Carpe Diem

‘Global warming’ to ‘climate change’ to ‘extreme weather’

From the always provocative and insightful Matt Ridley, writing on his blog today:

When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather.”

Part of the problem was that some time towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century it became clear that the Earth’s average temperature just was not consistently rising any more, however many “adjustments” were made to the thermometer records, let alone rising anything like as rapidly as all the models demanded.

So those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. This proved a rewarding tactic, because people – egged on by journalists – have an inexhaustible appetite for believing in the vindictiveness of the weather gods. The fossil fuel industry was inserted in the place of Zeus as the scapegoat of choice. (Scientists are the priests.)

HT: Warren Smith

158 thoughts on “‘Global warming’ to ‘climate change’ to ‘extreme weather’

  1. The book, Taxing Air, that Ridley is reviewing is excellent and makes a point that people like Zach have been denying on this site and your previous blog. Since more than 100 areas of knowledge are needed to ably argue about the effects of humans on climate change there isn’t any such thing as an overall expert on climate change. The changes in the message should not be surprising because the message is more about making a good living than it is about finding out some scientific truth about the complex process that is climate.

  2. As usual, easily and completely refuted by people who actually have the credentials to know what they are talking about, and don’t misconstrue evidence and quote research papers out of context.

    What I don’t understand is why belief in a smaller government corresponds with a refusal to recognize overwhelming scientific consensus by globally disparate groups of researchers.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/29/meet-the-wall-street-journal-columnist-dismissi/190989

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/08/global_warming_wall_street_journal_article_cites_bad_evidence_draws_wrong.html

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/10/global_warming_wall_street_journal_writer_matt_ridley_doubles_down_on_global.html

      • http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BAST1.png

        temps are flat with 1998 and currently in a downtrend.

        this seems to be driven by a considerable drop in water vapor in the atmosphere (as documented by nasa). water vapor is a much more plentiful and potent greenhouse gas than co2 and is providing negative feedback to temperatures (reduced net forcing) as opposed to the positive feedback that the climate models predicted.

        • that fact that they would even cite the mann study (generally known as the hockey stick) is a sign that they are either not authorities or that they are liars.

          manns work is so riddled with bad math and corrupt and faked data that no serious scientist could possibly cite it without being disingenuous.

          the math alone provides a structure so slanted that it will produce a hockey stick from random numbers.

          the data is so corrupt that he inserted numerous series upside down to make them fit his narrative.

          it’s been widely and conclusively debunked.

          there is no overwhelming scientific consensus, nor is consensus a valid way to judge science.

          http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

          science is judged by evidence. you posit a hypothesis, test it, try to break it, and if it survives and provides meaningful predictions, then you may have something.

          so where are the meaningful predictions?

          where is the hypothesis that made predictions that were confirmed?

          it does not exist.

          this whole argument is sleight of hand and the rhetorical trick of assuming your conclusion, appealing to alleged consensus (which does not exist), and then trying to force the other side to prove a negative because you cannot prove the positive and need to shift the debate.

          • morganovich: that fact that they would even cite the mann study (generally known as the hockey stick) is a sign that they are either not authorities or that they are liars.

            Silly ad hominem.

            morganovich: manns work is so riddled with bad math and corrupt and faked data that no serious scientist could possibly cite it without being disingenuous.

            Mann’s primary work has been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.

          • “Mann’s primary work has been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.”

            utterly false.

            steve mcintyre completely demolished his work.

            so did the canadian government.

            the uk government banned it’s use in schools.

            mann is a fraud.

          • Zachy: “The corrections in Mann’s paper only concerned accurate listing of the proxy records used in the analysis, so wouldn’t affect the results.”

            It affected the ability of others to replicate. After successful replication McIntyre showed that the reconstruction was not robust and depended heavily on one proxy, bristlecone pines, which were sensitive to precipitation and not to temperature. The only thing detected by the reconstruction was the recovery from t he little ice age hardly a surprising or earth shattering result.

          • Zachriel :Mann’s primary work has been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.

            morganovich: utterly false.

            2k across the Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013

          • Steven Hales: It affected the ability of others to replicate.

            It certainly affected the ability to replicate the analysis, which is why a correction was issued. The results have been confirmed by a number of studies.

            2k across the Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013

          • It certainly affected the ability to replicate the analysis, which is why a correction was issued. The results have been confirmed by a number of studies.

            Sorry but that is not the case. Once you do away with the Yamal tree, the upside-down sediment use, and use the full archived data sets there isn’t any hockey stick to be found anywhere. I know that you are not very familiar with the topic so I suggest that you see CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick to get up to speed. It seems that the RealClimate idiots were wrong and that SM was right all along. I think that it is time to take away the IPCC’s Nobel Prize and give it to McIntyre and Svensmark.

          • zachriel says:

            “Mann’s primary work has been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.”

            Baloney.

            Steve McIntyre & Dr. Ross McKitrick are independent experts, and they have thoroughly debunked Mann’s Hokey Stick chart.

            Mann cherry-picked his proxies, throwing the inconvenient ones into a hidden ftp folder labeled “censored”:

            http://tiny.cc/nt45zw

            If Mann had used those valid proxies — which comprised a much larger data base of temperature information — there would have been NO hockey stick chart.

            Mann is a climate charlatan. The truth is not in him.

          • Vangel: CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick

            Don’t see where the CRU abandoned anything. The
            Briffa et al. state “Allowing for chronology and reconstruction uncertainty, the mean of the last 100 years of the reconstruction is likely warmer than any century in the last 2000 years in this region.”

            Briffa et al., Reassessing the evidence for tree-growth and inferred temperature change during the Common Era in Yamalia, northwest Siberia, Quaternary Science Reviews 2013.

          • Don’t see where the CRU abandoned anything. The
            Briffa et al. state “Allowing for chronology and reconstruction uncertainty, the mean of the last 100 years of the reconstruction is likely warmer than any century in the last 2000 years in this region.”

            You need to look at something other than Real Climate.

            Briffa et al., Reassessing the evidence for tree-growth and inferred temperature change during the Common Era in Yamalia, northwest Siberia, Quaternary Science Reviews 2013.

            Compare Briffa 2008 with Briffa 2013 and you see that SM forced through a change yet again. The latest set does not include the one supertree that provided the conclusions that the paleofrauds wanted. How can it be that the paelocommunity that you depend on is getting killed by a simple mining engineer? How is it that he spots errors in papers hours after they get published that the ‘expert reviewers’ missed in months of looking at the data and methodology? And why would anyone pay attention to a discipline that is so screwed up and undisciplined?

            http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/yamal_chronology_compare-to-b13.png

          • Vangel: You need to look at something other than Real Climate.

            You made a claim about Briffa et al. (2013), we quoted Briffa et al. (2013).

            Briffa et al., Reassessing the evidence for tree-growth and inferred temperature change during the Common Era in Yamalia, northwest Siberia, Quaternary Science Reviews 2013.

            Vangel: The latest set does not include the one supertree that provided the conclusions that the paleofrauds wanted.

            They used other trees and came to the conclusion that “Allowing for chronology and reconstruction uncertainty, the mean of the last 100 years of the reconstruction is likely warmer than any century in the last 2000 years in this region.”

          • They used other trees and came to the conclusion that “Allowing for chronology and reconstruction uncertainty, the mean of the last 100 years of the reconstruction is likely warmer than any century in the last 2000 years in this region.”

            How can you draw that conclusion when you only have two trees for the 12th century even though there are plenty of samples to choose from? And what does the mean of the past 100 years have to do with Anthropogenic factors? After all, it was the IPCC that claimed that man was only a factor in since the 1950s. The fact that growth rates show that the 1930s were as warm as now has nothing to do with human emissions of CO2. It was natural factors that gave us the high temperatures in the 1930s just as it is natural factors that are giving us the current lack of statistically significant warming.

            And let me ask you this. If Briffa and reviewers missed the big problem with the data and methodology used in the previous papers before, why are we to trust them to be diligent this time around. As McIntyre has pointed out, two trees for the 12th century is hardly sufficient data to make a claim about temperatures during the 12th century. At least Briffa finally admitted that the LIA was real. That is a good start but he has to explain why it is that he does not expect a small amount of warming, which is what 0.8C is, after the end of the Little Ice Age. Shouldn’t temperatures go up after a cooling period ends? And if the warming begins long before human emissions of CO2 become a factor how can we argue that temperature trends are determined by CO2 levels?

            See your problem? You keep relying on the same group of frauds that has made error after error after error and still expect the rest of us to accept the authority you claim they have.

          • zachriel says:

            “Silly ad hominem.”

            However, the FACT is that “Nature” was forced to issue a very rare Correction to Mann’s Hokey Stick paper. Such a Correction is tantamount to debunking the paper; journals HATE to admit they were wrong, so issuing the Correction is extremely serious.

            Also, here is proof that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature: http://tiny.cc/8ai4zw

            The ONLY time CO2 ever preceded temperature rise was from around 1980 – 1997. For the rest of the temperature record, CO2 FOLLOWED temperature, thus proving that CO2 can NOT be the cause of global warming.

            You emit conjecture. I provide facts. Readers can decide for themselves.

          • Smokey: the FACT is that “Nature” was forced to issue a very rare Correction to Mann’s Hokey Stick paper.

            Interesting. We count more than 14 thousand corrigendums in Nature, most of them seemingly minor corrections.
            http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+corrigendum

            The corrections in Mann’s paper only concerned accurate listing of the proxy records used in the analysis, so wouldn’t affect the results.

          • silly data manipulation.

            there is widespread agreement that temps stopped rising according to all 3 reputable databases. (hadcrut, uah, rss)

            for a guy who likes to argue consensus, you sure duck it when it does not suit you.

          • agw boils down to 3 simple issues.

            for us to be reduce co2 output at great cost, 3 things must be true.

            1. earth must be warming
            2. man must be causing it
            3. that must be a bad thing

            none of those are in proven in a significant sense.

            the world has warmed since 1850. few dispute that. i certainly do not.

            but that was also the little ice age. it was the coldest period for 9000 years.

            from the 1300′s the world has cooled. it has cooled more since roman and more still since minoan times and is far below the holocene climate optimum.

            it has also not warmed for 15 years.

            man causing it has, at best, mixed support. the atmospheric models do not show the agw fingerprint. both satellite and radiosondes have show this.

            the overall climate is still poorly understood.

            no models with predictive ability have emerged.

            the third point about warmer being bad is the worst supported of all.

            previous warm periods were times when human civilization and the biosphere thrived. higher co2 levels are good for plants. current levels are low by historical standards (looking at the last couple hundred million years). the average is more like 1000 ppm.

            it was the cold periods that caused hardship.

            given a choice between the climate of 1850 and that of 1350, the medieval climate is a non brainer.

            temps and growing seasons like 1850 would result in mass famine.

          • morganovich: for us to be reduce co2 output at great cost, 3 things must be true. 1. earth must be warming 2. man must be causing it 3. that must be a bad thing

            The Earth is projected to warm significantly due to anthropogenic emissions.

            morganovich: from the 1300′s the world has cooled. it has cooled more since roman and more still since minoan times and is far below the holocene climate optimum.

            That is incorrect. Current global mean temperature is probably higher now than during the Holocene, however, the Northern Hemispheric summers were warmer during that period.

            It’s not particularly relevant, in any case. Current temperatures are not the problem—projected heating is the problem.

            morganovich: it has also not warmed for 15 years.

            Actually, it’s is a positive slope on a high plateau. Here’s the data:

            1998 0.61
            1999 0.40
            2000 0.40
            2001 0.53
            2002 0.61
            2003 0.60
            2004 0.51
            2005 0.65
            2006 0.59
            2007 0.62
            2008 0.49
            2009 0.59
            2010 0.66
            2011 0.54
            2012 0.56

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

            Furthermore, the globe has just experienced a double La Niña, meaning the oceans have been absorbing a lot of heat.
            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
            Finally,
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

          • The Earth is projected to warm significantly due to anthropogenic emissions.

            Actually, it isn’t. Even many among the AGW crowd are now calling for a cooling period as the AMO and PDO go into their negative phases and solar activity falls. We will be lucky not to have a strong cooling period that takes us down near LIA levels.

            That is incorrect. Current global mean temperature is probably higher now than during the Holocene, however, the Northern Hemispheric summers were warmer during that period.

            Even the IPCC disagrees with you. The data indicates that HO and RW periods were much higher than they are now. So was the MWP.

            It’s not particularly relevant, in any case. Current temperatures are not the problem—projected heating is the problem.

            Projected by whom? The same people who failed to predict that there would be no statistically significant warming for two decades?

            Actually, it’s is a positive slope on a high plateau. Here’s the data:…

            And here is the difference between what is reported and the actual measurements. Notice the cause of the reported warming?

            Furthermore, the globe has just experienced a double La Niña, meaning the oceans have been absorbing a lot of heat.
            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

            The ARGO system shows no warming in the oceans. Perhaps the NOAA needs to look at the actual data and stop ‘adjusting’ it.

            Finally,
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

            This is what the AGW crowd brings up without mentioning that the reported temperatures have been ‘adjusted’ by adding a warming signal.

            See how GISS has reduced temperatures in the 1920s and added temperatures in the 2000s SINCE 2008? This is on top of previous adjustments that did the same thing?

            That had to happen to avoid the embarrassment of showing temperatures in the 1930s being higher than in the 1990s.

            Here are the Australians doing the same thing.

            And New Zealand.

            Without the ‘adjustments’ there is no warming problem.

          • morganovich: even the met office and the fraudsters at east anglia of climategate fame admit warming stopped.

            That’s funny. Why didn’t you cite the original source of the “admission”?

            “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”
            http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          • Smokey: Steve McIntyre & Dr. Ross McKitrick are independent experts, and they have thoroughly debunked Mann’s Hokey Stick chart.

            Interesting. Vangel just cited a paper that indicates just the opposite, that the last hundred years are the warmest of the last 2000.

          • Interesting. Vangel just cited a paper that indicates just the opposite, that the last hundred years are the warmest of the last 2000.

            I did not. I cited papers that make such claims but have no scientific support for those conclusions. Marcott has withdrawn his conclusions after McIntyre pointed out the error in methodology and the inadequacy of the data. The new Yamal chronology does not support the previous conclusions, again because McIntyre pointed out the cherry picking and the effect of the one supertree which should have been excluded because its growth is explained by a death of a competing neighbour, not temperature changes that are not noted in the other trees.

            As I have shown over and over again, the journals miss obvious errors that skeptics pick up within hours of the papers being published and lead to new papers with new conclusions or outright retractions. You have to stop hiding behind ‘peer review’ when you are shown that it is little more than incompetent or corrupt ‘pal review’ that misses obvious errors.

          • zachriel,

            In the interest of basic honesty, please stop linking to your ‘Pseuodo-skeptical Pseudo-science’ blog. SkS deliberately changes the language in comments that it cannot refute, without acknowledging that it did so. That is dishonest. SkS fabricates charts, which is also dishonest. And SkS is run by a professional cartoonist, who relies upon misinformation. All in all, a worthless propaganda blog.

            The numerous charts and graphs I have posted all refute your assertions that global warming is higher than ever; and those charts are based upon empirical [real world] evidence.

            You, on the other hand, are always short on verifiable, testable scientific evidence — a hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd.

            For example, you completely ignore the fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that current climate parameters, including temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events, have all been routinely exceeded in the past.

            What is being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to a greater degree in the past, as shown in the numerous charts I’ve posted. We are actually living during an extremely benign climate era, and all your SkS double-talk and pseudo-science cannot cover up that fact.

            The alarmist crowd has lost the debate, because they have no verifiable facts to support their belief system. There exists no scientific evidence showing, per the Scientific Method, any testable evidence that current temperatures are the result of any human activity. If human emissions cause any temperature fluctuation at all, it is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. And thus, AGW can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented occurring. That is a fact. Learn about the Null Hypothesis to understand.

            Anyone can argue incessantly. You do. But you are short on facts, and long on your religious belief. We are dealing with scientific truth here, but you have nothing to offer except your baseless conjectures. I could understand, if you were cashing in on the grant gravy train. But if your unscientific assertions come from your belief system, you are just spinning your wheels. Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is certainly proving you wrong.

            So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or you? Because you can’t both be right.

          • Smokey: In the interest of basic honesty, please stop linking to your ‘Pseuodo-skeptical Pseudo-science’ blog.

            The graphic illustrates a very basic error of ‘climate skeptics’.

            Smokey: The numerous charts and graphs I have posted all refute your assertions that global warming is higher than ever; and those charts are based upon empirical [real world] evidence.

            You provided a chart of the Holocene in central Greenland. Now provide the global mean temperature for the Holocene Optimum and current temperatures, as you had indicated above.

            Smokey: You, on the other hand, are always short on verifiable, testable scientific evidence — a hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd.

            We pointed to published scientific research. Indeed, morganovich pointed to a study that indicated that the most probable climate sensitivity is around 2°C.

          • zachriel says:

            “You provided a chart of the Holocene in central Greenland. Now provide the global mean temperature for the Holocene Optimum and current temperatures, as you had indicated above.”

            My reply setting you straight has been held up in moderation all day, probably due to the number of links it contains.

            When it appears, you will see that I provided thirteen (13) separate charts and graphs, proving that the Greenland ice core record correlates with the Antarctic ice core record. Therefore, the changes in Greenland were global in effect. And thus, your conjecture fails.

            But for someone who admittedly does not believe we are still in the Holocene, that wealth of information will fly right over your head. Your mind is made up and closed tighter than a drumskin. No amount of verifiable scientific evidence or facts will convince you that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. You are a Believer. Your mind is made up, and contrary facts cannot enter.

          • zachriel quotes:

            “…a study that indicated that the most probable climate sensitivity is around 2°C.”

            ‘A study’ is an opinion, NOT a scientific fact. And in this case I can show that your ‘study’ is nonsense.

            There is NO accepted climate sensitivity number. None. The WAGs [wild ass guesses] range from a NEGATIVE forcing from added CO2, to 0.00ºC for 2xCO2 [Climatologist Ferenc Miskolczi], to less than one-half degree per 2xCO2 [Spencer, Idsos & others], to ≈1ºC [Lindzen], all the way up to the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 3+ºC per 2xCO2. There is NO ‘consensus’ about the climate sensitivity number, and there is certainly no empirical evidence for any specific climate sensitivity number.

            Therefore, your “2ºC” is just another one of your baseless assertions.

            If the climate sensitivity number was high, then as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures would be rising along with it.

            But they are not. Even though CO2 is steadily rising, global temperatures have stopped rising for a decade and a half now, so any sensitivity to rising CO2 must be very low.

            That is not all. The sensitivity number changes depending on the concentration of atmospheric CO2. At current concentrations, any global warming from “carbon” is so small that it is not even measurable:

            http://tiny.cc/rqk6zw

            Add this fact to the rising number of scientific facts that I support my arguments with, and contrast it with the fact-free OPINIONS of the climate alarmist crowd.

    • Science does not work on, or require consensus. The AGW lobby has tried to talk consensus because the empirical data has falsified its hypothesis.

    • zachriel says:

      “That is incorrect. Current global mean temperature is probably higher now than during the Holocene.”

      If someone does not even understand that we are CURRENTLY in the Holocene, then their other opinions can be completely disregarded as scientific illiteracy.

      THIS is the Holocene:

      http://tiny.cc/te74zw

      As we can see, we are still in the Holocene — which has been MUCH warmer than now, with no ill effects.

      Warming is not the threat, global cooling is. But the climate alarmists hang their hats on the prospect of warming, which would be entirely beneficial.

      They could not have been more wrong. Global warming is a false alarm. It is cold that kills, not warmth.

      • Smokey: THIS is the Holocene

        That’s the Holocene in central Greenland. Now provide the global mean temperature for the Holocene Optimum and current temperatures, as you had indicated above.

        • zachriel claims that the Greenland ice core record is somehow not indicative of global temperatures. Zachriel is wrong. The following are some charts showing how wrong he is:

          http://tiny.cc/w845zw

          That chart shows the big picture. Also, note that current temperatures are very moderate:

          http://tiny.cc/uc55zw

          And THIS is an even better, time-lapse ‘gif’ showing that we are currently in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right:

          http://tiny.cc/8e55zw

          Here we see the Holocene from a different ice core location:

          http://tiny.cc/1i55zw

          Greenland is used because it is universally accepted by scientists as a global temperature proxy:

          http://tiny.cc/cl55zw

          Here is another view of the Holocene:

          http://tiny.cc/oo55zw

          And another Holocene chart; peer reviewed:

          http://tiny.cc/8q55zw

          Here is a view of the Vostok region in ANTARCTICA — a long way from Greenland. Note that on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature:

          http://tiny.cc/nt55zw

          Another chart showing that CO2 follows temperature. Going back 400,000 years:

          http://tiny.cc/qw55zw

          Here is a chart showing the very close correlation between the Northern Hemisphere [Greenland] and the Southern Hemisphere [Vostok]:

          http://tiny.cc/gy55zw

          Here is yet another chart showing that the NH and the SH are closely correlated with global temperatures:

          http://tiny.cc/2055zw

          And another chart showing that Greenland ice cores are closely correlated with Antarctic ice cores:

          http://tiny.cc/u255zw

          MORE proof that Greenland and Antarctica both show the same global warming and cooling trends:

          http://tiny.cc/1455zw

          I have many more charts showing conclusively that Greenland is an excellent proxy for global temperatures. Just ask, and I will post them here.

          These charts destroy the mistaken belief that what is observed now is anything unusual or unprecedented.

          We are actually in a very benign climate right now. Global temperatures have fluctuated by TENS OF DEGREES, over short, decadal time scales. By contrast, the current fluctuation of only about 0.7ºC over a century and a half is NOTHING.

          The “carbon” false alarm is based on… NOTHING. It is a fabricated scare, promoted by scientific illiterates who have made it their new age religion.

          Once again: there is NO scientific evidence to support the falsified belief in runaway global warming. NONE. It is a fake scare, engineered by politicians and grant-addicted universities and their tame scientists. Honest scientists reject the catastrophic AGW nonsense. It is heartening to see the public coming around to the same skeptical view.

          • Didn’t see an answer to our question. Please provide the global mean temperature for the Holocene Optimum and current temperatures, as you had indicated above. And instead of a chart, how about an actual study so we can see the methodology. Thanks.

          • I would give this up if I were you. You only have the core part of the “AGW team” to fall back on. Even the IPCC is now admitting the standstill that you are denying and few believe the hockey stick that you worship. When you have IPCC lead authors say that the models are not good and cannot be used to make predictions and the head of the IPCC and the Met Office admit that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming for 18 years it is hard to pay much attention to your denials.

          • Vangel: I would give this up if I were you.

            The science won’t disappear just because you refuse to look at it.

          • zachriel says:

            “Didn’t see an answer to our question.”

            There’s that phony, superfluous “our” again. You are not fooling anyone but yourself. Your own opinion is the only opinion here that is trying to sell the runaway global warming scam.

            As to your comment above, the moderator has finally approved my reply, containing my thirteen links showing that Greenland ice cores are no different geologically from Antarctica ice cores. Thus, Greenland is an accurate proxy for global temperatures.

            Feel free to ask about any of those links. And if you want more real world education, I have plenty more where those came from: my own data base of ice core records. Just ask, and I will post all you can handle.

            The fact is that global temperatures have been far higher, and far lower than they are now — and during times when CO2 was very low — proving that CO2 cannot be the cause of either global warming or global cooling. QED

          • Smokey: The fact is that global temperatures have been far higher, and far lower than they are now — and during times when CO2 was very low — proving that CO2 cannot be the cause of either global warming or global cooling.

            That would only be true if CO2 were posited as the sole cause of climatic variations. But it’s not. There are many factors determining climate and global mean temperature.

          • What we want is to see is the research and the data.

            That is one thing that the AGW crowd does not want to see. That is why it talks of false consensus and relies on models that have no prediction skills instead of empirical evidence.

          • Zachriel says:

            “A number of theories have been proposed concerning our…”

            And:

            “Sure we did. We provided a simplified model…”

            Zachriel presumes to speak for other, un-named individuals. That is because zachriel really has no support here. He is arguing against everyone else, and his is a losing argument. He has no ‘consensus’. So he fabricates one.

            The fact is that the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth itself — flatly contradicts the climate alarmist position.

            The climate Null Hypothesis [a corollary of the Scientific Method] has never been falsified. The Null Hypothesis states that current climate parameters [temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events, etc.] have all been exceeded in the past, when CO2 was very low, and very stable.

            Therefore, the current climate is neither unusual, nor unprecedented. All the hand-waving over “carbon” is based on a complete false alarm: there is no global warming crisis, and in fact, global temperatures have been declining for the past decade and a half, even as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 rises.

            So what motivates people like zachriel? If he is not making money off of his climate alarmism, then “climate change” has become his new religion. And converts to a new religion cannot accept only part of their newfound faith, they must accept all of the orthodoxy.

            That is why it is so fruitless debating zachriel. He cherry-picks only those facts which support his belief system, and he ignores all the rest.

            But science does not work that way. The scientific method requires that the person proposing a conjecture — in this case, manmade global warming — must provide testable, reproducible facts to support his conjecture. The onus is entirely upon the proposer of the conjecture, not on skeptical scientists to, in effect, prove a negative.

            However, there is no testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has caused global temperatures to rise. In fact, it is the opposite cause-and-effect: as global temperatures rise, more CO2 is subsequently emitted from the oceans:

            http://tiny.cc/0ng8zw

            That chart shows conclusively that rising temperatures are the cause of rising CO2. But there are NO comparable charts showing that rising CO2 is the cause of rising global temperature.

            Thus, the entire ‘CO2=catastrophic AGW’ conjecture is falsified. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.

            I do not expect a religious fanatic to accept this reasoning; their belief is faith-based, and thus it is impervious to reason. But other readers can make up their own minds, based on the Scientific Method and empirical [real world] observations. And it is working: the public is now accepting the fact that the global warming scare is a grant-fed scam.

            Despite his references to “we”, Zachriel has no other supporters here, because the scientific facts speak for themselves. There might be some very minuscule warming from emissions. But any such putative warming is too small to measure. No one has been able to measure how much global warming — if any — is due to human emissions. It is simply too small a temperature change to measure. IF it even exists.

            So zachriel can continue referring to “we”, as if he has an army of supporters here for his religious climate views. But the rest of us can see through his attempted rhetorical tactics. Verifiable scientific facts are what matter — not beliefs, and not alarmist papers expressing fact-free, self-serving opinions.

          • Vangel: That is one thing that the AGW crowd does not want to see.

            Which explains why climate scientists travel to the Antarctic, or install radiosondes in the ocean deep, or set up floating observation stations in the Arctic, or launch satellites designed to observe key features of the Earth’s climate system.

            Smokey: In fact, it is the opposite cause-and-effect: as global temperatures rise, more CO2 is subsequently emitted from the oceans

            While some of the lag may be due to CO2 being both cause and effect, we have already cited a study that suggests the lag may be an observational artifact.

          • Which explains why climate scientists travel to the Antarctic, or install radiosondes in the ocean deep, or set up floating observation stations in the Arctic, or launch satellites designed to observe key features of the Earth’s climate system.

            The better question is why would scientists ignore available data, cherry pick, and fail to disclose important steps in their methodology.

          • zachriel says:

            “…we have already cited a study…”

            There’s that “we” again. Still got that mouse in your pocket, zach? Because no one else here is supporting you. You pretend to have your own ‘consensus’. As if.

            And let me point out that your debunked “study” amounts to no more than an opinion — as opposed to the testable, empirical observation that I posted, showing conclusively that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.

            Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 cannot cause changes in temperature.

            But then, I am trying to explain science to a religious acolyte of Michael Mann. No doubt that is a complete waste of pixels.

          • Smokey: And let me point out that your debunked “study” amounts to no more than an opinion …

            See Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013

            Smokey: Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 cannot cause changes in temperature.

            When feedbacks are involved, cause can be effect, and effect can be cause. In any case, the lag between CO2 and temperature may be an observational artifact per Parrenin et al.

          • I see that zachriel continues to avoid the proven scientific fact that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not vice-versa. Which totally destroys the alarmists’ “carbon” conjecture.

            zachriel also calls the listing of 31,000 scientists an appeal to authority — which is pure psychological projection on his part, because zachriel’s ONLY arguments are based on his own appeals to authority. zachriel just doesn’t like the fact that I have posted many times the number of authorities that he has been able to come up with.

            zachriel is also miffed that I referred to real scientists as “scientists”. Here is the dictionary definition of ‘scientist’:

            A person who is studying or has expert knowledge in one or more of the natural physical sciences.

            I listed more than 31,000 scientists, to zachriel’s dozen or so. No wonder zachriel is miffed. Does he ever win any arguments?? As Vangel points out: “Zach hates data based arguments and prefers appeals to authority.”

            Finally, contrary to zachriel’s beleif system, his hypothesis states that some of the co-signers of the OISM petition are not legitimate. But like all climate alarmists, zachriel ignores the Scientific Method. Instead, he demands that I must show him which names are not legit.

            Doesn’t work like that, pal. YOU are the one questioning the names, therefore the onus is on YOU to show if there are any on the list that shouldn’t be there.

            Really, you wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a …nkle.

            Run along now back to Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science, zachriel, you need some new talking points. The ones you’re using are old and busted.

          • Smokey: I see that zachriel continues to avoid the proven scientific fact that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not vice-versa.

            Actually, we addressed it many times. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not in any serious dispute. That CO2 lags temperature may be an observational artifact.

            Smokey: calls the listing of 31,000 scientists an appeal to authority —

            It’s a faulty appeal to authority.

            Smokey: I listed more than 31,000 scientists, to zachriel’s dozen or so.

            You will find that virtually none on the list have published any scientific papers.

            Smokey: Instead, he demands that I must show him which names are not legit.

            Of course. You made a claim to have a list of 30 thousand scientists. As it is your claim, it is your responsibility to support.

          • It’s a faulty appeal to authority.

            In case you haven’t noticed that is all you seem to do.

          • Vangel: In case you haven’t noticed that is all you seem to do.

            We have repeated referred to the evidence. Here are some of our citations from this thread:

            Santer et al., Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere, Science 2005.

            Titchner et al., Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments, Journal of Climate 2009.

            Allen & Sherwood, Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, Nature Geoscience 2008

            2k across the Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013

            Briffa et al., Reassessing the evidence for tree-growth and inferred temperature change during the Common Era in Yamalia, northwest Siberia, Quaternary Science Reviews 2013.

            Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013

            Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013.

            Here are a few of the scientific arguments we’ve made on this thread:

            Z: That would only be true if CO2 were posited as the sole cause of climatic variations. But it’s not. There are many factors determining climate and global mean temperature.

            Z: When warm moist air rises in the atmosphere, it cools, and at some point the water condenses releasing heat. If temperatures increase, then this will increase evaporation at the surface, meaning more available heat from condensation. This occurs regardless of the source of the warming. It could be due to an increase in solar irradiation, for instance.

            “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”
            http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

            We’ve even posted the data directly.

            Z: There’s a strong linear trend over the last two decades.

            1992 0.19
            1993 0.21
            1994 0.28
            1995 0.43
            1996 0.33
            1997 0.45
            1998 0.61
            1999 0.40
            2000 0.40
            2001 0.53
            2002 0.61
            2003 0.60
            2004 0.51
            2005 0.65
            2006 0.59
            2007 0.62
            2008 0.49
            2009 0.59
            2010 0.66
            2011 0.54
            2012 0.56

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

            While you may disagree with our position, if you don’t think we’ve argued the science, then it means you are ignoring our comments.

          • While you may disagree with our position, if you don’t think we’ve argued the science, then it means you are ignoring our comments.

            You are the fraud who keeps talking about consensus. And papers which do not disclose data, use cherry picked data, or forget to mention that the data has been ‘adjusted’ and does not reflect actual measurements do not qualify as science. Neither do models.

            I am glad you keep bringing up Briffa. You might actually try to read it and look at the changes in the data. The hockey stick is gone and the early 20th century data, before human emissions became a factor show temperatures that are higher than the later part of the century. That is another fail for the AGW thesis according to the empirical data, no matter how Briffa and company choose to write it up.

          • Vangel: You are the fraud who keeps talking about consensus.

            Zachriel’s 1st comment on thread: Morganovich casts a personal attack on climate scientists. We responded by pointing out it was an ad hominem, adding that the result does not depend on the individual scientist as they have been confirmed by independent scientists.

            Zachriel’s 2nd & 3rd & 4th & 5th & 6th comment on thread: citation to scientific paper.

            Zachriel’s 7th comment, accurate snark about how skeptics view climate change.

            Zachriel’s 8th comment, corrected Smokey on the purported rarity of corrigendums in the journal [i]Nature[/i], and on the effect of Mann’s list of proxies.

            Zachriel’s 9th comment, Provided GISS data with link.

            Zachriel’s 10th comment, corrected morganovich’s claim about the CRU’s admission, by accurately quoting and linking to the CRU.

            And so on. We have repeatedly referred to the evidence.
            http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/from-global-warming-to-climate-change-to-extreme-weather/comment-page-1/#comment-296222

          • Sorry but you do keep appealing to authority. You might want to try reading your own postings.

            Zachriel: If there is a consensus about climate change, then it is reasonable to make plans based on that finding.

          • Vangel: Sorry but you do keep appealing to authority. You might want to try reading your own postings. Zachriel: If there is a consensus about climate change, then it is reasonable to make plans based on that finding.

            Hmm. That statement is not found on this thread. In any case, we didn’t say we never appealed to authority, but that evidence always trumps such appeals, and are happy to discuss the evidence.

            Did you disagree with the statement that *If* there is a scientific consensus about a matter of importance to the human condition, then it is reasonable to make plans based on that finding?

          • Vangel: Sorry but you do keep appealing to authority.

            Went back and checked the statement you quoted is found on the thread “Matt Ridley links: Scientific evidence vs. consensus”. Imagine that, discussing the relationship of evidence and consensus on a thread about the relationship between evidence and consensus.

          • That is what you have done time after time. You keep appealing to authority. What is really funny is that many of the papers that you cite, like the Briffa paper, have data that shows that the skeptics were right all along and the ‘team’ was wrong. You do not look at the actual data and methodology even though you are smart enough to draw the proper conclusions. Instead, you look at the conclusions that are drawn even when they are deceptive or unsupported by the data. Sorry my friend but you are one of the true believer types who cares little about the scientific method.

          • Vangel: You do not look at the actual data and methodology even though you are smart enough to draw the proper conclusions.

            Sure we do. But let’s take a closer look. Briffa et al. state “Allowing for chronology and reconstruction uncertainty, the mean of the last 100 years of the reconstruction is likely warmer than any century in the last 2000 years in this region.” What about their findings do you find that supports your position?

  3. You wouldn’t really expect Media Matters and Slate.com to be biased at all, would you?

    As a scientist from a family of scientists and engineers, with a long career of working with scientists and geologists and engineers, I can refute the idea that consensus is “overwhelming”. Most believe that the planet has warmed in the latter half of the 20th century, some believe it’s naturally cyclical coming out of a mini-ice age and some believe it’s anthropogenic. I fall on the side that humans tend to greatly overestimate their effect on the grand scheme of things. The most amazing thing is how the planet, once again, is taking care of itself. Oil spill? Let organisms clean that. Warming trend? Let hurricanes and glacial ice chill things. The disturbing trend is not the climate, it’s the uneducated writers and speakers who utilize the “science of fear”. I’m not sure if they do it mainly for profit, power, or prestige but the net result is paranoia and knee-jerk reactions.

    Oh, and just remember – the solution to global warming could always be a nice nuclear winter…

        • Perhaps you missed this part;

          American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

          American Geophysical Union: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

          American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

          International academies: “Climate change is real.”

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • like yo missed the 1000′s of scientists and prominent climatologists that say it’s bunk?

          • zachriel,

            Perhaps you completely missed Prof Richard Lindzen’s chapter and verse explaination of the activists’ takeover of the Boards of those professional organizations. Lindzen names names, and gives thorough accounts. And for the record, Dr. Lindzen is a published climatologist, with hundreds of peer reviewed papers to his credit. He knows all the players, and he knows where all the bodies are buried.

            Further, zachriel is only reporting a putative “consensus”. Once again, “consensus” is NOT science. And zachriel is not even reporting on a real consensus, as the IOSM Petition Project makes crystal clear: the true, overwhelming consensus of those in the hard sciences states categorically that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere; more CO2 is better, at current and projected concentrations. The demonization of “carbon” is an outright lie.

            Wake me when the rank-and-file, dues paying members of those professional organizations are asked to respond to a survey that is constructed with equal input from skeptical scientists.

            Until then, zachriel is only emitting bogus alarmist propaganda. Come to think of it, that is all he ever does. Testable, reproducible scientific facts are anathema to zachriel, and to the other acolytes of the climate false alarm industry.

          • zachriel,

            It appears that your entire argument is based on an Appeal to Authority. As most of us know, that is a logical fallacy. Empirical scientific FACTS are what matter, not assertions made by a very small clique of Board members of these co-opted organizations — who write nonsense statements like “Climate Change Is Real”, without getting the approval of a majority of their dues-paying members. As Prof Richard Lindzen points out, the government gives them their marching orders. Their position statements are politics, they aren’t science. And your incessant name-dropping only takes the place of scientific facts; ALL of the individuals you name make their living with climate alarmism. They are paid to spread the false alarm, and to demonize “carbon”. Their income depends on it.

            And who ever said ‘climate change’ wasn’t real? ALL scientific skeptics know that the climate always changes — naturally.

            But I’ll tell you who doesn’t think so: Michael Mann and his acolytes, who have taken the untenable position that climate change was a non-event before the Industrial Revolution [the flat, unchanging handle of Mann's debunked Hockey Stick chart].

            The climate alarmist crowd preposterously argues that the climate never changed, until human CO2 was emitted. But they have no verifiable facts proving that conjecture, so instead they emit nonsense statements like “Climate change is real”.

            Are you beginning to see what a silly position you are trying to defend? Climate change IS real, and natural. Deal with it.

          • Smokey: It appears that your entire argument is based on an Appeal to Authority.

            Not at all. We keep pointing to the data. We also asked you for a scientific paper on the mean global temperatures of the Holocene Optimum. Perhaps you forgot.

            Not sure the extent of your knowledge, but the primary problem in climate science is determining climate sensitivity. You could try, Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013.

          • Smokey: “Perhaps you completely missed Prof Richard Lindzen’s chapter and verse explaination of the activists’ takeover of the Boards of those professional organizations. Lindzen names names, and gives thorough accounts. And for the record, Dr. Lindzen is a published climatologist, with hundreds of peer reviewed papers to his credit. He knows all the players, and he knows where all the bodies are buried.

            I did too. Could you cite it please?

        • Ron H,

          To answer your question, here is one paper by Prof Richard Lindzen, explaining how these professional societies have been co-opted. There are more out there, but this is a good starting place:

          http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

          And I note once again that all the professional societies named by zachriel have fewer total members than the 31,000+ scientists who co-signed the OISM Petition, which states unequivocally that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better, at current and projected concentrations. It is, after all, only a very tiny trace gas. But life could not exist without it.

          Thus, the so-called “consensus” is, like evrything else emitted by the climate alarmist cult, a lie. Carbon dioxide [CO2] is no more harmful than H2O. Both are absolutely necessary to life on earth.

          The preposterous scare that has grown up around “carbon” is due directly to the huge government grants being handed out to “study climate change”.

          No one is going to get those grants for telling the truth: that nothing either unprecedented or unusual is happening. So they attempt to scare the public with wild-eyed predictions of runaway global warming.

          None of it is true. Money has corrupted science: more than $100 BILLION in federal grants have been funneled into the climate scare since 2001. That money has produced results. But the results are gross fabrications, as anyone can see who looks out the window. Nothing abnormal is happening.

          The question is: why is zachriel on a one-man crusade to spread the false alarm? Since he posts all over the internet, I suppose he is getting paid to do it. [Of course, he would deny that. Wouldn't he?]

          Fortunately, the global warming scare is winding down. Anyone who compares current temperatures with past temperatures can see that it has all happened before, and to a greater degree.

          Good thing we have the internet, too. With the major media bought off, it is the only place people can sift out the truth from the zachriel-style propaganda.

          • Smokey: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

            Heh. From the ‘paper’: Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (According to Demming, 2005, in 1995, “A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”” Although Deming did not name the individual because he could not locate the email, he did note in an email to me that “Off the record, and over the years, I may have confided verbally to a few persons what my recollection was of the person’s identity.”

            Smokey: And I note once again that all the professional societies named by zachriel have fewer total members than the 31,000+ scientists who co-signed the OISM Petition

            Um, the vast majority are not scientists. That means working in a scientific endeavor. Even a cursory check will show that the vast majority have never published any scientific papers.

            You’re better off sticking with Lindzen, who is an actual scientist rather than lists of names.

          • Smokey

            Thanks for the Lindzen pointer. You have saved us* from
            searching through the hundreds of papers the man has written. We* hold Lindzen in the highest regard as one of the few actual climate scientists to be taken seriously.

            We* also occasionally enjoy jousting with Zachhriel, but we don’t take him seriously.

            * mouse in pocket.

          • • Lindzen refers to Deming. This testimony was made under oath:

            http://tiny.cc/vy39zw

            But of course, we only have zachriel’s snide comment, which does nothing but use up pixels. I provided verifiable facts, as usual, while zachriel emitted nonsense. As usual.

            • zachriel says: “…the vast majority are not scientists.”

            That is flatly contradicted by the dictionary definition of “scientist” that I posted. So, who should we believe? An impartial dictionary definition? Or zachriel the kool aid drinker? That’s a no-brainer…

            • Now that ‘we’ have disposed of zachriel’s nonsense, let me point out that Prof Richard Lindzen says exactly what most other scientific skeptics are saying. And note that Dr. Lindzen has more peer reviewed publications to his credit that any of the grant-sucking alarmists noted by zachriel — very likely more than all of them put together:

            http://tiny.cc/7a49zw

            Next, as we see in the Climategate emails, the system is gamed to artificially pad the CV’s of alarmists, with papers that were either hand-waved through by journal referee pals, or with fictitious papers that never existed. Phil Jones and Michael Mann schemed to inflate Jones’ CV with a bogus number of papers. It’s right there in their emails to each other. Is THAT the behavior that zachriel is trying to defend??

            Next, zachriel says:

            “You made a claim to have a list of 30 thousand scientists. As it is your claim, it is your responsibility to support.”

            Wrong, as usual. I posted the names. Now it is up to you to try to falsify them, if you can. You have failed.

            You add: “It’s a faulty appeal to authority.”

            But of course, the OISM list was posted in rebuttal to your endless appeals to authority, which have all been deconstructed. Papers are not scientific evidence. Computer models are not evidence. Empirical, testable facts are evidence, and the facts do not support manmade global warming.

            zachriel says:

            “The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not in any serious dispute.”

            I do not, and never have disputed the greenhouse effect. Quote my words, instead of making up fictitious comments, and then arguing with your newly constructed strawman.

            My position has been consistently clear: at current concentrations, any warming due to human-emitted CO2 is much too small to measure. That is supported by the fact that no one has provided a testable, reproducible measurement of global warming due specifically to human emissions — which is the basis for the entire global warming scare.

            In fact, the planet has warmed at the same rate, whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming, therefore the rise in CO2 does not have any measurable effect. QED

            zachriel continues:

            “That CO2 lags temperature may be an observational artifact.”

            Thank you for that baseless speculation. I, on the other hand, have posted solid empirical evidence, showing conclusively that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T:

            http://tiny.cc/yzba0w

            But there is no such chart showing that the rise in CO2 causes global warming. None. I have spent hours searching, but found no comparable chart. Maybe you can do better.

            You have simply confused cause-and-effect. You began with an incorrect premise, so naturally you have arrived at an incorrect conclusion. By confusing cause and effect, you are operating under the mistaken belief that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But it won’t.

            As anyone can see, rising temperature causes a rise in CO2. A change in human-emitted CO2 at current concentrations is too small to make any measurable difference to the global temperature:

            http://tiny.cc/7aca0w

            The warming we have seen so far is simply a continuation of natural global warming since the end of the LIA. Human activity cannot be discerned in the temperature record; global warming has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. That proves that even with a lot more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, the planet has not warmed at any faster rate than when CO2 was low, and steady.

            Once again, the runaway global warming false alarm is deconstructed using logic and scientific facts. Scientific skeptics win the argument, and climate alarmists are left with their papers and with their speculation based on true belief.

            No contest, really.

          • Smokey: I provided verifiable facts, as usual, while zachriel emitted nonsense.

            That’s the whole point, it’s not verifiable. Deming doesn’t have the purported email so we can’t see the context or even verify his memory.

            Smokey: That is flatly contradicted by the dictionary definition of “scientist” that I posted. {A person who is studying or has expert knowledge in one or more of the natural physical sciences.}

            A BS does not constitute expert knowledge. As for studying science, a sixth grader may study science from books and not be a scientist.

            Smokey: Wrong, as usual. I posted the names. Now it is up to you to try to falsify them, if you can. You have failed.

            Seriously, that’s sad. You don’t feel any responsibility for supporting your claims. In any case, even a cursory sampling of the names shows that the vast majority have no scientific output, but you had claimed they were “professional scientists”.

            Smokey: Papers are not scientific evidence. Computer models are not evidence.

            Papers generally report scientific evidence. Theories are models.

            Smokey: I do not, and never have disputed the greenhouse effect. Quote my words …

            Sure. “I see that zachriel continues to avoid the proven scientific fact that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not vice-versa.” If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then it has an effect on temperature.

            Smokey: My position has been consistently clear: at current concentrations, any warming due to human-emitted CO2 is much too small to measure.

            A doubling of CO2, ignoring any amplification, will lead to a 1°C increase in surface temperature.

            Smokey: In fact, the planet has warmed at the same rate, whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming, therefore the rise in CO2 does not have any measurable effect. QED

            You’re biggest problem is ignoring our comments while continuing to post lots of words. We responded to this already.

            CO2 is not the sole cause of climatic variations. There are many factors determining climate and global mean temperature.

            Smokey: Thank you for that baseless speculation.

            It’s hardly baseless. It’s based on nitrogen isotope studies of ice cores. It shows that reported lags are due to observational artifacts.

            Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013

            Smokey: But there is no such chart showing that the rise in CO2 causes global warming.

            You’ve already agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 will result in changes in the greenhouse effect.

            Smokey: You have simply confused cause-and-effect.

            You’ve already agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 will *cause* changes in surface temperature.

          • zachriel said:

            “Current global mean temperature is probably higher now than during the Holocene.”

            For someone clueless as to the definition of the ‘Holocene’, zachriel is obviously winging it here. And he still uses the pompous “we”, as if he is an army of one. In reality, zachriel is a scientific illiterate, as his Holocene comment shows.

            But even scientific illiterates deserve a response, and I am here to help our resident know-nothing. Regarding Deming’s statement under oath, zachriel says:

            “Deming doesn’t have the purported email so we can’t see the context or even verify his memory.”

            If what zachriel is saying were factual, then the entire justice system would collapse. Statements made under oath would be worthless. But in reality, this is just zachriel-style misdirection: “Look! a kitten!”

            zachriel does not want folks here to know what most of us know anyway: that there is a concerted effort by a small clique of climate alarmists to erase any reference to events like the Medieval Warm Period from the global temperature record, because the MWP thoroughly debunks the current natural warming cycle.

            Next, zachriel says:

            “A BS does not constitute expert knowledge.”

            Wrong again. Ask a Physics major to explain magnetohydrodynamics to a lay audience. You will instantly see the difference between an expert and a non-expert. zachriel attempts to denigrate the millions of highly educated people who undestand the hard sciences — when he himself does not even understand what the Holocene means. No doubt zachriel has a high school education, but no more. That comes across clearly in his comments.

            zachriel is miffed because he is out of his league compared with the 31,000+ co-signers of the OISM Petition. Those tens of thousands of degreed professional scientists and engineers have forgotten more than a high school graduate like zachriel has ever learned about science; it shows throughout zachriel’s comments, which indicate a real paucity of knowledge. zachriel throws out talking points without understanding, and pretends that he speaks for others with his “we” references. But the rest of us know he is only referring to the mouse in his pocket.

            Next, zachriel says:

            “Papers generally report scientific evidence. Theories are models.”

            Thank you for verifying my point: ‘papers’ simply cherry-pick what the author wants cherry-picked. ‘Papers’ are not scientific evidence. They are an opinion, emitted for the purposes of grant seeking and adding to a CV. They mean nothing regarding scientific facts, and as a number of studies have shown, most scientific papers are falsified in the long run. Further, papers are not scientific facts. Neither are computer models, or their output.

            zachriel claims that “therories are models”. By that definition, everything is a model. But what matters is this: a theory, or a hypothesis, or a conjecture, must be testable per the Scientific Method. It must be falsifiable. They must be able to accurately and consistently predict. But NO climate model has predicted the halt to global warming over the past sixteen years. Not one of them. No model has been able to take zachriel’s “nitrogen isotope studies of ice cores” and make it predict the climate. Therefore, the models are wrong. All of them. And those climate models are what zachriel and his pocket mouse claim are “theories”. As if.

            Per the Scientific Method, a theory makes reliable, consistently accurate predictions, such as the theory of relativity. But there is NO theory of climate change. None. It does not exist, for the simple reason that no one can predict the climate. [If zachriel the high school grad believes otherwise, then let's see him predict when the current halt to global warming will resume — or go the other way and begin the next Ice Age. If zach doesn't know, maybe he can ask his mouse.]

            Next, zachriel quotes my provably correct statement:

            “I see that zachriel continues to avoid the proven scientific fact that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not vice-versa.

            I posted a chart showing conclusively that rising temperature causes rising CO2, and challenged zachriel to produce a chart showing the opposite: that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. zachriel failed to produce any such chart, therefore my statement stands the test of empirical observation.

            zachriel really hates my statement here:

            “In fact, the planet has warmed at the same rate, whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming, therefore the rise in CO2 does not have any measurable effect. QED”

            zachriel cannot provide any reasonable and factual rebuttal to the fact that global temperatures have not accelerated, despite the very large rise in CO2. That fact alone destroys the CO2=CAGW conjecture. Without an adequate response, the alarmist crowd [zahcriel and his mouse] have lost the debate. They cannot provide a credible explanation as to why all that added CO2 does not have the predicted effect.

            Finally, zachriel must be sitting in his mom’s basement, unemployed, because he posts 24/7, around the clock. [I have been retired for ten years from a long carreer designing, maintaining and calibrating weather-related instruments in one of the country's largest Metrology labs.]

            And if I lived in my mom’s basement, I would probably have a pet mouse, too.

          • Smokey: zachriel cannot provide any reasonable and factual rebuttal to the fact that global temperatures have not accelerated, despite the very large rise in CO2. That fact alone destroys the CO2=CAGW conjecture.

            We have responded to this point. Perhaps you could restate our position to see if you understand it properly.

          • zachriel says:

            “We have responded to this point. Perhaps you could restate our position to see if you understand it properly.”

            First off, your responses refer to “we”. ‘We’ is the name of the mouse in your pocket? Because if you will notice, no one else here agrees with your incessant pontificating about your failed conjectures that have been repeatedly debunked. None of your sad arguments holds water. The fact is that no proof exists showing that the rise in CO2 is the cause of [natural] global warming.

            It is difficult debating with religious fanatics. Positions arrived at without using reason are very hard to refute using reason. Closed-minded religious faith is on display in each of zachriel’s comments, therefore other commenters’ responses are merely to set the record straight. As for zachriel, he is a religious True Believer, and as such he can never accept that global warming is natural. The cognitive dissonance would be too much for either him or his mouse to handle.

            As for ‘restating’ zachriel’s nonsense, that would be pointless, no? He has shown no ability to understand the facts presented. Perhaps if he had progressed beyond high school, he would be more capable of understanding the scientific facts presented here. As it is, however, his pocket mouse is giving him a run for his money…

          • Zachriel: Perhaps you could restate our position to see if you understand it properly.

            Smokey:

            In other words, no, you can’t.

          • zachriel says:

            “In other words, no, you can’t.”

            Coming from a high school graduate [or is it a GED?] with a mouse in his pocket, you sound just like I would expect: a complete idiot who has nothing factual to post.

            Everyone here is running circles around your totally weak appeals to your corrupt authorities, and like anyone else, we answer what we feel like answering. There is plenty of your nonsense that is not worth the pixels to a reply.

            Note that I have responded in great detail to what passes for your side of the runaway global warming belief system, annihilating your religious-based arguments in the process. In response, all you can reply with is a content-free, fact-free juvenile taunt.

            You have decisively lost the argument in this thread, being unable to produce a single verifiable fact, testable per the Scientific Method, and showing that human activity is responsible for global warming.

            There is no difference in either the trend, or the amplitude of warming, comparing with the pre- and post-industrial revolution period; or between low CO2 levels, and current, high CO2 levels.

            Those facts alone destroy your argument. You probably can’t see it due to your cognitive dissonance affliction. But everyone else can.

          • Smokey: Note that I have responded in great detail to what passes for your side of the runaway global warming belief system, annihilating your religious-based arguments in the process.

            You still didn’t answer the question. You don’t seem to be arguing in good faith. We also asked you for a scientific paper on the mean global temperatures of the Holocene Optimum. Perhaps you forgot.

          • After reading zachriel’s comments @July 16, 2013 at 3:11 pm, and @July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm, I am convinced that we are dealing with an insane person who actually believes he is composed of multiple personalities.

            This crazy person posts no testable scientific facts, but instead comments based on assertions [which just about always turn out to be scientific nonsense].

            Assertions are simply beliefs; opinions. Conjectures. But what it takes to prevail in a scientific discussion are verifiable facts. zachriel is sadly deficient when it comes to testable scientific facts. So he relies on his always-wrong computer models, and papers written by people who make their living by spreading the false alarm of climate doom.

            Someone has apparently wired around zachriel’s On/Off switch. Maybe his pocket mouse. But cherry-picking only those few points that seem to support his True Belief system is his primary tactic. As we see here, that tactic has failed.

            When the NY Times, The Economist, and other anti-science media throw in the towel and admit that global warming has stopped, the public debate is over. The alarmist crowd has decisively lost.

            More than anything, that sea-change of public opinion is based on the fact that the planet has not warmed during the past decade and a half — something so unexpected that it threw the entire alarmist crowd for a loop. Their present consternation is exemplified by zachriel’s inability to post a coherent argument.

            On the one side we have climate realists, who point out that global warming has stopped, even as CO2 continues to rise. On the other side we have one (1) individual [and his pocket mouse] trying to overturn common sense and scientific facts. As we see, that is not working for him. No one else agrees with his craziness.

            I have very much enjoyed watching the global warming scam implode. It has taken a while. But despite more than $100 BILLION in federal grants paid out since 2001 to ‘study climate change’, the only verifiable conclusion has been that nothing either unusual or unprecedented is happening. What is observed now has been observed many times in the past, and to a much greater degree; times when CO2 was much lower than it is now. [Even so, it shouold be noted that Nitrogen comprises 780,000 parts per million, Oxygen is 209,000 ppm, Argon is 10,000 ppm — but CO2, even today, is less than 400 ppm.]

            So zachriel can continue with his crazy, single-minded insistence that Down is Up, White is Black, Evil is Good — and Global Warming Is Gonna Getcha. The fact that it is nonsense is apparent to everyone else except zachriel.

            Pray for him. He needs it.

          • Having lost the argument due to his lack of factual evidence [he has only 'papers' and 'models'], zachriel and his mouse now fall back on their lame argument regarding the Holocene Optimum.

            Although I have answered their question in detail in my post of July 13, 2013 at 12:59 pm, let me point out once again that zachriel has admitted that he does not understand that we are still within the Holocene. No doubt he is getting his talking points from the mouse in his pocket, who surely knows more than zachriel.

            Here is more information on the Holocene [which, despite zachriel's ignorance, we are currently still in]:

            http://tiny.cc/92zb0w

            Note the Holocene Optimum [to the left of the Minoan]. The Holocene Optimum was one of the very warmest episodes of the Holocene; much warmer than now, and it happened when CO2 levels were very low — much lower than they are now — thus destroying zachriel’s falsified conjecture that CO2 is the cause of global warming, or that CO2 will cause runaway global warming.

            Now that I have once again provided zachriel with a little much-needed education, I would like to ask him again to explain why he believes the Greenland ice core record is not indicative of past global temperature trends? Because that was his easily-falsified claim.

            Before responding, and in order to avoid him embarassment, I suggest that zachriel et al [including his pocket mouse] read up on my post above. It has thirteen (13) links that destroy his belief in man-made global warming, and other beliefs that he doesn’t really understand, but which he buys into.

            zachriel has staked out his position based entirely on emotion. Therefore all the reason, and all the facts in the world have no effect on his religious belief. He attempts to pass himself off as multiple authorities ["we"], when in fact he is only one person [albeit one with a pocket mouse].

            So far there are no verifiable, testable facts supporting zachriel’s belief that human activity has any measurable effect on global temperatures — which also explains zachriel’s endless appeals to his bogus authories, and his misguided belief in his appeal-to-authority ‘papers’, and his belief in the always-wrong, appeal-to-authority computer climate models.

            If zachriel actually understood the climate Null Hypothesis, he would understand that the fact that current climate parameters have not been exceeded, which in turn thoroughly deconstructs his belief in man-made runaway global warming.

            But the concept of the Null Hypothesis is over zachriel’s head. He doesn’t understand it. Even if he did, it would not be sufficient to overcome his religious True Belief in the man-made runaway global warming scare — which in reality simply does not exist.

          • Smokey: Although I have answered their question in detail in my post of July 13, 2013 at 12:59 pm

            We rechecked your post. There’s some charts, but what we want is an actual citation which provides the mean global temperature during the Holocene Optimum.

            Smokey: The Holocene Optimum was one of the very warmest episodes of the Holocene

            That chart is for Greenland. We asked for the global mean. If you can’t provide such a study, then please just say so.

          • Smokey: posts no testable scientific facts

            In the first comment you refer to, we posted a graph from NASA showing the temperature trend.

            In the second comment, we responded to your direct, albeit off-topic, question.

            Smokey: More than anything, that sea-change of public opinion is based on the fact that the planet has not warmed during the past decade and a half —

            That is incorrect, even when starting from a very strong El Niño followed by a double-dip La Niña .

            1997 0.45
            1998 0.61
            1999 0.40
            2000 0.40
            2001 0.53
            2002 0.61
            2003 0.60
            2004 0.51
            2005 0.65
            2006 0.59
            2007 0.62
            2008 0.49
            2009 0.59
            2010 0.66
            2011 0.54
            2012 0.56

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
            Smokey: No one else agrees with his craziness.

            “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”
            http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          • zachriel says:

            “There is a distinct warming trend.”

            And thus, once again zachriel shows everyone here that he is completely out of touch with reality:

            http://tiny.cc/nudc0w

            As we see, there is no “warming trend”. [I have a large folder full of charts showing the same lack of warming, but if I post more than one in any one comment, moderation approval will be delayed.]

            The planet has been cooling, while [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise. Even arch-alarmist Phil Jones admits that fact.

            zachriel [speaking only for himself] says:

            We have responded to this point. Perhaps you could restate our position to see if you understand it properly.” <– Insufferable bogosity.

            I challenge zachriel to name everyone else he pretends to be referring to, when he says "we". He is lying, of course. "zachriel" is not the name of a commune. Why he pretends to be multiple personalities is beyond me, but then I am not a forensic psychologist; I can't make a medical diagnosis, but I can attest as an intelligent and educated professional that zachriel is nuts.

            I have posted at least twenty discrete facts that directly contradict zachriel's point of view, and also asked him [and his pocket mouse] some pointed questions. I have answered his questions, but he doesn't seem to be able to give any answers in return. That has happened before in this thread, where zachriel states for a fact that, eg, Vangel did not make a statement — and then zachriel immediately contradicted himself. In this jumbled thread I am not surprised that zachriel can't find his answers.

            Whatever. But it is pompous to be demanding the same thing over and over, when zachriel either cannot or will not answer the questions posed by others, or respond to facts posted, which contradict his belief system. The reason, of course, is because if zachriel did so, he would be admitting that his man-made global warming belief has been falsified.

            zachriel has not posted one single verifiable, testable fact proving that human emissions cause a rise in global temperatures. Not one. All he posts are his baseless assertions, appealing to the bogus authority of always-wrong climate models and papers hand-waved through the pal-review process by conniving warmist clique members, as we've seen repeatedly in the Climategate emails.

            Finally, zachriel as usual tries to turn the Scientific Method on its head, by demanding that scientific skeptics must in effect prove a negative: zachriel demands that we have to identify any OISM names that are phony. My personal position is that they are all legitimate. I posted the names [after zachriel said he couldn't find them]. Per the Scientific Method, the onus is now on zachriel to try and falsify the list.

            But zachriel has been incapable of even showing one name that is not legitimate [and even if zachriel came up with a dozen names, that would still leave more than thirty thousand scientists and engineers — a number far in excess of any putative "consensus" that is claimed by the alarmist crowd].

            In fact, it is zachriel who is the phony here. Furthermore, he does not even understand how science works: if someone formulates a hypothesis, all it takes is one verifiable fact to falsify it, as Einstein said. Here, I will give an example of a falsifiable hypothesis:

            At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere; on net balance, more CO2 is better.

            That is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Simply show where the rise in CO2 has caused verifiable global harm, or damage, that is attributable specifically to human CO2 emissions. Good luck with that.

            It is not my duty to falsify my own hypothesis [although I should try, which I have]. The onus is entirely upon those disagreeing, to try to falsify it. But so far, they have failed.

            It is the same with the OISM list: I posted the list, so now it is up to zachriel or anyone else to show that one [or more] name[s] is not legitimate. But so far, they have failed.

            zachriel cannot produce any fake names, so he dishonestly claims that it is my duty to find names that don’t belong. Science doesn’t work that way. But that’s how witch doctors operated.

            If someone is that clueless about how science works, then no wonder they come to the wrong conclusions.

            If/when zachriel answers my twenty or so facts, and answers the questions I asked him first, then I will show him where I already answered the question he is pestering me about. I am nothing if not consistent, and honest. But as they say to people recommending culling the population: “You first”.

            Until then, I will be basking in the comfortable knowledge that there is no man-made global warming “consensus” by zachriel and his clique. And there never was.

          • zachriel makes the preposterous and easily debunked false assertion that I do not post testable facts, when I have provide lots of peer-reviewed charts in my numerous links. Only a fool could deny the testable, verifiable and falsifiable facts that I have presented.

            Obviously, zachriel is at the point where he can only make nonsense statements.

            Further, I have answered his questions. He just doesn’t like the answers, because they debunk his religious True Belief.

            And finally, I once again challenge zachriel’s mendacious and deluded claims of pretended support here. The identities of those he purportedly speaks for, when he says “we” and “our”, are strangely missing. For someone who has shown himself to be dishonest, we need facts. zachriel has given us no reason to trust what he claims. So, names, please. Otherwise, zachriel is lying when he refers to “us” and “we”.

            My challenge is that zachriel is fabricating non-existent entities in a lame attempt to show that he has support, when we know he is winging it. He has no supporters here. None at all, except for his pocket mouse.

            If I am wrong, simply post the identities of your fictitious peanut gallery, zachriel. You can easily make me look foolish by doing so. But by not identifying your fictitious cheering section, you show the rest of us that you are inventing support where you have none at all… except for the mouse in your pocket.

            As the only representative of the climate alarmist cult posting here, you portray yourself as a full-fledged wacko. Keep it up, we can use the amusement.

      • Of course, it’s not surprising at all that all you Zachs would cite a “consensus” on something that there wasn’t a consensus on. The “consensus” is a straw man. Meaning the question asked was different from the conclusion drawn. That study the alarmists like to bring up has some real whoppers in it misclassifying many studies to say their conclusions supported what the author claimed they did, when those studies in fact did no such thing.

        Michael Mann, East Anglia’s “trick” data, 97% consensus, and the list goes on. Is there any claim that “environmentalists” claim that doesn’t rely on deception?

        • Ken: Of course, it’s not surprising at all that all you Zachs would cite a “consensus” on something that there wasn’t a consensus on.

          American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”
          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

        • Michael Mann, East Anglia’s “trick” data, 97% consensus, and the list goes on. Is there any claim that “environmentalists” claim that doesn’t rely on deception?

          Rhetorical questions are appropriate at times. The answer is no, there is no claim that “environmentalists” claim about climate that doesn’t rely on deception.

  4. Steve Hamlin:

    There is NO testable, reproducible scientific evidence, based on the Scientific Method, showing that CO2 ["carbon"] has ANY measurable effect on global temperatures at current concentrations. There is simply no such evidence.

    CO2 increased ahead of lobal temperatures only from around 1980 until 1997. During all other recorded times, the rise in CO2 FOLLOWED the rise in temperature. But the climate alarmist crowd hangs its hat on those 17 years, ignoring the plain fact that it only shows coincidental correlation.

    The entire man-made global warming fabrication is actually a man-made scam, feeding off of the $BILLIONS in annual federal grants paid out to ‘study climate change’.

    When $billions are paid to find something, then ‘something’ will be found — whether it exists or not. There is no scientific evidence showing that man-made global warming exists to any measurable degree. If it does, it is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, because it is too small to measure. Forcing our energy bills to skyrocket based on an evidence-free conjecture is crazy.

    The public is finally beginning to see that the government’s wet dream is to tax the very air we breathe, based on zero scientific evidence. Demonizing harmless “carbon” is a scam, pure and simple.

    Keep in mind that if something cannot be measured, it is NOT science. Unmeasurable conjectures belong in witch doctor territory. That is where you will find the purveyors of ‘man-made global warming’.

  5. 1) A Global Warming advocate interviewed in Der Speigel said that the 15 year ‘hiatus’ in GW only had a 2% chance of occurring thus it throws the models into question.

    2) An Australian research group said that the earth’s deserts have gained 11% in their foilage since 1983 due to more CO2 in the air; ie, a benefit not a curse. (If we do have GW Siberia should bloom.)

    Settled Science! Bah Humbug! It’s an oxymoron.

  6. Matt Ridley: Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather.”

    That’s just silly. The terms mean different things, and are all still in use.

      • “Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth’s surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is causing climate patterns to change. However, global warming itself represents only one aspect of climate change.”
        http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

        Here’s just a few papers in major journals in the last year.


        Shakun et al., Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature 2012

        Dai, Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models, Nature Climate 2012


        Shindell et al., Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security, Science 2012

        Bellard et al., Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity, Ecology Letters 2012

        Francis et al., Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes, Geophysical Research Letters 2012

        Meisner et al., Soil biotic legacy effects of extreme weather events influence plant invasiveness, PNAS 2013

        • “Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth’s surface….”

          And since the globe is not having an “ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth’s surface”, the term “climate change” was brought into existence, then “extreme weather” when the data, again, didn’t fit the model. The moving goals posts are to get the police state to implement policies the extremists want by any means necessary. What’s a few lies when considering the delicate sensibilities of these extremists, right?

          • Ken: And since the globe is not having an “ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth’s surface”, the term “climate change” was brought into existence, then “extreme weather” when the data, again, didn’t fit the model.

            As we showed, all three terms are in current use as they mean different things.

        • zach-

          please provide us with even one global warming model that has evidenced solid predictive ability.

          fitting past climate using plug variables and reverse engineered data mining does not count.

          show us one model that made predictions and worked.

    • zachriel:

      You are getting so badly spanked here by people who understand science that your arguments can only be emanating from your religious True Belief in manmade global warming. But in reality, there is no scientific evidence proving that any such manmade warming exists.

      More than 30,000 degreed professional scientists, including over 9,000 PhD’s in the hard sciences, have co-signed a Petition categorically stating as a matter of scientific fact that carbon dioxide is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

      That leaves no room for either a bogus claim of “consensus”, or for your false demonizing of “carbon”.

      Further, there is ZERO scientific evidence that testably demonstrates that CO2 causes any global warming:

      http://tiny.cc/8ai4zw

      Your entire argument has gone down in flames. All you can do now is try to fight a rearguard action as you retreat, by using rhetorical conjectures rather than scientific facts.

      The planet is not acting as you and plenty of other climate alarmists predicted it would act. Despite the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global warming has STOPPED for at least sixteen years now, and there is no sign that it will resume.

      So tell us: who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or your scientifically illiterate crowd of religious True Believers? Because the Planet and the True Believers cannot both be right. Can they?

      • Smokey: You are getting so badly spanked here by people who understand science

        That puts us in company with every major scientific organization in the world. You would think all those scientists would know something about science. Maybe they should read this thread.

        Smokey: More than 30,000 degreed professional scientists, including over 9,000 PhD’s in the hard sciences, have co-signed a Petition categorically stating as a matter of scientific fact that carbon dioxide is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

        Heh. How many are named “Steve”?

        We tried verifying some of the names, but there doesn’t seem to be any information provided. And only a BS? You might compare that to the membership in the National Academy of Sciences.

        • That puts us in company with every major scientific organization in the world. You would think all those scientists would know something about science. Maybe they should read this thread.

          Please provide us with a link where these organizations actually asked their members about AGW and we will have something to talk about. Until you do there is no merit in your statements. And keep in mind that ‘scientific organizations’ have often been on the wrong side of the empirical evidence. Science is not about consensus. It is about the scientific method. You propose a hypothesis and test it. If the evidence falsifies the hypothesis you move on.

          The reason why the AGW industry is concentrating on consensus is because the empirical evidence has falsified its hypothesis. Without an empirical foundation the advocates have to move away from the scientific method towards the political sphere where words like consensus can be used to confuse the public.

          We tried verifying some of the names, but there doesn’t seem to be any information provided. And only a BS? You might compare that to the membership in the National Academy of Sciences.

          But the members of the NAS have never been asked their opinion so we don’t know what percentage of them believe the AGW hypothesis. And the petition against the AGW fraud does include two Noble winners in physics, plenty of PhDs, and a lot of very practical engineers who understand what is required to know something and how to deal with uncertainty. I would rather pay attention to their opinion than to political appointees like Rajendra Pachauri, who is a railway engineer that moved on into the political sphere.

          • Vangel: And keep in mind that ‘scientific organizations’ have often been on the wrong side of the empirical evidence. Science is not about consensus.

            Sure, but expert opinion is more likely to be right than non-expert opinion within a given field. That’s why people go to doctors for their medical needs rather than a carpenter.

            In any case, we were responding to someone else’s invalid appeal to authority.

            Vangel: But the members of the NAS have never been asked their opinion so we don’t know what percentage of them believe the AGW hypothesis.

            The NAS has regular elections for their leadership. Positions taken by scientific organizations are based on relevant expert opinion.

            Vangel: And the petition against the AGW fraud does include two Noble winners in physics, plenty of PhDs, and a lot of very practical engineers who understand what is required to know something and how to deal with uncertainty.

            How many are named “Steve”?

          • Sure, but expert opinion is more likely to be right than non-expert opinion within a given field. That’s why people go to doctors for their medical needs rather than a carpenter.

            What ‘expert opinion’ do we have on climate? Mann is not an expert on climate. He is a paleo researcher who is not very good at math. Trenberth is not an expert in climate. He is a meteorologist who pretended to be an expert on hurricanes after Katrina and has made some lousy predictions even as he claims that the IPCC makes no predictions. Hansen is not an expert on climate.

            Note that you are trying to appeal to authority and look for consensus again. We have already established that there is no consensus. There are no polls of NAS, AGU, or other academies’ members that show any consensus. And science depends on the scientific method, not consensus. To falsify a hypothesis you need one that makes predictions that can be tested. But according to Trenberth and others in the IPCC the IPCC makes no predictions but deals in projections. That is activism, not science.

          • Vangel: What ‘expert opinion’ do we have on climate?

            All sorts. Why you point to them yourself, such as Otto et al. above.

            Vangel: Mann is not an expert on climate.

            Most of his peers disagree. He’s director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union, elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, and of course published numerous peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.

          • All sorts. Why you point to them yourself, such as Otto et al. above.

            Otto is not an expert on climate. She is physicist and philosopher. The other Otto is a computer/math guy. So are most of the other authors. Very few of them have the expertise to deal with the issue of climate and can only talk with any expertise on narrow issues. The problem there is the fact that their paper does not agree with the papers of other ‘experts’ with similar qualifications. So what we have are people who are arguing about something that they don’t really have much of a handle on and wind up using models because there is no empirical data that can be used to come to the desired conclusion.

            That is not science.

            Most of his peers disagree. He’s director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union, elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, and of course published numerous peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.</b.

            All very nice but the NAS found that he did not really understand statistics as the mining engineer who discovered his errors and the problems with the data that he was using. He is clearly less of an expert than SM because CRU has finally conceded that the data used was improper. When his pal Briffa used the new data set the hockey stick went away to the surprise of no-one who was familiar with the issues involved. Mann only knows trees but even at that he is a poor researcher. He got recognition because of his services to the cause, not because of his scientific accomplishments.

          • Vangel: Otto is not an expert on climate. She is physicist and philosopher.

            For her Diploma project she worked at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute of Polar and Marine Research on the influence of stratospheric chemistry on planetary wave dynamics in complex climate models.

            Vangel: The other Otto is a computer/math guy.

            Considering you have been complaining about some of the statistical analysis, it makes sense to have mathematical expertise in the group.

            Vangel: So are most of the other authors.

            They were published in Nature, so they already are among a select group of scientists. But let’s look at the rest, most of whom had extensive publication records.

            Oliver Bouchard completed his PhD on aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions, received the Prud’homme prize of the Société Météorologique de France.

            John Church has led many scientific research groups, is an expert on sea level, and has contributed to many published papers.

            Gabi Hegerl is Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh.

            Piers Forster is Professor of Physical Climate Change; Intrim Director of Research; Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award holder.

            Gregory C. Johnson is an oceanographer at the Ocean Climate Research Division.

            Reto Knutti and Ulrike Lohmann are professors at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Zürich.

            Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke is Director at Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

            Drew Shindell is an ozone specialist and climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

            Bjorn Stevens is Professor Clouds & Climate Processes at the Max Planck Institute.

            Myles Allen has his PhD in Oceanic and Planetary Physicsand currently leads the Climate Dynamics Group in the Department of Physics at Oxford.

            They are real scientists, doing real scientific work. If you have objections to their findings, then you have to address the specifics of the paper.

          • For her Diploma project she worked at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute of Polar and Marine Research on the influence of stratospheric chemistry on planetary wave dynamics in complex climate models.

            Correct. She is a math/comp-sci person who knows little about climate. Working on computer models does not mean that one is an expert in the climate system unless you can show that the model has predictive skills. No modern models do.

            Considering you have been complaining about some of the statistical analysis, it makes sense to have mathematical expertise in the group.

            When you do empirical work yes, you need a math person. But a math guy who makes models is not very useful when you do not understand what has to go into the models. For example, none of the models that I have looked at deals with cloud formation very well. Given the fact that changes in cloud cover can explain all of the trends in the past few centuries that is a problem.

            They were published in Nature, so they already are among a select group of scientists. But let’s look at the rest, most of whom had extensive publication records.

            I have seen many papers be published only to have someone like Steve McIntyre point out the errors within hours or days of publication and have the conclusions withdrawn. So excuse me if I don’t kneel down and bow before the reviewers.

            Oliver Bouchard completed his PhD on aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions, received the Prud’homme prize of the Société Météorologique de France

            Great. How much does he know about the relationship between solar activity, CRF, and the formation of CCNs? Given the fact that this could explain most of the temperature trend changes it matters.

            John Church has led many scientific research groups, is an expert on sea level, and has contributed to many published papers.

            He is a science jock who loves the outdoors. How does that make him qualified to talk about how ENSO events effect temperature trends?

            Gabi Hegerl is Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh.

            And what exactly is that?

            Piers Forster is Professor of Physical Climate Change; Intrim Director of Research; Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award holder.

            How does that make him qualified to talk with authority about the climate again? Does he have the expertise in the relationship between solar activity and climate? Does he understand the role of ocean currents? Can he explain why ENSO phenomenon appear as they do? Note that even the IPCC has admitted to ignorance about many of these factors so what you basically are telling us that we need to trust these guys even though they cannot explain some of the simpler phenomenon.

            Gregory C. Johnson is an oceanographer at the Ocean Climate Research Division.

            So he must have a paper that that explains how ENSO works? Will 2019 be an El Niño year? La Nina? How strong will it be? Now if he cannot tell me this why am I supposed to think that he is qualified to tell me about the climate system again?

            See the pattern? You have a lot of people with narrow specialties trying to tell me something about a complex system like the climate. The story of the blind man explaining an elephant comes to mind but this elephant has hundreds of dimensions and different scales.

          • Reto Knutti and Ulrike Lohmann are professors at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Zürich.

            Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke is Director at Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

            Drew Shindell is an ozone specialist and climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

            Bjorn Stevens is Professor Clouds & Climate Processes at the Max Planck Institute.

            Myles Allen has his PhD in Oceanic and Planetary Physicsand currently leads the Climate Dynamics Group in the Department of Physics at Oxford.

            They are real scientists, doing real scientific work. If you have objections to their findings, then you have to address the specifics of the paper.

            But these ‘real scientists’ can’t even predict ENSO events. They cannot explain to me how much the UHI effect and measurement bias have contributed to the warming trend. So why is it that we have to believe that they can explain the climate or come up with an accurate estimate for sensitivity? And what about the other people who are just as qualified and also publish papers with very different conclusions? Note that you are still mostly arguing about conclusions that come from models and do not seem to be supported by the actual observations. If sensitivity were as great as the IPCC said it was we would not have had twenty years without statistically significant warming.

            See your problem?

          • Smokey: It took me all of fifteen seconds to locate the names of all the OISM co-signers

            Yes, so you’ve verified the identities and qualifications of the signers?

          • Sure I did. Two trees for the 11th century. Missing many data points that could have been used. A 100 year average that includes 50 years during which the IPCC agrees that human effects were minor. There is nothing there. All you have is another paper that the IPCC would like to use to make another claim that will later be seen to be false just as it has done that again and again. When Marcott failed the promoters of AGW needed something else and Briffa gave it to them. The problem is that the new chronology does not show much warming for the later part of the 20th century. He even shows the 1930s warmer than the 1990s. So much for human emissions of CO2.

            http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/yamal_chronology_compare-to-b13.png?w=1020&h=720

            You didn’t look at the data, did you?

          • Vangel: Sure I did. Two trees for the 11th century.

            Um, we were discussing Otto, Otto, Boucher, Church, Hegerl, Forster, Gillett, Gregory, Johnson, Knutti, Lewis, Lohmann, Marotzke, Myhre, Shindell, Stevens, & Allen; Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013.

          • Um, we were discussing Otto, Otto, Boucher, Church, Hegerl, Forster, Gillett, Gregory, Johnson, Knutti, Lewis, Lohmann, Marotzke, Myhre, Shindell, Stevens, & Allen; Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013.

            OK. You have a paper that disagrees with many other papers written by people who are not experts in the field because there are no experts. When it comes to this topic what we have are differences in opinion and differences in methodology. (Plus the occasional cherry picking of data.) Needless to say that if the sensitivity were as high and CO2 were as important as was being claimed we would not have had a standstill for 18 years and the claims would not be based on which starting point we chose. Like I said, if I choose the 1930s as my starting point there would be no warming at all. If I chose the depths of the LIA there would be a great deal of warming but that would go away if I chose the MWP, RW, MW, or HO periods. The fact is that there is nothing man made about what we are seeing unless you want to bring in measurement bias due to instrument siting and changes in land use.

          • zachriel says:

            “Heh. How many are named ‘Steve’?”

            …A lot more than those named “zachriel”, no? ‘Steve’ is a very common name. Does it really surprise you that there are some OISM co-signers named ‘Steve’?

            And:

            We tried verifying some of…” And also:

            “That’s just silly. Different terms mean different things, and are all still in use.”

            Yes, zachriel, different terms mean differnet things… such as” ‘chest thumping’, ‘spam’, ‘ad hominem‘, etc. Your completely bogus “Spam Guard” invention is a case in point. You pretended to have that fictional program, which arbitrarily weeds out vague terms like those you list above — terms that mean very different things to different people. So how is a ‘Spam Guard’ computer program able to distinguish what a writer means when he uses vague terms like those?

            Isn’t it about time that you admitted that you are just winging it, zachriel? Your: “we”, “us”, etc., are only figments of your imagination, and nothing more. You have been caught out; exposed as a charlatan. You are a complete fake, and everyone here can see it.

            Time to stop trying to fool intelligent people, zachriel, and give up your fake persona as a putative spokesperson for your non-existent climate alarmist entities. You are speaking for no one except yourself, and everyone here can see it.

            So my suggestion is this: move out of your mom’s basement, and join the real world. Sure, you will have to do your own laundry from now on, but that is a small price to pay for some needed self-respect.

            We’re on to you, zachriel, and your pocket mouse, too. Apparently everyone can see the simple-minded fraud you’re perpetrating here except for you. Really, pal, it’s time to grow up.

            As Ken says:

            All of you are still incorrect, Zachs.”

            True dat, Ken.

        • zachriel says:

          “We tried verifying some of the names, but there doesn’t seem to be any information provided.”

          zachriel appears to be no more competent at doing a basic search than he is at basic science. It took me all of fifteen seconds to locate the names of all the OISM co-signers:

          http://tiny.cc/3al6zw

          zachriel also says:

          “You might compare that to the membership in the National Academy of Sciences.”

          I did: There are more than 31,000 co-signers of the OISM Petition, while there are only about 2,000 NAS members.

          • Smokey: It took me all of fifteen seconds to locate the names of all the OISM co-signers

            Yes, so you’ve verified the identities and qualifications of the signers?

          • zachriel,

            I have to be careful to not insult the reality impaired, so I will try to be gentle with you:

            The fact is that the OISM Petition has been published for about fourteen years now. The climate alarmist contingent has tried desperately for all that time to comb through every name in order to find phonies. And in fact, they did find a few in the beginning. Less than a dozen out of 31,000+, IIRC.

            The plain fact that no one has been able to falsify the petition co-signers is a very strong piece of evidence that the listed signers that remain are legitimate.

            So let us know if you find any that aren’t. Take your time. We will delete any you can find, and go with the tens of thousands of the remaining co-signers.

            Finally, I note that you argue with just about everyone here, and just about everyone disagrees with your strange view of reality. You do not accept facts, but instead you cut ‘n’ paste the names of your favorite climate alarmists; folks who are riding the climate gravy train, and thus have a vested, self-serving interest in keeping the fake scare alive.

            But you do not even try to refute the facts presented. Appeals to authority are your tools, but of course they do not take the place of your non-existent scientific evidence.

            You cannot face the fact that global warming has stopped, and not just for a short time. Even ultralib outlets like the NY Times are now forced to admit that global warming has stopped. Even Phil Jones admits it. The Economist admits it. But you cannot.

            As someone else has pointed out here, you are big on ‘consensus’ — except when it is not convenient for you. You have lost the consensus battle here, and lost it badly. You are the lone ranger. No one agrees with you, because the facts show otherwise.

            But by all means, keep digging. It’s fun giving your belief system a repeated spanking. And you will get another, as soon as the [very slow] moderator here approves my comment with the 13 links that show you were wrong again — thirteen times over.

          • Smokey: The fact is that the OISM Petition has been published for about fourteen years now. The climate alarmist contingent has tried desperately for all that time to comb through every name in order to find phonies.

            That’s funny. You introduce an appeal to authority but it is up to others to determine who these people are and verify their credentials.

            An appeal to authority is valid when

            * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
            * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
            * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
            * There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
            * There is no evidence of undue bias.

            The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

            Smokey: Appeals to authority are your tools, but of course they do not take the place of your non-existent scientific evidence.

            That’s funny. You introduced an appeal to authority saying, “More than 30,000 degreed professional scientists, including over 9,000 PhD’s in the hard sciences, have co-signed a Petition categorically stating as a matter of scientific fact that carbon dioxide is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.”

            Now it turns out that the website says the signers only need an undergraduate degree, there’s apparently no process in place to verify the information, and the vast majority have no record of scientific publication as would be expected of “professional scientists”.

            Smokey: As someone else has pointed out here, you are big on ‘consensus’

            No. We’re more than happy to discuss the evidence. You might start with the warming of the surface over the last few decades accompanied by a cooling stratosphere. We’d be happy to hear your explanation.
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

            Smokey: Finally, I note that you argue with just about everyone here, and just about everyone {here} disagrees with your strange view of reality.

            As we said above, that puts us in company with every major scientific organization in the world. You would think all those scientists would know something about science. Maybe they should read this thread.

          • I posted more than 31,000 names of highly educated people, all with degrees in the hard sciences [no Sociologists, English Lit majors, doctors (unless their degree was in the hard sciences); no "Studies" majors, etc.], including more than 9,000 PhD’s. Every one of them co-signed a statement attesting to the fact that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

            Out of those 31,000+ names, zachriel was not able to show even ONE name that is not legitimate. Not one.

            The flip side of that coin is that zachriel has been able to show maybe a couple of dozen alarmist names — at the most. And the names he posted all make their living by pushing the runaway global warming scare. Every one of them.

            That proves beyond any doubt that the so-called “consensus” is completely bogus; a fabricated statistic that is falsified by reality.

            The false “consensus” nonsense is typical of the lies spread by the climate alarmist cult, which cannot even produce basic scientific facts to support their failed conjecture. Instead, they refer to ‘papers’ as their authority. But papers are not evidence. They are not testable data. In the end, they are nothing but opinions.

            The fact is that there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. Nothing unprecedented is happening; it has all happened before, and to a greater degree.

            So why do people like zachriel lie about it? What is their motive? The real world is clearly falsifying their belief system, everyone can see that. zachriel is fooling no one here. He is purveying a mendacious false alarm. He surely must know that nothing is happening now that has not happened in the past [if he believes otherwise, he needs to post whatever it is he believes has never happened before, and I will show him where he's wrong.]

            Bearing false witness used to be a major no-no, but it seems that just like many other wrongs, it is now A-OK to tell lies in order to try and win an argument.

            zachriel is all alone in his attempt to show that white is black, down is up, and runaway global warming is upon us. But he is lying. Why?

            I don’t think zachriel’s momma brought him up right.

          • Zachriel: We’re more than happy to discuss the evidence.

            Notably, you retreated to your faulty appeal to authority.

            Smokey: I posted more than 31,000 names of highly educated people,

            You had said they were “professional scientists”.

            Smokey: Out of those 31,000+ names, zachriel was not able to show even ONE name that is not legitimate.

            Not our job. It’s your appeal to authority.

            -
            An appeal to authority is valid when

            * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
            * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
            * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
            * There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
            * There is no evidence of undue bias.

            The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
            -

            A list of names of otherwise unidentifiable people who purport to have a BS does not constitute sufficient expertise.

  7. morganovich: please provide us with even one global warming model that has evidenced solid predictive ability.

    The most direct evidence is a warming surface and lower atmosphere accompanied by a cooling stratosphere, a signature of greenhouse warming.

    • that is not an answer, it’s self referential conjecture.

      it’s also false. the mid tropospheric hotspot from agw has never been found.

      the atmosphere is NOT behaving the way you claim.

      further, that is not a model, has no predictive ability, nor any use as a tool for attributing cause or even possessing any positive proof.

      it’s just another of your assumed premises.

      • morganovich: it’s also false. the mid tropospheric hotspot from agw has never been found.

        We didn’t mention the mid-troposphere.

        morganovich: further, that is not a model, has no predictive ability, nor any use as a tool for attributing cause or even possessing any positive proof.

        Of course it’s a model, highly simplified, of course.

        • We didn’t mention the mid-troposphere.

          The IPCC did. It was the equatorial mid-troposphere where the hot spot would prove that the AGW theory was correct. Well, there was no hot spot, which means that the theory has been falsified.

          • Zachriel: We didn’t mention the mid-troposphere.

            Vangel: The IPCC did.

            V: Provide a model
            Z: Provides a simplified model
            V: Squirrel!

            Vangel: It was the equatorial mid-troposphere where the hot spot would prove that the AGW theory was correct.

            Well, no. The tropical hotspot is not a signature of greenhouse warming, but due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

            Vangel: Well, there was no hot spot, which means that the theory has been falsified.

            That’s not been shown either. The historical data is sparse and disjointed and is not sufficient to rule out the hot spot. However, it is observed over short time scales.

            Santer et al., Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere, Science 2005.

            Titchner et al., Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments, Journal of Climate 2009.

            Allen & Sherwood, Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, Nature Geoscience 2008

          • Vangel: The IPCC did.

            V: Provide a model
            Z: Provides a simplified model
            V: Squirrel!

            Thank you for proving my point. The IPCC’s models did predict equatorial mid-troposphere warming. When it was not found the prediction was ignored. This is why you frauds keep talking about consensus instead of looking at the empirical evidence.

            Well, no. The tropical hotspot is not a signature of greenhouse warming, but due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

            That is the story now. It wasn’t before. The IPCC even included the prediction in one its Assessment Reports. It was after the evidence showed that the models were wrong that the story changed.

            That’s not been shown either. The historical data is sparse and disjointed and is not sufficient to rule out the hot spot. However, it is observed over short time scales.

            LOL…This from a guy who accepts papers where proxies are used upside-down and the data includes magical trees that deviate by seven standard deviations from their neighbours?

            Like I said, you guys abandoned the pretence of being scientific a long time ago. Have to stones to admit that yours is a faith-based political position and see what the public says. The more you pretend to be scientific the less credible you look as more and more evidence is found against your position and the reality deviates more and more from the predictions.

          • Vangel: Thank you for proving my point.

            Your challenge was to provide a model. We provided a simplified model, and rather than respond to that, you changed the subject.

            Vangel: This is why you frauds keep talking about consensus instead of looking at the empirical evidence.

            We didn’t mention consensus, but the contrary temperature trends between the surface and the stratosphere.

            Vangel: It wasn’t before.

            It’s always been the story. However, it is predicted in models due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

            Vangel: This from a guy who accepts papers …

            In other words, you have no substantive response to the research we provided, so you wave your hands instead.

          • Your challenge was to provide a model. We provided a simplified model, and rather than respond to that, you changed the subject.

            I pointed to the IPCC models, which made a clear prediction about an equatorial mid-troposheric warming signature. It was not found in the data. You changed the subject.

            We didn’t mention consensus, but the contrary temperature trends between the surface and the stratosphere.

            The IPCC models predicted an AGW signature. The evidence falsified that prediction. Instead of admitting the problem you went on with another narrative even as the IPCC stopped making predications that can be falsified and by doing so moved away from the scientific method and into the political advocacy sphere.

            Like I have written over and over again, there isn’t any empirical evidence that shows that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 are a material driver of temperature. Even that fraud, Phil Jones admitted that the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 were identical to the 1975-1998 rate. The first two were natural. There is no empirical evidence that the last one isn’t. In fact Jones said that the reason why the IPCC thinks that the last warming trend is due to man is because its models, you know the ones that make no predictions, can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing as if those were the only factors. Since the models are very simple and ignore ENSO, PDO, AMO, AO effects, the role of soot, urbanization, measurement bias, solar activity, etc., I do not see why anyone concerned with the scientific method would see their output as anything but narrative.

            Note that the ‘temperature scenarios’ generated by the models were off the mark by a significant amount. The models failed to produce a period during which temperatures would fail to increase along with CO2 levels, an observation which is useful in determining that the IPCC overestimated the sensitivity.

            It’s always been the story. However, it is predicted in models due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

            But it hasn’t been the story. The IPCC’s models were clear that we could expect a warming signature to appear. It wasn’t.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

          • Vangel: I pointed to the IPCC models …

            Gee whiz, Vangel. We were asked by morganovich to “provide us with even one global warming model that has evidenced solid predictive ability.” So we did. There’s quite a few separate discussion going on, so perhaps you got them mixed up.

            Vangel: The IPCC models predicted an AGW signature.

            The models certainly predicted the tropical tropospheric hotspot due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It’s not a signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, but should occur due to any source of warming, such as increases in solar irradiation. In any case, it’s been detected over short time spans, and not ruled out by the long term data. We provided citations above.

          • Gee whiz, Vangel. We were asked by morganovich to “provide us with even one global warming model that has evidenced solid predictive ability.” So we did. There’s quite a few separate discussion going on, so perhaps you got them mixed up.

            But you didn’t do anything of the kind. None of the models used by the IPCC showed a two decade standstill while CO2 emissions kept rising. Note that even the IPCC has said that its models have no predictive ability and that it deals with PROJECTIONS instead.

            The models certainly predicted the tropical tropospheric hotspot due to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It’s not a signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, but should occur due to any source of warming, such as increases in solar irradiation. In any case, it’s been detected over short time spans, and not ruled out by the long term data. We provided citations above.

            Short time spans? The theory has CO2 creating a radiative imbalance that creates a hot spot that can be observed over time, not in short time spans. As I wrote, the models failed. Everyone but you seems to know that the models failed and many inside the AGW camp are now admitting that some of their pals went way over the top and overstated their claims while they underplayed the uncertainties.

            If you do not believe me check out Mann latest caper. He uses Marcott to try to rehabilitate his hockey stick even when the authors made clear that 20th century portion of their results is “not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” Marcott made the admission after Steve McIntyre found the errors in the paper after its release and sent his comments to the authors. You have to admit that when a mining engineer is better at finding errors than all the reviewers in the journals there has to be a big problem with the process. This is why the skeptics have a problem with many of the reports that are being cited. The journals are true believers and do a piss poor job of looking at the data and methodology as objectively as the scientific method demands. They let authors state conclusions that are based on unarchived data and are not reproducible when proper methodology is applied to the data. When you let an author base his conclusions on an algorithm that creates hockey sticks from random inputs out of phone books and ignore the fact that the author uses proxies that the NAS itself says are inappropriate you have a serious credibility problem. And when your supporters claim that you must pick some cherries to bake a cherry pie any pretence of using the scientific method fades away very rapidly.

            As I have written before, it is time that you abandoned the pretence and admitted that yours is a faith-based, political position. Otherwise you are a creationist who pretends to be scientific.

          • Vangel: But you didn’t do anything of the kind.

            Sure we did. We provided a simplified model of greenhouse warming. You just choose to ignore it.

            Vangel: None of the models used by the IPCC showed a two decade standstill while CO2 emissions kept rising.

            There’s a strong linear trend over the last two decades.

            1992 0.19
            1993 0.21
            1994 0.28
            1995 0.43
            1996 0.33
            1997 0.45
            1998 0.61
            1999 0.40
            2000 0.40
            2001 0.53
            2002 0.61
            2003 0.60
            2004 0.51
            2005 0.65
            2006 0.59
            2007 0.62
            2008 0.49
            2009 0.59
            2010 0.66
            2011 0.54
            2012 0.56

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

            Vangel: Note that even the IPCC has said that its models have no predictive ability and that it deals with PROJECTIONS instead.

            Actually, they deal in both projections and predictions (which they define as projections that are “most likely”).

            Vangel: Short time spans?

            That’s right. The moist adiabatic moist lapse should occur in short time scales.

            Vangel: The theory has CO2 creating a radiative imbalance that creates a hot spot that can be observed over time, not in short time spans.

            That’s obviously false.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Saturated_adiabatic_lapse_rate

            Santer et al., Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere, Science 2005.

            Vangel: If you do not believe me check out Mann latest caper. He uses Marcott to try to rehabilitate his hockey stick even when the authors made clear that 20th century portion of their results is “not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

            Of course not. Their proxies are not robust over such short time spans. However, we have direct measurements in the last century. Combining the two measures, you see that temperatures are spiking. Hence, the proxies are not the basis of their conclusion that “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”

          • Sure we did. We provided a simplified model of greenhouse warming. You just choose to ignore it.

            The simplified model is worthless because it has no predictive ability. It cannot hindcast or forecast. Models are opinion, not science.

            There’s a strong linear trend over the last two decades.

            The IPCC does not agree.

            The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

            By the way, the data would be a lot more credible if GISS did not keep changing it. When you lower past temperature measurements and add to current measurements it is easy to see a warming signal because you are creating that signal.

            http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image32.png

          • Actually, they deal in both projections and predictions (which they define as projections that are “most likely”).

            That is not what Trenberth stated in the Nature Climate Change blog. He wrote, “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess..

            He goes on, “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”

            Got that? The models can’t predict anything because they have serious problems and no predictive skills. That tends to happen when you have no clue what you are doing and are more interested in a narrative than trying to figure out what is really going on. But that is to be expected because once the ‘climate scientists’ admit that CO2 is not the factor that they claimed it was the billions of dollars of grants would dry up and instead of five conferences per year in five star resorts in Singapore, Beijing, Paris, Bangkok, or Tahiti they would be looking at one conference in a crappy hotel in Omaha or Springfield.

            That’s right. The moist adiabatic moist lapse should occur in short time scales.

            The pea moves again. The hot spot was formed because CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR. That was a big fail for the models.

            That’s obviously false.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Saturated_adiabatic_lapse_rate

            Santer et al., Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere, Science 2005

            The IPCC AR explained the theory and the expectations. I suggest that you look to that rather than moving to another discussion.

            And Santer? Why would anyone think that Santer has a clue about anything? Santer has been exposed as a clueless fool who uses only the data that suits him and refused to show his work completely. His 2008 paper was a total mess and was exposed as being without merit within days of being published.

            Of course not. Their proxies are not robust over such short time spans. However, we have direct measurements in the last century. Combining the two measures, you see that temperatures are spiking. Hence, the proxies are not the basis of their conclusion that “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”

            The problem as you should know by now is ‘Mike’s Nature Trick.’ The dendro data diverges from the instrument data in the latter part of the 20th century. That makes the whole splicing methodology, and the dendro methodology pretty useless. If you want to use trees to measure temperatures why not just look at the tree-line data? Warm periods would be expected to show rising tree lines and cool ones would show falling tree lines. If you want to know if it is warmer today than it was during the HO you simply look at where the tree line is today relative to where it was then. We also have other record. For example if you want to compare temperatures between today and the first century of the Han dynasty compare how far north oranges are grown today compared to then. Why don’t the AGW promoters do this? Because it would show that today’s temperatures are not exceptional compared to historical temperatures.

          • zachriel says:

            “Sure we did. We provided a simplified model…”

            Who is this “we”?

            Got a mouse in your pocket?

          • Vangel: The simplified model is worthless because it has no predictive ability. It cannot hindcast or forecast.

            The greenhouse effect predicts a tendency for the surface to warm and the stratosphere to cool. This was predicted a century ago, is easy to calculate, and is consistent with the data.

            Vangel: Models are opinion, not science.

            All theories are models. Newtonian Mechanics is a model. Kinetics is a model. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a model.

            Vangel: The IPCC does not agree.

            We provided the GISS data. You can eyeball it and see a trend. Your article uses a paraphrase not a direct quotation, it’s found nowhere else other than the right wing blogosphere, nor is Pachauri “the IPCC”.

            Vangel: That is not what Trenberth stated in the Nature Climate Change blog. He wrote, “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.

            Are you citing Trenberth for his expertise? Trenberth, More knowledge, less certainty, Nature 2010.

            Vangel: The hot spot was formed because CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR.

            When warm moist air rises in the atmosphere, it cools, and at some point the water condenses releasing heat. If temperatures increase, then this will increase evaporation at the surface, meaning more available heat from condensation. This occurs regardless of the source of the warming. It could be due to an increase in solar irradiation, for instance.

            Vangel: Santer has been exposed as a clueless fool

            That always seems to be your argument. Ben Santer has a PhD in climate science, and works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He is one of the most cited climate scientists, the measure of scientific significance, including several papers in Science.

            Hardly clueless. You can’t simply dismiss science or scientists you don’t like.

            Vangel: His 2008 paper was a total mess and was exposed as being without merit within days of being published.

            More handwaving.

          • The greenhouse effect predicts a tendency for the surface to warm and the stratosphere to cool. This was predicted a century ago, is easy to calculate, and is consistent with the data.

            But it isn’t consistent with the data. We had cooling periods from the 1930s to the 1970s even though CO2 emissions exploded. The AGW crowd was not happy so it played the particulate emissions card. Now that we have seen 18 years without a statistically significant warming trend the AGW crowd is looking for something else to explain the inconvenient observations.

            Simple models do not explain complex phenomenon like climate very well unless they find the primary factor that plays the biggest role. If you want a simple model that works best at all periods you need to look at the impact of solar activity. Not only can we explain daily or annual variations by looking at that model but we can go out hundreds of millions of years and see how it can be used to predict equatorial glaciation periods when CO2 levels were ten times the present levels. Add to that period the changes due to continental drift and a few orbital factors and you have an explanation that works at all levels without the need to introduce plug-in parameters.

            But those are models. I am more interested in data that I can look at. So far you have failed to point to a single paper that uses empirical evidence to show that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 are a material driver of climate change. That is not surprising because the IPCC also failed to find those papers and all the frauds promoting the failed AGW theory cannot point to empirical evidence of any kind.

          • Smokey: Got a mouse in your pocket?

            A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,

            group of poseurs
            ultimate expression of internet group think
            hive
            commune of pedants
            committee
            weird cult
            collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
            five people
            collective
            tri-unity
            being of more than one mind
            royalty
            the Z-team, a team of Zachriels
            schizophrenic
            someone with a tapeworm
            best friend is a pooka
            dissociative identity disorder
            a bizzare pseudo-world affectation
            gaggle of grad students
            Jovian clique
            a group of concerned citizens
            Got a mouse in your pocket?

          • Vangel: We had cooling periods from the 1930s to the 1970s even though CO2 emissions exploded.

            Yes, and it’s usually colder at night than during the day. Do you understand the word “tend”?

            Vangel: If you want a simple model that works best at all periods you need to look at the impact of solar activity.

            Solar activity is very important for understanding the history of climate change on Earth, but does not explain the warming of the last century.

          • Yes, and it’s usually colder at night than during the day. Do you understand the word “tend”?

            I do. It depends on the starting points and end points. If we choose the HO as the start point we have a clear downward trend. If we pick the middle of the LIA we have a clear upward trend. If we pick the 1930s there is no material trend one way or another without making all kinds of adjustments to the measured temperatures. That is the problem that the AGW frauds face and will continue to face until the funding finally dries up and the green industry is in ruins.

          • Solar activity is very important for understanding the history of climate change on Earth, but does not explain the warming of the last century.

            But it does. Solar activity was higher in the 20th century than it has been in the past 1000 years. High solar activity; high temperatures. Low solar activity; low temperatures. See the pattern?

            Former AGW alarmist Fritz Vahrenholt seems to have been embarrassed by all of the outright fraud in the AGW movement and has now come out with a book on the subject where he finally discovers The Neglected Sun. Sadly, he came to his senses quite late in the game, long after Svensmark and Clader explained the hypothesis in their great little book, The Chilling Stars

          • Vangel: If we choose the HO as the start point we have a clear downward trend.

            Which we know from climate scientists.

            Vangel: If we pick the middle of the LIA we have a clear upward trend.

            Which we know from climate scientists.

            Vangel: If we pick the 1930s there is no material trend one way or another without making all kinds of adjustments to the measured temperatures.

            That’s not correct. There is a distinct warming trend.
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

            Vangel: Solar activity was higher in the 20th century than it has been in the past 1000 years.

            Solar activity is an important component of climate, and there is a strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the last thousand years. But that correlation has dissipated since the 1960s.

          • That’s not correct. There is a distinct warming trend.
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

            No. GISS has adjusted the data as have other gate keepers. The reported warming did not come from the temperature measurements but from the adjustments and parameterization process that allows the frauds at CRU, NOAA, etc., to avoid showing the raw data sets to the unsuspecting public.

            Here is the NOAA adding 0.5 F to measured temperatures.


            Here is data showing that the US has not warmed up since the 1930s.

            <a href="http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a6db68e0970b-800wiHere are the NZ adjustements.

            Here are some of the Australian adjustments.

            See how the Newcastle cooling was adjusted turned into warming?

            The same adjustment for Echuca, which has a long continuous record turned a cooling trend into warming.

            The same was done for Wangaratta.

            Now why would the AGW frauds adjust measurements upwards when the audit that examined 1007 of 1221 stations in the US found that more than 90% of them had a warming bias that was greater than 1C ?

            Solar activity is an important component of climate, and there is a strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the last thousand years. But that correlation has dissipated since the 1960s.

            That is not entirely true.

          • Vangel: No. GISS has adjusted the data as have other gate keepers. The reported warming did not come from the temperature measurements but from the adjustments and parameterization process that allows the frauds at CRU, NOAA, etc., to avoid showing the raw data sets to the unsuspecting public.

            Data has to be adjusted for many reasons. For instance, if a station is moved to a higher elevation, then it will create a discontinuity in the temperature record. You have to provide more than a screenshot without the context.

            Other nations and institutions have independently confirmed the temperature trend, and independent statisticians have confirmed the methodologies. Please try to provide primary sources when you can.

          • Data has to be adjusted for many reasons. For instance, if a station is moved to a higher elevation, then it will create a discontinuity in the temperature record. You have to provide more than a screenshot without the context.

            Sorry but when you have a station that has never been moved and has a continuous record and you still add a 0.5C warming signal there is a problem. When all of the adjustments are averaged and always bias the data upwards there is no valid reason for them. It is obvious that the adjustments were made to support a warming narrative even when the measurement data didn’t.

            Other nations and institutions have independently confirmed the temperature trend, and independent statisticians have confirmed the methodologies. Please try to provide primary sources when you can.

            No. The NZ government could not explain to the court why the data was adjusted upwards. There has never been an independent review of the data changes and the reason for them. And the Climategate e-mails showed that GISS never even bothered to document or archive the previous data versions.

            When it comes to the data there are few surviving primary sources. Lucky for us some people have downloaded the old versions of the station data so we can see what some of the changes are. But as you go year after year in which someone at GISS lowers the temperatures in the 1930s it isn’t long when the warming during that period goes away in the new reports. That is why your side of the argument is not very credible. Not only does it cherry pick convenient data and leave out anything that falsifies the hypothesis it actually modifies the data by adding artificial signals that it later tries to extract.

  8. I do think that climate change is occurring. I do think that some of it is man-made.

    That said, it does not appear that the climate change is resulting on unusually severe weather because, as Dr. Perry has shown before, the number of severe storms is decreasing, not increasing (that’s another thing Matt Ridley may wish to add onto his list. First it was “more severe storms will occur!” now it’s “Storms will be more severe than they normally would be.”). It seems to me the weather changes are far more correlated with sunspot cycles rather than climate change.

    I do not see regulation as the solution to the problem. The reason why is simple: the regulations appear to be worse than the problem. Doctor Perry has cited before work from the IPCC showing that the move to biofuels is killing more people than climate change is. Things like ethanol subsidies & mandates are raising the price of food worldwide (and quite likely contributing to the obesity problem in America as the subsides make High Fructose Corn Syrup cheaper than natural sugar). Emission laws harm productivity (see Europe currently as an example) and many alternative clean energies are still too expensive and inefficient to be economically viable, thus placing a strain on many governments.

    Rather than regulation, I think the answer is innovation. Hydraulic fracturing has reduced emissions from the energy sector considerably, both in the drilling process and by helping to make natural gas the energy of choice in America. The US, the country who has not signed the Kyoto Protocol and whose environmental regulations are contradictory at best, leads the world in emissions reductions. In many other developed countries, emissions have stagnated or gotten worse.

    The human mind has long been our best resource for better living. It is not by government edict that we now live healthy into our 70′s, but rather ingenuity (no government established a “minimum death age.”) Because of human innovation, the world level of absolute poverty has been halved in my 24 years alive. Because of human innovation, world hunger is on the verge of eradication. Because of human innovation, people can communicate far and wide instantly.

    The government option is slow, often ineffectual, and loaded with corruption. Why not let human ingenuity come and save the day, just like it has for everything else?

  9. Well, how can you refute the fact that the all-time, global world record for high temperatures was set in Death Valley, California on 07/10/13 at 134° F?

    Oh, wait. That was 1913. Never mind.

  10. I have read some of Ridley’s writings and I agree with some, but not all of his conclusions. He considers himself, I think, a skeptic of global warming. I am too, but in a different way. My tentative conclusions, for what they are worth:

    Global warming – is occurring, as scientists have pointed out – from natural and human causes. My skepticism rises from the near-panic outlook of environmentalists and policy-makers. Scientist don’t really predict global warming as environmentalists are prone to do. Scientists make projections based upon current calculations of what could occur if current conditions continue. Very few project worst case scenarios over the next century (6-7 degrees centigrade as some environmentalists and policy-makers are wont to claim).

    Not factored in are unknowns – what natural forces and human responses and actions will actually accomplish in the future. What is known is that global warming from carbon in the atmosphere, based on history of the planet, should take place on a relatively slow scale, possibly up to 500 years for worst case scenarios. How long carbon can remain in the atmosphere is an important factor as well (it can last up to 1,000 years, or more).

    Why panic? We have an idea of the probabilities for the future. We quite possibly have plenty of time, if we respond appropriately and deliberately and in a balanced way. That may be too much to expect, but speculations and hyperbole don’t help much. We know we have to respond (now and into the future) to potential results of global warming – whether we like it or not. We have to deliberate, deliberate and deliberate some more. Our best chance of success. Skepticism is a necessity. Consensus can be an extreme danger, with its accompanying lack of uninhibited thinking

    Climate change – this indeed covers cold weather, but not necessarily just shorter term cold spells. Climate change basically encompasses a much worse potential than simply global warming. Over the past 500,000 years most of the weather has been – cold. Cold as in ice ages and/or simply cold enough to destroy much or most of the human race.

    All it would take is for one super volcano, such a Yellowstone to blow its cork and within 3-4 years most of the northern hemisphere would uninhabitable. And wither humans? Climate change encompasses global warming, as well as long-term cooling.

    Extreme weather – should simply be considered manifestations of climate change whether warming or cooling. Terminology will change as we go.

  11. As I scroll through these responses, I am simply amazed. Climate change has been happening for eons. The climate gets colder. It gets warmer. What it never does is stay the same. Yet we are to believe that some governmental actions will prevent the climate from changing?

    • Seattle Sam: As I scroll through these responses, I am simply amazed. Climate change has been happening for eons.

      Yeah, wonder what those crazy climatologists will discover next!

  12. I have repeatedly requested that zachriel name all the people he refers to when he makes his comments about “we”, and “us”, and “our”, etc. He writes as if he is the elected spokesman for the climate alarmist crowd.

    But I think those putative characters do not exist. They have never existed, except in zachriel’s mind. He writes like that in order to appear important; as if he is speaking on behalf of a group of people.

    And now, zachriel makes a comment above, intended to look as if it came from an un-named “editor” :

    “(Editor note: the spam filter has been deleting more than 90% of the text posted by ‘Smokey’… &etc.”

    That is not true. Exactly NONE of my comments have been deleted. Not one of them. Nor have any parts of my comments been deleted, or altered. On one occasion, the site moderator took a day and a half to apporove one of my posts, because it contained 13 hotlinks, and was automatically held in moderation. But the entire comment was eventually approved.

    zachriel pretends that he is speaking for many others here, but he refuses to provide any evidence that is true, even after being repeatedly challenged to identify those [fictitious] people he pretends to speak for.

    And now, zachriel falsely tries to give the impression that he is a site “editor”, and giving an explanation saying that “90%” of my comments have been deleted. That is a lie, zachriel, and you know it. None of my comments have been deleted, truncated, or changed in any way.

    This is an example of the lack of ‘ethics’ within the climate alarmist crowd. Lying is routine with them. They cannot win any debates by being truthful, so they invent false ‘facts’.

    zachriel has not just lost his man-made global warming argument. He has proved that he has no integrity.

    And now, everyone here can see it.

  13. As I stated, exactly NONE of my comments have been deleted. Not one word of them.

    Now, if you are saying that you arrange posts so that only those who comment can see their own comment, then there is NOTHING more dishonest than that. Nothing. I certainly would not admit to being such a scurrilous character that I would ever stoop to that kind of ‘skeptical science’ game-playing, and I doubt that Mark Perry would, either. If that is what it takes to try and prevail in a debate, you are even more of a lowlife that I thought.

    I very much doubt that is the case, since other commentators have replied to my posts. But it’s easy enough to check on another computer.

    I also note that you have been run out of WattsUpWithThat for similar unethical comments. You can no longer post there, can you? No, you can’t, because they will not let you. Your serial dishonesty is frowned upon at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site. They don’t tolerate liars [and note that labeling you a liar is not "chest-thumping". In fact, I rarely if ever toot my own horn. My M.O. is pointing out the mendacity in alarmists' comments like yours].

    Also, neither Mark Perry nor Matt Ridley are on board with your MMGW nonsense. So they would hardly be the “we” you always refer to, would they? It’s not like you post with your putative pals at RealClimate. They might qualify as a subset of “we”, but Perry and Ridley certainly don’t.

    And once again: you have decisively lost the argument. There is no scientific evidence of manmade global warming, despite your mendacious attempts to promote that scam.

    Now it’s off to check and see if I am the only one who sees my comments. I hardly believe this site would stoop to that. So either you are lying again, or AEI has some explaining to do.

    • Smokey: There is no scientific evidence of manmade global warming

      Indeed, there is such evidence. This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

      In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.

      • zachriel says:

        “We have our own personal Spam Guard…”

        For the umpteenth time, who is “we”? I challenge zachriel to name them. [In reality, there is no "we". There is only zachriel and his pocket mouse.]

        Zachriel has been caught lying once again. The article’s author has confirmed that none of my comments have been changed, or deleted, even though zachriel flatly stated that “90%” of the comments I posted here have been deleted.

        Zachriel has been caught lying. Why? Because he could not win an argument based on verifiable, testable scientific facts. It used to be that if a hypothesis [such as CO2=runaway global warming] was falsified, scientists [and their acolytes like zachriel] would accept what the real world was clearly telling them, and search for reasons why their hypothesis was wrong. That’s how science works. But now, they dig in their heels and lie about it. The world is very different now than when I was growing up.

        zachriel’s credibility could not go any lower, could it? It is now at zero. I’ve noticed him playing the same kind of word games on other blogs, too. Since he didn’t deny being paid to run interference when he was asked about it, I suppose that could explain what he’s doing here.

        And as the Romans would say, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

        Now that the issue of zachriel’s credibility is settled, I would like to point out that no one else on this thread has been in agreement with zachriel’s climate alarmist narrative. The global warming scare has run its course.

        The public is beginning to see the truth: after many years of predicting imminent doom from runaway global warming, it turns out that nothing either unusual or unprecedented is happening. The climate false alarm is simply a grant-fed scam, and it is time to cut off the enormous flow of tax dollars, which have kept it going well past its expiration date. And the money wasted on ‘climate studies’ starves other, more deserving areas of science. Because there is never enough money for research.

        So zachriel had better make hay while the sun shines, and post all he can. Because pretty soon there won’t be money available to pay climate alarmists like him for disrupting threads.

      • Of course not. You’ve always been very generous. We have our own personal Spam Guard that weeds out ad hominem most forms of trolling. We don’t seem spam (well, within a margin of error).

      • There was a problem on this site a while ago. My first postings on a thread never came through for some reason. To get around the problem I had to repost the comments again. At times I have had comments go missing but that has to do with deleting the tab after hitting send before the information got to the server. To avoid that problem I have stopped deleting tabs in my browser until I was certain that everything went through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>