Climate alarmists seek to squash dissent

Sen Doug Whitsett

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

Climate alarmists are losing the debate on man-caused global warming and climate change. The dire scenarios predicted by their computer modelling have failed to materialize. All of the glaring differences between their computer-modelled temperature predictions and empirically measured global temperature are becoming plain for everyone to see.

Advocates of man-caused climate change consistently refer to anecdotal local and regional weather events to allege proof of their computer-modeled hypotheses. This methodology is both disingenuous and purposely misleading. Although memorable and newsworthy, local periodic weather events have little correlation with global climate.

Global temperatures have not detectably changed in nearly 20 years. Actual measurements of the earth’s atmosphere, the earth’s oceans and the earth’s land areas clearly refute their doomsday predictions.

During that same period, their modelled predictions of increased severity in global weather events have also failed to occur. Empirically measured global data shows weather events on earth have not become more frequent or severe during the last decade. Both storm frequency and intensity have actually decreased by significant margins.

Moreover, the computer-modeled predictions of an enormous rise in global sea levels did not occur. Any empirically measured increase in average global sea levels is barely measurable and likely not statistically significant.

These are among the many reasons why a growing majority of Americans are questioning the alarmists’ Armageddon predictions. They are simply losing trust in both the modeled predictions and the government-funded propaganda.

Researchers who have reached different climate change conclusions based upon practical empirical science are not tolerated by the climate change advocates. The modelers refuse to debate the science in an open forum, because they are unable to refute the practical observed empirical data. Their alternative strategy to meaningful debate has been to attack the messenger by labeling traditional experimental scientists as deniers, Luddites and worse.

Their ruse is no longer working with most Americans. Citizens are beginning to harbor serious doubts. They are both asking important questions and demanding to receive straightforward answers.

They want to know who is actually benefiting from the irrational and crazed efforts to restructure our fossil fuel-powered economy. They are questioning the fairness of the obscene taxpayer and utility ratepayer subsidies that are freely flowing to huge renewable energy corporations. They are rightly asking why governments should expect taxpayers and utility ratepayers to pay for this brazen corporate crony capitalism.

People understand that nearly 90 percent of our national energy needs are currently being met by the combustion of fossil fuels. They want to know the short and long-term costs of the forced replacement of traditional fossil fuels with grossly more expensive renewable energy sources.

They are asking who will pay for the enormous increases in energy cost and how poor families will be protected from unaffordable fuel and utility bills. They want to see empirical evidence showing how sharply increased energy costs will not cause significant job losses, as well as serious and even irreversible harm to our state and national economies.

Moreover, citizens are asking to see measurable, reproducible data in support of the global warming advocates’ computer-generated models. The climate alarmist have not produced that empirical data because they have been unable to develop it. They have been unable to develop it because it simply does not exist.

Perhaps for these reasons, the liberal progressive left has recently enlisted a desperate new tactic. Incredibly, they are now attempting to silence the scientific community through threats of sanctions, retaliation and criminal charges. Their efforts to censor dissent is becoming more frantic and strident.

Universities and other organizations who publish papers that do not “toe the line” of climate alarmist are routinely being denied federal and foundation research grants. Conversely, government research funding for the “true believers” is virtually unlimited.

Advocates for climate regulation are urging the Obama administration to investigate research scientists who do not share their views. Further, research organizations who either accept funding or editorial comments from fossil fuel industries are routinely targeted for investigation by a variety of federal agencies.

For instance, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) was recently successful in driving out a “think tank scholar” who had the temerity to accurately report how a new federal regulation would cost Americans billions of dollars. The scholar further described how the money would flow directly to certain highly subsidized corporations who produce various forms of renewable energy. Apparently, his unforgiveable offense was to include editorial comments by those who supported his research.

The double standard is alarming. I have observed many research papers supporting man-made climate change containing more editorial than scientific content. They often proudly and prominently report their sponsoring benefactors.

Last month, 20 university professors signed a letter addressed to Obama, his science advisor John Holdren and Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging punishment for climate change dissenters. Along with U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehorse (D-Rhode Island), they proposed that organizations and corporations who produce research opposing the climate change hysteria should be prosecuted under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Incredibly, they allege the “dissenters” have violated RICO by “knowingly deceiving” the people about the risks of climate change. They accuse these scientists of using their findings as a means to dangerously forestall America’s response to climate change.

In short, they assert it is a criminal act to inform citizens of a different scientific perspective.  Their method of choice is to sensor scientific debate through RICO intimidation using the threat of huge fines and even imprisonment.

This request is akin to the inquisitions during the Dark Ages. Will their next demand be the burning of non-conforming scientific texts?

Climate change science is rapidly losing its credibility with the people for good reason. Being unable to sustain meaningful scientific debate, the climate alarmists’ new efforts are focused on discrediting and persecuting the messenger. These pathetic actions underscore the cause for the public’s growing skepticism.

Their efforts no longer exhibit any resemblance to science. They are gross political manipulations using deception and misdirection for financial gain.

Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to realize the truth. They need only “to follow the money” to learn the purpose of the climate change strategy.

Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 303 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    RICO should actually be used as a basis to file a Freedom of Speech suit against the Kool Aid drinkers.

    When you are getting your lunch handed to you by Russia and Iran who are gaining influence over Middle East oil fields like in the case now with Obummer and SS Care-less; you turn to convenient abstract boogey men like Climate Change as our number one problem.

    The Kool Aid “science” also has a convenient scheme where if we have a mini-Ice Age this is caused by fossil fuels and man made activity too.

    I am wondering if we did have a mini-ice age would the Kool Aid drinkers rally to stop people from resorting to increased use of fossil fuels to keep themselves from freezing to death?

    Every village has its idiots, but usually they are not in charge as in Obummer and Queen Hillarious.

    • Justcurious

      So………..2014 was the hottest on record. Since 1998 there has been a definite overall warming. Assuming the 95% of scientists are wrong, what exactly is causing this current spike in temps?

      • DavidAppell

        And 2015 is going to be even warmer.

        But don’t expect Bob Clark to respond to you. He never does — he’s above all that.

        • Wake up

          Chuck Wiese refutes you 24/7.

        • Dick Winningstad

          We have been emerging out of a 1500 year high/ low cycle, the low popularly known as known as the Little Ice Age ended in the 1850’s, and now are warming. This is not, or very little, caused by humans.

          • DavidAppell

            We’re “emerging” because greenhouse gases are heating the planet. (Planets don’t just warm up for no reason, little ice age or not.) This warming is created by human.

            Or do you believe that carbon dioxide doens’t absorb infrared radiation?

          • thevillageidiot

            so the 400kyear climate cycles as taught by al gore are increased carbon emissions on every up side cycle? what caused all the down side cycles?

          • DavidAppell

            You need to study more science. Look up “Milankovitch factors.”

            Though increased carbon emissions are responsible for about half the temperature difference between a glacial and interglacial period.

          • S Graves

            Can you clarify your second paragraph? Do you mean the current interglacial beginning some 20ky? Just not sure what you are saying. Thanks.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, the global warming that happened about 25 kya to about 15 kya.

          • S Graves

            So atmospheric CO2 increased…if I understand you. Warming occurred.
            What caused that increase in CO2 that caused half of the warming? What was the trigger?
            You must have read that textbook…so just tell me what and how you know…if you know, that is.

          • DavidAppell

            “What caused that increase in CO2 that caused half of the warming?”

            The temperature increase. CO2 and temperature are in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop…..

          • S Graves

            Do you mean like now…coming off the LIA temps began to rise causing CO2 outgassing?

          • PhilJourdan

            Careful with DA. He has been stalking the children of skeptics and making threats against them. He is one nasty piece of work.

          • S Graves

            Don’t doubt it a bit. Thanks.

          • DavidAppell

            No. That was different — humans began burning fossil fuels, which emit CO2 into the air.

            They’ve very different situations. Do you really not understand that?

          • DavidAppell

            Both temperature and CO2 caused the warming. They are inseparable.

            In this situation, temperature led first. But in manmade warming, CO2 led first.

          • S Graves

            What forces facilitated the LIA? When did they end? When did the re-warming begin? What caused it?

          • DavidAppell

            “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
            DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmm… I am skeptical about CO2 total effect. CO2 was ~320 ppm in 1900 and about 400 ppm today. Water vapor, a better green house gas than CO2 is ~30,000-40,000 ppm or ~90 times more prevalent. And Mars is warming too. Is that man caused?

          • DavidAppell

            What data shows Mars is warming?

            And if it was, what do you think that means? We know the Sun’s radiance has been on a declining trend since about 1960:

          • Dick Winningstad
          • DavidAppell

            That article talks about 3 years of warming.

            3 years! That’s all you got??

            Ever hear of natural variation?

            How is the Sun warming Mars, when solar output is on a long-term declining trend?

          • DavidAppell

            Re: water vapor. Are you aware the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can’t increase unless the temperature increases first?

            Otherwise any added water vapor quickly rains out. This is a fundamental result from the science of thermodynamics, called the Clausius-Claperyon relation.

            Hence, water vapor cannot responsible for modern warming. It is a positive feedback, though, on warming.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Are you aware you are dodging the point? Water vapor at 90x of CO2 and a more efficient at trapping heat is a much bigger factor in green house gas effects.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick, you aren’t understanding.

            Yes, water vapor is a big factor in CREATING the greenhouse effect, but not in INCREASING the greenhouse effect.

            Because, again, the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor, and how much depends on the atmosphere’s temperature.

            Details: Actually though, without the Earth’s CO2, the water vapor would mostly be below freezing, it would snow out, and much more of the ocean would freeze over. As one climate scientists says, it takes CO2 and water vapor to tango.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nope. The atmosphere is not saturated with water vapor and yet it is a bigger factor than CO2. To claim that CO2 is more important than water vapor is to ignore the facts. CO2 is 1/90th of water vapor. A minor contributor.

          • Eric Blair

            Except that water vapor in the atmosphere is self-regulating – when there is too much water, you get precipitation. CO2 is not… it stays in the atmosphere much longer.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Except that CO2 is 1/90th of water vapor (0.4k ppm vs 30-40k ppm) and less efficient at green house gas effects. Let me know when the CO2 gets to, oh say 10,000 ppm then we can decide if it is really a factor.

          • DavidAppell

            So what?

            CO2 absorbs in a different part of the IR spectrum than water vapor:

          • DavidAppell

            …that different part of the spectrum being just where the Earth radiates most.

            You can’t simply count molecules to determine relative contributions — cross sections and absorption spectra matter too.

          • Eric Blair

            And by “we” do you mean you and other conservatives who are more interested in political expediency than science… or actual climatologists? How is it so difficult to believe that if we continue to introduce CO2 into the atmosphere, on top of the water vapor that is already present, that we’re not creating problems?

            I suspect if we got to 10,000 ppm we’ll be on our way to being more like Venus.

          • Dick Winningstad

            The numbers don’t support your assertion. 40,000 ppm vs 400 ppm.

          • DavidAppell

            Why do you think it’s only these numbers that matter?

          • Dick Winningstad

            I have stated my reasons earlier. Why do you think they do not matter?

          • DavidAppell

            “I have stated my reasons earlier. Why do you think they do not matter?”

            I’ve been explaining why, with science!

            Do you even read my replies???

            You ignore all questions, and you never provide evidence for your claims.

            Why do you think a gas’s concentration is the only factor that determines its influence on climate?

          • Dick Winningstad

            The graph you showed above shows that CO2 is a minor effect at best. And the IR spectrum is wide, yet water vapor dominates on your graph.

          • DavidAppell

            “The graph you showed above shows that CO2 is a minor effect at best.”

            No, it doesn’t. Are you aware that CO2 absorbs at frequencies water vapor doesn’t?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Yes I acknowledge it is a different range of frequencies yet a narrow spectrum unlike H2O.

          • DavidAppell

            How “narrow” of a spectrum?

          • Eric Blair

            What on earth are you talking about? 40,000 vs 400?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Water vapor is 30,000-40,000 ppm (part per million) of the atmosphere. CO2 is ~400 ppm.

          • DavidAppell

            So? Why does this number alone determine influence on climate?

          • DavidAppell

            Does it matter which frequencies are absorbed by each molecule, CO2 and water vapor?

          • DavidAppell

            Do you think scientists aren’t very, very well aware of the distributions of water vapor and CO2, and their individual absorption spectrums?

            Have you ever heard of the HITRAN database?

          • DavidAppell

            “It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain.”

            – American Chemical Society, http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

          • S Graves

            Thanks for the link: Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

            So you claim and citation settles it…or not.

          • DavidAppell

            Clouds both warm and cool, depending on their altitude.

            The Earth’s surface temperature has a very low sensitivity to solar insolation changes, ~0.1 C/(W/m2).

          • DavidAppell

            What data says the atmosphere is not saturated?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Um… lets see. Is the humidity always at 100%? Or is it usually at a lower number? What data says the atmosphere is saturated?

          • DavidAppell

            Your local humidity is not the measure of global average humidity — it is affected by winds, rainfall, etc. And at many points on Earth, water is below its freezing point. This post. and references therein, gives data on trends for specific humidity:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm

          • Dick Winningstad

            The point is, if worldwide water vapor was at 100% there would be world wide fog. We are not at the saturation point world wide.

          • DavidAppell

            The saturation point of water vapor is not at 100%.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Of course it is. That is when water condenses out of the air and makes fog. Perhaps you could enlighten me otherwise.

          • DavidAppell

            I have been trying to enlighten you, but you ignore all my replies.

            Do you know the Clausius-Claperyon relation, Dick?

          • DavidAppell

            “To claim that CO2 is more important than water vapor is to ignore the facts.”

            Again you fail to understand. Water vapor is a bigger factor* in *creating* the greenhouse effect. It is not a bigger factor in the modern increase in the greenhouse effect, because water is condensable and CO2 is not.

            Are you familar with the Clausius-Claperyon equation Dick, for the saturation vapor pressure of a condensable gas?

          • DavidAppell

            “CO2 is 1/90th of water vapor.”

            No, it isn’t. This study

            “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

            found that water vapor contributes 50% of the preindustrial greenhouse effect, writing:

            “Non-condensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”

          • DavidAppell

            To put it another way, in an atmosphere with water vapor but no CO2 or other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the atmosphere’s temperature would not be able the freezing point of water. So much of the water vapor would leave the atmosphere as snow, sea ice would be of much larger extent, and the resulting additional ice-albedo feedback would drive temperatures even lower, possibly into a snowball Earth.

            Here’s what an expert wrote in his textbook (which you should read):

            “One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”

            – Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2011) p. 271.

          • DavidAppell

            For example, it has been shown that less radiation has been escaping up out the top of the atmosphere at the frequencies where CO2 and CH4 absorb IR:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

          • DavidAppell

            Here are the changes to the Earth’s outgoing longwave spectrum, as measured by Harries et al (link above). Note the decreases where CO2 and CH4 absorb IR:

          • DavidAppell

            I was wrong. I checked with an expert, and, indeed, atmospheric water vapor is not saturated, except in clouds.

            What’s relevant is that CO2 absorbs, for the most part, in a different part of the IR spectrum than water vapor. There is some overlap, but by no means it is a total overlap:

          • Dick Winningstad

            Granted, and a narrow spectrum compared to H20.

          • DavidAppell

            How narrow compared to water vapor?

          • DavidAppell

            Why does this graph have a huge energy gouge where CO2 absorbs IR?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Are you telling me that CO2 actually decreases heat retention then?

          • DavidAppell

            CO2 blocks IR. As the graph shows, it blocks a lot of it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            t appears that water is 0-600 and CO2 is 600-800 or so.

          • DavidAppell

            Define “narrow”in “narrow spectrum.”

            Let’s finally see some numbers and science from you, Dick. You never have any.

          • S Graves

            But you sure PRETENDED that you knew what you were talking about.
            Good of you to admit you were talking through you proverbial hat.

          • DavidAppell

            I wrote what I thought was true. I was wrong, after I checked with an expert.

            You should try it sometime. Or at least once.

          • S Graves

            Happy to. Show me where.
            My complaint was your tone of certainty.

          • DavidAppell

            “Show me where” what? I don’t know what you’re asking.

          • You’re dealing with a poster who is (1) anti-acolytes of the church of CAGW and (2) wants proof that AGW is a big enough deal to address economically. Good luck with its merchandising of non-scientific doubt by exploiting genuine provisional knowledge/ scientific uncertainty.

          • S Graves

            —You should try it sometime. Or at least once.—
            I thought your insinuation was that I don’t admit any mistakes…not once. Sorry. That clearly isn’t what you were insinuating…Right?

            Otherwise you would show me what you were talking about and where we could find evidence on these boards.

            So since that’s NOT what you meant…what DID you mean?

          • DavidAppell

            Your comment is too convoluted to know what your question is.

          • S Graves

            So let’s start over. I’ll try to simplify it for you. You…that would be DavidAppell…said:

            —You should try it sometime. Or at least once.—
            Explain what you mean by those two sentences…if anything.

          • S Graves

            What?!! No runaway greenhouse effect from increasing water vapor?
            So help me here. Is it the chicken or the egg…or the egg first…or CO2? More CO2 means more water vapor…or is it the other way around? Increasing temps cause CO2 outgassing? Then more water vapor?
            Just how does it work? Maybe provide the science that supports whatever you are saying.

          • DavidAppell

            I’m not here to be your tutor. Go read a couple of textbooks.

          • S Graves lives to attempt to connivingly confound, istm; not to learn. Of course, I could be worse than simply wrong.

          • S Graves

            The IPPC say this;
            —Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes. The CMIP3 models exhibited a significant dry bias of up to 25% in the boundary layer and a significant moist bias in the free troposphere of up to 100% (John and Soden, 2007). Upper tropospheric water vapour varied by a factor of three across the multi-model ensemble (Su et al., 2006). Many models have large biases in lower stratospheric water vapour (Gettelman et al., 2010), which could have implications for surface temperature change (Solomon et al., 2010).

            Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

            Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.—
            Does your “textbook” confirm this uncertainty?

          • DavidAppell

            A recent paper says it’s found evidence for the tropospheric “hot spot”:

            “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

            Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:

            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/14/a-global-warming-fingerprint-confirmed-upper-troposphere-warming/

          • DavidAppell

            Uncertainty is part of all science, and the IPCC assesses science.

            So what is your question?

          • Dano2

            o Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect [30 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • JC

            Did you just site a Facebook page as fact??????

          • Dano2

            Did you just site (sic) a Facebook page as fact

            It’s a page containing a list. I guess one could say “it is a fact that particular long-refuted talking point was assigned a point value of 30”, if you must have good feels.

            Best,

            D

          • Dick Winningstad

            If humans are warming the planet this time, what caused the ancient and medieval warming periods?

          • DavidAppell

            “If humans are warming the planet this time, what caused the ancient and medieval warming periods?”

            How do you know there were ancient andmedieval warming periods?

        • S Graves

          Ok…no more gratuitous efforts to direct traffic to your almost unknown website. Back to your cave.

          • DavidAppell

            That’s where the information is. I’m not surprised that’s enough to repel you.

          • I’m not surprised either

      • thevillageidiot

        20 years in terms of global climate is not even a dot. it is not even a data point.

        • DavidAppell

          Tell Senator Doug. Climate scientists usually use 30 or more years for detection of climate changes.

          In the last 30 years the Earth’s surface has warmed by an average of 0.50 C degrees. 0.85 C in the last 50 years.

          • thevillageidiot

            then what is this? a climate cycle?

          • DavidAppell

            CO2 is a forcing. It captures some of the heat given off by the Earth, and then resends some of that heat downward, causing the lower atmosphere to warm.

            The lower atmosphere will continue warming until we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

      • S Graves

        2014…uhhhh, actually you don’t know that. You are simply swayed by the propagandistic headlines.

        • Dano2

          Oh, looky: Standard Graves lie, refuted many times.

          International report confirms: 2014 was Earth’s warmest year on record

          Climate markers continue to show global warming trend

          July 16, 2015

          The report, compiled by NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at the National Centers for Environmental Information is based on contributions from 413 scientists from 58 countries around the world (highlight, full report). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice, and in space…

          Key highlights from the report include:

          o Greenhouse gases continued to climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2014, once again reaching historic high values. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.9 ppm in 2014, reaching a global average of 397.2 ppm for the year. This compares with a global average of 354.0 in 1990 when this report was first published just 25 years ago.

          o Record temperatures observed near the Earth’s surface: Four independent global datasets showed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. The warmth was widespread across land areas. Europe experienced its warmest year on record, with more than 20 countries exceeding their previous records. Africa had above-average temperatures across most of the continent throughout 2014, Australia saw its third warmest year on record, Mexico had its warmest year on record, and Argentina and Uruguay each had their second warmest year on record. Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures…

          o Sea surface temperatures were record high…

          o Global upper ocean heat content was record high: …

          o Global sea level was record high…:

          o The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low: …The eight lowest minimum sea ice extents during this period have occurred in the last eight years…

          Tropical cyclones above average overall: There were 91 tropical cyclones in 2014, well above the 1981–2010 average of 82 storms. The 22 named storms in the Eastern/Central Pacific were the most to occur in the basin since 1992. Similar to 2013, the North Atlantic season was quieter than most years of the last two decades with respect to the number of storms

          [embedded hyperlinks omitted, emphases added]

          Best,

          • S Graves

            NO, NO Drano. You are rebutting me. I quoted NASA/NOAA. You claim to be rebutting them. Good for you.

          • Dano2

            Can’t hide your flailing.

            Best,

            D

          • S Graves

            Thanks for rebutting NOAA/NASA. They DO put some phony stuff and you point it out and give ME the opportunity to correct it.
            Good boy, Drano..

          • Dano2

            Graves is being dishonest.

            SHOCKER

            Best,

            D

          • S Graves

            Did NOAA/NASA say 2014 was “less likely than likely” to ACTUALLY be the warmest year.
            Why can’t you answer that question, Drano??? Yes or no.

          • Dano2

            You have been refuted on this clownery many times. Here, here, here, here, here.

            Run along, little one.

            Best,

            D

          • S Graves

            One more time, Drano. Did NOAA/NASA say 2014 was “less likely than likely” to ACTUALLY be the warmest year.

            Why can’t you answer that question, Drano??? Yes or no. Linking to your own insipid nonsense won’t work…except in your own tiny mind.
            Did they say what I and factcheck quote them as saying or not? Failure to answer is simply lying by silence. Is that what you are doing, Drano? You remain such an insipid fool.

          • Dano2

            You were refuted. Many times.

            Best,

            D

          • PhilJourdan

            She is asking a question. It is a yes or no answer. It is not a statement, so cannot be refuted.

            I am interested in your answer. Please answer the question.

          • Dano2

            The question is based on ignorance and is misleading as constructed. Which is why it is asked in that way with no other context.

            Best,

            D

          • PhilJourdan

            All questions are based on ignorance. That is why they are asked. Ignorance is not a pejorative but an absence of knowledge. It is an interesting question.

            Please answer it.

          • Dano2

            NASA has said 2014 is the warmest year on record.

            Best,

            D

          • PhilJourdan

            I googled that statement and could not find a link to NASA making that statement. Can you provide one?

          • Dano2

            I highly doubt you did, else you would have found it. Nevertheless, this is what everyone else would have found:

            https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

            Best,

            D

          • PhilJourdan

            I see the confusion. You said “warmest year on record”. Your source, which I did find, said “The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, ”

            Therein lies a problem. The world was not created 135 years ago. Perhaps you need to also qualify your statement.

          • Dano2

            You walked into the middle of it. I need to clarify nothing with Graves. It was refuted many times.

            Best,

            D

          • PhilJourdan

            And we come full circle. Again, Graves asked a question. A question is not refutable. The answer may be, but a question is a quest for knowledge.

            And my statement was poorly worded. It should have been more in the form of a suggestion. For clarity, it would be more conducive if you actually quoted what is said in your links. And that is just for those reading your comments. You know what you mean, but others may not.

    • DavidAppell

      Bob: We won’t be having a “mini ice age.”

      Because: physics. The science clearly shows that greenhouse gases will dominate.any changes in the sun.

      • Wake up

        Chuck Wiese refutes you 24/7.

        • BigMike

          Please state what Chuck Wiese’s qualifications are please.

          • BigMike

            Never mind, did my own research. He is a weatherman, NOT a climatologist. He only has a Bachelor of ARTS degree. Not even a Bachelor of Science. No masters degree, no doctorate degree. Just a weatherman with a B.A. NOT who I am going to listen to when it comes to the science of anything.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Try S. Fred Singer then.

          • DavidAppell

            Alas, Fred Singer hasn’t been doing science for a long time:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lecture-at-portland-state.html

          • Dick Winningstad

            For awhile like the last ten years or so, yet his views are still valid.

          • DavidAppell

            Why are Singer’s views “valid?”

            If they are valid, why can’t they get published in genuine scientific journals?

            http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html

          • Dick Winningstad

            See my reply to another of your posts claiming that Dr. Singer is “laughable”.

          • BigMike

            From what I understand part of his main point is that it’s a conspiracy by people that think we are experiencing too much economic growth? I believe I will not be subscribing to his narrative.

          • Dick Winningstad

            What are your qualifications?

          • BigMike

            Enough intelligence to research the “Who” when a statement is made and the the experience and wisdom to decide if that person is a crackpot or not. What are YOUR qualifications?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nice try. Dr. Singer is a real climatologist and ad a legitimate skeptic of the global warming crowd.

          • DavidAppell

            Singer once did good legitimate science ago. Then he fell into the clutches of rightwing “think tanks” and started babbling nonsense. (I suspect the $ didn’t hurt.) First on smoking, then on climate change. He ruined his reputation and has become a spectacle. History will not be kind to him.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm… but “scientists” in the clutches of left wing think tanks are different? I would suggest your guys are more corrupt as they depend on money from government to produce results that favor the alarmism.

          • DavidAppell

            Which scientists are “in the clutch of left wing think tanks?” Names?

          • DavidAppell

            “I would suggest your guys….”

            Who is “you guys?”

          • DavidAppell

            “I would suggest your guys are more corrupt as they depend on money from government to produce results that favor the alarmism.”

            Why would government funding favor alarmism?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Yes to many on the left when it demands more government power over the people.

          • DavidAppell

            How? You will still plug your toaster into the same outlet.

            The US has had a cap-and-trade program for 20 years. How has this reduced your freedom, Dick?

          • DavidAppell

            “I would suggest your guys are more corrupt as they depend on money from government to produce results that favor the alarmism.”

            The government does far more funding of medical research than climate science. When your doctor prescribes you a medication, do you refuse to take it if some of the research was funded by government? Do you refuse recommended surgeries if some of the funding that determined their efficacy came from government funding?

          • DavidAppell

            There are no “your guys.” There are those who follow and understand the science, and those who don’t.

          • Ike Bottema

            As David asks, “You guys”?

            “your guys are more corrupt” … [then Singer] presumably, thus you admit he is corrupt.

            In any case even allowing that 2% of “you guys” match Singer’s “corruptness”, what of the other 96% of climate scientists? Thousands of climate scientists are wlllfully corrupt?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmm….. Given that no one is God here zero wrong is not possible. Given that the left is heavily invested in research that results in the need for more government interference in the economy it is hardly surprising that many climate scientists are willing to blame a gas that is 400 ppm of the atmosphere and only marginally at best increased by man to be the supposed villain of climate change. A process that is happening and can not be stopped. Man can not freeze climate change.
            We are entering a warming period just like the medieval warming period and the ancient warming period. a repeating 1500 year cycle.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick: You avoid a lot of questions.

            And never provide evidence for your claims. Never.

          • DavidAppell

            “We are entering a warming period just like the medieval warming period and the ancient warming period”

            And what is causing this warming?

          • DavidAppell

            “Given that the left is heavily invested in research that results in the need for more government interference in the economy….”

            Solving climate change is about STOPPING interference in the economy — from the negative externalities of fossil fuels.

            Do you know what negative externalities are?

            Stern, of the Stern Report, said “Climate change is the largest failure of the free market in history.”

            What do you think he meant by that, Dick?

          • Dick Winningstad

            If it is man caused. I suggest man contribution is minimal.

          • DavidAppell

            Based on what evidence do you conclude man’s contribution is “minimal?”

          • Dick Winningstad

            Based on my previous assertions. CO2 is a minor contributor and man’s contribution to the CO2 levels is minor.
            Based on your posts that water vapor is 75% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 influences a small part of the IR spectrum.
            Based on the evidence the earth is coming out of the Little Ice Age since the mid 1800’s and this is a continuing trend for the next several hundred years.

          • DavidAppell

            “Based on my previous assertions….”

            Science isn’t based on personal assertions, it’s based on evidence. And you have included any whatsoever.

          • Dick Winningstad

            It is a fairly simple matter to confirm, the concentration of water vapor is 30,000-40,000 ppm and that CO2 is ~ 400 ppm.
            I used your information for the latter part.
            Is your evidence suspect?

          • DavidAppell

            Why do you keep acting as if these are the only two numbers that matter?

            Have you ever heard of a cross section?
            An absorption spectrum?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Why do you ignore the rest of the reply?

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t know what you mean. The first part of your reply seemed to assume that it was only the average atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and water vapor that matters. That isn’t how the science works.

          • DavidAppell

            Your numbers are simplistic thinking at its best.

            If someone is throwing balls at the side of a barn, and there are only 3 catchers there with mitts, that doesn’t mean most of the balls get to the barnside.

            It also depends on how big the catcher’s mitts are, and where the balls are thrown.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick: What happens to your simple numbers if CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at a wavelength that water vapor doesn’t?

          • Dick Winningstad

            What if H20 absorbs a much wider spectrum of IR than CO2 does?

          • DavidAppell

            “It should not be concluded that water vapor overwhelms the greenhouse effect of CO2, however. It would be more precise to say that the water vapor greenhouse effect complements that of CO2. CO2 absorbs strongly near the peak of the Planck function for Earthlike temperatures, but the water vapor absorption is nearly two orders of magnitude weaker there. Further, for Earthlike planets, water vapor condenses and therefore disappears in colder regions of the planet; it is only the long-lived CO2 greenhouse effect that can persist in cold parts of the atmosphere.”

            – Raymond Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, pg 250.

          • Dick Winningstad

            http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/water-vapor-vs-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/

            “Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere.”

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, that’s correct. And that doesn’t make it responsible for modern warming. That you don’t understand this is a major scientific fail on your part.

          • DavidAppell

            What if there is CO2 where there isn’t much of any water vapor, like in the upper stratosphere?

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t know where you get 30,000 to 40,000 ppm. Mean water vapor is, by mass, 0.25% of the atmospheric mass, which gives a number density of 4,000 ppmv.

          • Dick Winningstad
          • DavidAppell

            Can’t you even read your own links?? Your link

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gsd/outreach/education/climgraph/docs/cg_8.pdf

            shows, on page 2, that water vapor is 4000 ppm, not 40,000 ppm — just as I wrote earlier.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I stand corrected on mis-reading the second site.

            And will add this indicating that water vapor is the big actor in green house gasses.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

          • DavidAppell

            Dick: Links to WUWT aren’t acceptable — it’s a notorious denier site, and Anthony Watts — who couldn’t even graduate from college — is a known liar.

            Are you really so desparate that you have to quote such junk?

          • PhilJourdan

            Liar. WUWT denies nothing. It is just your way of dismissing sources that prove you wrong.

          • DavidAppell

            Ha! WUWT’s purpose is to create an alternate reality, so deniers like you can link to it to counter real science.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick: I don’t think you read either one of those links. I think you’re just trying to bamboozle me and others here by putting up links that you think and hope have something to do with water vapor, without understanding any of it yourself, and without showing that you know anything at all about water vapor.

            I have 3 degrees in physics, Dick. You’re not going to bamboozle me with links from a college dropout.

          • Dick Winningstad

            What are your degrees in? What sector of physics?
            And you do not like a site? So what?

          • DavidAppell

            Read my resume on my Web site.

            But my graduate school speciality doesn’t matter here — climate science uses very simple physics that majors learn in their 1st or 2nd year. By now even high school students are probably learning it.

            That’s the thing deniers never understand: manmade climate change must happen according to very simple physical laws. Getting the exact amount, and the timeline, are difficult, but the basic mechanisms are easy to grasp.

          • Dick Winningstad

            So being a climate expert is not necessary? Seems a bit simplistic.

          • DavidAppell

            I notice that you did not reply to the statement from Pierrehumbert’s textbook about CO2 vs water vapor, and CO2 having 100x the absorption coefficient that water vapor has in the peak IR spectrum from the Earth, and that CO2 exists where water vapor does not (poles, stratosphere).

            These subleties matter. Why are you ignoring them?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Because most graphs I have seen dealing with IR absorption show water vapor to be the more efficient mode. CO2 is better in a very narrow part of the spectrum.

            http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

          • DavidAppell

            Tell me Dick: how exactly do you think the bullet items at your link prove your case?

          • DavidAppell

            In this link’s Figure 6.2 — what does it mean that CO2 has a lot of absorption at 2.6 microns, where water vapor absorbs little where there is little of it in the statosphere and in cold regions near the poles?

            What does it mean for CO2’s absorption at 4.5 microns, where water vapor absorbs very little?

          • Dick Winningstad

            You are a third degree physics major. So perhaps you can explain why that one point is more important than than the broad spectrum of IR that water vapor deal;s with.

          • DavidAppell

            Because as Figure 2 shows, water vapor doesn’t absorb strongly at that wavelength. Or better, at 4.3 microns. And at 15.6 microns.

            Come on, tens of thousands of scientists have been thinking about this for over a century. Do you really think they’d get something this simple completely wrong??

          • Dick Winningstad

            And yet water vapor absorbs in a much wider spectrum.
            I think your tens of thousands number is a bit exaggerated.
            Now to, possibly, find some common ground. 1. I do not deny that global warming is happening. The Earth is getting warmer since the mid-1800’s. 2. I am skeptical; that man is the cause, or the main cause. 3. I am skeptical that man can reverse the warming trend or even stop it. 4. I can not see how man can do much to change the trend. Man should be looking to adjust to the trend.
            Do you agree or think otherwise?

          • DavidAppell

            “…that many climate scientists are willing to blame a gas that is 400 ppm of the atmosphere and only marginally at best increased by man to be the supposed villain of climate change.”

            Again you provide no numbers, or rationale for using only a gas’s number density to deny a problem.

            The concentration of ozone is about 1/700th that of CO2.

            But without this tiny amount of ozone, we’d all be dead.

            Explain that, Dick, if you think a small number is all that matters…..

          • Dick Winningstad

            Ozone blocks most UV rays. CO2 is a marginal green house gas when compared to water vapor.

          • DavidAppell

            But ozone is 1/700th the concentration of CO2. How can any miniscule trace gas do ANYTHING?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Because it is a demonstrated fact. And there are no other molecules involved. Unlike CO2 and water vapor.

          • DavidAppell

            How can ozone, which is measured in parts per billion, possibly block all that UV?

          • S Graves

            These guys can explain a possibility for you.
            —Here we present evidence that the representation of stratospheric ozone in climate models can have a first-order impact on estimates of effective climate sensitivity. —

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n1/full/nclimate2451.html

          • DavidAppell

            Thanks for the link, but I was talking about ozone’s ability to block UV light and make the surface habitable for land animals.

          • S Graves

            —How can any miniscule trace gas do ANYTHING?—
            So this was sarcasm? Good to mark it so if it was. Thanks for the clarification…I think.

          • DavidAppell

            Define “marginal,” and prove it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            our graph above proves it. CO2 is in a marginal slice of the IR spectrum.

          • DavidAppell

            What “graph above?”

            Where is this graph?

          • Dick Winningstad

            It is your graph above posted yesterday.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Excuse me, your graph. I left out a y.

          • Eric Blair

            Do you have any proof, or documents, that show that the “left” is deliberately paying off scientists to skew results? Isn’t that an amazing conspiracy that has held together for so long? You have, seriously, two choices: that the vast majority of scientists are doing honest science and not lying about their results, or we have an amazing world-wide conspiracy that has yet to be proven by documents, or from conscientious scientists coming forward to blow the lid off the whole scandal. The latter defies logic and Occam’s Razor.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Always denigrating critics yet demanding proof of objectivity for your side? The evidence is that while the Earth is warming, the cause that it is man caused is really still up for debate. Below are sources for cheating on the pro- man caused global warming debate.

            http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/08/28/if-global-warming-exists-why-would-they-have-to-cheat-yet-again/

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

            http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

            http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

          • DavidAppell

            Can you link to any actual science?

            None of your links are to science, but to very iffy places. Naturalnews.com????

          • Eric Blair

            I asked about the evidence of a conspiracy among thousands of scientists. You provided none. Then you changed the goal posts. You went from a left wing conspiracy to it being a debate. You’re pretty much proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

            Science is a process.. if there is serious scientific concern, it will come out in the research. HOwever, the most vocal deniers are motivated by political partisanship.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Who said anything about a conspiracy? It is more like market forces. If you want a government grant you need to show global warming is man caused.

          • Icando8thgradescience

            What you fail to understand, and why you should stop trying to act like someone who knows jack, is the cause of the rapidness currently taking place compared to your “1500” year cycle.

          • DavidAppell

            Indeed. Nor has Dick explained the cause of this supposed cycle.

            Dick avoids questions he can’t answer.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I suggest you read some of Dr. Singer’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years”

          • DavidAppell

            Singer’s book is crap — what is causing their purposed cycle? It was published as a book because it couldn’t get his ideas published as a genuine scientific article.

            For anyone who knows science, SInger’s claims are laughable.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Your response is laughable.

            But about Dr. Singer:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20090417032550/http://sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html
            ————
            http://web.archive.org/web/20090417032120/http://sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/profact.html

            “Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer has published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career. Only a handful of scientists–in any field of research–have anything approaching that number. His most recent peer-reviewed publication on global warming appeared in EOS: Transactions of the AGU (American Geophysical Union), December 16, 1997.”

            Plus published books; “These books are all technical publications and are well-referenced. Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, published in 1970, was one of the first to deal with the possibility of global warming. The book grew–in part–out of Dr. Singer’s association with the late Dr. Roger Revelle, a scientist often referred to as the “father of greenhouse warming.””

            ——–
            Now I just scanned a bit of the net. And also came up with sites that condemn him but they seem more bent on character assassination than refutation of his writings. A typical leftist tactic as your statement above demonstrates. I would suggest you are in the climate religion business rather than science.

          • DavidAppell

            Again, what is causing Singer’s 1500 year cycle???

            Yes, Singer once did good work. That makes his spiral into climate change denial all the more tragic.

            When I saw him speak at PSU in 2011, people were laughing at what he was saying — that there’d been on warming at all.

            Putting forth Singer as proof of your side is pretty lame and desperate.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I attended that 2011 appearance too at PSU. I do not think you were there as the laughter was at his opponent or in agreement. Your insistence at character assassination is evidence of the paucity of your argument.

          • DavidAppell

            I was there. In fact, I asked questions. Singer’s answers, like that there was no global warming, were laughable and the scientific crowd showed it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I still doubt your attendance.

          • DavidAppell
          • Dick Winningstad

            It appears you saw more than I did. I took away that yes the world is warming but the contribution of man is questionable.

          • DavidAppell

            What you took away is wrong — because Singer is wrong.

          • DavidAppell

            Indeed. Dick, Senator Doug: what is the cause of modern warming. And your evidence?

    • Dano2

      I am wondering if we did have a mini-ice age

      You were duped (willingly?) by a disinformation site that lied to you. Stop reading it.

      Best,

      D

      • DavidAppell

        Beautiful graph….

        • Wake up

          You can draw more knowledge from Chuck Wiese 24/7.

        • Dick Winningstad

          Short time frame and the second half is speculation.

          • DavidAppell

            The “second half” is a *calculation*, based on physics.

            What does your calculation find?

          • MrBill

            The second half is based on models that haven’t successfully accounted for the 18-yr and counting pause in warming. In short, they haven’t even predicted the present, let alone the future.

          • DavidAppell

            There is no 18-year pause in warming. In fact, warming is accelerating.

          • MrBill

            Sure

          • Eric Blair

            That graph doesn’t show a 18 year pause in warming. You’re aware of that, yes?

          • MrBill

            My point, which I’ve made in the past, is that climate models have not even reliably predicted the present, much less decades into the future. They are not a sound basis for policy.

          • DavidAppell
          • Robert

            I want to congratulate you on the article at Yale Climate Connections. Thanks, I know it takes a lot of work compiling the resources and creating a piece like that.

            It is important that the public sees such well done work.

            :Earth’s Warming: How Scientists Know It’s Not the Sun : Scientists point to compelling evidence that Earth’s atmospheric warming over recent decades cannot be caused primarily by energy coming from the Sun.

            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/10/earths-warming-how-scientists-know-its-not-the-sun/

          • jmac
          • Robert

            Just added that site to the morning reading, thanks!

          • DavidAppell

            Thanks a lot, Robert.

          • jmac

            Just wanted to echo Robert’s congratulations below. He brought it to my attention about your piece. Thank you! It is amazing how many times the deniers think it is the sun.

          • DavidAppell

            Thanks jmac.

          • Kudos on the article also. Credit given for your hard work.

          • DavidAppell

            Thanks.

          • MrBill

            It seems a little funny that you’re criticizing me for citing out of date material and then you come back with something from 1981.

            The direction of observed data from the end of the curve could go anywhere. It could go up or go flat (which is where it appears to be heading. Who knows, it could even go down and we could be entering another ice age.

          • DavidAppell

            “The direction of observed data from the end of the curve could go anywhere.”

            Absolutely false. It will go where the laws of physics require it to go. That means even warmer temperatures in the future. And, no, there will not be another ice age, perhaps ever again.

          • MrBill

            Agreed that they will go where the laws of physics say they will. But I don’t think that we understand all that well the system or how the forces involved interact with one another.

            There will never be another ice age? Are you sure of that?

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, we know the next ice age is toast.

            What physical laws do you think are missing?

          • MrBill

            Don’t know what’s missing, but I know something’s missing.

          • DavidAppell

            So you don’t know the science, but will still believe what you made up. Sure, that’s rational.

          • DavidAppell

            Your graph — which by now is old and out-of-date — is for the lower troposphere, not the surface.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but there aren’t many people living in the troposphere, are there?

          • DavidAppell

            Actually that graph is 25 years old! That’s a huge amount of time, especially for a science like climate science. The data and the projections have all changed since then….

          • MrBill

            And where will they be 25 years from now? Will today’s projections prove any more reliable?

          • DavidAppell

            Who knows? Projections are scenarios — guesses about what might occur. They are never accurate….. But if you can read the future and tell us what will be the energy mix for the next 25 years, please, go right ahead….

          • DavidAppell

            Projections aren’t predictions, since no one can know the future of our greenhouse emissions and natural changes.

            We can only calculate a future based on assumptions. How else would you do it?

          • MrBill

            And if the original assumptions prove incorrect, and you come up with a new set of assumptions based on the same premise, then why should they be trusted any more than the original?

          • DavidAppell

            By assumptions, do you mean the laws of physics? Those aren’t “assumed….”

            But, yes, much of the point of making a model is to use it to make a better model.

          • MrBill

            And how do you know the new model will accurately model the earth’s climate for decades into the future? It still needs to be verified just like it’s predecessor. You don’t just blindly do your calc’s and proceed forward on the assumption that everything has been accounted for.

          • DavidAppell

            No one knows how accurately a model will project the future — BECAUSE NO ONE CAN READ THE FUTURE.

            But models have done a good enough job so far to show that we’re going to enter serious climate change.

            Do you have some method besides models to assess the risk?

          • PhilJourdan

            You mean the models that are on the edge of 2 sigmas of being totally wrong? Yea, that is something to hang your hat on.

            Here’s a novel idea child stalker, how about we use reality. Which diverges from the model composite by a statistically conclusive amount.

          • DavidAppell

            You’re calling me a child stalker? What is wrong with you?

          • PhilJourdan

            I got the comments book marked. I can easily post them. What is wrong with YOU.

          • DavidAppell

            Comment flagged.

          • PhilJourdan

            Do you want me to post the links to the proof of the description?

            Comment Flagged

          • MrBill

            And I don’t expect computer models to be perfect either. But thus far they’ve consistently over-projected and haven’t even successfully accounted for the present. So I’m somewhat leery about spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived problems based on projections from these models.

          • DavidAppell
          • Dano2

            models that haven’t successfully accounted for the 18-yr and counting pause in warming.

            Comical warmin paws aside, whoopsie-doodle!

            Here’s how the models are doing.

            Here’s how some older models are doing.

            And some older ones.

            And some older ones.

            And some older ones.

            And some older ones all together.

            And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.

            Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.

            Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!

            This is where we are now.

            Just say derp.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Hogwash.

            Best,

            D

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmm….. the recent time frames have not supported earlier predictions.

          • DavidAppell

            Really?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Cherry picking? We were heading for an ice age in the 70’s. We were going to melt the arctic by now.

          • DavidAppell

            How is this result “cherry picking?” It was a calculation done in 1981, and it *underprojected* subsequent warming.

          • DavidAppell

            We were not heading towards another ice age in the 1970s. In fact, by then a lot of scientists were already warning of CO2 warming, which was first presented as a warning to the US President in 1964. Here is some of some of the scientific paper published on CO2 warming, starting back the 19th century:

            http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

          • DavidAppell

            Oops, the report to the Johnson administration was in 1965:

            “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President’s Science Advisory Committee (1965), pp. 111-133.

            http://is*gd/vE6ikN

          • Dano2

            o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • DavidAppell

            A couple of popular articles does not make a “cooling scare.”

            “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

          • Dano2

            Indeed, David.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Slow down. I’m scoring points for the Climate Denialist Talking Point Game.

            Dimwits who arrrogantly insist there was them thar scientist sayin ice age are one of my most reliable sources of points.

            Best,

            D

          • DavidAppell

            Then there was a 1963 report,

            “The Conservation Foundation, Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere,” (New York: The Conservation Foundation, 1963).

            Spencer Weart (science historian), p. 44: “They issued a report suggesting that the doubling of CO2 projected for the next century could raise the world’s temperature by 4°C (more than 6°F). They warned that this could be harmful; for example, it could cause glaciers to melt and raise the sea level so that coastlines would get flooded.”

          • DavidAppell

            From 1938:

            “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature,” G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society v64 Issue 275 pp 223-240 (April 1938).
            http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf

      • Dick Winningstad

        Why not extend it back to the 1800’s? And show temperature was increasing before industrial activity get big.

        • Dano2

          Because you can’t show temps were increasing? Is this a trick question?

          Best,

          D

  • DavidAppell

    Oh Senator Doug: why can’t you read even the links you use in your article??

    Your first link, for “Global temperatures have not detectably changed in nearly 20 years,” leads to a page whose first sentence is this:

    “Editor’s note: Updated June 4, 2015
    New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century.”

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

    Doug, you look foolish when you don’t actually read the science you’re writing about. Shame on you.

    • Wake up

      David Appell screech’s like a sotted owl in estrous.

      • Dano2

        You can’t hide the fact David pointed out a fib by clowning.

        best,

        D

  • Jack Lord God

    The funny thing in all of this is that the proof of a consistent and pervasive squelching of any discussion contrary to AGW beliefs is more observable than evidence of the belief itself being true.

    Our state climatologist was fired for example.

    Quite funny really.

    • Dano2

      Hey, good screen name, even if your comment is false!

      Best,

      D

    • DavidAppell

      Ha. Against all scientific evidence, the state climatologist denied manmade climate change. He wasn’t actually fired, but he should have been.

      • Wake up

        Chuck Wiese transcends you 24/7.

        • BigMike

          Wiese qualifications?

          • wake up

            Smarter than David Appell and BigMike

          • Dano2

            No no qualifications?

            Best,

            D

  • Dano2

    The senator actively deceives. How does the senator actively deceive? The senator actively deceives by the ol’ switcheroo:

    their modelled predictions of increased severity in global weather events have also failed to occur.

    And what does Doug link to? Global datasets?

    No sir. Regional. He fibs by focusing on one area only, and ignoring the rest of the planet, which is, in fact, seeing increased severity in cyclone strength, episodic precipitation, etc.

    Shame.

    Best,

    D

    • Hawaii D’Light to WaveUadieu

      @ Dano2: Who the spook are you uber than a left wing bat out of a box of bong or gong whipper synapse’s?

      • Dano2

        Feel free to demonstrate – factually – what assertions of mine were incorrect.

        TIA

        Best,

        D

        • Play Misty For Me

          You assertions of little matter on a water planet.

          • Dano2

            Nothing then. Got it.

            Best,

            D

          • Johh Joseph Patrick Ryan

            Plan D: Keystone a pipeline to planet Mars, blub!

          • CB

            “blub!”

            Blub, indeed!

            There isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

            …which should give every thinking person with a healthy sense of self-preservation an idea of where we’re headed if we don’t seriously change course.

            “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

          • S Graves

            Provide any SCIENCE that actually predects that such a “return(ed) to the ocean” is even remotely possible in the next thousand or two year.
            Chicken Little comes to mind with I think of CB’s nonsense.

          • S Graves

            “There isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it…”
            That, of course, is a lie…but you know that.

            Provide any science that supports your bogus claim. NO…not the irrelevant C Dome cores. Unless you believe that the Earth is only 800ky.
            And don’t try contextualizing the two citations I gave you because I will provide the context to demonstrate that you are actually WRONG!
            If you CAN’T provide the actual science, you will clearly be deemed a liar.

          • PhilJourdan

            CB is always throwing that lie around, yet every time someone brings up the Ordovician Ice age (when CO2 was 10 times what it is today), she runs and hides. I am a bit surprised she tried to pull it on you. Usually she tries that lie on newbies.

          • S Graves

            Right Phil. There is something intrinsically wrong there. I don’t know what it is but she just continually and mindlessly posts that same crap over and over as though it was fact. She’s really just nuts, I think. Don’t know how else to explain it.
            I’m also fascinated by her acolytes who occasional jump in to her defense. Once the facts are presented them, they just continue to misdirect and obfuscate to keep from having to admit the truth. But it’s fun watching them.
            I enjoy your posts.

      • Mobius Loop

        It never fails to surprise….. the sight of an attack dog trained to bite it’s own testicles.

  • Alan Journet

    Senator Whitsett:

    Your column ‘Climate Alarmists Seek to Quash Dissent’ was recently drawn to my attention. As a state Senator representing the people of Senate District 28, you might be interested to know that contrary to your claims that nothing is happening, your constituents are already experiencing the consequences of global warming.

    Your column makes several claims that are either inaccurate or convey misinformation. The most obvious are the following:

    1) “Global temperatures have not detectably changed in nearly 20 years. Actual measurements of the earth’s atmosphere, the earth’s oceans and the earth’s land areas clearly refute their doomsday predictions.”
    This statement is even inconsistent with the link you provide where we read: “…the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.” Presumably you expect that your readers will not check your sources.

    2) “Empirically measured global data shows weather events on earth have not become more frequent or severe during the last decade.” While this statement might be accurate, it is worth reading the conclusion of the authors that while the Caribbean has been ravaged: “… the admittedly unusual 9 year U.S. Cat3+ landfall drought is a matter of luck.”

    3) “Advocates of man-caused climate change consistently refer to anecdotal local and regional weather events to allege proof of their computer-modeled hypotheses.” This unsubstantiated claim is so false that it beggars belief. To make such a claim you must spend no time exploring the actual science.

    4) “Any empirically measured increase in average global sea levels is barely measurable and likely not statistically significant.” I note that your source for this offers no evidence to substantiate its claim. If you were to visit your apparent favorite (when it seems to suite you) NOAA site, you’d find sea level rise up to 7 feet in some locations – hardly statistically insignificant, especially to those living in such regions. Additionally, you fail to note that the ocean level rise assessed using tidal gauges are fraught with the error of tectonic plate adjustment. If plates are rising, the sea level rise detected will be countered, if tectonic plates are falling, sea level rise will be exaggerated. Meanwhile, more accurate readings from satellite altimetry show a rate of 1 ft per century since 1992. While this may seem low, it is enough to cause tremendous storm surge problems during high tides. In fact, the rate of ocean level rise is on the high extreme of projections.

    5) The claim that publication by climate science deniers is being suppressed is patently false. The reality is that the anti-science climate deniers are simply not submitting their research to credible peer-reviewed science journals but are relying on unreviewed websites and right wing think tanks to publish their claims.

    6) “Last month, 20 university professors signed a letter addressed to Obama, his science advisor John Holdren and Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging punishment for climate change dissenters.” This is possibly the most obviously fraudulent claim in your column. A review of the letter you link reveals clearly that it does not request punishment for climate change dissenters or those who produce research opposing the climate science consensus. Dissent and contrary research are not the issue. The target is those who have research data substantiating the climate impacts of fossil fuel use but who then suppress those data and continue business as usual. I can only guess that you think your readers are too stupid to realize what you claim is false.

    One statement you make, however, is accurate:

    All of the glaring differences between their computer-modeled temperature predictions and empirically measured global temperature are becoming plain for everyone to see.

    The reason this is accurate is that in almost all areas, the actual trends have been more serious than the models projected.

    One characteristic that citizens expect from their representatives is integrity. Integrity does not lead to twisting the sources you cite either to state the opposite of what they actually state, or to claiming that they make statements you impose on them that they don’t come close to suggesting.

    You have probably heard the expression that ‘Rome burned while Nero fiddled.’ What you are doing here is fiddling while your district is suffering from global warming. Rather than pretending that there is nothing happening even as the evidence is so obvious (just look at Crater Lake snowfall trends), you would serve your constituents better if you opened your eyes and took a look at the actual evidence rather than focus on what you want the evidence to be. You might then be able to help your constituents deal with the problems they are facing.

    For a summary of the climate trends and impacts in Senate District 28, visitL http://socan.info/oregon-legislative-district-summaries/

    Sincerely,

    Alan Journet

    Co-facilitator,
    Southern Oregon Climate Action Now

    • DavidAppell

      Wow — very impressive, Mr. Journet.

      It is wonderful to see that some politicans have a thorough grasp of the science, and are truly concerned for the impacts of climate change on their constituents.

      Thanks for writing.

  • Alan Journet

    As a state Senator representing the people of Senate District 28, Senator Whitsett might be interested to know that contrary to his claims that nothing is happening, his constituents are already experiencing the consequences of global warming.

    This column makes several claims that are either inaccurate or convey
    misinformation. The most obvious are the following:

    1) “Global temperatures have not detectably changed in nearly 20 years. Actual measurements of the earth’s atmosphere, the
    earth’s oceans and the earth’s land areas clearly refute their doomsday predictions.”

    This statement is even inconsistent with the link provided where we read: “…the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.” Presumably Whitsett expects that his readers will not check his sources.

    2) “Empirically measured global data shows weather events on earth have not become more frequent or severe during the last decade.” While this statement might be accurate, it is worth reading the conclusion of the authors that while the Caribbean has been
    ravaged: “… the admittedly unusual 9 year U.S. Cat3+ landfall drought is a matter of luck.”

    3) “Advocates of man-caused climate change consistently refer to anecdotal local and regional weather events to allege proof of their computer-modeled hypotheses.” This unsubstantiated claim is so false that it beggars belief. To make such a claim the Senator must spend no time exploring the actual science.

    4) “Any empirically measured increase in average global sea levels is barely measurable and likely not statistically significant.” I note that your source for this offers no evidence to substantiate its claim. If Senator Whitsett were to visit his apparently favorite (when it seems to suite you) NOAA site, he’d find sea level rise up to 7 feet in some locations – hardly statistically insignificant, especially to those living in such regions. Additionally, the Senator fails to note that the ocean
    level rise assessed using tidal gauges are fraught with the error of tectonic plate adjustment. If plates are rising, the sea level rise detected will be countered, if tectonic plates are falling, sea level rise will be exaggerated. Meanwhile, more accurate readings from satellite altimetry show a rate of 1 ft per century since 1992. While this may seem low, it is enough to cause tremendous storm surge problems during high tides. In fact, the rate of ocean level rise is on the high extreme of projections.

    5) The claim that publication by climate science deniers is being suppressed is patently false. The reality is that the anti-science climate deniers are simply not submitting their research to credible peer-reviewed science journals but are relying on unreviewed websites and right wing think tanks to publish their claims.

    6) “Last month, 20 university professors signed a letter addressed to Obama, his science advisor John Holdren and Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging punishment for climate change dissenters.” This is possibly the most obviously fraudulent claim in the column. A review of the letter mentioned and linked reveals clearly that it does not request punishment for climate change dissenters or those who produce research opposing the climate science consensus.
    Dissent and contrary research are not the issue. The target is
    those who have research data substantiating the climate impacts of fossil fuel use but who then suppress those data and continue business as usual. I can only guess that the Senator thinks his readers are too stupid to realize this claim is false.

    One statement the Senator makes, however, is accurate:

    All of the glaring differences between their [climate scientist’s] computer-modeled temperature predictions and empirically measured global temperature are becoming plain for everyone to see.

    The reason this is accurate is that in almost all areas, the actual trends have been more serious than the models projected.

    One characteristic that citizens expect from their representatives is integrity. Integrity does not lead to twisting the sources cited either to state the opposite of what they actually state, or to claim that they make statements imposed on them that they don’t come close to suggesting.

    Most people have probably heard the expression that ‘Rome burned while Nero fiddled.’ What Senator Whittsett is doing here is fiddling while his district is suffering from global warming. Rather than pretending that there is nothing happening even as the evidence is so obvious (just look at Crater Lake snowfall trends), a representative would serve his constituents better if he opened his eyes and
    took a look at the actual evidence rather than focus on what you want the evidence to be. That might result in his being able to help his
    constituents deal with the problems they are facing.

    The climate summary for Senate District 28 along with a single page bullet list can be found at: http://socan.info/oregon-legislative-district-summaries/.

    • Wallis Martian Water Wands

      Michael Moore-onry Con-DEMagoguery as perusal.

    • Dano2

      Well done, sir.

      Best,

      D

  • Selah Blubs, Maranatha arisin’

    Lo, Green Ballers be thy by name, to wit surface pallets upon Mother Earth’s a moving: Rally know, explain how Mother Earth’s tech tonic plates/gates be always on the movin’,,, an now open, to wit opine what in hell is really going on in common sense reality concerns. .

    • jmac

      Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

      “Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.”

      http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed

  • jmac

    This is very similar to the path the Big Tobacco boys took.

    A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

    This scandal—traveling under the hashtag #exxonknew—is just beginning to build. The Inside Climate News series of six pieces is set to conclude this week and be published as a book, but the LA Times apparently has far more reporting waiting to be released.

    And on Sunday the investigation truly came home, when the The Dallas Morning News—read across the oil patch and hometown paper for Exxon—put the ICN investigation on its front page.

    Bring on the RICO charges now. 🙂

    • The Force Aps Beckon

      Why would anyone on Earth, Heaven or Hell incorporate such a phallusy up their knows that climate change is human caused when scientific evidence points toward galactic interface within a universal manner?

      • jmac

        There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        • Walker Talk

          No monsieur, go dig for the truth emanating from core issues and sun spots before your surmise.

          • jmac

            This may be a shocker to you, but the scientist have actually considered both the ice cores and the suns activity.

            Even Exxon knows your BS is BS.

          • Mobius Loop
          • jmac

            Outstanding! Good to see that.

            For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests that are killing people and threatening our children’s futures, I am inclined to tell them to go f*ck themselves. That won’t resonate with their social/tribal perspectives, but that’s because I find their social/tribal perspectives repugnant and worthy of social censure.

            The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

            The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

            So, taking their cue from the methods used by Big Tobacco, they have employed the same institutions like Heartland, to create doubt in the mind of the public.

            It’s one thing to honestly doubt the reality of something that will affect your business and your bottom line. It’s a very different thing to be entirely convinced of its reality, to the point where you are making business decisions based on its reality, and as part of your business strategy, decide that deceiving the average person is the best and most profitable course of action.

            A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. IMO

            The deniers are simply immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • Robert

            Very well said! Thanks!

          • Mobius Loop

            You may have seen this, a letter to Lamar Smith from members of his committee.

            Its a very direct challenge to someone abusing authority to harass scientists simply trying to do their job…… and these people have the gall to talk about squashing dissent!

            http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20on%20NOAA%20Subpoena.pdf

          • Robert

            Great letter!

          • Mobius Loop

            There are times when our politicians act like politicians should and that gives me hope. The letter is a remarkably frank challenge to a man abusing his position.

            One day we will look back at people like Smith and wonder how he was able to act with such blatant disregard for the welfare of those he is supposed to represent instead of those who have purchased his services.

          • Geo Theo

            Pull a tectonic plate out from your morass an feel your temp arisin’.

  • Mobius Loop

    Given the headline and content of this article, the actions of Lamar Smith bear scrutiny.

    On the one hand he punishes climate scientists for doing their jobs. Despite NOAA providing all of the scientific information that he requested about a recent study, he has subpoenaed the internal communication of scientists,

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2488946-10-13-15-subpoena-from-house-science-committee.html

    While on the other hand, he punishes climate scientists for daring to raise concerns that some corporations and other organizations may be lying to the US public about the issue of AGW.

    Despite the fact that the scientists say there is plenty of evidence supporting this allegation his response is ………….. punish the scientists making the allegations and demand their internal communications.

    https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/10-1-15%20CLS%20to%20Shukla.pdf

    Where are Whitetts concerns about the actions Lamar Smith?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)