Climate Change

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

Scientific evidence does not mandate any particular policy.

|

Global Warming Question
dreamstime

In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear.

At the 2007 annual gala dinner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a D.C.-based free-market think tank, the master of ceremonies was former National Review editor John O'Sullivan. To entertain the crowd, O'Sullivan put together a counterfeit tale in which I ostensibly had given a lecture on environmental trends pointing out that most were positive. After my talk, O'Sullivan told the audience, a young woman supposedly approached me to express her displeasure with regard to my change of mind on climate change.

Continuing his fable, O'Sullivan recounted to the hundreds of diners that I had tried to explain why my views had shifted. Eventually realizing that the young woman was having none of it, I then purportedly asked her if it wasn't enough that we two actually agreed on most environmental policy issues. The young woman paused for a moment, said O'Sullivan, and then retorted, "I suppose that Pontius Pilate made some good decisions, too." Being compared, even in jest, to the Roman governor who consented to the crucifixion of Jesus is, to say the least, somewhat disconcerting.

Welcome to the most politicized science of our time.

So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

What about higher temperatures? Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million in the late 18th century to around 400 ppm today. And the trend in average global surface temperatures has been increasing since the late 19th century. As I've reported before, all of the global temperature datasets, both the instrumental and satellite, find that the atmosphere has warmed since the 1950s.

By how much? Summed over the past 35 years—that is, since the advent of satellite monitoring—temperatures have increased by at most 0.56 C° (1 F°) and at least by 0.455 C° (0.8 F°). In general, the instrumental records suggest that surface temperatures have warmed on average by about +0.9 C° (1.6 F°) since the 1950s.

Let's look at the near-term trends. The average rate of increase since 1979 varies among the temperature datasets from a high of +0.16 C° to a low of +0.13 C° per decade. The rate of surface temperature increase dramatically slowed after 1998 to rate of around +0.05 C° per decade. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, but how sure can you be that the rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases just happens to coincide with an entirely natural increase in average temperatures? Conversely, how sure can you be that a natural decline in average temperatures is not temporarily countering a trend toward to higher temperatures caused by accumulating greenhouse gases? Explanations based on natural variability work both ways. I will address the recent "hiatus" in temperature trends below.

What about converging daytime and nighttime temperatures?

Climatologists predicted that man-made warming would produce a decrease in the differences between low nighttime temperatures and high daytime temperatures. And indeed, a decrease between day and night temperatures has been occurring in the United States, China, Spain, and other regions. This phenomenon is global, although more recently daytime and nighttime temperatures have been increasing at about the same rate. Along with the observed increases in average temperature, heat waves have become more common since the 1950s.

What about earlier spring and later fall seasons?

Many studies find that the onset of spring is occurring earlier than it did decades ago. A 2015 study reports that the advent of spring in the Northern Hemisphere occurs about 4 days earlier than in 1980. A 2006 European study found that spring is arriving about 3 days earlier, and a 2014 study reported that the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere is expanding.

Part of the reason that spring is advancing is that the extent of snow cover in March and April in the Northern Hemisphere has been falling. As a 2011 study in the journal Cryosphere reports, "The rate of decrease in March and April Northern Hemisphere (NH) Snow Cover Extent (SCE) over the 1970–2010 period is ~0.8 million km2 per decade corresponding to a 7% and 11% decrease in NH March and April SCE respectively from pre-1970 values." The decline in snow cover is broadly in line with climate model predictions.

What about disappearing glaciers and Arctic sea ice?

The Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5?days per decade from 1979 to 2013, according to a 2014 study in Geophysical Research Letters. A 2014 review article looks at what satellite data are telling us about recent climate trends in the Arctic. Temperatures are rising at 0.6°C per decade, about 4 times the global average. Sea ice extent has been falling at 3.8 percent per decade, and spring snow cover is dropping by 2.1 percent per decade. The Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate of 34 gigatons per year, though that has increased sevenfold since 2002 to an estimated 215 gigatons per year.

Ice is not melting only in the Arctic. Most of the world's 130,000 mountain glaciers are also disappearing.

The growing extent of sea ice in the Antarctic over the past decades is a climate change conundrum. On the face of it, more sea ice would indicate cooling rather than warming. Researchers are still trying to figure out what is going on. One idea is that warmer waters are melting the bases of freshwater Antarctic ice shelves. The fresh water then cools the sea surface thus promoting the freezing of more sea ice. When climate researchers don't understand what is going on they often attribute the empirical trends to "internal variability."

What about stronger rainstorms?

As temperatures increase by 1 degree Celsius, global average water vapor in the atmosphere is estimated to increase by around 7 percent. It is difficult to determine the average global humidity. But a 2005 study parsing satellite data finds that the atmosphere did moisten, as predicted, between 1982 and 2004. A 2014 study confirmed the finding and suggests that the increase is mostly the result of man-made warming.

Increased atmospheric humidity suggests that precipitation should also increase. The data show that this is happening. A 2013 study that analyzed data from nearly 9,000 weather stations from around the globe found increases in annual maximum daily precipitation at nearly two-thirds of the stations since 1900. (Climate change does not appear to be exacerbating hurricanes, tornadoes, or droughts.)

What about warming oceans?

Does the recent 17-year hiatus in rising global temperatures cut strongly against the notion of man-made global warming? The pause certainly was not predicted by the computer climate models. As the researchers at the private consultancy Remote Sensing Systems have noted, "The troposphere has not [their emphasis] warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict." University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologist John Christy compared 102 climate model predictions with actual temperature data and found that "their response to CO2 on average is 2 to 5 times greater than reality." Pretty damning.

Other researchers have reluctantly come to acknowledge that there has been a slowdown in surface temperatures. But while surface temperatures may be on pause, they are convinced that "global heating" is not. Lots of researchers have been reporting that for the past couple of decades, 90 percent of the extra heat from greenhouse warming has been sequestered in the oceans. In February, Nature Climate Change asserted that planetary warming continues "unabated," with most of the excess heat being absorbed by the top 2,000 meters of the oceans. Just how and where the heat gets buried in the oceans remains controversial.

Last year an intriguing study in Science suggested that natural variability in the North Atlantic can keep transporting heat downward into the deep ocean for periods lasting 20 to 35 years. Those researchers propose that "the latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans."

How about some falsifiable predictions?

Another February 2015 article in Nature Climate Change makes the bold prediction that the current hiatus will likely last only until the end of this decade. Around 2020, the authors suggest, the oceans will start to release the stored heat and surface temperatures will begin to rise rapidly. An even more alarming (alarmist?) article in the April 2015 Nature Climate Change asserts that the rate global average temperature increases will rise to 0.25°C per decade by 2020, "an average greater than the peak rates of change during the previous one to two millennia."

The future course of man-made warming depends on climate sensitivity, conventionally measured as how high average temperature would eventually increase if atmospheric carbon dioxide were doubled. In recent years, there has have a lot of back and forth between researchers trying to refine their estimates of climate sensitivity. At the low end, some researchers think that temperatures would increase a comparatively trivial 1.5 degrees Celsius; on the high end, some worry it could go as high as high 6 degrees Celsius. The uncertainty over this variable is largely why I think that future warming could become a signficant problem. In a 2014 article in Geophysical Research Letters, a group of researchers calculated that it would take another 20 years of temperature observations for us to be confident that climate sensitivity is on the low end and more than 50 years of data to confirm the high end of the projections. How lucky do you feel?

In his magisterial 1960 essay "Why I Am Not A Conservative," economist Friedrich Hayek observed: 

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs.

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years. Correlation does not imply causation. The data cited (and uncited) do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is real. However, in my best judgment the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the greenhouse gases produced by humanity are warming the climate and that it could be a significant issue later in this century. In the foregoing I have aimed to cite data, not model outputs. I have long been a critic of computer climate models.

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

NEXT: How to Push Back on Calls for More Defense Spending: $45 Billion of Afghan Funds Unaccounted For

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. Okay, I’d have to see a video of him singing “Pee On You,” two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly’s grandma to confirm his identity.
    R. Kelly’s Grandma: That’s my Robert, always peeing on people.

    1. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing

      http://www.work-mill.com

    2. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… .. http://www.wixjob.com

    3. Since the evidence is primarily offered by scientists from public universities who depend on state funding for their livelihoods, I posit that the responsible conclusion at this time is that this is simply still a hypothesis.
      Therefore, it is only further responsible to keep researching and at the same time, employ private enterprise further into the discussion. We all know that private enterprise needs profits so there is little incentive to spend on said research.
      The next logical path then becomes doing nothing for the time being and certainly not enacting legislation that constrains private enterprise any further. When a crisis occurs, if we are so good at destroying the environment, then the necessity for fixing it will arise from the same profit centered minds that supposedly caused it.
      The fact that so many professors have been caught lying about does not help in the least.

  2. While the satellite data does show a slight warming trend and it is nearly inconceivable that man has no role in that, the issue of whether it is critical is something entirely different.

    To answer your question, when climate scientists of the stature of Drs. John Christy and Roy Spencer come over to that way of thinking, that is when I will be convinced that there is a serious problem.

    1. The problem is that data is suspect.

      Read up on how they modify the historical record. For example if you tracked the official temperature in 1970, the number itself is continuously adjusted downward. You would have one temp reported in 1970 for 1970, an lower number reported in 1990 for 1970, and an even lower number in 2010 for 1970.

      The other problem is there is absolutely no one to provide any counter argument to CC in the “scientific community”, because anyone who does not toe the official line has lost their funding and careers for decades.

      If man made global warming was really such a strong case, why do they have to resort to such measures. The answer is simple, the case is not that strong.

      1. Just wait until Penn Jillette changes his mind.

        1. Wow, that burn probably warmed the earth a degree or two. *Whew*

          1. Climate-gate 1,2&3. Give me the facts without having to cook the books and I’ll listen.

      2. “Read up on how they modify the historical record.”

        People have taken the ORIGINAL temperature readings and found the same answer.

      3. Climate modeling that predicts significant warming is in for a very rough ride. Turns out the aerosol forcing has been revisited, and it no longer provides the cover for the lack of temperature increase, and in fact makes it near impossible.

        Article: “The implications for climate sensitivity of Bjorn Stevens’ new aerosol forcing paper”

        http://climateaudit.org/2015/0…..ing-paper/

        and here: “The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates”

        http://climateaudit.org/2014/0…..timates-2/

        1. Dr. Stevens, the author of the study itself, is one of the authors of the IPCC chapter on warming, and has come out refuting the interpretation of his work you link to.

          At most, Stevens says, the impact of this very slight shift in aerosol forcing changes the probability distribution for climate sensitivity only a small amount.

          When actually directly measured as delta Temperature over delta ln(CO2), on 30-year running means, using Mauna Loa data and either NOAA or BEST’s merged land-ocean-ice surface temperature datasets, one finds annual climate sensitivity in the range 3.1 to 4.6, presently about 4.5 and generally rising. This is slightly above IPCC estimates.

          1. Are you asserting that you can actually *directly* measure climate sensitivity?

            Furthermore, are you asserting that climate sensitivity actually *changes* over time?

    2. I’ll be convinced that warming is occurring when the yearly temperature trends above the normal year-to-year variation for 3 years in a row. So far it’s at 0 years in a row.

      Now if warming is occurring, it may be nothing to be alarmed at. The Earth has warmed in the past and thankfully so, we had an ice age not that long ago (10K+ years). Sea levels will rise at some point, so best to be prepared anyway.

      How do we know mankind is causing the warming, or a major contributor to it? There’s a CO theory, and not much else. Is Mars also warming? Has Earth warmed similarly before the advent of human civilization?

      Now suppose you convince me that warming is occurring, it is a problem, and mankind contributed to it. Do you have a way to fix it? Will it work? Will it cost more to make it work than we gain by trying it? So far I haven’t seen much in the way of a solution beyond destroying civilization and reducing the human carrying capacity of the Earth back a few millennia.

      1. An “ice age” is defined as any significant portion of the planet covered with ice.
        Technically, we are in one, now, and have been for some time.
        On a PBS documentary they let it slip that environmental records say that, for the majority of the earth’s existence, we haven’t been in an “ice age”. So, maybe “warming” is getting us back to normal – who’s to say.

        1. retiredfire said, “On a PBS documentary they let it slip that environmental records say that, for the majority of the earth’s existence, we haven’t been in an “ice age””

          Isn’t it interesting how it is a “slip” by the elitist to show we’re in the coldest part of the Quaternary Ice age. It’s almost like they don’t want to tell us the earth is round or something.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

          1. Ah, no, per the Wikipedia Milankovich graph, we’re in an extremely warm period… the “now” is to the left and Years Ago increases to the right!

            But… my favorite part of the Wiki description is this part… The answer to the same question I love to ask.. “What EXACTLY caused ALL of the major Ice Ages?”

            “No completely satisfactory theory has been proposed to account for Earth’s history of glaciation. The cause of glaciation may be related to several simultaneously occurring factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents.[5]”

      2. You must have a very oddly specific precondition.

        Every 30-year span, heck every decade for the past half century has been warmer than the decade before it.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl…..ompress:36

        Only four times in the last half century has your pre-condition not been met, and only for periods of less than five years.

        Normally, the Earth experiences significant climate trends in temperature on the scale we have seen in the last have century or greater spread over timespans of longer than a thousand years. Normally, those temperature changes on a global scale generally follow the Milankovitch Cycles. The present extremely fast heating of the planet runs counter to the normal forces driven by the planet’s orbit and wobbles, and dozens or hundreds of times as fast. Sea levels would not be expected to rise by one tenth so much without AGW, and there are no preparations that are not exceedingly costly. What gives you the right to burden us all with that expense?

        1. Isn’t the problem with your assertion that longer term climactic trends are actually measured by proxies that aren’t necessarily good at resolving into very fine time periods (say, less than a century)?

          And, isn’t the past 20+ years of *non* heating of the planet in the face of ever increasing CO2 levels (in almost any data set you choose to pick) challenge your very basic assertion?

          http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p…..1,4,48,92]

    3. Raw unadjusted data actually shows a slight cooling trend over the last half century. Ever bit of warming reported was due to “adjustments”.

      1. “What difference does THAT make?!”
        — Hillary.

    4. “While the satellite data does show a slight warming trend and it is nearly inconceivable that man has no role in that, the issue of whether it is critical is something entirely different.”

      THIS. And this why the entire climate debate annoys me. The topic always flip flops from the former to latter and back and the speaker/writer almost always acts like the two topics are interchangeable and they are not.

      1. This.

        Given the wholesale changes mankind has made to the planet, whether from chopping down forests or decimating wild herd animals or creating herds of domesticated animals or increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be surprising to me if our actions had *no* effect on the climate.

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s something scientists can figure out well. Similarly, they can measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations well, and they’ve clearly gone up. I’d expect that to have a warming effect.

        The question that matters is how much and how fast will it warm *in the future*. Probably some. hard to know how much.

        But it’s obvious that all that “settled science” got the climate modeling entirely wrong for at least over a decade now. We currently don’t have any climate models that have been validated to be worth a damn.

        So yeah, we’ve had some warming, and we should expect some more warming, but that *doesn’t* imply that we should take predictions of current climate models as accurate.

        1. but are we confusing cause and effect? Even if there’s a correlation between higher CO2 levels and temps, could it be the temps that, through plant and animal life, are creating more CO2?

          1. Higher temperatures definitely drive higher CO2: CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. That’s a positive feedback effect. Higher temperatures also drive higher H2O vapor: water condenses less as air warms. That’s a positive feedback effect.

            Those positive feedbacks come from the piling up of CO2 in the atmosphere from below the ground.

            The accuracy of the models is actually pretty good. 2014 was exactly the temperature predicted as the median of the probability distribution of 1988’s Hansen Scenario “B” model. That’s a perfect prediction 26 years out, of a global temperature that at the time would have been considered a less than one in a million longshot if not for AGW.

            1. So, astrologists make “perfect” predictions too – are you going to assert that astrology is scientific now too? 🙂

            2. No, when measured against the satellite data, the models have already dropped out of the 95% confidence interval and are basically useless. The only instance when “accuracy” is found when land based measurements are used, and these are constantly being adjusted to agree with the models.

          2. The only correlation between Temperature and CO2 for the last 800,000 years is that Temperature ALWAYS increases BEFORE CO2 does.

            ALWAYS!

  3. I generally agree that there have been rising temps in the 20th century, although temps have essentially not risen in this century, and there was a dip between 1945 and the late 70s. I also agree that rising temps have had some effects, but not necessarily those you mention. I would be glad to discuss our differences on each of the effects you mention.

    This is what it would take: one scientific paper(math, physics) that shows convincingly (not necessarily proof) that 20th century climate variability was principally caused by CO2. Because climate systems are so massive, it should show evidence that CO2 precedes the temperature variability in the 20th century, but I am open to an equally scientific explanation that it doesn’t necessarily have to be so as long as it considers the massiveness of the system. I would then give serious, honest consideration to that paper in light of other evidence. … just one such paper.

    1. “that 20th century climate variability was principally caused by CO2”

      I suggest you turn to Tyndall, the 19th century scientist who first discovered the heat trapping qualities of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

      1. Which does not prove that climate changed is caused by CO2, it being only about four one hundredths of a percent of the atmosphere.

        1. As far as I know, it is pretty well established that CO2 does help to trap heat in the atmosphere, even at the low concentrations present.

          And such a small concentration isn’t necessarily insignificant. About the same proportion of alcohol to body weight will get most people really drunk, for example.

          1. An intoxicant in your body is not the same as some gas in the atmosphere. I shouldn’t even have to say this. And it has yet to be demonstrated that tiny variations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere actually cause temperature variations, given all of the other variables and much larger inputs.

            1. No it isn’t the same. Just an example of how something in very small concentrations can have a significant effect on a large system as you seemed to be dismissing the effects of CO2 simply based on the fact that the concentration seems really insignificant to you. I didnt’ imagine I was disproving what you said, just pointing out that what you said doesn’t add much.

              1. Yes, but giving an example of how a small concentration of something can have a significant and quantifiable effect doesn’t prove that all small concentrations can do the same. If I add a teaspoon of salt to the ocean, it doesn’t affect the salinity of the ocean in a significant way; it doesn’t logically follow that the same thing holds true for every other situation.

                1. but it does prove that you cannot write off the effect of CO2 by appealing to it being a small concentration

                  1. No, it doesn’t. It neither proves nor disproves it.

                  2. No, it really doesn’t. Simply drawing a parallel between two cosmetically similar allegories does not prove anything.

            2. LARGER inputs you say? Like what, pray tell?!?1 Magic unicrons? A giant ball of burning gas a few million miles down the road??! Leprechauns perhaps?

              Enjoy your fairy-tales and good day.

            3. When you say, “it has yet to be demonstrated..”, do you mean that somehow the hundreds of peer-reviewed published academic papers claiming to demonstrate exactly that variations in CO2 cause temperature rise have failed, but that the entire scientific community somehow missed that failure?

              The ‘much larger inputs’ aren’t changing very much in the long term. Even the signal of solar changes has been washed out for the past half century after centuries of being measurable, because of the scale of the AGW forcing.

              1. You need two things:

                1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
                2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

                Cite a single peer-reviewed, published academic paper that provides that, please.

          2. The most prominent and abundant green house gas is water vapor. And it is far more efficient at doing that job than CO2 will ever be.

            1. Yep, and that is the crux of AGW theory. CO2 absorption gets overloaded pretty quickly, so they have to assume more water vapor to get their death numbers, and that is not anywhere near a slam dunk or supported by data.

              1. Since this piece of rock cooled enough to support water in liquid shape it has experienced drastic changes in temperatures over some 4 billion years. The culprit always was the sun, some celestial event that blocked out the sun, volcanic activity that affected the atmosphere or blocked out the sun, or various combinations of these all. Nature can be brutal. We have had near-extinction level events from these things, on multiple occasions.

                The nanny state bloated crony SJW government funded church of AGW wants to convince us that the sun not only doesn’t factor in the equation anymore, but that the only item we should focus on is CO2, because they need to blame man for it or they can’t scare people into giving up even more of their rights, freedoms, and money than they have already robbed us of. The AGW movement has been one of the left’s most damaging schemes, destroying the credibility of science and the scientific process, and has harmed the little people, in general, while making some connected mouth pieces in the SJW class stinking rich.

                As a formerly practicing AE/EE engineer, and one that did a crap ton of engine modeling and simulations back in the day, that now writes software for a living, I can tell you that I would have not only been fired for doing what the AGW SJW crowd has repeatedly done, but would have had my employer file criminal charges against me when the airplanes started falling out of the sky due to my fabricated and faulty modeling.

                1. And yet, in scandal after scandal, as we find out they have fabricated data, their models fail to predict anything accurately, and their predicted doomsday scenarios simply didn’t pan out, proving they have no clue what the hell they are talking about, they not only refuse to go back to the drawing table, but double down on the stupid. And those of us that remain unconvinced and unwilling to let them get away with their lies are the ones labeled and ridiculed as deniers.

                  These true believers we are dealing with are aptly labeled as watermelons. Scratch the surface of these greens and you always find the deep red under there. This is AGW problem a fabricated crisis, funded by power hungry political class that hopes to bank on fear to not just make a ton of money, but to turn us all into slaves of the all-powerful collectivist nanny state.

                  Please stop insulting our intelligence and invent a different global crisis that will convince the low information massed to let the SJW governments cull ? of them after they rob them blind and condemn those of us they allow to live to do so at 19th century standards while the members of the priesthood live like royalty with the carbon footprint of China.

                  1. So we’ll write down, “not susceptible to rational evidence”, then?

                    I’m not from the Left. Most of the people on the Right agree on AGW, and disagree with you. While the Left has its faults, even about some elements of Science, on this Science they are walking on the side of the angels.

                    So when you play this game of roulette with the planet we all live on for mere political stakes, you’re not actually in the right, or representative of the Right.

                    1. Science isn’t a poll, and consensus isn’t science 🙂

                      You need two things:

                      1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
                      2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

                      Thus far, you’ve given neither.

                2. “he culprit always was the sun, some celestial event that blocked out the sun, volcanic activity that affected the atmosphere or blocked out the sun, or various combinations of these all”

                  that’s incorrect. there’s so much more you are ignoring. Orbital changes and greenhouse gases for example.

                  1. orbital changes cause the Earth to be closer our farther from…the sun.

                    1. Which ‘orbital changes’ and how much effect do they have…?
                      The earth-sun distance is constantly changing throughout the year and the effect is negligible in itself.

                      In the Northern Hemisphere’s ‘winter’ the earth is closer to the sun than in its ‘summer.’

                      Which orbital changes are you referring to?

                    2. The reference may be to Milankovitch Cycles, which is indeed a real thing.. Three real things, in point of fact, for cycles of wobble and orbital eccentricity on the scale of 22,000 or 44,000 or 100,000 years.

                      We’re 30,000 years away from the point we’d see so much climate change humans would notice, on the timelines of those combined cycles.

                      AGW is dozens or hundreds of times faster.

                    3. You don’t have any high resolution data for ancient climate change, which means you can’t exclude high rates of change naturally.

                    4. Could you please tell us, with what degree of certainty, what percent of Global Warming has been caused by Anthropogenic activities.

                      And please don’t use models…

          3. And the same studies have shown water vapor to be ten times or so more effective at trapping heat than CO2. Has % of water vapor increased? Has anyone checked? Tell ya what, you do the science correctly THEN come back and talk to us.

            1. This site is kind of like Snopes for scientifically illiterate talking points.

              The increase in water vapor has been predicted as a consequence of climate change for decades, along with an increase in precipitation in certain areas?yes, even winter precipitation.

        2. trueman lies regularly, and admits doing so. The concept of hypocrisy is simply accepted as a slight character flaw to trueman.
          You might as will argue with a 5YO; he is, simply, an unrepentant liar.

          1. “a slight character flaw to trueman.”

            Yes I have character flaws. Many more than the laundry list that offends you so much.

        3. “it being only about four one hundredths of a percent of the atmosphere.”

          You mean 4 1/100s of a per cent is too small to have an effect?

          1. No. I think he means the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (can trap heat), does not have any direct bearing on whether CO2, in its current atmospheric concentration levels, could/can/will have a significant impact in global temperatures.

            Shorter version: not everything scales up

            1. True, however I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume CO2 has impact. Not a scientist and can’t be bothered to check now, isn’t increased acidity in oceans attributable to CO2 as well? We also have rising sea levels as long predicted by climatologists.

              No man or machine is going to be able to tell us how the spring of 2065 is going to be. You guys are deluding yourselves.

              1. If you’ve ever done any experimental science you would know that one never “assumes” anything. That CO2 increases global temperature is the hypothesis. Develop a physically plausible reason why that would be so, considering that CO2 is a trace gas and H2O is physically dominant. Then develop an experiment to measure the effect of CO2 on the physical model and report the results.

                So far, the best anyone has done is show correlations between CO2 and global temperature over short periods of time(150 years is a short period in the geological scheme of things. The much hyped 1975-1998 rise was only 23 years). The correlation is dubious since ice cores have shown the reverse correlation- first the temperature rises and then the CO2. CO2 obviously doesn’t correlate exactly with GAT since the temperature has barely changed for a period most scientists said would invalidate the CO2 correlation.

            2. While CO2 is indeed only 400 ppmv of atmosphere, since the principal components of air are Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon, and they are not GHG’s, we can remove over 98% of the atmosphere from our consideration.

              That still leaves H2O, methane, ozone and various other molecules and ions floating around for CO2 to compete with.

              Each GHG has its particular ‘windows’, where it affects radiative transfer of IR. These spectrum bands are unique to each chemical. Water vapor covers the largest part of the IR spectrum, but it has openings exactly where CO2 is strongest.

              Further, water vapor is condensing in air, so falls out or turns to clouds; a slightly warmer atmosphere means much more water vapor as a positive feedback.

              CO2’s effects in atmosphere are observable, measurable, calculable, and by these observations we know for every doubling of CO2 concentration there is an expected rise of 3.1’C to 4.6’C after thirty years.

              So far, there’s been a 43% rise in CO2 concentration.

              1. CO2’s effects in the lab are observable, measurable, and calculable.

                CO2’s effects in the atmosphere are dynamic, stochastic, and not nearly as straightforward as you suggest 🙂

                http://theresilientearth.com/?…..all-co2-go

      2. 1. 19th century data cannot report on 20th century happenings.

        2 The Tyndall paper does not “show convincingly (not necessarily proof) that 20th century climate variability was principally caused by CO2.” Nor does it “show evidence that CO2 precedes the temperature variability in the 20th century”.

        3. The issue is not whether greenhouse gases can trap heat. It is a question of how much, and how much of that contributes to warming.

      3. all gasses are heat trapping there are no cooling gases and thankfully so otherwise it would be like living on the moon.

        1. Not all gases have a Green House Effect.

          If the atmosphere had no water vapor, CO2, ozone, NOx or methane, all the N2 in the galaxy would not prevent the temperature of the planet from plunging to near lunar levels.

          1. If we replaced the four hundred parts per million of CO2 with four hundred parts per million of H2O, I’m sure you’d agree we wouldn’t get to lunar level temperatures 🙂

            Any reason why we should be worried about one of the tiniest proportional green house gases? Any reason why we should believe that the CO2 cycle is simply the addition of sources and subtraction of sinks?

          2. If we replaced the four hundred parts per million of CO2 with four hundred parts per million of H2O, I’m sure you’d agree we wouldn’t get to lunar level temperatures 🙂

            Any reason why we should be worried about one of the tiniest proportional green house gases? Any reason why we should believe that the CO2 cycle is simply the addition of sources and subtraction of sinks?

    2. KK: As it happens some mathematicians and other researchers just published a fascinating paper, “Causal feedbacks in climate change,” in Nature Climate Change this week in which they argue that they can show that adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere causes higher temperatures. Phys.org has a pretty good round up of the study. Basically what they are looking at is how increased sunlight falling on the Northern Hemisphere as the earth’s orbit shifts a bit jumpstarts the end of ice ages. As temperatures warm, more CO2 is added to the atmosphere from the oceans, in which turn produces more warmth and so forth.

      1. warm temps prior to CO2 increases?

        1. Hey, it seems like the warming might actually cause the increased CO2! Imagine that!

          1. Yes. This has been known for a long time. CO2 rises causes warming, and warming causes CO2 rise.

            How is that spiral supposed to be comforting to those who dump fossil wastes?

            1. Exactly why didn’t this cycle cause a permanent hot house in the billions of years of earth history? 🙂

              Obviously, the spiral doesn’t exist, otherwise it would’ve already happened 🙂

      2. That sounds about as scientific as economics.

      3. Yes, Ron, they say that the increased temperatures appear to cause the CO2 release, although they use cautious language. Their work is a piece of work against AGW.

      4. Ron, you’ve made several really good points and raised some serious questions, but I’ve got a few that nobody seems to want to touch or be able to answer…

        1) What caused the cycle of Major Ice Ages? All of them, not just one of them or the last one. The cyclical nature is quite clear from many graphs, but nobody seems to have figured the driving force for the cycle.

        2) … which just occurred to me a few minutes ago… Ah, while everyone seems to be measuring the CO2 ‘output’ from our civilization, why hasn’t anyone seemed to talk about the amount of HEAT (i.e., ENERGY) released by ALL of the combustion, refining and whatever other processes are involved in energy production and consumption around the world?

        That’s plain old HEAT added to the environment, converted from the chemical energy previously stored in the chemicals’ bonds. The energy released is converted to HEAT to spin turbines, some is lost in transmission (into the air from the power cables) and finally dissipated as HEAT by the end-user.. Whether it’s the heat emitted by my desktop PC or the energy liberated during the fabrication of the car I drive or by the engine in the car as I drive it… and there’s heat loss in electric cars’ propulsion systems as well as in the friction between their tires and the roadways!

        But I’ve never seen those factors included in any of the equations or models people speak so lovingly about.

        Help! Where are those factors? Is it just I who’s missed it?

        1. The heat produced by burning fossil fuels is relatively insignificant. The SUN daily provides way more heat- 1300+ Kw/m^2.

  4. I propose that you are asking the wrong question and omitting the companion question. First, most skeptics and lukewarmers know that AGW is real so the better question, imo, is – What would persuade skeptics and lukewarmers that AGW is catastrophic? Second, given the many failures of the models, decline of extreme weather, greening of the planet, increase in crops, fewer cold-related deaths, increased standard of living and “The Pause” – What would persuade alarmists that AGW is not catastrophic?

    Now that they have stopped denying the pause, climate scientists seem to be coalescing around the idea that the pause i(15-18 years and counting) is caused by natural variability and natural cycles that are suppressing the AGW warming trend. If true, wouldn’t it be plausible, even probable, that the warming of the 80s and 90s (18-20 years)was amplified by those same forces. If so, catastrophic (CAGW) human-caused warming seems even less likely. Mild warming – yes, catastrophic – unproven and leaning towards no. The truth is that climate science needs better data and more decades of observation to see if warming/cooling is actually a sine wave with a mild upward trend due to recovery from the Little Ice Age and CO2 emissions or an unprecedented linear warming caused by humans. Note: All those events you have listed as proof have happened before so they prove neither the claim to being catastrophic nor unprecedented.

    1. This is almost precisely my stance on AGW. I was called an idiot in college for expressing doubt in models that couldn’t possibly encapsulate all the natural variations inherent in climate and now the scientists are scrambling to implicate natural variation to save their models. I also reflexively fight everything the Warmists say because their goal isn’t to stop AGW, it’s to get rich and control people’s lives. It’s unfortunate that nuanced views don’t typically appeal to zealots.

    2. Well said. It’s the Catastrophic part that is strongly objected to. And that prediction is based on models that have shown no real skill in prediction; and “tipping points” that are highly speculative. Why wasn’t the earth’s climate tipped in the past when the supposed dangerous temp levels were reached?

      For the true believers it’s simply a massive case of confirmation bias. They’re convinced that humans are going to destroy the earth one way or another and so they are inclined to believe that which appears to validate that belief.

    3. Don’t we have to define “catastrophic” first?

      Catastrophic to me means the earth ceases to exist. If the earth is likely to cease to exist because of man-made causes, then we can discuss what man can do about not letting that happen.

      Otherwise, earth’s life forms will adapt and evolve as they have for billions of years. Neither man nor other life forms ceasing to exist is a catastrophe since few or none of the life forms that exist on earth today have been around all that long.

      And maybe the earth ceasing to exist isn’t even a catastrophe. It’s a rather earth-centric way of looking at universe, which is somewhat arrogant and probably mistaken.

      1. I propose that we define “Catastrophic” as “Doing more damage to human society than substantially giving up on modern industrialism is likely to do”.

        On that basis, I haven’t seen a case for “Catastrophic” to date, unless you count a few wildly unconvincing Science Fiction scenarios.

        1. I’d like to suggest something more like “doing more damage than the human race can compensate for or adjust to…”

          Higher ocean levels, even by multiple feet or meters will not ‘destroy civilization,’ but it sure as hell will clobber the property values of coastal communities (and directly affect all of the HUGE cities that tend to have developed at the mouths of large navigable rivers, too!)

          When does the cost of abandoning those locations and ‘moving to higher ground’ exceed what humans can manage to pay for? There’s some pragmatism in that, y’know?

          What if property insurance clients bore the true cost of the risk of building or owning property on flood plains or sandy beach coastlines?

          It’s puzzled me for a LONG time, since I realized that the cities most vulnerable to river flooding should have been built on higher ground and thus saved the fertile lowlands that flood regularly and are refreshed and nourished by those floods.

          Farmer’s structures should be built on stilts to raise them far above flood lines, as well as their homes. And all necessary utilities and infrastructure should be designed to withstand such ‘natural events’ and permit quick recovery from them.

          But hey, I guess humans haven’t figured that out yet, or like so many things… “we’ve always done it that way and there’s no reason to change…”

          Bah!

  5. This article cites plenty of proof that the world is getting warmer, but no proof that it’s man-made, rather than natural.

    There are some broad theories as to what might have caused per-industrial, natural global warming (including solar or geothermal activity), but no one knows with any certainty. If you don’t know what variables cause natural global warming, then there’s no way to rule it out in the present warming trend.

    Also, even the most zealous mad-made climate change believers will concede that the best computer models predict warming that’s double what we observe in the real world. According to the scientific model, if real world observations don’t support your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong.

    I’m willing to believe it’s possible that human activity is at least partially to blame for current warming, but the certainty that many express strikes me as very unscientific (for the reasons I just stated).

    1. The Ross Ice Shelf was already melting almost a mile per year when it was first discovered and surveyed in 1850 by James Ross.

      Robert Falcon Scott surveyed it in again 1912 and it was 50 miles smaller than in 1850.

      This was during the Age of Sail before coal burning steamships were in popular use.

      So, I don’t know what might be causing the ice to melt but neither do the alarmist because it was melting before fossil fuel internal combustion

    2. Bingo. I was thinking the same thing. Yes, CO2 and other “greenhouse” gas concentrations are going up. That is certain. Yes, temperatures are probably going up. We can argue about methodologies all we want, but the trend over the last century or so is on the plus side of zero. But that’s all we know. The CO2 rise is circumstantial evidence until the models are in a state of non-suck. And the models decidedly suck.

  6. Looking over the past 800,000 years the temperature peaks and valleys are nearly perfectly cyclical. There are peaks reaching higher than we are now without there being man (or man having the means) to create CO2 at the levels we have now. At the moment we are nearing the level of other spikes in temperature variation. Man and earth have already survived through a spike and valley…I think we can do it again.

    1. And that is why there is no reason to believe the current warming since the 1850s (the end of “The Little Ice Age”) is anything other than natural cycles in the climate. The climate has been warmer at times in the past than it is at present, so in the absence of a demonstration of cause and effect (like maybe the models based on the hypothesis actually prove valid and can accurately predict) there is no reason to believe man-made CO2 is causing anything. Ron’s logic seems pretty circular, along the lines of, “we can be certain that man-made CO2 is causing an effect, because man-made CO2 MUST be causing an effect”. Sorry, that’s not science. For me to believe it, I must see an actual scientific proof. M’kay?

  7. I would accept:

    1. Extremely well-documented satellite and ground-based station temperature data from a meaningful time range (on the scale of several decades) – with no “adjustment”, “smoothing”, “extrapolation”, etc.;

    2. Identification of temperature proxies (i.e. tree rings and the like) based SOLELY ON THE DATA IDENTIFIED IN #1 and not on inference or hypothesis – followed by the backwards application of those identified and verified proxies on to the former climate record;

    3. Once #1 and #2 are in place, the construction of predictive models forecasting temperature change based on greenhouse gas changes;

    4. Once #3 has been done, experimental verification of those models by observation of additional temperature changes as predicted by the models for a time period that is meaningful (again, we’re talking about several decades).

    If the models fail in any way, you lose.

    The fact that actually doing these things would take decades, and that we’d essentially have to start from scratch because of bad data in the existing ground-station data set and the poor fit of prior temperature proxy guesses to current data, is irrelevant. It’s not up to me to give you a timely solution to this measurement problem, because there probably isn’t one.

    1. ^^THIS^^

      That would be a very good start. Another really convincing thing would be the ability to correctly reconstruct known temperatures from the past. We know what the temperature was in 1980. Now build me a model that when given the known atmospheric data from 1980 will tell me that the temperature that year is something close to what it actually was.

    2. A very good list of necessary evidence.

    3. My only comment is that decades is not enough. The earth is not historically warm right now, if one looks at millenia of temperature proxies.

    4. 1. Extremely well-documented satellite and ground-based station temperature data from a meaningful time range (on the scale of several decades) – with no “adjustment”, “smoothing”, “extrapolation”, etc.;

      Fluffy will only accept data collected by completely uncalibrated sensors, thereby assuring it is completely useless.

      1. Right. To calibrate a sensor, you let it gather data for a while in an uncalibrated state, and then change all the data to what you think it should have been if the sensor was correctly calibrated in the first place.

        Wait, what?

        1. Actually that is how you calibrate a sensor. You have to pick a source of data you declare accurate by definition, and then adjust the results of your sensor to match the results of the truth source as closely as possible.

          The problem is that in the real world, there’s often not a definition source of true data, and your calibration necessarily end up being somewhat arbitrary.

          1. Whether or not that’s true, you don’t use your pre-calibration data and then church it up to fit your expectations.

        2. “The Sego Sago Kid – To calibrate a sensor, you let it gather data for a while in an uncalibrated state, and then change all the data to what you think it should have been”

          Stormy Dragon – “Actually that is how you calibrate a sensor.”

          No, that’s absolutely Not how you calibrate a sensor.

          You calibrate a sensor by comparing it with a known reliable source. Any data collected prior to calibration is discarded. Then you start collecting data.

      2. I don’t see Fluffy as saying that.

      3. Stormy, as you well know, Fluffy isn’t referring to sensor calibration, he’s referring to post-facto monkeying the data.

        If I want obtuse, I’ll light the Bo signal.

        1. Fluffy isn’t referring to sensor calibration, he’s referring to post-facto monkeying the data.

          A subjective distinction largely based on how much you happen to like the resulting data.

          1. Unless you think that actual measurements trump assumptions.

            1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

              The dead giveaway that we are dealing with a fabricated crisis is the social solution the watermelons want to a problem I figure would actually require an engineering one.

            2. That’s the problem. There’s not such thing as an actual absolute measurement. If I ask you “what temperature is it your living room right now”, you can tell me the thermometer on your thermostat says that it’s 72deg, but is that thermometer correct? If we bring in another thermometer and it says it’s 71deg, which thermometer is right?

              1. If I think the 71deg thermometer is right and start multiplying all your thermostat results by .986, I’m calibrating the data. If you think the 71deg thermometer is wrong, I’m “post-facto monkeying the data”.

                1. If I think the 71deg thermometer is right and start multiplying all your thermostat results by .986, I’m calibrating the data.

                  Data isn’t calibrated, its adjusted. Devices are calibrated.

              2. It is very likely the temperature in your living room varies by a couple of degrees at any given moment depending upon where you’re standing.

              3. That’s the problem. There’s not such thing as an actual absolute measurement. If I ask you “what temperature is it your living room right now”, you can tell me the thermometer on your thermostat says that it’s 72deg, but is that thermometer correct? If we bring in another thermometer and it says it’s 71deg, which thermometer is right?

                What we would need to do is find a very large number of thermometers that ALL AGREE, and then declare those thermometers to be standard, and distribute those thermometers to all the disparate points whose temperature we wanted to measure.

                If we for technical reasons cannot or will not ever have a measurement standard at a fine enough granularity to make the measurement distinctions we need to provide the type of evidence I have asked for, guess what?

                That means we can never prove the AGW hypothesis.

                Oh well.

                Once again, the fact that proving this hypothesis is technically difficult is NOT. MY. FUCKING. PROBLEM.

                “It’s hard to accurately measure, forecast, and re-measure the climate of an entire planet!” Yup. It is. Too bad.

                1. What we would need to do is find a very large number of thermometers that ALL AGREE, and then declare those thermometers to be standard, and distribute those thermometers to all the disparate points whose temperature we wanted to measure.

                  That’s kind of what they did for the meter ? from late 19th century until the 1960s, there was a metal bar that was used as the official prototype of the meter and copies of it were made and distributed around the world. The bar that the US received was 1.6?m too short. Now it’s based on the distance light travels in a given amount of time.

                  1. My 1st response was “it’s not like we in the US were using the meter for anything, anyway,” but then I remembered scientists probably needed an accurate standard.

                    [Vernor Vinge] What happens to the length of a meter when we enter a faster zone of space? [/VV]

                    Kevin R

              4. Stormy-

                you can tell me the thermometer on your thermostat says that it’s 72deg, but is that thermometer correct? If we bring in another thermometer and it says it’s 71deg, which thermometer is right?

                But the average of the temps from thousands of different instruments all over the world is enough to scirntifically conclude that “temps are increasing by .05 degree Celsius per decade”?

                Really?

          2. A subjective distinction

            No, its not. Calibration is something you do to a specific device before collecting its data for use or as part of maintaining the device.

            Post-facto monkeying is what you do with data after its been collected for us.

            If I want obtuse, I’ll light the Bo signal.

            1. Humanties degree, right? Because you’ve obviously never worked with actual scientific equipment outside a high school “making measurements we already agree on the actual answer to” environment.

              1. Because we don’t already agree on what a degree constitutes?

              2. ” Calibration is something you do to a specific device before collecting its data for use or as part of maintaining the device.”

                Controls automation engineer here, and he’s correct.

                1. Besides the accuracy of the input data, there’s also proper modeling. By choosing which biases to include of exclude, or how the pieces of data are put together and analyzed, a researcher can influence the results of a study. A few years ago a college econ professor, with a PhD who had written several books, did a study of the effects of aging on MLB players in which he chose to only use players who had long careers (avoiding flaky small samples), and found a peak at age 30 or 31. I did my own study with any player I could find a birth date for, in the minors, colleges, even Cuba and Japan, and got a peak of 25. There may be issues with my methods, including survivorship (do players who because they sucked eventually were released and never got a second year affect the results?)

                  1. oh, and I mentioned the guy having the PhD because when 90% of the people in his field called him out on his results, he doubled down and said we didn’t understand his shiny tools. Although I don’t have a PhD, many of my colleagues do, including other economists, as well as psychologists and physicists.

              3. I agree with you that sometimes it’s necessary to adjust already collected data to fit a calibration.

                I work in sports analytics, and a lot of it (similar to the climate research) is identifying biases that affect the data.

                One example is the data on pitches thrown in MLB over the past few years. They are remotely sensed by either a 3 camera or a single radar system. There are test run before each game to calibrate the cameras, but after each game another set of test can be run to see if there are any systematic biases in the data, compared to what we expected the data to be. For example, say a guy normally throws 93-94 and comes out one night and is throwing 96. Is her throwing harder or is the measurement device miscalibrated? First thing to do is see if all the other pitchers in the same game showed the same shift or not. If they did, something was temporarily wrong with the system, so the pitch speeds are adjusted downwards.

  8. “Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it?or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism.”

    That works both ways, doesn’t it?

    RSS and UAH data demonstrate almost no warming. The trophospheric warming that was supposed to result from the “greenhouse effect” is absent.
    The climate models have all been falsified. Extreme weather events have not been increasing in frequency or intensity.

    The little gods at GISS have found it necessary to “adjust” the data to demonstrate warming where none exists.

    Certainly, there is no basis in the data of the imposition of extreme measures to curtail economic activity of the sort that have been proposed by those on the left.

    I think it’s time to take a step back and accumulate more data.

    1. No, no, no. The way it works is that we cite correlations and then mumble about correlation not equaling causation, but… OK, the warming from 1910-1940 (before CO2 can possibly have been a significant driver according to all of the authorities) was essentially at the same slope as the warming from 1975-2000 so we already have a verifiable example where the observed effects can occur naturally. But correlation is not causation, just sayin’. And since we want to cite data, here’s some:

      We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ? 0.4?C and 1.5 ? 0.4?C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9?C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65? warmer than in recent decades.

      (emphasis mine)

      1. The null hypotheses are (in descending order):

        The Earth is not warming (That’s pretty easy to reject)

        The Earth is not warming at a catastrophic rate (Whoops, can’t reject that one, and we can’t even decide on what the “correct” temperature of the Earth is. More importantly, recent revisions to aerosol forcings coupled with already decling ECS and TCR estimates cast severe doubt on Ron’s concern that CAGW will be a significant problem)

        The Earth is not going to warm at a catastrophic rate (Jury’s still out I guess, but all of the claims are based on the models which are failing spectacularly)

        And finally, the majority of the warming is not induced by humans (again this is based on models which have a very poor record)

        And then we have Ron’s opening statement, “…that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century.” Oh, but that doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it, but questioning is clearly the preserve of non-believers.

        No, Ron, the way it works is you have to answer what it would take to falsify your hypothesis. Prove my theory wrong isn’t science.

        1. Not science, religion.

          1. Remember when joe called Bailey a hack before Bailey changed his mind to agree with consensus?

            The only good thing to come from Bailey learning to stop worrying and love consensus was that it chased joe away for a while.

        2. Why is it easy to reject the Earth is not warming? It hasn’t for two decades. It did for four decades before that. We have ZERO knowledge as to what it will do over the next four decades.

          You have an inherent belief the trend is upwards because you’ve been brainwashed, not because you have any actual way of knowing what the temps will be in the upcoming 10, 20, 30 years.

          1. Please, just because I accept that the earth is warmer now than it was ~150 years ago when it was coming out of the LIA or warmer than it was 40 years ago when it started to come out of the low ebb of the AMO, doesn’t mean that I’m predicting runaway future temps. Quite the opposite. Re-read what I wrote.

  9. It is simple. Models that consistently and correctly predict changes in global temperature. And I don’t mean one or two lucky shots. I mean year in and year out for a decade or more. Without that, there is no reason to believe the people making the models understand the climate. And if they don’t understand the climate, there is no reason to believe their assertions about it.

    1. “Models that consistently and correctly predict changes in global temperature”

      Models are not evidence. They are models.

      1. Someone doesn’t understand scientific method and the value of predictability.

        1. mtrueman lies regularly and without shame. You might as well argue with a 5YO.

          1. “You might as well argue with a 5YO.”

            Folks, that’s high praise indeed considering the source.

        2. “Someone doesn’t understand scientific method”

          A model is a simple representation of something complex. It is not evidence. Scientists observe and measure. That’s the evidence they provide us with. Models are just that: models.

          “value of predictability.”

          I suspect it’s you who doesn’t understand the value of predictability. What is the value of a prediction that the sea level, for example, will increase by x metres over the next 50 years?

          1. What is the value of a prediction that the sea level, for example, will increase by x metres over the next 50 years?

            If incorrect and ignored, it has some value, mostly to the predictor in that they’ll be dead before it’s proven wrong.

            If incorrect or correct, and people spends tons of time, energy, and resources, arrogantly assuming they can correctly manipulate the global environment, then it’s value would be a large negative.

            If correct and ignored, the value cannot be stated as no one can state the actual cost of slowly rising sea levels to humanity, other to say that there are all these “coastal” people, who are apparently backwards and too stupid to migrate; even if doing so is required to prevent drowning and the migration can take place over 50 years.

            1. “who are apparently backwards and too stupid to migrate;”

              Ever consider the possibility that you are among the stupid and the smart ones are those that will follow in the footsteps of that ancestor of the whale and return to the seas. You can never know what a body is capable of.

      2. If an investment advisor ‘models’ the economy, something equally as difficult to predict, and accurately over and over proves out his assumptions, I’d invest with him.

      3. I wouldn’t be too happy about that were I you, trueman, because the models were your strongest argument. And they’re wrong.

        1. “And they’re wrong.”

          Can you point to any climate models that have been right? You seem to be surprised or disappointed that the climate models have been inaccurate. Are you just blowing hot air or do you really expect that accurate climate prediction models are just around the corner?

      4. but there are good models and bad models. the good ones tend to predict the future more accurately than the bad ones.

        1. How you rate the local weatherman’s model?

          1. if you don’t like the forecast, change the channel or wait an hour

  10. “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

    How about what solution would persuade you?

    All the solutions I’ve seen so far are some version of “tax the rich”, nationalization of industries, or other forms of complete economic and political regression.

    Come up with a solution, like.. oh I don’t know.. plant some more fucking trees.. Then we’lll talk.

    1. The earth is already doing this on its own.

      http://theconversation.com/des…..ener-38226

      It’s almost like the earth’s climate is made up of thousands of variables that interact to maintain a relatively stable climate.

      1. Oh, come now. A greener planet is most certainly a bad thing if it was caused by humans.

      2. Are you suggesting that climate science has the same calculation problem as central planning?

    2. Another solution would be to embrace bioengineering, and indeed all free commerce, with open arms. The amount of farmland would plummet as efficiency increases and the increased wealth (that includes technology) would mitigate virtually any harm that voluntary commerce might do to the commons of Earth.

      Planting some fucking trees would be great. Planting bioengineered C02 hungry gluttonous fucking trees would be fucking more greaterer.

      Basically for this happen, all we need to do as a concerted human collective is nothing at all.

      1. Yep. The same people who are screaming the loudest over AGW are the same ones who view Monsanto as the devil for creating plants that would allow the same amount of crops from 25-30% less farmland.

        1. Well duh, if we can grow more crops with less land than how are those lovely Malthusian controls ever going to happen? Humans are a plague on the planet, raping mother earth and forcing mass extinctions of less evolved creatures. Clearly 7 billion of us is too many so some of you guys are just gonna have to take one for the team and die.

          1. Yup. Greenpeace wants poor children to die rather than allow GM crops. Sick bastards.

        2. Please mentally delete 1 or 2 “same”s out of my previous post. Thx

          1. Shit I accidentally mentally deleted the whole thing.

      2. you forgo tmagic invisibility screens and perpetual motion machines. if youre gonna pull bullshit deus exmachinas out of your ass do it right

        1. Genetically engineered plants are fantasy huh?

          1. Of course they are! But I won’t be satisfied until we have actual Devorians.

        2. Uh, have you ever heard of the green revolution?

        3. I’d settle for a plugin that fixes your retarded typing.

    3. how abo ut stopping cutting so damn many down like clearcutting the amazon forest?

      1. People aren’t cutting down forests just for laughs, you know. More productive farming means less need to clear new land.

      2. Flaming Ballsack|4.3.15 @ 2:26PM|#
        “how abo ut stopping cutting so damn many down like clearcutting the amazon forest?”

        A bit behind the curve there, shitsack?

    4. Giant space umbrella. Hell, cover it in solar panels and beam the electricity to the moon via microwaves to support the Lunar colony. Or out to the Belt mining operations.

      Yeah, I might be kind of a science fiction dork… 😉

  11. This article boils down to two things. Ron is convinced enough correlation must equal causation. And God Damn it he just wants to believe. That is really all t here is to it. Ron is a walking talking example of confirmation bias but he makes up for it by accusing anyone who doubts the theory of the same thing.

    1. Yup. it’s just as likely that natural warming (due to say, the sun and earth’s orbital variations)causes an increase in atmospheric CO2, maybe because warmer liquids (like the oceans, say) can’t hold as much dissolved gas at warmer temperatures. The old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And then when the models fail, they still cling to their falsified hypothesis.

      1. except the oceans are getting more acidic due to an increase in dissolved CO2.

    2. Yeah, except when it doesn’t like the fact that the planet warmed at essentially the same “catastrophic” rate from 1910-1940. Or the Younger Dryas. Or the MWP. Or the HCO. Here’s a protip kids: if your measurements aren’t outside the range of past natural variability, then you’ve got a hard time convincing me you know what you’re talking about.

    3. much like my theory that breast cancer is caused by shoulder belts. My proof breast cancer rates have increased since the introduction of shoulder belts in cars. Any one who disagrees is clearly a denier and a woman hater.

      1. Yes, Ron, and the world’s population has been increasing every day since you were born. You must be causing the population to increase. If we kill you the population will stabilize.

  12. As long as my monthly check arrives from the Koch Brothers, I will not believe anything about AGW.

    1. Can you please tell me where I can get my monthly Koch check?

      1. Right? What’s the point of being an evil minion if you don’t even get paid.

        1. The snazzy jumpsuits?

      2. You only get your cock checked once a month? Pathetic…

  13. Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

    Since when does that matter? If you give these fucking people an inch they take all your fucking assets and a mile. Keep in mind the gov. has done far more destructive things for less of a reason than something like “climate change” your deluding yourself.

    1. The worst and most destructive polluters on earth are governments. Why anyone thinks trusting governments with the health of the environment is a good idea is beyond me.

      1. That’s my problem we are losing liberty at every turn this is a completely unnecessary extra battle to fight, human beings will adapt and the market will take care of this problem itself. Even just ceding them that man made global warming is occurring will be in practice giving them the greenlight to begin gov. programs that will cause more harm to people than the earth warming a few degrees.

      2. The worst and most destructive polluters on earth are governments. Why anyone thinks trusting governments with [insert any noun other than theft, extortion and murder] is beyond me.

      3. Exactly. I don’t care whether AGW exists or not, Al Gore is not going to save us.

    2. Idle Hands…..That statement confirmed he is an idiot.

  14. the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years.

    Since it has been both hotter and colder (really fucking colder) over the last 800,000 years than it is now this just indicates the CO2 levels are not related to average global temperature.

    1. False…that just means you’re anti-science. #Ifuckinglovedogma

      /progtard

      1. We have ice core data going back 500K years at least. These cores allows us to estimate both both temperature and CO2 levels. I just want to see one fucking plot that shows temp and CO2 versus time. If there is any correlation between temp and CO2, it should be readily apparent to almost anyone.

        1. http://blogs.edf.org/climate41…..n_cause-3/

          here is a start

          1. I don’t think this graph proves what the author thinks it does.

          2. “Atmospheric CO2 values (ppmv) derived from in situ air ***
            *** samples collected at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, USA”

            Oh, yeah let’s fucking collect samples right next to an active volcano. That won’t skew the results AT ALL.

          3. Correlation is not causation.

            1. There is a solid correlation between temperature and CO2 right up until they deviate in the mid 1900s. At this point, temperature goes flat and CO2 skyrockets. THIS is their fucking evidence the CO2 causes rising temperatures.

          4. OK, without RTFU I see two graphs. The first shows that the earth has seen a natural oscillation of temps, with a range of about 20 degrees, and life has continued despite that. At the far right we see CO2 spiking higher than ever, but the temp peak not beaing any higher than previous peaks.

            Temperature and CO2 appear to be correlated. CO2 could cause temp, or temp could cause CO2, or a 3rd issue could cause both CO2 and temp.

            In Fig 2, they zoom in for the last 1000 years, with the vertical axis changed from 35 degrees to two degrees, to make it appear that the warming of the last 200 years is much larger than the actual 1.3 degrees.

            If we go back to Fig 1, we appear to be near the peak of a 10,000 warming period of nearly 20 degrees, during which humankind flourished, but we are being told that another 1 or 2 degrees will be catastrophic.

            1. Yeah, I love this. Also, there’s a certain part of the year in which food grows. Hint: It’s not the cold one.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

              Why do Warmists hate being able to feed humanity?

        2. Which is why they only show atmospheric C02 data dating from the 50’s. If data from that long ago proved their assertion, they’d sure as fuck include it in their findings.

        3. Found another one, but the squirrels hate the link.

          another graph the author think proves AGW.

          But why does CO2 spike through the roof, but temperature remains flat in the final years of the graph?

          These people don’t know how to read a fucking graph.

          1. In general, the Ice cores who CO2 is way higher than ever before, but there are at least 4 temperature spikes that are higher than now.

        4. Even if CO2 levels correlate with temperature gains, man-made contributions cannot be accounted for in anything prior to the industrial revolution…where we have gone through multiple warming/cooling cycles.

    2. I’ve posted this before.

      At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

      We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

      1. That also has a link to a good article on GM golden rice, which could save the lives of millions of poor children around the globe.

  15. Get a remote control for the sun and keep it’s state constant. See if it keeps getting warmer, or not. Outside of that, nothing.

    1. Don’t let my wife have the remote, though. She’ll just keep turning it up.

      1. +1 absolutely understands what you mean, and lives it too.

  16. A hypothesis that makes predictions that match observations. The hypothesis should be based on physical processes and not be some electronic variant of Terry Pratchett’s ‘Glooper’.

    We are so far away from that with climate science, that the ‘No AGW whatsoever’ hypothesis could actually be correct and the data seeming to contradict that could solely be the product of thumbs on the scale.

    1. Sure it could. They have never established that any of the documented warming during the industrial age is outside of the range of natural warming that have occurred in the past. So there is nothing to say this just isn’t a natural warming event. They only assume it is not because that is what they have set out to prove. The entire thing is an exercise in confirmation bias. Yet, Ron is constantly accusing everyone who is skeptical of being guilty of confirmation bias.

      1. And a bingo for you, too, John.

    2. A hypothesis that makes predictions that match observations.

      You mean applying the scientific method? That’s so quaint. We have consensus now.

      1. Thanks for pointing that out sarcasmic. I believe that even the old church and it’s anticsback in the dark ages didn’t do the damage to scientific credibility that the AGW SJW cult and those that chose to feed at that government funded trough has managed to cause.

  17. Another thing Ron fails to mention is that the earth warming isn’t good enough proof. The system is too large and too unpredictable to ever fully understand the mechanics of it. So for any warming to be of significance, it has to be warming that is greater than any previously known natural warming. Even if the earth is warming, that doesn’t mean CO2 is causing it. It may be that the earth naturally warmed just as CO2 increased. That whole correlation not equally causation thing again. So without proof the earth is warming at some unnatural never before seen rate, there is little reason to believe C02 is the cause of any warming.

    Ultimately, Ron is a smart guy and he thus has great faith in other smart people. He sees these people as smart and more importantly “experts” and the people who doubt as less so. So his instinct in this and a lot of other things is always trust the expert. That is a good bias except when it is not. And this is the 800 lb gorilla of bad cases to truth experts.

    1. I’m not sure how anyone can believe that the earth is warming right now. We’ve had a couple of the coldest winters I’ve experienced in my lifetime over the last 2 years. That doesn’t exactly convince me it’s getting warmer. Where are the snow free winters? I just don’t see any evidence of this warming. So who should I believe, someone else who says it’s getting warmer or my own lying eyes? They can say it’s getting warmer all they want, but as long as no one can experience it, it doesn’t exist.

      1. You don’t get it. It’s all caused by global warming. Global warming caused the polar vortex. Really. It did. Don’t ask how because it’s so complicated that only experts can understand, but there’s a consensus so it must be true.

        1. There’s an even bigger consensus that they are all full of shit.

          1. A consensus among whom? A consensus only matters if it’s among experts who believe AGW to be real.

            1. I heard, that 100% of people who believe in AWG believe in AWG!

              1. Exactly!

              2. See? CONSENSUS!

              3. I do believe in American Wire Gauge. It’s fucking real, OK?

                1. Damn nationalist.

                  I only buy wire using the metric system or by French size.

                2. Damn nationalist.

                  I only buy wire using the metric system or by French size.

            2. I’m an expert in spotting people who are full of shit.

      2. They have been preaching gloom and doom for over 30 years now. Yet, here we are with more CO2 in the environment than there ever has been. Yet, no island nations have disappeared, Manhattan doesn’t look like Venice, its still cold in Maine and hot in Cairo, they still grow corn in Iowa and rice in Texas. Nothing they have ever predicted as ever come true. Yet, we are supposed to believe them.

        And then Ron gives us gems like this,

        1. I remember a field trip to some hippy conservation thing back in the 70s. The dirty hippies showed us their compost pile and solar panels. They taught us “If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown, flush it down.” Then they said if everyone didn’t adopt their lifestyle the world would would be uninhabitable because of overpopulation or a new ice age or something.

          There’s no real point to my story. These articles just make me think of those hippies.

          1. My best friend once took a shit in a girl’s mailbox. There’s no real point to the story, but hippies make me think of a pile of shit. 🙂

            1. Lol.

            2. Was your best friend named Sandi, by chance…?

        2. I grew up in an environment around a bunch of Southern Baptists who have been telling me since I was old enough to understand English that the world is going to end and Jesus is coming back.

          That’s been going on for 50 years now.

          They also used to tell me that there was a guy who flew around the world on a sled pulled by flying reindeers, once a year, and gave presents to all the good little boys and girls.

          They even told me there was a giant talking rabbit that brought baskets of eggs every Easter morning.

          I could go on. But my point is, I’ve already stopped believing in faery tales and started believing my own observations about reality.

          1. The Easter Bunny talks in Baptism!!! I wanna switch religions!!!!!!!!!!

            1. He speaks in tongues, or so I’ve heard, but I can’t verify that as I’ve never seen him before. Which makes him a lot like global warming.

          2. My mother is still convinced that the end times are now. She’s been sure of that since before I was born.

            When she brings up the subject I quote Jim Morrison “The future’s uncertain and the end is always near,” then I get me a beer.

      3. This year was the first time we didn’t have snow in the last 3 winters. Usually down here we get snow once every 4-6 years.

        1. I’m in Pa. It is supposed to snow at my house before the sun comes up tomorrow. The nearby higher elevations still had snow this morning, despite 60 degree temps for several days. The ice is almost off the pond, but there’s still several large chunks of ice on the bank of the river

      4. Well, there actually hasn’t been any warming since 1998. Even though CO2 increased. But that somehow doesn’t falsify the hypothesis. Because REASONS. Like the Warming is HIDING IN THE OCEAN!

        1. Bottom of the ocean. How it got down there is a mystery. But it has to be there since we can’t find it anywhere else.

          1. The Edler Gods are cold, but their wives keep hogging the blankets.

            So, they steal ours.

            1. Cthulu approves of this comment.

        2. That’s another thing. If you want me to believe your theory, don’t explain your failings with self obvious bullshit.

      5. Well here is the obvious retort to that:

        http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2…..the-world/

      6. You can’t just look at individual locations. and yes even a continent is considered small taken by itself. There’s really no doubt that the planet is warmer now than 35 years ago, but the questions are why and how much will it be in the future?

  18. I’ve been too busy today to post much or even read comments. So not sure if anyone has already posted this, but:

    UNCLE TOM!!!!

    1. He is the token to success

  19. I take a different approach: It doesn’t matter if man-made climate change is real.

    The world is not going to stop using fossil fuels for the sake of their great-grandchildren. Poor nations are not going to forego cheap energy. People don’t think that way.

    The world is warming. We need to figure out how to thrive in a warmer world. That’s pretty much the whole of it. Effort spent trying to prevent it is effort wasted.

    1. That is also very true. If it is true, AGW is not a problem that is ever going to be solved. It is therefore not something worthy of consideration.

      1. Government can’t solve any problems, let alone one of the magnitude of planetary climate change. They are really good at creating problems, but really bad at solving them.

        Only technology can solve problems and we’re a hell of long ways off from being able to control the sun and planetary climate.

        So we either listen to the zealots and fill their pockets full of money to parade around and say they’re doing things when they are doing nothing of impact, or we tell them to fuck off and jump into the dustbin of history. I vote for the latter.

        1. “Government can’t solve any problems, let alone one of the magnitude of planetary climate change. They are really good at creating problems, but really bad at solving them.”

          Exactly! While these geniuses are sorting out the data, make sure they figure in the mess created in our atmosphere by geo-engineering. Perhaps we should blame Hurricane Sandy on the government. Perhaps it’s the government that has so fucked up the atmosphere that we now suffer interminable winters from “polar vortices.”

          Geo-engineering? Scientific transparency? Read this:

          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/…..29/?no-ist

          1. At least they are secretly admitting that they start fucking around and it’s off to the Snowpiercer (notice how almost all AGW disaster movies need cold to make it scary).

            Government could try to free up regulation on nukes so we replace coal plants with them here and in the developing world, but that is not what they really want (cheap energy). They want to make us all poor and are a bunch of hypocritical dipshits (see Tom Brady’s house in LA).

            I hope Ron is writing more articles about how the solutions and UN agreeements are a joke, won’t change much except for making the poor poorer and Al Gore richer.

          1. And this is where there is a problem.

            It would appear that the people in government who endorse AGW are the same ones who see massive government intervention as the only way out. In short, many of these people are “dimwits” like Naomi Klein. They ignore the economic harm associated with their solutions.

            They also ignore the significant environmental costs. PV cells and batteries, for example, do not arise from spontaneous generation and do not evaporate at the end of their operational lives. It is likely that adoption of “renewable” energy generation would cause far more harm than the current methods.

    2. Effort spent trying to prevent it is effort wasted.

      If you want to stick it to the evil corporations then it’s not wasted.
      If you want governments to control every aspect of human activity then it’s not wasted.
      If you want to reduce everyone’s standard of living in the name of equality then it’s not wasted.

      Depends on your point of view.

      1. I truly believe the reason that doubting AGW is academic suicide is because it’s become the new vehicle for Marxist policy preferences and academia, particularly the sciences, have had a chronic infection of Marxism for quite some time.

        1. Especially in light of the fact that solutions that do not involve government control of everything are dismissed out of hand.

          1. And because their isn’t any grant money in doing anything else. Those computer models don’t come cheap boys.

          2. Freedom will only benefit the Koch brothers!

        2. This, and obviously the money trail leads to studies/data supporting AGW; null data simply isn’t published.

    3. The whole thing is idiotic.

      Take a long view. In 100 or 200 or 300 years we’ll have fusion energy.

      It will be virtually free and virtually unlimited. The world can take the next 5 billion years to cool down. Who gives a shit.

  20. 1. Changing the atmosphere is Not Wise, whether it be CO2, smoke, mercury vapors, diesel particulates, or anything similar.

    2. But the atmosphere changes on its own, and so does solar radiation, the earth’s tilt, weather patterns such as cloud coverage, sand from the Sahara, plate tectonic raising continents and erosion lower them, etc etc etc.

    3. How much is from man and how much is natural is beyond any but the vaguest fuzziest calculations.

    4. The models suck and the modelers are not credible; I remember seeing new models touted as major improvements because they added cloud coverage or humidity to their calculations. One modeler proclaimed his better because its divergence from reality was twice the existing models.

    5. The panic attack freaks use all this dubious science to push government expansion contrary to all historical evidence, with economic costs contrary to all non-Krugmanesque economical analysis. Anyone who claims socialism and central planning have a better track record than capitalism is willfully blind; anyone who predicts a brighter socialist future is an idiot; anyone who claims socialism will cure global warming is a fascist.

    1. “1. Changing the atmosphere is Not Wise, whether it be CO2, smoke, mercury vapors, diesel particulates, or anything similar.”

      False. Every person you add to the planet changes the atmosphere. The question is how much do you have to change it before it becomes a problem. The Earth will enter another glaciation eventually. If massively increasing CO2 could offset it, then it would be very wise.

      1. Don’t let facts trouble you, kanga. Especially the relevant ones. Population increase can be cited, but it doesn’t change the more relevant fact of a resource being finite. If you know how to analyze, you realize population increase should point your attention at the resource limits even faster.

        Unless your whole point is to deny it, and believe some mythical market force will change that resource limitation problem.

        When on a road trip across the desert, your vehicle is nudging E and you’re over 100 miles from the nearest gas station. I suppose you’d just soldier on, foot to the floor, and expect the market to create a gas station as soon as you conk out, and just magically, the gas station won’t simply get built ASAP, but also will be stocked with the gas you need.

        Even more likely, you will build the gas station yourself, and obtain the oil yourself directly adjacent thereto, and refine it on-site, and fill up the storage tanks so you can pump some into your vehicle. Right?

        1. How are the number of resources in the world anything like the actual amount of gas in your car? The two are not even remotely related.

          1. Similes are tough, aren’t they?

        2. Right, tell me again how we managed to have the same (actually larger) amount of proven oil reserves that we had in 1979 after burning said 1979 resources a few times over in the intervening decades?

          Go for it, wombat.

          1. Who are you arguing with? On what issues? You can pretend to respond to me if you like, but the above is not responding to what I said.

            1. Unless your whole point is to deny it, and believe some mythical market force will change that resource limitation problem.

              “Right, tell me again how we managed to have the same (actually larger) amount of proven oil reserves that we had in 1979 after burning said 1979 resources a few times over in the intervening decades?”

              English, do you speak it, muthafucka?

        3. oobins|4.3.15 @ 2:23PM|#
          “Don’t let facts trouble you, kanga. Especially the relevant ones. Population increase can be cited, but it doesn’t change the more relevant fact of a resource being finite. If you know how to analyze, you realize population increase should point your attention at the resource limits even faster.”

          Mr. Malthus, haven’t you been proven wrong often enough by now to STFU?
          Yes, the market does exactly as you claim should be mythical and has many, many times.

          1. Your quarrel with Malthus isn’t a quarrel with me. But good job on the straw-man.

      2. Quibbling about obviousness is silly. Of course miniscule amounts don’t matter. Do you think pointing that out makes you wise, or contributes to any discussion?

        1. Yes, I see — I was not talking about what I was talking about, I was actually talking about something else — just because you want me to talk about that something else. Just like a pwoggie, making it about identity rather than the issues. Good one.

        2. You made the blanket statement that changing the atmosphere is not wise. I don’t see any implied limit there, so yes it does.

  21. *cough* “possibly” real? The question isn’t whether it’s “possibly real.” The question is why pseudoscience and shoddy work are being politically peddled as sound science.

    1. It’s nothing but a substitute for religion.

  22. The thing is, without huge reductions in standards of living, no real reduction in carbon emissions is possible without nuclear power. And there are all sorts of compelling reasons, most of them environmental, why we should be using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. Yet the overlap between the anti-nuke crowd and the AGW crowd is high. The logical conclusion is that the reduction in standards of living is more the goal than reductions in CO2 output.

    1. The logical conclusion is that the reduction in standards of living is more the goal than reductions in CO2 output.

      That is exactly right. Equality means the lowest common denominator, which means reducing the standards of living to near poverty worldwide.

      1. I would love for us to go to 100% nuke power for environmental reasons alone. Coal mining is an ongoing ecological disaster. And even hydro has its problems.

        1. I would like to have a diversified range of power sources depending on which is most economical for a given area, rather than a top down “let’s let top men put all our eggs in one basket” solution.

        2. I’m still waiting for my home-based fuel cell. Pipe the hydrogen (or whatever the catalyst) to the house and viola, power.

          No idea how feasible that is, but that makes the most sense to me.

          1. You might find this interesting.

    2. I can’t agree with that enough.

    3. Fusion is the ultimate energy source. I can’t wait until someone actually proves that we can build a working commercial scale reactor, just so we can watch the greenies and progs go fucking insane and shit their pants.

      1. We’ll see what becomes of this Lockheed compact fusion reactor. Probably nothing, but it’s nice to dream that it’ll pan out.

        1. I’m working on one, but I haven’t found the right beer can to house my mini-reactor in yet. Must keep …. drinking … beer ….

      2. Like this?

        1. Yes, exactly like that.

  23. What would convince me is having the money to hire my own experts (statisticians, people who understand the scientific process, computer programmers specializing in modeling, etc.) to review the current studies and data out there. I simply can’t trust the information being distilled for me by reporters to be an accurate representation of what was found, and I don’t have the time to do the in depth research myself. Maybe, I could settle for a kickstarter that hired said experts to investigate. As long as the people who are doing the hiring aren’t already true believers and have an open policy that I can review explaining exactly how they decide if a study is good or not.

  24. I’m waiting for a sign from God.

    1. And, while I’m at it, a Husker Du reunion.

    2. She’s waiting for that email server business to blow over.

  25. I would accept a climate model that explains the role and magnitude of every variable that affects global temperature, that when run backwards to a point prior to the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age gives results that closely match the climate record, and which then predicts in advance climate for, say the next 10-20 years — and those predictions then match the actual results.

    Don’t think we have anything remotely like that now. If your climate model doesn’t both predict and give results that match the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age and the temperature dip from 1945 to the 1970s — if your climate model can’t explain why climate changed then, then why should we trust it when it says it can predict the future?

  26. The first thing I would like to see is better information on, and explanation of the specific reasons for past climate changes.

    Why did the last ice age end?

    Why did the current ice age start?\

    What caused the last two great warming periods of this current interglacial?

    Because if your science will not adequately explain them, then what chance does it have making pronouncements about the future?

    1. “Why did the last ice age end?”

      It didn’t. We are still in an ice age. Normal (defined as the majority of its history after the initial cooling) Earth is ice free at the poles.

      The can’t explain the MWP or the HCO or the Younger Dryas so they try to make them go away.

      1. Yes, I am aware we are still in an ice age – there being permanent ice at at least one of the poles.

        My first question was directed at the most recent prior ice age.

        A point I thought my second question would make abundantly clear.

        Sorry for the confusion

  27. The climate actually follows the predictions.

    1. Citation needed

      1. I think he is asking for that, in order to believe.

        1. Yes.
          I’m persuaded that the climate is changing and pretty much always has, and I can see how adding that amount of CO^2 might have an effect.
          But how about one (1) prediction that proves out *in specifics* before we start arm-waving about UN agreements and such?

  28. What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

    At this point? Nothing.

    The entire affair has become so politicized, pushed by so many people with overt agendas that have nothing to do with climate, filled with so much dishonest or fraudulent activity, has had so many false predictions, has used highly inaccurate modelling as a proxy for reality, has been used so much to push further top-down controls on mankind, not to mention the direct threats made to anyone who expresses doubts as to the orthodoxy, that I would be suspect of anything at this point.

    Congrats Apocalyptics. You’ve managed to make not believing you into a scientific certainty.

    1. Yes, it is much like the science of marijuana – too politicized to be trusted.

  29. Ron usually joins the conversation. I’m a little disappointed that he isn’t here with us today 🙁

    1. Ron has been shown to have little understanding of the subject on which he pontificates in the past. The number of people who are far smarter and have actual real world knowledge usually destroy his correlation equals causation arguments. I am NOT one of those people but have been educated on the subject by following all the links and usually the dissenters have more facts to back them up. Ron relies on adjusted data points and feelz.

      1. He also likes to make arguments based on numbers that don’t actually relate to the issue. You know, like consensus and correlation=science. Kinda like how static state universe was right in 1890, but now it isn’t.

        Another one of my favorites is when he says abortion is ok because 75% embryos die before implantation. Whether you’re pro choice or pro life, that’s like saying infanticide was ok back when a lot of babies died, but now it’s not because they don’t.

      2. Bailey cares only for false dichotomy and watching people agree with him because of how he’s pitched that fake choice. He’s like a pollster digging for “facts” that “prove” his position, by drafting poll Qs to lead responders to the desired conclusion.

        Bravo, Ron. A man of no integrity is a man for the ages!

        1. All: Actually I am out of the conversation today, largely because I am on a train to New York right now to watch some Broadway plays this weekend.

        2. o: The definition of integrity is the following of moral or ethical principles, and doing the same as what you say.

          1. So it’s a moral or ethical principle to ignore inconvenient facts, and/or demonize the people who discover such facts. I understand, Ron. Clever as always.

          2. …and damn the consequences !

          3. You travelled many miles to watch a fucking “play” in person”

            “I’ll belive global warming is a problem when the people telling me it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem.”

          4. o: The definition of integrity is the following of moral or ethical principles, and doing the same as what you say.

            Examine your carbon footprint you fucking hypocrite…

  30. The issue is not believing that warming has occurred. The issue is believing that it’s an extremely dire threat AND that the suggested solutions are worth the trade off costs. People also have a hard time believing because a lot of the solutions proposed by progressive neatly fit into their long existing policy goals.

  31. The issue is not believing that warming has occurred. The issue is believing that it’s an extremely dire threat AND that the suggested solutions are worth the trade off costs. People also have a hard time believing because a lot of the solutions proposed by progressive neatly fit into their long existing policy goals.

    1. You left off … “and the people proposing to implement these solutions have a track record of achieving their benevolent goals despite using coercion rather than persuasion to implement them, rather than a track record of failure and mass graves.”

  32. What would convince me?

    Well, you can’t even begin to talk about this topic, unless you can first identify and explain the natural variations in climate. What we’re looking at trying to identify, after all, is the artificial/man-made distortions of the natural variation, are we not?

    So, get back to me when you have a climate model that can explain historical/natural variations.

    Then we can identify the extent to which the current climate falls outside those variations, and having finally, finally identified the likely extent of anthro effects on climate, we can have an intelligent conversation about possible causes.

    Where we are now is basically, we’ve taken the patient’s temperature, but we really can’t say if the patient is even running a fever (because we don’t know what their healthy temperature range is), much less identify what is causing the fever.

  33. What does it matter? The Gay Pizzapocolypse will destroy all life on earth as we know it long before this “Warming” makes any difference worth noting.

  34. Can’t say it any clearer than that.

    From reading most of the responses, I don’t think anything will convince them.

    1. Are you still pretending you’re not joe, you gigantic coward?

      1. Tiny coward, Warty, he’s a tiny, tiny coward.

      2. I’m pretty sure it’s not joe, just a random lying lefty twit.

    2. Woah woah woah. You’ve read what people have been writing here, and Ronald is who has been clear and convincing? WTF?

    3. That’s weird, because most of the responses are variations on “well, a scientific approach* would convince me.”

      *One free of manipulated data and with hypotheses that can at least pass being tested against a model of the global climate that doesn’t flunk when tested with historical data.

      1. I think he’s saying that because it’s faith based, not science based, that we’re being unfair.

      2. Come on now, joe’s not into that.

      3. You all prove my point…you don’t think that the evidence presented by science as well as Ronald right here is science based.

        It proves two things…you have no idea what science is, and like I said, you will never be convinced.

        1. you don’t think that the evidence presented by science

          The extent of scientific evidence is the data. Which, as far as anyone can tell, shows a plateau.

          Even the data is scientifically suspect, though, given the degree to which it is manipulated post-collection.

          What scientific evidence are you referring to that supports CAGW as a climactic phenomenon?

          1. There hasn’t been a plateau. Your preferred measurement may be satellites, but as Ronald has often pointed out, RSS (using such measurements) states that the warming can only be accounted for when man-made variables are included.

            But beyond that, surface temperatures are valid, and most use exactly that to track temperatures. And in every such measurement, 2014 eclipsed 1998. And 1998 had the El Nino of the Century, and no El Nino occurred in 2014. And, the past 12 months have been the hottest 12 month period since anytime data has been collected.

            By the way, that is science. Observations are scientific. All of science isn’t conducted in a lab with test tubes. But if you need more science to convince you, just read what Ronald offered. It is all science, and it has convinced not only him, but the great majority of climate scientists and every single major science organization in the country. They don’t arrive at conclusions based on religion, they do so based on science.

            1. Fuck off back to your Hobbit Hole, Joe.

            2. the warming can only be accounted for when man-made variables are included.

              Whoopsie!

              Let’s see, train the model during the upswing of mutli-decade oscillations with absolutely zero skill at predicting said oscillations (check)
              Subtract significant aerosol forcing to make predictions match over said warm period (check)
              Shit your pants when you realize what will happen to your models which already are running hot now that aerosol forcing appears to be much lower (check in the mail)

            3. the warming can only be accounted for when man-made variables are included.

              Since I don’t think we can identify the causes of natural climate change, or even with a high degree of accuracy the extent of global climate change, I don’t see how anyone can make this statement.

              There hasn’t been a plateau.

              Fair enough, we need to define plateau. You go first.

              1. Well, RSS did, as did many other science organizations.

                OK, view the graph:

                http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist…..Fig.A2.gif

                There is not plateau for the past 100 years…temperatures go up. I’m sure you would like to only start measuring since 1998. Please note that in the graph there have been even longer periods of temperature stabilization, note the 40s through the 60s.

                Here is your problem…1998 was the year of the El Nino of the Century, and 2014 still eclipsed it, with no El Nino.

                There has been no plateau, even since 1998.

                Now you go.

                1. No, it didn’t.

                  Please explain where the significant warming from 1910-1940 came from before CO2 was significant enough to have an impact. And 2014 was an El Nino year according to JAXA. NOAA is spinning desperately to isolate the definition to region 3.4 (4.3? don’t recall for sure off the top of my head) when the rest of the pacific regions were in a mild El Nino state (and still are right now).

                  What I can also state is that global warming has tracked remarkably well with US climate research funding since the late 80’s.

                  1. I’d like to know how he explains the average temperature drop – DROP – between 1940 and 1978? I mean, look at the graph. If man was warming the planet from the dreaded CO2 emissions, how come the average temperature was lower in 1978 than it was in 1940? Did the CO2 go on vacation for 40 years? How did it manage to pull that trick off? If you can’t explain that (or read your own graph) then how can you expect to be taken seriously?

                    1. Jimmy Carter was President in 1978. He made the sea levels drop just like Obama promised.

        2. From what I can tell a good portion of the commenters here are engineers or computer people of some sort. They are trained and practiced in applied science. Myself I’m a graduate of the local university’s School of Applied Science, and I’m one class away from a minor in physics (it’s a calculus based lab, and I’m not good at calculus so I chose not to take the course). I think we understand science just fine. It’s the people who promote consensus who do not understand science.

          1. I’m not good at calculus either.

            National Academy of Sciences published a study that said 93% of all climate scientists accept AGW as real. You certainly would not be claiming that NAS does not understand science…they understand it better than we two calculus challenged individuals.

            1. I’m quite good at calculus though a bit rusty these days.

              http://joannenova.com.au/2014/…..ysics-too/

              http://richardtol.blogspot.com…..ks-97.html

              And again, science is not a democracy. The number of people who believe something to be true is irrelevant.

              1. I’m glad you posted both JoNova and Tol, because you just cited one person (tol) who admits there is a consensus, his only complaint was with one study (Cook). To quote Tol:

                “The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

                He confirmed the quote right here in the comments section on Nova.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2015/…..isleading/

                1. “…I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

                  Consensus is not science.

                  Get back to me when they have a verifiable hypothesis (actual science).

              2. I’m glad we didn’t poll all the natural philosophers when Newton unleashed his theory of force acting at a distance.

                Because the reviews were not positive.

            2. National Academy of Sciences published a study that said 93% of all climate scientists accept AGW as real.

              Consensus is not science.

              Get back to me when they have a verifiable hypothesis (actual science).

              1. Is Galileo still in prison ?

        3. “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

          I forget, was he a scientist?

          Oh, and for those following along at home (including you, Ron) I strongly suggest you read through the comments attached to the second link. In particular,

          Posted Mar 19, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

          Do low estimates for aerosol cooling imply the 1940-178 drop in global temperatures were not due to coal plant emissions from post-war industrialization?

          niclewis
          Posted Mar 20, 2015 at 5:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

          Yes, they strongly suggest that the main reason for global temperature going down rather than up from 1940 to the mid-1970s despite quite strong greenhouse gas forcing (+0.7 W/m2 for long-lived GHG, +0.85 W/m2 including ozone) lay elsewhere. Internal variability (here the AMO) seems the obvious cause. On Steven’s best estimates, aerosol forcing became a bit under -0.3 W/m2 more negative during this period. Sulphate emissions from coal plants etc. grew rapidly and reached their peak level in the mid/late 1970s.

        4. If you can prove AGW I’ll suck Tony’s dick.

          1. If you see me smoking that cigar, you should be convinced.

  35. The real question is what would persuade you that AGW will be fixed by any number of central-planning policies? Or that it’s actually a problem?

    1. BINGO!

  36. The results from an SEIU member poll would convince me. Really.

  37. There are natural warming and cooling cycles, so the mere fact of warming proves nothing. To start with, when the incomplete climate models (do they yet deal adequately with cloud cover?) make wrong predictions, they’re disproven. As for when I would take CAGW seriously, to start with the alarmists would have to stop advocating legal action against skeptics, claiming the science is “settled” (science is NEVER settled) or some “consensus” of scientists or even climatologists supports it (dubious and irrelevant), and vilifying skeptics (such as smearing them as “climate deniers” even though no one denies there is such a thing as climate), and refusing to debate the facts. Even the term “climate change” is inherently dishonest, since climate is always changing. They switched from calling it “global warming” when the warming hit a pause. Why do you suppose that happened?

    When you’re weak on the law, argue the facts. When you’re weak on the facts, argue the law. When you’re weak on both, pound on the table. And the Gorescammers have been pounding the table for over a decade. That’s the main reason I have become MORE skeptical about CAGW. I became more skeptical as I read material by skeptical climatologists that explained how natural processes might explain the warming, and (from another skeptical climatologist) that carbon dioxide and water vapor block the same wavelengths of infrared radiation, so that the law of diminishing returns applies.

  38. Is *Climate change* the only bad kind of change?

    Is the earth, a museum?

    1. ^This. And what exactly is the “correct” global temperature, and how was that figure determined?

      1. The correct temperature is the coldest one that the progs can find. Unless we go below that temperature. Then it will become the hottest one.

  39. Wrong question. The science I need to be convinced about is the proposed solutions. What science supports the notion that putting all economic activity under control of the government will positively affect the climate?

  40. Doesn’t sound like a very scientific question to me. It sounds to me more like a religious question: “What evidence would persuade you that Jesus was the son of God?”, or “What evidence would persuade you that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a white horse?”

    Real scientific disciplines never ask questions like this. Nobody ever asks anyone “What evidence would persuade you that gravity is real?”

    1. Correct Mike. One can never prove a theory, only disprove one. The better question is: What experimental evidence would disprove AGW for those modelers and believers?

  41. Since I hate birds but love rotisserie chicken, I’m going to jump on this AGW bandwagon and lobby for more solar mirror farms. Win/win!

  42. I’m a pretty rational, scientifically minded person. So, what would It take for me to believe man-made climate change is real?

    Scientific evidence.

    1. “Scientific evidence”

      Me too.

      No “here’s the trick” or “hide the decline” or “say, we’ll just ‘adjust’ all this data to help my model!”

      PROVE IT using the scientific method.

  43. Flip a coin, yes I believe humans are changing the climate, or no, I do not.

    Now what?

    Should we curtail solar collection which transforms light to heat in the atmosphere? Light which would have otherwise reflected back into space instead of generating earth-bound heat?

    Should we curtail farming? Or consumption of fossil fuels? How much? At what cost?
    Should we impose a global 1-child rule or measure lifespan on a carbon footprint scale such that when an individual has exceeded their lifetime ration they are euthanized?

    A lot of people seem to believe that “proving” the condition is the important part but in reality the proof makes no difference at all to subsequent possible actions.

    1. The point is to create a tax. The rest is just filler.

  44. Working…somewhat so didn’t read comments.

    For me the following :

    1) The people that believe it’s happen, act like it’s happening – meaning no jets *cough Gore*, they live like the world is going to end.
    2) The models fit the facts. No fudging data. No changing it to fit what I think should happen.
    3) After X period of time the predictions come true.
    4) That we understand completely the Sun/Earth cycle. Saying that’s it’s man but not taking into account Mars heating up or other orbital bodies is just ignoring i.
    5) When we stop saying “man made” so we can have control, or feel guilt, instead of it’s just getting hotter or colder (If it is), and dealing with it.

    That’s a good start

    1. There never were massive ice caps on Mars.

      We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

  45. Obviously humans have some affect on the global temperature, otherwise would be to deny thermodynamics. People that push the idea that most of it is caused by man use the same methods that people use to speak with peoples dead loved ones. They throw out a bunch of ideas and hope that something sticks. Science is uses measurements and the accuracy of predictions over all data (not just the last 100 years) to determine validity.

    Our measurements are not accurate enough and our predictions not consistently good enough over long periods of time to come to any major conclusions about how much of the heat is caused by humans. Every model has failed to predict anything consistently. Even if they did it’s still not “proof”, its evidence perhaps of a trend but it wouldn’t prove causation without more information to connect the two. It’s a lot of assumptions without the direct evidence to back it up.

    It has been FAR warmer, there has been FAR more CO2, and it has been FAR more humid in the relatively recent past (in terms of the earths age) so nothing that we are seeing is unprecedented nor is it required that humans have a primary role in any of it. The very fact that we keep taking about this within a timescale of a single human life is ridiculous and should show how much climate scientists are grasping at straws. Without understanding how the climate reacts to these changes in the absence of humans how can they determine our affect on it?

  46. What would convince me? An entirely different group of people looking at the scientific data that we have and assessing it without ONCE uttering the political non-scientific words ‘consensus’ (or even calling for political action as a result).

    The existing group of climatologists have permanently impaired their credibility. I don’t trust that they are honest with data. I don’t trust that they know shit about either statistics or computer models. I am 100% convinced that they have a non-scientific agenda that impairs their judgement. And it is obvious that they brook no actual scientific discussion. So give them jobs planting trees or cleaning up someone’s garbage. And let a different group of scientists – with pref many fewer ‘climatologists’ and many more ‘meteorologists’, ‘physicists’, ‘geologists’, ‘astronomers’, ‘statisticians’, ‘computer modellers’, ‘oceanographers’, etc – look at and take charge of the collected data.

    The only true ‘deniers’ that I see are people who actually try to argue that humans have no (or even minor) impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. That is transparent silliness and stupidity. But neither is ‘anthropogenic CO2 levels’ the same thing as ‘anthropogenic climate change’. Theory is not the same thing as empirical reality. And science really goes off the tracks when theory overrides empiricism.

    1. There is IMO actually a second issue that really has nothing to do with whether there is a demonstrable link between anthropogenic CO2 levels and ‘climate change’ (whether anthropogenic or not and regardless of direction).

      And that is we ARE producing huge non-priced externalities in extracting/combusting hydrocarbons. There is NO possible way that someone can simultaneously ‘believe’ in a true free market and ‘believe’ that such non-priced externalities are acceptable. Because there is no such thing as a market-based approach to anything absent pricing signals.

      That really is where advocates of a market need to focus – reduce those externalities over time. Period and no excuses or delays. It doesn’t matter one whit what ‘effect’ this may have on ‘climate change’ because the externality ITSELF is the problem that undermines an effective free market. And yes, it is guaranteed that energy prices will go up and distortions created by non-priced externalities will reveal themselves.

      And at some point, I’m pretty sure that people will start choking and lots of purported ‘advocates of markets’ will instead turn into ‘central planners’ demanding huge benefits (in the form of reduced costs of ‘climate change’ or somesuch). But anyone who is honest (and more interested in an effective free market than in subsidized non-priced energy for their SUV) knows that we are really a long way from there.

      1. You assume the impact of increased CO2 is a negative. But for agriculture it is a positive. Are you suggesting we should be paying people to burn fossil fuels as yields of corn and soy increase?

        1. I don’t have any problem with that. I do have a problem with a)leaving it an externality or b)lazily contenting ourselves with pretending that it must be a positive externality so that we can receive subsidies.

          I’m pretty sure that the known negatives of the other externalities (SO2, NOX, etc) quite easily offset any CO2 attributable grain crop yield (since the CO2 mostly affects the size of the stalk not the size of the grain). And honestly any crop yield payment should come from a different anthropogenic area – land use changes and agricultural deforestation. Not given to some fat ass in an SUV who wants a subsidy.

          1. Sounds like you are jealous of people that can afford to own SUVs.

  47. Please explain what will happen to agricultural output as atmospheric CO2 decreases. Seems most people who want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere are unaware of photosynthesis.

    1. “Let them die! And reduce the surplus population!”

      -Ebeneezer Scrooge (paraphrased, I’m not rainman.)

      1. “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

        A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens

        gutenberg.org is your friend.

        Kevin R

    2. Atmospheric CO2 won’t ‘decrease’ for hundreds of years – even if virtually all fossil-fuel combustion is eliminated worldwide tomorrow. ‘CO2 decrease’ isn’t even possible. Nor is ‘eliminating fossil-fuel combustion tomorrow’. Nor are either worth thinking about for even a micro-second.

      The only range of ‘possible’ is differing levels of CO2 increase and differing levels of hydrocarbon combustion. Fossil-fuels took tens of millions of years to sequester CO2 in the earth’s crust. Those will be extracted and combusted and put into the atmosphere in a century or two or three. There is no possible balancing/cycling between those two timeframes.

      1. Your first paragraph is contradictory, first you say CO2 won’t decrease for hundreds of years, then you say decrease isn’t possible. Which is it? Takes some period of time or isn’t possible?

        Just so you know, I’m in the skeptic camp. I do believe the climate is changing, but not necessarily due to human activity. The planet has always been changing and always will. Humans either have to adapt or be wiped clean.

        My point was that the IPCC wants to cut emissions to zero by 2050, thereby reducing atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 250ppm. Yeah, there may be less CO2 in the atmosphere (if what they are suggesting works in the way they think it will,) but how will it effect all plant life on the planet? CO2 is plant food, without it, no plants. No plants, no other life on the planet. There has to be a tipping point where there is too little CO2 in the atmosphere for plants to produce food. I dunno, may be a feature of the plan.

        1. Not contradictory. If we stop combusting hydrocarbons tomorrow, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise for decades. It takes a long time for CO2 to get from an exhaust pipe in the US to a carbon sink in the Amazon or Pacific Ocean. And the Amazon at least is becoming less useful as a carbon sink for different human reasons.

          Just so you know, I’m prob more an AGW cynic than a skeptic. I don’t trust the IPCC (or central planning) for anything and it wouldn’t surprise me that they are both trying to fear-monger to destroy markets overtly (to satisfy the watermelons/etc) and oversell to destroy them covertly (to provide the trillions in crony capitalist diversions).

          My biggest difference with most commenters here is that I think the second group is really the most dangerous one. They are already capturing the new global-level regulators. They will wrap themselves up and call themselves the ‘free market solution’ while destroying markets they don’t control. And to them, Reason is kinda their ‘useful idiot’.

          Unfortunately I don’t think the real way to deal with that second group is to simply oppose the first group on the grounds of AGW. True free-market or pricing advocates will simply be bypassed if all we do is resist/ignore. There’s a monstrous amount of money at stake.

  48. First and foremost, I’m going to have to see the Catastrophists stop saying utterly anti-scientific shit like this, while, in the same sentence, calling me the un-scientific one:

    Since 2000, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 0.06? C; a fraction of what was predicted by the IPCC during the 1990s. This apparent plateau has been used as ammunition by climate deniers who accuse scientists of over-inflating results from climate models. Marotzke and Forster’s new paper analyzes the methodologies of climate models, revealing no inherent flaws in the models, even when they don’t match observations.

    After they start to admit that their own models have been utterly wrong on every account, they need to figure out a way to reconcile their models with reality. Once they’ve taken these simplest of intellectually honest steps and the new models show catastrophe, I MIGHT be open to hearing about how climate could maybe perhaps have the small potential at being a problem that is bigger than dozens of other problems that are tangible and addressable without instituting the grocery list of progressive political solutions.

    1. Isn’t “doesn’t match observations” just another way of saying “this model is inherently flawed”?

      Or do I not understand science?

    2. revealing no inherent flaws in the models, even when they don’t match observations.

      Someone doesn’t understand what a flaw is. But we should take their word about something as complicated as the climate.

    3. You guys are so wrong. REALITY is flawed, duh. The models work great!

      1. Exactly.

        We don’t need better models, we need a more obedient climate.

        One that will spin out of control and devastate life on earth when the models tell it to.

        1. It’s a good thing those models have forced a massive drought in CA. How are those orange crop yields going to handle it?

          1. Orange farmer seeks pitchfork-carrying companion for travel to atmosphere/climate modeling facility. Punctures at 11.

          2. The question is why farmers thought they could simply grow crops at subsidized water rates in an already arid area. The TEMPERATURE is GREAT in CA for growing water-heavy crops, the amount of water, however, not so much.

  49. What would convince me? For starters, for these scientists to be able to tell me exactly what started the Ice Age. There are good theories and some speculation, but, I far as I know, nothing 100% factual. Next, for these scientists to definitively state what the temp of the Earth should be. Not what is ideal for humans to survive, but what the natural, stable temp should be. For all the scare-mongering surrounding Global Warming, can these scientists aver beyond a shadow of doubt that the human race would not thrive with higher temps? Would the human race evolve, not only to survive with higher temps, but possibly evolve to where we are better off. The Earth is an evolving, living thing. Remember, the Middle East used to be a jungle, brimming with life. Now it is a desert. Did man cause that change?

    1. The human race has done better and become more prosperous during warm periods, like the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.

      1. According to recent population migration patterns, global warming would be great for northern cities!

  50. I don’t need to be convinced.

    I already believe that man made climate change is occurring.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is incontrovertable.
    Therefore more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST result in increased temperatures
    Ergo Mans burning of fossil fuels are absolutely warming the planet

    What remains undecided is how much we are warming the planet and if it is something we need to be concerned with.

    Based on the evidence that exists as of this moment I would say, no AGW is not a cause for concern.We will have the technology to solve anything it throws at us long before the warming gets to be more than a localized problem for low lying coastal areas

    1. Therefore more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST result in increased temperatures

      Not necessarily. The climate is full of knock-on effects and feedback loops. Nobody knows how they all work and interact. Its possible that increased CO2 sets off feedback loops that offset or override the greenhouse gas effect of that CO2.

      1. The climate is full of knock-on effects and feedback loops. Nobody knows how they all work and interact. Its possible that increased CO2 sets off feedback loops that offset or override the greenhouse gas effect of that CO2.

        Keen sophistry — good gawsh, holy FSM appendage!, something is …possible!

        1. It’s likely, because most feedbacks in nature are negative, and because there’s never been runaway warming from positive feedbacks in the past, even when the climate was warmer than today’s.

          1. Correct, Roger. The water feedback, for example, appears positive at low humidity, but is certainly negative at high humidity when condensation into clouds dominates. Water buffers earth’s temperature.

      2. Shorter version – ignore the data but continue to obey.

      3. Not really.

        It might over short periods have feedback loops that counteract the CO2 but those feedback loops couldn’t even come into play until after the climate had started warming.

        Either way over a long enough time horizon more greenhouse gasses will cause a warmer climate. It might take a couple hundred years for the new higher equilibrium level to be reached and the amount of warming might be trivial but more CO2 WILL result in higher climate

    2. It has yet to be demonstrated that small variations in a gas that comprises only four one hundredths of a percent of the atmosphere overwhelms all the other variables and causes anything. And since there have been warmer periods in the past without man-made CO2, there is no proof that any current warming is due to man-made CO2.

      1. Current warming stopped some years ago.

  51. What about the many falsifiable predictions that have already been falsified? The temperature models that have failed to model? The stronger and more frequent storms that have failed to be stronger or more frequent?

    What will it take to convince you that this is overblown hysteria?

    1. You like it when people fart inside a closed vehicle cabin, eh? No change to the interior atmosphere there. ‘Cuz it don’t bother you none, hoss.

      1. Please don’t equivocate odors with AGW. I can open a fridge with old food in it and it will both make the room cooler as well as stink.

  52. Very few people suppose that there is no climate change and very few people deny that human activity impacts climate.
    The question to address is how much is due to natural vs human causes.

    The least tenable position to take is that without human CO2 emissions, there would be no climate change.

  53. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? You can blame the global warming alarmists, and their attempts to modify data that doesn’t fit their climate models, for my skepticism. After decades of lies and exaggerations it’s going to take an extraordinary amount of evidence to convince me that humans have any significant effect on climate.

  54. *Gallic shrug*

    I ultimately find the debate rather meaningless. If warming is evident, Mankind will find a way to survive, or even counteract the rising temps. If, on the other hand, we are heading toward global cooling, then once again we will find a way. We – as a species – are damn good at surviving. And a few degrees (more like points of degrees) either way won’t matter in the big picture.

  55. “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

    Ahhh, I don’t know…Maybe the lack of a 4.5 billion year-old radically changing climate? Maybe a perfectly stable and symmetrical orbit of the sun? Maybe a record of a perfectly stable climate that suddenly changed over the last 200 years?

    I for one thank the Gods of Climate Change. Without them, two-thirds of North America would still be under a mile-thick sheet of ice, and I’d probably be eating Mastodon or Giant Sloth for dinner.

    1. I’d probably be eating Mastodon or Giant Sloth for dinner

      That sounds yummy. Maybe this ice age wasn’t since a bad thing after all. I wonder what sauce would work best with a grilled giant sloth?

      1. Hmm. Could be gamey. I’d go with a salty/briny marinade, with acid. Lemon, say, and for some reason I’m thinking thyme or tarragon as the main herb.

        1. In Ice Age, Mastadon eat you!

  56. Global warming is a partisan issue, and therefore murkier than I could ever see through.

    Researchers and scientists will say whatever they think the Party wants to hear. Anybody remember marijuana? “Scientists and researchers” found out it caused birth defects, heroin addiction and breasts on males…. not because it did these things, they just thought that was what the Party wanted to hear.

    You can’t go for generations with “scientists” providing propaganda, and then suddenly expect them to have credence…especially on partisan issues.

    1. Interesting. Which “party” would I belong to here, Winnie? You seem to read minds so well — tell me.

      1. He didn’t mean “party” in the Democrat / Republican sense.

  57. Are you saying that the fossil-fuels industry has no money to support scientists who take a different view? Do you have any examples of scientists whose funding has ended based on having expressed an opinion that AGW isn’t supported by the data?

    1. Do you have any examples of scientists whose funding has ended based on having expressed an opinion that AGW isn’t supported by the data?

      We do have evidence that CAGW fanatics have blocked publication of dissenting articles. Does that help?

      1. It helps show the fanatics in question behave like Ron Bailey, but other than that? No help.

    2. One such example would have been Richard Mueller, who was funded at Berkley Earth Institute by the Koch’s to engage in a study on temperatures. Mueller had heretofore been at least somewhat skeptical, but after his study he was convinced about the reality of AGW.

      1. Aren’t you late to your gig at the dwarf-tossing event?

  58. I’m willing to assume for the sake of argument that the predictions are true. I doubt anything catastrophic will happen this century, but you never know.

    Even assuming the worst predictions will come true, I still don’t think any big government action is called for. Nothing that has been proposed so far would work as far as I can see. But what has been proposed would stifle economic development and innovation enough that it will reduce our ability to deal with any problems that do arise because of climate change.

    And if you want to worry about the effects on less developed parts of the world, the answer is to help make it easier for them to become richer and more productive, not to shoot ourselves in the foot. Poverty makes people far more vulnerable to natural disaster and less able to adapt to changing conditions.

    1. I think you are providing the answer that Ronald might be hoping for. You see, I think his subtle message here is that AGW is real and is at least a large “potential” problem. And if you believe that government is never the answer, and that we would be best served if the free market provides the answers, then its time to end the debate about whether or not AGW is occurring. It is.

      Libertarians would then best be served that rival free market solutions (pricing?) are proffered so that they compete with those (Klein) calling for even bigger government. That the moment might pass you by, with the worst solutions being implemented.

      At least that is what I think he is saying.

      1. Jackand Ace|4.3.15 @ 3:30PM|#
        “I think you are providing the answer that Ronald might be hoping for. You see, I think his subtle message here is that AGW is real and is at least a large “potential” problem. And if you believe that government is never the answer, and that we would be best served if the free market provides the answers, then its time to end the debate about whether or not AGW is occurring. It is.”

        If you weren’t so dense, you’d have noticed quite a few commenters here have stated that position for quite a while. And proposed/shown how the market is doing exactly that.
        Sort of like the chimera of “OVERPOPULATION!”, and “PEAK OIL”, and other such lefty fantasies.

        1. Peak CO2 occurs when the atmosphere reaches the limit of one million parts per million of CO2.

  59. my friend’s step-aunt makes $73 hourly on the internet . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her income was $19815 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to this web-site….,
    ??????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  60. I don’t care whether someone can prove it is real or not.

    The thing they will need to prove with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness is that whatever they propose to do about it will provide me personally and directly with a demostrable specific benefit of greater value than any costs their plan imposes on me.

  61. If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

    If natural acts that release massive amounts (read: more than all of mankind has released in their short existence) of “greenhouse gasses” actually resulted in a warmer planet. These natural acts are called “volcanoes”.

    Spoiler, they don’t.

  62. my friend’s step-aunt makes $73 hourly on the internet . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her income was $19815 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to this web-site….,
    ??????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  63. I would believe it when presented with an empirically verifiable causal link between my behavior and measurable changes in the climate.

    So far, all you’ve got is heavily modified circumstantial evidence and solutions that conveniently point to more taxes and less freedom for me and more funding and limo rides for you.

  64. actually fall is starting earlier not at the same rate as spring is starting. Small point but increased temperatures is not proof of man made climate change. I have studied the subject and it is physically impossible for CO2 to do what they are saying it is doing.

  65. I’m not sure if you asked that question only rhetorically, Ronald, but some here did offer some thoughts as to how they might be convinced. It might be interesting to summarize some of those suggestions, and your thoughts as to whether or not there ever is a chance to see it (perfect models), whether or not some of the suggestions have in fact already been answered, or whether or not they might get their suggestion one day in the future. I said above that based on many of the answers most here will never be convinced, but I wonder if that is accurate.

    1. Jackand Ace|4.3.15 @ 3:49PM|#
      …”and your thoughts as to whether or not there ever is a chance to see it (perfect models),”

      Yeah, it takes a lefty twit to load the questions, doesn’t it?
      “PERFECT” models, jack? You mean models where NY is really uninhabitable after a certain time?
      You’re the exact example of the partisanship and stupidity making climate change a laughing stock; buzz off.

    2. Jack
      Tell me more about your zero emission lifestyle.

  66. I am sorry I am late to this thread.

    What would it take? Non-suspect data. Less lying. Actual warming. Less fear mongering. Less misanthropy. Less screeching about taking people’s money and the destruction of capitalism. For the strategies proposed to look unidentical to a grift.

    I am not convinced that we have had no effect on climate, nor convinced that the effect is catastrophic. I think we have had far more of an effect on groundwater, which does concern me, but that is another story.

    Also, politicized science is NOT science.

    1. politicized science is NOT science.

      But the knife cuts both ways. When the science supports your view, it’s …NOT politicized…?

      1. oobins|4.3.15 @ 4:30PM|#
        “But the knife cuts both ways.”

        I’m sure you’re a lefty; it takes that view to read so poorly.
        Notice S did not ask you to be convinced otherwise, so your misdirection is noted.

      2. When fabricated science is used to control people it is politicized.

  67. Late here, but doesn’t Ron mean to ask, what would convince us entirely man-made global warming was real?

    1. Yes, it has to be “entirely” in order for it to have any validity.

      Right.

  68. Just the use of the word ‘pause’ is an indication of your prejudice. It is a plateau in the data. Pause or hiatus implies that it will increase later. Where is the evidence for that future event?

    Sloppy as usual.

  69. so Ron writes an article to show that there’s “evidence” that GW is happening, then shows us the evidence, and then IGNORES THAT ITS EXTREMELY WEAK EVIDENCE THAT DOESNT EVEN SHOW A WARMING TREND

    Look at those numbers! The variations are so tiny! We’re dealing with a chaotic system, you have to expect it to randomly vary a little bit!

    Da fuq!? How can people read these data and think anyone has shown any kind of trend?

    1. Loss leader, bait and switch, limited hangout, or outright con job. The practice goes by many different names, these are but a few.

      1. And here you thought you were posting about E, didn’t you?

  70. Here’s my biggest gripe with Climate change: what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Didn’t we just come out of an ice-age a few thousand years ago? Weren’t temperatures pointing to another ice-age in the 70’s?

    Considering the main proponents are obviously politically motivated, it is a large pill to swallow to buy their conclusions.

    1. How do you know we had an ice age? Was it… science?

      1. Please don’t equivocate coercion supported by people with science degrees paid a lot of money to support a position with science.

      2. Yes, not “science”

    2. “Supposed to be” is the hallmark of teliology.

      It requires as an unstated assumption that one can know the Mind of God.

      Well, that’s just blasphemous nonsense.

      We can observe what the evidence tells us about the Design of the past; that is, before 1750 and for the entire span of air-breathing life, our planet’s temperature has been dominated by the orbit and wobbles of the globe about the Sun.

      Milankovich identified three such patterns, 100,000 years, 44,000 years and 22,000 years long, and the evidence of sediments and isotopes and ice cores confirms his math.

      If global temperature were still on average dominated by Milankovitch’s cycles, we’d expect a 30,000 year span from now to the dawn of the next glacial period, without any significant rise in CO2 above 300 ppmv, and without any global average temperature rise more than one sixth of a degree lasting more than 30 years nineteen times in twenty.

      We’re now warming over two hundred times faster than the fastest warming seen in the last 800,000 years under Milankovitch’s figures, at over 400 ppmv CO2, and warming almost a full degree in just a century.

      1. Your proxy measurements don’t have nearly the resolution required to make the assertions you’re making.

        And, to wit, we warmed almost a full degree in just a century *before* large scale human CO2 emissions started.

  71. Oh, I don’t know…how about when billionaires in the political/carbon credit class start selling off their beachfront mansions for pennies on the dollar?

    1. ^^So much this.^^

    2. That will only prove that government stopped giving them subsidized flood and storm insurance.

    3. Typically the rich have the most money to shore up their property against devastation, so they’d be the last to move.

      That’d be a closing-the-barn-doors-after-the-horses-have-left poor signal to use as evidence.

      Why not go with canary-in-the-coalmine Tuvalu, which has bought higher ground elsewhere for its entire nation to move to, instead?

      I get feeling envious of others with more than you. Really, I do understand wanting to beggar your neighbors who have done better and gotten more whether by harder work or being smarter.

      I just don’t understand advertising it.

      1. Except, of course, Tuvalu isn’t sinking under the seas 🙂

        http://www.newscientist.com/ar…..-rise.html

        “For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet – island states that barely rise out of the ocean – face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.”

        Now that you know your canary is healthy, are you ready to give up your alarmist worries? 🙂

  72. Keeping in mind, “the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program,” the opposite is not true: a particular set of programs one is willing to see enacted may mandate the level of evidence the science requires.

    For many conservatives guilty of Hayek’s obscurantism, there are no set of programs that differ from BAU they will ever accept, so all science, all evidence will be rejected. We know there are people like this; they tell us so.

    The Cornwall Alliance even has a pledge they can sign wherein they vow to deny, deny, deny, deny, deny (yes, five times) any and all scientific evidence leading to such outcomes, on their very souls. Dr.s John Christy and Roy Spencer are signatories of this oath. I am not the sort of obscurant conservative who is; for me, taking such a position as the Cornwall Alliance’s impeaches all ones pronouncements on any matter of science, and its ends-justify-the-means morality is pretty damning of the ethics of those who would sign and then take public money on the pretext of doing science.

    No, my level of evidence hinges on what I am ethically and morally willing to see enacted as a policy, while admitting the truth without prejudice.

    1. Evidence is something even astrologists have.

      You need two things to do science:

      1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
      2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

      Your political conspiracy theories aside, if you want to talk science, we need to start with falsifiability.

  73. Man-made global climate change is caused by the increase in the size of governments. Discuss.

    1. British Columbia shrank the size of its government 25% and introduced full revenue neutral carbon taxes.

      Your claim is thus false.

      1. So because BC, a province of about seven million people, supposedly shrank its government that means that the rest of the world governments also shrank or the 25% reduction was enough to offset the growth in the governments that represent 6.6B people?

        1. Your argument is interesting. BC shrank its government, and its CO2 emission.

          Ergo, shrinking CO2 emission can drive smaller government.

          I stand corrected.

          It’s obvious that health-care bloat, regulatory bloat, fossil industry subsidy bloat (over $2 trillion every year worldwide, more than 1/4 of that from the USA alone) would largely shrivel up and die in a lower fossil waste world.

          BC merely shows that it’s possible to get both smaller government and lower CO2.

          1. The US shrank its carbon footprint and its government grew.

          2. I’m not sure the smaller govt was a result of fewer CO2 emissions.

            If the fossil fuel industry paid lower taxes (or no taxes) but didn’t get any subsidies I think they take that.

          3. Ergo, shrinking CO2 emission can drive smaller government.

            Revenue-neutral tax changes don’t shrink government at all.

          4. Bart R
            BC merely shows that it’s possible to get both smaller government and lower CO2.

            An amusing fairy tale. All we have to do in the US s slap a new $50 billion gasoline tax, offset by a $50 billion cut in the personal income tax. I suspect politicians would claim they had created smaller government — even though revenues remained the same.

            You can fool some of the people some of the time ….

      2. Bart R
        British Columbia shrank the size of its government 25% and introduced full revenue neutral carbon taxes. Your claim is thus false.

        Revenue neutral taxes do not shrink government. Your claim is thus false.
        And you miss the real benefit which is the lowest personal and corporate income taxes in a VERY high-tax country. It shifts market pressures from consumption and jobs to fuel. And, by the way, increases the money available for consumption, investment and employment.

        The anti-gummint mentality often misses the larger story. One only sees what they’re looking for.

  74. Isaac Newton, following Halley, Hooke and Bacon and anticipating Humbolt, Popper and Feynman, defined the Philosophy of Science three centuries ago: “We hold that proposition of pure inference from all observation given greatest simplification of underlying assumptions, most parsimony of exceptions, and highest universality of like logic of relations of like properties of like bodies to be accurate or most nearly true until new observation require amended or new proposition.”

    I have to accept that.

    For policy, I accept there’s a higher bar for challenging accepted principles than for programs that offend none.

    1. If you accept Popper, then you need two things:

      1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
      2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

  75. You need a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement before you can ask the question “is this real”.

    That is to say you need two things:

    1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
    2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

    Sadly, the list of items demonstrated *climate change*, but not necessarily man-made climate change. That is to say, all of the “evidence” shows a warming planet, but none of it excludes natural variability as the cause.

    1. Technically, you’d be wrong about the exclusion of natural variability as the cause of AGW.

      Firstly, surface warming plus stratospheric cooling is an impossible outcome for purely natural variability. Only variability in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere could explain this phenomenon, logically.

      We know this change in composition has happened. We have really good, detailed observations of the process, every step of the way from digging and drilling up fossil carbon through emission to positive feedback to consequence.

      Secondly, there are those other three negative effects of CO2 globally on microbes, plants and aquatic pH balance, each of which is manifestly demonstrable by any school child and all of which are well-documented in academic papers by the dozen.

      Does none of this change your mind?

      Why not?

      1. Firstly, surface warming plus stratospheric cooling is an impossible outcome for purely natural variability. Only variability in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere could explain this phenomenon, logically.

        Do you have a cite for this?

        1. Sure he has a cite – I’m sure he has citations that show both surface warming, and stratospheric cooling, and surface cooling, and stratospheric warming, all considered “consistent” with his belief system 🙂

          The problem here, really, is that it is not only possible, but *likely* that in fact, CO2 is moderated by something other than simple sources and sinks. Much like a buffer solution, it’s quite possible that the “set point” of CO2 is determined not by whether or not additional sources come on line (or additional sinks), but by complex mechanisms that dynamically react to perturbations.

          The real question is, “can observed changes in CO2 levels be natural in origin”? The answer, clearly, is “yes”, because we *have* evidence of CO2 level changes of this magnitude and rate in the ice core records. (Not to mention CO2 lags temp changes in those records).

          Bart will of course, ignore this, and use circular logic to assert his belief system 🙂

      2. Are you really asserting that it is impossible that climate change is natural?

        Why do you deny the possibility of natural climate change?

  76. For those of you that want to help mankind by saving the planet from the scourge of climate change, I will be auctioning off an unlimited supply of “Carbon Credits”. Bids start at $100 with no reserve. Each credit you purchase will allow you to continue breathing, driving your car, heating your home, and engaging in other CO2-producing activities for an as-yet undetermined period of time. There’s a limited number of credits available for purchase until I need more money, so get yours now while you still can. Be the first in your collective to Save the Planet and buy your Carbon Credits today! Bidding starts now!

  77. Science accurately establishes what comes from fossil burning has has at least the following four effects:
    1. Soil microbes disrupt their normal behavior, glut themselves on soil nitrates and release NOx pollutants, robbing roots of nitrates vital to plant populations at a rate of about 17% above normal at present CO2 levels.*
    2. Ethylene & gibberrellin plant hormones are antagonized to divert nutrient stores to massive woody growth, resulting in about 15% lower protein and mineral concentrations and lower food quality, on top of other effects. *
    3. Aquatic acidification in all the world’s living waters by about 30% -OH ion change due the impact of carbonic acid from fossil waste dumping leads to blocking mineral uptake by the food web.*
    *You can do the experiments for yourself, or read any of the peer-reviewed academic papers.
    4. AGW taking the best datasets from Mauna Loa and either the NOAA’s or B.E.S.T.’s merged land-ice-ocean surface temperature records and comparing averages over continuous 30-year runs tells us AGW’s rate is between 3.1 and 4.6 (generally increasing with time) degrees Celsius temperature rise per doubling of CO2. About half of that +/- 0.8’C variation in rate over the half century since Keeling began his observations well matches the level of natural variability due volcano, trade winds and ocean oscillations. The other half appears to tell us that the more fossil wastes we dump, the faster the surface warms.

    So what does that evidence tell me?

    1. 1) Can we cut this crap yet?
      2) No, I guess not.
      3) Tell me what the buffering capacity of the world’s oceans is. Next tell me what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was when aragonite corrals evolved. Finally, tell me what the perfect ocean and atmospheric chemistries and temperatures are.
      4) Mauna Loa is CO2. OK. BEST is a reanalysis of the same climate data sets that make up the USHCN and the data sets which make up CRUtemp. By themselves they say nothing about what the ECS and TCR are, which is what I presume you mean by the “AGW rate.” That’s where the models come in. And even the latest IPCC AR removed language on the most likely ECS value as a trivial consolation to the fact that they can’t understand/predict the pause. Lewis and Curry (2014) is just the latest in a growing list of papers suggesting significantly lower ECS, (remarkably close to the no feedback Arhhenius estimate over 100 years ago).

      That’s what the evidence tells you.

      1. Lewis and Curry (2014) also shows that most of the warming over the last few decades is caused by man.

      2. 1) Some deserts getting a bit greener in some seasons for some years by ethylene-gibberrellin antagonism is a short-lived fluke. Deserts have plenty of soil nutrients, and are typically water-poor, on the whole. Creating conditions where weeds spread more brittle, woody growth using less water before wasting, drying up and blowing away is to no one’s benefit. Crops that need 17% more nitrate fertilizer to produce 15% less nutritious, 30% less mineral-rich food is to no one’s benefit. Pollyanna ‘more green dots on a page must mean something good because magic’ reasoning is not science.
        2) Idso’s CO2-worshipping cherry-picked parts of studies, invariably drawing conclusions opposite what the authors themselves conclude, is not science. Being swayed by carpetbaggers isn’t conservatism: it’s useful innocence.
        3) “Tell me what a perfect world is” bunkum is not science.
        4) Taken together, Mauna Loa and MLOSTs will generate actual CS, regardless of your denial of that simple math. Just take delta T over delta ln(CO2). I’ve read IPCC AR5’s sections on ECS, and find nothing in it remotely supporting your pause claims. Lewis and Curry is bad math using horribly end point selection.

        Why would you go to the worst possible evidence through known-biased intermediaries to draw your conclusions?

  78. I’m convinced global warming is real and human activity is the main cause.

    I think our understanding of Earth’s climate is not good enough to make very accurate predictions for what that will mean, but I suspect we can get general trends correct (warmer temperatures, higher sea levels, etc.)

    I think these changes are likely to be costly and that pollution violates property rights, so I’m not opposed to some sort of carbon tax in principle, but I think implementing it properly is extremely difficult.

    I’m not convinced that the proposed methods of combating global warming will have a net benefit compared to adaptation.

    I think we will probably be fine as a species, though if the very worst case scenarios are realized it could definitely be very costly to adapt. But we are definitely capable.

    1. What’s the difference between employing methods of combating global warming and adaptation?

      1. What’s the difference between employing methods of combating global warming and adaptation?

        Combating global warming means reducing carbon emissions in hopes of reducing the temperature increase, and possibly engaging in geo-engineering projects.

        Adaptation takes the temperature increase as given and unavoidable; people simply change how they live in order to exist with higher global temperatures.

      2. Tony
        What difference does it make?
        – H. Clinton

  79. At the very least, there’s trespass by dumping wastes, morally equal to tossing trash over the back fence on the neighbor’s garden. That, any conservative knows to be immoral, and is obliged by neighborliness to put to an end.
    What policy would a conservative deem supported by the evidence?
    Market-based solutions no conservative could take issue with. Privatize the disposal service provided by the air we all manifestly have equal property rights in, by witness of our lungs. Such would grow the Market, and most efficiently allocate resources while giving more democratic voice to buyers and sellers.
    There happens to be such a policy against trespass. There are in fact several: Fee and Dividend, Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax, Cap-and-Trade, and Royalty-selling to empower independent corporations to obtain compensation from dumpers.. Take your pick.
    On the flip side, I find zero evidence supporting the collectivist arguments of some who claim we have an obligation to ‘protect Africa’ from carbon fees, or to ‘make sure China does it first’, or that there is economic harm from switching to less-carbon-intensive practices and technologies.
    If anything, given Swanson’s Law as a special case of the Law of Economies of Scale, it’s obvious that de-subsidizing fossil and diversifying the renewable energy portfolio of nations will drive prices for consumers down, create jobs, and stimulate the economy.
    So I’d need a heck of a lot of evidence to be convinced not to move forward on policy.

    1. Shorter version: No true Scotsman would deny me my increased funding.

      1. What freaking increased funding?

        Market solutions are the lowest-cost solutions, and they’re private-sector. No government agency tells you how to spend your revenue collected from people who use your air as their dumping ground. No government agency tells the dumpers how to avoid incurring the expense of dumping. The price level is set by the Law of Supply and Demand, a Free Market factor not a politburo determination.

        There’s nothing in this like your Straw Man version.

        Heck, even the “No True Scotsman” fallacy you allege fails on the test that the argument isn’t that no conservative would tolerate CO2 emission. What’s being pointed out is that actual conservative values are offended by unlimited trespass.

        Thanks for the drive by.

        1. You need put your cart behind the horse, not in front of it. If you have to mandate that the market exists, it is not a free market solution. It’s a government regulation on the free market that benefits people who either wealthy or well-connected. This is known as Fascism.

    2. And if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.

      Fact.

    3. Bart R,

      I agree with you on the waste, as long as you are not calling CO2 toxic waste. Some type
      of pollution tax within our own country as advocated by Milton Friedman might make sense.

      Having fake promises like Putin’s recent one in the mix and paying Russia for doing nothing
      is not going to be part of a successful anti-pollution plan. But all costs and benefits should be
      included for all types of power.

      Most of the fossil subsidies are due to places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia subsidizing their own citizen’s use of oil and gas – quite different from the types of subsidies that wind, solar, and nuclear get. As far as what not to do to the Africans, that is separate from real pollution control, BUT if we are in the business of sending money over there (we have been for 50 years) and if we affect the types of technology they have to use (which we do through money lending agencies), then it is perfectly reasonable for US citizens to say they disagree with policies that cause Africans to have to breathe burnt dung so that progressives over here can feel good about saving the planet due to an exaggerated CO2 problem.

  80. I would consider the AGW hypothesis if
    – reported temperatures would account for the urban heat island effect (measured myself in a city of 300000 people, there was a difference of about 3 degrees C between periphery and center during winter, not so “negligible” ).
    – reported temperatures would be recorded outside of urbanized areas
    – the stations would be distributed uniformly across land and sea and the reported temperature data would not contain interpolated temperatures
    – the adjustment process would be transparent and all the raw data (including addresses of the stations, information about the sensors including position, changes etc.) published in databases accessible online, for free and in a machine-readable format (no, jpeg images is not what I mean unless they are pictures of the stations where temperatures are recorded)
    – there would be _more_ snow cover and _growing_ glaciers, since higher temperatures mean more water in the air and thus more precipitation in colder areas where the increase in temperature does not go above the freezing point of water; yes, this happens in the Antarctic, but according to the AGW propaganda it does not happen anywhere else, so why it does not happen anywhere else ?
    – somebody would explain why glaciations happen and then stop
    – AGW propagandists would stop using pictures of glaciers discharging into the sea as proof of AGW

    1. Most of those demands have been fulfilled in one way or another.

      For example taking just rural stations and leaving out the urban stations still shows a warming trend.

  81. Ever see a matador with a red flag, distracting a bull? That’s the question at the head of this article.

    The sword is two-edged. Is this change catastrophic or not? Does it justify the massive government interventions and/or taxes – and the massive rent-seeking by the likes of Al Gore?

    Pardon me if libertarians are more than a little bit suspicious about these two questions, given the dubious past history of environmental alarmists and politicians in cahoots.

    Tell us, for example, how it is that England still has snow? We were assured that this was a thing of the past.

  82. When the Greens start demanding that coal fired power plants be replaced with nuclear plants, then I will be convinced.

    1. Nuclear power = socialism. There is no way nuclear power even exists in an unsubsidized market. But I’m all for it. It’s better than coal, that’s for sure.

      1. Within the current anti-nuclear power regulatory environment in the US.

      2. There is no way nuclear power even exists in an unsubsidized market.

        The only reason nuclear power is so costly is because it is highly regulated. In a more rational market, it would be highly cost-effective.

        1. The only reason nuclear power is so costly is because it is highly regulated. In a more rational market, it would be highly cost-effective

          In a free market, costs become irrelevant. Especially if we chant all the right slogans and soundbites. Make a dollar sign in the air. And repeat anti-gummint chants in unison, for at least a hour a day in onine forums.

          It’s like how business taxes increase prices to consumers according to … Karl Marx … who is a supply/demand denier (shhh).

  83. If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

    Some evidence that this warming trend could not be caused by naturally occurring events that have caused climate change in the past. Also, you say, “the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years” and my skeptical mind wonders how the heckity darn we could possibly know that with certainty. How do we know what the carbon dioxide levels were even just 100,000 years ago? I am sure there are scientific reasons why you are able to make such a claim, Mr. Bailey, but I have no idea what they are.

    Granted, I am not a scientist. But I feel sometimes like the arguments I get in favor of man-made global warming amount to “because the scientists say this means that.” Granted also, I am going to take scientists’ word for somethings. I don’t have the first understanding of string theory or dimensions that curl up on themselves or how some experiments with photons means there may be multiple universes. I really don’t….

    1. … But global warming is more immediate than those things and is being used as an excuse to claim government must do something. And that raises my skepticism level. So when someone talks about 800,000 years of carbon dioxide levels, I question whether we can actually have certain numbers on that.

      And when people start throwing around figures like that, it makes me wonder how much of the science they are claiming proves man-made global warming is based on “well scientists think this because this and that and the other things seem to indicate that this must have been so.”

      I suppose I am skeptical of the idea that the global warming trend is man-made because I am skeptical of the certainty of the data. Sure, over the past 35 years we have satellites measuring things, and scientific climate measurements going back a hundred years (or something like that) but I am fairly certain we do not have actual scientific measurements of carbon dioxide levels from 800,000 or even 100,000 years ago. If we do, how did we get it?

      Scientists say so is enough for me when I read about string theory and the Higgs particle. And it might be enough for me on global warming if there were not a lot of alarmism about future catastrophe that demanded political solutions. I have questions, Mr. Bailey, about how we know what we supposedly know about global warming….

      1. …And I feel like I get a lot of run-around rather than answers. Your posts here have persuaded me that global warming is a scientific fact. And I even accept that human activity has had influence on the climate conditions that contribute to the warming trend. To say that the causation begins and ends with humans is a scientific certainty, on the other hand, is something I have questions about. Questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction.

        (And yes, I am writing this under the supposition that Ronald Bailey is actually reading all these comments.)

    2. “How do we know what the carbon dioxide levels were even just 100,000 years ago?”

      ice cores

    3. Also, you say, “the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years” and my skeptical mind wonders how the heckity darn we could possibly know that with certainty. How do we know what the carbon dioxide levels were even just 100,000 years ago?

      From the Vostok ice core.

      Of course, to put that data in perspective, we also know that the world has been in a global ice age for the past 7 million years, with a climate that oscillates with a period of about 100000 years between brief warm periods and devastating coverage of the northern hemisphere by ice sheets. Without man-made carbon emissions, there is a good chance that we’d be heading towards massive cooling again (although there is also a chance that we’d get lucky and skip a cycle, as happens occasionally).

      Our current climate is such a disaster that returning to a pre-ice-age climate with average higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels is likely a good thing in the long run.

      1. The question NO ONE here is answering is what are we going to do about Jupiter’s red spot disappearing within a generation. What am I doing to tell my grandchildren when it’s gone?

        The Great Red Spot’s width is about 16,000km ? still big enough for the Earth to fit within the eye of the storm ? but at current rates of shrinking it could be gone by 2030, depriving the next generation of astronomers of one of the solar system’s most enigmatic objects.

      2. I am coming back to this the next day, so probably no one will see this, but, I have to ask: How the heck do ice cores tell us what the atmosphere was like 100,000 or 800,000 years ago? I am not saying they can’t. And I get some of that ice probably was water vapor in the air at some point. Obviously there must be something to getting a measurement from ice cores or you would not mention them. But how do we know it is an accurate measurement of the actual atmosphere back then?

  84. The real question is whether denying the reality of climate forcing will lead to the extinction of Playboy Bunnies?

  85. They always ask for proof! It is up to the theorist to provide proof, not the skeptic. But I will submit…Adding water to a pot of boiling water does not add heat. The atmosphere is no different. Adding CO2 will not change the energy scheme of our atmosphere. (Especially the paltry amount humans emit). Increases in global biomass will add more CO2 than man ever will. High amounts of atmospheric CO2, whether emitted by man or nature, has little to do with atmospheric temperature or heat volume.

    1. “Adding CO2 will not change the energy scheme of our atmosphere”

      And yet it has.

      “Increases in global biomass will add more CO2 than man ever will.”

      Any yet it hasn’t.

      Both according to measurements.

    2. Try adding a few gallons of ink to your swimming pool on a sunny day and see what it does to the energy scheme

      1. Not the same thing or nearly the same proportion.

  86. For me, the core issue is that I find it hard to imagine a situation caused by Global Warming that would be worse for humans than allowing the kind of people who trumpet it as a cause to run things. Whatever the politics of the actual Climate scientists, the politicians involved are Large State Socialists almost to a man. Large State Socialism has been tried. In the 20th Century its hallmarks were mass murder, famine as a tool of statecraft, famine as a consequence of incompetence, runaway environmental damage from all industrial processes on a par with the WORST practices of early industrial society (see Copper Smelting in England as a comparison), and government corruption worthy of Grand Opera.

    No. I will take to living on boats before I put up with the Grand Statist idiocies of the Political Left. If If we are going to die in a welter of man caused disaster, let us do so without letting these self-appointed Smart People make us miserable serfs first.

  87. We should be having a conversation about policy. That certain interests block that discussion by inventing a debate about the scientific facts themselves suggests something about the nature of plausible policy options, does it not? Don’t fret, that doesn’t mean global socialist oppression, it just means fewer profits for participants in a global cartel. Of course to most of you that is such a horrible proposition that it renders your brains incapable of functioning.

    1. That certain interests block that discussion by inventing a debate about the scientific facts themselves suggests something about the nature of plausible policy options, does it not?

      Yes: they are all corrupt and ineffective.

      Don’t fret, that doesn’t mean global socialist oppression, it just means fewer profits for participants in a global cartel.

      Proposed actions on climate change would result in widespread poverty, hunger, economic stagnation, and likely an increase rather than decrease in carbon emissions. And those policies would allow a bunch of “global cartels” (i.e., well connected corporations) to get vast amounts of money for products nobody would otherwise want.

      All proposed action on global warming is a mix of corporate welfare and nationalistic interests. No wonder, Tony, that you are at the forefront of advocating it.

      1. You touched on the result the Top Men really want. In their disingenuous efforts to ‘save the planet’, they will destroy our civilization. Then proclaim that they must ‘save’ us again. That’s what progressives are all about. Failing upward. They fuck up, take no responsibility, and then expect to stay in charge to fuck up more to fix the previous fuck up which was all their fault.

    2. So then why don’t you stop supporting the scum who are destroying the integrity of the scientific community?

  88. So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real?

    Man-made climate change is almost certainly real. But there is nothing we can or should do about it

    To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies.

    It mandates no policies at all; it doesn’t even suggest policies. We don’t even know whether it’s beneficial or harmful, or what the alternatives would be; the climate would probably not be stable in the absence of human interference either. In fact, climate change is best ignored. After all, most people don’t care about the rate of expansion of the universe, or proton decay, or the weather cycles on Mars either.

    Whenever someone brings up evidence for “man-made warming” or wants to convince others of its reality, it’s because they have some other motives and policies in mind.

    1. “the climate would probably not be stable in the absence of human interference either”

      this overlooks the sharp jolt we’ve given it. It’s not just a typical century for the Earth. Some of the changes to greenhouse gas levels in the last century are probably unique in Earth’s history.

    2. “Whenever someone brings up evidence for “man-made warming” or wants to convince others of its reality, it’s because they have some other motives and policies in mind.”

      Yep, science cannot provide answers to inherently political questions.

      “Evidence” is just another way of telling some people to shut up.

  89. Warming has been occurring for at least the past 10,000 years.

    Some thoughts:
    1. What is the human addition to the natural trend? For example, I have not seen data that says: natural 90% and man 10%. If the numbers are natural 99.8% and man 0.2% do I care? Certainly not as much as if the former where man is responsible for 10% of the warming.

    It’s hard to get excited if man’s contribution is minuscule.

    2. Ok, just for argument’s sake, assume that man makes a significant contribution and in some future time we say we must do something about slowing our portion of the contribution.

    The chicken little GW gang wants to drive us back to a standard of living seen in the Stone Age. They think solar panels and windmills are the solution, but they are not. Without some magical breakthrough that allows us to store solar (and wind) generated energy cheaply, sun & wind is not going to cut it. All you have to do is look at the amount of solar energy striking the earth at various places. Then consider the inefficiencies of converting this energy to electricity and then throw in the cost of new lines and in many cases line loss due to long transport distances.

    So why aren’t the greens proponents of more electricity from fission and more use of natural gas in transportation?

    The enviros want to beat me over the head because they think I am a denier, but they deny the only solutions that will not have a brutal impact on our economy.

  90. Do not conflate climate change with the cause as man made. Of course climate change is real. I syipulate all the things you said. Now prove CO2 is the primary cause.

    Just sho validated models the use actual measurements to adjust them so they can make actual temperature predictions that match actual temperatures. No, proxy temperature measurements like tree rings and statistical models that try to guess the future without actual measured drivers do not count.

    Just show real measurements and real match to those measurements with CO2 as one parameter along with all the rest.

    Then I will accept that humans cause climate change and by how much. Otherwise it is guess and conjrcture.

    1. Soon after John Quincy Adams equipped the White House with energy-efficient whale oil lamps, Baron Joseph Fourier proposed measuring the radiant heat absorbtion of gases like CO2. Using optics carved from perfectly clear and infra-red transparent crystals of rock salt, John Tyndall did so, and published his results in The Philosophical Magazine just before Abraham Lincoln was elected :

      “Now if, as the above experiments indicate the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate.

      Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”?

      –JOHN TYNDALL FRS: ‘On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours’

      1. That’s just showing off clarity, wit, knowledge and insight.

        Are you sure, sir, you belong on the Internets?

  91. I accept AGW and I would even go for a simple straight forward co2 emission tax (with a payout to those who remove co2 from the air semi-permanently) but I do not worry about it. If and when it becomes a big problem there are things that can be done and the longer we wait more technology we have to mitigate its effects or turn it around.

    I would not support cap and trade because it gives too much opportunity for political corruption and it hides the tax from voters who really in the end will pay the the tax. I do not support subsidies for solar and gree tech or hybrid cars or the ethanol program. Doing nothing is better imo than do those. I am ok with gov. funding basic research though.

    1. Even if I accept your premise, and further considered it proportionally great enou to be any kind of a tangible issue, the problem is that those taxes unfairly burden Americans. We are not the chief culprit in CO2 production. That crown goes to China, and then India. And we already pay dearly on so many levels to limit production of CO2, and other gasses that are actual pollutants. We do so through added expense in the manufacture of cars, trucks, and other equipment and machinery that is regulated to eliminate, or nearly eliminate these things already. We even pay an extra 30 cents a gallon or so for ethanol reformulation of fuel through most of the year. Which is an almost technologically obsolete practice that has significant economic and other negative impacts on our economy and environment.

      Simply put, we already pay through the nose for this bullshit. And you want to add more? No thanks.

      1. So.. you want an exception from the same rules as everyone else because you’re no longer in the outlaw group that is the worst offender of them, because there’s a couple of outlaw gangs many times your gang’s size who, though each offends on average much less than the average individual in your gang, as a group offend more?
        That is such twisty reasoning. You’ve never been to China, nor to India. China is so overwhelmed by the Chinese Death Smog that it is in the midst of turning its coal-powered strategy on its head (and heads are quite literally rolling there over it). China is the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, and by far wider a margin than that it is (for four years now, after a quarter century of US leadership) the world’s largest emitter.
        You claim your taxes unfairly burden Americans, yet a quarter of the over $2 trillion in fossil subsidy annually worldwide is paid by American taxpayers, and you don’t seem to complain about that at all.
        Sure, ethanol was a scam, but the ethanol scam is largely dead now. If your concern is paying too much, geothermal is a third cheaper than any fossil energy in the western half of the USA, and small-medium scale hydroelectric is cheaper than fossil in the rest of the nation; solar and wind are cheaper for peak energy than new fossil in 3/4’s of the USA: demand those for their cost savings.

  92. I agree, it’s real. Now, I won’t support new taxes or carbon credits or whatever nonsense you envision. How about we work on that fusion reactor that’s always just decades away?

    1. I was involved in that fusion reactor research three decades ago, when it was only six decades away. Today, it’s a mere six decades away. It’s a bird in the bush.

      You have solar. You have wind. You have geothermal and hydro and biofuel. That’s four birds in the hand. Why bet on a pipe dream, when you can act today?

      And why are you so opposed to Market solutions to Market problems? What do you have against Capitalism?

  93. It’s OK to use fossil fuels. Our climate is pleasant and productive, and getting better, because earth is in an interglacial period. Increased carbon dioxide levels are the result of warming, not the cause.

    Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities. The ultimate reservoir of CO2 is limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rocks. CO2 is sequestered as carbonate for millions of years.

    Limiting fossil fuels use will impair energy infrastructure, and not affect warming. The cost of controlling CO2 is not worth it. The IEA estimated the cost of worldwide “decarbonization” at $44 trillion. The entire cumulative savings of mankind is estimated at $150 trillion. Warmists want to spend 30% of mankind’s wealth for naught.

    Global warming causes are undetermined. There is no definitive proof that anthropogenic global warming is occurring; or that fossil fuels use causes warming. The proxy data (tree rings and polar ice cores) has been shown to be corrupt. All of the climate models that predicted dramatic warming have been wrong.

    Climate activists don’t seem trustworthy. People can see the truth about climate change, even non- scientists. If activists use deceptive arguments for a policy, it is suspect. Also see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new

    The peer review process is distorted,to present fossil fuels use as a threat. See “The Liberal War on Transparency” by Christopher C Horner; and “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr. Tim Ball.

    1. “Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities”

      That’s a very crafty thing you’ve done there. Nature emits vast quantities of CO2, but it also absorbs vast quantities. On net balance it is drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.

      But by only talking about emissions you can say “only 3%”.

      1. Since most of the human CO2 emissions now come from China and India, and they won’t voluntarily cut back, they clearly need to be dealt with. Obviously, NATO should exterminate those populations with strategic use of neutron bombs. Thereby eliminating the source of the aforementioned CO2.

        Problem solved.

        1. China’s already said it’ll cut back.

          India, too.

          The USA, after saying for years it would never cut back, has just pledged 28% cut back.

          Maybe you need to travel more?

          Broaden your mind. Visit some of those places you believe to be infested with commies, like New York city, or Los Angeles. See if you can find one there, all armed to the teeth and looking to oppress your freedoms?

          1. I just saw this.

            A more traveled group here there isn’t.

            So quit it with your presumptuous pomposity.

            And India is not following China’s lead. In any event, it’s all talk and won’t happen.

            Know why? Because the fear of fossil fuels is irrational as it is emotional no matter what you say. And they know it.

    2. Uh.. So you say $44 trillion, spent globally over the course of a century, will save $150 trillion globally over the course of the same century..

      That’s $106 trillion over 100 years, or over a $1 trillion a year you’d forego?

      Put another way, 3% of new credit card debt a year doesn’t sound like a lot, but after 260 years, it’d add up with compound interest to hundreds of percent. If a teenager can balance a credit card, why can’t you balance CO2?

      Who gave you the right to decide what seems OK, pleasant, getting better, for the sake of the rest of us? Were you elected? Because I sure don’t remember anyone voting for you.

      1. The $44 trillion is on the come. There are no assurances of any returns, there will most likely be none, because we’ll all be back in the stone age.

        3% anthropogenic emissions is a trivial amount for existing carbon-fixing mechanisms to capture. An acre of oysters (or termites) can sequester 10-100 tons of carbonate in a growing season. CO2 + CaO = CaCO3. Higher equilibrium levels of atmospheric CO2 are CAUSED BY natural cyclic warming.

        Back off the dialectics, pharisee. We all have a right to our opinion. And I’m sharing mine whether shrill little weenies like BartR like it or not. I like it warm.

  94. Last year an intriguing study in Science suggested that natural variability in the North Atlantic can keep transporting heat downward into the deep ocean for periods lasting 20 to 35 years. Those researchers propose that “the latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans.”

    Heat rises….even in the oceans.

    1. Uh, oh. That heat is gonna awaken Godzilla!

  95. What would convince me? Hmmmm. Maybe get one single prediction right? Every SINGLE prediction the climate changers have made has been wrong. C’mon, brah. You bet on Team A and Team B wins, ok, it’s an off day. You Bet on Teams that lose EVERY FUCKING TIME I can’t take you seriously.

    1. Because the Sacred Prophet says so … and I only hear what I already believe.

    2. Hansen 1988 Scenario B, dead on the mark for 2014.

      1. BULLSHIT. http://www.skepticalscience.co…..iction.htm

  96. It actually getting noticeably warmer. Like what is predicted. Warmer winters. No snow.

    And I actually see that as a plus. There was a prediction that my state (Missouri) would develop a climate like Arizona. If that is true, that will mean millions of people will move here because of the nice weather.

    1. yeah climate refugees

    2. They didn’t predict warmer winters in Missouri. STFU.

  97. I just don’t think this is an important question. Besides for some sort of need to feel collectively guilty about something, who cares whether some sort of climate change is “man made”? That climate change is “happening” I take as a given: nothing this complex is stable. If you’re making your plans based on stable climate/weather, than you were making a bad choice. Incorporate the notion of uncertainty into your planning from the beginning and I don’t think a change of 1 degree is something you couldn’t handle. What is needed is the ability to adapt to changes – be they climate or the end of some “natural resource” or any number of other changes – robustly and relatively rapidly, and a thriving free market is our best system for providing that.

    I never had a problem with Bailey changing his mind about the existence of climate change, but rather his subsequent calls for carbon rationing schemes and other roadblocks that would hamper exactly what we need to address such change: free markets, as secured by strong private property rights.

  98. What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

    Well, you could start by not repeatedly citing Climate Change Weekly or whatever other CAGW trade journals you reference. Christ, that’s like saying there’s ample evidence that aliens visited ancient human civilizations based on the extensive research presented by Alien Studies experts on the History Channel.

      1. You do realize that that’s a spoof site spelled with “v v” instead of “w” , right ?

  99. I don’t suppose that variations in the orbit of the Earth around that giant heater in the sky have any effect on terrestrial temperatures? Or the fact that we only left the Little Ice Age 150 years ago, so the Earth is regressing to its mean temperature (I’ve got that number written in my 30,000 year diary somewhere)? And then there’s the sequestration of heat in the depths of the oceans, which a recent Euro study has found to not be happening. Oh, Dear!
    If the Earth wants to get warmer, or colder, it will – and there’s not a damn thing man can do about it.

    1. It has no effect, because the progressives have no way of raising taxes or crushing business if it did.

  100. Nothing, Ron. Nothing will convince the tribal libertarians, per the definition of “tribal.”

    The libertarian tribe is like the other two tribes. They accept every single legend on blind faith alone — with added power from any ant-gummint jargon or soundbites — if it comes from a “Sacred Source” (see Scientology for another example)

    THEN Hayek’s depiction kicks in. Any deviation at all from the tribal orthodoxy is — of course — a conspiracy by statists (or “progs” as the puppets call them). Providing more evidence just proves how massive the conspiracy is becoming. The hysteria increases.

    Sorry, Ron, you’ve sold out to the same liars who claim there is no libertarian moment. See how diabolical they are?

    (You’ve already told them, twice now, that the pause is only in the troposphere, which would of course support the ocean warming possibility. May I be blunt? You’ve pissed off the assholes, but ignore them. They just scream louder to shout down non-conformists. Lib Tribe Uber Alles!!)

    For myself, I appreciate your balanced approach. You’ll piss of BOTH Al Gore and the deniers. ALWAYS be on the alert for militant blowhards,

  101. When phony studies “proving” a 97% “consensus” aren’t trumpeted in the media…

    When smug ex TV children’s show hosts aren’t incessantly lecturing me on how to live my life.

    When scientists heading the studies stop conspiring to alter data, or lose it altogether, or keep peer-reviewed papers critical of their research out of professional journals, or threaten those journals when they do publish these papers.

    When pro AGW scientists, media, and activists stop conspiring to blackball and otherwise tarnish the reputation of respected scientists who have the temerity to be critical of their colleagues.

    When the mission statements of pro AGW orgs stops being “End Capitalism”.

    When the other side is ready to debate the issue, and not just declare that we’re wrong/evil.

    1. Which of the above have the slightest impact on radiative forcing ?

      1. Or anything else!
        Thanks. I learned something new.

      2. Of course, you’ve completely missed the point, haven’t you?

        1. Of course, you’ve completely missed the point, haven’t you?

          You had no point. Just a bunch of apparently memorized soundbites. And the entire universe sees that you refuse to answer the question. Typical.

          1. Michael Hihn|4.3.15 @ 11:39PM|#
            “You had no point. Just a bunch of apparently memorized soundbites. And the entire universe sees that you refuse to answer the question. Typical.”

            You have not point, just stupidity based on authority. Typical.
            (laughing)

            1. Hmm, Sevo refuses to answer the question, throws another hissy fit.
              Coward (snicker)

          2. The question cannot be answered until the inquisitor begins to act in good faith. You’re not interested in an answer or debate. You want compliance.

            1. (laughing) Latest cowardly act by the conspiracy freak, Spinach Chin:

              The question cannot be answered until the inquisitor begins to act in good faith. You’re not interested in an answer or debate. You want compliance.

              Shame on you, Here’s the question that called you out:

              “Which of the above have the slightest impact on radiative forcing ?”

              Here’s the “answer” (feel free to laugh)

              Of course, you’ve completely missed the point, haven’t you?

              WHAT POINT? He just copied and pasted stuff that he knows nothing about.
              Typical of Tribal Blowhards on both sides of this issue.

              (walks away laughing)

              1. Jesus, what happened to critical thinking skills? Kids are idiots nowadays.

                It’s right in front of your face and you simply can’t grasp it. What difference does it make what the answer to his question is when the data used to form it has been proven to be manipulated?

                The answer is, by definition, tainted, since the questioner is not acting in good faith.

                1. Spinach Chin
                  Jesus, what happened to critical thinking skills?

                  You never had any.

                  It’s right in front of your face and you simply can’t grasp it.

                  In front of my face, only because you just now added it!

                  What difference does it make what the answer to his question is when the data used to form it has been proven to be manipulated?

                  HUH? You said it was right in front of me. Now you say ADD something new and pretend it’s been there all the time!!! It’s not a data question!!

                  The answer is, by definition, tainted, since the questioner is not acting in good faith.

                  Questions ca be “tainted” based on the questioners MOTIVES! (OMG)Three lame excuses in one comment, thus confirming that you pasted text that you know nothing about.

                  But loyal to your tribe

    2. The fiscally conservative government of British Columbia cut income taxes 25%, the size of government 25%, and brought in revenue neutral carbon taxes so consumers and businesses could decide for themselves how to deal with the price signal of the cost of dumping fossil wastes on their neighbors, in 2008.

      So you’re seven years overdue to stand up and do something, because that debate ended a long time ago. You just missed it because you were busy hiding under the sheets from the Red Menace.

      1. God damn you’re a smug little progtard, aren’t you? For the record, we’re not hiding under a sheet. That’s what cowardly proggies do. Since we pay attention to past and current history, we know damn well what the ‘red menace’ does. Oppression and mass murder. So no, none of us are hiding fro shit. All of us are arming up, stocking up on ammo and getting ready for the day your kind pushes a step too far.

        So please, keep pushing

        1. God damn you’re a smug little progtard, aren’t you?

          Are your parents proud of what you’ve become?

          . Since we pay attention to past and current history, we know damn well what the ‘red menace’ does. Oppression and mass murder. So no, none of us are hiding fro shit. All of us are arming up, stocking up on ammo and getting ready for the day your kind pushes a step too far. So please, keep pushing

          So he’s a commie? (lol)

        2. Let me push you a little further.

          What is it about the conduct of anyone anywhere in the world in the last quarter century that you can point to as specifically communist mass murder or communist oppression?

          Russia? Not so much. They’re a corrupt militant kleptocracy fueled with nationalism, greed and terror. That may make them bad human beings, but it doesn’t make them communists.

          China? Not so much. They too have all the hallmarks of corruption and kleptocracy of any other dictatorship with more guns than morals, but the last time they were anything like real communism Mao hadn’t even become a puppet figurehead.

          Cuba? Get serious.

          Cowering under your sheets with guns and ammo is still cowering under your sheets. There’s nothing sadder than a human being so crippled by fear that they can’t walk ten feet without checking their magazine in case something that hasn’t existed for over a quarter century comes after them.

          1. Global warming hasn’t existed for nearly the last quarter century, yet you want us to cower under the sheets for that.

      2. Of course the debate ended. When the side raising objections is lined up against a wall and shot in the back of the head, that trends to bring an and to debate rather quickly.

        I digress. So anyway, since the debate is over and all, you should be able to explain to me the failure of the climate models over the past two decades.

        1. When the side raising objections is lined up against a wall and shot in the back of the head, that trends to bring an and to debate rather quickly.

          And I thought nothing could possibly be wackier than the Birthers.
          I’m almost afraid to ask — how many were shot in the back of the head?

          1. It’s rhetoric, you spastic.

            I shouldn’t need to spell it out for you, but I will. Anyone studying AGW issues that deviates IN THE SLIGHTEST from the accepted progressive “consensus” has their career threatened, is blackballed, and are marginalized in the press.

            1. It’s rhetoric, you spastic.

              That was my point! Mindless Talk You’re the one who got called out already as a phony.

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5206281

              I shouldn’t need to spell it out for you, but I will. Anyone studying AGW issues that deviates IN THE SLIGHTEST from the accepted progressive “consensus” has their career threatened, is blackballed, and are marginalized in the press.

              That’s the wackos and phonies on one side. You’re among those on the other side. Both shrieking in hysteria. ((lol)

              1. You’re confused and incoherent.

                There is one “side” that wants reasoned debate. One wants blind compliance.

                1. You’re confused and incoherent.

                  (lol) You’ve said that your rhetoric here, had already ended the debate? Spinach Chin is a Time Traveler!

                  There is one “side” that wants reasoned debate.

                  “Reasoned debate” means bullying people by calling them “spastic” and “confused”and “incoherent” for daring to question you?

                  One wants blind compliance

                  Or you screech at them and call names???(OMG) We have wackos and phonies on both sides, each shrieking in hysteria. At least you’re among the most amusing.

      3. Bart RT
        he fiscally conservative government of British Columbia cut income taxes 25%, the size of government 25%, and brought in revenue neutral carbon taxes

        Revenue neutral tax changes are … revenue neutral!

  102. Climate is the combined influences of myriad weather events over the entire planet, from wind, rain, sun, snow, even calm.
    When these clowns can show that man can make any weather event happen, I might believe he can, through massive effort, alter the climate.

    1. When these clowns can show that man can make any weather event happen, I might believe he can, through massive effort, alter the climate.

      So, climate change is a proven lie … unless we do rain dances and it rains!

    2. Irrational though your condition is, cloud seeding is a real thing. People can make rain more likely to happen.

      Also, sulfate release in the stratosphere has been shown to affect insolation dramatically.

      The urban heat island and urban cooling shadow effects are well known.

      In other words, if you really believe what you say, then you believe human-caused climate change is real.

      I somehow doubt you do believe it, though.

      1. I somehow doubt you do believe it, though.

        Lighten up. That was ridicule. The clue was “rain dances”

        cloud seeding is a real thing

        I never knew that cloud seeding is a “massive effort.”

        In other words, if you really believe what you say, then you believe human-caused climate change is real.

        Bingo!!!

        I somehow doubt you do believe it, though.

        (shakes head slowly in disbelief)

    3. Irrational though your condition is, cloud seeding is a real thing. People can make rain more likely to happen.

      Also, sulfate release in the stratosphere has been shown to affect insolation dramatically.

      The urban heat island and urban cooling shadow effects are well known.

      In other words, if you really believe what you say, then you believe human-caused climate change is real.

      I somehow doubt you do believe it, though.

      1. Irrational though your condition is,

        Yeah, it’s rational to claim that cloud seeding is a “massive effort.” Got it.

        1. No..

          Cloud seeding is successful manipulation of weather by human efforts.

          The massive would be the 40 billion tons of fossil wastes dumped worldwide into the air.

          READ HARDER.

          1. Cloud seeding is successful manipulation of weather by human efforts.
            The massive would be the 40 billion tons of fossil wastes dumped worldwide into the air.
            READ HARDER.

            THINK HARDER.
            You confused massive effort into massive results. If I push a button on a machine, and a 20 story building comes down, would you tell me that pushing a button is a massive effort and I should READ HARDER?

            You screwed up. No big deal. I simply pointed to your multiple errors, politely, Here it is again:

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5205324

            Now tell us again how a revenue neutral tax change — which means the same revenue — means shrinking government.

  103. Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes.

    OK, so, the very first thing I’d want to see is some goddamned evidence for this that didn’t look like a Congressional spending report. “We’ve reduced the rate of increase of overspending the budget, so it’s like we’ve reduced the deficit!”

    Good science demands peer review. That means giving the raw data to anyone who asks for it, not just people who are already on your team.

    1. You’re referring to the incident between the CRU, Australian gadfly Warwick Hughes, and the members of Canadian Steve McIntyre’s hacking squad, from almost a decade ago?

      That data and far more is all public now, and has been for years, at the BEST website.

      Do you have any current objections?

      1. Brart R
        That data and far more is all public now, and has been for years, at the BEST website.

        Ten plus ten equals THIRTY.
        Damn. All caps does not, by themselves, do a damn thing. Who’d a thunk it?

  104. While I’m fully ready to accept global warming could occur, it’s the man made part that doesn’t compute. The fact little is being done to look at the much more logical effects of say the Sun instead of turning on a very small scale change in gases in the atmosphere.

    So if you can go back and show how this warming is markedly different than any other warming that has ever happened. Also you must include information on the effects of changes of the Sun in each of these occurrences, then if that shows these small changes in atmospheric gasses are the trigger then OK I’ll believe it.

    Sometimes it’s not just what you can project on the data you happen to look at, but it’s also the data and inputs you choose to ignore that make your case weak.

    1. Your claims that little is being done to look at the Sun are false. There are hundreds of papers published every decade about the Sun’s role. It’s been demonstrated, for example, that there used to be a correlation between sunspots and global temperature, of about one tenth of a degree between the bottom and top of a 22-23 year oscillation. That correlation vanished over half a century ago, washed out by the effects of global warming due CO2 emission.

      Science doesn’t go with “what are all the possible ideas we can put in a grab bag to choose from as we like.” Science goes with the best explanation from all observations under the rules of Newtonian inference, and that one best explanation stands as accurate or most nearly true until new observations require it be amended or replaced.

      Well, that one explanation is man-made warming is changing the climate some two hundred or more times faster than anything in Nature does, on a long-term basis.

      It’s that markedly different.

  105. These discussions are never consistent in terms of what is being presented as “the point”.

    I always find the same problem of flip-flopping with these discussions.

    In one sentence, we are discussing the rather useless question of whether man-made climate change is real….or put more concisely: whether man is contributing the rise in average global temp. I think the answer to this rather innocuous question is yes….followed by “and so what?”

    It’s followed by “so what?” because the real issue(s) is whether man is causing significant and potentially serious climate change. To this, I see no remotely clear answers.

    1. How about the question, “are some trespassing on all by dumping fossil wastes without paying a Market price?”

      1. Do you drive an automobile? Heat or cool your home? How About exhaling, do you? Not you, of course–you’re not a hypocrite.

        Instead, it’s always the fault of those evil business people who provide your needs and wants. Destroy their business! Round them all up! Save Gaia from capitalism!

        When you use electricity you can’t blame the provider for your share of the pollution. If you really believed in the sanctity of Mother Earth you’d already have downsized to pre-industrial-revolution levels of energy usage. But you haven’t because you hope to blame others, instead. Down with evil capitalism! Bad business!

        You have no integrity.

      2. Bart R|4.3.15 @ 8:06PM|#
        How about the question, “are some trespassing on all by dumping fossil wastes without paying a Market price?”

        What’s the market price for dumping fossil wastes?

        1. Hey, Mike! What’s the market price for you dumping stupidity on a blog?

          1. BARTR “are some trespassing on all by dumping fossil wastes without paying a Market price?”

            HIHN “What’s the market price for dumping fossil wastes?

            Sevo : “hat’s the market price for you dumping stupidity on a blog?”

            The defense rests (snicker)

        2. The Market Price of anything in a free market is fixed by the Law of Supply and Demand. When the total revenues to sellers is at its maximum, that’s the Market Price.

          Sure, not many are doing that, yet, but there are small private markets for CO2 that operate on a bid system. The key is to privatize the whole resource, to obtain maximum market stimulus.

          It worked for mobile phone bandwidth. You can’t deny the success of the model there.

          1. Bart R
            When the total revenues to sellers is at its maximum, that’s the Market Price.

            No. The Market Price is the equilibrium point between Supply and Demand. It can also be called the “market clearing price” (which may help you grasp the principle) … a price which balances supply and demand … which is why we call it the Law of Supply and Demand.

            Sure, not many are doing that, yet, but there are small private markets for CO2 that operate on a bid system. The key is to privatize the whole resource, to obtain maximum market stimulus.

            What’s the market price for dumping fossil wastes … and who would I pay it to?
            What I’m dumping is called Supply

            What is the Demand for fossil wastes?

            Cuz if nobody wants fossil wastes then the Market Value for fossil wastes is … ZERO!.

            Sure, not many are doing that, yet, but there are small private markets for CO2 that operate on a bid system.

            So Co2 is fossil waste. eh?

            The key is to privatize the whole resource, to obtain maximum market stimulus.

            It’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

  106. I’m not going to be convinced of jack shit.so long as the integrity of the climate science community continues to be compromised by progressives using this as a delivery system for anti business regulation, punitive taxes, and elimination of our freedoms.

    And that is what it is. A delivery system. Just like a syringe and needle for a smack addict. They pulled this same kind of bullshit in the 70’s. Proclaiming a new ice age. It’s all about whatever gets them their Marxism. And there is no amount of theft, chicanery, oppression, or murder too great to make it happen in their mind.

    1. And your actual proof of these serious charges?

      Do you have any, at all?

      1. Climate gate. The continuing mis statement about how ‘97% of climate scientists believe in AGW’ when that has long since been debunked, etc., etc.. But why don’t you keep repeating the same progtard climate bullshit talking points as if repetition of bullshit somehow makes it true?

        1. Climategate?

          Eight official inquiries across three countries went to great efforts to look for what you claim is there, and found none of it. One petty administrator was petty about administering FOI badly; he was internally disciplined by reduction of his duties, and FOI is now handled by a professional.

          Everything else you say has eight times been proven to be a lie.

          Why do you still lie?

          When you say the 97% claim has been debunked, don’t you really mean smeared?

          Because I’ve read the two different common sources of the 97% claims, one counting the people and one counting the academic papers, and they both withstand scrutiny untouched by the ‘debunking’ that has come and gone and been laughed off by serious readers.

          Why do you keep namecalling, when caught in lies? Is it because your faith in the power of the techniques of propaganda tell you to use name calling, devil words, and Big Lie repetition no matter what?

          1. “Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin’ eyes?”

      2. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

        -Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

        1. And? Do you know what the economic development model she was talking about is?

          It’s the “cheap energy model”, which asserts that by simplifying the energy sources of nations to as few as possible through subsidy and regulation, governments can manufacture prosperity by managing markets. What, you thought it was an accident that oil, coal, gas and nuclear are so dominant, and next to no one used the far cheaper geothermal, or that there’s 40 times as much small and medium hydroelectric available as is exploited, even though its cheaper than oil or nuclear?

          The UN is actively seeking to wean the world off that subsidy-and-regulationn model toward Market solutions. That’s a win for capitalism.

          1. Ahahaha! That’s an awfully charitable interpretation. This is why the public doesn’t take folks like you seriously.

            Keep in mind, this is just ONE person. Were I inclined, I’m sure I could find many more quotes from many more people.

            In the meantime, more from Ms. Figures:

            “It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”

            Yay, “centralized policy”. Sounds like capitalism to me!

  107. Here’s a graph of the relationship of CO2 and temperature since the steam engine on the same 0 based scale : cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin.jpg .

    Not scary .

    Change in temperature over the last ~ 8% rise in CO2 : indistinguishable from the noise . ( And the “the ocean ate it” excuse is down right pathetic post hocum . )

    Not scary .

    Beer-Lambert law relation of effect of CO2 to concentration see : cosy.com/Science/BeerLambertslide.jpg . It is not the case that there is too little CO2 to have an effect , it’s that its effect is already saturated .

    Greening of earth due to 40% increase in available carbon to the biosphere : http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptDesertGreening.jpg .

    Nice .

    Original atmospheric CO2 proportion before the emergence of photosynthesis and the explosion of green life : ~ 300,000 ppm .

    1. http://cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin.jpg

      seriously your argument is that human emissions didn’t cause 100 degrees warming.

      can you say strawman?

      1. here’s a more reasonable comparison of CO2 and temperature
        http://solar-center.stanford.e…..o2.svg.png

    2. Here’s a graph of the relationship of CO2 and temperature since the steam engine on the same 0 based scale : cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin.jpg .

      No source is listed, which shows how easily you are manipulated.
      Even funnier, if we go to the home page, cosy.com er see it’s a climate change denier!!!!
      Feel free to try again, though.

    3. Wow. Temperature in degrees Kelvin, and you include the entire scale right down to Absolute Zero, and don’t think you’re insulting the intelligence of everyone who looks at your first link?

      Facts aren’t about being scary. The fact is that for the past half century climate sensitivity has measurably varied between 3.1’C and 4.6’C per doubling of CO2, and fossil waste dumping is responsible for a 43% rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere in about 250 years, at an accelerating rate (well, last year it was effectively level with the year before, but still).

      CO2 is a non-condensing GHG, unlike water vapor. It’s non-volatile, unlike methane, and methane denatures into CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter how much CO2 you add to an open atmosphere, Beer-Lambert only means the distance before IR re-radiated by the air increases to equilibrium levels shortens, so there is no such thing as saturation overall, merely with regard to the original radiation from the ground itself. Also ‘greening of the Earth’ is mere pixel-counting, not a qualitative analysis of what happens to plants as ethylene and gibberrellin hormones are antagonized by CO2. Botanists know this leads to lower protein and other nutrient concentrations and promotion of embrittled woody stems.

  108. First, the physics have to be correct. The concept of an average temperature doesn’t exist. A kilogram of water at 20 degrees and a kilogram of ice at 0 degrees don’t have an “average” temperature of 10 degrees. When mixed the final temperature is much lower. This is easily proven by tossing a few ice cubes in a drink.
    Any efforts to find the “average” temperature of a surface that is 2/3 covered in water in three different phases, solid, liquid and vapour using land based air temperatures is useless and has no physical meaning.
    The greenhouse effect itself has no physical explanation or repeatable experiment showing how it works. If it did, it would be a simple matter to calculate the insulative value of carbon dioxide and demonstrate clearly how the temperature would change as carbon dioxide levels change. The bulk of the Sun’s energy comes to Earth as infra-red energy, since carbon dioxide blocks infra-red, it will block more incoming infra-red than outgoing. Under the current explanation, if enough insulation is added to a closed container, it will somehow spontaneously combust without an internal source of heat.
    The only proof of warming would be to first demonstrate exactly how carbon dioxide traps heat and then measure the actual change, if any, in energy entering and leaving the Earth. Temperature is not a measurement of energy and using averaged temperatures of disparate substances to determine energy flow has no basis in physics.

    1. You appear to be confused about what’s being measured.

      Global temperature is taken as the average temperature of air at surface weather stations. While it’s not a strictly ‘physical’ measurement, this does not make it a meaningless number in itself.

      Second, the ‘Energy Budget’ of the Earth, taking into account phases and specific heats and on and on is an actual thing modeled by climatologists. If you want to look into it, head on over to Google Scholar and search academic papers for that term. Your expectation that over ten thousand atmospheric physicists somehow missed that the ‘concept of an average temperature’ is the wrong framing? That’s sad.

      The Green House Effect is well understood, modeled on the atomic bonds of carbon dioxide, or of water vapor, or of methane, as an effect involving the absorption spectra of gases. Pretty much every part of the process from the photon of light leaving the Sun through every step down through the atmosphere to the surface and then conversion to IR outward and interactions typical of energy’s transit back out of the Earth’s atmosphere as IR is well documented in the research. Your claims are simply false.

      So too is your syllogism of spontaneous combustion.

      The evidence you demand has been available for many years.

  109. With this…

    Quote of the day:

    “?we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    ? IPCC AR4 WG1

    Going to take a hell of a lot more than what we think we know so far.

    1. The IPCC are saying they can’t predict it exactly.

      The very next line says “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system”

      They aren’t saying it cannot be predicted, as you are trying to imply.

      1. IPCC:

        …therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

        jnol44:

        They aren’t saying it cannot be predicted, as you are trying to imply.

        Huh?!

        1. Nonlinear chaotic systems have unpredictable properties, and predictable properties.

          To even qualify for description as nonlinear and chaotic, the predictable properties of nonlinear systems and of chaotic systems would have to apply.

          The probability distribution of a system is one such property that is predictable.

          You can’t predict where in a hive a particular worker bee is going to be, moment by moment. You can predict that if you load the hive on a truck and drive it 30 miles with that bee in it, the bee’s position will change about 30 miles. You can’t predict a bee is going to sting or not sting at a particular moment far in the future. You can predict that bees will be more likely to sting if their hive is swatted with sticks.

          GCM’s can’t tell you what the weather will be in one spot on one day 30 years in the future. They can’t even tell you what one year’s average temperature will be globally, except by fluke such as happened with Hansen 1988 Scenario “B” in 2014, more than a quarter century after it was run. What they can do is give you pretty good ranges of what sort of changes to expect for any 30-year average.

          Expecting more and then shouting “gotcha” when they don’t give more is absurd.

  110. On the other hand a “warmer” Earth may allow food production in areas now too cold. Like northern Canada and Siberia. The Vikings settled in Greenland during a “warm” period and got frozen out several centuries later. On the other hand the “hot” regions of the Earth may become hotter, less suitable for human life. All we can be sure of is that the climate will change. Whether or not it is now possible to maintain present day standards of living under these conditions is another question…

    1. Really? You’re going to turn Tundra into farmland, when nights can last over a month in winter and days don’t end for a month in summer? How are you going to transport produce there? What will you do if there’s an oil spill from a truck or tanker carrying fuel? No one has yet developed technology to clean up Arctic shores. Siberia is full of toxic lagoons due to just such issues with the Trans Siberian Pipeline.

      Viking whalers had whaling stations in Greenland, not “settlements”. They stopped whaling when the olive oil trade took their best markets for whale oil. The pattern of Greenland settlement has zero correlation with historic temperature trends.

      Where do people get this stuff from?

  111. Start here: scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

    then realize that climate change is the justification for the biggest power grab since Das Kapital, which was only second to the takeover of the Roman Empire by the RC church. In each case, the wisdom of the moment supported subjugating every individual to the head of the state / politbureau / church. Whether the science / reasoning / inspiration was correct or not became lost in the orthodoxy of the moment, and woe be to any who dare question it.

    1. Oh yeah. It’s all a conspiracy for those Profs to get more of those $50K support a student and part of the Prof’s time grants. They are all big on that and don’t want to take the much bigger grants from the oil industry the bastards.

      There’s no power struggle. It’s clear we’re warming the earth, it’s clear the government has to take the first moves in research (energy, mitigation, planning) and in perhaps market creation (new markets are almost always created by the government and exploited by subsequent market forces, see the internet, GPS, airline industry, microchips etc).

  112. “To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?”

    A minimum of another 1,000 years of solid trending data, to start with. 5,000 years would be more reliB
    able.

    1. Hey, you’re in luck. Ice cores, sediments and like proxy data are being collected and combined to levels of accuracy and precision undreamed of even a decade ago.

      Within two years, we’ll have 11,000 years of trending data at least as reliable as the 34 years of satellite data we have now.

      So. When that data comes out, will you endorse acting on its findings, no matter what?

      1. Bart R
        Within two years, we’ll have 11,000 years of trending data

        So 10,998 years aren’t enough data?

        1. For me, I’m good with the proposition of strongest inference from all available data given most simplified underlying assumptions, most parsimony of exceptions, and most universal logic of relations of like properties of like bodies until new observation demands amended or new proposition, so I don’t need to wait two more years.

          Janx claims that the standard Philosophy of Science isn’t good enough, and demands an arbitrary thing that can’t be got for a millennium. Except we already have that thing from proxy datasets (see Marcotte et al, 2013, and subsequent studies that have improved on his survey of six dozen Holocene-spanning datasets).

          I’m merely mocking Janx’ procrastination by pointing out it’s such an ignorant objection.

          1. Bart R
            I’m merely mocking Janx’ procrastination by pointing out it’s such an ignorant objection.

            You’ve been documented as a blowhard all up and down this page! And your hysterical definition of Market Prices shows us a shameless gasbag to be laughed at.

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5205651

  113. Maybe when their models match reality: http://media.al.com/news_hunts…..955761.jpg

    Temperatures hav been flat for 10+ years even with all the added CO2 (see the graph at the link abuv).

    The key to this nonsense with whether
    1. CO2 is the culprit (unlikely) (0.38% of the atmo)
    2. manmade CO2 is driving the change (even less likely) (a fraction of that 0.38%)

    1. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

      CO2 levels have jumped to levels not seen in millions of years. It’s human emissions. It’s more than just a “fraction of 0.38%”

      1. I keep seeing “2014 was the warmest year on record”, and I don’t dispute it. However, temperatures weren’t reliably recorded on a consistent basis until about 1850. That’s temperature recorded using reasonably accurate thermometers with enough coverage to talk about more or less global temperatures. Beyond that, you have to infer temperature. The further back you go, the less adjunct evidence you have to bolster or support those inferences and, necessarily, the broader your range of suspected temperatures have to be.

        So, 2014 being the warmest year on record means that it’s the warmest year since 1850, or thereabouts. That’s not even a blip on the radar when we’re talking about geological time. And if you’re going to tell me that a degree or so every hundred years is evidence of catastrophic warming, I’d be more inclined to believe you if that wasn’t pretty much swallowed whole by the margin of error when you go back far enough in geological time to actually see patterns.

  114. Bailey ask the question of what it would take to convince that humans cause the planet to warm.
    1. Bailey gave zero facts to back his position as everything he says would be true with natural warming as well, so since Bailey does not seem to know the basics of scientific inquiry it is hard to imagine how he can contribute to an intelligent discussion.
    2. When you side with people who tell you that the science is settled then you will always be siding with the cons,crooks and creeps because SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED!
    3. Frontal lobotomies is what it actually would atke to change the mind of some one who knows their science and knows that the gas of life is not a pollutant.

    1. Greenhouse gases are known to warm atmospheres. Humans have elevated the level of greenhouse gases enough to explain the warming.

      In contrast there is no known natural source of warming over this period that can explain it.

  115. Might I suggest a bit more research on uour part is in order. You might start with junkscience.com, work your way up to the Heartland Institute, and then check out the thousand or so peer-reviewed papers disputing the very things you believe in. For example, you don’t even mention the now almost two decades long pause in warming or the more recent early onset of winter in the northern US, orvthe absence of super hurricanes (in fact, the cumulative power of Atlantic hurricanes has been declining over the past decade). The thing about science is, we don’t do it by taking a vote and demonizing those who disagree with us. It demands replication, falsifiable hypotheses, etc, etc. The problem with global warming enthusiasts is that every weather phenomenon is explained by their models, thereby emptying those models, already on shaky grounds, of their explanatory or predictive power. Bottom line: you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

  116. Any evidence of man-made climate change that isn’t based on geoscience (the actual study of the earth) is fundamentally flawed. Until you actually understand the earth- which won’t happen until you actively study geoscience- you can’t make any credible arguments about any of the earth’s processes.

    We are currently in an ice age that began nearly 2.6 million years (m.y.) ago. Long story short, during the breakup of Pangea, the Antarctic plate moved to the south pole, which affected the global climate, seal level, etc. in many, many different ways, leading to glacier formation during the last 50+ m.y. and, finally, the start of the ice age.

    The ice age consists of cycles of warming and cooling that cause alternating “interglacials” (warmer period; glaciers “retreat” towards poles) and “glacials” (colder period; glaciers “advance,” or grow/move from poles towards the equator). These interglacial and glacial periods each last on the order of 10’s of thousand years (k.y.) The most recent glacial period ended 11.7 k.y. ago, and we are currently in the subsequent interglacial period. It is most likely that we are still in the increasing-temperature phase of the cycle.To our knowledge, there have been four other ice ages in Earth’s history, which lasted 100, 30, 225, and 300 m.y., in reverse chronological order. We’ve only been in our ice age for 2.6 m.y, and it isn’t going to end anytime soon. The warm interglacial we’re in will end and another glacial will start.

    1. Humans will never be able to stop earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, or climate changes, much like we can’t cause any of those things. All evidence and data used to claim that humans have any significant effect on climate change should be taken with a grain of salt. Without research by geoscientists considering the earth’s complex interplay of natural processes, the claims are meaningless.

      (Not to mention the effects of all the processes involved in earth’s countless regional and global higher-frequency cycles. Seriously, earth processes and changes are beyond extremely complicated.)

      Source: I am passionately-dedicated to studying the earth. Oh, and I have a masters in geophysics. If you want to find out more about anything said, I suggest starting with some wikipedia articles.

      1. The number of earthquakes jumped off the charts last year in Oklahoma due to fracking. I’m pretty sure scientists are “considering the earth’s complex interplay of natural processes” when they’re researching it; you can disagree with the methods and findings sure, but taking everything into account is kinda the point.

        1. starman2112|4.3.15 @ 11:19PM|#
          “The number of earthquakes jumped off the charts last year in Oklahoma due to fracking.”

          Can we presume “stupid”? Or “sarc”? Which is it, starman?

          1. starman: “The number of earthquakes jumped off the charts last year in Oklahoma due to fracking.”

            Sevo “Can we presume “stupid”? Or “sarc”? Which is it, starman?”

            Since YOU insist, Sevo, I’ll assume “stupid” is the correct answer.
            From 1978 until 2008, Oklahoma averaged only two earthquakes over magnitude 3.0 per year; midway through 2014, the state has already registered 230 quakes of that strength, easily surpassing California as the most earthquake-prone state in the country

            http://www.newsweek.com/2014/0…..66531.html

            That means Oklahoma has more earthquakes in 70,000 square miles, then California has in 164,000 square miles. Adjusted for full years, Oklahoma/s earthquake rate has gone from 2 to 230, an increase of 11,500%. But starman is stupid?

        2. As long as you’re “pretty sure,” I guess my point is moot!

          1. My point was simply that all models are simplifications of more complex systems, but you can’t simply dismiss them because that makes them “fundamentally flawed.”

  117. (Part 1 of 2. Do to the 1500 character limit)
    Your title is posed as a question, so I will answer it. We have multiple controls in the form of previous inter-glacial periods. So evidence that the warming trends in this period significantly differ from previous ones would go a long way toward showing a human influence, since human civilization did not exist in the prior ones.

    Almost everything in your article seems designed to support the idea that warming itself has taken place. While I have seen evidence on both sides, I actually expect warming since we are still coming out of an ice age. Even a surge in warming during a period of high fossil fuel usage would only weakly support a human cause, unless it can be shown that such surges did not take place in previous interglacial periods (in the absence of human industry of course).

    1. I actually expect warming since we are still coming out of an ice age.

      Umm, how much warming do you expect per year, since the ice age began 2.6 million years ago?
      If I assume only 0.1 degree per year, then the temperature was 26,000 degrees colder at the time. Minus 26,000 degrees.

      And that was junior high math. I’m not even a scientist.

      1. Man that was just brilliant. After all, the AGW crowd clearly asserts that climate change happens in an entirely linear fashion.

        Or, possibly, maybe not…

        1. Man that was just brilliant.

          (hahahahaha)

          After all, the AGW crowd clearly asserts that climate change happens in an entirely linear fashion.

          Irrelevant babbling. Both sides are conspiracy hysterics, ThomasD. Junior High math, documented above, demolishes your wacky claim that the earth was 26,000 degrees colder when the ice age begun.

          Or, possibly, maybe no

          Come back when you understand the subject instead of pasting memorized slogans about a totally different matter!

          (walks away laughing)

          1. Babbling? Yet you somehow found a way to respond. So, certainly not babbling.

            And as it was a direct response to you… So also not irrelevant.

            Any further attempts at dismissing what you cannot dismiss? Especially since you were the one who posited a linear progression – be it from ignorance or carelessness, you get what you deserve.

            Plus, it is a bit late in this thread for you to be trying on the “pox on both houses” get-up.

            It neither suits, nor fits you.

            That you (pretend) to walk away laughing is entirely fitting.

  118. (Part 2 of 3. Due to 1500 character limit. I thought I would only need 2 parts originally)
    One argument that such warming is cause by humans is that we produce Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and since Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, humans must cause global warming. I even saw a “Myth Busters” episode where this straw man argument was made as if us “climate-change deniers” didn’t believe Carbon Dioxide levels had an effect on atmospheric heat retention. I get the physics. I also know that increased levels of CO2 stimulate plant growth and plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I also know that human activity has lead to large scale deforestation and that artificial surfaces (like roads) along with desert land has a higher albedo than forested regions. So some human activity causes cooling. In other-words it isn’t enough to simply say that humans cause global warming by making CO2.

  119. (Part 3 of 3 due to 1500 Character limit. I initially posted one of 2)
    Finally, I appreciate the fact that you don’t think conclusions on either side necessarily call for the kind of policies the Eco-left is calling for. I would go a step further and say that I would welcome a little more warmth. If a little warming now makes the next ice age milder, even better. Ice ages have been more destructive to biomes in the biological history of this planet than the interglacial warming periods. If fossil fuel use is a contributor, this contribution will be short-lived since they are a resource that won’t be renewed nearly fast enough to keep up with their depletion. So the Al Gores’ of the world who want to end fossil fuel use will get what they want anyway.

  120. Imo, regardless of the validity or not of anthropogenic climate change , this is the only issue I can find where a substantial # of us sound ridiculous, truther’esque (in so many ways), and where it discredits libertarianism on the whole

    Imo, the primary reason for so many to get so absurd (and I’m not even advocating that AGW IS actually happening) is because SO many people on the ‘it’s happening’ side are horrendous statists desiring to USE this issue to enact horrendous legislation, invade privacy, curtail civil rights, hold back free enterprise, hold back western culture, etc etc

    Which is totally tangential to whether it’s happening and/or whether we can reasonably curtail it

    But given the horrendous intentions , it’s understandable, but lamentable, that so many have devolved to truther’esque levels of myopia, and anti scientific stances

    It is possible that two things are simultaneously true

    1) AGW is real and substantially human caused
    2) total scum are using this reality to advocate horrid positions and policies

    Again I am not concluding (1) us true

    I am saying a lot of people are flat out denying (1) with little justification or requiring a level of proof that is absurd and where with countless other issues they would laugh at the kind of naysaying they are employing. They would be ridiculing it

    It’s ironic, alanis

  121. Of course, correlation does not imply causation

    Yep.

    1. “Of course, correlation does not imply causation”

      Yep indeed, surprising that those who are pointing this out are the same as those who demand to see better models “as evidence.”

      Intellectual rigour is the first thing that goes out the window when the good folks at Reason get on their hobby horses.

  122. I will admit I am a “denier.” I will also admit that this was one of the better articles written on the subject and I give the author due respect for it.

    I’d like to ask a question: If the evidence shows that the current warming is due to a man-made situation, then who do you explain the temperature rise in the middle ages and the mini-ice age during the 19th century?

    Are those also due to man-made activities?

    1. Sorry… “…how do you explain…”
      Shame there’s no edit function here.

    2. I’d like to ask a question: If the evidence shows that the current warming is due to a man-made situation, then who do you explain the temperature rise in the middle ages and the mini-ice age during the 19th century

      The mini-ice age merely followed the Middle Age warming, thus cancelling it. The screechers on both sides are fighting over it …. but the only thing I’ve seen that makes sense is that the two were examples of the oceans both absorbing and releasing heat. See, those two changes can also “prove” that nature has little or no role at all.

  123. Want to see a switcheroo. Tell those 97% scientists that since GW is a fact, all research funding will now be halted.

  124. I’ll believe it when Gore and Kennedy get rid of their ocean front properties and start driving Beetles.

  125. I’ll believe it when Gore and Kennedy get rid of their ocean front properties and start driving Beetles.

  126. I’ll believe it when Gore and Kennedy get rid of their ocean front properties and start driving Beetles.

  127. Simple; propose, publish, and lock (that is, permit no changes to) a model which requires man-made climate change, then use it to predict the climate globally for a reasonable period of time (5 years absolute minimum, 10 years moderately acceptable, 20+ years better). If the results are substantially better than any similar model not including man-made climate change, then tentatively accept the model.

    In other words, actually perform the experimental analysis.

    1. This isn’t done because they learned from the “end of the world” cults not to hitch their existence to something that is incorrect. E.g., if I have a cult and predict the end in two weeks. My flock and revenue decreases after fifteen days. OTOH, I could say the end is near without defining near and keep my flock and revenue. And that is the AGW cult.

    2. “Simple”

      Talk about stumbling at the starters gate, aint nothing simple about the earth’s climate, or any model thereof.

  128. I don’t get why anyone cares if warming is man made or not. Isn’t that just buying in to the idea of the “fault” of humanity? Does a 1C rise in temp act differently if it is man made or not?

    I would actually have very little problem with the global warming debates if they were centered on the relative costs of carbon reducing schemes vs simply spending money to mitigate the effects of climate change. Neither option is freedom oriented, but what can you do? Statists gonna state. They might as well choose the least destructive means to amass greater power.

  129. If 97 % of scientist said climate change wasn’t real the Republicans and Libertarians would be screaming look at the science. Since they don’t like the conclusion and big corporations would have to adjust to a less polluting business model (can’t have that) they say the science is bogus. See the way science works is there is a majority consensus on the data. There are still a few scientist who say cigarettes don’t cause cancer so light up!

    1. And Todd tosses bullshit, so we should, uh…
      Piss off, Todd.

    2. You think that only corporations would have to adapt. What a shallow thinker you are.

      Any change that business makes affects you. Get that? Squeezing business also strains the services and products available to a shallow thinker like yourself.

      You probably think that business merely swims in less money, but the truth is that you get less for you purchase dollar.

    3. See the way science works is there is a majority consensus on the data.

      See, Todd just proved he’s retarded and doesn’t understand “the way science works” at all. Shocker.

  130. When the only solution put forth to solve this “problem” is pure unregulated free market capitalism.

  131. I have a problem with the title of the article because a lot of people would agree that anthropogenic climate change is likely. I think the real question is whether or not this warming is enough to seriously disrupt the earth’s long term climate cycles.

  132. I have long believe climate change is real. I just think that it is not a catastrophe. We will adapt and so will the biosphere. I suspect the warmer weather will end up being a good thing, even if we do have to do a good bit of moving.

  133. Temperatures go down as well. The “science” was settled in the 70’s when the same idiots claimed we were going to plunge ourselves into an ice-age.

    Now you have two more generations of even dumber, more liberal (oblivious) college students going into the same field pretending like the new science is “settled” once again.

    Global warming is real.
    Do we affect it? Sure. So does a butter fly flapping its wings.
    To what effect do we affect it? Who knows. This is the part where bullshit is inserted.

    The liberals and anti-white male/Western colleges at this point will start using computer models that they programmed and tweaked with important variables until they get the desired outcome.

    You never hear them talk about telling Africans, Indians, and Chinese to stop breeding. Nope. But you do hear them talk about how the West needs to stop driving cars. That’s when you know something is an ideology, not science.

    1. Temperatures go down as well. The “science” was settled in the 70’s when the same idiots claimed we were going to plunge ourselves into an ice-age.

      This is an assertion … that is just untrue.

      The press did put out some articles about global cooling but the scientific consensus back then was for global warming, same as today. There was some report that a new ice age could happen and in the appendix stating clearly some thousands years hence.

      Your last two paragraphs are two more unsuported crazy assertions that again are not true. But, just keep making stuff up, feels good.

  134. Make extra profit every week… This is a great part-time job for everyone… Best part about it is that you can work from your home and earn from $100-$2000 each week … Start today and have your

    First payment at the end of the week…,
    pop over here…,
    ??????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  135. I still say it’s spinach, and I say to hell with it

  136. Mr. Bailey; if you are right @ temp rise wouldn’t it be more accurate to say global warming than climate change? That is beside the problem. Humans can adapt and change to whatever the climate brings us; this whole climate argument that you got suckered into is NOT about science it is about destroying man’s personal property rights; it has NOTHING to do with climate change; the point is to see humans suffer through lower living standards and gov. regulations. Climate change=misandry.

    1. Why should you be able to force the need and expense to adapt and change on the rest of us?

      That expense and need is the only cause of lower living standards I see here.

  137. I’m late to the game and did not wade through 571 comments but another thing I find interesting is that despite more CO2 (arrrgghh! Runs from room screaming) is the fact climate related deaths are on the decrease.

    EVERYTHING these buffoons have claimed have simply not panned out. So what do the dimwitted do? They apply a distorted take of the ‘precautionary principle.’ You can convince them what they believed was all false and they will still shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Yeah, but we still need to change our habits and carbon tax.’ That part of the battle we may have lost.

    Also. Despite fossil fuels being nowherefucking near being the evil it is painted, and that in fact has been a boon to human civilization (ironic that progressives and people who believe in all this bull shit like blind cultists consider themselves humanists. They are in fact, anti-human) would be cause for us to be HAPPY, no?

    Nope. Because it’s not about that at all.

    It was about destroying capitalism all along.

    Man. There was a writer at the National Post in the early 2000s who called this. She spotted what was going on and nailed it. I just can’t remember her name. Her article stayed with me because it was the first red flag raised on the system-change lie.

    1. I mean to add on the precautionary principle – it all ends up with public policy not based in ‘science’ but in the more arbitrary and anti-scientific ‘just in case’. Like most policies politicians and dumbasses pimp.

      And they want to put ‘deniers’ in prison.

      1. Yes. It’s true. Climate related deaths are overall on the decrease. After all, it’s unlikely we’ll see another situation where four dozen Chinese water control dams break in a single rainstorm killing over 100,000 people, like happened in the 1950’s any time soon.

        Or another series of mudslides wiping out towns and villages due poor grasp of civil engineering. Or another series of winter wars in Russia.

        There are many causes of death, and your objection is nonsensical given any knowledge of the details of the history of human mortality.

        You say ‘boon’. I say if you want to force your boon on people, you need their consent, and you need to compensate them. Why do you battle core capitalist principles, and then blame the victims for its destruction?

        A capitalist wants to dump fossil wastes on my air, as a capitalist they gladly pay me for the use of my scarce resource.

        1. My objection to what exactly?

          “You say ‘boon’. I say if you want to force your boon on people, you need their consent, and you need to compensate them.”

          My boon? What are you going on about? I’m not following.

  138. 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    http://www.populartechnology.n…..rting.html

    1. I’ve read those papers.

      The number is closer to 167 that actually do as Poptech claims. The rest are unrelated to the issue, or take the opposite stance.

      Of those 167 papers, all but a few have been thoroughly shown false, many of them retracted, some of them pulled due discovery of misconduct by their authors.

      Mmmaybe you’d want instead to read the over 10,000 papers that go the other direction, given their greater currency, generally better quality, absence of scandal, and lack of refutation?

      1. Bart, please stop misrepresenting the list. You have not read anything let alone the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section.

      2. Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

        Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

      3. Criticism: Papers on the list have been debunked, discredited or refuted.

        Rebuttal: The existence of a criticism does not make it true. Rebuttals to published peer-reviewed comments on a paper are included on the list as supplemental papers following the original. These rebuttals either completely refute the original criticism or correct for legitimate errors and show that these do not affect their original conclusions. It is not reasonable to expect these authors to waste their time responding to every alarmist blog post or comment made against their paper(s) on the Internet. Yet, according to AGW proponents peer-reviewed papers that do not agree with their alarmist position on climate change are either wrong or do not exist. This resource was created to correct this myth.

      4. Criticism: Papers on the list have had their peer-review status retracted.

        Rebuttal: Not a single peer-reviewed paper that has ever appeared on this list has had its peer-reviewed status retracted. If any of these papers are retracted by the journal they were published in they will be removed from this list. This is explicitly stated in the Criteria for Removal.

        So Bart why did you feel the need to lie like that?

      5. Bart name a single paper on the list that has been retracted, failure to do so means you are an admitted liar and should retire from posting on the Internet.

  139. Climate change is older than humanity, yet nobody blames it on dinosaurs. My astronomy prof and other scientists personally known to me circulated the Petition Project signed by 31000 individuals with science degrees. This petition is denied and waved away, just as water vapor is ignored as a greenhouse gas in the coercive “solution” papers circulated by the looter intelligentzia largely on government payroll. Yet when was the last time you saw a doomsday warming petition signed by 31000 actual scientists? The data are complex, and they who pay the piper hear the tune they like in a mixed economy. Newspapers have published daily temperatures for well over a century and Re-captcha technology could tease tables out of these pre-totalitarian records to objectively document a rise in temperature from, say, 31,000 towns. We could then try to discover why any such rise is not caused by water vapor–the forgotten greenhouse gas.

    1. The sort of climate change older than humanity is largely Milankovitch Cycles, especially in the last 50 million years. Milankovitch Cycles are less than one 200th the rate of the changes we’ve seen associated with fossil waste dumping in the air. We know that you can’t dump GHG’s into the atmosphere without this sort of consequence, by simple chemistry and physics, proven by experiments and evidenced tens of thousands of times.

      Your 31,000 ‘actual’ scientists includes dentists and MD’s, oil company engineers and guys who study navel lint. Oh, and Mickey Mouse, twelve times. Science isn’t done by petition. It’s done by the inference of the strongest proposition from all available data given simplest assumptions, least exceptions, and most universal logic of likes, until new data require amended or new proposition.

      Your ‘pay the piper’ conspiracy theory would require over a century and a half of tens of thousands of corrupt people acting against the rivalrous and competitive nature of science. It betrays zero actual familiarity with the real culture of scientists. Why not ask your astronomy prof about how long a published mistake made on purpose for cash would last in astronomy?

      1. Actually Bart, the 97% group is filled with posers and liars.

        1. My mistake. From what I’ve read, the people who put the 97% list together misquoted various works of scientists and deliberately lied to inflate the figure.

  140. What’s the best way mankind can change the climate to his preference? Will electric cars do the trick?

    Range seems to be the issue with electric cars. Why not standardize the batteries so that they are quickly changed and establish “battery stations” instead of gas stations. I envision the battery swap process taking a fraction of the time making the frequency tolerable. We can make them like weight stations on the highways -just battery swaps, no smokes, lottery tickets, or cold drinks.

    Problem solved. Give me my Nobel Prize now.

  141. There is no evidence that could be proffered by anyone to prove climate change is man made because man has not been around long enough to measure it, or even care to measure it. Global warming and cooling have always been cyclic. Always. Never man made. Approximate 300 year cycles. Algore made it fashionable to care recently, so he could profit on global non warming when he wasnt inventing the internet.
    Only the gullible could honestly believe man has the power to control or modify the elements. Only the greedy money whores could call the warming hysteria, ‘science’, and try to manipulate global economies…yes that right..Obama is a climate change whore, among other criminalities. This is particularly true as there is not one credible study that doesnt use fudged number to try to ‘prove’ its theory.
    Honestly, global warming whores should just STFU.

    1. There’s not much honest about what you write, after you admit you will not change your mind no matter the evidence.

      You provide no evidence for your own irrationally screedy claims, and they’re clearly motivated by something other than truth.

      I’m just stating the obvious here, because it’s readily apparent you’re the sort who misses the obvious.

      1. Ah. I now get the picture here.

        You’re an animist.

  142. No one disputes that the Earth has been warming (slowly) since the last Ice Age. No one disputes that CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 to 400 ppm since the measurements started in Hawaii. What’s disputed is that Man has much to do with either or that these trends are necessarily bad.

    1. No it’s not.

      1. Oh yes it TOTALLY is, Tony.

        You bunch of quacks.

  143. Plants/plankton use photosynthesis to turn sunlight & Carbon Dioxide into food & Oxygen. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist absent CO2. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitude; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall and save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile and life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.

  144. Uh.

    1) the real world behaving as the models predict would be a biggie…

    2) I’m an economist. The question isn’t even ‘is it happening?’ The issue starts with ‘is it a bad thing?’ Since the answer to that is no we’re done.

  145. Of course, the new research by Max Planck Institute casts serious doubt on the whole question of c02 being an important greenhouse gas. So while it does seem likely that some of what we are doing is likely to have effects on the climate, co2 doesnt look like it deserves all the attention its getting.

    Then again, NASA has reported for years that there is shrinking of polar ice on Mars, so it might be a good idea to weigh solar variability against human effects as well.

  146. That the earth has been warming is not news. That anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the CO2 concentration is also not really in dispute. That increased CO2 concentrations will make the earth warmer than otherwise is also not really in dispute.

    Contrary to what the warmers would have folks believe, the vast majority of *skeptics* agree with those statements.

    The big leaps follow these mundane facts: (1) how much warming will result, and (2) what should we do about it.

    There is *no* good scientific evidence about the amount of warming. The frightening amounts often cited result from computer models. Contrary to what one may hear, these are mostly not simple physics models – they use all sorts of ad hoc approximations (“parameterizations”) to do their forecasts. They have failed the only actual tests – their predictions of the future (now) have been way off.

    But… even if they were right, the popular prescriptions for what to do about it are flawed. They all require economic measures that will kill millions and millions of people, immiserate millions more, and probably make no difference.

  147. There is no argument that the earth has not been warming since the last ice age, the disagreement is whether man pitiful contribution of co2 to the atmosphere is causing it, or if the sun is driving it. I believe that it is the sun, and the whole man made global warming concept is nothing less than a scam destined in part to allow the government to decide what we can use for energy, and to tax us on so high of the unapproved sources that we will have to abandoning them.

  148. So, without actually being a scientist, any of us can look out the window and see cars with engines running, all the time. You personally can see hundreds of them every day, cars with their engines running, there are thousands more you don’t see. There are millions more we don’t see, in other counties all over the world. It is always 8:00 am somewhere, millions of people commuting to work. Millions of cars, millions of engines running, around the clock, every day, constantly, for the last 70 years or so. And this has no effect. None at all. That’s the part I have a problem with. All those cars, over all that time, no effect. None at all. Hmmm.

    1. There is nothing scientific about it.

      1. Exactly. Science is not required. A little common sense goes a long way. Arguing “the science” is a diversionary tactic that unfortunately is working.

        Besides, in the face of uncertainty, erring on the side of caution would seem prudent.

  149. I do not care of climate change is a fantasy or a reality, natural or man-made, random or understood. It does not matter.

    The argument is not about climate change. It is about interests and values. In general, values are supposed to restrain interests, but in fact serve only to validate them.

    The bureaucratic class likes government as it benefits them and creatively invents fictional reasons why those greatly harmed by their policy ought to support them anyway. Equality or human rights or the environment or democracy or other fraudulent complete prevarications with no relationship whatever to reality.

    The capitalist class likes property and creatively extols its merits.

    Without the capitalist class, what they like would be in shorter supply than it is, there would be less to go around.

    Without the bureaucratic class, there would be less of what they like, redistributive policies such as those favoring unionization or he archetypical welfare programs, the home owners interest deduction on income tax and the social security retirement benefit, the two main bribes offered the American people by their government, to the great disruption of our landscape society and economy and of little benefit to anyone, except the politicians.

    Such is life as we are all humans. Without each other, our species becomes extinct and we as individuals die quickly and uncomfortably.

  150. It’s that simple. Get used to it.

    As to the climate: whatever it is or might become, we will adapt to it and some will profit whilst others suffer. This argument is only yet another that is only actually about who profits and who suffers. I myself do not care who profits nor about who suffers ions fact I consider both prospering and suffering to be unavoidable, necessary, and beneficial to us all.

  151. Mr. Bailey, why do you care whether anyone believes that man-made climate change is real? Is it merely an interesting topic of discussion? Or do you feel it is your duty to convince doubters due to a conviction that people and our world are generally better off if people know and act on the truth (about all things)? Or does it go further in that you think the earth is actually in danger and if we doubters could be convinced then we could fix the problem?

    Because that is where the real problem starts for many of us. Though you say the existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies, our reality is that any real or imagined problem creates both a clamoring and a justification for action by government. Problems create opportunities for self-serving solution by government and private entities. Experience shows that billions of dollars can easily disappear into thin air under the guise of solving this or that problem. And fighting climate change is a dream come true for scientists, politicians, etc. who see a never ending pile of taxpayer money just waiting to be syphoned off and never ending excuses to control how we live our lives – all in the name of doing what is best for our delicate little planet.

    Perhaps you have more faith in governement than I but the last thing I think any libertarian should be doing is spending time convincing others of the existence of a problem that practically begs for more government intervention in our lives.

  152. Well I am a full time mom and worker. I am not a climatologist, so I try to follow the scientists lead, there seems to be a consensus about the effects of increased CO2 on climate, gets warmer. That’s no the interesting and complicated question. The challenging thing is WHAT DO WE DO about it, if anything?

  153. Climate change is not a debate people. 95% of the scientific community agrees with this notion. The other 5% are most likely filling some sort of political agenda. Lobbyists from multinational industrial and oil corporations, such as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, spend billions of dollars to advocate against global warming. Obviously change in oil, coal and natural gas consumption would negatively impact the bottom line. This is the only reason the Republican Party still debates this common fact. They are in debt to these lobbyists, who fund their political campaigns. The U.S. is the only country that will not get with the program. The main problem surrounding climate change is sea level rise, which is occurring in certain countries today, and will impact all coastal cities at or near sea level. Potentially 300 million people will be displaced, looking for safety elsewhere. Evidence of this fact can be seen by hurricane Sandy, in New York, the Maldives, which is currently almost underwater, and various other countries. This trend will continue for centuries and is due to melting glaciers the size of small countries, located in West Antarctica and Greenland. These glaciers will melt, that is a fact, surging sea levels by a guaranteed 10 ft. We cannot stop this global trend. Curbing emissions and finding alternate fuel will partially limit these catastrophic events. THIS IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE FACING HUMANS AS A SPECIES!!!

    1. Anyone who believes in the ‘95% of the scientific community’ should be summarily ignored.

      1. Anybody who doesn’t know how to use an apostrophe and contributes nothing but idiotic comments must be ignored. Oil companies contribute billions towards the Republican party to disseminate misinformation about climate change; people end up calling those who believe in global warming conspiracy theorists. Not sure why this concept is so hard for people to believe. Almost 10 billion metric tonnes of carbon is dumped into the atmosphere daily. That equals 30 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. You don’t need scientists to spell out how this has a negative effect. At least provide some facts or evidence-based theories that climate change is not occurring, so we can have a proper debate. For instance, if we continue to dump this amount of carbon into the environment in perpetuity, that means forever, will there be any impact on our planet? If your answer is no, please elaborate.

        1. Bow before Gaia, pal.

    2. So let us detonate our entire nuclear arsenal over Gaza. That will freeze climate changbe cold in its tracks. See Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions, R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack 2, and Carl Sagan, Science, vol. 23, December 1983, Vol. 222. no. 4630, pp. 1283 – 1292

  154. Climate sensitivity, that is, how the earth’s climate would respond to radiative forcing, either an increase in the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere and surface and the infrared energy emitted by the earth into outer space. Global climate change proponents believe that it is high so it doesn’t take much to cause major changes. But in reality little is known about climate sensitivity. The problem is that variables like clouds and atmospheric circulation is little understood. And processes like the Decadal Pacific Oscillation can cause changes in the climate. And the proponents do not take the effects of increased CO2, which is in so little of concentration (39 parts per one hundred thousand) that it takes 5 years of CO2 production to raise it 1 part, on plants. But soil scientists and plant biologists do. And many meteorologists who understand the effects of the climate system itself to change climate.

    Other than that and that the Left has been looking for a Cosmic Mythology for their Secular religion, I remain a skeptic.

  155. You are asking us what known fraudsters have to present to convince us they are telling the truth. If they had a valid theory, they would not have had to lie in the first place, but they did lie, and they were caught when Climategate broke out. Yes, it is fraud on a mass scale, just like “biblical studies,” and yes, they can get away with it because they are a taxpayer-funded racket. None of their peers are going to report them because they are in on it as well, and they all know that about each other. There are no consequences for being disproved, no matter how absurd their claims are; at worst it will be explained away as honest unreplicable error. In the meantime they get more funding. If anyone did report fraud, others in the racket would threaten and defund them, so why wouldn’t there be mass-scale fraud? The government is paying people, most of whom philosophically reject the concept of an objective reality or morality, to falsify or misrepresent data. These people live with themselves by telling themselves that everything is “subjective.”

    There is no AGW, it’s a total scam, and we have hundreds of thousands of data points over deep time that decisively disprove the notion that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. Below is a link to Dr. Robert Carter presenting universally accepted data at the Ayn Rand Institute. Go to the 20:00 mark and watch until 35:00. That should end any question. It’s time to stop the bs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZj0L9TEuv0

    1. Your beloved Dr. Robert Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667, as part of a program to pay “high profile individuals who regularly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message.” This fact was uncovered by The Heartland Institute, and the claims have never been denied by the doctor. Do some more research…

  156. All the examples you cite are evidence of climate change, not necessarily man-made climate change. They are not the same thing.

    Assuming that climate change can only occur by human influence or that it MUST be man-made is hubris. You might as well talk about man-made volcanic eruptions or man-made solar flares.

    Is there climate change? Without doubt. Are we causing all or even a majority of it? Inconclusive data.

    As things stand, climatologists cannot produce an accurate model of the changes. They have failed to include all the factors, and as a result the models lack key data and cannot predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, let alone temperatures next year.

    Likewise, the models cannot demonstrate man-made climate change unless they can chart the man-made effects that can impact climate change accurately, and so far they have failed to do so. The panic mongers have been predicting doom, death and destruction for years now, and started doing so back in the days when their models did not include ANY data on water vapor or clouds!

    Much like Galileo and his peer reviewers, I must insist on actual evidence, not a ‘because I think it moves’ statement.

    Lastly, all of the panic presumes that the climate change we are seeing is bad and/or destructive. No one has proven that yet either. Starving peopke fleeing from a climtaological disaster don’t build monuments. Go look up what the global temperatures were when the pyramids were built, I dare you.

  157. All the examples you cite are evidence of climate change, not necessarily man-made climate change. They are not the same thing.

    Assuming that climate change can only occur by human influence or that it MUST be man-made is hubris. You might as well talk about man-made volcanic eruptions or man-made solar flares.

    Is there climate change? Without doubt. Are we causing all or even a majority of it? Inconclusive data.

    As things stand, climatologists cannot produce an accurate model of the changes. They have failed to include all the factors, and as a result the models lack key data and cannot predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, let alone temperatures next year.

    Likewise, the models cannot demonstrate man-made climate change unless they can chart the man-made effects that can impact climate change accurately, and so far they have failed to do so. The panic mongers have been predicting doom, death and destruction for years now, and started doing so back in the days when their models did not include ANY data on water vapor or clouds!

    Much like Galileo and his peer reviewers, I must insist on actual evidence, not a ‘because I think it moves’ statement.

    Lastly, all of the panic presumes that the climate change we are seeing is bad and/or destructive. No one has proven that yet either. Starving peopke fleeing from a climtaological disaster don’t build monuments. Go look up what the global temperatures were when the pyramids were built, I dare you.

  158. First, “climate change” is practically a tautology. There never has been climate constancy. Changing terminology from “global warming” didn’t help to strengthen credibility.

    Second, while your article might lead one to accept that there is in fact some warming, or a danger of it, you don’t point to anything to indicate, that it is anthropogenic.

    Third, the broad failure of the models to accurately predict changes or explain pauses coupled with previous crisis about impending ice ages and an admitted lack of understanding about “how the whole climate thing” really works leave much room for skepticism.

    Finally, you state that agreeing that changes in our world’s climate are significantly influenced by man’s activities doesn’t necessitate agreeing on what changes would need to be made to halt the climate changes, but all of the proposed actions (that I am aware of) essentially demand collapsing our economy.

    I look forward to your reply.

  159. The problem I have always had with arguments that try to prove man-made global warming is that they always muddle stats that show global warming (seldom contested) with the idea that this warming is man-made. In this piece, you present a rise in atmospheric carbon (btw, less sexy stats: .028% – .04%), and then proceed to tabulate the rises in temperature over the last 60-100 years without addressing proof of causation (for carbon or temp). Causation is the heart of the issue. I’m still skeptical cuz politics rarely makes good science, but politics does make good funding grants. Exxon may pay people to muddle the issue, but why is it ok when politics/gov does the same thing, on a much larger scale?

  160. The author has his answer in the comments. His audience is evidence proof.

  161. With Marxist politicians using global warming to drain assets of western civilization to skim off a ton of it for themselves and pass on the leavings to the third world, I believe global warming is just another leftist tool. “Scientist” who support these concepts are brain dead, just like their government counterparts.

  162. Correct me if I am wrong. I find that the hard evidence of a diminishing ratio for the isotopes of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the atmosphere is sufficient to conclude that human activity is responsible for climate change. Prior to the extraction of coal and hydrocarbons from ancient deposits deep below the earth’s surface, the ratio of 14 to 12 was stable. As billions of tons of buried carbon have been brought to the surface and combusted for energy, their release of carbon dioxide was solely of the carbon 12 isotope. The denominator expanded as the numerator, carbon 14, remained fixed. How else would increasing amounts of carbon 12 enter the atmosphere except by human activity?.

  163. Kudos to you for changing your mind but I think that is really a misnomer as what you changed was your belief. AGW is one of the strongest cultural myths going these days and if you want to, it is easy to believe in it. Is it true? Nobody knows, at least if you treat the word ‘know’ with any kind of honesty. There are many who believe in its existence and many who believe in its non-existence but no one knows if it is true. The catechisms are clever, the fervor intense, and the hate and anger fundamental to those who believe so it is easy to give in and at least pay lip service to the new icon. Reasonable people who may doubt are unbelievers and history shows what they deserve.

    What is would take for me agree that AGW is true? An impeccable, indubitable source telling me it is true.What would it take for me to agree that it is probable? Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis – incorporate the counter theories, the counter facts, and the counter beliefs into a single theory that addresses all points. Remove the religious fervor. Remove the multi-billion dollar currency that depends on its existence, aka Carbon Tax Credits, from the picture to make sure this isn’t just advertising and misdirection to make some people money. By then it won’t resemble the current AGW myth and will probably not be attractive to the current players causing it to achieve its own level-set to reality. But what’s left might be easier to accept as probable and would require little belief.

  164. http://www.vice.com/video/gree…..-labor-000
    http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06…..evel-rise/

    Climate change is happening, why does it matter if humans are the causation. Carbon tax credits are an incentive for large MNEs to curb fossil fuels, which would not happen otherwise.

  165. For all you climate change deniers
    http://www.vice.com/read/watch…..change-111

  166. Oh wow, you guys even have your own wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
    Congratulations! You have been duped by your beloved politicians and free market society.

    1. I don’t think you appreciate the irony of your comments…when you are responding to someone who is being critical of those who are intolerant of opposing views it is probably better to not start calling the people who don’t agree with you names. It would also be smarter to offer a thesis that has more depth than a single statement that something exists. It sounds like a believer’s view of the world where everything is already decided and only a fool would question it. Come back with a balanced argument.

  167. What evidence would persuade me that man-made climate change is real?

    I want to see a debate or series of debates between the experts on both sides of this issue. I want that debate to include whether or not there is any damage being done by this climate change if in fact man did create it and if it is even reversible. Is there any science on the consequences?

  168. The evidence I would need to see would be the physical construction of nuclear power plants within the USA in order to power electric vehicles.

    This would show me the good faith of AGW supporters in a real solution to this problem.

  169. For me there are major problems with the data. It is a huge red flag when data from the late 19th century and early 20th century are still being adjusted in the 21st century. There was a bit of a mini-controversy last year when July 1936 was re-crowned as the hottest month of the 20th century. This was due to yet another adjustment. Is there a valid reason why 78 year old data still needs “adjusting”? What would have changed to make the adjustment necessary? Not only are explanations not given, but the changes to the data base are not announced. They just change it when they see fit. The quality control of the data should be public and out in the open for all to see. Data changes should be announced and debated beforehand. There is no doubt that the sum total of data manipulations has had the effect of lowering the temperature of old data and increasing the temperature of newer data.

    If they can’t settle on a temperature for data that are decades, lifetimes, and centuries old then the claims of “settled science” are absolutely bogus.

    So what would convince me? As others have said, when I see skeptics I trust being converted I might revisit my views. As it is now, there are more converts the other way around (believer to skeptic). Curiously, several have converted to the skeptic side upon their retirement, once it was safe.

  170. Global warming/climate change is a scam. If the feds quit giving out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants it would go away tomorrow. Here is why I consider this whole thing to be a farce: the “Climategate” emails from a few years ago. When so called “climate scientists” are emailing each other in despair because the temperature data refuse to meet the predictions of their vaunted computer models, and then they email tips on how to “hide the decline” in the temperature data….well, at that point they have been exposed as frauds and liars.

    Why would we ever believe people with no credibility on the topic, people proven to be frauds and liars? The other thing the environmental wackos have no answer to is the “Medieval Warming Period”. How is it possible that the earth was significantly warmer in the past than it is today when there was no industry putting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere?

    None of the cultists in the church of Mother Gaia ever have an answer to that.

    And finally, if carbon dioxide emissions really were going to result in “the end of the world as we know it” in just a few decades – why do the alarmists refuse to push for the only currently feasible, logical solution: vastly increasing the number of nuclear power plants in America to generate electricity.

    As Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says: “I will believe it is a crisis when the people telling me it is a crisis start living their own lives like it is a crisis.”

  171. Why is every climate change advocate so concerned about keeping the earth exactly as it is? Where did the Grand Canyon come from? Or those special global warming holiday havens, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard? Why did populations in North American SW disappear or move, or the Cities in the Andes whose mountains are still rising. Or what will happen to the cities surrounding the Great Lakes whose bottoms are still rising from the overburden of the last ice age? Find ways to live with it !! Move! Stop unnecessary pollution, sure, but please do not end up on the side that destroys an economy, redistributes and channels money into politically “good” enterprises. In other words, no friggin boot heels. Even Napoleon knew enough not use New Orleans as his main port in the New world.

  172. In this article Mr. Bailey points to rising global temperatures (actually no increase for over a decade) to make his point that man’s activity on earth is causing global warming. We know that since the end of the little ice age, about 1870, the earth has been warming. Sighting rising temperatures and the effects that rising temperatures have had, or will have, does not advance the theory of man caused global warming (AGW) one iota since any naturally caused temperature increase would have the exact effects being sighted.

    The theory that solar activity is the driver of global temperatures explains every phenomena that the AGW crowed sights including rising CO2 levels. One of the foundational principals in “Real” science is to welcome any attack upon a given theory in the hope that truth will be reviled. We know from many sources now that this is not the case with AGW. The theory of AGW is championed for economic reasons, political reasons, even religious reasons but science, real science, does not support it.

  173. When we invented houses we came up with windows and doors and hinges and locks. When we invented cars. . . We built roads. Can we make a connection here? We are problem solvers, maybe also problem makers, but we do not regress into tribal idiocy. The science, any science is rarely ever settled. 97% of scientists are most likely from the bottom of the class. What do the top 3% say?

    1. Most likely at the bottom of thw class?

      How did you assemble the data that led you to that conclusion ?

      Did you peruse journal citation rankings ? Compare bibliometric scores ? Spit to windward in the dark ?

      1. Because the number from John Cook was faked he cooked the books.
        If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

        http://richardtol.blogspot.com…..ks-97.html

  174. When we invented houses we came up with windows and doors and hinges and locks. When we invented cars. . . We built roads. Can we make a connection here? We are problem solvers, maybe also problem makers, but we do not regress into tribal idiocy. The science, any science is rarely ever settled. 97% of scientists are most likely from the bottom of the class. What do the top 3% say?

    1. … that we’re cooking the pot and soiling the cage.

  175. Central planning has worked so well with economies. I mean really look at Venezuela. I think we should let the central planners manage the global temperature of the planet. After all, how bad a job could they really do? To answer Bailey’s final question; The answer is no amount of evidence can convince me global warming is man-made. Look at the Vostok ice temperature readings dating back 400,000 years. The planet is constantly getting hotter and colder. And frankly, it doesn’t matter if it is man made. Are we going to allow central planners attempt to control the global temperature of the planet like they attempt to control economies? That is suicidal! That would lead to our destruction, not climate change. Just live your lives in peace and freedom. The planet will work itself out.

  176. Two points:

    1. Before you can evaluate the technical evidence, you must understand the field. I would be reluctant to accept anyone without a PhD and significant research experience as a primary source on climate change. Non-primary sources (Al Gore, Ronald Bailey, … ) who write as though they are primary sources (as Bailey sort of does here, but Al Gore never does) have less credibility. All non-experts (Bailey, Gore, most of the rest of us) can do is weigh the credibility of primary sources. I look to the professional societies (National Academy, etc., etc., … ) for a professional evaluation of the evidence.

    2. The climate change debate is like trench warfare. I have watched conservatives abandon one trench after another. First, there was no climate change. Then there might be some, but it’s not bad for us. Then it might be bad for us, but solutions (reducing CO2 emissions) are worse.

  177. Any writer for Reason meets the bar for me as a reasonable person. My disagreement with Global Warming Alarrmism began with it’s beginnings-as a well publicized untrue movie in documentary form based on a very well publicized as untrue Global Warming Alarmism slideshow presentation titled “An Inconvenient Truth.” I’m 55, now retired, and have been following the politics since. The most glaring issue for me is how the Brits washed their hands of a glaringly obvious fraudulent academic-government effort to push Global Warming Alarmism and punish “deniers.” The lack of publicity about that outside of conservative sites was and is akin the the politica support Obama gets from the press on many of his glaring scandals.
    In your article, one recent scientific finding is that empirical research using underwater sensors done by the Jet Propulsion Labrotory shows no “hey, timing is just co-incidental” sudden ocean heat hidng (jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321).

  178. I think there are four fundamental questions when it comes to climate change:
    1) Is the earth warming? The answer is pretty clearly yes, although the degree is in some dispute.
    2) Is it anthropogenic?
    The earth is currently in an interglacial period that began 10-12,000 years ago. By definition, it has warmed significantly since then. The industrial age coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age, and the earth has warmed since its end. These are incontrovertible proofs that natural warming has occurred. The impact of CO2 is still in question, in degree if nothing else. How much of the warming is anthropogenic is an open question?
    3) Is it harmful or helpful (in aggregate)?
    CO2 helps plants grow. Warming increases the growing season, lowers weather related deaths, and has other beneficial effects. Warming may also raise sea levels, increase drought for some regions, and have other deleterious effects. Will the losses outweigh the gains?
    4) Can we reasonably do anything about it?
    Changes to our civilization come with economic costs. None of the changes proposed to date will slow the rate of warming appreciably. The rising third world will not reduce their rate of carbon emissions.In short, nothing we can reasonably do will have any effect on the anthropogenic component of climate change. We can wreck our economy in mitigation attempts, but we would be better served in targeting resources to better handle the negative effects of climate change while enjoying the benefits.

    1. Very succinctly stated! Nicely done!

  179. As Max Planck noted:

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    Unfortunately, the demographics favor the catastrophists, who have dominated education (at least in the West) for a few generations now. Of course when the cooling comes, it’ll be pretty difficult to keep up the ruse. Maybe even Ron will be convinced by then.

  180. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 30% higher than
    it’s been in past 800,000 years?! Really? Scientists were studying
    CO2 in the atmosphere back in the 19th century. The CO2 level in
    1850 was found to be 425 parts per million. The current level is
    roughly 400 parts per million. There are a lot of forces involved
    which put CO2 into the atmosphere and take it out. Human
    activities only contribute 4% of the CO2 that goes into the earth’s
    atmosphere each year. It’s a tribute to man’s ego that we believe
    that our 4% is more important that the natural forces the contribute
    the other 96% — especially since those forces and their input tend
    to fluctuate quite a bit.

    1. Well, it is possible that our small contributions are the last straw and have the effect of triggering a catastrophe, but all that would show is that we are living on a knife’s edge, anyway. In that case, we could neither unlight the match that started the conflagration, nor put the fire out — we would do best to seek shelter for ourselves and the property we needed and let the fire burn itself out. In other words, our best course may very well be to keep living our lives and trying to increase our ability to adapt to and protect ourselves from a harsh world. If Mother Nature is THAT sensitive to every little thing we say and do, then we should just be ourselves, quit trying to walk on eggshells, and do our best to weather the storms (or the droughts, as we’re suffering here in California).

  181. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  182. Totalitarianism, like Islam and Christianity, already has “the” solution in hand and its minions merely cast about for pretexts to ban something. Ask them instead: “how much power is global warming adding?” Trilbys do not know enough math to define units of energy or power, so this scrapes off the deadweight. If you tell me how much added solar heat is “being trapped” by water vapor and other GHGs and I’ll tell you the diameters of the mylar disks “we” could sell debentures to put in orbit and reflect that energy away. Questions like what is government? what’s it for? Does the Sun’s heat output vary over time? What measures energy? What is the time derivative of work? THOSE are the questions to ask if you seek real information rather than the recorded message of the latest Prophet. I recommend “Opinions and Social Pressure” by Solomon Asch for an explanation of how easily widespread falsehood becomes subjective truth.

  183. First, I think I can answer the question of why Antarctic ice is increasing. The temperature in Antarctica is so far below 0? that snow essentially never melts there. Thus, with increasing precipitation, the land there continues to collect more snow which compacts into ice.

    Now on to the rest of your post. It is clear that the earth has been warming ever since the last ice age. One has only to map the boundaries of the glaciers to see that overall, they are receding. Why are you and just about every other writer so focused on whether the warming is anthropogenic, naturally increasing or completely random. We know that the earth has been much colder and much warmer in the past. If the current warming trend is not related to human activity, is it somehow less of a threat than if it is related to human activity? The first question that needs to be resolved is whether a warmer earth will be more or less hospitable to life. We have yet to determine that. If warming continues, arable lands will become deserts and frigid zones will become arable. That means that we have changes coming, with which we will have to cope. Different species will have to migrate in various directions as they have for eons. Some will go extinct while new species will appear, if you believe in evolution. That is the essential mandate of natural selection and we humans have only a very limited privilege of modifying that process.

    Continued in next comment. . . .

  184. If we can determine that a warmer earth will indeed be less habitable for us, then we have to find a way to either change it or accommodate it, and I maintain that that is just as true if the warming is not “man made” as it is if the warming is “man made.” My point is that defining “natural” as anything that takes place without human participation/intervention is arbitrary and unproductive.

    Even if the warming is human caused, what in God’s name makes you or anyone else think it is any more modifiable than if it were caused by other than man’s activities. Changing the course of 7 billion humans may very well turn out to be far more difficult than changing the course of a river, which is difficult enough. We know that most of the Carbon entering the atmosphere is coming from the newly industrializing nations and can we really expect them to slow down their economic engines, just because we already industrialized and achieved the highest standard of living and now worry that other less developed countries doing the same thing will contribute to global warming? If China, India, Indonesia and all the undeveloped African nations should decide that they are as entitled to the higher standard of living that comes from industrializing, are we better off learning to live with a warmer earth, or trying to force those nations to continue in relative poverty, by force if necessary.

    Something to think about. . . . . .

  185. If you want some arguments to convince you that this article is an incompetent
    attempt to convince naiive folks, try this critiqueby those who actually
    know somethng about global warming, and therefore are skeptics
    of alarmists exaggerations of same. It’s posted on the highest rated scientifc/climate website
    out there

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..hes-wrong/

    1. It’s proper to reference Mr. Monckton’s critique of Mr. Bailey’s seemingly “road-to-Damascus” conversion from perceptively critical scientific skepticism to a decidedly uncritical reception of the Climategate correspondents’ prevarications, suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, “pal review,” dataset-“adjusting,” and general policy-pushing violations of the professional standards acceptable in the sciences. For one thing, Mr. Bailey fails to appreciate the concept of instrumental error in the measurement of surface temperatures, which Mr. Watts’ SurfaceStations.org project had addressed.

      – continued –

  186. C’mon, Mr. Bailey, ‘fess up.

    This is your April Fool’s Day jape for 2015.

  187. This article is very poorly crafted.

    Bailey starts by stating he believes in CAGW, or catastrophic man made global warming.

    The rest of the article only supports the position of AGW (without the catastrophic). Since no informed skeptic disputes AGW, the article completely fails to deliver on it’s actual premise. I have no idea why Bailey is convinced the outlook is dire.

  188. Modern humanity “grew up” in a certain climate regime. It’s really stupid to mess with this since we’re quite a bit more fragile than people think. If we ever warm the oceans enough to release their frozen solid methane hydrates … we might just go extinct. The real worry is if we hit non-linear feedback such as this that throws us into a completely new regime that is not conducive for civilizaiton to exist.

    Again, it is just stupid to play with all this and it will take government intervention to deal with it. Markets will be too late unless government creates a market and accelerates new tech.

    Here’s hoping…

    1. And yet government has attempted to “create a market” for decades, and we are no closer than before.

      Frankly, we are not as fragile as you seem to think. The earth has had many, many times the CO2 levels in the past, and life flourished. It has had far lower levels, and life continued, but life does better with higher CO2 levels–and with greater temperatures. Our civilization did not begin until temperatures increased, and historically has advanced during the warming periods (Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period, post-Little Ice Age period). We struggled and even regressed during the cooling periods in between.

  189. Everything he listed was evidence of global warming. None of it was evidence of catastrophic, human caused global warming.

    We probably have had a slight effect on it with our greenhouse gas emissions and change in land use. But there is not evidence that it is all or even mostly us. Nor is there evidence of it being catastrophic.

    When you consider the benefits that cheap power has given humankind and the cost in hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives for making the kinds of changes proposed for so little difference it’s unconscionable.

  190. This interview with an ex Carbon Modeller for the Australian Government absolutely DE…..STROYS the CO2 CAGW hypothesis.
    It underlines the fundamental demonstrably wrong elements of CAGW and anyone who watches it cannot refute the fact that the CAGW is scientifically baseless.

    Yes, it’s THAT good. Pure, unadulterated logic and science. Global warming has been thoroughly debunked.

    Watch….and learn.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3doCKhI7Q

  191. A MUST WATCH for everyone. I’m re-posting because this is the best resource for laymen regarding the man made global warming hypothesis you will find on the net.

    Dr David Evans breaks it down succinctly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3doCKhI7Q

  192. The uncertainty in the data has not been adequately addressed.

  193. What Evidence Would Persuade You [to Halfheartedly Accept] That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

  194. What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

    Like King Canute and his famous tides demonstration … there isn’t anything you can do to stop climate change … regardless if it is natural or man-made or some combination of both. So what would be the point (other than to give unethical governments an excuse for implementing taxes or a green fascist agenda)?

    Evidence to persuade me would include showing that the warming being observed now is somehow different from the warming observed during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods.

    You’d have to tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth should be.

    You’d have to show that the evidence of the sun causing phases of warming and cooling in our climate while oceans act to moderate it … is wrong. Further, you’d have to show the evidence is the sun is going into an inactive phase … which means cooling is coming … is also wrong.

    The fact of crop failures several years running would be a good indicator that climate change … never mind man-made climate change … is a problem. See Maunder Minimum.

    If you’re going to do something about climate change … develop adaptation strategies so we can grow enough food when its too short of growing season to grow outside north of 45 latitude.

  195. None could because based on proper scientific methodology, the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is based on an “untestable” or “unfalsifiable” hypothesis which is pseudoscience. This is because we don’t know how the climate would have changed without human influences since there is no earth to which we can make a comparison without humans on it. Therefore we cannot separate human causality from natural variation in climate using empirical means. So true or not, it’s just bad science that is relying entirely on speculative prediction (prophecy?) rather than a demonstration of causality through empiricism. That also means the AGW theory is subject to a wide realm of prejudices and imaginative fantasies including apocalyptic delusions. When we study prophetic apocalyptic mass movements we also find some striking parallels to cults that believe the imminent end of the world will be brought about by human sin (burning fossil fuels in this case) and the sea levels will rise (flood myth found in all religions) and wrathful weather will punish us unless we attain salvation by taking action and saving the animals. Adherents are dogmatic and demean skeptics as heretics (deniers) and science is appealed to as an infallible authority of high priests (scientism). So when a comprehensive evaluation of AGW including human behavioral mass psychology is considered, it empirically supports the hypothesis that AGW is a modern apocalyptic cult and I’m never joining your cult.

  196. None could because based on proper scientific methodology, the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is based on an “untestable” or “unfalsifiable” hypothesis which is pseudoscience. This is because we don’t know how the climate would have changed without human influences since there is no earth to which we can make a comparison without humans on it. Therefore we cannot separate human causality from natural variation in climate using empirical means. So true or not, it’s just bad science that is relying entirely on speculative prediction (prophecy?) rather than a demonstration of causality through empiricism. That also means the AGW theory is subject to a wide realm of prejudices and imaginative fantasies including apocalyptic delusions. When we study prophetic apocalyptic mass movements we also find some striking parallels to cults that believe the imminent end of the world will be brought about by human sin (burning fossil fuels in this case) and the sea levels will rise (flood myth found in all religions) and wrathful weather will punish us unless we attain salvation by taking action and saving the animals. Adherents are dogmatic and demean skeptics as heretics (deniers) and science is appealed to as an infallible authority of high priests (scientism). So when a comprehensive evaluation of AGW including human behavioral mass psychology is considered, it empirically supports the hypothesis that AGW is a modern apocalyptic cult and I’m never joining your cult.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.