature is determined. Note that grid weighting addresses your worry about intensive measurements.
“Scientists determine the global average temperature by combining millions of air and sea surface measurements from land weather stations, ships, and ocean buoys, converting them into “temperature anomalies” (differences from a long-term baseline average), mapping them onto a global grid, and averaging the results. Major scientific organizations like NASA and NOAA independently analyze these records to track planetary warming.
Data Collection
Calculating Anomalies Instead of Absolute Values
Grid Mapping and Adjustments
Let me point out before starting, that not once do you mention measurement uncertainty and how it is propagated when arithmetic averaging of any type is done. It is not something that can be ignored. Every measurement has doubt, it is an estimate. When combining them without dealing with the uncertainty, one has only done half the work to make a scientifically significant measurement.
From: The Father of Lies Hijacking Climate Science: Global Mean Surface Temperature Does Not Exist, Jonathan Cohler at The Father of Lies Hijacking Climate Science: Global Mean Surface Temperature Does Not Exist | Zenodo
Many of us have been saying this exact same thing for quite some time. The author has done an excellent job tying all the pieces together.
Many of us here have said this for a long time. Enthalpy is the only true way to deal with heat in the oceans and in the atmosphere. It is an extensive value that will allow different locations to be averaged into a complete description of energy in the system.
I researched your spatial averaging some time ago. The basis for your claim lies in the theoretical assumptions used in kriging. Kriging is a geostatistical interpolation method used to estimate values at unsampled locations based on spatially correlated data from sampled points. It relies on an equilibrium distribution of data whereby interpolation can be done between samples. Land and sea temperatures are not constant, they change based on weather fronts, topography, geography, seasons, etc.
Spatial averaging, ignoring the intensive property problem, only ensures that a given area has a similar number of data points in it so that any given area is not over or under weighted. It ignores every bit of all the other variances that occur with temperature measurements and the fact that total heat energy is not defined by temperature, only by total Joules, that is, enthalpy.
None of your listed reasons have any basis of support in thermodynamic energy mathematics. They are basically a statistician’s conglomeration of ways to manipulate numbers, numbers that should be carrying a measurement uncertainty for each piece of data but don’t.
“story tip”,
I have just found a similar document(s) to your “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition” here in the UK.
Produced by the Royal Society. They have produced a series of nine primers and one conference report. Climate change is mentioned 57 times in the conference report. These primers are for use by judges and those working in the legal profession.
The following comes from the conference report, page 47.
“As (sic) present, predictions can differ between models, and therefore could be used to contradict each other in court. In these cases, the IPCC reports could be used as an authority. They draw on scientific understanding, supported by data and modelling tools to arrive at consensus assessments of the future state of the climate”
The complete series of primers can be found at:
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/what-we-do/science-and-law/#primers
The introduction to the conference report contains:
“On 3 – 4 October 2023, an international meeting organised jointly by the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences brought together leading scientists and prominent members of the legal community. Delegates from the UK and US discussed the approaches used by courts in their consideration, evaluation and management of scientific evidence and expert witnesses.”
Wow! Good to know but bad to be. The NAS gets around.
Glad that you brought up that odious woman straight away who taints that chapter with her literally unsupportable accusations about ‘public relations campaigns have misled the public‘ – but that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg on her associations with the climate litigation lawfare efforts. If you can use it at all for any future articles / presentations, I have a Summary for Policymakers on where her myriad narratives implode, along with her hugely suspect connections.
Assuming your ‘climatechangedebate’ email address is still good, look out for a direct email from me, the one you might have from before is now out-of-date.
I love it when truth tellers cause endless hyperventilation among Deniers.
Alas you are easily fooled.
No the CCD is long gone. For over 20 years it was a debate listserv with hundreds of members but happily blog commenting made it obsolete.
Nuts, and reasonably good as I am at finding info, I can’t readily spot a current email address for you. Good thing, in a way, it prevents the WarrenBeetonDoxxer-types from loading it up with trash. If you are in regular contact with others at CFACT, Marc, Craig, Christina, they have my updated address, as does Willie. I’ve got way more than just what’s in my above links which you might find most useful. The merchants of smear mob’s accusations are headed off a cliff, it’s just a matter of time on where and how that gets exposed bigtime.
“modelling tools to arrive at consensus assessments of the future state of the climate””
LOL.. that has to be one of the most stupid, anti-science comments ever made. !!
Yes the only evidence for human caused warming is models designed to produce human caused warming. The beginning of AR6 WG1 SPM is amusingly clear on this. The only forcings are human and the warming can only be explained by forcing. The reasoning is perfectly circular.
Models are never evidence and scientists don’t consider models as evidence. Try again.
There is no such evidence. Models are the only tell-tale, and they’re a predictive crock.
I would argue that the consensus of the leading experts in a field of science holds some weight and should be taken seriously.
The problem is that for most of the ringleaders in the field of climate science it can easily be shown that while they might see themselves as the experts, they are not and typically have a long track record of publishing lacking or even wrong science.
For example the uncritical multiple decade support for CO2 high-sensitive scenarios as a basis for political decisions, which turned out to be very wrong and is still affecting current policies.
Similarly, it can easily be shown that current models have better physics and higher resolution and both facts
a) would change the output of comparable older model significantly
b) were not considered sufficiently when older model outputs were published
We need experts who actively work on correcting past mistakes!
The members of the climate consensus touted the incorrect results (potentially having the right numeral values, but reporting incorrect statistical certainties making these numbers misleading and actually far less than useless)
for many decades, this is not the work of expert scientists, but reminds me of a flock of sheep!
Consensus of trustworthy experts is a good thing, but that is not what we see here.
I could point out that willingly supporting incorrect science for personal gain is about the most unethical thing scientist experts can do!
Yes there is no shadow of a consensus on climate science except among the believers. Climate Consensus is actually the name of a political movement.
Where there is a consensus it is a mixed blessing. It provides a stable base for coordinated research but can be an obstacle to change. Kuhn pointed all this out 60 years ago.
I’ve always thought Kuhn was right. I ended up as an engineer but I’ve seen the same sort of thing in my career, this is the way things are done for decades, right up until they’re suddenly not.
I did read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions cover to cover while taking copious notes and you’re triggering my PTSD on that. Great thinker, terrible writer.
Yes it is hard to read but he was an historian doing Phil Sci. I got my Phil Sci Ph.D in 1971 and my thesis started with Kuhn’s point that people with different fundamental beliefs (paradigms) have trouble debating them. And here we are as alarmists do not understand skepticism.
He also pointed out that researchers do not spend their time testing hypotheses. They get tested when people try to use them to explain important phenomena. Clinical trials are a big exception.
I’m glad you brought him up first then. I did one semester of Phil Sci as an academic breadth class. So I think you outrank me on the subject!
I did enjoy it, and the insight gained has stood me in good stead over the years. Especially doing multi disciplinary projects where you really do need to understand that other people have a completely different world view to you.
Kuhn’s description of science can’t distinguish between the work of Newton and Aquinas.
The doing of science is full of human hurly-burly but the growth of scientific knowledge is by falsification of error.
I often think of Mendel. He saw something that sparked a light bulb moment. He created a hypothesis of what was occurring. He spent years experimenting to discover patterns of colored flowers to prove his hypothesis. Without the physical validation work, science would not have gained tne knowledge.
Deductive hypothesis and prediction, followed by experiment. The scientific method.
Science did not start with Newton. Aquinas pioneered a lot of biology which was called natural philosophy at the time. The incredible variety of species and their behaviors was considered evidence of the existence of God.
Science began at the dawn of the age of man. When the first rock or stick was picked up and experimented with using it as a tool. The magic of man is the ability to teach and pass the knowledge of those experiments to succeeding generations. Experiment is the proof of a conceptual project. Without it, there is only opinion.
So far as I can tell, science started with Thales. He was the first (so far as is known) to make conclusions subject to observation.
The scientific consensus is 99.9%, according to a Cornell University study
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
Oh, a study Warren! I’m impressed, not.
A real world example – it used to be a truism, enshrined in international standards, that deluge (sprinkler) systems in tunnels were a bad idea. If you cool the air, the smoke will drop down, people will die. That was the consensus. Best not to have it at all.
Then there was the Mont Blanc tunnel fire. I was a junior working on a tunnel project at the time and thank goodness we had deluge systems built in at the insistence of the fire authority. Because the received wisdom changed overnight. And suddenly the operators claiming they wouldn’t even turn them on without instruction from a fire officer shut up.
Current thinking is that if you even have a possible car fire you drop the deluge. It won’t necessarily put it out because under bonnet fires are a bugger but you minimise the impact, smoke etc, and there’s no harm other than people getting wet.
So, paradigm shift.
I have no idea what your point is.
The point Warren is that “the consensus” isn’t always right. My story was an example that I’ve seen in real life.
I will use your post to provide a “worked example” of the difference between “believers” and “sceptics” for the benefit of any “lurkers / silent readers” who stumble upon this comments sub-thread.
.
Media article headline (link chosen by you) : “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change”
NB : There is already a discrepancy between your “equals 99.9%” and the article’s “More than 99.9%” headline.
A copy of the third paragraph of the article, a quote from the lead author :
Note that the “point nine” isn’t there any more … but is that “well over” quantified later on in the media article at least ?
No.
.
OK, the article at least includes a link to the “paper” … which is actually a “letter”, albeit a peer-reviewed one, to ERL … Lynas et al (2021), full title “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”.
Consistent with the media article’s quote, it looks like the Cornell editors got a bit carried away when coming up with their headline …
From the “Conclusion” section of the Lynas et al “letter” :
NB : There is a big difference between “may even be as high as 99.9%” and your original confident assertion that the consensus level “is 99.9%”.
.
Digging further, how was that “far exceeds 99%” number actually calculated in the “letter” ?
Lynas et al started with 88125 “climate change / global warming” papers published between 2012 and November 2020 (post Cook et al, 2013) and randomly sampled 3000 of them.
Their “ratings and categorization” procedure said 282 of those 3000 papers were “not climate-related”, with the other 2718 distributed as shown in their “Figure 1” … which I’ll attempt to “hotlink” below …
… and copy as a table in case that didn’t work.
Rating/categorization : # of abstracts
1 – Explicit endorsement with quantification : 19
2 – Explicit endorsement without quantification : 409
3 – Implicit endorsement : 417
4a – No position : 1869
5 – Implicit rejection : 2
6 – Explicit rejection without quantification : 1
7 – Explicit rejection with quantification : 1
“Not climate related” : 282
Total : 3000
And the actual calculation ?
OK, so so they did the old Cook et al “trick” of simply assuming that “No position = (enthusiastic and unconditional) endorsement“.
It is only by completely excluding the 1869 “No position” papers that they can “pump up” the upper 95% confidence interval value to 99.9%, otherwise they can “only” manage to get lower limits of 99.6% (95% confidence level) or 99.2% (99.999% confidence level).
.
So, in summary.
1) The actual published “letter” said “may even be as high as 99.9%” … or it may be as low as 99.2%, depending on the chosen confidence level.
2) The media article about the “letter” had the headline “More than 99.9% …”.
3) The mindless parrot who didn’t have enough natural curiosity to verify whether the media journalists / editors may have been exaggerating just a bit writes “The scientific consensus is 99.9% …”.
Everyone else looks at the “raw” numbers above, then what Lynas et al did with them to get to “> 99%” … and then starts quoting Mark Twain …
So 99.9% vs more than 99.9% is the silly hill you’re going to die on.no wonder Deniers can’t get their nutty ideas published 8n scientific journals. It’s an empty set.
What about his clear refutation of the 99%? Your reply is a perfect example of how alarmists dodge skepticism. Many thanks.
I saw no refutation, only meaningless rambling.
🙉 🙈
The refutation was half the supposed supporting studies expressed no actual opinion on the matter, as with the Cook numbers. Did you not read the comment?
A 99.9% consensus of the demonstrably incompetent provides no reassurance.
From the document discussed above ”Textbooks and media often present a sterile and simplified, but commonly held, view of the process of science, sometimes called the scientific method,4” (p51)
4. William F. McComas, The Principal Ele ments of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths, in The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies 53 (1998)
“The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. The steps listed for the scientific method vary somewhat from text to text but usually include: a) defining the problem, b) gathering background information, c) forming a hypothesis, d) making observations, e) testing the hypothesis and f) drawing conclusions.” (McComas 1998, p57)
Leads the document under discussion to make this statement:
“Above we described and debunked some common myths about science, which include the following.
Myth: There is a single scientific method that all scientists follow.
Fact: The process of science is nonlinear and dynamic.” (page 102)
If this description of the scientific method was good enough for Richard Feynman then it’s good enough for me. I don’t believe that it restricts science to a linear, static approach in any way.
That is the overall process but most scientists are just doing parts of it. Also hypotheses are typically tested by scientists trying to use them to explain natural phenomena. There is very little testing per se. If you look at the 3 million journal articles published a year you will not find people testing hypotheses.
The same can be said of the software development cycle for example, design, code, test. Testing doesn’t have to be overt, as it is in the software design example, but surely any observation by anyone anywhere that doesn’t match the original hypothesis brings into question the hypothesis. I don’t think Feynman was suggesting that the process was linear or followed by one individual or that a theory is fixed. I would further suggest that the scientific method has not been applied to the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is solely responsible for climate change, which is why consensus shouldn’t be used.
The IPCC lists about ten human forcings of which CO2 is merely the largest (early in the latest and prior SPMs) so that disconfirms the “solely CO2” hypothesis.
I.e., there is no such thing as a “sole CO2 hypothesis’.
If that is the case, why are we destroyong economies for netzero CO2? Why are we not dealing with the largest component?
1) Economies are not being “destroyed” by net zero.Thats a conspiracy theory
2) CO2 is not the sole component, but the largest component, accounting for 80% of warming. In paleo climates without mankind’s intervention, CO2 was often a major factor, but sometimes offset by solar change
Ignorance is bliss. If you wish to attribute the manufacturing losses in Germany, England, Spain, etc. to something else, so be it. I would advise you to broaden yous financial reading to include non-green-cult authors.
In paleo climates CO2 followed temperature. What caused that condition is the culprit. Climate science ignores that fact as do you.
As previously explained to you, atm CO2 both causes, and is the result of, warming of the planet. https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
Every single experiment or measurement tests a hypothesis, whether conscious intent to test is present or no.
Having been around many court cases involving so-called expert scientific testimony I think the idea of these manuals educating judges on how science works is a fool’s errand. In virtually every lawsuit involving technical issues both sides seem to be able to find apparently credible credentialed experts (many with Ph.D.s) who present entirely opposite opinions. Judges rarely seem to be able to or even interested in delving deeply into the evidence supporting said opinions. Where juries are involved, it frequently seems that deciding which expert is most credible is a complete mystery. In most cases I think the determination is made on a purely emotional basis depending on which party seems most worthy of sympathy.
In any case, every climate activist lawsuit should by dismissed immediately since none can show direct previous harm and theoretical future harm can only be speculative and hence unprovable.
The judge in the presumably AI-generated lead image for this post looks a lot like Mark Steyn.
Intentional? Who knows, but it would make sense considered as parody on the Mann defamation case. 🙂
Judges, like politicians, live in a consensus-based world. “The majority rules”, so they say. It’s no surprise the Green Blob is using that angle here.
Here is the thing there are many instances in the courtroom where everyone involved is going to need guidance understanding what is involved and what matters and what doesn’t. Everyone needs clarification, the judge, the jury and the counselors. The important point is that the instrument you turn to for guidance must contain both points of view if the matter is not accepted by all parties. If it is revealed that a judge has only used one point of view he should be dismissed immediately and strictly limited as to what cases he can judge. In most cases the case should be thrown out. This would do many things most importantly no one would want to chance using a one point of view guidance instrument. Number two it would nearly be worthless to go judge shopping. Number three it would automatically eliminate a lot of frivolous cases.
If you believe there is no consensus supporting climate alarmism, then you should provide some evidence that there is no consensus supporting climate alarmism.
This article does not provide evidence. Instead you just point out that the chapter in question uses the word “consensus” a lot, as if that by itself demonstrates that no such consensus exists.
But if someone wrote a chapter about the consensus view that the Earth orbits the sun, using the word “consensus” alot would not somehow prove that there was no consensus, nor would it prove that the Earth does not orbit the sun.
If there is no consensus, demonstrate that there is no consensus.
Separately, if a consensus opinion disagrees with you but it’s wrong, demonstrate that the consensus opinion is wrong.
Perhaps the chapter claims that we’ll see X degrees of warming over the next 10 years, and you could cite a survey showing that less than half of scientists think we’ll see that much warning in such a short time.
But you didn’t do that in this article. You cited almost nothing. How can you expect to convince people without data?
It is obvious to my readers at CFACT and WUWT that there is no alarmist consensus. We are the evidence so I do not need to point that out.
If you want to spread your message, you need to reach beyond the people who already agree with you. Consider the case of CFACT or WUWT regular who copies the link to one of your articles and sends it to a friend who’s on the fence. Wouldn’t you want to persuade that person? Wouldn’t it be prudent to cite some sources in order to prove your point?
Even if it’s just a boilerplate list of 5-10 links that you add to the end of every post, it would help your cause. And it shouldn’t be hard to set up something like that.
Your point is well taken but that would be a different article as this one is already well over my 600 word target length. Will think about it. That there is not a consensus is a complex issue.
Mr. suns: If we wanted to “spread a message”, we wouldn’t listen to a fool who thinks that we must disprove what you “believe”. You begin with a statement that you believe in science-by-consensus, telling us that you are just such a fool, and that you can be “persuaded” by lies that you don’t bother to check.
This site and this author are quite persuasive to most viewers, but it’s tough to reason with fools like you, who didn’t use reason in the first.
“demonstrate that the consensus opinion is wrong.”
This has been done many many times.
Also the “consensus” itself has been shown to be completely fake, a piece of statistical and cherry-picked nonsense.
Not only that, but “consensus” is not a ruling part of any real science.
Its sort of like asking children if they believe in Santa.
Dude. The Scientific Method does not operate on ‘a show of hands,’ it never has and never will. The notion of a ‘science consensus’ is a total logical fallacy.
And as for “peer-review” , its main purpose nowadays is all to do with journal publication, NOT SCIENCE.
Most so-called “climate” journals will not publish anything that goes against the climate mantra, so papers have to at least make some sort of statement showing tacet foot-licking to the climate memes.
So if the kooks doing the meaningless consensus study only take papers from these journals, of course they get a high percentage.
It is totally contrived from the get-go.
The underlying concept here is that for physical science, an hypothesis must have a functional relationship that can be validated by observation through experiments.
When Einsteins Theory of Relativity was confirmed, not only was an observation made that showed a change in the path of light, but the experiment validated his mathematical relationship that predicted a magnitde of 1.7 arc seconds.
When the Higgs boson was discovered it was done so by validating the path it followed as predicted by the mathematics.
Richard Feynmann said;
Without a functional relationship that makes verifiable predictions, all you have is a guess or maybe a correlation. Cause and effect must be predictable.
History is full of wrong scientific consensus.
Until climate science tires of neverending search for an answer from a time series consisting of nothing more than temperature (or funding disappears) in a chaotic system they will never have a hypothesis with a functional relationship.
One thing about that experiment (observation of stars during a total solar eclipse) – it’s probably a good thing that it was delayed (unfavorable conditions for the first eclipse) so that he was able to realize his math was off and correct it before the observations were made!
That is an important example of what I try to discuss. A mathematical functional relationship is necessary to making predictions.
Until science can show a relationship of T = f(CO2), there is no experimental validation possible that CO2 is the control knob. I suspect the actual relationship will end up something like T = f(CO2, H2O, Insolation, emissivity, clouds, …). Claiming the CO2 is the control knob at this stage of the game is simply opinion derived from indoctrination.
They are hard pressed to show any causal link between CO2 and “climate” at all !!
Let alone a control knob !
There is a concensus that supports climate alarmism. The problem is that a mechanism that can be debated has never been proposed.
I think you are using the word consensus incorrectly. There is a faction that supports alarmism but that is not a consensus. If half the people on a committee agree that is not a consensus.
The consensus of peer reviewed papers is 99.9+%. Deniers can’t agree whether it’s raining outside.
Science isn’t a democracy.
Stealth climate propaganda for judges only………..
Exactly.
“Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition” from the Federal Judicial Center is another sneaky way for leftists to insert their religion into our constitutional order. It has no place in our judicial system and should be banned. Judges don’t need a manual on science. They judge matters of LAW not science. If a law isn’t broken, it doesn’t belong in the courtroom. If a plaintiff can’t demonstrate actual harm as a result of the defendant’s actions, it doesn’t belong in the courtroom. But leftist activists want all their stupid ideology to become the basis for litigation so they can use the court system to force their diktats on the unsuspecting populace because their policies are too crazy and unpopular to get them enacted through the constitutional method, by debate and a vote by our elected representatives. Everything they do is framed in reasonable-sounding terms but the reality is they force their crazy ideology on everyone else. They are tyrannical and evil.
We can all talk about climate and assume what is under discussion is of global interest.
NOT SO talk of judges and legal systems.
Could authors please identify their national location, when relevant
Now, do judges WORLDWIDE get this background briefing? Do judges at the International courts likewise?
I think not.
The USA is not the world and in governance and law are most certainly not the leaders of humanity by having the most perfect system, by a long way. MONEY buys results.
Science works the same as politics: on the way up, you kiss ass to the great and good and hope to end up sitting on a funding committee. Funding committee members get their grant applications funded far more often than the rest. Mutual back-scratching…..
You also look to become a journal editor, as then your papers get published more quickly and more often. More back-scratching.
You get all-expenses paid trips to conferences in lots of lovely places as guest speaker or session chair (most likely, both). This allows you to learn which women will trade their bodies temporarily in return for publication/grant award favours.
When you get asked to testify before Congress/the Senate, you get the chance to ‘shape policy’, the aim of which is favouring the sort of research that favours you, your Institution and your powerful friends.
As you can tell, this non-PC version suggests that scientists are in general capable of being on the make, on the take and open to corruption if everyone else is at it too.
Not everyone is like that, of course, but best to start assuming they are before you grant unwarranted trust to those who have not proven their character over several years…..