Climate Change

Climate Change, Scientism, and the Politics of Certitude

New York Times columnist notes the uncertainties in climate science; progressives want him fired.

|

GlobalWarmingQuestions
Andrew Parfenov/Dreamstime

The balance of the scientific evidence supports the claim that man-made climate change is happening. That being said, there are many uncertainties with regard to how fast the climate might warm over the course of this century, how much it might warm, how fast sea level will rise, and so forth.

Climate scientists try to get a handle on the trajectory of climate change using computer climate models. When compared to observational temperature trends, the models' outputs have been somewhat less than robust. University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, who is a long-time skeptic of projections of future catastrophic warming, finds that computer model temperature increases average about 3 times greater than the actual temperature trends. A January 2017 paper in the Journal of Climate by researchers who unquestionably represent mainstream climate science corrected for satellite data trends and the inclusion of stratospheric cooling and also found that the models are warming 1.7 times faster than the observational temperatures.

In his column "Climate of Complete Certainty," New York Times opinion writer Bret Stephens sought to account for the skepticism of high percentage of Americans toward the dire warnings from environmentalists about impending catastrophic climate change. Stephens accepts that man-made warming is real; however, he observes that much else is still a matter of probabilities. From his column:

That's especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn't to deny science. It's to acknowledge it honestly….

Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one's moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know—as all environmentalists should—that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

As it happens, hundreds of thousands of climate activists this past weekend participated in the Peoples Climate March in Washington, D.C., along with subsidiary marches in 300 other cities. It is evident that many progressive marchers would eschew Stephens' warning against marrying uncertain science to political power and are entirely certain that climate change requires the complete transformation of the U.S. economy and society along more communitarian lines. It is not too much to say that environmentalists' apocalyptic climate rhetoric helped elect our current president.

The New York Post is reporting the nasty progressive backlash against Stephens who aim to get him fired from the Times.

For more background on the human wreckage of scientific errors made by political environmentalists see my book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century. I also reprise failed predictions of impending environmental catastrophe from the first Earth Day in 1970.

NEXT: The Moral Case for Tax Cuts

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. the models’ outputs have been somewhat less than robust

    The models have been crap.

    1. Crap is a good word, however I prefer the less emotional “wrong”.

      1. are they wrong or inaccurate and sometimes there is a difference

        1. “Inaccurate” is a type of wrong, and if i’m not mistaken some of the most relied-upon models can’t even predict past temperatures when run backwards.

          1. If you use enough terms in your modelling equations, you can exactly match any set of data. IPCC’s flagship model matches the records for about 1960 to 1998 almost exactly … including the cooling from the two completely *unpredictable* major volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo. They don’t match prior to 1960 and they don’t match after 1998.

            Yes, we’re warming. Yes, our emissions have affected it. No – it sure doesn’t look like catastrophe, instead of just something we’ll need to be adapting to, when checking the actual measured warming as compared to the models.

            1. “Yes, our emissions have affected it.”

              This doesn’t really say much. The ~20yr hiatus is a strong indicator that natural fluctuations are at least as large as any human forcing. The real truth is that no one can say with real scientific confidence what the magnitude of AGW is.

              1. fluctuations are short lived. Human forcing is 1000’s of years. Slow and steady wins the race.

        2. Ron Bailey knows bettter, aving been eyewitness to supposedly libertarian but entirely mercenary PR firms repeatedly assemble the same 3 dozen scientists it pays to attend present a bizarrely cherry-picked caricature of climate science, to the same few hundred teapartistas and the oil patch and fundamentlist sponsors who pay for the proceedings. There is nothing disinterested or scientific about what indeed remain media events of the most deplorable sort.

          The ‘International Climaye Conferences; that generate Heartland”s genre of pseudo-reportage are the stuff of Christopher Buckley novels, the sort of place where you can see Ralph Reed break bread with John Fund, ( Like Stephens, late of the WSJ Ed Board), or listen to a climate rappper perform German. Taken together with the countermarching of the enviromental left, they comprise the greatest scientific comedy of manners of our time.

          What’s tragic is the disappearance of science editors ,and even whole science sections , from the mastheads of once influential journals on the right.

          1. E: Click on the first link – it’s to Heartland were Pat Michaels himself acknowledges man-made warming. As I have said repeatedly, the balance of evidence has persuaded me that it could become a significant problem for humanity as the century advances. What I object to is the progressive is/ought leap to the only solution being a post-capitalist utopia.

            1. The balance of evidence from .004% of earth’s history

            2. What is happening as I see it, is that the conservatives are barely coming to the discussion table. Being a liberal, the most important thing there is, is to create a solution to climate change that will last for centuries.

              1. Because the goat entrails demand it? The Earth is still CO2 starved. We are also still colder than the HCO. Warmer would be a net benefit relative to where we are now.

                But if you are convinced that CO2 is a demon gas that will kill mother Gaia, then the only rational solution is ramping up nuclear power. Why am I sure that you’re not interested in that?

                1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.1.17 @ 8:23PM|#

                  This place is called REASON. Is it reasonable to act irrational all the while telling yourself you are superior to main stream science.

                  1. Well that was certainly a REASONed reply. Mainstream science says that the models are wrong.

                    Who’s being irrational again?

                    1. Mainstream science says that the models are wrong.

                      Says who?

                    2. Perhaps the link in Nature I provided? Reading is FUNDAMENTAL.

                    3. NotAnotherSkippy|5.1.17 @ 9:19PM|#

                      Not much to go on not being to look beyond the paywall.

                      Again this space is called Reason. Is it reasonable to ignor the best in the world at climate science. Snark is not an argument. Do you really have evidence to the contrary to overturn mainstream science?

                      https://goo.gl/Rn6mUW

                      There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s – both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behavior over the past century without CO2 warming

                      Models don’t need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects – and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you’d be in a car crash, you wouldn’t get in the car (or at the very least, you’d wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

                    4. There was a mile thick glacier where I live, 10,000 years ago. It receded before the Industrial Revolution. Tell me more about computer models, and their accuracy in measuring .004% of Earth’s history.

                    5. https://goo.gl/LrL2It

                      Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.

                      The IPCC projection is doing very well actually. Contrarian projections are a crushing failure. If you are following any of these contrarians, you can see how far wrong they are.

                    6. Why focus on just the models then? How about the other mountains of data indicating the same thing? Is that the only cherry left on the tree?

                    7. If you are talking the John Christy point of view, that is a very biased point of view. If the IPCC models are quite close,why can’t you accept them.

      2. “Wrong” provides no scale. It is a binary choice. “Crap” provides magnitude.

    2. The models have been crap.

      In the current parody-to-reality inversion, we really should add it to the list, right?

    3. Models can accurately predict the water vapor in the atmosphere from the amount of co2. That is a very good start on the process. Every model on earth can take out human influence on the climate and all models will fail to show warming. It is a very clear indicator that humans are warming the climate.

  2. How dare he express doubt about the Holy of Holies! The Angry Volcano God shalt smite him!

    1. This is textbook behavior of a cult. Contradicting the faith, even thinking you have good intentions, gets you ejected and crucified.
      Let’s count the hours until NYT pulls the article from economic pressure.

      1. To a faithful true-believer, there is no crime more serious than heresy.

    2. Praise be to SCIENCE!!!!

    3. 9200 peer reviewed papers come to the conclusion that we are warming and need to act faster than we are now. This space we are in is called “REASON”. Is it reasonable to ignor our very best minds in the world showing us a conservative look at the future. The IPCC actually projects conservatively. This is actually very dangerous stuff that is working very slowly and very profoundly.

      https://goo.gl/LU5N5P

      General[edit]
      Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
      There is a clear human influence on the climate
      It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
      IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become.[15]

      1. 9200 peer reviewed papers come to the conclusion that we are warming and need to act faster than we are now.

        Let’s break this down…

        9200 peer reviewed papers come to the conclusion that we are warming…

        I will stipulate this.

        …and need to act faster than we are now.

        But not this.

        On what possible basis is this conclusion drawn? I’ll accept a breakdown of the 9200 papers along any dimensions that you wish to divine. Please show your work.

        1. need to act faster than we are now

          Science fraud alert. This is advocacy, not science.

          1. Actually that is right in the IPCC conclusions. The longer we take to get off fossil fuels, the more it costs us in the future. Less climate damage, faster co2 mitigation.

            1. But you didn’t cite the IPCC or (presumably) the AR5 conclusions. You cited 9200 papers.

              All the scientific findings that you can cite that conclude that the world is warming due to CO2 do not yield the conclusion that hampering growth and development today in order to reduce CO2 tomorrow has a greater benefit than cost. That argument is much more tenuous and relies on assumptions both massive and sensitive.

              Surely you know that economic studies of the difference between acting now and waiting 50 years and acting then show little cost of waiting. The economics of growth and the incomparable benefits of expanding inexpensive fossil fuel usage to lift hundreds of millions onto the development ladder make the climate activists’ case that forgoing those improvements in order to save the effects of a couple degrees of warming a hard one to prove.

              1. Co2 is slow and steady and wins the race for warming. Sea level rise alone in the future will cost trillions. Eventually the mega cities of the world will either be reinforced or abandoned or both. Less than 1% gdp investment per year to put in 100% renewable energy to get us off of pollution. 20% gdp per year down the road if we stay on the same path.

                1. Co2 is slow and steady and wins the race for warming.

                  Economic growth is fast and exponential and wins the race for benefits over costs.

                  Production change is exponential. CO2 change per dollar GWP is sublinear. Degree warming change per CO2 is sublinear. It takes a true catastrophe to overturn those trends.

                  Just using your numbers, a 1% hit on growth from 3% to 2% cuts the >10x GWP to

                2. Co2 is slow and steady and wins the race for warming.

                  Economic growth is fast and exponential and wins the race for benefits over costs.

                  Production change is exponential. CO2 change per dollar GWP is sublinear. Degree warming change per CO2 is sublinear. It takes a true catastrophe to overturn those trends.

                  Just using your numbers, a 1% hit on growth from 3% to 2% cuts the greater than 10x GWP to less than 5x by 2100. Applying your presumably-Stern-derived 20% GWP hit at that time still yields a GWP 60% greater than the GWP of the cooler alternative.

                  And you really have to love taxing the poor to believe humanity should sacrifice greatly today for the benefit of our great-grandchildren who will be 5 to 10 times wealthier.

              2. co2 and water vapor alone warm the earth plenty. There are many more positive feedbacks down the road to contend with. Earth is actually a very strong positive feedback climate system. We are just in the beginning of a very long warming trend.

      2. “Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.

        Well, unprecedented if you don’t actually look at the historical record. There has been no acceleration in MSL rise; it bounces around in the 1.5-3mm/yr range as it has for the last 150 years.

        “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.”

        Confidence that was so increased that they removed a mean estimate for ECS and lowered the bottom range of the estimate. In scinece-y circles it’s generally not an indication that your understanding is improved when you remove estimates and expand the range.

        1. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

          It appears according to NASA we are rising at 3.4 mm per year. If you are talking short term sea level rise I can see what you are talking about. Long term is what needs to paid attention to.

          1. The satellite record only goes back about 25 years and shows no acceleration. Longer data sets require going to tidal gauges such as those aggregated here. Note that correction for subsidence and isostatic rebound are required for any meaningful analysis. Taking all of that data into account I don’t see how anyone can claim to be worried about accelerating sea levels inundating us.

            1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.1.17 @ 9:32PM|#

              There has already been acceleration of sea level rise. With continuing addition of ghg’s to the atmopshere, we will get increased radiation of infrared returning to earth. How can that not increase melting of ice on our planet? We increase energy returning to earth when we pollute ghg’s into the atmosphere. That is a very basic science that is bullet proof.

              https://goo.gl/LyKdCB

              And now to the really important part, which is not the math but the physics. Whether sea level showed 20th-century acceleration or not, it’s the century coming up which is of concern. And during this century, we expect acceleration of sea level rise because of physics. Not only will there likely be nonlinear response to thermal expansion of the oceans, when the ice sheets become major contributors to sea level rise, they will dominate the equation. Their impact could be tremendous, it could be sudden, and it could be horrible.

              The relatively modest acceleration in sea level so far is not a cause for great concern, but neither is it cause for comfort. The fact is that statistics simply doesn’t enable us to foresee the future beyond a very brief window of time. Even given the observed acceleration, the forecasts we should attend to are not from statistics but from physics.

  3. New York Times columnist notes the uncertainties in climate science

    His argument was akin to: Scientists disagree over what sort of diet is healthiest, therefore it’s okay to be morbidly obese.

    It’s a bullshit argument.

    1. Huh. I didn’t read it that way. It more read like scientists agree that being morbidly obese is bad. But it is reasonable to be skeptical that the paleo diet is the answer.

    2. His argument was akin to

      And by akin to you mean not at all like, right?

      1. I don’t think that reading comprehension is the strong suit of Stormy Dragon.

        I’m certain that he benefited when the College Board dropped analogies from the SAT test.

    3. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, Stormy?

    4. And your argument is akin to: “I make a poor analogy and call the conclusion bullshit”

  4. When I ask the catastrophic climate sheeple, why are “scientists” adjusting the model temperature estimates lower rather than keeping them what observationsy reflect? I get the usual answer that all studies are adjusted and climate science numbers are being adjusted according to accepted practices. In fact, the numbers are being adjusted to lower temperature estimates so “scientists” are doing us all a favor because higher actual estimates would be more scary.

    My impression is that adjusting incorrect estimates from 3 times to 1.7 times actual temperatures is so the computer models cannot be as easily written off as inaccurate because the margins are closer. John Christy makes the argument that scientific observations and computer models are off by a factor of 3, implying that something is not correct. The climate sheeple cannot have their agenda deemed anything but correct and catastrophic.

    1. Temperatures are adjusted both up and down, and this is intended to offset changing conditions around the temperature measurement stations. Of course, this also serves to illustrate how absolutely useless ground station data really is.

      Practically speaking, when you layer guesses and then interpolate the results what you end up with is garbage.

      1. its my understanding that far more temperatures are modified up rather than down and when it comes to variables due to interpolation errors it should be closer to 50% up and down

        1. Yes, and furthermore NOAA likes to shut down rural measurement stations yet continues to collect data from Urban area’s even though doing so is highly illogical given the well known heat island effect that all urban area’s have in common. This has been known for something like 100 years, how can they ignore such an obvious issue in their records? Radio silence on that point.

          Adjusting temperature records at all is an exercise in futility. You’re replacing observation with guesswork and calling it science. While I admit it’s possible that their ‘educated guesses’ represent what would have happened if ‘x, y, or z’ had not happened it’s also possible that it is not. Either way, they neatly sidestep the whole argument by saying that our temperature record is woefully inadequate without their guesses to make a framework which amounts to a fancy way of saying ‘we can’t know either way, but if we stop guessing we stop getting paid’ in my view.

          1. how can they ignore such an obvious issue in their records?
            the cynic in me says it’s ignored because it spoils the narrative. It’s amazing that Stephens’ relatively modest, if not quaint, suggestion of honesty in science is treated as apostasy. But that’s how cultists react.

            1. ” John Christy makes the argument that scientific observations and computer models are off by a factor of 3, implying that something is not correct. ”

              Possibly John Christy, whose done it before, but did the right thing when , contrary to what he’d bee editorializing for 16 years, he coauthored a letter of retraction in 2005, admitting to miscalculating the global satellite temperature trend since 1978– it was going up, not down:

              Christy, J. R. and R. W. Spencer, 2005: Correcting Temperature Data Sets. 11 November 2005: 972. Science. DOI:10.1126/science.310.5750.972

              “We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component.

              We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1.

              This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ? 0.05 K/decade.”

              1. E: That was in 2005 – when I noted the UAH correction in my column “We Are All Global Warmers Now” – basically the UAH data is just bit warmer than the RSS satellite data. Corrections are being made all of the time including to the surface datasets. I would hate to think that you are doing just a bit of rhetorical cherry-picking.

              2. he coauthored a letter of retraction in 2005, admitting to miscalculating the global satellite temperature trend since 1978– it was going up, not down:

                The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1.

                0.123 – 0.035 is not less than zero.

          2. Atmospheric temperatures are highly variable and subject to a lot of noise, but they’re almost irrelevant anyways since most of the heat mass is in the ocean.

            https://goo.gl/AV814E

    2. Are you talking about the predicted temperature trends from the models, or the historical data that has been adjusted?

    3. Why would someone want to listen to one person (John Christy) over several hundred scientists evaluating 9200 papers. This space is called Reason. Why are you looking for reasons not to accept the science? We can warm more or we can warm less based on our ghg emissions.

      https://goo.gl/Egv6mq

      Projections[edit]
      Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.

      The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 ?C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 ?C for many scenarios

      The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.

      The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.

      Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume
      Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades

      Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.

      Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO2, which means climate change will continue even if CO2 emissions are stopped.

  5. Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well.

    “Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “‘Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”

    And herein lies the problem. A genomics scientist is a scientist and therefore knows all about the climate and what is or isn’t valid.

    1. $park?, let me ax you something: why do you hate science, and the Earth?

        1. You know, i’m not going to blame Syndrome of a Down’s for ruining my younger brother’s life, but he did make some questionable life choices after he starting listening to them in high school.

          1. I like them better when I can’t really understand the lyrics.

            1. That is how I feel about all those progressive emo screamcore choirs.

    2. There is no alternative required. For a science-priest she seems unaware of the underlying tenants of her faith. Does that make her a heretic, or merely one of the new breed of science-priests who reject the ‘old testament’?

      What is a Null Hypothesis? Why can’t you prove one?


  6. The balance of the scientific evidence supports the claim that man-made climate change is happening. That being said, there are many uncertainties with regard to how fast the climate might warm over the course of this century; how much it might warm; how fast sea level will rise; and so forth.

    Then:


    “Climate scientists try to get a handle on the trajectory of climate change using computer climate models. When compared to observational temperature trends, the models’ outputs have been somewhat less than robust.”

    So you see, while we don’t know how large of an effect it might represent on a baseline that doesn’t exist we can say with certainty that it is in fact happening. That seems to sum up most of the arguments for manmade climate change in a nutshell. Even the ‘observational’ data from NOAA is somewhat suspect. Satellite Data might be a pretty good barometer but it’s also been around for less than 100 years out of Earth’s several billion years of history.

    Is conservation a good idea in and of itself? I’d say yes. Does that have anything to do with mankinds supposed impact on Planet Earth through CO2 emissions? Not at all. If they can call the macro trend, one would think they could somewhat predict the micro, right?

    I would love to know why ‘climate science’ see’s only doom in raising temperatures. Odd, that, don’t you think?

    1. The balance of the scientific evidence supports the claim that man-made climate change is happening.

      Actually this is wrong.

      There has been no definitive, much less quantitative, demonstration of the effect of human ghg emissions on temperature, much less “climate.”

      We have to assume there must be some effect because CO2 definitely absorbs IR radiation, but what exactly the total effect is, no one really knows. If someone tells you they know for sure, they’re wrong or lying.

      Yeah, there are papers where they estimate these things, but they’re all built entirely on assumptions and they’re very broad estimates, nothing definitive.

      1. Juice,

        The way that statement is wrong is that it understates the consensus. Evidence for Climate change driven by co2 is overwhelming.

        “We have to assume there must be some effect because CO2 definitely absorbs IR radiation, but what exactly the total effect is, no one really knows. If someone tells you they know for sure, they’re wrong or lying.”

        You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        1. “Consensus” =/= “Evidence”

          The article you link to says the exact same thing that Juice says:

          The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

          This is what we call “deductive” reasoning. I.e., we know that CO2 traps heat, ergo we know that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat rather than less.

          That’s 100% of your argument, just as Juice says.

          The empirical evidence supports this conclusion considerably less robustly than the deductive reasoning does. In this way, your theory is much like the geocentric model of the universe in the fifteenth century, which was also supported by broad-based consensus and strong deductive logic.

          The thing about deductive reasoning? It’s resoundingly not science, and a brief read-up on the history of the scientific method will clue you in as to why.

      2. What we know is that, in the lab, all else being held constant, that doubling the amount of CO? in the gas mix increases the temperature by about 1.1?C.

        The problem is that the real world *isn’t* the lab and a lot of things change. Some of those changes operate to increase the effect of the simple doubling. Other changes operate to reduce the effect of the simple doubling. *That* is where the scientific conflict lies and what we *don’t* know.

        The main secondary effect is in water evaporation. H?0 is a *much* stronger greenhouse gas than the CO? itself. Higher temperatures means more water evaporation.

        *But*, and it’s a big *but*, it also increases cloudiness and clouds reflect the sunlight back out before it ever gets to the ground (or ocean). Different kinds of clouds and clouds at different altitudes also affect it differently. If there’s one thing the IPCC admits not really knowing enough about, it’s clouds … and then they proceed to just use a guesstimate multiplier for them and continues on its merry way.

        1. Worse than clouds are aerosols. Because the models have such a strong TCR/ECS the modelers needed a tuning variable to counteract such strong modeled feedback in the late 20th. Answer: global dimming, aka aerosols. The only problem is that more recent research is indicating that we’ve historically overestimated aerosols by a factor of 2, which means that the models are even more wrong…

        2. There is a clear handshake between co2 and water vapor. Co2 clearly increases wv as it (co2) increases. This is a very big positive feedback.

          https://goo.gl/bxu5Oc

          Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming.

          So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don’t mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

    2. With these rising temperatures of the past, is there any reason you see that this will not continue with our pollution of ghg’s? With decreasing albedo the earth will easily increase in its absorbtion of energy. These trends below are expected to increase in magnitude rather decrease. This space is called Reason. Is it reasonable to ignor these trends and poo poo them.

      https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

      GISTEMP

      Trend calculation: Start date: 1987 End date: 2017

      Trend: 0.176 ?0.057 ?C/decade (2?)

      Berkeley

      Trend calculation: Start date: 1987 End date: 2017

      Trend: 0.191 ?0.053 ?C/decade (2?)

      HadCRUT4krig v2

      Trend calculation: Start date: 1987 End date: 2017

      Trend: 0.194 ?0.057 ?C/decade (2?)

      1. *yawn* Temperature is logarithmic with CO2. The trends will be (and have been) decelerating with increased emissions. But if you really want to know the trends just go to the best aggregating source:

        WoodForTrees

        1. https://goo.gl/I99srP

          I don’t see a deceleration, do you?

    3. “I would love to know why ‘climate science’ see’s only doom in raising temperatures. Odd, that, don’t you think?”

      You know the answer is political. You can’t stampede folks if there’s no threat, and if that threat isn’t serious and imminent.

      If you were to conclude that warming could provide benefits that would balance out any negatives, or go further and suggest there may be a net benefit, you’d be shouted down to a larger degree than if you simply denied the warming was taking place.

      Indeed, we have solid data about warmer periods within recorded human history, and yet we’re still here, and better situated to take advantage of the effects.

      1. Nuwanda|5.1.17 @ 9:16PM|#

        9200 peer reviewed papers in the IPCCAR5 disagrees with you. That is why we need science is to show us this slow moving juggernaut is going to make living rougher in the future.

        1. Exactly which parts of my statement do you disagree with and why?

          1. The positives are a short list and the negatives are a long list. Do you want to go into this discussion? Its a duzy.

            https://goo.gl/h6BDfN

            Contents [hide]
            1 Definitions
            2 Temperature changes
            2.1 SRES emissions scenarios
            2.2 Projected warming in context
            3 Physical impacts
            3.1 Effects on weather
            3.1.1 Extreme weather
            3.2 Cryosphere
            3.3 Oceans
            3.3.1 Acidification
            3.3.2 Oxygen depletion
            3.3.3 Sea level rise
            3.3.4 Ocean temperature rise
            4 Regions
            4.1 Observed impacts
            4.2 Projected impacts
            5 Social systems
            5.1 Food supply
            5.1.1 Projections
            5.1.1.1 Food security
            5.1.2 Droughts and agriculture
            5.2 Health
            5.2.1 Projections
            5.3 Water resources
            5.4 Migration and conflict
            5.5 Aggregate impacts
            5.5.1 Observed impacts
            5.5.2 Projected impacts
            6 Biological systems
            6.1 Observed impacts on biological systems
            6.2 Projected impacts on biological systems
            7 Abrupt or irreversible changes
            7.1 Biogeochemical cycles
            7.2 Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets
            7.3 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
            7.4 Irreversibilities
            7.4.1 Commitment to radiative forcing
            7.4.2 Irreversible impacts
            8 Benefits of global warming
            8.1 CO2 fertilisation effect
            8.2 Human health
            8.3 Ice-free Northwest Passage
            8.4 Animal population changes
            9 Scientific opinion
            9.1 NASA data and tools

            1. Listen, now.

              I asked: “Exactly which parts of my statement do you disagree with and why?”

  7. “Scientism”

    Is that an obvious reference to Bakunin’s ‘God and the State’, where he attacks those who worship at the alter of science (specifically criticizing ‘scientific socialism’ that we today would called ‘communism’ or ‘Marxism’)?

    Also, Bret Stephens was silly to leave the WSJ for the NYT. WSJ’s audience seemed to have little problem with his attacks on Trump and the ‘conservatives’ that supported him. Did he really think NYT readers would enjoy intellectual diversity, too?

    1. My wife insists on subscribing to the Sunday NYT-they occasionally have good articles, if you can stomach having to glance at all the proggy BS headlines.

  8. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. since Global Warming Science has become its own religion its time to separate it from the government.

    1. Great take Ron! People who accept evidence are religious! Science deniers are the true free thinkers!

      1. If you’re going to attempt to condescend in a snarky manner, you might want to make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about.

        For instance, your continued misuse of the word ‘evidence’.

        1. x’); DROP USER Tony;|5.1.17 @ 5:26PM|#

          Science is all evidence based. Denial of science is based on the wish that it isn’t true.

  9. hundreds of thousands of climate activists this past weekend participated in the Peoples Climate March

    I saw more signs about Trump and about “erasing bodies” than about anything to do with climate. This was just the same leftist rabble-rousing we see every week now – and, incredibly, they’re holding another one today.

    1. The first thing I saw from the march was about abortion rights. Which, I guess, is tangentially connected to climate change, though I doubt that was the intent.

      1. Well, you see, humans are a disease to the planet, so more abortions = less humans = happier gaia.

  10. A lady walked past our yard Sat morning carrying a sign and presumably on her way to the DC climate march just as I was firing up our neighbor’s gas-powered lawnmower because my electric one is broken and I haven’t bothered to replace it yet. She shot me a scowl and crossed the street-I smirked back at her.

    1. Why would the electric mower be any better than the gas mower? This is what I don’t get about these people- where do they think their electricity is coming from?

      1. I bought an electric mower several years ago mainly because I didn’t want to have to bother lugging around a gas can and changing the oil, spark plugs and we have a very small lawn. The cord is a major pain in the ass though, so I plan to replace it with a battery powered mower eventually-my neighbor is letting me use his in the meantime.

        Most eco-douches think electric is always better because you can, hypothetically at least, generate all of it from wind and solar. But something like 95% still comes from coal, gas, or nuclear.

        1. Yeah, well, hypothetically, a pig can fly. He just needs to grow wings.

          1. Or get a trebuchet.

      2. Most small gasoline engines are a lot less efficient than large electric generation plants, even when you add in the transmission losses. They are also a lot more convenient because batteries and extension cords suck and gasoline is a very compact way to store energy.

      3. I live in the boonies and only use a mower 2-2 times each spring to clear a fire break. An electric mower is much better for my purposes, since no gas has to be stored, and I don’t have to empty the tank while it waits 11 months. I don’t mind the cord. I just start near the house / socket and work away. No big deal.

      4. I mow with a battery mower very nicely.

    2. she probably requires her illegal immigrant yard workers to use sickles to maintain her yard

      1. Sickles? What are you, some kind of maniac?!

        You give them scissors.

        1. Real men use machetes…

          1. All those are dangerous. My orphans make do with dental floss.

            1. If your orphans lack the muscle tone to pull the grass up with their hands, try upping their caloric allowance to 500cal/day for a couple weeks during the summer.

              1. If they can’t pull the grass by their hands, they can use their teeth to get the caloric intake until they’re strong enough to use their hands.

      2. There is nothing in her yard anymore that can be maintained using a cycle ? a hammer maybe. She has ripped out her grass lawn and all the trees, none which were native to her area, and replaced them all with rock. Though now she wonders why her house is so much hotter in the summer, ups the use of the AC and now campaigns against the high electrical rates in her area.

      3. There is nothing in her yard anymore that can be maintained using a cycle ? a hammer maybe. She has ripped out her grass lawn and all the trees, none which were native to her area, and replaced them all with rock. Though now she wonders why her house is so much hotter in the summer, ups the use of the AC and now campaigns against the high electrical rates in her area.

      4. There is nothing in her yard anymore that can be maintained using a cycle ? a hammer maybe. She has ripped out her grass lawn and all the trees, none which were native to her area, and replaced them all with rock. Though now she wonders why her house is so much hotter in the summer, ups the use of the AC and now campaigns against the high electrical rates in her area.

  11. The climate cult is starting to converge on eschatology-I could easily have fit in at the march if I were carrying a sign saying “The world will end on Dec 18, 2028-REPENT (your carbon sins) NOW!”

  12. Just curious, what’s the proper temperature supposed to be?

    I figure if the proper temp X, and the actual temperature is presently 0.95X, and the climate is warming, that’s a GOOD thing. If the actual temperature is presently 1.05X, and the climate is warming, that’s a BAD thing.

    So can someone tell me what the proper temperature is supposed to be and why? and then can they tell me whether climate change is presently moving us away from or toward the “proper temp”? Thanks.

    1. The proper temperature for them is what the global temperature was in the year of the birth of their savior Al Gore (1948).

      1. Oh shit! That’s very wrong! The proper temperature for the climate cult is the global temperature prior to industrialization, or when the first steam engine was built. This would have to be sometime in the late 1700s, or during the mini ice age.

        1. There is not “correct” temperature. But sudden, dramatic change is having and will continue to have negative effects for current life on this planet. The evidence is overwhelming and co2 as a driver of warming is well understood. At this point, you have to be brainwashed to not see it.

          1. I understand the “greenhouse” effect, and that is not heavily disputed. But with global temperatures being relatively flat over the past 20 years while CO2 levels have increased about 30% in that time span, I’d say that the cause and effect is not nearly as direct as climate change proponents have professed, and what the climate models have predicted.

            Climate change has not been dramatic under historical norms. It has seen an uptick since 1940, but has stalled over the past 20 years. Interestingly, global climate change over the past 70 years has correlated substantially better with solar activity than with CO2. Maybe we should create a program of launching virgins in spaceships toward the sun to pacify the sun god? I think it’ll be about as effective as the present mitigation programs, cost less and still give those who’ve made climate change a religion something to sacrifice.

            1. Trump could channel JFK:

              “Before this decade is out, we will put a virgin in the sun, and an end to climate change.”

          2. If there is no correct temp, then how do we know how severely our actions have impacted the planet?

    2. The temperature that varies around 300ppm co2.

  13. My gut tells me that the answer I’ll get to my question above is to marginalize me as a “denier” and then say we don’t have the luxury to contemplate our belly buttons on this as the clock is ticking and we’re reaching a “tipping point”, whatever that is. So we need to immediately surrender more liberty to multi-national institutions filled with the same experts who can’t seem to tell me what the proper temperature is supposed to be….

    Seems like a pretty good gig (being an international expert), if you can get it.

  14. Ron knows bettter.

    He has been eyewitness to supposedly libertarian but entirely mercenary PR firms repeatedly assemble the same 3 dozen scientists it pays to carry spears in this long running propaganda war and watched them present a bizarrely cherry-picked caricature of climate science to the same few hundred teapartistas and the oil patch reps who pay for the proceedings. There is nothing disinterested or scientific about them and they are indeed media events of the most deplorable sort.

    The events that generate Heartland”s genre of pseudo-reportage are the stuff of Christopher Buckley novels, the sort of place where you can see Ralph Reed break bread with John Fund, ( Like Stephens, late of the WSJ Ed Board), or listen to a climate rappper perform German. Taken together with the countermarching of the enviromental left, they comprise the greatest scientific comedy of manners of our time.

    What’s tragic is the disappearance of science editors ,and even whole science sections , from the mastheads of once influential journals on the right.

    1. All one has to do is watch the original Inconvenient Truth to see that most of the short-term predictions turned out to be completely wrong and the apocalyptic rhetoric is counterproductive and actually hurts the cause.

      1. the apocalyptic rhetoric is counterproductive and actually hurts the cause

        ^ This x1000.

        It does almost as much damage as turning it into a political wedge issue such that we will not see rational thought from either ‘side’ on this subject for at least a generation.

      2. Absolutely! The huge mistake climate scientists made was meekly accepting a POLITICIAN as their spokesman. Everything has been downhill since. Unless, of course, the goal was funding. If you’re a climate scientist who toes the political line, permanent funding is assured.

        Astronomers are kicking themselves for not coming up with the idea of science-as-scaremongering first. Now they’re stuck with a second rate “oh noes asteroyds” scenario…

    2. Don’t you have used toilet paper to recycle?

    3. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Take everything you said about Heartland and apply it to CRU and you’d be a hell of a lot closer to the truth.

  15. Nothing says science like wanting to punish people for questing a hypothesis. Wait, this is more like a religious cult.

    Lack of self awareness should never surprise me.

    1. esteve7|5.1.17 @ 2:11PM|#

      Climate change has consequences. That’s what this is about.

  16. They [people] know ? as all environmentalists should ? that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

    Case in point: The food pyramid.

    I know the author meant Lysenkoism, of course. But Russians don’t have the monopoly of bad policies based on pseudoscience.

    1. There are dozens tragedies involving a scientific error married to political power. My first thought was that the author was referring to the “scientific” racism that you-know-who was married to.

      There are even more tragedies involving a valid scientific principle married to political power. Political power is the problem. Its only significant partnerships with science that have improved the lot of mankind involve roads and water systems.

      1. My first thought was that the author was referring to the “scientific” racism that you-know-who was married to.

        Woodrow Wilson?

  17. RE: Climate Change, Scientism, and the Politics of Certitude
    New York Times columnist notes the uncertainties in climate science; progressives want him fired.

    Of course progressives want the NYT columnist fired for noting the uncertainties of “climate science.”
    All heretics are to be burned at the stake when they go against the grain of progressive thought.

  18. The greatest contributor to climate change is the raising of animals for human consumption. The more countries become affluent the more they want meat as a daily part of meals the bigger the problem. Now I am not going take sides in this debate but if you are going whine about a problem please take a honest look at the main cause.

    1. lol.

      The most countries become economically developed, the more environmentally friendly they are. Take the US, we have more forests than we did 100 or 200 years ago, not because of government decree, but because we’ve had such dramatic increases in productivity, we no longer need as much land to grow food. Take a look at the countries slashing and burning and destroying the environment — it’s because they are poor and have no other alternative.

      1. He’s not entirely wrong. Back before this issue got politicized beyond all recognition, the common wisdom was that if ghgs are the primary driver of warming, the primary driver among them would be methane, probably from raising animals for meat combined with clear-cutting land to do so.

        Doesn’t mean there’s a linear relationship where affluence becomes the problem, since, as you point out, affluence actually mitigates the problem, and the warming has yet to be shown to be catastrophic, anyway.

        But those of us who have been watching this issue evolve since the 80s couldn’t help but notice the moment about 10 years ago or so when we were told that mentioning methane was distracting attention from the real problem which was CO2 from fossil fuels. We’ve been told ever since that we know with great certainty that CO2 is the primary driver, and we need us some heavy taxes and serious infrastructure projects. Any deflecting attention from CO2 is Denial!

        Some of us have skeptical tendencies that date to around that time.

        1. Those of us over the age of 35 remember any number of apocalyptic “by the year 2000” predictions that were as accurate as Nostradamus’ writings. We also remember when “the change” occurred and things went from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.

          1. Yeah – I think the US was supposed be 100% vegetarian Latinos and largely under water by now.

        2. CO2 *is* the primary driver of warming. That is what the data say.

          What you want to do about it is a political question.

          That some people predicted an apocalypse that hasn’t happened doesn’t mean that warming isn’t happening or that the effects of warming won’t be negative.

          1. You missed the point entirely. See my response to you, above, re: “CO2 *is* the primary driver of warming.” Placing an emphasis on “is” doesn’t make your deductive reasoning any more scientific.

            The “proof” that CO2 is the primary driver is entirely deductive in nature, based on our understanding of how it works as a greenhouse gas. It’s been given an outsized role through having been given outsized attention.

            Nothing empirical has indicated that CO2 is the primary driver, and the empirical evidence has found a decidedly non-linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and GMT.

            What is it, other than poll results, that makes you so certain in your claim that “CO2 *is* the primary driver of warming?” Because contrary to your assertion, the data say no such thing.

          2. The threat is not from the direct warming effect of CO2, but from its alleged triggering of a water-based positive feedback mechanism. The science supporting that hypothesis is very shaky–no upper tropospheric tropical hot spot.

            1. Co2 increase, increases temperature which increases water vapor. Its actually very solid.

    2. But wait … it’s really rice paddies that contribute more. But rice is supposed to be better than corn and wheat. But, but …

  19. The balance of the scientific evidence supports the claim that man-made climate change is happening.

    What is ECS or TCR to within +/- 5%?

    Where is the tropospheric hot spot?

    Where is the sea level acceleration?

    Where is the increase in ACE?

    Do you think that Karl’s paper is a pile of crap?

    What about red noise, bristle cone pines, and upside down varves?

    Can Greenland support communities using ancient agriculture methods?

    Bailey is the practitioner of Scientism.

    1. SUUTC:

      (1) See Prospects for narrowing bounds of Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity at URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..0376/full. Some hope.

      (2) With regard to hot spot, the 1.7x study to which I link in the post reports: It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.

      (3) See “New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach” at URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..3308/full. The new GMSL rate over January 1993 to December 2015 is now close to 3.0 mm/yr. An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004?2015) compared to the 1993?2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.

      (4) Falling ACE: The IPCC AR5 Technical Summary noted: In the 21st century, likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. Likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates.

      1. And

        (5) January 2017 Science Advances study supports Karl study on sea surface temperature adjustments.

        (6) Am not getting into glacial sedimentation etc. 🙂

        (7) Greenland farming is expanding see URL: http://atasteofgreenland.com/material/vegetables/

      2. 1. TCS/ECR are a hot topic with lots of uncertainty but trending down.

        2. Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo disagree

        3. Hmmm…I’ll look into that paper.

        4. C’mon cyclones have been a moving goal post for the CAGW’ers. Even Curry was on that bandwagon until she was reformed.

        5. Karl’s study is/was demonstrable BS. Adjusting the more accurate buoy temps to inlets of all different variety of ships and locations in both time and space is just amateurish.

        6. But that dogma held for a long time and has never really been refuted by the warmists…just not talked about in polite company.

        7. What was the PPM between the current expanding farming and sustainment farming using ancient methods?

        CAGW is weak, to outright wrong. AGW has to have some human component.

        1. CAGW is weak, to outright wrong. AGW has to have some human component.

          You are trying to diminish AGW because you fear it, just as I do. Your adaptation is lessen your fear so that you can function better. I don’t have as strong a fear center as you do. It can be a tough nut to accept for some.

          1. Corpse fucking moron. Do you know what a principal component is?

            1. That was a fear response.

              The warming on earth is all anthropogenic. Natural components are cooling.

  20. The models are manifestly incorrect-

    “Oh, but their conclusions are beyond dispute…”

    Uh, no.

    We are leaving the Little Ice Age and returning to the actually normal climate regime of the Medieval Climate Optimum or Holocene Maximum. We saw the same climate then we see now, and there was no human industry to ’cause’ it.

    1. There’s nothing “normal” about either the Medieval Climate Optimum or Holocene Maximum. If you take the average temp of the planet (as best as we can guess at it) over the period when life has been able to exist on the planet, the “Medieval Climate Optimum” (and our current moment) is unusually “cold,” whereas the “Holocene Maximum,” IIRC, is just about the warmest the planet has ever been since life first appeared.

      If there’s a “normal” (which there probably isn’t), it would be somewhere in between those two.

      1. The Holocene Optimum was, on average (FWIW), the same or cooler than it is now. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 56 million years ago, was much hotter (~8 degrees), had a (presumed minimal) [CO2] ~1000ppm (~2.5X current), and was a boon for vegetation, marine plant life, and mammals.

        There are hotter periods in Earth’s history but their significance relative to our current situation becomes even more vague (e.g. warmer sun, impact from extra-terrestrial debris, etc.).

        1. Gotcha. By “Holocene Maximum” I thought you were mistaken for “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.”

          But that the PETM was “a boon for vegetation, marine plant life, and mammals” is disputed – climate-believers assert the world was nigh-on a lifeless desert, and AFAIK, we don’t really have much evidence one way or the other.

          My main point was agreeing that if there’s a normal it’s much warmer that what humanity has experienced thus far.

        2. HCO was warmer than current temps. MWP was similar to current temps.

    2. There are no sources you have quoted. It appears to me you like denier information only.

  21. 1. The climate/temperature of the earth has a cycle of warming and cooling. We are warming now.
    2. Man is part of the environment, no better or worse than any other part of the environment.
    3. Man cannot destroy the earth, with the possible exception of a global thermonuclear war.
    4. Man cannot fix the earth, because it never breaks.
    5. People who want to point to a bunch of models predicting catastrophe and then takeover the world are people who want to take over the world. People who want to take over the world wind up opposed by the world, and die.
    6. The models are propaganda. wrong in the past, wrong now.
    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017). “Widespread” agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

    1. I knew the ‘Glossary for research reports’ predated myself. I had no idea that it it was < a href="https://goo.gl/C8fI5F">possibly by a couple of decades.

      1. I knew the ‘Glossary for research reports’ predated myself. I had no idea that it it was possibly by a couple of decades.

        Gr… I freely admit fault at poorly opening and closing tags, but I blame the squirrels for whimsically rejecting one link being more than 50 characters long.

      2. And, of course, posting it *instantly*.

    2. 1. The climate/temperature of the earth has a cycle of warming and cooling. We are warming now.

      Natural influences are cooling, manmade influences are ones warming the earth overwhelming the cooling.

      2. Man is part of the environment, no better or worse than any other part of the environment.

      We are the ones warming the climate.

      3. Man cannot destroy the earth, with the possible exception of a global thermonuclear war.

      We just will make it more difficult to live on earth.

      4. Man cannot fix the earth, because it never breaks.

      We just need to live within our boundaries that help us live easier on earth.

      5. People who want to point to a bunch of models predicting catastrophe and then takeover the world are people who want to take over the world. People who want to take over the world wind up opposed by the world, and die.

      So these mad scientists want power? Is that right? I think these models are advisory.

      6. The models are propaganda. wrong in the past, wrong now.

      The models predicted many things before they were observed. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account

      1. “Natural influences are cooling, manmade influences are ones warming the earth overwhelming the cooling.”

        Except for those little things called aerosols, but who needs those (besides the models to provide a corrective to their excessive CO2 sensitivity).

        “We are the ones warming the climate.”

        This is a meaningless statement but otherwise very useful.

        “We just will make it more difficult to live on earth.”

        By lengthening growing seasons, increasing global biomass productivity, and reducing net global deaths due to weather (cold kills more than heat). Other than all those things you’re spot on.

        “We just need to live within our boundaries that help us live easier on earth.”

        Dying of exposure is natural. Disease is organic. We should just learn to live with it.

        “So these mad scientists want power? Is that right? I think these models are advisory.”

        1. (cont.)

          “So these mad scientists want power? Is that right? I think these models are advisory.”

          Well they want money and status. Socialists want power. It’s a match made in heaven.

          “The models predicted many things before they were observed. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.”

          Most of what they’ve predicted still isn’t observed, so that’s a true statement. All of the models are unable to predict ENSO events and global precipitation patterns, so I really don’t care what variables they taken into account. The models are also fragile and stiff and require a counter-tuning variable in the form of aerosols (you know those cooling things that humans have nothing to do with).

          1. (cont.)

            “So these mad scientists want power? Is that right? I think these models are advisory.”

            Well they want money and status. Socialists want power. It’s a match made in heaven.

            Quite imaginary but not really true.

            “The models predicted many things before they were observed. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.”

            Most of what they’ve predicted still isn’t observed, so that’s a true statement. All of the models are unable to predict ENSO events and global precipitation patterns, so I really don’t care what variables they taken into account. The models are also fragile and stiff and require a counter-tuning variable in the form of aerosols (you know those cooling things that humans have nothing to do with).

            We produce a lot of the aerosols from coal burning and other sources. Ghg’s overwhelm those to.

          2. All of the models are unable to predict ENSO events and global precipitation patterns, so I really don’t care what variables they taken into account.

            ENSO is just stored energy from the sun. Actually the scientists are starting to get a good idea when a change in ENSO is occuring several months out. When it comes to modeling long term, ENSO does not matter. In it cool and warm phases they zero out. By 2100 all of natural cycles of earth zero out. They over time are neither warming or cooling.

        2. NotAnotherSkippy|5.1.17 @ 9:18PM|#

          “Natural influences are cooling, manmade influences are ones warming the earth overwhelming the cooling.”

          Except for those little things called aerosols, but who needs those (besides the models to provide a corrective to their excessive CO2 sensitivity).

          Aerosols are not causing the big problems. Getting rid of coal burning will reduce aerosols though.

          “We are the ones warming the climate.”

          This is a meaningless statement but otherwise very useful.

          There is no other warming influence but humans.

          “We just will make it more difficult to live on earth.”

          By lengthening growing seasons, increasing global biomass productivity, and reducing net global deaths due to weather (cold kills more than heat). Other than all those things you’re spot on.

          Crops are sensitive to heat waves. Our own heat waves show reduced crop output. Less food more problems in a growing crowded world.

          “We just need to live within our boundaries that help us live easier on earth.”

          Dying of exposure is natural. Disease is organic. We should just learn to live with it.

          More and stronger heat waves. Man made and not necessary. Crops withering from wider and stronger heat waves. The extreme heat waves increase tremendously in a world growing warmer.

  22. The behavior by the so-called scientists is all you need to know. If someone proclaimed they had a cancer-preventing diet, but they:

    1) Wouldn’t release the raw data from their studies.
    2) Had a long history of making dramatic claims that never came true.
    3) Tried to blacklist people that challenged, or in some cases, embraced much but not all of their “science”
    4) Were insistent that they just need more government money to fully explore their cure

    You would see them as snake oil salesmen and bid them good day.

    1. Last American Hero-

      Can you provide documentation for any of the things you mention here?

  23. It’s not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn’t been for a long time…it’s about socialist economic policy–redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War… First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

  24. Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: “We reject the idea of private property.”

    David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

    Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

    Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ ? and readers’ ? attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

    Researcher Robert Phalen’s 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: “It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial.”

  25. Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

  26. Note that Stephens — like Bjorn Lomborg — believes most of the litany about global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption. But if you reject the extreme alarmism that provides the excuse for watermelons to seek totalitarian controls on the economy, you’re part of the Enemy.

  27. The leftist vitriol against Stephens has as much to do with his WSJ pedigree as it does with his catastrophic AGW heresey…

    1. Enemy of the State|5.1.17 @ 6:05PM|#

      Stalling climate action by ignoring the main thrust of the seriousness of human climate change,things get worse for our living on earth.

  28. There is evidence that warming causes CO2 levels to rise.
    see sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309142136.htm
    So how do we distinguish cause from effect?

    1. That’s from the facts that a warmer ocean can hold less CO? and there’s a whole lot of water. It continues outgassing well after the atmospheric temperature is already dropping.

    2. As the tundra thaws, it releases co2 and ch4 that has been frozen in for thousands of years. That is called a postive feedback to the origonal co2.

  29. Progressives are such intolerant, vicious creeps.

    1. Sounds like you can’t tolerate progressives. Whether you like us or disdain us, global warming is still true.

  30. Progressives are such intolerant, vicious creeps.

  31. models are warming 1.7 times faster than the observational temperatures.

    We need to elect a more woke atmosphere.

  32. HIDE THE DECLINE! USE MIKES NATURE TRICK!

  33. You say, “The balance of the scientific evidence supports the claim that man-made climate change is happening.”

    But the problem of confounding climate change with anthropogenic global warming is that then you have no clarity about the ongoing changes in climate that have occurred for thousands, even millions of years, which have nothing to do with mankind’s industrial activities.

    If you allow both climate change and global warming to be anthropogenic, then there’s no phrase for what is NOT anthropogenic. So stop obscuring the issue about mankind’s industrial activities. Don’t give up the vital battle for clarity and skepticism.

    1. LifeStrategies|5.2.17 @ 1:54AM|#

      WIth 95 to 100% certainty we warmed the earth, there is a great deal of clarity on the issue. The natural variations are headed towards a really mild cooling and the only warming influence is human. Can’t blame anyone else but ourselves.

  34. “As it happens, hundreds of thousands of climate activists this past weekend participated in the Peoples Climate March in Washington, D.C.”

    A WaPo article said “tens of thousands.”

  35. Ron Bailey comments:

    “(2) With regard to hot spot, the 1.7x study to which I link in the post reports: It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.”

    But Santer et al. 2016 is critiqued by Roy Spencer here: https://goo.gl/6ZQRSx

    Rud Istvan writes, in a comment in that thread:

    “After fiddles, [Santer et al. is]about as wrong on the tropical troposphere hotspot as on ECS in CMIP5: observed ~1.65 (e.g. Lewis and Curry 2014) vs. model median 3.2.”

    1. PS: Spencer commented:

      “Overall, it looks to me like Santer et al. twist themselves into a pretzel by cherry picking data, using a new hot satellite dataset that appears to be undocumented, ignores independent (radiosonde) evidence (since it does not support their desired conclusion), and still arrives at a substantial 1.7x average bias in the climate models warming rates.”

      1. A WUWT article? That’s hardly a response that the science community will do. Do better next time.

        1. It’s by Roy Spencer, so its venue doesn’t matter.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.