Global Warming

Climatologist John Christy: "The Science Is Not Settled"

|

John Christy
Huntsville Times

The New York Times is running a pretty fair profile of University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) climatologist John Christy today. As Reason readers know, I blog every month the global satellite temperature trend produced by Christy and his UAH colleague Roy Spencer. I have relied on Christy as a source of honest data and insight ever since I began reporting on the science and policy issues related to man-made global warming over two decades ago. Based on empirical temperature data he has long questioned the computer climate model projections of rapid and dangerous warming, which has gained him no friends in what he calls "the climate establishment."

From the Times:

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

"I walked over and held out my hand to greet him," Dr. Christy recalled. "He looked me in the eye, and he said, 'No.' I said, 'Come on, shake hands with me.' And he said, 'No.' "

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy's willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.

"I detest words like 'contrarian' and 'denier,' " he said. "I'm a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, 'The science is settled,' I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled."

Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.

Such charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.

It would have been helpful if the Times had actually published one of his charts showing the divergence between actual global temperature trends and computer model projections. Here's one such:

ModelsVsData
UAH

And being suspicious of those with high profiles? Oh, please. Do not leading consensusers James Hansen, Michael Mann, John Holdren, Kerry Emanuel, and so forth have "high profiles" when it comes to climate science? As reported by numerous newspapers including the New York Times, James Hansen famously testified before a Congressional committee way back in 1988 that "global warming has begun."

Advertisement

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on Treating Juvenile Defendants as Adult Criminals

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Real science is never ‘settled’ since theories are always subject to evaluation and testing. But don’t tell ‘Tony’ that.

    1. The erffs is FLAT, WTF. That’s a FACT. Just LOOK at it.

      1. Galileo was a DENIER!!11!!!!

      2. Is it settled science that the earth is roughly spherical? Or should we have a flat earther on CNN every time there’s a conversation about the subject?

        1. I don’t know, Tony. I know what the empirical data says, but what about the models?!

          1. According to the graph above, the models and the data both point to increasing temperatures.

            The debate over whether the science of global warming is settled or yet to be settled misses the point. What will the temperature be in 50 years time? That question will only truly be settled by waiting 50 years and measuring it.

            1. I tell you you have a leaky faucet in your bathroom that will cost $1000 to fix. Does it make a difference if the faucet drips once a day or once a second?

              1. “Does it make a difference if the faucet drips once a day or once a second?”

                I does to me but lets not lose sight of the message in the graph. The models have predicted a drop of water from the faucet every second while the data shows a drop every other second.

                1. Wrong. The models are running over 3 times the rate of warming as the actual data and they are failing at the 95% CI and plunging towards the 98% CI.

                  1. “The models are running over 3 times the rate of warming as the actual data”

                    So, you mean that a comparison of faucet dripping once a second and another that drips once a day wildly overstates the message of the graph? That was exactly my point too. We seem to agree.

                    1. “So, you mean that a comparison of faucet dripping once a second and another that drips once a day wildly overstates the message of the graph?”

                      Did you major in strawmen?

                    2. Not my metaphor. I’m just responding in my own humble way to the faucet man.

                    3. mtrueman|7.16.14 @ 7:29PM|#
                      “I’m just responding in my own humble way to the faucet man.”

                      No, twit, you’re purposely ‘misunderstanding’ the point and you should realize it is insulting that you expect others to be dumb enough to accept it.
                      Is that clear?

                    4. If pressed, I’d say that faucet man’s point is that the faucet that drips once a second is worth the $1000 is the model ata while the faucet that’s dripping once a year is not worth spending the money on. That ones the actual temperature data. Or is it the other way around? Not important really. The key is that faucet man can’t point to a rational way for him to determine exactly what point it becomes desirable to take the plunge and buy into global worning.

                    5. So you didn’t understand:

                      “The key is that faucet man can’t point to a rational way for him to determine exactly what point it becomes desirable to take the plunge and buy into global worning.”

                      He never intended to determine an exact value; his point was that the proposed ‘solutions’ are analogous to spending $1K to repair a faucet that leaks a drop every every day; a poor bargain.
                      And if you’d read NAS often enough, it would also be obvious that he doesn’t think much of using force to take money for such dubious ‘solutions’.

                    6. “He never intended to determine an exact value”

                      But there must be a point where you decide it’s a problem worth tackling. Whether you believe that this global warming thing can or should be addressed by throwing money at it is another issue entirely.

        2. The shape of the earth is not science, it is a fact. Science use facts to develop hypotheses that explain why things happen, e.g. “the earth is roughly spherical because…”. These hypotheses are then continually refined ad infinitum, based on further observations of fact.

          Predictions of future climate change are FAR from settled science. I can only hope that you don’t think your knowledge of the shape of the earth is similar to your dogmatic feeling that there is an impending AGW catastophe.

          1. Understanding the climate is as simple as being told what shape the Earth is. Fact.

          2. “Predictions of future climate change are FAR from settled science.”

            A prediction is just a prediction, whether it concerns climate science or any other field of study. Still I think I get your point. We’re on firmer ground, however, with the theory of greenhouse gases. The heat trapping qualities of CO2 are pretty close to being settled science and I’ve never seen the theory doubted even by contrarians or deniers.

            1. There are those that doubt that atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas in large convective systems. Some have pointed to it as a trailing indicator of a warming trend.

              1. “Some have pointed to it as a trailing indicator of a warming trend”

                I’m not sure I understand this, or the implications. You mean that warming, presumably due to some celestial causes, leads to increased CO2 content in atmosphere? Doesn’t civilization’s burning fossil fuel account nicely for increased CO2 levels?

                1. It’s a mixed bag. Warming of the oceans does lead to more CO2 release.

        3. Or should we have a flat earther on CNN every time there’s a conversation about the subject?

          Should I be reminded of how round the earth actually is and how dangerous that is for all of humanity every time I pull out a bubble level?

        4. Shape of the earth is not science. Theory that predicts its orbit or how fast it rotates, etc. that is science.

          For science to be credible it must do two things:

          1. It must have predictive power.

          2. It must be testable, so that it can be falsified.

          1 and 2 are somewhat interrelated.

          1. “Shape of the earth is not science.”

            It is geography.

            Btw, big bang testable? Maybe not. That would make it ‘incredible’ science, but still science. Our credulity is not a question that science can properly address. Some of the most profound science surely stretches and overturns our credulity.

            1. Big Bang theory makes predictions that are testable. Microwave background, Galaxies should be moving away from each other, abundance of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, etc.

              1. Doesn’t it also say that the mass of the universe was compacted to a point that was infinitely small and where all laws of the universe were suspended? Is that testable? It is certainly incredible, and no less worthy of attention for its lack of credulity.

                1. mtrueman|7.16.14 @ 3:00PM|#
                  “Doesn’t it also say that the mass of the universe was compacted to a point that was infinitely small and where all laws of the universe were suspended? Is that testable?”

                  If the predicted results of such an organization are found, and no other organization delivers those results, it’s testable.
                  But having read some of your ‘stuff’ before I have a feeling you were hoping to ‘trip someone up’, right?

                  1. ” I have a feeling you were hoping to ‘trip someone up’, right?”

                    Again you are letting your meanness and unwilling to grant others the benefit of the doubt and respond in good faith get the better of you. I have no intention of tripping anyone up and feel I’m on very uncertain ground myself on questions like this. I welcome any interesting comments and rest assured I;m not waiting to pounce on my respondents.

                    If you are testing in an environment where all physical laws of the universe are suspended, what sense does it make to predict results?

                    1. “If you are testing in an environment where all physical laws of the universe are suspended, what sense does it make to predict results?”

                      Either you are truly too ignorant to discuss the matter or this is one more bit of sophistry.
                      Try asking a question where you have some framework to understand the answer.

                    2. “Try asking a question where you have some framework to understand the answer.”

                      My point is that no such framework exists. Goes with global warnming too. The earth is not a laboratory and we’re simply unable to do science on that scale. We’d never be able to guarantee identical initial conditions for a start. Science has it’s limits. You seem to disagree.

                    3. “My point is that no such framework exists. Goes with global warnming too.”
                      Disagreed.
                      We can start from a presumed quantum event, predict the results and look for them. Finding such (the background radiation) ‘confirms’ the B/B, especially as no one has offered a competing theory with any degree of confirmation whatsoever.

                      “The earth is not a laboratory and we’re simply unable to do science on that scale. We’d never be able to guarantee identical initial conditions for a start.”
                      I don’t know what this has to do with anything. GW can be predicted and the predictions checked against the data; by that measure, GW has failed. “A”GW is on shakier ground.

                      “Science has it’s limits. You seem to disagree.”
                      Experimentation has limits, both physical and ethical, but I’m not sure science does.

                    4. “I don’t know what this has to do with anything.”

                      Simply that science needs experimentation and testing. Testing needs controlled conditions. The earth’s atmosphere doesn’t afford us these. Science, I think, is not going to be able to answer our most desperate questions. (Like for example how high the sea levels will have risen in 50 years, or how many species will have met their extinction.) This issue comes down to a social debate of unscientific concepts like life style and standard of living.

                      If you read the article you will find that both the models and the data show that temperatures are warmer. How does this indicate failure to you? Are you judging the theory of global warming by criteria other than temperature?

    2. Any scientist worth his weight in gold KNOWS that the sun, stars, and planets revolve around the Earth. Truth.

      1. I’m not sure anyone is worth their weight in gold.

        1. Except hot women, but even then it’s a case of diminishing returns over time.

          1. And remember, for every hot woman you see their is a least one guy somewhere that is glad he isn’t with her anymore, because that bitch is insane.

        2. I’m not sure anyone is worth their weight in gold.

          Plenty of people are; hell I might be.

          http://onlygold.com/Info/Value…..n-Gold.asp

          My current weight of 185 lbs in gold is about $3.5m. That’s not the hugest hurdle to clear.

          1. This sounds like a competition for anorexic people.

        3. I’m not sure anyone is worth their weight in gold.

          To whom – worth their weight in gold to whom? I’m sure most people would be worth their weight in gold to themselves. I imagine that most children would be to their parents – or at least, I would hope so.

          1. “To whom – worth their weight in gold to whom?”

            That’s the problem; it’s a distinctly limited market.

  2. the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other

    STONE the unbelievers!

    STONE the blasphemers!

    THROW OUT those who would protect them!

    CLEANSE the universe of their toxic presence!

    1. “All I said was this piece of halibut is good enough for Jehovah!”

      1. “We’re having a Halibut time hearing you in the back….”

        1. I’m just here for the halibut.

          1. Are you sure that’s not a red herring?

    2. “All right! No one is to stone ANYONE until I blow this whistle. Even…and I want to make this absolutely clear…even if they do say, ‘Jehovah’.”

      1. “There aren’t any women here, are there?”

      2. One of the best movie scenes of all time.

      3. I can’t believe they let you back in.

      4. You missed a lot of Lucy talk, Epi.

      5. Did you eat any fermented shark in Iceland? H?karl, I believe it’s called.

        1. Yes. I liked it. Most people won’t, though. It reminded me of the chemical in salmiaki. I also at minke whale…which is AMAZING.

          1. I’ll try all of those. I’m not one to shy away from eating weird food, although the rotten shark looks pretty fucking potent.

          2. Salmiaki, Jesus, I blocked that from my memory. Black shit mined from the seventh level of Hell.

  3. HERESY!!!

  4. The only way to defeat climate change chicken-littles is to simply state:

    “So the Earth might be warming. When has climate ever been stable? Can we do better re: pollution? Sure. But I am not willing to give up 1/3 of world economic output because industrialized countries are afraid of up-and-coming industrialized competitors”.

    It shows that 1) you are not an oil-dumping robber baron, 2) you concede that perhaps warming does occur from time-to-time, and 3) you show that behind the rhetoric, there are underlying motivations that would have extreme impact on the way people have become accustomed to live.

    1. that’s why the West is all climate-meltdownish. Poorer countries (China, India) are industrializing and going to compete w/ US, so we want a “global consensus” to tax production/pollution and slow the growth of the Chinese/Indian economies because, frankly, we are afraid of being overtaken.

      Ask China if they give a fuck about “global warming” or “economic success, you will understand.

      1. Except the proggies want to cripple the US economy unilaterally whether China and India go along or not. It is really just a religion with them.

        1. China and India have zero incentive to go along. The people are pretty poor by modern standards and the nations want to challenge US dominance. They are definitely more worried about development than not having plastic bags at the grocery store.

          1. Excellent point.

          2. Developing countries are all over the place on this.

            Most 3rd world countries love Kyoto type accords, because those schemes setup exchanges where “developed” countries pay the third world to burn CO. Since it is difficult to meet most CO2 reduction goals, they pay for carbon credits- which 3rd world countries could generate by foregoing nasty, easy to build, cheap power capabilities.

            The 3rd world Kleptocrats don’t care about the future. They care about their lifestyle. A treaty where developed countries pay them not to build stuff they probably weren’t going to build anyway is exactly in their interests.

            1. Isn’t the US already in compliance with the Kyoto Protocals?

              1. Ironically, we’re about the only ones.

                Go fracking!

            2. The developing countries favor a climate change agenda that:

              (1) Does not affect their industrialization and development, and

              (2) Requires developed countries to pay them large sums of money.

              1. exactly, it’s about inflicting costs on their rivals without threatening their own development. It’s protectionist and despite all the flowery rhetoric, China and India give 2 shits about Kyoto etc. They only go along because they hope to gain trade concessions for their cooperation. It’s a long-term game, because they know THE FUCKING WORLD ISN’T ENDING

    2. But I am not willing to give up 1/3 of world economic output

      Show me a fervent disciple of the Church of AGW, and I’ll show you someone who would gladly give up most of the world’s economic output and force everyone to live on self sufficient communes.

      1. and force everyone else to live on self sufficient communes.

        ftfy

        1. I’m talking about the disciples, not the priests.

      2. true, until you tell them that 1) everything plastic that they own is made of oil , 2) iphones use minerals that are strip mined from Africa, and 3) the carbon footprint of a Prius is more than a Hummer (seriously!).

        Then they get incredulous and the eco-terrorist rhetoric dies down.

        1. Yeah. For about five minutes.

          Funny story. An ex-coworker of mine was filling up his Suburban, when some lady in a Prius asks “How can you drive that… that… thing?” He politely said “If you were to be in an accident, which of these two vehicles would you rather be in?” She sputtered a bit, but didn’t respond.

          1. Should have asked why she was driving a coal-powered vehicle.

            (A good bet, most places).

            1. Round here it’s mostly hydro.

              1. Oh noes! Keeping the river in bondage!

          2. Eh, perhaps true, but I would argue that driving an SUV in the name of safety is more an expensive illusion.

            1. freedom of choice is freedom to also make dumb choices. That’s true liberty.

              1. Doesn’t mean it can’t be pointed out as dumb.

                1. didn’t say that, did I?

              2. Of course, but everyone thinks they need to own an SUV or else they will die driving in anything else.

                Then they complain about how little money they have after sending $500 to the bank every month.

                1. oh it’s more expensive. But that’s a choice. I prefer to drive an F150 that’s newish. Costs more than say, a ’92 Camry, so I probably have less money to spend at Whataburger. And that’s ok, it’s what I prefer. Maybe your priorities are different, and that’s ok.

                  1. I only pick on SUVS/cars because most people are completely inept when it comes to personal finance, and the biggest reason is usually their financed SUV sitting in the driveway.

                    Sinking $30k into a depreciating asset every 5 years is of course going to leave people poorer, but that’s ok because safety.

            2. Really? Because the one traffic accident investigator I met and talked to about his profession pulled up in his Ford Expedition and when asked about it said, “Mass always wins”.

        2. the carbon footprint of a Prius is more than a Hummer (seriously!)

          I think that’s been refuted. The hard comparison is the dust-to-dust footprint of each, because the Prius has to take its share of the seriously dirty business of making and disposing of batteries.

          1. But there’s no denying the toxic clouds of smug…

            (see ‘South Park’)

          2. Maybe I’m wrong, but either way- it’s all plastic, the electricity to power it comes from coal power plants, and the batteries are just about the most toxic thing possible.

            Larger point is, people are all for cutting back, until it’s them doing the cutting back.

            1. Plastic isn’t that carbon intensive. You’re not burning the stuff after all. You do spend some energy refining it and then molding, thermosetting, etc., but those are much lower energy processes than smelting iron ore into steel.

              Ironically one of the biggest “waste” products for EV’s comes from the rare earth tailings: thorium. It’s Nukular, you know (half life about 4-5BB years IIRC).

              1. most plastic is petroleum-based product. Guess where that comes from…

                so if they talk about not using oil at all, but have plastic things, they are in the wrong.

                1. Missed your second (first point). You’re obviously right about the pure plastic part (but I reserve judgement until I see the modeled consensus). I thought the thread was talking about carbon footprint.

                  1. it’s all good homie. We kinda drifted back and forth, confusing.

      3. Just curious, my position on AGW is similar to Christy’s. I buy that the earth is warming and that human activity contributes to it. I don’t think the large number of scientists who back that conclusion ‘settles’ something, I just think they are more likely right than their critics. I also think that that large number does not accept the alarmist views of many who have used the idea of AGW to launch an either foolish or sinister assault on economic development which could have disasterous effects while not addressing any problems from climate change much.

        Would I be a ‘fervent disciple of the Church of AGW’ in your book?

        1. If you think they are “likely right” but are not certain they are right, then you do not think the debate is settled and are thus not the type of person sarcasmic is talking about.

          When you say the issue is settled, that means that there is no longer any reasonable doubt about the answer. And that is a lot higher degree of certainty than “chances are”.

          1. I like to be charitable to those I disagree with, and I think from talking to them by ‘settled’ they just mean that it has got to the point where it would be impractical to act otherwise (that it would be impractical to not think this is going on and act with that fact as a given).

            I think the real problem with these people is 1. they confuse the consensus about warming and human activity with the alarmist conclusions of more politically minded ‘experts’; 2. they have no concept of the trade offs that would be involved to address it the way they say they want (many actually seem to think that cap and trade policies would be economically neutral!) and 3. they have no realization that, as pointed out by many here, there just is no workable way to do something about it because the rest of the world is not going to go along with any crazy schemes that cripple their economies.

            1. This, if you actually talk to them about the trade-offs and how the trade-offs will more than likely negatively impact poor people.

              1. Why is it that the one time you guys pretend to be consequentialist–even to the point of letting aggressors off the hook for their aggression AND supposedly caring about poor people–is when it comes to burning fossil fuels?

                1. Tony, sometimes you are so irrational you even amaze me. The point is that since there is no way to prevent the entire world from burning fossil fuels, our making ourselves poor by refraining to do so, does no good. As long as China and India are happily growing, their increases in emissions will more than make up for any decrease in ours. Moreover, their increases are going to be so large that even us burning to our heart’s content will have no measurable effect on things.

                  If global warming is true, it is going to happen no matter what we do. So there is no point in worrying about our emissions, since cutting them will have no effect.

                  You either can’t understand that or do and just don’t care. Ultimately, you are just a nasty person who wants to make this country poor and the people in it suffer because that is just how you are. AGW has just given you a convenient excuse to do what you want to do anyway.

                  1. Oh no, John.

                    You will now be placed at the top of the murder list. (Hopefully right below me)

                    Accomplishing something is not as important as trying.

                    Because…intentionz…and feelingz.

                  2. You don’t make any fucking sense and you probably know that. You’re saying the problem is too bad to do anything about, but somehow it matters whether we’re poor or not? What good is being comfortable if you’re dead?

                    Like the creationists your talking points shift and dodge, but the bottom line remains the same: thou shalt not cut fossil fuel consumption by a single barrel. Gee I wonder where this bullshit comes from.

                    1. No Tony, I am saying if the problem exists, there is no way for the US to solve it by cutting its emissions. Therefore, cutting emissions is a waste of time. Even if the science is true, it is telling me the house is burning down and that I should throw my medicine on it and suffer without it even though I know it won’t put the fire out.

                    2. Sticking with your analogy, the house is burning down, and we might as well just let it and… what? Move to the other planet next door? There’s only one house!

                    3. Whatever I do Tony, I don’t harm myself making a futile and senseless effort to change it.

                    4. “there is no way for the US to solve it by cutting its emissions. Therefore, cutting emissions is a waste of time.”

                      You could say the same of Monaco, Wales or or any other nation, besides number one emitter China, maybe. Fact is it’s an international, even global problem and calls for a solution that’s transnational. Just like religious belief.

                      “Even if the science is true, it is telling me the house is burning down and that I should throw my medicine on it and suffer without it even though I know it won’t put the fire out.”

                      Yes the future is a fearful place, but nobody ever promised you wouldn’t suffer. Many good things are born of suffering. Hope is important, you seem to have lost it. You might be advised to tune your attitude, realize that we’re not necessarily doomed to some treadmill that impels us to burn more fossil fuels this year than we did last year.

                    5. We’d achieve more by way of reducing global CO2 emissions by launching an all-out nuclear first-strike against China and India than by anything you’re suggesting.

                2. I’ll take responsibility for my emissions when you take responsibility for the consequences of your solutions: lower living standards, earlier death, and theft through redistribution.

                  1. Any citation for those claims?

                    1. http://dougrobbins.blogspot.co…..tions.html

                      Gee, that was hard. Google “wealth vs. energy consumption” and you will find a page full of graphs like that.

                    2. I don’t know what that’s supposed to do for me. Nobody is saying it’s preferable or even possible to force western countries to start behaving like third-world shitholes in terms of energy consumption.

                    3. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “la la la la.” doesn’t help your case. Less energy consumption means a lower standard of living. The evidence is placed right before you, and you deny it.

                    4. The status quo means a lower standard of living, to say the least.

                      And who said you are owed a particular standard of living, especially at the expense of poor people in other countries? You are libertarians. You are supposed to be about paying the price of things.

                    5. Would those be third world countries where you want to stifle industry to appease your mother gaia? Because that’s the only way those people are going to be harmed.

              2. sometimes that gets through, but the hardliners (or some of the hard core people I have talked to)are all carrying-capacity nuts that just think their are to many people on the planet sort of in the mold of Paul Ehrlich.

            2. Even if you believe the science, these people offer no realistic solution to the problem. The US and Western Europe cutting their emissions will do nothing to solve the problem if the rest of the world continues to develop. And the rest of the world is most certainly going to do that. Moreover, the populations of the US and Europe are not going to agree to huge cuts in their standard of living, I don’t care how dire the predictions are.

              Even if you believe the science, you are left with a problem that defies a solution. If C02 really is warming the earth, then the earth is going to warm no matter what US policy is. Despite this, they continue to argue we should enact painful policies that their own science says won’t work. This is why they get tagged with the charge of being a religion. They don’t seem to care whether these proposed solutions won’t solve the problem, as if enacting them carries some special significance on its own.

              The best thing we can do about the possibility of climate change of any sort is get as rich and technologically advanced as possible so that we will better be able to adapt to whatever climate the future holds. These people would instead make us poorer in the name of making them feel better for having at least tried. No thanks.

              1. Why does adaptation never involve cutting carbon emissions?

                1. We’ve already cut emissions to 1992 levels. You just don’t want to admit it because then you have to admit that fracking has done some good.

                2. T: Well, for one thing, the IPCC calls cutting GHG “mitigation.” Just sayin’.

              2. John your absolutely right these people think that solar and wind can work right now, they have no concept of how real life energy is produced besides that it comes from an outlet.

                1. There’s a Leaf commercial on the radio that says “if the car were invented today, it would run on the most abundant energy source available – electricity.” I want to scream at my radio every time I hear it. It’s a completely meaningless statement. It’s…tony-esque.

                  1. I hate that commercial Brandon. It leaves a film of ignorant smug on my television. Why not electric? Because a battery powered car has a limited range, low power and are inferior in every measurable way to gasoline powered ones? Maybe that?

                    1. Not every measurable way. They have more torque and wider power bands, and they don’t lose power at high altitude. That said, the limited range, long recharge times and temperature sensitivity make them impractical still, so my next car will be a CRD.

                    2. Brandon,

                      To the extent that they have more torque, it doesn’t matter since that extra torque can’t be used since the tires can only put so much torque to the ground. If they could, big trucks would be diesel electric the way trains are. Trains are diesel electric because they weigh so much the metal wheels can actually put all of the extra torque an electric motor produces to use. Rubber tires can’t. So the extra torque advantage is overrated. If it wasn’t, the Tesla would have near instantaneous acceleration rather than just good for a sports car acceleration.

                      And modern computer controlled injection systems don’t lose power at altitude the way the old carburated cars did.

                    3. Speaking as someone who drives at high altitude all the time, yes they do. They don’t lose enough power to quit working, but they lose a significant amount if they are naturally aspirated.

                    4. Tesla has demonstrated reasonably short recharge times and battery-pack swapping that occurs twice as fast as a gasoline tank can be refilled at modern filling stations. They also expect, in just a few years’ time, to continue to deliver on their promise of working down the price curve, toward the goal of producing an EV for everyone. The Model ||| will cost about half as much as the Model S, so that hundreds of thousands, or even millions more, can drive EVs with long range, reasonable recharging, and exciting torque and speed. Oh yes, and have you noticed how many happy Tesla owners live in Scandanavian countries, the American Rockies, the the Great Lakes regions, all of which can get VERY cold in the winter? At this point, the only thing “impractical” about a well-designed and built EV is its price tag, and that is coming down significantly.

                  2. For example, there was a book that started out with four pictures: first there was a windup toy; then there was an automobile; then there was a boy riding a bicycle; then there was something else. And underneath each picture it said, “What makes it go?”

                    I thought, “I know what it is: They’re going to talk about mechanics, how the springs work inside the toy; about chemistry, how the engine of the automobile works; and biology, about how the muscles work.”

                    It was the kind of thing my father would have talked about: “What makes it go? Everything goes because the sun is shining.” And then we would have fun discussing it:

                    “No, the toy goes because the spring is wound up,” I would say. “How did the spring get wound up?” he would ask.

                    “I wound it up.”

                    “And how did you get moving?”

                    “From eating.”

                    “And food grows only because the sun is shining. So it’s because the sun is shining that all these things are moving.” That would get the concept across that motion is simply the transformation of the sun’s power.

                    I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, “Energy makes it go.” And for the boy on the bicycle, “Energy makes it go.” For everything, “Energy makes it go.”

                    1. Now that doesn’t mean anything. Suppose it’s “Wakalixes.” That’s the general principle: “Wakalixes makes it go.” There’s no knowledge coming in. The child doesn’t learn anything; it’s just a word!

                      What they should have done is to look at the wind-up toy, see that there are springs inside, learn about springs, learn about wheels, and never mind “energy.” Later on, when the children know something about how the toy actually works, they can discuss the more general principles of energy.

                      It’s also not even true that “energy makes it go,” because if it stops, you could say, “energy makes it stop” just as well. What they’re talking about is concentrated energy being transformed into more dilute forms, which is a very subtle aspect of energy. Energy is neither increased nor decreased in these examples; it’s just changed from one form to another. And when the things stop, the energy is changed into heat, into general chaos.

                      But that’s the way all the books were: They said things that were useless, mixed-up, ambiguous, confusing, and partially incorrect. How anybody can learn science from these books, I don’t know, because it’s not science.

                      All this has happened before and will happen again.

                    2. So the book was just a repetitive tautology?

                  3. didn’t stossel have a bit where they were showing peeps making those things like in 1916 or something?

              3. No problem defies solution. Poor countries are burning coal to save money. Tell them, “OK, we are going to write each of you check for a trillion dollars — except we are taking off a dollar for each ton of carbon you emit.”

                Bam, problem solved (if that is the problem).

            3. You’re probably more charitable than most of us here when it comes to the “cultist”.

        2. “I don’t think the large number of scientists who back that conclusion ‘settles’ something, I just think they are more likely right than their critics.”

          That’s a bit of a problematic statement. The number who believe in something is completely irrelevant not only to the ultimate truth but also to the likelihood of being correct. It shouldn’t sway your opinion either way. Ridley explains why best.

    3. Worn-out talking points, that’s definitely a way to win over people who have heard them a thousand times.

      1. worn-out only because you are tired of being told you are wrong, shit-for-brains. The world isn’t ending. The earth isn’t dying. Malthusian bullshit is still bullshit.

        1. The planet will be fine for a few more billion years. I’m concerned about the human species. You cannot claim that the science is uncertain and then express certainty that the risk is so low that it is properly ignored. Any uncertainty is bad for your point-of-view.

          1. You cannot claim that the science is uncertain and then express certainty that the risk is so low that it is properly ignored.

            Great example of the fallacy of switching the burden of proof. Any more fallacies today?

            1. You need to take more than five days of a Logic 101 semester sarc; you are really annoying with this shit.

              If the science is uncertain, that means it could go either way. There is no reason whatsoever to assume the best. Plenty of reasons to assume the worst.

              1. If my pointing out your fallacies annoys you, then you should stop using them.

                1. But Sarcasmic, Tony wouldn’t be able to argue without fallacies.

                  1. But Sarcasmic, Tony wouldn’t be able to argue without fallacies.

                    Pretty much. You don’t even need to make a counterargument to prove him wrong. Just pick apart his own arguments and show that they are fallacious and devoid of any merit. No counterargument required.

              2. So do you believe in God, Tony? Precisely the same “proof” works there.

              3. Tony, that exact same argument, word for word, has been used to encourage religious belief. What’s the difference when it is used for AGW?

                1. The problem with Pascal’s Wager isn’t that it’s fundamentally illogical, it’s that there are so many alternatives to choose from that it becomes pointless. The choice is not binary: god or no god. It’s no god or this god or that god or that god or those gods…

                  I’m talking about the precautionary principle. Given what we know, we should be cutting emissions and developing technologies on the scale of trillions of dollars and we should have started yesterday. If it turns out that the greenhouse effect was a hoax all along, all we’ll suffer is the consequence of a large-scale effort at advancing the species technologically and moving to sustainable energy.

                  Or as you would put it, widespread misery and poverty for westerners. Just don’t call you an alarmist!

                  1. We are cutting emissions and developing technologies for clean energy, but the technology does not yet exist to provide clean, reliable power on the scale that is needed for people to maintain their living standards. Confiscatory taxation and centralized control of development will not make it go any faster, and in fact will probably slow it down.

                    1. So you admit that your problem is with your anti-government ideological fixation and not with anything going on in the real world?

                    2. Wow, the red straw non sequitur! It really is just fallacies all the way down with you, isn’t it?

                    3. It really is just fallacies all the way down with you, isn’t it?

                      You don’t even need counterarguments with Tony. His arguments are so poor and fallacy laden that they fall apart all by themselves.

                    4. your anti-government ideological fixation

                      Straw man. Limited government is not anti-government. Not that a simpleton like you could understand. Lord knows I’ve tried.

                  2. I’m talking about the precautionary principle.

                    Which is a textbook example of the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.

                    If it turns out that the greenhouse effect was a hoax all along, all we’ll suffer is the consequence of a large-scale effort at advancing the species technologically and moving to sustainable energy.

                    And if we break enough windows we can really get the economy going!

                  3. The problem with the Precautionary Principle is that the choice is not binary: death or life. How many numbers exist between 1.2C/doubling and 3C/doubling? How many number exist between 1.5 and 1.6? How many numbers exist between 1.5 and 1.55? Hint: the answer is the same.

                    The fact that you don’t understand opportunity cost is apparent in your lust for another huge government program. What if there is no CAGW and that money could have been used to cure cancer. How many people would you have killed going down a path that was completely unnecessary?

                    Tell me again how thermal fusion is coming RSN. I need another chuckle this morning.

              4. Tony|7.16.14 @ 11:41AM|#
                “You need to take more than five days of a Logic 101 semester sarc”

                You slimy shit, you know logic like Obo knows econ; ZERO.

          2. dude, Population Bomb was bullshit, all this hysteria is bullshit, and I honestly think you know this.

            The only responses to AGW I’ve ever seen proposed is… taxes. That’s it. More control over the populace. Not one scientific thing to counter pollution.

            Also, switching from coal to natural gas (I know, fracking!) has cut more pollution than EVERY SINGLE SOLAR PANEL EVER BUILT. Let that sink in.

            1. Hysteria is only appropriate when it comes to raising billionaires taxes by 3%. I know what being a libertarian means.

              1. Hysteria is only appropriate when it comes to raising billionaires taxes by 3%.

                Straw man. Any more fallacies?

              2. Not being driven by emotion, I would argue that hysteria is almost never appropriate.

                That’s how politics works- you scare people, then tell them how you are going to save them (as long as they vote for you/give you what you want), then rise to power to dominate them. It’s that simple.

                I argue to cut everyone’s taxes. Not being a billionaire, I don’t really concern myself with them. There is no such thing as the “99% and 1%”. That’s Marxist class-struggle bullshit. We are all just human, and if someone has more money in the wallet than me, that’s ok. Nothing to be mad about, life isn’t fair. Them having more money than you does not take away money from you. It’s not zero-sum.

                1. It very much is zero-sum, though it doesn’t necessarily have to be.

                  Cutting income taxes doesn’t help people too poor to pay income taxes. You’ve been sold on a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it just so happens that solution is putting millions of dollars into the pockets of billionaires while starving social programs for the poor. What was the problem again? Who cares, they’ve got you working for them for free and you are practically thanking them for it.

                  1. It very much is zero-sum

                    No, Tony. It’s not. Now what do we call an argument that is based upon a false premise? Yeah. A fallacy.

                  2. False Consciousness!!! Only Tony is immune to the billionaires’ (except Warren Buffet and George Soros) mind control powers!!! That’s totally not a non sequitur straw man at all!

                  3. how on earth is it zero sum? So I get my paycheck at the end of the month, I’m literally stealing food from a baby? Dude, stop being a contrarian. You know damn well that’s not the truth.

                    My money is independent of yours, etc. Socialism is built on envy, and passive-aggressive frustration that someone else has done better than you have. It truly is the philosophy of losers in life.

                  4. “starving social programs”

                    oh? like Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid that are all tax-revenue dependent and now take up the overwhelming portion of the US federal budget (FAR outpacing defense spending)? THOSE “starving social programs”? LOL jesus dude you embarrass yourself WAY too much.

                    1. Tony honestly believes that every dollar that the government allows a rich person (with the wrong politics) to keep is literally stolen from the mouth of a starving child. Add to that the fact that he has no comprehension of the distinctions between income, money and wealth, and he comes off as a complete fool. Because that’s what he is.

                    2. He also has no comprehension of the concept of wealth creation, being that he cannot comprehend the distinction between money and wealth. Add to that the fact that he cannot distinguish between society and government, and he really looks like a ignoramus. Because he is.

                    3. And you are completely blind to the way rich people can be parasitic on an economy.

                    4. “He has more than me! That’s not fair!”

                      It’s nothing more than a whine.

                    5. Tony,

                      youa are completely blind to the way government is ALWAYS parasitic on an economy.

        2. You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can’t make him learn.

          1. s & T: Perhaps my new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century will help. Out next spring by St. Martins Press.

            1. You know who else shamelessly promoted their new book?

              1. The authors of “Rise of the Independents”?

                1. That’s The Declaration of Independents, Idle. Available now on Amazon.

                  1. I dunno, Brandon, Idle may be on to something.

                    Rise of the Planet of the Independents could be a great action flick.

                    When statists and housepets are killed off by a plague, a ragtag gang of minarchists and anarchists must agree on a set of rules for homesteading and property rights OR FACE EXTINCTION!

                    Boom! Nailed the elevator pitch.

                    1. Jessie wasn’t that the plot of “Black Hawk Down”?

                    2. Jessie wasn’t that the plot of “Black Hawk Down”?

                      I…don’t know, I haven’t seen it.

                      *hides face in shame*

                    3. “Take your stinkin’ paws off me, you damn dirty statist!”

            2. I see you’ve taken a page from the Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie book of product placement.

              Well done sir!

            3. Having never read anything of yours, I might just pick it up. I’m curious whether you touched on any of the paradoxical effects of government management of the environment.

      2. Who are these fucking people I need to “win over?” The rubes and proles? They’ll do what they are told as long as they get free shit.

        The intellectuals? They drank the cool aid. Facts and reason don’t matter to them.

        The government? Brute force without discussion.

        Either the climate-change assholes will get their way using the blunt instrument of state power, or they won’t, because not enough politicians are willing to tank the economy to give Al Gore a boner.

    4. “…would have extreme impact on the way people have become accustomed to live”

      No doubt correct, but since when has the way people have become accustomed to live been stable? This desire for stability you are trying to appeal to is wishful thinking and without foundation. You recognize this in the non existence of an ideal global temperature, how about the economic sphere?

      1. How about, we shouldn’t make everyone poorer for some retards that hate humanity?

        1. I agree that we should put all this endless scientific squabbling behind us and realize it’s a question of people like us who love humanity and others who hate it.

          I was only pointing out the inconsistency of the commenter rightly pointing out the absurdity of an ideal global temperature, but in the very next sentence referring to an ideal way to live. Both positions underestimate the dynamism and adapability of the earth’s climate and humanity’s ability to adapt and thrive.

          1. It’s not inconsistent when you understand that the way we live in America is “ideal” to American’s. There is no way to know, let alone really agree on an “ideal global temperature”.

            1. “It’s not inconsistent when you understand that the way we live in America is “ideal” to American’s”

              No doubt true, but still a rather narrow way of approaching the problem since it’s global warming we’re discussing, not american warming. Pure parochialism.

              Second point, I entirely agree.

  5. Audit him! He’s obviously accepting money from Big Oil! It’s the only explanation!

  6. “I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ “

    If climate denialism is communicable, we’re all fucked!

    1. You wouldn’t want to shake hands with a heretic, would you? The demonic forces might jump into you.

      1. Honestly, I was just surprised that they believed in germ theory.

      2. It’s all just cover for CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN anyway. He’s actually a computational demonologist.

        1. computational demonologist.

          Wasn’t that the profession of the lead character in a Dan Brown novel?

          1. I have no idea. I’m referencing Charles Stross’ Laundry Series.

            1. I was just being a smart ass. Computational Demonologist sounds a lot like Religious Iconographer, which was the made up profession of the protagonist in the DiVinci Code.

          2. No, that was Dan Brown.

        2. What’s your take on the latest book? I think he has to end it soon. He’s in the Fantasy Series trap where the hero and his allies are basically gods due to having to take on god-like intelligences.

          1. I just started Rhesus Chart (I decided to re-read all the other books first and have been doing that for the last few weeks). So far I’m loving the vampire Scrum, but that’s as far as I’ve gotten. I’ve been thinking that he needs to end it since Apocalypse Codex just because there’s only so much more Bob can do without being truly superhero-like. So I guess in a way I agree with you, but I’ll leave judgement until I finish this latest one. I also think his relationship with Mo is stale. He could keep it going if he really changed some shit up, but I doubt he wants to do that.

  7. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles.

    Yeah Ron, that is quite a sentence isn’t it? If there is a bigger self promoter in science than Mann, I am unaware who it is. Really, what the Times is saying here is that it is okay to do all this “science” stuff just as long as you don’t do it in public where it might disrupt the approved narrative.

    1. “If there is a bigger self promoter in science than Mann, I am unaware who it is.”

      I’ll see your Mann and raise you an Ehrlich!
      No one has peddled outright bunk with as much hubris as him.

      1. Point to you. But I am pretty sure the Times thinks Erlich is just great.

      2. Since when has Ehrlich been considered a scientist?

      3. Paul Ehrlich: The Wrongest Man in the Galaxy.

  8. But Russel was here just yesterday with his snarky web-site, and he’s from HARVARD (!!!), so we know, uh…

  9. I’m keeping an eye on the polar vortex to see if the science is settled. When the whole “polar vortex” thing blew up last winter, there were a few climatologists who rushed to explain that it was just a cyclical thing and had nothing to do with climate change. The reason for this is because the science is settled, and the Arctic jet stream is weakening and staying further north according to the models.

    I found an article from a few years back where a researcher had suggested that climate change might cause the polar air fow to move further south and aid in keeping northern Europe and North America cooler than predicted, but no less a figure than Michael Mann rejected the idea, saying that the researchers had already looked into that possibility and concluded that higher equatorial pressures and air movement would keep the Artic air trapped closer to the North Pole than ever before. (Further, the Artic air trapped in the Arctic would reduce the amount of moisture available from southerly winds and contribute to declining Arctic ice, I think.)

    So in a few months when we start reading about the upcoming winter weather, how much speculation are we going to see regarding the return of the global-warming induced polar vortex? And how much will we see anybody bothering to point out that an increased frequency or severity of the polar vortex is a refutation of the science and not a confirmation? I suspect that the science is only settled once it confirms global warming.

    1. When it’s colder than average, that’s just weather. And everyone knows that weather is not climate.

      Now when it’s warmer than average, that’s a climate event. Because everyone knows that warmer weather is proof that the climate is changing.

      1. There is only one fucking chart that matters.

        Average global temperature vs time. The theory states that an increase in CO2 is directly proportional to average global temperature.

        It’s not happening. The longer that curve remains flat (16 years now) the less likely they theory is correct.

        Funny thing. The models were originally developed when, late 80s early 90s? Since the theory was developed, there has been a longer period with NO warming than there has with. (But according to Tony, I’m cherry picking.

        My suspicion: They saw a warming trend (past). Built their models to fit the past assuming their theory was correct and the past trend would continue into the future.

        Ooops. Theory was wrong. Something else caused the earlier warming.

        1. Latest bullshit I heard was that due to solar cycles (or something, they don’t know for sure), the climate has been temporarily cooling. But the greenhouse gasses are still accumulating. So when the solar cycle (or something, they don’t know for sure) returns to normal (whatever that is), there’s going to be a devastating jump in global temperatures. Like a staircase.

          And when that doesn’t happen they’ll come up with something else.

          1. I heard that all the heat is concentrating in the oceans.

            Of course, no explanation of how it got there without heating the atmosphere or why in 1998 it stopped heating the atmosphere and started heating the oceans.

            1. Because SCIENCE! Duh.

              No seriously, people on huffpo, yahoo, and our very own retards actually believe heat could be transferred to the deep ocean without first warming the atmosphere and the upper ocean first. Never mind their complete disregard for the scientific fact that heat rises.

              1. Can you prove that heat is not being transferred to the deep ocean? Huh? No, you can’t. Therefore it’s true.

            2. They never actually collected the data regarding the ocean heat.

              1. Trenberth’s missing heat fairy tale.

          2. Oh I think they’re basing that on the Maunder Minimum and its relationship to the Little Ice Age.

            The sun apparently cycles in and out of high/low input phases and low sunspot activity may be indicative of a lower energy cycle.

            1. That’s a pretty inconvenient tack for them to take because they’ve been insisting for decades that the sun plays a minor role.

              1. I’d come across the Maunder Minimum and thought it was interesting before AGW became a cause c?l?bre and was surprised that there was less talk about non-atmospheric factors, but I’ll admit I haven’t followed closely how they factor in things like solar cycles, mostly because carbon and methane suck all the air out of the room.

                I can see making an argument that focusing on carbon and methane makes sense since we have a bit more agency with those than with sunspot cycles, but that has the (realized) potential of making climate scientists seem cynical.

                1. Another Maunder is a scary thought. Colder from where we are would definitely be worse. Substantially colder would kill a lot of people…

                  1. Yeah. I’d prefer not to have another Little Ice Age.

                    Can you imagine how expensive it would be to build a border wall with Canada?

                    1. They’re so polite, they’d just freeze to death in place, eh?

                    2. Nah, they’d just convincingly pretend they’re Americans like they do when they get in trouble while traveling abroad. We wouldn’t know the difference until it was too late.

                    3. The call is coming from inside the country?

        2. I think your suspicion is a pretty good bet. Also, I am still not convinced that there is such a thing as “average global temperature” in any meaningful sense. Sure, you can do some math and average highs and average lows and come up with a number, but so what? How does that number connect to anything meaningful in the real world? Does that number being higher mean less sea ice and higher sea levels? In the extreme, sure. We do have ice ages after all. But at the degrees of difference we are talking about here? Maybe but not necessarily. I don’t see why a drop in global temperature of a few degrees is necessarily catastrophic or even necessarily noticeable for most of the earth.

          1. My continuing skepticism stems from the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Two times nothing is…what?

            The entire theory hinges on a series of positive feedback loops raising CO2 levels to a significant level. I think this is where the failure lies. The feedback loops don’t exist.

            1. What is funny about that is the AGW believers dismiss the idea that solar cycles could drive climate because the difference in solar energy from one cycle to the next is comparatively tiny. But then they turn right around and claim that increases in a comparatively tiny component of the atmosphere can catastrophically alter climate. If there are positive feedback loops to CO2, why can’t there be such for increases or decreases in solar energy?

              They really are an epic example of confirmation bias.

              1. They have to tie CO2 to water vapor via a multiplier that they can’t really compute or collect real data on.

            2. My continuing skepticism stems from the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Two times nothing is…what?

              The entire theory hinges on a series of positive feedback loops raising CO2 levels to a significant level. I think this is where the failure lies. The feedback loops don’t exist.

              Yeah. That’s about when my bullshit detector went off.

            3. . I think this is where the failure lies. The feedback loops don’t exist.

              Not only that, but CO2 is about the -least- “problematic” of the “greenhouse” gasses. Why not pick Methane or h2o?

              The only answer I’ve found is that it’s a lot harder to talk people into regulating cow farts and water.

              1. We must stop watery cow farts to save humanity!

                /Future Earth First flyer

        3. They have two basic knobs to play with in the GCM’s: climate sensitivity to CO2 and aerosols. Cloud cover is a complete dog’s breakfast so I don’t know how consistently it’s even applied. The models were trained during a cyclical warming period so they tend to read warm. Given CO2 is effectively your only knob to turn to fit the data during a warm spell, well…

        4. “The theory states that an increase in CO2 is directly proportional to average global temperature.”

          Not quite.

          The theory states that global average temperature will increase in logarithmic proportion to increase in GHG concentration (i.e. each doubling of GHGs will result in X degrees of warming) and only after a time lag of decades to centuries.

          There is no consensus on the value of X.

          1. Yes. Directly proportional. One goes up, the other goes up.

            I didn’t claim linearity or mention proportionality at all.

        5. “The theory states that an increase in CO2 is directly proportional to average global temperature.”

          Where is that theory stated? I only see self described skeptics claim that this is ‘the theory,’ ie because temperature doesn’t increase in a lockstep linear manner with CO2 levels, global warming must be bogus. Seems to discount the enormous complexity of the earth’s atmosphere.

          1. What?

            That has been the theory since Al Gore’s hockey stick.

            Seems to discount the enormous complexity of the earth’s atmosphere.

            Think?

            1. To repeat, where is this theory of yours stated? Al Gore is a politician, and you mustn’t take what he says as science.

              What scientist (not politician or celebrity) has stated this theory of yours?

              1. Are you claiming I’m wrong?

                Look, if you have a point…make it. I’m not playing 20 questions with you.

                1. He doesn’t have a point except to agree with Tony and tell us we’re wrong.

                2. Where did I say you were wrong? I’m simply asking (for the third time) where this theory of yours is stated. No answer yet…

                  I’m beginning to think this theory of yours that every molecule of CO2 added to our atmosphere proportionally increases ‘average global temperature’ is either a figment of your imagination or straw man.

              1. Thanks for the link. I read it and it was worth reading. Nowhere does he state that an ‘increase in CO2 is directly proportional to average global temperature.’ You should read it again yourself. You are mischaracterizing these climatologists’ claims.

                1. No, I am not mischaracterizing their claims. I simplified them for the sake of time.

                  Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

                  Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory.

                  Which is EXACTLY what I summed up. CO2 goes up. Temperature goes up. Directly proportional.

                  1. “Directly proportional.”

                    Do you understand the meaning of these words? Night is colder that day, winter colder than summer etc. Even when CO2 is rising constantly. The complexity of the atmosphere will foil your quest for a simple linear equation to describe the relationship between temperature and CO2.

                  2. “directly proportional” has a mathematical meaning, and it does not mean what you evidently think it means. You are using it incorrectly.

                    I agree with your conclusions, but you get there with faulty logic. Please do not use that argument against warmists. It is wrong.

                    1. No, I’m NOT wrong. See below.

        6. Be careful of your strawmen. “The theory states that an increase in CO2 is directly proportional to average global temperature.”

          The theory states no such thing. Temp is a function of CO2, but CO2 is not the only variable, so it will be proportional, but not directly so.

          If one variable is always the product of the other and a constant, the two are said to be directly proportional. x and y are directly proportional if the ratio \tfrac yx is constant.

          1. Did the definitions of directly and inversely proportional change since I went to school?

            Directly proportional:

            As one variable in an equation changes, the second variable changes in the same direction. As one goes up, the other goes up. As one goes down, the other goes down.

            Inversely proportional:

            As one variable in an equation changes, the second variable changes in the opposite direction. As one goes up, the other goes down.

            Did they change definitions and not inform me?

            1. You are misremembering the definitions. The two antonyms are “proportional” and “inversely proportional”.

              Directly proportional would mean temp is constantly proportional to CO2. This is not the case, and nobody is arguing that it is.

              Warmists are arguing that temp is a function of CO2, and I think that is correct, but most of them seem to ignore or misunderstand about a gazillion other things that go into the temperature function.

                1. You’re right and I’m an idiot. I was the one misremembering the definitions.

                  I hereby change my accusation to that of oversimplification. 🙂

                  1. Oh, I don’t disagree that it is complicated. The point being that they don’t have a case if when CO2 increases temperature doesn’t.

                    I suspect there are feedback loops driving us toward a constant avg temp. I suspect when you add heat you add water vapor. One would guess that would further increase temps (trapping more energy). But clouds IMHO are much more likely to reflect heat away from the planet than trap it within.

                    Bottom line, if the temperatures don’t go up, we are not in peril.

                    1. “Bottom line, if the temperatures don’t go up, we are not in peril.”

                      A poor bottom line to the article, and that’s being charitable. Surely, you can’t have missed that the one point where the models and the actual data both agree. That temperature IS going up.

                    2. At an insignificant rate.

                      You are a troll.

                      Bye.

                    3. “At an insignificant rate.”

                      Insignificant is a subjective term, not scientific. You should try to keep your personal feelings out of the discussion. You’ve done well up to now, but now you’re slipping, resorting to slander and insult for the first time.

    2. They had some climatologist on the Weather Channel earlier this week to explain who the polar vortex is further proof of global warming. She was a monument to double talk. First sentence she puts out the dogma that the vortex was caused by global warming and then in the middle of her minute of air time gives a list of qualifiers that when put together totally refute her initial claim. She admitted that these things could be caused by any number of things and that we don’t fully understand them. Despite this, all of the viewers can rest assured that global warming is the cause.

      1. …..or global cooling. Owlsey Stanley predicted this type of weather pattern at least 15 years ago. If the polar vortex manifests itself again at perihelion, I will seriously consider snowbirding in Australia.

    3. This phenomena perfectly fits what I am calling the “apocalypse of Owsley”. Read Owlsey Stanley’s essay on the “cause of glaciation” at his webiste thebear.org and see if that doesn’t describe the phenomena of the polar vortex. If his prophetic (likely hallucinogen-induced) vision is correct, then the earth can act like a giant Hilsch tube, and we all should move to Australia.

  10. Ron, I would be curious to know what are the two, or three models that actual DO seem to follow the actual data? Any insights on these?

  11. Where’s Anthony? Shouldn’t he be here to threaten the nonbleevers with death?

    1. I can’t quit you either.

    2. Give it time, we haven’t pissed him off enough yet.

  12. John Christy is only paid attention to because he is a contrarian. That is not science, that is celebrity. He’s not someone who deserves to be paid attention to, let alone vastly more than any other expert. He’s made embarrassing blunders in his research, yet Ron Bailey thinks it is science reporting to refer only to Christy and Spencer and fucking Bjorn Lomborg and nobody else when reporting on this field. Does nobody care anymore that there is a difference between having facts and having an agenda?

    1. You’re right Tony. We should ignore people who disagree with us. Which means this is probably right around where you stop reading Reason…

      1. I’m not ignoring him, I’m just not elevating him. It’s not rational to take his word over thousands of his colleagues who all believe something else, just because you like what he has to say.

        1. I’m not ignoring him

          He’s not someone who deserves to be paid attention to

        2. But of course a journalist would write about a contrarian. What’s interesting about an article that’s titled “Michael Mann still thinks anthropogenic global warming an existential threat to humanity!”?

          1. Bailey regularly cites him as a scientific authority on this subject to the exclusion of far more credible experts.

        3. Tony|7.16.14 @ 11:27AM|#
          “I’m not ignoring him, I’m just not elevating him”

          Yeah, who needs facts when you can get all sciency predictions from top men?

    2. [Citation needed]

      1. John Christy is one of the world’s most debunked “experts” in the world in this field. That Ron Bailey cites him to the exclusion of the entire rest of the field is a travesty of science reporting. Here’s your fucking link.

        1. The problem is that climate science is a field that was developed with the assumption that the climate is affected by human activity. Of course there is a consensus that it is. That’s the only reason the field exists.

          1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

            1. Please! Educate me!

              1. The science, which has been going on for decades and decades, has looked into all these questions. It has looked for natural causes of warming. It has found that human fossil fuel emissions are the primary cause. This is not controversial. You don’t get to claim it is. If you really want to be educated, go to google, type climate change evidence, and read.

                1. You’re talking about climatology, which is a real field of study. I’m talking about “Climate Science,” which is a newly formed political agenda. No one who refers to “climate science” is talking about anything but man made climate change. Please type climate science into google, and you’ll see that it has nothing to do with climatology.

                  1. I thought the subject at hand was man-made climate change. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

                    1. I saying that when you ask 1000000 people who have one thing in common, that they study man made climate change, and then get the answer from 98% of them that they believe there is man made climate change, you have to take that result with a grain of salt. Like I said below, it’s like taking a poll of Muslims and asking “how many of you think that Allah is God?” I bet you get an even bigger consensus!

                    2. Not the same type of question. One is science and depends on evidence and the other isn’t and doesn’t. If 98% of relevant experts said you had cancer, would you go with the other 2% because [insert whatever your rationalization for going with the outliers is because I still don’t understand it]?

                    3. Possibly…But then again they didn’t self select into a field that is predisposed to believe that I have cancer.

                    4. That’s a nonsense excuse and you know it.

                    5. Huh? How is that nonsense? When people self select into a field, of course they’re more likely to be alike.

                    6. If 98% of relevant experts said you had cancer, would you go with the other 2% because…?

                      If 98% of relevant experts said you had incurable cancer and would die in six months, would go with them? Or would you go with the 2% who said it was treatable?

                    7. Dear Tony,

                      Scientology and Science are two very different things.

                      Thanks,
                      Rest of the world

            2. This sentence proves what a disingenuous, lying, shit stain Tony really is. When confronted with different opinions or counterfactual arguments all he can do is say ” No, you’re wrong. Now shut up and believe peasant.” No argument, no facts, no thought. Just appeals to authority and ad hominem.

              1. The facts are a google search away.

                1. Well that settles it. I’m convinced now!

          2. The problem is that climate science is a field that was developed with the assumption that the climate is affected by human activity.

            Yup. It’s nothing but question begging.

        2. Let’s pick one “debunk” at random:

          Christy says: “The small rate of warming that the planet is going through and the fact that energy production and CO2 might be related to a part of that, there is not much you can do to reverse whatever the climate is going to do whether is man caused or or not.”
          Answer:”A large amount of warming is delayed and if we don’t act now, we could pass tipping points”

          So let’s debunk the debunking:
          1) We ARE acting now, we’re just not “acting” like lefty ignoramuses would prefer.
          2) Yes, we *could* pass tipping points and we might *not* pass tipping points.
          IOWs, we should do something because I say so (the link is to another page in the same screed).
          Fuck you, Tony, that’s not debunking, that’s pathetic appeal to authority!

        3. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

          Dr. Christy is listed as a “Roundtable Speaker” for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank.

          It’s a scientific fact that Dr. Christy is a right-wing extremist and therefore his opinions are invalid. The science is settled.

          1. I’m just saying… pay attention to all the other scientists and not just this one. If you only care what he has to say, you are most certainly being political about it.

    3. Because everyone else, per their own fucking graphs and models, is FUCKING WRONG.

    4. what do call Bill Nye and Niel DeGrasse Tyson? Science or celebrity?

    5. John Christy is only paid attention to because he is a contrarian. That is not science…

      Um, actually it is. Science is all about skepticism. Going with the majority is politics, not science. But you have already established that you know absolutely nothing about science.

      1. Okay so world-class science expert sarc, what you seem to be saying is that people who disagree with the consensus are usually or always right. Now, explain why that isn’t as fucking retarded as it sounds.

        1. Nope. Just that skepticism is healthy in science. Because without it we would still think that the first prevailing thought in any field was correct.

          1. Since sarc is here, I’ll resort to a cliche: keep your mind open, but not so open your brain falls out.

            Science does, from time to time, actually figure things out.

            1. Right. Because people are always questioning. Unless they have a political agenda…then you just get crazy talk!

              1. There are two competing political agendas here: one is keep profits up for fossil fuel companies, and the other is to save the human species from killing itself. It’s not just that one of these has relied on spending billions of dollars to misinform people and keep political institutions paralyzed that I prefer the other, it’s also because it’s, like, the obviously more ethical one to care about.

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Dude, are you that fucking narcissistic?

                  1. He really is.

            2. Lol! From the guy who uses his brain as a soccer ball!

        2. Now, explain why that isn’t as fucking retarded as it sounds.

          It sounds retarded because it’s a straw man argument. Got any more fallacies?

        3. Except…he has the actual OBSERVATIONS OF THE REAL WORLD supporting his position. It’s not a popularity contest, you fuging ignorant moron.

            1. Fugue

              A fugue state, formally dissociative fugue or psychogenic fugue, is a rare psychiatric disorder characterized by reversible amnesia for personal identity, including the memories, personality, and other identifying characteristics of individuality. The state is usually short-lived (ranging from hours to days), but can last months or longer. Dissociative fugue usually involves unplanned travel or wandering, and is sometimes accompanied by the establishment of a new identity.

              Fuging is like Dude Where’s My Car, but with less alcohol.

        4. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

          -Richard P. Feynman

          Not that you will ever understand that quote, Tony.

          1. I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of “It only takes one experiment to prove me wrong.”

            Settled science is an oxymoron, unlike Tony who is just a moron.

            1. Were Einstein’s papers peer reviewed?

          2. And the theory that climate change is a hoax doesn’t agree with experiment. Sorry about that.

            1. Why do you deny the data, Tony? Justify the chart in the article. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

            2. Way to prove his point.

            3. Holy shit, what a glorious bit of nonsense. You’d be better off ignoring the Feynman quote, if that’s the best retort you have.

      2. See sarcasmic, being well known for questioning things in your field expertise means you should be ignored. But being well known for spouting leftist dogma in fields that you have no training means you are a “scientist” and above reproach. Didn’t you know that?

        1. Principals trump principles.

    6. Tony, for someone who constantly appeals to authority, you seem to have very little respet for it when it suits you. Here is a clue, I doubt you could do a basic algebra problem or know anything about weather beyond what you see on the nightly weather report. Therefore, you really are in no position to dismiss Christy’s claims. You don’t know shit other than that he is telling you something that conflicts with your fanatical and dogmatic view of the world.

      In contrast, Christy’s work is published in peer reviewed and reputable publications and even though his colleagues don’t always agree with him, they haven’t been able to disprove or dismiss his claims. If they had, Christy wouldn’t be getting published.

      It must be bad enough being stupid. But God it must be horrible to be you and be not only stupid but have absolutely no idea that is what you are.

      1. On the contrary I know exactly how much I don’t know about this subject–which is why I have no other choice but to defer to experts and what the current science says. Guess what, that doesn’t include you either, so you equally have no other choice if you are interested in being informed.

        I do happen to know that Christy’s work and history are shoddy enough to be safely ignored rather than preferred to the exclusion of everyone else’s.

        1. Hey Tony! Experts and current science says people named “Tony” should kill themselves! Now you have no choice but to kill yourself!

        2. Tony’s of the world never change. A century ago they KNEW plate tectonics was wrong. 150 years ago they KNEW an invisible aether permeated the universe. 500 years ago they KNEW the sun revolved around the Earth.

          Just more religion with a different deity.

          1. 2000 years ago, they KNEW God created the universe and all of the animals exactly the way they are today!

          2. If the greenhouse effect is a hoax, or carbon dioxide isn’t a greenhouse gas, or whatever other positive claim your making is true, then you have to prove it. The burden is not actually on people who are making claims based on observed reality.

            1. The positive claim is that humans are causing climate change…

              1. And that claim has been proved. Now there are another positive claims: that something else is causing climate change. Or that there is no climate change despite observations. Those are not default positions, they have to be proved as well.

                1. The claim has not been proved. There is consensus among people who self selected in to a field that deals with man made climate change that there is man made climate change. That’s no more proof of man made climate change than consensus among sociologists that Karl Marx is totally awesome!

                  1. That’s no more proof of man made climate change than consensus among sociologists that Karl Marx is totally awesome!

                    Actually, the consensus among sociologists is probably stronger.

              2. Oh yeah? Well, prove they’re not!

                /Tony

            2. If the greenhouse effect is a hoax, or carbon dioxide isn’t a greenhouse gas

              Straw man. Geez, fallacies is all you’ve got.
              No one is making that claim. What we dispute is how significant of an effect that trace gas has on the climate in light of other more significant factors.

              1. And who is we? Where is your degree in climatology from? What data are you using? Does it, perchance, come straight from your ass?

                1. And who the fuck are you? Are you a climatologist? Because if you aren’t, you better shut the fuck up right now. Show me your papers or forever be silenced.

                2. If the climate was a closed system with no variables other than CO2, then yes. I would be right there with the program. But it’s not. There is A LOT about the climate that is not fully understood. Yet it is treated like a simple closed system for the purpose of these models. That’s why they fail.

                  Fancy degrees are not necessary to recognize bullshit.

                  1. So the entire scientific community is blind to this “open system” concept and only you have it figured out? Why should I trust you over them?

                    1. Why should I trust you over them?

                      I’m not asking you to trust anyone. I’m asking you to try thinking for yourself for a change.

                    2. That’s what I’m doing. I am not, however, proclaiming myself smarter than the world’s experts like you.

                    3. How can you not be skeptical when the models don’t match the measurements?

                      You don’t have to know the first thing about climatology to realize the temperatures don’t match the predictions.

                    4. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. You can still be wrong.

                    5. You’re wrong. The chart is wrong. Why did you suddenly start believing in the science behind climate change when you saw this chart?

                    6. Look at what Christy analyzed. He took the models the scientists themselves developed and tested their predictions using actual data. Almost every model overestimated the temperatures. That, to me, would indicate there’s something wrong with the model- some sort of missing variable. I’m an economist so I develop models frequently. If I developed around 90 similar models and all but 4 were shown to be overestimating an effect, I would check my models. You don’t need to have a PhD in climatology to see a potential problem.

                3. Does it, perchance, come straight from your ass?

                  It comes from the real-world data. Average global temperature IS NOT increasing with an increase in CO2.

                  You see, in order for a theory to be correct…it actually has to agree with the data.

                  Are you REALLY this fucking ignorant?

                  1. You see, in order for a theory to be correct…it actually has to agree with the data.

                    Are you REALLY this fucking ignorant?

                    But, but, but… Consensus! Smart people!

                    1. Let’s ask several hundred public school teachers if public schooling is the most efficient way to educate children.

                      Consensus!

                    2. Let’s ask several hundred public school teachers if public schooling is the most efficient way to educate children.

                      Consensus!

                      Exactly.

                  2. Yes it is. You’re just saying things that are untrue.

            3. It doesn’t need to be a hoax to be wrong. It’s only a hoax if people are intentionally fudging data or lying.

              It can simply be an incorrect theory.

              1. It doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory. It’s a hypothesis that has been falsified by the failure of temperatures to rise in correlation with rising CO2.

            4. What is the ECS according to Arrhenius, Tony? What is it according to your precious models? The former has been tested under laboratory conditions and been shown to be about 1.5C/doubling (that would be 560ppm and we’re at 400). Your climastrologists have to use 3 in order for their models to hindcast the 80’s and 90’s. Unfortunately, when they FOREcasted the 00’s, nature didn’t go along with them.

              The burden of proof is on you.

              Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

          3. Shit, 100 years ago they KNEW that eugenics was the answer to all life’s problems.

            Oh wait, Tony STILL thinks it’s okay to kill whoever doesn’t agree with him and to use whatever means necessary to keep the “lower classes” in line.

        3. On the contrary I know exactly how much I don’t know about this subject–which is why I have no other choice but to defer to experts and what the current science says.

          Now, explain why that isn’t as fucking retarded as it sounds.

        4. Christy’s work is among the best in the empirical side of climatology. They made a small mistake about 10 years ago wrt the drift of the sats and promptly fixed it.

          RSS and UAH are the two best sets of temps we have. So saying Christy’s work is shoddy is simply nonsense.

    7. Tony: Do you actually read my articles? Mostly you will see that I report on the costs and benefits of climate change policies.

      With regard to data see for example, “Did Federal Climate Scientists Fudge Temperature Data to Make it Warmer?” and “Humans Are the Certain Cause of Climate Change.”

      I report Christy’s data since his global data series is one of the five leading series, including RSS, HadCrut, GISS, and NCDC. Would you want to exclude data? I also have made it plain that I prefer his data series because the satellites measure global temperatures without as much need to fiddle with adjustments that the surface thermometer data need to account for heat island effects, station changes, equipment changes, etc.

      Please pay better attention.

      1. If I pay more attention will I come across you scolding a single person for denying the basic facts of this topic?

        1. Facts like the chart in the article? Why do you deny the data, Tony?

          1. Point is among all the people in this room I’m the one with the outlook that’s closest to Mr. Bailey’s own, but he only ever bothers to scold me.

            1. Sure you wanna quit playing, Tony? The game’s always between you and getting called a cunt. That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, Tony. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

            2. The point is, you always ally yourself with who you perceive to have the most authority or power in a situation. You’re a professional suck-up, a lackey, a witting fool.

              There could be an intelligent discourse over climate change and sensitivity models, but those of your ilk only ever shout down or desire to shut down those who disagree with the “consensus”.

              1. An intelligent discourse on this subject is impossible if people keep insisting that it is valid to claim that global warming isn’t real. But keeping the conversation from moving on to solutions is a pretty good deal for those who benefit from the status quo.

                1. And when the models have been shown to irrevocably wrong? Is it too much to ask that these issues be addressed and resolved before the inherent force and violence of government is invoked as a proposed solution? Instead, we get ad hominems and threats of excommunication. Is it any wonder there is no trust?

                2. You keep erecting that strawman. Christy doesn’t say it’s unreal. He says that CATASTROPHIC AGW isn’t real. If we KNEW that every doubling of CO2 increased acerage global temps by 0.1 degrees, would you still be advocating for all these mitigation schemes and green energy crony projects? Given your expressed preferences, I’m sure you would. That is the opposition you’re hearing and not the bogeyman you keep reinventing every post.

                  1. Christy is an outlier, and that’s putting it charitably. Why on earth would you take what he says as the truth and dismiss everyone else?

                    1. Tony|7.16.14 @ 4:19PM|#
                      …”Why on earth would you take what he says as the truth and dismiss everyone else?”

                      No, Tony, it’s not about who says what.
                      IT’S ABOUT THE DATA, YOU IMBECILE! READ THE GODDAM DATA!

                    2. You read the data. The real data, not the stuff manipulated by this outlier guy. But you’re not gonna do that, are you?

          2. Because ‘Tony’ is a DENIER!!11!!!

          3. Because reality isn’t complying with the agenda.

  13. How long before a AGW enthusiast tells us he zoomed in on one of those post-its on Dr. Christy’s computer and tells us it says,
    “Call Kochs about next seven figure grant?”

    1. And the ‘proof’ will be a ridiculously bad Photoshop job.

  14. John Christy [insert AGW archbishop here] is only paid attention to because he is a contrarian peddling a politically useful narrative. That is not science, that is celebrity. He’s not someone who deserves to be paid attention to, let alone vastly more than any other expert.

  15. I love the argument that consensus among climate scientists is meaningful. It’s like saying “98% of Muslims believe that Allah is God and Muhammad is his Prophet,” or “94% of Berkeley economics professors think that the science is settled, and socialism is better than capitalism.” I could go on and on, but I’m sick of hearing the argument that because a huge majority of people with the same beliefs believe the same thing, then everyone should believe it…

    1. But you’re not as smart as them. These are CLIMATE SCIENTIST. Where’d you get your climate degree, huh Mr. Smarty Pants?

      /Tony

    2. The science is settled…until someone points out that science is never settled. Then it’s consensus…until someone points out that science isn’t consensus-based. Then it’s STONE THE UNBELIEVER.

      Animists and control freaks always follow the same patterns. It’s very fortunate that they do, because if they weren’t so fucking stupid they’d be even more dangerous than they already are.

      1. The science is settled…until someone points out that science is never settled. Then it’s consensus…until someone points out that science isn’t consensus-based. Then it’s STONE THE UNBELIEVER.

        Hahaha, it -almost- sounds like religion!

        1. Almost?

          1. I was being sarcastic. It’s definitely a religion, with a weird caveat: The believers don’t want to believe it’s blind faith rather than anything else.

  16. Global warming PSA idea:

    “I like my science like I like my sex: consensual”

    1. “I like my science like I like my sex: with models”

      1. “I like my science like I like my sex” having it shoved down my throat by old white me.”

        1. men…Otherwise…wow

          1. Sounds like an episode of Warty: Time Traveler or whatever the fuck it’s called.

            1. or whatever the fuck it’s called.

              Don’t play dumb, we all know you have the SugarFree Special Edition bound in human foreskins, and signed of course.

              1. Slickly signed with some fresh santorum?

                1. That’s vile!

                  So probably yes knowing SF.

        2. Pix or it didn’t happen?

      2. “I like my science like I like my sex: with arbitrary end points”

        1. “I like my science like I like my sex: vigorously challenged”

    2. I like my science like I like my sex: sometimes confusing but always satisfying.

      1. I like my science like I like my sex: with a hockey stick!

        1. “I like my science like I like my sex: up and to the right.”

    3. “I like my science the way I like my sex: fraudulent”

      1. I like my science like I like my sex: peer reviewed!

        1. I like my science like I like my sex: from the internet!

  17. Bo Cara Esquire,

    It’s cool you understand that the numerous scientific questions here = pretty damn far from settled. Sometimes humans must act without perfect knowledge, but those who hope to impel radical action (be it good or ill — time will tell) with lies, exaggerations, and distortions merit no respect.

    Since you understand that the science remains unsettled, and since you enjoy discussing this politically controversial topic, I hope you call out the various demagogues, idiots, hypocrites, and liars who claim the science is settled — but it’s your time, and I respect your right to use it exactly as you choose.

  18. That fucking chart is hilarious and should be re-posted in every climate thread from here on out.

    1. The best part is, they’ve got the method completely backwards and are just drawing lines on a graph (with math).

      If a 4-yr.-old could trace the record and they “reverse engineered” the equation he drew, it would be superior to the majority of their models.

  19. I will give you a quick run-through of the operative epistemic failures of the AGW narrative.

    For starters, it is transparently rationalistic (rationalization with a deductive scholastic veneer). They want AGW to be scientific and true, so it is; QED. Of course, it is no accident that AGW is pushed by the advocates of political-economic collectivism, since the politicization of the climate is their last, best hope–the failures of Marxist rationalism having been revealed to the eyes of the world in the 20th century. This is why the New Left suddenly got ecological in the 60’s and 70’s, as several of their manifestos from that time state explicitly.

    Secondly, the appeal to “consensus” derives from the precept of social subjectivism ala Kant and his intellectual descendants, the American pragmatists. There was a time that a person who called himself a scientist would be embarrassed off the stage if it was crudely obvious that his models and projections bore no relevance to reality; today, the sheep herd mentality of the left allows them to think they can evade reality as long as everyone else toes the line.

    1. “This is why the New Left suddenly got ecological in the 60’s and 70’s, as several of their manifestos from that time state explicitly.”

      THIS!!!!!!!!!

      Exactly, isn’t weird how every scientific discovery somehow ALWAYS rationalizes more govt intrusion? I mean shouldn’t probability alone at least come on the side of freedom at least once? But yes, environmentalism is basically the second great post judeo-christian religion of the west coming right after socialism.

  20. Re: Tony’s bullshit about “contrarian…”

    That’s pretty much the principle upon which science is founded. But I guess the “scientific method” is just outdated, like the constitution.

    1. It’s possible the contrarian is right. But it’s much more likely that he’s wrong. Where did you idiots go to school?

      1. Xavier for bachelor’s and master’s, UC for PhD.

      2. Re: Tony,

        It’s possible the contrarian is right. But it’s much more likely that he’s wrong.

        He just showed that the models exaggerated the trend horribly. How can it be more likely that he is wrong and not the models?

        You have accused those of us who are skeptical of AGW of being religious in our doubt but you and others of your ilk show such unwavering devotion to the idea that Man is killing the Earth that borders on irrational belief.

  21. Why is it that the people who are most concerned about global warming are the same people who are against nuclear power? Ponder that on the Tree of Woe.

    1. When you live in your mom’s basement and collect welfare checks, you have to find meaning in life somewhere. It doesn’t matter what you’re saving the world from as long as you’re saving the world!!!

      1. If only those types would do us a favor and save the world from themselves.

        1. Be a part of the overpopulation solution!

    2. And the same people who will do anything to stop fracking. They loved natural gas back in the 1990s and right up until it became clear a ton of it was available.

      Whatever its merits as science, AGW is now nothing but a home for hateful nasty people like Tony who want to inflict as much poverty and misery as possible and post 1989 need to have a new excuse for doing so, since they can’t use communism anymore.

      1. Human standards of living track nicely with our energy consumption. When people tell you that the answer to environmental problems is conservation, what they’re really saying is that they want more poverty and misery. Of course the communist remnant gravitated to the “green” movement. It’s either that or radical Islam if you hate humanity.

        1. Well some liberals have been known to justify radical Islam through cultural relativism, so you know, you might have a point.

          1. I want ten wives who I can kill when I get tired of them. I’ll just use consensus among Muslims to prove it’s right!

            1. I hear its already consensus that you get 40 virgins or something when you rid the planet of infidels so you may have precedent.

        2. Exactly that Warty. Everything happens because of energy. If you don’t have energy, you don’t have anything. So when anyone wants to cut the amount of energy used or increase the price of energy they are by definition wanting to make us poorer.

          1. But trying to get more out of the energy you’ve got is just so hard!

    3. Nice Conan ref.

  22. Did you know that there is a consensus among French people that they are, indeed, from France?

    1. I thought they started out as tadpoles in the English Channel?

      1. You’re thinking of the lizard people, but I try not to bring them up in case someone shouts me down as a conspiracy theorist…shhhhhh

        1. You’re thinking of the lizard people,

          Wait, so we are talking about the same thing?

          1. SSSHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

        2. Nope. Pretty sure I’m thinking about the French.
          http://youtu.be/TZZ_WH9cvPc

          1. OH MY GOD!!! The lizard people ARE the French.

            *pulls out hair, starts screaming, babbling, and running around in circles.

  23. ITT, desperate Tony demonstrates he has no understanding of science.

    1. I would say that’s a great place to close the thread as a more accurate summary cannot be expressed.

    2. Tony’s final argument: “Oh yeah! Well, where did you get your climatology degree?”

      Fucking moron.

      1. Oh ya! Well where did you get your fucking moron degree?

  24. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate ? right here. The science is not settled.”

    There’s no place for Science when you have CONSENSUS!

  25. Forget global warming…ice age coming. Anybody ever read Owsley Stanley’s theory of glaciation? He died several years ago but when the polar vortex hit this past winter it made me think he might have been more right than wrong.

      1. I predict we will have nearly perfect consensus when most of the earth is covered in ice and 90% of humanity is frozen with undigested hamburgers in our stomachs. Until then, lets all argue about things we can never fully understand and pretend that man isn’t powerless against the universe!

    1. Hmm I am rather skeptical over that. Glaciers are still retreating as they have been since the last ice age.

      1. I agree. His theory describes a sudden cataclysmic polar storm of biblical proportions that he saw in a dream, and subsequently relocated to Australia. He has a working theory using the laws of physics to describe the Earth as a Hilsch tube that is somewhat compelling. I was very startled to see the polar vortex forming this year in exactly the same place, at the same time of year (perihelion) and lasting roughly the same amount of time as he described many years ago as signs that the earth may be ready to cast off this interglacial period. At least his model is no less accurate than the ones on the graph in the article=) If another, more powerful polar vortex forms this year, it will much more compelling than the consensusers (at least to me).

  26. consensusers

    You’re onto something here, Bailey, but consensuseurs might be more appropriate.

  27. Make it to 400…MAKE IT TO 400!!!

  28. For those of you who have suddenly turned from stone-cold skeptics to accepting of whatever you read on this subject as soon as it appears to confirm your beliefs, here is a good explanation for why that chart you are all taking as gospel is a piece of deceptive junk: Link.

    1. As somebody who places tremendous importance on credentials, how can you honestly put a link to a website named “hotwhopper” for an article in which the author doesn’t even attach his name to and accuses people of falisying information?

      1. What does it matter to you? Credentials don’t matter, only what you want to believe matters.

        1. Credentials matter. I’d like you to refer to me as Dr. Clark from now on Tony!

        2. That is a cop out, and moreover a misrepresentation of your opponent’s argument.

    2. I also just read the response by Roy Spencer in the comments and was entertained by the author (somebody named Sou) go full-derp afterwards. Quite good. Any more great reads like that Tony?

      1. Tony is a fundamentalist retard. He has blind faith in anything completely retarded.

        1. He certainly draws information from unreliable sources. If the data doesn’t fit the hypothesis, change the data.

          1. I’m serious. He prays to the “I can count to potato” girl. It’s creepy.

            1. Wasn’t familar with that meme. Actually, I take offence to that as I see people with down syndrome as superior to regular people because at least they don’t suffer about worrying about stupid shit like global warming. Tony only wishes he could count to potato(e)!

              1. I know! The nerve of him to find an offensive meme and then pray to it as his God! What an ass!!!

    3. Ah yes. Who wouldn’t trust a “scientific” website with a subtitle of:

      Global warming, climate change and denier Whoppers; and sexism on the internet

      1. It pretty clearly explains why the chart is hogwash. Why did you suddenly start trusting climate change data when you saw this chart? And are you embarrassed now that you know it is bullshit?

        1. We got to 400 guys! We can stop fighting now :):):):)

          1. But then I might have to work….not an option.

            1. Booooo! I’m in a meeting right now. I just wait for my name and then talk in incomprehensible business speak for 2 minutes.

        2. If anything, this just proves how easy it is to manipulate data that is largely inconclusive in the first place. Apparently Sou, prefered him to manipulate the data some other way. I’ll have to prefer a real climatoligist’s data interpretation than someone named Sou. Isn’t that what you were previously ranting about?

    4. Now, I may just be a simple country mathematician but:

      1. If a model was developed on a 1980-1990 or 1980-2000 baseline, then “normalizing” it to a 1980-2010 baseline will change the future values predicted by that model. That’s fine and dandy, but as you can see this makes those predictions notably less dire.

      2. Even with the adjusted models, there is still a noticeable and growing discrepancy beginning ca. 2005. The models will need to be adjusted to account for this discrepancy, which will again alter the predictions they make.

      3. The final graph is on a 1880-2012 timescale, which incorporates data collected in very different manners and with much laxer standards than the data collected from ca. 1980 onward.

      1. Here’s a better sourced takedown.

        1. Tony. At some point you have to listen to the argument that when something is based on a preconceived notion (e.g. global warming is/isn’t real) you’ll never have a fair discussion. That’s why consensus among climate scientists is unimportant, as is data coming from websites that basically say “anything skeptical of climate change is automatically wrong.” It’s just as bad as taking data from a climate skeptic webpage.

          1. This is utter crap. That attitude precludes discussion about anything. That global warming is real can be preconceived as a given because there is no scientific debate about that question. There just isn’t. Sometimes things are just facts. Would you not find it exasperating trying to discuss biology with a creationist who insists that evolution can’t be assumed as true?

            1. I am 100% willing to accept as premises for argument that

              1. The Earth’s climate varies from time to time and place to place, and

              2. Humans have the ability to alter that climate in time and space.

              But everything else I’ve seen so far (humans must be altering the climate in harmful ways, the only solution requires coercive measures imposed by force by government, etc.) are not acceptable premises.

              This is not “I stand up high and decree it to be so”, this is “you have not remotely met any reasonable burden of proof”.

              1. At least you’re courteous enough to admit that your problem is ideological. Climate change likely entails strong directed actions by governments. You’re an antigovernment ideologue. It’s no great mystery why libertarians struggle with this issue, though they’d be far more credible if they attempted to apply a libertarian solution to the problem instead of curling up into a pathetic ball of science denial and sucking their thumbs.

                Any major disruption to the climate status quo is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Even if the evidence were as shaky as you want it to be, and it’s not, caution requires that we respond appropriately. Accepting the status quo is not doing nothing; it is the most radical positive action of the alternatives.

                1. Accepting the status quo is not doing nothing; it is the most radical positive action of the alternatives.

                  If doing nothing is the same as doing something, then the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and perpetual motion machines are possible.

                  How can we even begin to have a conversation about “science” without actually understanding the physical world?

                  1. “How can we even begin to have a conversation about “science” without actually understanding the physical world?”

                    I think you’re pretty new here?
                    If you think you can get an honest conversation from Tony, your disappointment is just beginning.
                    Tony does not argue in good faith; to do so would mean dealing with facts and that it anathema to proggies.

                2. though they’d be far more credible if they attempted to apply a libertarian solution to the problem instead of curling up into a pathetic ball of science denial and sucking their thumbs.

                  The libertarian solution is to permit people to produce the wealth they need to survive the changes.

                  If you sincerely believed that climate change was an imminent and severe threat to the survival of the human race, you would be advocating for the radical dismantling of the government.

                  Each point of the progressive triangle of regulation, taxation, and welfare involves a diversion of resources away from the creation of wealth and the survival of the species:

                  Regulation stifles innovation and efficiency.

                  Taxation undermines the accumulation of capital.

                  Welfare discourages productivity and subsidizes population growth.

                  If your belief in CAGW were sincere, you would be gladly doing everything you could to facilitate the exploitation of capital in the most ruthless manner possible. There is only one human race, but there are billions of planets.

                  Instead, your belief in CAGW is insincere and is a poorly thought out cover for your desire to enact punitive social “reform”. The Universe cares not for the survival of the human race and will certainly not be more forgiving because we impoverished ourselves for the sake of “climate justice”.

                  1. “Instead, your belief in CAGW is insincere and is a poorly thought out cover for your desire to enact punitive social “reform””

                    I see there is no need to advise you, re: the slime bag Tony

            2. That’s the fucking problem. When someone assumes any type of truth BEFORE listening to an argument (besides axiomatic truths) then there is no argument to be had. When you start an argument with ” global warming is true ” you produce an axiom, and therefore shut down the possibility of debate. That’s why its not convincing when a group of people who study man made climate change say that there is made made climate change. Again, it’s the same as if a you say 98% of creationists don’t believe in interspecies evolution therefore it’s not true or if on the other hand you say 98% of evolutionary biologists do believe in interspecies evolution therefore it is true.

              1. There is no scientific debate about whether global warming is true. You’re being ridiculous. You are saying that the people most qualified to express an opinion about something are not to be trusted because they have formed opinions about it. Give me a fucking break.

                1. Tony|7.16.14 @ 11:24PM|#
                  “There is no scientific debate about whether global warming is true.”

                  I see. So the guy quoted here wasn’t quoted?
                  You fucking idiot.

                2. If there is no debate, then there is no science taking place, and thus no need to employ so many scientists to determine something that is already fully understood.

        2. Reality is not Wikipedia, and having lots of sources is not the same thing as having identified the facts.

          The first critique at least attacked the data using opaque but still meaningful criticisms of methodology.

          While I applaud you for providing a link (no really, this is much better than “just google it”), unfortunately all I see in this link are political opinions unrelated to the science and unfounded accusations of bias.

          1. Should read: Reality is not like Wikipedia. I am not insinuating that you linked or referred to Wikipedia, but rather have adopted their editorial perspective as an epistemological foundation.

        3. Thanks for the unbiased report. I think that you, and all of these links you have proivided, are missing, what I would consider, the only important aspect of these charts. I will agree that the method used to determine the baseline value is important when your response is change from x timepoint, although I dont think the original method was wrong. The truly interesting thing in the graph is that the slope (rate of change of the delta) is different for the data sets (for real data up to present). Regardless of offset error, this clearly shows that one set of data indicates the earth is warming and one indicates the earth may not have warmed from about 2002 onwards. You guys can ague over the offset as much as you want but you’re not even touching the only thing that matters. The only question worth discussing regarding this chart is “why does the satellite temperature data differ from the model (in terms of slope, not offset) and where is the surface data? Does the satellite data match surface data?”

          1. Oops…I didn’t see there was surface data there also, which also proves the models are useless. So I guess I don’t understand what it is the links are getting at with the offset. Are they arguing the satellite and surface data are slightly offset? Who cares about that? The slopes show the same trends, which disprove the predictive model. That’s all that matters.

              1. No. That does nothing to refute the fact that 95% of the models are wrong. Their onlt explanation why th emodel doesn’t fit is that we are in a hiatus decade? Maybe we are in a hiatus decade and maybe not but, as a scientist, that is the worst excuse I’ve ever heard. I suppose we will see. I have to thank you though. I have never considered myself a skeptic until you harangued me into actually understanding this chart and reading this drivel. I can now proudly say that 95% of climate models are not capable of predicting climate change. This is maybe the only thing that is unrefutable at this point. Thank you. Now I can go back to not not caring.

                1. It’s not a maybe–by happenstance many of the natural causes of variation in average global temperature are on the cooling side. Models take potential hiatuses into account but this is what contributes to any discrepancy between models and measurements, which is being blown out of proportion by Christy and Spencer. This reason article is deceptive; the stuff I linked to explains why. I don’t get why you’re not getting it.

                  1. “This reason article is deceptive; the stuff I linked to explains why. I don’t get why you’re not getting it.”

                    Bullshit.
                    Your claim is simple: “it doesn’t matter what the data say, I’m right!”
                    By happenstance, yes, natural variations affect global temperatures, and, in fact, they seem to account for most all the deltas. Your special pleading that they are accounted for in the models is a lie; LOOK AT THE PREDICTIONS AND THE DATA, YOU DOLT!.

                  2. I don’t get why you’re not getting it.

                    I get it just fine. There are models, there is data. Everything else is speculation.

              2. The only new factual critique offered at that link is that there is an “envelope” (confidence interval, of sorts?) predicted by the models and the temperatures observed thus far fall within that envelope.

                That’s fine and dandy, again, but you can’t have it both ways. The lower end of the model envelope represents very slow warming; if that is the path along which the Earth’s climate will evolve, then while it does not refute the model, it does not validate the drastic predictions people are making based upon the other end of the model envelope.

                The rest of what is there is fact-free speculation.

                1. Clearly, the best course would be to try discover the difference from the wrong ones and the ones that were closer. Some good information might also come from examining the first derivatives of this data to see which models were closer predicting trends instead of temperatures.

              3. Sorry I can’t stop. The best part ofthe article you pointed to states, “However, thus far the relatively small discrepancy has only persisted for approximately one decade, so it’s rather early to jump to conclusions.” WHAAAAT? The model has only predicting since the early eighties (maybe late seventies). Any model that is wrong roughly 25% of the time needs to be re-adjusted. I am also curious when, exactly, the model (any of them that were “accurate” for any period of time) was developed i.e. how much of the modeled temperature was predicticed retroactively. Anybody have the chart shown above from 1985 that shows it was working then?

              4. Tony|7.16.14 @ 5:41PM|#
                “Does this help?”

                Do you read your own links? Do you hope others won’t?
                That idjit links his own website as evidence for his claims! You can’t get more circular than that.

        4. Tony|7.16.14 @ 4:34PM|#
          “Here’s a better sourced takedown.”

          No it isn’t.
          Anyone (like that twit) who cites his own claims to support his other claims is NWS.

          1. That’s a credible clearinghouse for climate change information and the debunking of the stupid insane bullshit you believe.

            1. Tony|7.16.14 @ 11:14PM|#
              “That’s a credible clearinghouse for climate change information and the debunking of the stupid insane bullshit you believe.”

              That may be credible to fucking imbeciles like you, but anyone who buys self-referential “proofs” needs their head examined.

            2. The natural world has the luxury of being subject to observation and experimentation, and so we need not rely on fallible human factors like credibility.

      2. Right kbolino. The slope, not the offset, of the satellite and surface data vs. model is the only point worth discussing. The departure from the model is, as you say, near 2005 timeframe.

        1. Indeed, and training the models realistically with this discrepancy will likely skew their future predictions downward. We may as they say be on a “warming hiatus” for various climatological reasons, but throwing out a decade worth of data when you don’t even have half a century worth of reliable data to begin with seems an awful lot like cherry-picking to me.

          1. That’s because there is no other way to describe it =)

  29. And, did you know some cities might warm up by 10* by 2011? Well, *someone* does!:

    Boston
    Summer temperature in 2014: 78.98 F
    Summer temperature in 2100: 89.11 F
    http://www.sfgate.com/aboutsfg…..603537.php

    Now, don’t let any data get in the way! This is a sciency *prediction*! Based on thruthy *models*!
    (Bet Tony gets a woody…)

    1. And a month or so ago, someone here posted a link to population changes in cities over (I think) 50 year spans.
      It is obvious from those data that even if NYC reached *boiling* by 2011 (we can HOPE!), the population would easily migrate to more pleasant environs.

  30. *Ahem*

    1, 2, 3…

    THERE IS NO ‘PROOF’ IN SCIENCE. ALL OF YOU PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BANDYING ABOUT THE WORD ‘PROVE’ AND DEMANDING ‘PROOF’ OF YOUR STATEMENTS.

    SCIENCE IS ABOUT EVIDENCE.

    If you want proof, go do formal logic or number theory (which given that this is a site devoted to ‘reason,’ I’m annoyed fewer people have).

  31. I love the earth and am willing to pay more for energy and goods produced in an environmentally responsible way.

    But anti-American, anti-capitalists have high-jacked the environmental movement and play us for fools. And scientists reliant on grants for their income are along for the ride.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.