Science Bullies

In case you have missed it, science bullies are attacking anyone who dares to blow the whistle on flaws in their work.

For example, here is what one such bully posted on Twitter:

Now, here are excerpts from Dr. Judith Curry’s 03/29/17 testimony before Congress.

“I am increasingly concerned that both the climate change problem and its solution have been vastly oversimplified. The result of this simplified framing of a complex, wicked problem is that we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.”

. . . and . . .

” It is an empirical fact that the Earth’s climate has warmed overall for at least the past century. However, we do not know how much humans have contributed to this warming and there is disagreement among scientists as to whether human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases is the dominant cause of recent warming, relative to natural causes.”

In her testimony, Curry describes climate change as a “wicked problem” and declares that global warming has occurred. She also states that humans have contributed to global warming.

In short, Sarah Myhre’s ad homimen against Curry is . . .

On 12/21/17, Myhre tweeted . . .

Now, what would cause Myhre to tuck tail and run? Answer:

In short, Myhre the bully can’t handle being called out about her bullying.

Another science bully on the attack is Michael Mann. Jonathan H. Adler reports, “In 2012, climate scientist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg over a hyperbolic blog post written by Simberg for the CEI and quoted approvingly by Steyn on National Review Online.”

Adler goes on to say, “Mann was understandably upset by the offending blog post. Yet treating that post as actionable defamation poses a threat to robust political and scientific discourse.”

The science bullies don’t want “robust political and scientific discourse.” Instead, they want to shut down the voices of dissent. For example, in a report about the 03/29/17 congressional hearing on climate science, CBS News states, “Retired Adm. David Titley, now a Penn State meteorology professor, said in an email to the AP that scientists should boycott House hearings because it is a ‘charade’ and perpetuates the myth that there is a legitimate scientific debate on the issue.”

Titley is wrong, because there is a legitimate scientific debate on the issue.

Why would science bullies try to shut down debate? Well, these excerpts from Steve McIntyre’s New Cherry Pie should be enough of an explanation:

“Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise.”

. . . and . . .

“If (1) you start with an extended dataset half of which goes up in the 20th century and half of which goes down and (2) from that extended dataset, select only those series which go up, one trivially will get a hockey stick with simple composite methods.”

The dissenting voices are blowing the whistle on the flawed methodology that science bullies and their supporters use.

Normally, members of the mainstream media will tell the public that whistle-blowing is taking place, but not in this case. That’s because the whistle-blowers aren’t politically correct. As meteorologist Roger A. Pielke Sr. observes, “The presentation of climate science in the media, unfortunately, remains biased.” Pielke’s observation is confirmed by the afore-quoted report by CBS News.

To make matters worse, certain right-wing politicians (Cough Scott Pruitt Cough) and certain right-wing pundits (Cough Rush Limbaugh Cough) are damaging the cause of the whistle-blowers by not acknowledging the things that Judith Curry says in her 03/29/17 testimony before Congress – the things quoted above in the purple font.

As Pielke writes, “The term ‘climate change’ is itself redundant. Climate is always changing.”

To summarize the ongoing climate brouhaha, the science bullies and their supporters want the public to believe that modern-day climate change is all mankind’s fault. That is the politically-correct opinion.

However, not all scientists agree with that opinion. While agreeing that climate change is taking place, and while agreeing that mankind’s activities have some influence on climate change, these scientists have scientific reasons to disagree with the science bullies.

Alas, those scientific reasons get swept under the rug by media members who favor the bullies. In case you doubt that, ask yourself this: How much (if any) of Dr. Judith Curry’s 03/29/17 congressional testimony were you aware of prior to reading this blog post?

By the way, Michael Mann participated in that 03/29/17 congressional hearing in which Judith Curry spoke. Mann denied that he had called Curry a denier. Curry responded to Mann by saying, “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”

Here is a video clip of Mann’s denial and Curry’s response.

Stephen McIntyre provides evidence that Mann did call Curry a denier.

Cross-posted @ The Moderate Voice

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Democrat Doublespeak
  • ackwired

    It’s nice to hear that doctrinaire conservatives are now saying that the climate is changing and that human beings are contributing to it.

    • jim_m

      No. Anyone honest would say that : 1) climate changes, 2) recently the climate has warmed, 3) even more recently it has not warmed, 4) human activity may have an impact on climate, 5) we cannot tell what that impact is. Period.

      Claiming that human contribute to climate change can be horribly misconstrued to say that humans cause all of global warming. AGW is a religion and not science.

      • Robert

        So, what source can you bring that shows the natural and anthropogenic forcings?

      • Robert

        I’m glad to see you’ve been busy finding sources supporting your assertions . /’s

        • Seems that anyone clever enough to pour piss out of a boot with instructions written on the heel would have figured out by now that they were being ignored. It would further seem that you are not among their number.

          HETL

          • Robert

            Just like pointing out that so much of the denialism is like what G. Stein observed.

            &there is the /s ……

          • Scalia

            Man alive, Rodney, that guy’s a pierce of work.

          • Puts me in mind of the description of Engineering being the contest between Engineers creating the more foolproof device, and God creating a greater fool. Behold an example of God’s handiwork.

        • Scalia

          Jim may or may not reply. He’s a very busy man and does an extensive amount of travel.

          • Robert

            And yet, he’s been posting every day since I first asked…..

          • Scalia

            I’m also an extremely, EXTREMELY busy man, but I post almost every day. That said, I don’t have the time to get into a debate which involves a lot of research. Almost all my recent columns are conversation starters from news websites. I simply don’t have the time to sit down a write and column.

          • Robert

            You say you are providing “conversation starters “, a discussion. That entails some level of facts being introduced.

            Surely, a “..debate which involves a lot of research..” would mean the research was done before hand.

            But you seem to be excusing his ‘drive by ‘ reciting of unsupported talking points.

          • Scalia

            Must you argue everything??

            I’m not excusing Jim. I’m merely providing extra information as to why he’s not replying. Time will tell whether he’s either too busy, just ignoring you, or tacitly admitting defeat.

            As to debate and research: A person may have researched an issue years ago, but when challenged, may have to go back and conduct additional research in order to counter effectively. Why does this have to be explained to you?

            Finally, what is your first paragraph getting at? I write columns for this blog, but lately, almost all of them are snippets from news websites in order to further dialog from this community. I’m too busy to do otherwise. For example, early last year, I wrote a column entitled Advice and Consent. Although I’m very familiar with the topic, it still took a lot of time to write it and to locate all the links used to support my argument. I merely use the fact that I’m busy to show why a person may not reply right away.

            All I have time for nowadays are quick replies and helping to maintain this blog. What’s there not to understand about that?

          • Robert

            Thank you for your rationalization for not holding posters to the modicum of rigor that is met by the average 6th grader.

    • jim_m

      Good to see you back after 4 years. Early parole?

    • 9.8m/ss

      Inside Climate News has an interesting article on the split between the traditional climate science deniers (oil companies) and the rabid neolibertarian climate science deniers who have taken control of their “conservative think tank” public relations project.

      How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Climate Misinformation Machine.”

      • My David, you seem to have attracted on of those you deplore. And he’s a conspiracy theorist to boot.

        • 9.8m/ss

          Let’s talk about conspiracy theories. I’ve heard that all the world’s scientific institutions are in a grand conspiracy to present false climate related science. The alleged motives vary depending on who’s telling the story. Those egghead scientists are all commies, or they’re all hypnotized by Al Gore, or they’re all paid off through a corrupted grant making process, or they all want to Destroy America because they’re meanies or Democrats or something. (All except a handful who retired from science long ago, or never did any climate related work, or who’ve worked their whole careers on a failed hypothesis they can’t let go of, but can’t find any evidence for.) And all the science journals, and the libraries that carry them, and every university in the world with an undergrad geology program. It’s planted its false science in historical journals going back over a century. It’s truly an amazing conspiracy. But a handful of PR guys working for “think tanks” funded by oil investors have blown the whistle on the plot! That conspiracy theory?

          • Let’s not.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You called me a conspiracy theorist. You failed to point out any conspiracy theory which I have promoted. It speaks well for science when its opponents have to make stuff up.

          • Robert

            Well said!
            Though you forgot about the liberals indoctrinating the public school science curriculum. Or maybe it was Democrat leaning overpaid teachers giving their opinions to be recited on tests. Or something like that. The details always get fuzzy when pressed for.

          • Mugger

            there ya go Robert, you can chat to a another loon from the warmth of your basement..
            Mind you, if you go outside it’s still bloody freezing in America and Europe.

          • 9.8m/ss

            The jet stream wanders farther south than it used to. Funny how the atmosphere behaves when there’s more energy in it.

          • Mugger

            Standing planetary waves or Rossby waves (Carl Rossby 1898 to 1957 ) have been known for some time. They are visible on the Gas giants.
            Oh and they would correlate with the seasons, which they don’t.

          • Robert

            “What we are seeing right now in the United States is just…well…wait for it…”winter.”
            . . . ”
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/12/28/a-response-for-people-using-record-cold-u-s-weather-to-refute-climate-change/#61dd8d565680

          • halush

            And when it gets warmer…it’s “summer.”

            Funny how that works.

          • Robert

            Yup.
            Check, as the source discusses, your closet.

          • Mugger

            They try their best, but alas, it’s hard to retain delusions in the face of hard reality.

          • With Respect

            Forgot your /sarc tag.

            Remember how many actually need it.

          • Robert

            As indeed there is a comment in evidence…. twice.
            Thanks for the reminder (I know I’ve reminded others, so mea culpable )

        • jim_m

          I suspect David invited them

          • 9.8m/ss

            It’s a slow news day, and I so enjoy being the one eyed man in the land of the blind. You sticking with CNS and Watts Up for your science news?

          • I wish I could say I doubted that.

  • TheyTukRJobz

    The charge of “denier” is so that the scientifically illiterate won’t hear contrary ideas, and much of the liberal media are willing accomplices to that bullying. But these people give science short shrift.

    The basic test of the validity of a hypothesis is whether it tracks and predicts events accurately. Which the climate models do not. This means that the models are inaccurate and thus indicate an underlying lack of understanding of the climate system.

    • Retired military

      Or it could mean that the climate “models” are basically just rigged demos which are meant to produce a certain result.

      • TheyTukRJobz

        Yes, that, too. But rather than get into that, I wanted to keep my comments on a Science 101 level – if they hypothesis cannot track or predict events, then it is simply wrong, and thus invalid.

        • 9.8m/ss

          State the hypothesis you believe is wrong.

          • TheyTukRJobz

            Mankind is responsible for global warming..errrr… climate change. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Climate change.

            The “science” behind that hysteria never was supported by the data.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Anthropogenic global warming isn’t a hypothesis. It’s an inference, informed by several theories. Try again. Name the hypothesis you believe is wrong.

          • TheyTukRJobz

            So, you’re saying it is a feeling, perhaps brought on by indigestion or something else. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis, just an inkling, perhaps? I agree that it lacks tangible proof, and seems unable to show that there has been any human contribution to the long-term natural climatic changes incurred by solar activity.

          • 9.8m/ss

            AGW is a strong logical inference. There’s evidence for every step. There’s no evidence for any alternative explanation. You can pretend it’s an emotional belief without supporting evidence, but you’re only fooling yourself.

          • TheyTukRJobz

            So, you’re claiming that all the climate and other scientists who dispute the inference that human contribution are just wrong, to ignore their scientific arguments and just believe they are somehow nefarious stooges of evil corporations who want to turn Earth into a flaming ball of cinders, right?

          • 9.8m/ss

            Not all of them are nefarious stooges. some of them are just wrong. Scientists are human. One of the ways they go wrong is latching onto a hypothesis, and sticking with it after it fails. For example, Svensmark.

          • Robert

            WHAT WE KNOW
            THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

            The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

            What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

            Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

            European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

            Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

            republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

            George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

            EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

            And the science condensed :

            D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

            Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

            • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

            • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

            • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

            • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
            SPM WG1 AR5

          • TheyTukRJobz

            “Likely” indicates a lack of positive proof; it appears more about opinion than science.

          • Robert

            ICYMI: The report defines each term.

            Also, note that “extremly likely”and “very likely” are used on two very important sets of indicators.

          • halush

            Those words remind me of how the weigh pigs in Georgia. Pigs are very tough to weigh because they won’t stay still and try to slip away. What they do is to get a fulcrum and tie the pig to one side of the crossbeam. They then add stones on the other side of the crossbeam until the two are in balance. And then they guess what the stones weigh. And that’s about as good as the terms they are using in your post.

          • Robert

            Pretty funny given a long documented history of standardized weights.
            And measurements.
            And science vocabulary.
            And written communication.
            And that you can’t bring forward actual evidence to the contrsry.

          • halush

            God, Robert you actually got it in your first statement and threw it away after that. I’m not looking for evidence. I just know that “extremely likely”and “very likely” may be terms that some attempt has been made to define, but it really doesn’t define anything at all. But being imprecise is exactly what climate science tries to be.

          • Robert

            Thanks for trying.

            Do you really think that your assertion garners the denialist position any strength when those with a modicum of ability in critical thinking understand that the terms are well defined and the basic science is well understood?

            WHAT WE KNOW
            THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

            The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

            What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

            Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

            European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

            Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

            republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

            George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

            EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

            And the science condensed :

            D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

            Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

            • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

            • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

            • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

            • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
            SPM WG1 AR5

          • Scalia

            Robert, you’ve already posted these and/or similar links here. For future posts, please link to your other posts in this thread containing this information. Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.

          • Robert

            One hopes you’ve asked that people check to see if idiotically easy to refute claims haven’t been already posted and to link to them instead of repeating them.

          • That’s part of your problem, newbie.

          • Scalia

            I addressed the issue of links to other websites. You have at least twice previously posted numerous links to other websites that appear to support the point you were making. That’s fine, but I don’t want you or others to keep posting them as a substitute for debate.

            You should make whatever point you choose to make and then say something like, “…as supported elsewhere (embed link to your other post), the scientific community says…” That keeps the conversation moving as opposed to having a war of links.

          • Robert

            Well, first, there really is no debate about the science. That is why my links go either to summation of the science so readers can see the dearth of data comprising the arguments being put forth or to how to recognize when the sources are bogus.

            Further, the length of my posts are obscured by the ‘read more’ truncation, so they don’t hinder anyone”s thread reading if they so choose.

            And third I am doing exactly what you request :”…make whatever point you choose to make and then say something like, “…as supported elsewhere (embed link to your other post), the scientific community says…”…”

          • Scalia

            Listen, Robert, I’m trying to be polite. Since you already posted numerous links to other sites, you need not do that again, except to link to your previously entered post. That way, you’re making the point you seek to make without cluttering our boards with the same links.

            Why can’t you simply say, “Ok”? I’m not hindering your debate in the slightest. I’m merely advising against the clutter. Thank you for your compliance.

          • He’s thoroughly vindicating David’s position (as little as I want to admit that).

          • Robert

            What, exactly, is “..David’s position..”?

          • Robert

            {Deleted]

            Scalia – Moderator

          • Scalia

            Well, I tried to be polite. Your post has been deleted. No more posts along this line, Robert.

            You are free to continue to debate the issue, but you will not post repetitive links on this site.

          • halush

            Actually, when you say “here really is no debate about the science.” you expose yourself as someone who doesn’t have a clue what science is all about. Here’s a link from the book The Paradox of Consensus.

            “The scope of agreement achieved by the world’s climate scientists is breathtaking. To first approximation, around 97% agree that human activity, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, causes global warming. So many great minds cannot possibly be wrong, right?

            Yet something nags us about this self-congratulatory consensus. Our intuition is that this narrow distribution of opinions yields a knowability to consensus ratio far removed from the perfect ratio of 1. To reach their conclusions, climate scientists have to (a) uncover the (historical) drivers of climate, (b) project the future path of these inputs and others that may arise, and (c) predict how recursive feedback loops interact over multi-decadal time horizons, all without being able to test their hypotheses against reality.

            We would, therefore, expect this limit on empirical verifiability to birth widely divergent views on the path, causes, and consequences of earth’s future climate. In other arenas, only after a theory has been empirically verified has the scientific community coalesced around it. Even then, scientists continue to subject such theories to rigorous testing and debate.

            Yet the expectation of a rich debate among scientists about climate change does not reconcile easily with the widely endorsed shibboleth that human activity will warm the globe dramatically and dangerously over the next one hundred years. Any discussion that doubts the fundamental premises of climate change is dismissed by the mainstream media and climate scientists as pseudo-science conducted by quacks or ideologues.

            In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for global warming. Does this mean that climate change is not happening? Not necessarily. But it does mean that we should be wary of the meretricious arguments mustered in its defense.

            https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/17/the-paradox-of-the-climate-change-consensus/#more-21437

          • Robert

            Yup, a person who articulates a claim nearly 100%from what the science says is a source.

            Hence, a href=”http://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf”>C.R.A.A.P TEST

          • halush

            LOL, Robert. Scalia has your number. You seem to have a series of links which you copy and post over and over again. It really doesn’t pass your CRAP test.

          • Robert

            Your childish attempt at wordplay to score a rhetorical point is duly noted. And shows your cockcrowing to be misplaced

          • Robert

            Missing, of course, is you showing us your analysis. Walk us through how you’ve determined I’ve linked to unreliable sources.

            Per mod, here’s the list

          • halush

            LOL. Robert you are the perfect example of someone who doesn’t know anything, but pretends they do. Unreliable? That’s you, not your sources.

          • Robert

            “Unreliable? That’s you, not your sources”.
            So, you agree with href=”https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wizbang/science_bullies/#comment-3683069555″>here’s the list”s findings .

            But still prefer to launch into personal attack. Good to know….

          • halush

            Actually TTRJ, in science there is no positive proof of anything. I just finished discussing this with an alarmist who was telling me AGW is proven science. But I do find Robert’s “extremely likely” and “very likely” to be used as weasels words especially when something that was supposed to happen didn’t.

    • 9.8m/ss

      All numerical models are “wrong.” We design spacecraft and skyscrapers with them anyway. They’re correct enough to be useful. The current crop of global circulation (“climate”) models (CMIP5) produce results very close to observations on the ground. Well within the error bounds of those observations. They’re correct enough to be useful. The folks who are paid to convince you “the models are wrong” have to misrepresent what the models do and how they are used.

      • TheyTukRJobz

        If the models we use to design cars, aircraft or electronics were as inaccurate as the climate models, cars wouldn’t run, planes wouldn’t fly, and circuits wouldn’t work.

        And when you attack the motives of the scientists who use data to show the inaccuracies of the model, you are avoiding having to deal with the science. It’s called the politics of personal destruction, and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. Don’t forget that the federal government has been generously giving out grants to those scientists who have the most dire climate predictions. But you claim that unlike the skeptics, THEY are purer than angels. Bah.

        • 9.8m/ss

          Numerical models of natural phenomena are not “accurate” nor “inaccurate.” They have varying degrees of completeness but all of them are incomplete. They have domains of applicability and ranges of usefulness. And part of learning how to use them is discovering those domains and ranges. The people who have told you “the models don’t work” either don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re trying to deceive you.

          I’ve never attacked the motives of scientists. I’ve disparaged public relations men who pretend to be scientists, in order to deceive the public about what scientists have found. Nothing wrong with that.

          • TheyTukRJobz

            So, you’ve savaged the IPCC for having more politicians than scientists, right?

          • 9.8m/ss

            The IPCC has a handful of administrators and a couple of hundred scientists. The scientists volunteer their time and go to the conventions at their own expense. What politicians?

        • Robert

          “..were as inaccurate as the climate models…”
          What informed you in this claim?

      • jim_m

        No, they are not wrong. They have limitations, but they are accurate within those limitations and therefore they work. Climate models are not accurate to ANY extent. They cannot predict next year’s climate, much less the next decade’s. Climate science has failed to produce any model that can correctly estimate climate to a degree that is considered scientifically accurate.

        The models are supposed to predict global climate and specifically global average temperature. They fail at that. Period. There is no further discussion necessary.

        • 9.8m/ss
          • 9.8m/ss

            Notice the colored lines are inside the grey band.

          • jim_m

            Non responsive. You don’t address the fact that they failed to predict the flattening of the actual temperature record.

            Try this:

            Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

            Christy’s findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on
            Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR). Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Christy is mistaken. Its’ not the first time. It took him over a decade to admit his estimates of temperature high in the atmosphere failed to account for orbital decay by the satellites he was using. When he finally corrected the error, his estimates started to look a lot more like everybody else’s measurements from balloons and ground stations.

            It turns out that “flattening of the actual temperature record” was statistically insignificant. Cowtan and Way blew the first big hole in it. Have you read their paper? And other researchers found more biases later.

          • jim_m

            No it is not statistically insignificant. The fact remains that there is no significant warming since 1998.

            Real climate scientists are backing away from AGW and pointing toward solar irradiance as having a more significant effect.

            Also, you have avoided the discussion on Mann’s hockey stick. Nor have you addressed his dismissal of the Medieval warm period, which he removed from his data (dishonestly) in order to create the hockey stick effect.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Nobody knows why the MWP barely shows up in some proxies and looks almost a quarter as fast as today’s warming in others. It seems to have happened at different times in different places. It’s too bad we don’t have instrumental records from that time, or we could perhaps explain it. We have instruments today, and they make the causes of the warming of the last hundred years pretty clear.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Climate trends don’t really exist over intervals shorter than about thirty years. That’s because there are ocean oscillations with periods on that order. And one with a sixty year period. Climate is what you have after you’ve averaged out the weather. Ocean oscillations are weather, not climate. Nevertheless, numerical models in active use are always improving. The models you insist “failed to predict” a variation shorter than thirty years didn’t know about the biases Cowtan and Way found in the Hadley surface data product. They didn’t know about other biases in the surface record discovered in the last five years. The next generation will, and they probably won’t run as hot. But even the CMIP5 ensemble has been usably accurate over time intervals where it’s expected to show predictive skill. As shown in the above graph.

          • jim_m

            Wait, so the climate models that you have been claiming we should put absolute, unquestioning faith in, did not have sufficient information to be accurate, but now you claim that they do. On what basis do you now make the claim and why should we regard your new claim to be any different than the discredited claim that was just proven false?

            The truth is that you have no evidence to suggest that you now know sufficient information to accurately predict climate. You are acting on faith.

            We are back to calling your beliefs a religion because that is what it is. You require faith in order to suspend disbelief and make the leap to the conclusion that what you think is correct.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You just can’t stop making stuff up about me, eh Jim? I never said anybody “should put absolute, unquestioning faith in” any numerical models. Science is tentative. It speaks in probabilities and confidence levels. “Absolute, unquestioning faith” is for religious belief. Faith is belief without evidence. Scientific theory is acceptance of evidence.

            Nobody will ever know enough to “accurately predict” climate. What we can say is which possible outcomes are more likely, or more plausible, or we have more confidence in, than others. The central estimate for effective climate sensitivity (to doubling CO2 concentration) is 3C. Most estimates are within 1C of that. That’s not a prediction, it’s a projection. If you’d taken a statistics course, you’d know the difference.

          • jim_m

            Or that NOAA revised its records without telling people because they knew they perpetrated a fraud on the public

            The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized
            for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming
            trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data
            from both the past and present.

            “The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

            When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency’s website. However:

            [W]hen
            meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA
            data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated
            July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

            Watts wrote: “Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012,
            July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the
            hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and
            according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on
            record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’
            in NOAA’s world.”

          • 9.8m/ss

            Watts is talking about the historical network in the US. He’s counting on you to be too dumb to realize the US is 2% of the planet’s area, almost none of it is in the Arctic, and none is in the southern hemisphere.

          • jim_m

            I responded to that above dumbass.

          • jim_m

            Or that US weather stations have been scientifically proven to overstate temperature http://www.surfacestations.org/

          • 9.8m/ss

            US weather stations, alone, are irrelevant. The US takes up less than 2% of global surface area.

          • jim_m

            But it is also billed as the most complete and accurate data available. If it is so deeply flawed how do expect to accept data from proxies?

          • 9.8m/ss

            “Billed as?” The US historical weather network is regarded as the worst of the data sources on climate. It was so bad NOAA decided to replace it with the new reference network. What part of “2%” went over your head?

          • jim_m

            Um, I’m not talking about the historical data, but the current data being generated

          • 9.8m/ss

            Anthony Watts is talking about the US Historical Climate Network at his surfacestations.org web site, which was your cite. That’s what USHCN stands for.

          • Mugger

            apart from the little blue dot in 2010. Note also that you rely on the peak of the recent and natural monster El Nino to keep the temps from leaving the grey zone, which they will do this year when the la Nina kicks in .

          • 9.8m/ss

            Changes over less than thirty years are weather, not climate. Nobody expects CMIP5 to project the weather.

          • Mugger

            In which case you shouldn’t end on a cherry picked El Nino peak.

          • TheyTukRJobz
          • 9.8m/ss

            Your graph was designed to deceive. The deceiver is counting on you to not notice he’s comparing CMIP5 surface temperature runs with UAH model outputs representing an air column four miles high. The UAH data product is the output of a numerical model that’s adjusted more frequently and more extremely than any of the surface data models. The Hadley data product has a known bias, discovered and corrected by Cowtan and Way in 2014. Isn’t it interesting that the deceiver’s graph stops at 2013.

        • Robert

          “Climate models are not accurate to ANY extent.”
          What reading informed your opinion?

          • 9.8m/ss

            Jim reads PJ Media. He seems to be completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on this issue. And as long as he gets his science news from right wing political opinion outlets, he will remain frustrated and ignorant.

    • CB

      “The basic test of the validity of a hypothesis is whether it tracks and predicts events”

      Uh huh.

      Climate scientists predicted the world would warm in response to our greenhouse gas emissions.

      Did the world warm, Randy?

      https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

      • jim_m

        Correlation is not causation. Ever actually do any science?

        Care to explain how 0.3% of the atmosphere (and only 0.01% of that fraction that man emits) is responsible for 100% of global climate? THAT is the issue you need to address. You cannot prove causation.

        • CB

          “Correlation is not causation.”

          True!

          The causation was first proved over a century ago.

          Where have you been, Jim?

          “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

          climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • jim_m

            HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Citing NASA! That’s rich. Citing the agency that has admitted to falsifying their own data.

            Also, the fact that some gases contribute to the green house effect is not in dispute.

            The question is whether the 7.8% (the fraction produced by man) of the 0.03% of atmosphere comprised by CO2 is capable of driving all of climate and has a greater effect than that of the sun, the rest of the 92.2% of CO2 produced by the natural environment, CH4, water vapor, etc. COMBINED!!!!!

            You are claiming that 0.0023% of the atmosphere is driving ALL of climate and is the decisive factor in determining the fate of the world.

            You are an ass if you believe that this has been scientifically established beyond any rational doubt. It hasn’t.

          • Bingo.

          • CB

            “Bingo.”

            What did you win!?

            “Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people”

            phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html

          • 9.8m/ss

            “What did you win?
            Ever play chess with a pigeon? He knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, flies home, and tells his buddies he won.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Most of the atmosphere is nonpolar molecules. O2 and N2 don’t exhibit the greenhouse effect. Therefore your .0023% figure is an irrelevant red herring.

          • jim_m

            No it is not. Are you incapable of doing math?

            0.03% of the atmosphere is CO2. Not all of that is produced by man. Only ~7.8% is from human activity. The rest is from nature. That calculates to 0.0023% of the atmosphere which is produced by man. You claim that this is what determines all of climate.

            Now you just look like a fool because you are also claiming that 100% of CO2 is from human activity.

          • CB

            “No it is not.”

            Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared radiation.

            That’s why greenhouse gasses have such an outsized effect.

            What do you know that the people who study the subject don’t?

            “While the dominant gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are transparent to infrared, the so-called greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapor (H₂O), CO₂, and methane (CH₄), absorb some of the infrared radiation. They collect this heat energy and hold it in the atmosphere, delaying its passage back out of the atmosphere.”

            http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

          • jim_m

            Dumbass. that is exactly my point. And most of what does trap infrared is not from human activity. so you are claiming that a tiny fraction of that is what drives all of climate. You are claiming that it drives climate more than anything else.

          • CB

            “most of what does trap infrared is not from human activity.”

            What’s it from, then, Jim?

            “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO₂ Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

            news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • jim_m

            IDK, where do you think atmospheric CO2 came from prior to the industrial age you dimwit? Are you claiming that it didn’t exist before man? Are you really that fucking stupid?

            There are natural sources of CO putting over 200 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Animals breathing, wildfires, volcanoes, etc.

          • CB

            “IDK”

            lol! If you don’t know, why in the world would you make the claim?

            climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg

          • jim_m

            Read the whole post dumbass. The “IDK” was sarcasm. Obviously I know where the CO2 comes from since I just told you that 92.2% comes from the natural environment.

          • CB

            “92.2% comes from the natural environment.”

            Okay, so where’s the evidence?

            If you don’t have any evidence that volcanoes puttered along for millions of years and then coincidentally began producing massive amounts of CO₂ at the same time we began burning fossil fuels, why would you believe volcanoes are responsible and not us?

            “Humans release more than 100 times more CO₂ to the atmosphere than volcanoes”

            volcano.si.edu/E3

          • jim_m

            The wildfires in California released more CO2 that the entire state for several years. Millions of animals breathe.

            Over 750B tons of CO2 passes through the carbon cycle each year. You just claimed that there is no CO2 being created apart from Human activity. You are a fool.

          • CB

            “The wildfires in California released more CO2 that the entire state for several years.”

            Uh huh, and how much CO₂ did the trees that burned absorb?

            How can nature be responsible for the increase when nature is absorbing half of what we produce?

            “Earth’s oceans and ecosystems still absorbing about half the greenhouse gases emitted by people”

            http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html

          • jim_m

            Um, You asked where my proof was that 92.2% was from natural sources. You were denying that anything came from natural sources. I have proven my point with you. You are an idiot.

          • CB

            “You asked where my proof was that 92.2% was from natural sources.”

            Yes.

            …and you restated my request without meeting it.

            Why bother claiming anything at all if you refuse to support those claims with evidence, Jim?

            Who’s going to take you seriously?

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • jim_m

            So you seriously are claiming that 100% of atmospheric CO2 is man made. That is epicly stupid.

            And with that I will say goodnight. Unlike you who are living in your mother’s basement, some of us work for a living.

          • CB

            “you seriously are claiming that 100% of atmospheric CO2 is man made.”

            Nope! I’m claiming humans are responsible for more than 100% of the increase…

            You claimed nature was responsible for the increase in CO₂ we have observed, did you not?

            If nature sat around for a few million years, and then coincidentally began pumping out massive amounts of carbon around the same time we began burning fossil fuels, where is your evidence, Jim?

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

          • 9.8m/ss

            “You just claimed that there is no CO2 being created apart from Human activity.”
            So you got tired of making stuff up about me and tried making stuff up about CB instead. Okay.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Most of it bounced up and down between the ground or ocean and the atmosphere, in a balance scientists call “equilibrium.” That’s the carbon cycle in the biosphere. Animals breathing do not introduce new carbon into that cycle. Burning coal does. You should have learned about the carbon cycles (biological and geological) in eighth grade earth science. Home schooled?

          • Robert

            Thanks for demonstrating that you don’t understand that we are adding to the concentration.

            D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

            Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

            • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

            • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

            • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

            • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
            SPM WG1 AR5

          • John G

            Perhaps you have not seen the 10,000 year Keeling Curve plus ice core proxy data graph? It’s pretty clear something new started happening around the time of the industrial revolution, and we know that is burning fossil fuels in quantities measured in billions of tons.

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

            A 45% increase in the last 150 years is a little unusual according to the ice record.

          • 9.8m/ss

            What does “drives climate” mean in your weird little world? Here in the world where physicists do physics, the earth’s surface averages 33K warmer than a planet with similar albedo and no greenhouse effect. “Tiny fraction?” 40% is not a “tiny fraction” in my world. And we have just (since 1880) increased by 40% the amount of the gas whose concentration seems most influential over that 33K. And civilization depends on it not going to 36K any time soon.

          • Robert

            If you have an alternative hypothesis that fits to the measurements and observations, then this would be a good place to bring it and your best supporting data forward.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and ionic bonds vs covalent bonds are not relevant to greenhouse effect either. What matters is the ability of the gas to reflect infrared radiation back to earth rather than letting it escape into space.

            You either know this and are lying or you don’t know this and are ignorant.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You’re mistaken about the physics. (What a surprise, amirite?) Greenhouse gases do not “reflect” infrared radiation. They absorb it, thermalize most of it, and emit the rest in random directions. They do it because they’re polar molecules which have the vibrational modes needed to absorb in those bands. Which is why polar molecules show a greenhouse effect and nonpolar molecules do not. As observed in the junior level physical chemistry lab course at universities worldwide offering a p-chem lab. As predicted by quantum mechanics.

            We are discovering more areas of science that you don’t know about but have strong opinions on anyway.

          • CB

            “Citing NASA!”

            Yes! NASA’s satellites show very clearly that we are warming the planet, in agreement with centuries of well-tested scientific understanding. Do you know of a space agency which has proved NASA wrong?

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

          • 9.8m/ss

            “Citing the agency that has admitted to falsifying their own data.”
            Citation please.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Hey Jim, aren’t you going to cite the paper where NASA admits to “falsifying their own data?”

          • CB

            “Hey Jim, aren’t you going to cite the paper where NASA admits to “falsifying their own data?””

            I guess he’s not!

            My wager is: Fudging the Climate Denier talking point!

            He’s supposed to say NOAA admitted falsifying their own data, not NASA… and then 2 seconds of digging will prove that’s not true. Sad!

            “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data”

            -John Bates

            http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

          • halush

            “Instead of taking these claims with the level of scrutiny and seriousness they deserve, most in the scientific establishment quickly moved to damage-control mode. In more testimony to the House Science Committee last week, Holt pulled one sentence from an article published in an environmental journal that morning, quoting Bates as saying, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with the data but rather really of timing a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

            http://www.nationalreviewRussians.com/article/444942/john-bates-whistleblower-climate-scientist-smeared-global-warming-advocates

            Earlier in the statement by Bates he said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did — so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. ”

            LOL. What a tool you are.

          • CB

            “They had good data from buoys.”

            Some of it is good!

            Some of it isn’t.

            …and your link is broken. This is what actually happened with buoys:

            “data collected in the engine rooms of ships show slightly elevated levels of warming compared with those collected by buoys. When researchers accounted for that discrepancy, the so-called global warming pause disappears”

            http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

          • halush

            LOL. So they admitted what they did, but downplayed it and you bought it. Typical of someone who is an ideologue and has no idea what they are talking about.

          • CB

            “they admitted what they did, but downplayed it”

            LOL! No one’s downplaying anything, sweetheart. What they are interested in is not the temperature of engine rooms. What they are interested in is the temperature of the sea. Take that bad data out, and you see even more warming. Obviously. This is not an especially difficult concept to grasp, buddy.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

          • halush

            Just out of curiosity have you ever been in an engine room? It is really hot. Now will the water in there need to have the temperature adjusted up or down? So why do you then take buoy data and adjust it to match the engine room data? That is just plain nuts.

          • Temperature is measured at the injection manifold, typically just above the keel depth. It hasn’t been pumped or in contact with the ship long enough for any significant heating.

            HETL

          • halush

            What would you consider “significant heating?”

          • Robert

            Crickets….
            I guess asking for reliable resources is bullying…..

        • 9.8m/ss

          CO2 is the most prevalent noncondensing gas in the atmosphere that exhibits the greenhouse effect. Its concentration has increased about 40% since the steam engine was invented. This is eighth grade earth science. CO2 does not condense in the atmosphere. H20 (the only more forceful greenhouse gas) condenses. This is high school chemistry. Did you sleep through those classes?

          • The most common and effective green house gas is water vapor.

          • CB

            “The most common and effective green house gas is water vapor.”

            Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas!

            It’s also a multiplier of the warming effect of other greenhouse gasses.

            What’s your point?

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

          • 9.8m/ss

            That’s true. And water vapor rains out. It’s a condensing gas. The rates at which it rains out and comes back are to a first approximation functions of temperature. CO2 does not condense on Earth. Its concentration is to a first approximation independent of temperature. That’s why any student of thermodynamics can tell you CO2 has to be the signal source and H2O is the amplifier.

        • Robert

          Actually, causation is well established.
          And what we are not seeing from you is any explanation of what is driving what we are observing.

          WHAT WE KNOW Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening. See the facts http://whatweknow.aaas.org

          A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

          What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
          https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

          WHAT WE KNOW Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening. See the facts http://whatweknow.aaas.org

          What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

          Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

          European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

          Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

          republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

          George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

          EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

          And the science condensed :

          D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

          Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

          • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

          • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

          • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

          • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

          • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

          • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
          SPM WG1 AR5

          • jim_m

            Good grief, you are citing the widely debunked BS that 97% of scientists support AGW? Really?

            Only the most ignorant of people trots that hackneyed lie out to support their arguments.

          • Robert

            See right after” Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening” it says ” See the facts ” and a link.
            Did you?

            I like also that rather than actually address the main point, you’ve chosen to latch on to a meme provided you by a variety of climate science denialist blogs.

            Here, to offer some relief from the findings of at least 5 studies, is a revised link to what AAAS says:

            WHAT WE KNOW
            THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

            The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

          • 9.8m/ss

            Jim has already shown us he never looks at the scientific literature. His opinions seem to come from PJ Media, which reprints Michael Bastasch’s articles from Daily Caller.

          • Robert

            This was funny:
            “jim_m With Respect an hour ago
            Dismissing a link without addressing the substance merely demonstrates your inability to think and to construct a reasoned defense of your position. Hence you cede the debate to those who can.”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wizbang/science_bullies/#comment-3683270238:

          • 9.8m/ss

            “Debate” is a childish game, where learning something and changing your mind is scored as a loss. I try to avoid it. Discussion is much more interesting. Now and then I learn something from one of these climate science deniers. They plow through a great volume of nonsense, and sometimes a sideways reference to an interesting paper falls out. Unfortunately, none of the deniers who’ve shown up here seems to get past Watts Up and Morano.

          • CB

            “”Debate” is a childish game, where learning something and changing your mind is scored as a loss.”

            Agreed! …especially by that definition.

            When “debating” with a liar, I would suggest the only success should be scored in outing the person as such.

            Jim is linking to the industry causing the Earth to warm. Are we expected to believe he’s too stupid to understand that conflict of interest?

            Will he continue to cite spokespeople for that industry now that he knows what they are? My guess is yes… but I’ll leave it to him to prove me wrong.

            “Alex Epstein is… a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations amounting to $100,000 between 2005 and 2011… Alex Epstein’s Center for Industrial Progress was listed among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

          • 9.8m/ss

            You even got that simple statistic wrong, Jim, showing once again you don’t know the first thing about this issue. The most widely cited source is Anderegg 2010, “Expert credibility in climate change” which found 97% of researchers with recent climate publications (about a thousand climate experts) and 90% of a larger sample of scientists in all fields agree that the climate warmed over the last century and civilization is the cause. Every time anybody runs a similar survey they get a similar result. There was no “debunking,” unless “debunking” means unsupported opinion pieces in the right wing opinion media. Even Richard Tol’s attempt to get a different answer failed. Strangely, he published it anyway, and he was immediately torn to bits. Science is a ruthless competition that way.

            Barack Obama made the same mistake that you just made, Jim, in a speech to congress. You shouldn’t get your science news from politicians.

          • Robert

            This was funny given your response…..

            jim_m With Respect an hour ago
            Dismissing a link without addressing the substance merely demonstrates your inability to think and to construct a reasoned defense of your position. Hence you cede the debate to those who can.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wizbang/science_bullies/#comment-3683270238

          • Robert
    • Robert

      Source?
      “…climate models do not…”

    • 9.8m/ss

      Climate models are used to test hypotheses. But, as far as I know they have never been used to test the inference of anthropogenic global warming. Do you have an example where they have been used for that? Cite a paper.

    • 9.8m/ss

      Denier is the best noun in English for a person who is denying.

      Deniers are pretty much the opposite of skeptics. Skeptics question everything. By that process, they discover their own mistakes. They find out when they have been misled. They learn and change their minds. Science deniers do none of that.

    • Robert

      And you know this how?
      “Which the climate models do not.”

    • Robert

      So, no evidence supporting your claims.
      Got it.

      See:
      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

      Awaiting your rejoinder.

  • jim_m

    Curry is not a climate science “denier” she has done what a true scientist does: examined the evidence and allowed the facts to dictate her theory. Adherence to AGW in the face of the now overwhelming evidence of that theory’s failures is not science, it is religion.

    There is no question that warmists adhere to a religious faith because they cling to these beliefs despite the inability of their idea to fulfill the primary criterion of science: develop a theory that can correctly predict events. AGW theory and predictions have been uniformly incorrect. Sea ice has not disappeared, Himalayan glaciers have not disappeared, polar bears are not extinct, islands have not been consumed by the oceans, etc, etc, etc.

    • 9.8m/ss

      No scientist “predicted” (much less projected) sea ice, himalayan glaciers, nor polar bears would be gone by now. Those “predictions” are all inventions of the organized smear campaign against climate scientists and their work. For that matter, so is the propaganda term “warmist,” designed and used to suggest that climate scientists and environmental activists are the same set of people.

      It speaks well for science when its opponents have to make stuff up to make their case.

      • jim_m

        Idiot. Any fool can find claims that the North Pole would be free of ice. Go peddle your religious BS elsewhere.

        THe Chair of the IPCC admitted that he had falsified data saying that tHimalyan Glaciers were receding.

        And yeah, whenever you hear people claiming that there is some sort of clandestine conspiracy to destroy the human race (this time through AGW) you can be sure the person spewing that BS is a religious zealot.

        • 9.8m/ss

          Predictions that sea ice (arctic and antarctic) would be gone by 2017 were made by non-technical environmental activists. They’ve also told us we’d all starve due to overpopulation, and get cancer from living near power lines. You shouldn’t get your science news from hippies carrying hand lettered signs in the street. No scientist projected any such thing. Scientists don’t make predictions like that.

          • jim_m

            first rule of holes. Learn it. You really need to.

            Paul Ehrlich published a book in the 70’s (The Population Bomb) predicting mass starvation and called for population controls and forced sterilization. His acolyte, John Holdren (science advisor to obama and Bill Clinton) also maintained that the US could not sustain a population 2/3 of what it is today.

            These are real scientists spewing apocalyptic nonsense that the left (including you) believes in.

            If you don’t know history don’t come here trying to debate people who know it.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You have to go back over four decades and cherry pick an outlier who never did any climate related work (Erlich) to find an anecdote about scientists making false predictions? Holdren edited a book of essays by several pundits and scientists, mostly speaking outside their specialties, and for some reason the right wing opinion media like to credit him and Erlich with writing the whole thing. Yes, they were both Malthusians. No, they didn’t represent mainstream science of time. Outliers, cherry picked to deceive you. Scientists must make pretty good predictions if the bad ones are that old and that hard to find.

          • jim_m

            You said that no scientist ever predicted global starvation. I just showed you two within the last few decades that have, and they both have significant followings. (If you haven’t heard of them you are indeed a fool).

            The fact that you call them outliers is a dead give away to your profound ignorance. One does not need to cherry pick to find them, They are considered leaders in their field.

            Unless of course, you are claiming that obama is so fucking ignorant that he selected some “outlier” who has no idea what he is talking about as a science advisor. Perhaps we should start discussing your racist views about obama and his selection of advisors?

          • 9.8m/ss

            Holdren and Erlich are not considered leaders in any climate related field. Erlich is a social scientist. Holdren was trained in astrophysics but his career has been in public policy response to risks to public health and safety. Not atmospheric chemistry. Not computational fluid dynamics. He’s a punching bag for the right wing noise machine, but that’s not my concern. I make no excuses for Obama. He was a mediocre president who appointed the usual politically connected policy wonks and Goldman bankers.

          • jim_m

            Again, You claimed that “No scientist projected any such thing” in response to my comment about scientists predicting global starvation. I have presented you with two. You are too dishonest in your argumentation to admit that I have proven your claim to be false.

            That is the only claim I made regarding the two of them and you are unwilling to admit to even that truth. Dishonest to your core.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You’re niggling over trivia. I agree that under loose enough usage, Erlich and Holdren could be called scientists. I disagree with your assertion that they are thought leaders in climate and with your bizarre idea that they made significant contributions in climate related science. They’re outliers. It’s a real thing. There’s a mainstream in applied physics and other climate related fields. They’re not in it. They’re not representative of it and never were. Your clear argument that they are is simply false.

          • jim_m

            I did not assert that they are thought leaders in climate. You are misreading my comment. I said that they are thought leaders on overpopulation. That is pretty much indisputable, but I am sure you will attempt such a folly.

            Your claim was a bold assertion that NO scientists ever asserted that there would be global starvation. I have shwon you that your claim is false.

            This is not niggling over a minor issue. It demonstrates that you are dishonest.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I believe you were trying to make a point with this exchange. Let’s review. Holden made wild predictions about population, forty years ago. He was Obama’s all purpose science advisor therefore Obama’s response to the waste CO2 problem was informed by wild predictions. And I’m dishonest because I dismissed Holdren as a thought leader in any scientific field. Is that about right?

          • jim_m

            No, you are dishonest because you made an intemperate claim that “No scientist” ever predicted global starvation. I have provided you more than one. You then tried to twist my words that I was claiming that Ehrlich and Holdren were climate scientists.

            So you have 1) falsely misrepresented my argument to conceal the fact that you were wrong and 2) have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that you were factually incorrect on the matter.

            Furthermore you have 3) claimed that neither Holdren nor Ehrlich were actually scientists, despite both of them holding PhDs from legitimate universities and one of them holding an endowed professorship in science at Stanford University. and 4) claimed that they were not recognized as any authorities in any field despite the aforementioned endowed professorship and the federal appointment by two democrat presidents.

            I put to you that you have on these various occasions been dishonest in your argumentation. If you are dishonest in these little things how should we trust anything you say?

          • 9.8m/ss

            You should not trust anything I say. You should look what I say up in sources you trust. You should bear in mind that if you trust political opinion sources when they conflict with historical and scientific references and scientific journalism, you are likely be be misinformed. And if you form strong opinions based on the misinformation you receive (“climate models don’t work!”) you are likely to make a fool of yourself in public.

            Now I’m just curious. Have you ever written a numerical model of a physical phenomenon? Ever debugged somebody else’s? Ever used numerical models of physical phenomena on your job? Ever had to figure out whether the sensor was broken or the model was missing a term? What experience have you ever had that would inform your opinion of the workability of numerical models?

          • jim_m

            I have watched you twist and turn and now I have seen you admit that the current models lack the necessary information and put forth the baseless claim that now they have complete information. You had admitted that what you were claiming was accurate is not and could not be because you lacked sufficient information. You now demand (yes, demand) that we believe you when you say that the new models have sufficient information to be accurate.

            I do not have to have expertise in debugging any computer models to have the capability of identifying bullshit when I see it.

          • 9.8m/ss

            So, you have no knowledge of how numerical models work, or how they’re developed, or how they’re used, but you have a strong opinion that the climate scientists who use them in their work are using them despite their non working-ness, however the hell you imagine that to be. Okay.

            I’ve made no demands. When you make stuff up about me, you show you have no argument.

          • jim_m

            One does not have to work with models to determine whether or not the data coming from them is being used honestly.

            I will put to you the question I put below.

            The question is whether the 7.8% (the fraction produced by man) of the 0.03% of atmosphere comprised by CO2 is capable of driving all of climate and has a greater effect than that of the sun, the rest of the 92.2% of CO2 produced by the natural environment, CH4, water vapor, etc. COMBINED!!!!!

            You are claiming that 0.0023% of the atmosphere is driving ALL of climate and is the decisive factor in determining the fate of the world.

            One does not need a computer model to see the fallacy here. What I see is the naked political agenda and the blind ambition of people seeking control over others. Your attempt to silence me by claiming that since I don’t work with models I cannot have an informed opinion onf them is bullshit. You know that to be the case. It is yet another dishonesty from you.

          • 9.8m/ss

            “You are claiming that 0.0023% of the atmosphere is driving ALL of climate ”
            I made no such claim. Now let’s stop making stuff up about me, and talk about the climate related sciences.
            Maybe it will turn out you know as little about the rest of it as you know about numerical models. Or maybe you’ve been holding back all this time.

          • jim_m

            the foundational claim of AGW is that man made CO2 drives climate. Period. Are you now going to dispute that?

          • 9.8m/ss

            The inference of AGW is most of the global warming observed during the instrumental record is due to greenhouse gas emissions from civilization, and most of the rest is from its other impacts. That’s because the numbers add up. Natural forcings during the same period were towards cooling, but GAST rose by about 0.8C. So there are three possibilities:
            1. an enormous forcing that science has not discovered, or
            2. that 0.8C was due to the fairly well explained forces we know about. Or,
            3. there’s a commie conspiracy to lie about the whole thing, and all the universities are in on it.
            Which one seems most plausible to you?

          • jim_m

            or 4, it is all just bad science just like the ice age scare of the 70’s, just like Piltdown man, just like phlogiston, etc. etc. etc.

            BTW, forcing is just a theory as well.

          • 9.8m/ss

            What does “just a theory” mean in your alt-universe? Here in the world of science and engineering, a theory is an explanation with evidence. It’s what a hypothesis becomes when it’s the only way to explain the observations. Like the Germ Theory of Contagion or the General Theory of Relativity. Forcings from the orbital variations of the Milankovitch cycles fall into the same category. Not controversial in science because there’s evidence for this explanation and no competing, conflicting explanation. Likewise, if forcing from greenhouse gases doesn’t happen, then you need another explanation for where all that energy came from. And we don’t have one. Hence the inference of AGW.

          • 9.8m/ss

            “just like the ice age scare of the 70’s”

            The ice age scare of the 1970s had no basis in the mainstream science of that time. We can go over the history in detail, but you won’t like it. (The ice age scare was in the National Enquirer, but it wasn’t in Science.)

          • Robert

            I’m finding it somewhat interesting how well jim_m’s thread fits to bullying more than debate.
            Not to mention the choice of resources.

          • 9.8m/ss

            jim_m pitched the usual softballs for a while. The usual softballs are easy to hit out of the park. Maybe it begins to dawn on him what’s been going on, and he decided to go someplace where nobody will show him where he’s mistaken.

          • jim_m

            Neither does AGW but that doesn’t stop you

          • Robert

            You seem to be implying something about the state of climate science or perhaps something about what the observations say.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Everything I’ve written here is mainstream science. That you are completely unfamiliar with it has become more and more obvious over time.

          • And which would represent a massive positive feedback loop, thus causing our climate to be inherently unstable.

          • jim_m

            I admit that under loose enough usage, Erlich and Holdren could be called scientists

            So you think a PhD and an endowed Chair at Stanford University are not indicators of anything or any professional recognition? What a lying jackass you are.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Holdren is a professor of environmental policy at Harvard. Perhaps he was a climate expert, decades ago. It’s a fast moving field. Researchers retire from applied physical sciences and move into softer fields informed by those sciences.

          • jim_m

            You have claimed that neither were scientists of any sort and were complete outliers in any field. Now you are admitting that they enjoy appointments at Harvard and Stanford.

            Holdren has built his entire career in the environmental sciences. Your ignorance of that fact does not diminish the truth of it.

          • fustian24

            Which climatologists predicted the hiatus?

          • 9.8m/ss
          • fustian24

            There are so many after-the-fact explanations for this.

            Nobody predicted the hiatus and nobody is really buying any of these excuses.

            Do you know what they call a theory that doesn’t fit the data?

            Wrong.

          • 9.8m/ss

            What theory are you talking about? Name it. Cite it.

          • fustian24

            Why don’t you take a wild guess.

          • 9.8m/ss

            That means you’ve got nothing. Okay.

          • fustian24

            It means I have no interest in a cheap debating trick.

            What I said was completely clear.

            As for your paper, these guys were dismayed that their data didn’t fit their preconceived notions of temperature, so they went out looking for anything that warmed. Then they changed the way they gridded the data to accentuate that warming.

            What I want to know is: who saw this coming?

            Anybody can fit the data after the fact. It’s having a model that can predict the future that’s hard.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Do you know how to spot a scientific illiterate? When science makes an advance in knowledge, or corrects an error, the illiterate calls it an “excuse.”

          • fustian24

            One paper does not an advance of knowledge make.

            And especially one that admits that the world temperature isn’t sampled nearly enough to say squat about temperature. In fact simply regridding the same data can give wildly different results.

      • Robert

        Maslowski & Wadhams are claimed to have made such predictions, but the article doesnt state where. And even though the Telegraph article is illustrated by a fire belching polar bear, most of the article discusses how far what they claim is from what the published science says.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

        What the recitation of those claims really shows is the credulity of those repeating them.

  • Vagabond661

    Physician, heal thyself. You bully people with your half-baked ideas and don’t respond to logical arguments of Wizbang contibutors. You are the Sarah Myhre of Wizbang.

  • 9.8m/ss

    Mann is correct, “climate science denier” is the most appropriate term. Mann is also a fool, for suing a political pundit. Of course the pundit defamed him. There’s no argument about that. But Mann should know political pundits are allowed to lie about public figures in the US. And there’s a flock of them whose job is to do just that.

  • Brian Brandt

    Assume that Global Warming (A.K.A. – Climate Change) is true. Further assume that it is in whole or in part man made.

    (1) What are you going to do about it? If all the signers of the Paris Accord did everything they said they were going to do (is that likely?) we would reduce the projected temperature increase by about 1 – 2 degrees.

    (2) At what cost? The price tag for the project is in the trillions. What effect will this have on current spending for other worthy projects that are the favorites of the Left?

    (3) Who will win and who will lose? Maybe the citizens of some South Seas islands will have to move, but warming will increase crop seasons and open up new farm land formerly too cold to produce food.

    • 9.8m/ss

      The price tag for converting the global economy to safer energy sources over the next century is far cheaper than the price tag for relocating the global agricultural deployment and the lowest coastal cities. It may be close to zero, or the conversion may turn out highly profitable and greatly raise the global standard of living. It depends on how we do it, how fast, and when we start. It’s a full employment program. Full employment brings rising real wages, but the healthy economy that results is more likely to drive businesses in mature technologies out. Do we feel sorry for the buggy whip manufacturers? Do we miss them?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Tell me, what do you consider “safer energy sources?” Natural gas? Nuclear? Are you in favor of fracking?

        What country has lessened its CO2 emissions the most from 2000 to 2016?

        • 9.8m/ss

          The US outsourced its manufacturing emissions (along with the jobs) to Asia during that period. Even so, our per capita CO2 emissions are over twice China’s.

          I sincerely hope somebody figures out how to get commercial nuclear fission working (safely and profitably) at utility scale. The industry started out with the wrong process (designed to power warships) and when the US Dep’t of Energy came up with better ones, they mothballed them under political pressure. Commercial fission has been a complete botch and a financial catastrophe so far, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t do better with a fresh start. Meanwhile, there’s enough wind energy in Texas to power the whole US economy. There’s enough solar energy on the rooftops of LA to power that city. Natural gas is proving to be a good bridge fuel while the energy industry gets its act together.

          Wind energy in its current form can’t power the whole economy because there’s not enough neodymium. A solar powered grid would require more copper than currently exists. “Room temperature” superconductors would solve both of those problems, but they’re still in the lab. Natural gas, as it is currently harvested and distributed, leaks a powerful greenhouse gas. So we’re basically screwed, with no safe and economically viable baseload power source in current technology.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Above, you stated: “The price tag for converting the global economy to safer energy sources over the next century is far cheaper than the price tag for relocating the global agricultural deployment and the lowest coastal cities.”

            Then you state: “So we’re basically screwed, with no safe and economically viable baseload power source in current technology.”

            So, how do you know it’s going to be “far cheaper” if we have “no safe and economically viable baseload power source in current technology?”

            In addition, what effect will cutting CO2 emissions have? Assuming the US cut all CO2 emissions, the effect on temperature would be 0.052°C by the year 2050 and 0.137°C by the year 2100, assuming “the IPCC’s sensitivity value of 3.0°C.” At what cost will this marginal, at best, temperature savings be?

            Please note, I’m not saying we should not try to lessen CO2 emissions, just as we should try to eliminate pollutants, nor am I saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas [with some good effects that are often ignored]. But at some time the CAGW crowd must face reality. The result of using fossil fuels has greatly improved human existence on this earth. To say we must go back to a pre-industrialized life style simply isn’t going to work.

            Finally, assuming that you are arguing in good faith, four questions that I’ve repeatedly asked global warmers in the past that have never been answered:
            1. What is/was the optimal temperature on the earth?
            2. Why is/was that temperature optimal?
            3. When did that optimal temperature change?
            4. Why did it change?

          • 9.8m/ss

            We don’t have a viable baseload for the next century right now, but I am confident we will. This is the twilight of the Iron Age and the dawn of the Age of Semiconductors, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. There are new materials and new manufacturing processes. Some nation more socially advanced than the US will get nuclear fission right. “Room temperature” superconductors will work. Silicon photovoltaics will keep getting cheaper and more efficient. There is no shortage of silicon, aluminum, or glass.

            1. The “optimal temperature” of the earth is, of course, a nonsensical demand, and a rhetorical gimmick designed to suggest there is no such thing. The optimal temperature range of the earth is, of course, the range where the agricultural hardiness zones of the staple crops coincide with the arable land. (You can’t grow large quantities of wheat and soybeans on melted tundra. It takes topsoil.) The climate of the late Holocene. Duh.
            2. It’s optimal because the human population of the earth depends on agriculture continuing to work at its current level. Duh.
            3. It didn’t change.
            4. It didn’t change.

            If you’ve really been asking those “questions” and getting no answers, you’ve been asking ignoramuses, because the answers are pretty obvious.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “We don’t have a viable baseload for the next century right now, but I am confident we will.”

            I certainly hope you are correct.

            Just curious – what do you mean by the phrase: “Some nation more socially advanced than the US?”

            So, we still can warm a bit and stay optimal. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png/220px-Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
            And the climate hasn’t changed. Thanks.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Nuclear could work. The biggest reason commercial nuclear fission failed in the US was, I believe, the pervasive culture of corruption in the companies doing the work, and the government agencies they have captured that were supposed to regulate them. When you put up a parking garage, you can get away with faking inspections, substituting cheaper materials than were specified when the design was approved, faking and skipping detailed design reviews, etc etc. You might get away with some of it when you put up a papermaking plant. But when you put up a nuclear fission plant, the technology is too demanding to get away with all that chicanery. It happens anyway, resulting in extensive rework, wild cost overruns, and cascading control system failures. You get the Washington Public Power Supply System’s bond default and the TMI unit 2 meltdown. France has less of this culture of industrial corruption than the US, so nuclear fission has worked better there. A more socially advanced nation would have even less industrial corruption, and might be able to get a new fission process to run profitably and safely. Maybe Norway or Canada.

            “So, we still can warm a bit and stay optimal.” We’ve already done that, and the current trajectory is bad. We’re running out of margin pretty fast.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Sorry for the long delay in replying – had to fix dinner.

            I’m curious again, maybe you could even say nosy.

            I assume you are younger than I – largely because probably 80-90% of the population is younger. Why are you seemingly so bitter towards, again seemingly, corporate America and/or the government? Not to say a bit of distaste isn’t warranted for both, but you seem really bitter.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I believe technical professionals have a duty to speak out when our expertise is called for. We have a duty to stand up for science when it’s under attack. The attack you see reflected in this comment string began half a century ago, when the tobacco industry decided to smear the epidemiologists who implicated their product in mass cancer deaths. It continued when toxicologists discovered the problem with lead in paint and gasoline, and when population biologists showed clearcut logging was leading to species extinctions. The same “conservative think tanks” led all of those attacks, and they’re involved in today’s smear campaign against climate scientists and their work. As Robert pointed out, it’s a bullying campaign. My folks taught me to stand up to bullies. Which brings us back to the duty of technical professionals.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Since you won’t answer my questions, I’ll give you a hint as to the answer to my last question. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/co2-emissions-by-country-since2000.jpg?w=720&h=463

        As to coal usage, which I assume is the fossil fuel you most loathe:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/coal-use-by-country.jpg?w=720

        • 9.8m/ss

          I don’t know what questions you’re talking about, sorry. I generally try to follow these threads through until there’s nothing new going on.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I see you replied to my questions, below [at least as I have them collected].

    • One must also wait with bated breath for the human causes of the observed global warming on Venus and Mars…

      • 9.8m/ss

        First you have to wait for that observation. Despite a report by that distinguished astronomer Rush Limbaugh, the other planets’ climates aren’t changing in sync with ours.

        • jim_m

          Ignorant fool

          Mars

          Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

          “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

          Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

          Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

          “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.

          • With Respect

            Long term increase in TSI?

            Long term as in barely detectable over the course of ten million years, yes.

            In the short term, TSI has decreased and increased, and decreased again in a pattern that does not match observed temperatures on any planet to any detectable level in at least six decades.

            Your quote-mining and link farming are just a sign that — like convicted tax cheat Wesley Snipes — deadbeats will go to any effort to avoid facing the debts they incur.

          • jim_m

            Link farming? I give you links and you make no effort at all to address the substance. I put it down to the fact that you cannot debunk them. Next you will trot out the lie about 97% of scientists support AGW so obviously anyone who disagrees is wrong.

          • With Respect

            Links are meaningless. Links are what we used to call false argument by reference to non-authority. There’s no need to put any effort into addressing the substance of an invalid argument. It’s invalid. That’s enough.

            See?

            Debunked.

            And your propaganda jag?

            Missed it’s mark. See, I’m not a green. The only green I’m interested in is the stability of the US dollar, which ought not be toyed with lightly.

            97% of conservative economists support pricing fossil waste disposal, and conservative pricing is set by the Law of Supply and Demand, and pays out to private individuals their due.

            Your version?

            Sounds more like some carpetbagging deadbeat rent seeker milking the taxpayer for all he can get away with.

          • jim_m

            Dismissing a link without addressing the substance merely demonstrates your inability to think and to construct a reasoned defense of your position. Hence you cede the debate to those who can.

          • With Respect

            Bullpucky. Anyone of sound mind would dismiss a link to a Nigerian Prince’s plea for help smuggling his fortune.

            How are you and your links any different?

            If you want thoughtful replies and reasoned discourse, bring thoughtful positions and reasoned discourse, not recycled junk.

            As for ceding debate? Debate is the primitive practice of cultish Greek political classes in making the worse case seem the better by vain reference to non-authority, abuse of logical fallacy and appeal to base emotion. Who brings debate to discourse is dishonest.

          • Scalia

            You were asked to reply to the substance of a link. If you can, then by all means do so. If not, then please stop repeating yourself. If Jim’s link is “recycled junk,” then please tell him why. Let’s avoid verbal ping-pong.

          • With Respect

            What would be the point of applying the rules of logic to a discussion that dismiss invalid argument by identifying why the argument is invalid, only to then go on and treat the invalid argument like it were valid?

            The link itself is non-authoritative. Full stop. Its substance can be dismissed on that rationale alone. Full stop.

            Would you argue the substance of a link to a Nigerian prince’s request for your bank account number?

            If this seems repetitive, it is because the issue has not been addressed, and the OP has not accepted the usual rules of polite discourse of considering fairly the fault found with his claims and responding to that.

            If you’d like, I can provide links to these gentle guidelines for productive discussion, from genuine authorities.

          • Scalia

            One more time: Either reply to the substance of the link or quit posting along this line. I won’t repeat myself.

          • With Respect

            [Deleted]

          • Scalia

            You’ve been warned. Further posts by you along this line will be deleted. You may carry on and debate, but this tangent will stop until you comply with my request.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You’ve demonstrated that several times in this thread already.

          • 9.8m/ss

            That’s 97% of current climate experts. 90% of scientists. Get the statistic right. Then you can try (and fail, again) to shoot it down.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Unfortunately for Abdussamatov, he doesn’t have any evidence for his hypothesis. There’s no known mechanism for the one part in a thousand variation in total solar irradiance (TSI) to have produced the climate change observed in the industrial era. Nor is there any statistical correlation between that eleven year cycle and climate change (or even weather trends) on Earth. His Mars paper is talking about a trend over tens of millions of years. As I said, not in sync with terrestrial climate change.

            Marc Morano’s blog makes a big deal about these “alternative hypotheses.” But in order to do it, he has to misrepresent the content of the papers he cites. He’s counting on you to take his word for it and not look up the papers and read them yourself.

          • Robert

            From the middle of the cited article:

            “His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University.

            “And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.” (Related: “Global Warming ‘Very Likely’ Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say” [February 2, 2007].)

            There is a second page, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
            perhaps it wasn’t read.

    • With Respect

      Why not let the Market decide?

      What gets rid of AGW is the action of water or land to weather or sequester fossil wastes out of the air and dispose of those wastes in mineral form. That’s a resource. It’s a scarce resource. It’s a scarce resource tied to real estate. Fossil waste disposal is a scarce resource belonging to private landlords. In Capitalism, scarce resources that can have rivalrous users excluded from access get scarcity rents charged for use, and the landlords get paid at a price set by the Law of Supply and Demand.

      If AGW isn’t real to the Market, then the price for dumping fossil wastes — emitting CO2, leaking fugitive or process emissions, putting out NOx or SOx — will be low. If it is real to the Market, the price will be high, and fossil dumpers will seek alternatives.

      Why not let the Market decide?

      Privatize all fossil waste disposal; put shares in the hands of private citizens. Let them bid for the shares and let the shareholders set the price per ton CO2e dumped.

      • 9.8m/ss

        “Put shares in the hands of private citizens.” That’s turning a liability into an asseet by government fiat. It’s the cap and trade proposal, but finer grained. It’s a scheme that corrupt bankers and their hired politicians endorse, because they get to “make a market” they can then manipulate. But it’s in conflict with a simpler, more practical scheme, the revenue-neutral fully rebated carbon extraction tax, that doesn’t require a magical government fiat, and doesn’t produce a manipulable “market.” The latter scheme is endorsed by independent economists and some climate scientists, notably James Hansen.

        Meanwhile, China’s cap and trade market in carbon emissions has been working well for several years. It’ll work well until some minister tries to game it. They’ve got capital punishment for crimes like that, but banksters like any criminals always think they can beat the rap. And in the US, they usually do.

  • 9.8m/ss

    The last few years of Curry’s scientific career, she was writing wacko political stuff for a much larger audience than ever read her peer reviewed work. And the peer reviewed work wasn’t directly related to the stuff she had strong opinions about. If there was poor judgement, it was in failing to keep the two realms separated. Scientists are not immune to poor judgement. It’s one reason the peer reviewed work is so much more reliable than the sensational off the cuff remarks and blog entries that bounce around the right wing opinion echo chamber. I doubt Curry’s mind is failing. She just got tired of the rat race. The applied physical sciences are hard work, and competitive as hell. Most researchers wash out and do something easier after a while.

  • With Respect

    David — may I call you David? — you really need to look up what the definition of ‘wicked problem’ is, and why claiming climate change is one is denial. Or, since you didn’t avail yourself of the practice of knowing what the words you use mean, one suspects looking things up isn’t going to help here.

    Science holds true only inference solely from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation yields amended or new inference.

    Science is the sharp blade that cuts through Judith Curry’s Gordion Knot. Where’s the wicked to the problem?

    Congress subsidizes, gives gifts to, and fails to enforce private dumping fees on the fossil industry. The fossil industry runs amok with these Corporate Communist freebies, and just like Chinese coal dumps fossil wastes out for private lands and waters to dispose of the waste for them without restraint.

    Take away the subsidies, claw back the gifts, and enforce fossil waste disposal fees at a rate set by the Law of Supply and Demand on the Market, and the problem solves itself.

    And talk about bullies; Judith Curry’s gang of thugs are as noxious a bunch as one could meet on the blogosphere.

    • jim_m

      There is something amusing in watching a person complain that corporations are evil for their predacious avarice and simultaneously referring to them as communist.

      However, you are correct. Let the market decide. You decry subsidies for fossil fuels, but let’s remove the punitive taxes upon fossil fuels, and remove the subsidies for wind and solar. Then the market will decide. It will come down emphatically on the side of fossil fuels, fracking and nuclear power. The market will choose exactly what the enviro/green/AGW lobby are totally against.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Yes, if the market decides, the enviro/green/AGW lobby loses.

        Germany’s High-Priced Energy Revolution

        As many generations of Dieter Dürrmeier’s family as he can track have grown vegetables and tended livestock here in Opfingen, a hilly corner of southern Germany near the French and Swiss borders. Over the decades the Dürrmeiers have adapted, ever on the lookout for new ways to make money. In 1963, Dürrmeier’s father exploited cheap government loans to move his 136-acre farm from the crowded village to the outskirts of town. In 1986 the Dürrmeiers stopped raising cows and shifted to the less cyclical business of boarding wealthy city dwellers’ horses. But the family’s current shift has been its most lucrative yet. Though they still grow asparagus and grapes and tend to the equines, the Dürrmeiers today harvest their fattest earnings from sunshine. Thanks to generous checks from the German people, that crop from the sky spins off cash more reliably—and at higher margins—than anything the Dürrmeiers have ever grown in the ground….

        “For us it’s a very good business, but for the German people it’s very bad,” Dürrmeier says of the government policy that has turned intermittent sunshine into an all but sure thing for his wallet. Germany’s solar-subsidy scheme pays him a set price for every kilowatt-hour of electricity he produces with his solar panels and sells into the grid. It guarantees him that price, which when he started was several times the prevailing electricity rate, for 20 years.

        • With Respect

          Shocking news. There’s something with bigger margins than farming. What a remarkable discovery you have made. Why, with financial acumen like you show, you’re a shoe-in for next Secretary of the Treasury.

          German energy prices have been falling or steady for most of the decade. Germans are bucking the trend seen in the EU of higher energy prices, mainly among countries sticking to fossil.

          Is there anything you know for sure that isn’t false?

        • 9.8m/ss

          Nobody knows how a “free market” in energy would behave. There’s never been one. “Free markets” (also known as cut throat capitalism) are metastable. They arise following government antitrust action or technological change. They quickly decay into oligopoly, for the simple reason there are no profit margins in cut throat capitalism. Stable markets are always adminstered. You’d learn how this works in a freshman economics course.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And OPEC appreciates your freshman economics course’s logic.

      • With Respect

        Really? You don’t think communism is predacious? Avaricious? Have you not paid attention to the last century? How exactly do you think Vladimir Putin went from petty KGB legbreaker to become the richest man in the world?

        Ah well. An old commie proverb goes, “You can tell a fool by what amuses him.” Surely you’re well-acquanted with that one?

        The Market doesn’t make Free decisions by being manipulated by politburo loser-choosers; you endorse fossil subsidy and call the rapidly falling, unenforced, loophole-ridden taxes on fossil punitive?

        As a percentage, gasoline taxes dropped 57% as a ratio of price between 1992 and 2015. What FREAKING tax cut in America has come anywhere near close to that $658 Billion gift from other taxpayers to gas sellers? Can’t think of many who would turn down being ‘punished’ like that by government corporate charity, even someone who understands that gas taxes distort the Market little and so should be the largest revenue source while other taxes drop to unfetter the Market from the influence of tax on buyer decisions.

        There are over $5.3 Trillion in fossil subsidies a year — a quarter of that in the USA alone — to fossil globally and have been for decades. Subsidies to the solar and wind that have you quaking under the sheets?

        Not even a rounding error by comparison. Less than 7% of direct subsidies, almost all in loan guarantees, compared to fossil, and zero percent of indirect subsidies and gifts of government.

        But I’m not just talking about the fuel side, but also the fossil waste disposal, some $6,000 due every American in payments from fossil waste dumpers, almost $194 Billion a year. Put that on the Market, let it decide.

        • jim_m

          No, I think that communism and capitalism are antithetical and you cannot tell the difference.

          • With Respect

            The difference is easy: does government make the decisions that belong to individual consumers? Communism.

            Do consumers pay private owners when they take what the owners have at a price set by the Law of Supply and Demand? Capitalism.

            Which situation do you claim fossil waste disposal is in?

            Eminent domain has been asserted on thousands of properties in the USA for usually foreign pipeline companies, displacing farm families after hard-fought generations. Wind pays private farmers rental on the tiny footprint of farmland it occupies.

            Looks like a Red. Quacks like a Red. @jim_m must be a Red.

          • 9.8m/ss

            “government make the decisions that belong to individual consumers? Communism.”

            Governments began forcing decisions on consumers with Hammurabi’s building codes. Even though rackets build up around them and they slow technological progress, many lives have been saved.

  • With Respect

    I’m well aware of Judith Curry’s antics. She was demoted from her position as Chair over her poor quality of work, and her blog activities and perilously perjured testimony before Congress are news to no one who pays attention.

    Sarah Myrhe’s uncontroversial comments are hardly worth David Robertson’s hissy fit.

  • Robert

    “To summarize the ongoing climate brouhaha, the science bullies and their supporters want the public to believe that modern-day climate change is all mankind’s fault. That is the politically-correct opinion.” From the article.

    To make nearly two hundred years of science research, “…politically-correct opinion” points to asinine levels of rhetoric, not what the science says.

    “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
    USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.
    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

  • Robert

    From the article:
    ” It is an empirical fact that the Earth’s climate has warmed overall for at least the past century. However, we do not know how much humans have contributed to this warming and there is disagreement among scientists as to whether human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases is the dominant cause of recent warming, relative to natural causes.”

    Could anyone point to where “…disagreement among scientists as to whether human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases is the dominant cause of recent warming, relative to natural causes.” is supported by actual published science?

  • Constitution First

    Unless and until these shills are honest about the fact the Sun is THE driver of weather, calling skeptics Nazis, totally undermines your cause.

    Money. Power. Societal Control. What part of the Progressive agenda am I missing?