Paying a “Climate Debt”?

Last month, Senator John Kerry introduced the International Climate Change Investment Act of 2009, which is intended to “fund efforts to reduce deforestation, deploy clean energy technologies, and increase adaptation capacity in developing countries.” In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States would contribute to a climate change fund amounting to $100 billion a year by 2020. Apparently based on dubious assumptions of higher global temperatures by 2100, politicians on the federal level are aiming to hand over a significant sum of money from hard-working Americans to developing countries.

Many climate change alarmists and developing countries alike have stated that the United States and other developed countries are the primary cause of global warming because of our release of greenhouse gases over the past century. Many more are advocating a policy of paying back our “climate debt” to developing countries and have advocated for global wealth redistribution, such as “rich” nations handing over 1% of their annual GDP to developing countries. This would amount to $140 billion a year just from the United States.

For some, it seems that “saving the planet” from climate change has other perks as well. Supporting doomsday scenarios could end up being quite lucrative for developing nations since, according to Sen. Kerry’s bill, the American taxpayer would “provide predictable, stable, and sufficient financing to support global climate change goals.”


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

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

Posted by at 05:30 | Posted in Measure 37 | 123 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Kurt

    Dubious doesn’t begin to describe this fraud. Another year of record cold and snow – and we are not even one month into winter! These absolute frauds are just proving what PT Barnum always thought, and I guess he was right.
    If you are stupid enough to believe in global warming, why don’t you move to the Arctic, then, as I hear it is really warming up and everything is melting.
    Oh me Oh my – whatever shall we do??????
    Idiots.

    • David Appell

      Kurt wrote:
      > Dubious doesn’t begin to describe this fraud. Another year of record
      > cold and snow – and we are not even one month into winter!

      How many times must this scientifically ignorant statement be set straight?

      1) The US is only about 2% of the globe.
      2) Weather is not climate. The latter is 10-yr plus averages of weather. Globally, the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in recorded history. A few freezing spells in the American midwest will certainly not change that. Even a globally cooler-than-average December does not significantly change the long-term trend.

      • Kurt

        Yeah, yeah repeat the same old garbage. It is record cold in China, too, and Europe, and parts of Asia, etc. Far more than you idiotic warmers want to even consider. Taint the data, spin the truth, make a big deal out of nothing, and ignore the sun. That makes sense to me.
        I think we need carbon credits or something or we will all die within 12 months.
        Idiots and fools.
        Warmer tools.
        Stupid ghouls.
        Break all rules.

        Science it ain’t and I
        don’t hear a complaint.

        You warmers should get a life
        and quit causing strife.

        Warm my arse – it is COLD out there.
        I say we have some global cooling going on out there.
        A lot of it, too.

        Man, I am so scared.
        a picture of

        • David Appell

          I don’t care where it’s cold. It’s always cold somewhere. The relevant factor is what is the globally average temperature. This is carefully calculated every month by four different groups — two measuring ground instruments, two measuring by satellites.

          Their results are very consistent over the life-span of the satellites (ie since 1979).

          You can deny reality if you want. I choose to consider what the actual scientific observations say, not what the Drudge Report says. DR is hardly an objective source and you’re a fool for taking your climate position from it.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* You can deny reality if you want.
            *JK:* Try this reality:
            Kevin Trenberth, Draft Contributing Author for the Summary for Policy Makers, contributing author to Ch 1, a lead author for Ch 3, and contributing author to Ch 7 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4:
            12 Oct 2009:“… we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. (…) and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. (…) The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. (. . .) Our observing system is inadequate.” (1255352257.txt)

            AND
            Oct 14, 2009: “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system…”

            Thanks
            JK

          • Diamond Jim

            The reality is that temps are not warming.
            That is the reality.

          • David Appell

            A strange assertion, given that this decade’s temperatures are by far the warmest in recorded history.

          • jim karlock

            David, you have to quit being a sucker for the fraudulent data coming our of the CRU.

            Did you learn NOTHING from the emails?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > you have to quit being a sucker for the fraudulent data coming our of the CRU.

            Clearly you don’t know this, but noone in the CRU email universe deals with the data that measures the Earth’s temperature.

            That data comes from four different organizations: UAH, RSS, NASA GISS, and Hadley.

            UAH is primarily the well-known skeptics Christy & Spencer. After correcting for their ~ one decade-long error, their data now agrees with the other three.

            RSS is a private organization.

            NASA GISS’s data is primarily handled by Reto Ruedy.

            In any case, the data is all online and you, Jim, are just as free to download every month’s station data and analyze it for yourself and come up with your own monthly measurement of the temperature anomaly.

            Why don’t you do that and get back to us? Then you can show us how wrong they all are.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* 2) Weather is not climate. The latter is 10-yr plus averages of weather
        *JK:* Good!! Now learn this:
        Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4 said:
        “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” (1120593115.txt)

        It is now 11 years of cooling & according to YOU that is climate!

        Thanks
        JK

        • jim karlock

          *David:* In the past, millions of years ago, the world was certainly far warmer (at times) and far cooler (at times) than it is today. But those times didn’t have the strong additional factor of manmade GHGs to contend with.
          *JK:* Yep, they happened naturally, without your fabricated CO2 factor. Just as today’s warming is happening without YOUR fabricated CO2 factor.

          BTW, we are still waiting for evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming in the real atmosphere.

          *David:* But there weren’t 7B people then living on the planet, all dependent on a finely-tuned agricultural system for survival.
          *JK:* That means we have far more to fear from COOLING than warming, because cooling, unlike warming, will devastate agriculture.

          *David:* Rates of change of present climate are far higher than they ever were in the past.
          *JK:* That is simple wrong. If you are not lying again, please prove it.

          Thanks
          JK

  • Diamond Jim

    Wake up people. Global warming is real.
    It is why we are so cold right now.
    RECORD cold. Due to warming.
    Makes sense to me.

  • Anonymous

    With nearly 5 million visits per month now,

    wattsupwiththat.com

    is the one stop place to get the full monty of AGW fraud.

    From our local liars fabricating Oregon connections to global warming to the global reports of manipulated and destroyed data the left wing AGW movement is unraveling as a coffin for the left.

    The despicable efforts by loyal liars of the socialist climate fanatasism to preserve the fraud and their standing are only making their downfall worse.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I think the sun is finally setting on the AGW nonsense. Looks like another record winter on the way and “oh well gee, you aren’t a scientist one winter doesn’t mean anything, yeesh if you were a scientist you would know that but your not” is starting to sound a little old after decade of non predicted cooling.

    Speaking of predictions, as I predicted in month one of the BO administration, cap and trade was not signed by the end of the year. With the Democrat retirees announced today it looks like the American people might very well have dodged that bullet. The electoral situation for 2010 does not bode well for further Democrat risk taking so it is very possible some of the more wing nut ideas of the AGW’ers will be left by the road side. Cap and trade I think is one of them.

    Unlike the 2008 elections, with vulnerable districts and Republican retirements heavily favoring the Democrats, 2010 will be a reverse of the electoral situation. Democrats in districts McCain carried will be up for election. Its hard to see how anything in the past year will have swung those people in any direction other than right. 2012 wont be much better. Democrats took congress in 2006 largely by running moderate to conservative candidates. Well, in 2012 those Senate seats will be up and those candidates now in them wont be in any mood to run leftward after the 2010 elections and before the 2012 ones.

    Time will tell, but I think the totalitarian aspirations of the climate alarmists are on the wane. No one is in the mood to pay the AGW believers guilt debt to the third world. BO might be able to implement some of the nonsense through regulation, but I think the country is fairly safe from harm on anything that requires an actual vote.

  • David Appell

    Todd wrote:
    > Apparently based on dubious assumptions of higher global temperatures by 2100,

    First, these higher temperatures are certainly not “assumptions” — they are scientific calculations based on economic/sociological projections about known physics. The first of the calculations was done over 100 years ago, by pencil and paper, and the answer has really not changed much since them.

    What exactly are “dubious” about them? It’s easy to attach such an adjective, but you haven’t proved it at all.

    • jim karlock

      *David:* What exactly are “dubious” about them? It’s easy to attach such an adjective, but you haven’t proved it at all.
      *JK:* They are unproven assumptions. You have never been able to come up with proof that CO2 can cause warming in the real atmosphere. The best you did was to say we can’t figure it out, so it must be CO2.
      Garbage David, Garbage.
      Would get you flunked in a grade school logic class.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        > You have never been able to come up with proof that CO2 can cause
        > warming in the real atmosphere.

        In 1859 Tyndall showed, experimentally, that certain gases (such as H2O & CO2) trap heat.

        Tyndall, John (1861). “On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours…” Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.
        https://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article3

        • jim karlock

          *David:* > You have never been able to come up with proof that CO2 can cause
          > warming in the real atmosphere.

          In 1859 Tyndall showed, experimentally, that certain gases (such as H2O & CO2) trap heat.

          *JK:* Laughable David. You can’t even come up with something from the last century!!

          Lets review: I asked for proof that CO2 can heat up the real atmosphere and you give me something 150 years old. 50 years before the airplane and before routine (if any) measurements of the atmosphere.

          Again I have to question you competence to be a “science” writer.

          Thanks
          JK

  • David Appell

    Todd wrote:
    > Many climate change alarmists and developing countries alike have stated
    > that the United States and other developed countries are the primary cause of
    > global warming because of our release of greenhouse gases over the past century.

    There’s little doubt about this — and Todd, you haven’t provided any. The US and other developed countries have, over the last century, been responsible for most of the deleterious CO2 put into the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Therefore, why shouldn’t they pay for most of its cleanup? Isn’t that only fair?

    • zeke

      How about this Mr. Appell? Since CO2 is ‘your demon of the day’, why don’t you and all those who blindly believe just cut it completely out of your life, and leave the rest of us alone. See how that works out for you!

      • David Appell

        Because “cutting it out of your life” is not a realistic or meaningful solution. Nor is anyone proposing that it should be. The solution is carbon-free sources of energy, just as the solution in earlier decades was gasoline and paint without lead in it, or aerosols that do not destroy the ozone layer.

        Would you prefer that lead have remained in gasoline and paint, with it subsequent impact on brain tissue (esp the brain development of children)?

        Yes or no?

        • zeke

          You ask, “Skeptics have never — NEVER — shown, via calculation or model, how today’s climate can be accounted for by natural factors alone. ”

          Really? The activity of the Sun correlates quite nicely with the MWP, the Little Ice Age, the heat of the 20s and 30s, the cooling of the mid-19th century, and today’s lack of warming. Odd you didn’t notice!

          The fact is over 96% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from nature. Eliminate man’s contribution and the reading would lower from 385 to 370 ppm. Impressive!

          And speaking of what has never been — where can one find the scientific proof that CO2 causes warming? — if the hypothesis is so evident, why is there no source, no equation, and no scientist held up as the ‘Father of the AGW Science”? That should be a simple task for one with the knowledge you purport to possess.

          • David Appell

            > Really? The activity of the Sun correlates quite nicely with the MWP, the Little Ice Age,
            > the heat of the 20s and 30s, the cooling of the mid-19th century, and today’s lack of
            > warming. Odd you didn’t notice!

            Correlations show a (possible) relationship. They do not show cause.

            Haven’t you ever heard the expression “Correlation is not causation”?

            Solar fluctuations do influence climate, but have a radiative forcing of only about 0.1 W/m2. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, that was significant. Today, it is not, as manmade GHGs has a RF of about +2 W/m2 and manmade aerosols have a RF of about -1 W/m2. Both dwarf solar fluctuations, as innumerable publications in Science and Proc Roy Soc A have shown in the past 5 years.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* Correlations show a (possible) relationship. They do not show cause.

            Haven’t you ever heard the expression “Correlation is not causation”?
            *JK:* Haven’t you ever heard that correlation is necessary for proof and the correlation of CO2 and climate stinks:
            —The ice cores show that temperature LEADS CO2
            — The 20th century climate has CO2 rising and temperature declining in places.
            — Analysis of shorter term. ups & downs also show that temperature leads CO2

            The correlation between solar and temperature is valid for thousands of years down to most of the 20th century. Just because we cannot explain the details, is no reason to dismiss the MUCH BETTER correlation than CO2. (Do you conjure up gods to explain everything we cannot figure out? Heck no, so why do you conjure up CO2?)

            BTW the solar – climate link was known 200 years age in the price of wheat correlation with sunspots.
            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > The fact is over 96% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from nature. Eliminate
            > man’s contribution and the reading would lower from 385 to 370 ppm.

            Wrong.

            Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 were 280 ppm.

            And the fact is, that 280 ppm warmed the Earth by about 7 deg C compared to if it wasn’t there. So it’s hardly surprising that another 35% of this gas would cause a few more degrees of warming.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 were 280 ppm.
            *JK:* You don’t know that – you are just repeating garbage from the IPCC. That is from the same people who just got caught hiding the decline and forging the ocean surface data:

            Tom Wigley, Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change:
            27 Sep 2009: “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

            I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip.” (1254108338.txt)

            AND

            Oct 14, 2009: … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. (1255553034.txt)

            Thanks
            JK

          • zeke

            David wrote — “Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 were 280 ppm.

            And the fact is, that 280 ppm warmed the Earth by about 7 deg C compared to if it wasn’t there. So it’s hardly surprising that another 35% of this gas would cause a few more degrees of warming. ”

            So, during the MWP, BEFORE man introduced all this evil CO2, why was the temperature warmer then than now? While the Romans occupied England, they planted successful vineyards. That little bit of history repudiates any claims that ‘the Earth is warmer today than it has ever been’ (Al Gore, in his movie of lies and fabrications).

            The Earth is 150 years removed from an ice age that occurred after the MWP, so please explain how CO2 had anything to do with either. And all this occurred BEFORE the scientist no one ever heard of made the faulty connection between CO2 and temperatures. Apparently, historical fact was never taken in account.

          • David Appell

            > So, during the MWP, BEFORE man introduced all this evil CO2, why was the
            > temperature warmer then than now?

            First of all, there is no scientific consensus that the MWP was warmer than today or that the MWP was a global phenomenon.

            Second of all, it simply doesn’t matter.

            In the past, millions of years ago, the world was certainly far warmer (at times) and far cooler (at times) than it is today. But those times didn’t have the strong additional factor of manmade GHGs to contend with.

            But there weren’t 7B people then living on the planet, all dependent on a finely-tuned agricultural system for survival.

            Rates of change of present climate are far higher than they ever were in the past. That’s the problem. Could humans live in a +5C world? Yes, given sufficient time to adapt. 100 yrs is hardly sufficient time — in nature, such changes usually took place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. And a great many species went extinct in the process.

            While the Romans occupied England, they planted successful vineyards. That little bit of history repudiates any claims that ‘the Earth is warmer today than it has ever been’ (Al Gore, in his movie of lies and fabrications).

            The Earth is 150 years removed from an ice age that occurred after the MWP, so please explain how CO2 had anything to do with either. And all this occurred BEFORE the scientist no one ever heard of made the faulty connection between CO2 and temperatures. Apparently, historical fact was never taken in account.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* In the past, millions of years ago, the world was certainly far warmer (at times) and far cooler (at times) than it is today. But those times didn’t have the strong additional factor of manmade GHGs to contend with.
            *JK:* No, they happened naturally, without your fabricated CO2 factor. Just as today’s warming is happening without YOUR fabricated CO2 factor.

            BTW, we are still waiting for evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming in the real atmosphere.

            *David:* But there weren’t 7B people then living on the planet, all dependent on a finely-tuned agricultural system for survival.
            *JK:* That means we have far more to fear from COOLING than warming, because cooling, unlike warming, will devastate agriculture.

            *David:* Rates of change of present climate are far higher than they ever were in the past.
            *JK:* That is simple wrong. If yuo are not lying agin, please prove it.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            JK wrote:
            > Just as today’s warming is happening without YOUR fabricated CO2 factor.

            Of course, you offer no proof of this. You never have.

            The fact is, scientists are unable to explain modern warming (a 3-sigma fluctuation since 1975) without invoking manmade factors. See

            IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
            (bottom three graphs)
            https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

          • David Appell

            > That means we have far more to fear from COOLING than warming,
            > because cooling, unlike warming, will devastate agriculture.

            Certainly, both will devastate agriculture, if they occur fast enough.

            Except (1) there’s no evidence that climactic cooling is taking place, and esp (2) all theory and evidence points to an expected large warming, not cooling.

          • David Appell

            > David: Rates of change of present climate are far higher than they ever were in the past.
            > JK: That is simple wrong. If yuo are not lying agin, please prove it.

            Current rates of change are about 0.1 C/decade — far, far larger than anything that has occured in the past, even during the Younger Dryas.

          • David Appell

            zeke wrote:
            > The Earth is 150 years removed from an ice age that occurred after the MWP, so
            > please explain how CO2 had anything to do with either.

            These questions were answered decades ago and you would do well to read a few books on climate change and seeking your own answers to your own questions.

            Many scientists believe we should never have come out of the Little Ice Age. But the Industrial Revolutions’s (which began ~200-250 yrs ago) creation of unnatural atmospheric gases has been artificially raising the earth’s temperature and overwhelming the long-term (~10^3-4 yrs) slide into a new ice age.

          • David Appell

            > And speaking of what has never been — where can one find the scientific proof
            > that CO2 causes warming? — if the hypothesis is so evident, why is
            > there no source, no equation, and no scientist held up as the ‘Father of the AGW Science”?

            Why can’t you do 2 minutes of your own research and look this up? The science is so old it’s now taken for granted, like the laws of thermodynamics or of basic chemistry.

            Fourier — a mathematical genius — discovered the warming properties of CO2 in 1824. Read here:

            book: The Discovery of Global Warming
            Spencer Weart
            ch: “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

            In fact, you would clearly benefit by reading all of Weart’s book.

            William Connelley translated all of Fourier’s 1827 paper,”MEMOIRE sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires,” Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l’Institut de France VII. 570–604 (1827)
            https://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html

      • David Appell

        PS: People do not “blindly” believe that man is influencing today’s climate. It’s a matter of scientific proof.

        As climate scientists have clearly shown, the drastic warming of the last few decades (since about 1975) cannot be explained solely by natural factors. Only when the additional factors of man are included can the increase (a 3-sigma fluctuation) be explained.

        Skeptics have never — NEVER — shown, via calculation or model, how today’s climate can be accounted for by natural factors alone.

        Can you?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >As climate scientists have clearly shown, the drastic warming of the last few decades (since about 1975) cannot be explained solely by natural factors. Only when the additional factors of man are included can the increase (a 3-sigma fluctuation) be explained.

          Yawn – Is this old eco myth being dredged up again?

          Come on, if you had made it to the talk you skipped out on last year you would have heard an IPCC Scientist himself say this wasn’t the case.

          Sigh

          • David Appell

            This is no “eco-myth” — it is proof by modeling, the best technique of our age. Do you have an intelligent disproof of the idea, Rupert? If so, why haven’t you published it? You would be an instantly famous person. You would be a have-to-get interview on every cable channel. The book you would write would be an instant bestseller and you could command 100K+/lecture.

            You seem so interested in making money — here is your path to fame.

            No worries, though. You don’t have the knowledge, training, ability, or chops to back up your simplistic dismissal and make anything of it.

        • jim karlock

          *David:* As climate scientists have clearly shown, the drastic warming of the last few decades (since about 1975) cannot be explained solely by natural factors. Only when the additional factors of man are included can the increase (a 3-sigma fluctuation) be explained.
          *JK:* OK we agree. It is man made.

          It was man made at the CRU. Here’s how:
          Tom Wigley, Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change:
          27 Sep 2009: “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

          I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip.” (1254108338.txt)

          AND

          Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4 said:
          16 Nov 1999: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
          ( 942777075.txt)
          ——————-Note: this is an extremely important admission: the “decline” he
          ——————-is hiding is the decline in temperature indicated by the tree-rings, while the actual
          ——————-temperature rose since 1961. The existence of this tree-ring decline, while
          ——————-the actual temperature rose, suggests that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any
          ——————-period, since it is wrong for about 1/3 of the record (after 1961.)
          ——————-This is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.
          He also said:
          “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” (1120593115.txt)

          It is now 11 years of cooling & according to YOU that is climate!

          AND
          Keith Briffa, Lead author for Ch 6 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4 said:

          Apr 29, 2007: “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” (1177890796.txt)
          and this:
          Sep 22, 1999: “ there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. (938031546.txt)

          As your GOD, Michael E. Mann, Creator of the famous “hockey stick” shaped temperature curve prominently featured in the UN’s third climate report (tar) used by Al Gore said:

          27/10/2009, 16:54: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
          (1256735067.txt)
          Thanks
          JK

    • jim karlock

      *David:* most of the deleterious CO2 put into the Earth’s atmosphere.
      *JK:* You have never proven that it is “deleterious”. In fact you have never produced evidence that:
      —- CO2 can even cause dangerous warming.
      —- Man’s CO2 is the CO2 that is building up in the atmosphere (it is only 3% of the total annual emissions)
      —- CO2 caused warming will be harmful, instead of beneficial.

      BTW, how much does Fenton Communications pay bloggers like you ro flood the internet with Michael Mann’s & Al Gore’s BS?

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        Jim Karlock wrote:
        > In fact you have never produced evidence that:
        > —- CO2 can even cause dangerous warming.

        Jim, for the Nth time: What do you mean by “dangerous?”

        Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

        How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is “dangerous?” Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it’s dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still “dangerous?” What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

        What is the unit of danger, anyway?

        Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?

        Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

        Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

        • jim karlock

          Just try answering the question!

          OF course, you can’t because there is NO PROOF that CO2 can cause dangerous warming and YOU know it.

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, I have tried innumerable times to answer your question, but you won’t even define your own terms.

            What do you mean by “dangerous?”

          • jim karlock

            *David* Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?
            *JK:* You are spreading lies again by citing one stastic in a vacuum. Here is the death toll from one cold spell:
            “As many comparisons are being made between the winter of 2010 and the Big Freeze of ’63, a look back at official Government statistics reveals that there were more than 89,000 excess deaths that year.” https://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/150858/Freeze-may-kill-60-000%5D

            As a well informed person you know that it is widely known that cold deaths far exceed heat deaths, but you bring up heat deaths to try to fool people. Why do you keep trying to fool people?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, I don’t think my fact/perspective is wrong, but in any case unless you can end your accusation of “lying” everytime you disagree with someone’s conclusion I’m done with you.

            It is perfectly possible to present information one believes to be true and, if it turns out not to be true, is not a “lie.”

            I never have and never will present information I knowingly believe to be false. I believe the same is true for the vast majority of people.

            So unless you can curtail your claim of “liar” every time you disagree with someone, I will not respond to anything else you say. It’s a cheap and tawdry tactic, not to mention childish.

  • Anonymous

    ClimateGate deniers are complete idiots! You cannot argue with idiots like these Warmists!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Holy Cow – I just had a look at the weather map. Brrrr it looks cold out there across the land.

    You know, if those climate guys are so good at predicting the weather, how come they didn’t see the recent winters coming and make a killing in the futures market? What about predicting increased hurricanes and then we had none last season? I wonder if those guys were selling short on insurance stock?

    Well, nothing quite like the age old BS detector – If you can predict the future so accurately, how come you aren’t rich?

    Now that I think of it, short sells would be a real good way to test AGW. Just open up 100 year contracts on the futures market. That way all these gloom and doom scientists could sell short and lay off points on commodities that would be affected by the warming. They would make a killing if they were right. No need to wait the 100 years either. After ten or twenty years, if people really felt the temperature was going up, those contracts would be worth a fortune.

    How about shipping? You melt down a lot of ice up north and pretty soon a boat from Japan to Europe shaves a week or two off the trip. Sounds like shipping just got a whole lot cheaper and quicker. Ten years ago Al Gore was saying the ice caps would be all gone by now. Wonder if he did anything in shipping stocks to take advantage?

    • v person

      “Democrats in districts McCain carried will be up for election. ”

      Hate to break this to you Rupert but all representatives are up for re-election. It happens every 2 years. Some are Rs from districts Obama won, some are Ds from districts McCain won. History suggests the Rs will pick up some seats. If they get real lucky and we have a disaster or 2, they might win back the House and would have to figure out how to actually govern again. Given their past history on this, I would not be cheering for that if I were you. A bit more time in the wilderness to figure out what they are all about is probably best for the nation.

      “You know, if those climate guys are so good at predicting the weather,”

      Gee Rupert. You really are obtuse. Climate scientists don’t predict the weather. Meteorologists do that. You need to use that BS detector on yourself.

    • David Appell

      Rupert wrote:
      > if those climate guys are so good at predicting the weather,

      Because, for the billionth time, weather is not climate. Climatologists do not predict the weather, they *project* the climate, which is a 10+ yr average of weather.

      > …how come they didn’t see the recent winters coming and make a killing in
      > the futures market?

      Because they are extremely busy being scientists, and because they are smart they know that no one but professional speculators have any business being in the futures market.

      • jim karlock

        Again. thanks David. It has been cooling for 11 years according to Phil Jones, so that IS A CHANGE IN CLIMATE DIRECTION!

        Thanks for finally admitting this.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > It has been cooling for 11 years according to Phil Jones,

          Jones was wrong.

          I know that for people who don’t understand the science or lack an advanced degree, such statements count as “proof,” as if this were all a mere matter of keeping score.

          It’s not.

          THEOREM: The world is *always* cooling relative to its latest maximum. Therefore, the world is always cooling (by this definition).

          Of course, obviously, climate is not measured by a single year. This past decade is by far the warmest on record. And that’s what “climate” is: 10+ years of average weather.

          A single year means nothing. In fact, the real question is, why was 1998 such as strong ENSO, compared to previous years. AGW?

    • David Appell

      > If you can predict the future so accurately

      Once again, an utter failure to understand what the science says.

      If you would read something, you’d see that in fact climate projections have fairly large uncertainties. The IPCC 4AR projection for 2100 is +1.5 to +4.5 C. There’s significant uncertainty because no one can accurately predict the exact economic and sociological trajectory for the next 100 years, and because there are unknowns in the science, and because there are statistical uncertainties in the mathematics itself. Several papers have been writing saying that it’s probably not possible to get the uncertainty much below this, if any, due to these inherent properties.

      • Todd Wynn

        I would agree that there are uncertainties with climate science and significant ones at that. In fact, in the last IPCC report on the science of climate change in 2007, the words “uncertain” or “uncertainty” appear over 1,300 times in only 900 pages.

        The report describes our level of scientific understanding of key aspects of climate as “low” or “very low.” The IPCC chapter on the climate models refers to “significant uncertainties” in all the models, and admits that “models still show significant errors.”

        This is not just about the range of potential temperature increase but uncertainty with many key aspects of climate change!

        David….knowing this, I am surprised that you still think we should radically alter our economic systems imposing significant costs on humankind. Seems more than a bit off.

        Perhaps it accomplishes a few more goals that you have that are unrelated to climate change….cough cough….wealth redistribution…..destruction of free markets…..

        Maybe you could even blame this all on the military industrial complex/Bush/Iraq war and kill a lot of birds with one climate change doomsday stone.

        • David Appell

          Todd, you should know this: uncertainty cuts both ways.

          That is, it is equally likely that temperatures, etc will end up on the upper range of projections (ie 4.5 C) as on the lower range (1.5 C).

          A 1.5 C (3 F) change would be bad enough. A 4.5 C change (9 F) would be horrendous.

          Add to that fact that some of the projections made in 2000 are already less than what has really been observed. In particular, prior to 2000 CO2 emissions were rising at about 1%/yr. Since then they’re now rising at about 3%/yr. There are signs that the ocean is not absorbing as much CO2 as it once did. The Arctic is melting faster than predictions of 2000 indicated.

          Uncertainty cuts BOTH ways. And preliminary indications are that it is cutting against us.

          • Todd Wynn

            I said “This is not just about the range of potential temperature increase but uncertainty with many key aspects of climate change!”

            Ah…you must missed have missed that line. Selective reading perhaps!?

            This is not uncertainty about possible doomsday scenarios and the range. It is uncertainty on all aspects of climate change that undermine and put into question even the idea of human induced catastrophic climate change.

          • David Appell

            Todd, once again, these uncertainties cut both ways.

            That is, the uncertainties may well result in a climate *worse* than that projected, not (as skeptics like so assume) one better than projected.

            Some uncertainties, such as statistical uncertainties, simply cannot be eliminated. Several papers have shown this in recent years. Calculations as difficult as the solution of a complex system such as climate have uncertainties that cannot be eliminated, simply because they are PDEs in multi-dimensional spaces.

            Yes, no climate calculation or model has EVER shown anything less than warming in the future. EVER.

            Do you demand to know the exact day your house will burn down until you buy fire insurance?

            Should Mississippi River states demand to know the exact date of the next big flood before they prepare for it?

            Your sentiments are just unconvincing skeptic diversionary tactics. They don’t help at all — esp insofar as (as I said earlier) several observables are progressing *faster* than climate models predicted 10 yrs ago.

          • Todd Wynn

            Most of the uncertainties lie in feedbacks that could completely negate or even reverse any warming whatsoever.

            Of course no climate models have shown anything less than warming. What money would come in for research if there was not an alarming story to tell? Just as newspapers don’t report on issues that are mediocre, scientists don’t get paid for research that says everything is alright and there is no need to worry. Well, they may get paid once but not again!

            It is interesting that you use these analogies although I find them misleading. You are assuming 100% that there will be negative effects at some point in the future. Not only is this a wrong assumption because of the vast uncertainties inherent in predicting future climate but it is also wrong to assume that the net effect will definitely be negative. There will be many positive effects of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and higher global temperatures that alarmists such as you completely overlook.

            Ah…. but the doomsday scenarios fuel your willingness to debate and give you some meaning to life. I am disappointed and saddened that you need fear in your life to feel you have a purpose! It is ok though. Many others are in your shoes as well. I suppose it is human nature in some respect.

            Here is one for you: Just because someone doesn’t believe in the use of the death penalty does that mean they have no intention or willingness to reduce crime?

            The severity of your ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that is wildly uncertain is an irrational approach to risk, plain and simple.

          • David Appell

            > Most of the uncertainties lie in feedbacks that could completely
            > negate or even reverse any warming whatsoever.

            No.

            First of all, I don’t know that “most” of the uncertainties lie in feedbacks, and I’ve never seen proof of that. Have you?

            Second of all, *all* uncertainties are taken into account in the IPCC 4AR’s final projection of 1.5 – 4.5 C. Note that this is far above zero, even with uncertainties.

            If their assessment of all uncertainties had extended below 0 C, they would have said so. They didn’t.

            Finally, feedbacks aren’t some fiction — they are real and have been demonstrated. For example, Santer et al have shown that atmospheric water vapor is increasing over the decades, just as predicted by including positive feedbacks.

            Moreover, the reason the Arctic is clearly warming faster than other parts of the globe is because of feedbacks.

            Feedbacks are real, not some unproven hypothesis.

          • David Appell

            > Of course no climate models have shown anything less than warming. What
            > money would come in for research if there was not an alarming story to tell?

            Baloney. Even skeptics cannot construct a model that shows anything less than warming.

            Frankly, at this point, the best way for a young postdoc to get a shower of grant money and tenure offers would be to show that warming isn’t inevitable. That’s how scientists become famous — by disproving the dominant paradigm of their time.

            But no postdocs do this, because it’s very established science. Just as no physics postdocs try to overthrow the laws of thermodyamics or quantum mechanics. There’s no point — you’d just look like a fool. The advancements are in the front of the science and not in 150 yr old science.

          • David Appell

            > You are assuming 100% that there will be negative effects at some point in the future.

            I certainly am not assuming any such thing.

            Will there be positive gains from global warming? Perhaps, maybe, here and there. Sure, North Dakotans might like it few degrees warmer where they live. But it’s not that simple. Will they be happy when their wheat fields moved to Canada? If precipitation patterns change? If the jet stream moves north?

            The fact is, there will be a wide spectrum of changes. But our advanced lifestyle is very honed to a specific climate. Can we grow enough food if T > 2 C? Should we care if small island states are flooded? If Africa experiences extreme drought? If the droughts in the American SW or Australia continue? If it gets warmer in the Williamette Valley but the Cascadian snowpack diminishes?

            You imply that, because some changes might be positive, we need not worry. That’s extremely simplistic and naive.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* Baloney. Even skeptics cannot construct a model that shows anything less than warming.
            *JK:* Utter nonsense. Anyone can construct a model to show anything – the CRU crowd has been doing it for years. The question is can models withstand the test of predicting the future. The CRU crowd’s model’s FAILED MISERABLY AT THIS.

            *David:* But no postdocs do this, because it’s very established science.
            *JK:* No, it’s the best scientific fraud seen in half a century, carefully staged by Fenton & probably, the Democrat party, designed to enrich a few already rich like Al Gore and his wall street cronies.

            *David:* Will there be positive gains from global warming? Perhaps, maybe, here and there.
            *JK:* Like less deaths from the cold (which kills more people that heat waves)
            More farm productivity = lower food prices = lower cost of living = higher standard of living.
            Less heating bills = lower cost of living = higher standard of living.

            *David:* You imply that, because some changes might be positive, we need not worry. That’s extremely simplistic and naive.
            *JK:* Any YOU just parrot the IPCC & Al Gore’s huge exaggerations and outright lies.
            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > I am disappointed and saddened that you need fear in your life to feel you have a purpose!

            Todd, really, I expect far better from you, of all people.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* Because, for the billionth time, weather is not climate. Climatologists do not predict the weather, they project the climate, which is a 10+ yr average of weather.
        *JK:* And the climate (>10 years of weather) is now cooling according to Phil Jones (see above if you forgot already)

        *David:* > …how come they didn’t see the recent winters coming and make a killing in
        > the futures market?
        Because they are extremely busy being scientists, and because they are smart they know that no one but professional speculators have any business being in the futures market.
        *JK:* No David, it is because they know they are incompetent. Their predictions have FAILED TIME AFTER TIME. Failed predictions PROVE a failed theory.

        Thanks
        JK

    • David Appell

      > How about shipping? You melt down a lot of ice up north and pretty
      > soon a boat from Japan to Europe shaves a week or two off the trip.

      Several entities, including several of the world’s militarys, are no looking at exactly this.

      In an article in this week’s NY Times, the CIA is enlisting the assistance of climatologists to figure out questions exactly like this.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* Several entities, including several of the world’s militarys, are no looking at exactly this.

        In an article in this week’s NY Times, the CIA is enlisting the assistance of climatologists to figure out questions exactly like this.
        *JK:* Nothing new here. Amundson navigated the NW passage in 1905. See New York Times Dec 7, 1905.
        But if you want to really talk about the lack of ice, please explain those Viking settlements on Greenland that ARE STILL UNDER THE ICE.
        Thanks
        JK

  • v person

    I find it hard to believe in the Global Warming idea any longer. As me and my life partner David have to snuggle together every night for heat………..and a little fun, I can tell its cooler out.

    I just hope this coolness doesn’t run into the summer. I don’t want to miss schnookums suntan oil massages.

    • Anonymous

      Now v person that’s the kind of AGW Hot Spot that DA really knows something about, search him @ amazon.com. Do you suppose he knows anything about G&L Hot Spots in Tehran?

      “Arguing with idiots is a waste of our time.”

  • Anonymous

    David you pathetic default of
    “””””””As climate scientists have clearly shown, the drastic warming of the last few decades (since about 1975) cannot be explained solely by natural factors. Only when the additional factors of man are included can the increase (a 3-sigma fluctuation) be explained.””””””

    is not evidence of anything and climate scientists have not shown anything clearly about.

    All this lame and dishonest bromide says is climate scientist don’t know enough about what causes climate to vary.
    The fact that they cannot explain with certainty the insignificant fluctuations is not evidence of AGW.
    AGW is merely specualtion as well.
    Plenty of scientists have speculated reasons for the last 100 years of climate variation.

    But David lectures that only AGW speculation is more and should be accepted as settled science.

    It’s not by along shot.

    The many and growing observations attributed to AGW by your loons are baseless speculation as well.
    They are fabricated and imagined evidence of AGW.

    Just like your Katrina lie, your heat waves lie and your wildfires lie.

    Yet AGW climate scientists have no problem also speculating about the cooling from 1945 to 1970 and other non warming periods.

    But people can grasp the real significance of our current global temperature here:
    Take a look folks. Not you David, you’re a hopeless liar.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

    • David Appell

      > …climate scientists have not shown anything clearly about.

      They certainly have:

      IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
      (bottom three graphs)
      https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

    • David Appell

      > AGW is merely specualtion as well

      No it’s not. It based on very simple understandings about certain atmospheric gases. This was first shown by Fourier in 1824. That is why, after all, CO2, CH4, NO2, etc are called “greenhouse gases” and were long before widespread concerns about AGW.

    • David Appell

      > Yet AGW climate scientists have no problem also speculating about the
      > cooling from 1945 to 1970 and other non warming periods.

      Scientists don’t “speculate” about cooling from 1945-1970 (in fact, there was very little cooling, just no warming) — they make hypotheses and then prove them.

      Their models, in fact, predict such a period. See:

      IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
      (bottom three graphs)
      https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

      An era of significant power-war sulfate aerosols seems to be mostly responsible for this pause in warming.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* They certainly have:

        IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
        (bottom three graphs)
        https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .
        *JK:* Will you please quit presenting the same concocted garbage from the proven fraud artists at the CRU. If that wasn’t bad enough, even their logic does not pass the laugh test. It goes like this:

        We have perfect models that predict some temperature.
        The measured temperatures are higher
        Therefore it is man’s CO2 that caused the difference. (Not natures 97% of the annual CO2 emissions)

        The fact that you cannot see this fallacy is simple incredable.
        And, of course, it is now coming out that those highere measure temperatures weren’t really measured after all – they were fabricated by the fraud artists at the CRU.

        *David:* No it’s not. It based on very simple understandings about certain atmospheric gases. This was first shown by Fourier in 1824.
        *JK:* And yet to be proven as a real problem in the real atmosphere which is vastly more complex than that 1824 experiment.

        *David:* IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
        (bottom three graphs)
        https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .
        *JK:* Agin you use the fraudulent output of the CRU crowd as your evidence. Get real David, the while IPCC is riddled with fraud as recently exposed by the emails. That crowd asked people to delete emails subject to FOI (a probable crime), hide flaws in the data (the famous trick), attempted to replace editors of peer reviewed journals, falsified data to be published in papers and IPCC reports. (Probable academic fraud), prevention of the publication of opposing papers, requested others forge a date on a paper to meet the IPCC deadline (Probable academic fraud), falsifying research paid for by taxpayer funds. (Probable crime), tried to suppress the Mediaeval Warm Period, admitted that the climate is cooling, while telling the world it is warming, abused trust as a peer-reviewer, biased the IPCC report to emphasis warming, AND, worse of all: they solicited money from oil companies!

        Apparently even YOU had a had in the fraud when you cheerfully “inhaled Mann’s initial howler” See below, an earlier post based on https://climateaudit.org/2010/01/07/team-responses-to-mm2003/#more-9827

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          Jim, I’m not going to waste time on your response, esp as you’ve demonstrated no scientific understanding in the past. (Remember your Oregonian posting of about two months ago claiming that climate models don’t consider water vapor?)

          Let’s note, though, that there are about 100 times as many scientists involved in the IPCC reports than those among the authors of the CRU hacks.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* Jim, I’m not going to waste time on your response, esp as you’ve demonstrated no scientific understanding in the past. (Remember your Oregonian posting of about two months ago claiming that climate models don’t consider water vapor?)
            *JK:* No, I don’t why don’t you refresh our memories.
            Unless you mean this: *JK:* Hey David, you forgot to mention that water vapor also CAUSES most of the greenhouse effect and CO2 causes, at most 30% or so. We know this is true because RealClimate said so: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

            *David:* Let’s note, though, that there are about 100 times as many scientists involved in the IPCC reports than those among the authors of the CRU hacks.
            *JK:*
            1) Most of them are studying details of the effects of warming, not wheter man is the cause.
            2) The CRU climate criminals are the key people, including a lead author of the deceptive SPM.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            JK wrote:
            > you forgot to mention that water vapor also CAUSES most of the
            > greenhouse effect and CO2 causes, at most 30% or so.

            Of course. All scientists know this as babies — in fact, THEY discovered it. So what?

            Water vapor is essentially constant. CO2 is not. That’s the problem.

            2) The CRU climate criminals are the key people

            No they’re not. There are dozens of other lead IPCC authors over the years, and they constitute the vast majority of the IPCC reports.

  • Anonymous

    David,

    Quit your despicable obfuscation and posting of IPCC 4AR.

    You’re a caught liar many times over and now you are furtherr disgraced on a prominent blog climataudit.org.

    “untrue allegations that Mann had disseminated through David Appell on Oct. 29, 2003.”

    Steve McItyre,
    “This refers to Mann’s claim, then widely publicized, that we had asked for “excel” files, that an error had been introduced in the preparation of the “excel” files and various other untrue allegations that Mann had disseminated through David Appell on Oct. 29, 2003.
    “there are numerous other fantastic assertions”

    from:
    https://climateaudit.org/2010/01/07/team-responses-to-mm2003/#more-9827

    And posted there in the comments

    Ross McKitrick
    Posted Jan 7, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    “The glee with which people like David Appell inhaled Mann’s initial howler that we requested an Excel spreadsheet and then failed to notice the problems in it, despite the fact that we had released the text file he sent us and we had spent 22 pages in the journal explaining problems in it, shows how determined people were to accept and believe Mann’s scattergun responses, no matter how random. ”

    “You can see why we never sent the paper to a “mainstream” climate journal in the first place (some people criticised us for it). The journal would have asked Mann and some of his pals to review it. He would have flooded the journal with phony accusations and misdirections without actually releasing the data and code needed to settle the issues, and his pals would have acquiesced. It would have been a total waste of time. At least as of 2003 there was no way to get a paper like that in print in a climatology journal. Nature’s later handling of our technical comment and Mann’s Corrigendum showed that they too had no intention of dealing fairly with the issue; it was all about circling the wagons.
    The glee with which people like David Appell inhaled Mann’s initial howler that we requested an Excel spreadsheet and then failed to notice the problems in it, despite the fact that we had released the text file he sent us and we had spent 22 pages in the journal explaining problems in it, shows how determined people were to accept and believe Mann’s scattergun responses, no matter how random.
    It is also noteworthy how Briffa’s shallow grasp of the situation did not progress one iota even up through the time he wrote the AR4 chapter. He still believed the meme that what we had tried to do was replicate Mann’s work but failed because we were a pair of dummies, but then Wahl and Ammann succeeded, proving there was nothing to our work. Mann spent so much time arguing against that straw man that a lot of his cheerleaders believed that that was what the actual arguments were. I suspect that when Briffa wrote the section of the AR4 he had never once read our papers.”

  • Anonymous

    Arguing with idiotic ClimateGate deniers like the failed porn-editor David Appell (you would not hire him to wash your car) is a total waste of our time! When we do that, they are winning.

    See: frozengore.com

    • Anonymous

      Failed porn-editor David Appell? I thought he was a journalist for Scientific American?

      And speaking of idiots, look in the mirror. This topic is not one that I know anything about, but reading through everyone’s comments here they all, regardless of which side they fall on, seem like intelligent people. You on the other hand… I’m kind of embarrassed for you.

  • John in Oregon

    David said to Kurt, >
    *1) The US is only about 2% of the globe.
    2) Weather is not climate. The latter is 10-yr plus averages of weather. Globally, the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in recorded history. A few freezing spells in the American midwest will certainly not change that. Even a globally cooler-than-average December does not significantly change the long-term trend.*

    Well excussssssse Kurt for looking out the window and believing his eyes.

    BUT. Beyond that.

    It’s cold in Siberia, cold in Chine, cold in Asia, cold in Europe, cold in the UK, cold in Canada, cold in the USA! Bit more than 2 percent of the globe I would say.

    BUT. Beyond even that.

    Its cold this winter, it was cold last winter.

    That weather today, weather yesterday, weather last year, weather here and there, and so on are the bits of data that make up climate.

    Tis true, tis true.

    So weather is not climate. Unless a warmest talks about a heat wave that is.

    As usual I found Rupert’s comments enlightening. > *Speaking of predictions, as I predicted in month one of the BO administration, cap and trade was not signed by the end of the year… [I]t looks like the American people might very well have dodged that bullet… Time will tell, but I think the totalitarian aspirations of the climate alarmists are on the wane.*

    I have to agree. I would add two observations.

    1] Obamas national overall vote margin came from a small number of large very blue states. In the contested states Obama eked out a win by a thin margin in most. Not a strong showing but a win just the same.

    2] Today Nancy Pelosi made some remarkable statements. In response to the request by C-SPAN to televise the health care ping-pong Pelosi said “There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” She touted the townhalls as proof of how much Democrats love debate. HEH.

    Of course what she didn’t say is the people at the townhall said NO, which was promptly ignored. Point is the goings on in DC have created a huge amount of rage. The turn out on 9/12 wasn’t trivial.

    I think Rupert is on safe ground.

    David often makes comments of this nature.

    > First, these higher temperatures are certainly not “assumptions” — they are *scientific calculations* based on economic/sociological projections about known physics.

    And

    > Skeptics have never — NEVER — shown, *via calculation or model,* how today’s climate can be accounted for by natural factors alone.

    First, I am not sure how the fields of economies and sociology (not hard science) are making projections about physics.

    But. Ignoring that.

    Second, it is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to provide observational evidence, measurements and experimental results demonstrating the theory is accurate.

    David where are the satellite measurements showing that more CO2 has caused less infrared thermal energy radiated to space? Where is the observed evidence? Where are the measurements? Where is the experimental evidence?

    Simply saying it got warmer proves nothing about why it got warmer.

    Building a model based on a theory proves nothing about the theory. Nothing.

    Lets try an experiment. Build two greenhouses. One the CO2 greenhouse glass blocks infrared thermal energy the other green house glass does not block infrared. If a greenhouse works because of infrared absorption then the CO2 greenhouse should get warmer. It does not. They both are the same temperature. A greenhouse gets warmer because it stops thermal energy transfer by convection and not radiation.

    OK so the warmest says the atmosphere isnt a greenhouse. True. Further the warmest says that CO2 absorbs thermal energy causing the surface to warm. Lets look at that in a simple form.

    I am standing on the surface which is warmed from the sun by visible light energy. Since the surface is warm, say 20C it radiates infrared energy towards space which is something like -200C (cold).

    As we go higher in the atmosphere the air grows colder as we get closer to space. At some elevation the air will be -20C. Colder than the surface but warmer than space.

    Now lets do a thought experiment. Lets watch a Wavecle (photon) of infrared energy encounter a CO2 molecule. When that happens the CO2 will absorb the energy and become warmer. Lets say for this example CO2 warms from -20 to -18C.

    Everything I have said so far is demonstrable by experiment in the physics lab. Now here is the thought experiment. What happens when the CO2 molecule gets warmer?

    The AGW theorist will say the CO2 molecule will radiate the additional thermal energy back to the surface.

    The Physicist will say the CO2 molecule will radiate the additional thermal energy into space.

    The Meteorologist will say the Physicist is correct but incomplete. That Meteorologist will add that the CO2 molecule now being warmer (and lighter per volume) will rise in the atmosphere and transfer thermal energy to space by both radiation and convection.

    Notice the AGW theorist is saying that CO2 will transfer (reflect) heat from the colder body, the upper air to the warmer body, the surface. A violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Zeke, you said to David > *Really? The activity of the Sun correlates quite nicely with the MWP, the Little Ice Age, the heat of the 20s and 30s, the cooling of the mid-19th century, and today’s lack of warming. Odd you didn’t notice!*

    What you said is correct data. I suspect you may have missed the real point of what David said. Lets look closely. > *Skeptics have never — NEVER — shown, via calculation or model, how today’s climate can be accounted for by natural factors alone.*

    The key in what David said is this *”via calculation or model”.* David wants an equation or a computer model. Meanwhile realists like you and I provide Experimental and Observational data and not calculations. Data which is of little interest to David. So of course David’s equations never get tested by actual, you know, FACTS. Instead David refers you to a 200 year old book of conjecture which David just takes for granted.

    • v person

      “Well excussssssse Kurt for looking out the window and believing his eyes.”

      If when Kurt looks out the window he also sees a flat landscape, should we excuse Kurt for thinking the world is not round John? Or should we say Kurt, there is sufficient data that shows the world is actually round. Or is Kurt’s opinion equal to accepted science on the shape of the earth?

      “It’s cold in Siberia,…”

      Yep. And it will be for the foreseeable future even if the world warms at the highest modeled rates. A few degrees global warming does not cancel out winter. Duh.

      “So weather is not climate.”

      Correct. Glad that is settled. Can we now drop “its really warm or hot today” from further consideration.

      “Meanwhile realists like you and I provide Experimental and Observational data and not calculations. ”

      Great. Publish your data then. Put it out there. “My data says it is sun spots” or “My observation is that it is really cold outside.” Prove that your data provides a satisfactory explanation for measured rates of global warming to the satisfaction of actual climate scientists and you can win a Nobel. Go for it John and Zeke. Don’t hold back or waste further time on Catalyst.

    • David Appell

      > So weather is not climate. Unless a warmest talks about a heat wave that is.

      Bullshit. Claims that a warm season prove AGW are just as incorrect as claims that a cold season disproves AGW. If someone claims otherwise, they’re wrong.

    • David Appell

      > Second, it is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to provide
      > observational evidence, measurements and experimental results
      > demonstrating the theory is accurate.

      Of course. Do you honestly think climate scientists don’t know this?

      Their models back-predict the 20th century. See

      IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
      (bottom three graphs)
      https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

      What other verification would you want from a model?

      • jim karlock

        *David:* What other verification would you want from a model?
        *JK:* Accurate prediction of the future.
        Back-predicting proves nothing. And you know it. That you seriously present this as proof is yet more indication of your total inability to understand basic science (or evidence of attempts to fool the gullible.)

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          >> David: What other verification would you want from a model?
          > JK: Accurate prediction of the future.

          FOR THE Nth TIME: MODELS DO NOT PREDICT. They project.

          How many times must this elementary point be explained to you?

    • David Appell

      > Well excussssssse Kurt for looking out the window and believing his eyes.

      No, I won’t excuse Kurt for this. It’s simply demonstrates a complete failure to understand the situation, one that even a 3rd grader shouldn’t make. By doing so Keith forfeits the right to be taken seriously.

    • David Appell

      > David where are the satellite measurements showing that more CO2 has caused
      > less infrared thermal energy radiated to space?

      They come from the ERBE satellite — I believe the difference is about 0.5 W/m2 over the last couple of decades. Do some research of your own and go ahead and find this.

    • David Appell

      > Building a model based on a theory proves nothing about the theory. Nothing.

      It certainly does if the model’s predictions are correct. You trust your life to such models every day — those involved in airplane design, bridge construction, large building construction, and so forth.

    • David Appell

      > David wants an equation or a computer model.

      Exactly. It’s called “science.” Graphs are not science. Calculated answers are science. It’s a sad sign of ignorance that you do not know this.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* Exactly. It’s called “science.” Graphs are not science. Calculated answers are science. It’s a sad sign of ignorance that you do not know this.
        *JK:* Then why do you keep point us to those IPCC graphs? You know the ones based on data fabricated at the CRU.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > Then why do you keep point us to those IPCC graphs?

          These graphs are the *result* of calculation, not the input.

    • David Appell

      > Data which is of little interest to David.

      More pure ignorance. Data is what you test calculations against. You make a calculation, and you see how it compares to data. If it does, that shows the underlying physics on which you made you calculation are correct. If not, you start over.

      Consider Schwinger’s calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. It had already been measured by experiment. Schwinger spent months calculating it via first QED principles, and obtained the answer alpha/pi, a number that agreed with experiment. That gave strong, strong evidence that the theory of QED was right. That’s how science works.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* More pure ignorance. Data is what you test calculations against. You make a calculation, and you see how it compares to data. If it does, that shows the underlying physics on which you made you calculation are correct. If not, you start over.
        *JK:* Precisely what the climate models DO NOT DO.
        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > Precisely what the climate models DO NOT DO.

          They certainly do, where the data exists — ie, in history.

          See IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703
          (bottom three graphs)
          https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

          Once yet again, climate models do not predict the future — they project is, based on assumptions. That’s why the IPCC ARs use about 36 different economic scenarios.

          • Anonymous

            Why don’t you guys just chat over the phone? Maybe go have a beer or something?

            At some point you’re just going to have to agree to disagree, no?

          • v person

            I think they already agree that they disagree, and probably never will agree. But agreeing over a beer would likely result in one or the other using the wrong end of the bottle to emphasize a point.

            The central problem of the debate between David and Jim reflects the central problem of the entire “debate” over climate change. One side (David) reflects actual science, and the other (Jim) reflects hot air not recognized as such…pun intended.

  • Anonymous

    v/dean

    You’re simply foolish and wrong. Along aith Appell you’re still stuck in the IPCC rhetoric unable to recognize what has been happening.

    Appell is so shallow and narrow he is still repeating “IPCC AR4, weather is not climate, IPCC models project not predict and there’s no other explanation for the 20th century warming but AGW.”

    Both you and Appell continue to peddle the fraud as if the corrupting of peer review, temperature records and institutions has not occured.

    You hang out here and other secondary blogs and then expect the extensive and accumulating exposing of AGW fraud to be all brought here and fed to you for your consideration.

    And unless Jim and others waste their time transfering it all here then it doesn;t exist?

    Abundant material has been delivered to blog posts over and over and again.
    Each and every time you ignore the most substantive material and play games of obfuscation and pick apart the petty.

    RealClimate and ClimateProgress do not allow the more substantive and germane posts skeptics attempt to contribute.

    This is how you despicable people operate.

    David Appell could very easily engage the most involved skeptics over at ClimateAudit and other skpetics blogs. He could even try and defend his spreading misinformation for Mann which is part of a topic there. But he won’t.

    No he’d rather hang outhere and pretend he knows the difference between weather that is observed to be from gloabal warming and other weather that is not.
    The IPCC did not back project squat David and their models have not prjected acurately.
    Key team members have admitted so.

    I predict and project the two of you will go down in local blog infamy as a couple of inept and dishonest hacks.

    • Conscience of a Moonbat

      Ditto. I’m done arguing with idiots. They are deliberately wasting out time and trying to take this blog’s focus off the failures of collectivism in all its faux glory. Shame on these deniers.

      • Anonymous

        Fancy word for a moron. Collectivism? Really? You’re serious? Uh huh, it’s amazing how much the contemporary U.S. resembles Stalinist Russia. And I can’t wait to hear how the “climate debate” is related to Mao’s Great Leap Forward. I’m all ears.

  • Anonymous

    There are many very qualified and involved skpetics who have compiled a lot of data analysis and reports covering every angle of the IPCC/AGW movement.

    Here is a current example. But again there are many.
    And this is where honest climate science has been conducted in recent years. Not at the intitutions where exposed scandal now prevails.

    https://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html

    Between http://www.icecap.us http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and climataudit.org all climate things recent and current are fully addressed and detailed.

    Only the most dishonest and duped ignore them all and/or try and smear this work.

    • v person

      “Only the most dishonest and duped ignore them all and/or try and smear this work. ”

      I guess that settles it then. We don’t need science. We have blogs. Hooray for us. Today climate, tomorrow evolution. Before you know it we will be living in caves again.

  • John in Oregon

    VP please try to get the quote correct……… Here let me give you a hand.
    I said > *So weather is not climate. Unless a warmest talks about a heat wave that is.*

    Thanks, I am happy you agree.

    VP said > *If when Kurt looks out the window he also sees a flat landscape, should we excuse Kurt for thinking the world is not round John?*

    I would expect Kurt as an astute observer looking through a window from a vantage point would note that he can see the curvature of the earth. Kurt would conclude as did the Phoenicians and the earliest Mediterranean sailors that the earth is round.

    Christopher Columbus knew the earth is round when he sailed west to India. The only thing Columbus didn’t know because of the lack of precision instruments was just how big the round earth was.

    That said I must conclude your veiled reference to Kurt as a flat earthier was an intentional insult. Much as the use of the vulgar term tea baggier is an intentional sexual insult.

    [Why do progressives delight in such insults?]

    > *Great. Publish your data then. Put it out there.*

    Multiple people here have shown you published data. One can lead a horse to water but can’t make him read.

    When I said it is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to provide observational evidence, measurements and experimental results demonstrating the theory is accurate. David said > *Of course. Do you honestly think climate scientists don’t know this?*

    My answer. Yes.

    Well the IPCC team yes, but not all Climatologists.

    Roy Spencer, for one example, relies on actual data. A quote from Spencer illustrates nicely.

    *The main point I am making here is that, no matter whether you assume the climate system is sensitive or insensitive, our best satellite measurements suggest that the climate system is perfectly capable of causing internally-generated radiative forcing larger than the “external” forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Low cloud variations are the most likely source of this internal radiative forcing. It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing … is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.*

    Spencer’s intended subject isnt so important here. One sentence is highly relevant. “It should be remembered that the _satellite data are actually measured,_ whereas the _CO2 forcing … is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.”_

    Spencer clearly understands the difference between physical measurements and theoretical calculations. And you should know that Spencer accepts that 200 year old book you spoke of. The one with no experimental support which as you said is just taken for granted.

    David you said the IPCC AGW teams > *models back-predict the 20th century.*

    Anyone can play the game of curve fitting. Try calculating curves until one fits data at hand. Question is, is that the only curve that fits? Is it the right curve?

    The next step is to test the curve against circumstances outside the control of the calculator. Testing the curve against the future results for example.

    Then you say > *FOR THE Nth TIME: MODELS DO NOT PREDICT. They project.*

    David this is mincing words. Side stepping the issue. Either the projections are accurate or they are not. In this each and all of the models have failed.

    Years ago the medical profession has this very kind of problem.

    The solution then was the double blind study. Some patients receive a placebo and others the real drug under test. Of course this cancels out the placebo effect, but that isnt actually the purpose of the double blind study.

    In a double blind study the doctor doing the patient evaluation for drug effectiveness does not know which patients get placebo and which get the drug. The goal is to prevent an unintended influence on the evaluation. No matter how meticulous a doctor is, personal bias creeps in creating a self fulfilling prophecy. What he doesn’t know can’t inadvertently influence his medical judgment.

    The IPCC AGW team is nothing like the double blind study. All is held in house and close to the vest.

    Point is David. If you have any observational evidence from the field, measurements or experimental results demonstrating the CO2 AGW theory is accurate then show it to us.

    When I asked where are the satellite measurements showing that more CO2 has caused less infrared thermal energy radiated to space? You responded > *They come from the ERBE satellite*

    David that isnt what I asked. I didn’t ask which satellite could. In fact several can provide useful data. I ask for measurements which demonstrate, the question you simply sidestepped.

    In fact you know the answers vary from Spencer’s “CO2 forcing is so small that it can only be computed theoretically” to measurements do not support a reduction in CO2 wavelength radiation.

    I hold that building a model based on a theory proves nothing about the theory. To which you reply > *It certainly does if the model’s predictions are correct. You trust your life to such models every day — those involved in airplane design, bridge construction, large building construction, and so forth.*

    I trust my life to the lessons leaned from each structural design failure of the past. Structural Engineers (SE) use computer aided design (CAD) all the time. It’s not unusual for SEs to hand calculate parts of the CAD output as a check. Nor is it unusual for SEs to actually build structural components and submit them to destructive testing to confirm the results. Boeing assembled several 787 airframes then destroyed them for exactly that reason.

    This is something your AGW guys will not do. They hold data close and squeal like a stuck pig every time any one has the audacity to compare climate model “projections” to what actually happened.

    David, you tell me > *Exactly. It’s called “science.” Graphs are not science. Calculated answers are science. It’s a sad sign of ignorance that you do not know this.*

    I did not say that calculations are not science. Nor did I say anything about graphs, more on this later. I simply said that for you, on this subject, the AGW calculated models are the only thing you will accept. Nothing else need be considered.

    On the contrary I hold that many things are part of science. The use of field observational data. Publication so that others can check and validate results. Use of experiments to confirm hypotheses. Field measurements to verify core theory. And yes, as a method to display data even a graph is part of science.

    There are may aspects of science beyond calculations. It’s a sad commentary that you question this.

    Consider what you said > *Consider Schwinger’s calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. It had already been measured by experiment. Schwinger spent months calculating it via first QED principles, and obtained the answer alpha/pi, a number that agreed with experiment. That gave strong, strong evidence that the theory of QED was right. That’s how science works.*

    You and I would agree on your statement. Let me simplify.

    Schwinger used a theory to calculate one particular aspect of the electron predicted by the theory. He then took the calculated prediction and compared that with the measured aspect of the electron. Finding the calculated and measured results in substantial agreement, he had strong evidence that this aspect of the theory is correct.

    Notice that Schwinger closed the loop by comparing the calculated and measured results.

    JK immediately responded with > *Precisely what the climate models DO NOT DO.*

    David you responded > *They* [climate models] *certainly do, where the data exists — ie, in history.*

    If I take your obvious meaning as expressed in this and other posts then:

    If Schwinger’s calculation came after the measurement then the work is valid.

    …. However

    If however the measurement came after Schwinger’s calculation then Schwinger’s work is invalid

    I get the feeling you bend the rules when it comes to the subject of AGW. Just remember there is nothing so powerful as the lies we tell ourselves.

    • v person

      “That said I must conclude your veiled reference to Kurt as a flat earthier was an intentional insult. Much as the use of the vulgar term tea baggier is an intentional sexual insult.”

      I have no idea what Kurt thinks about the shape of the earth, I don’ know Kurt from Adam, and have no reason to insult him. The point, which you apparently missed, was that whatever his direct experience is does not matter with respect to whether the earth is warming and what the cause is. One can’t conclude the average temperature of the earth from one’s personal observations.

      As for “tea bagger.” My understanding is that it was the tea baggers themselves who came up with the term as self-reference, and it was only later that gay leftists pointed out the anatomy lesson, which quite frankly was news I did not need to know about. If the phrase is an insult, it appears it was self-inflicted.

      “Just remember there is nothing so powerful as the lies we tell ourselves.”

      On this John, we are in full agreement.

    • David Appell

      > CO2 forcing … is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.”

      CO2 forcing/climate sensitivity can also be determined by paleoclimactic data. See

      Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.

    • David Appell

      >> FOR THE Nth TIME: MODELS DO NOT PREDICT. They project.
      > David this is mincing words. Side stepping the issue. Either the projections
      > are accurate or they are not.

      It is not mincing words — it is a fundamental understanding about the mathematics of models. Why do you think the IPCC considers 36 different economic scenarios and not one? Because no one can foretell the future.

      If you don’t understand this I’m afraid it’s hopeless.

      Moreover, see:

      Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J.A. Church, J.E. Hansen, R.F. Keeling, D.E. Parker, and R.C.J. Somerville, 2007: Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, 316, 709, doi:10.1126/science.1136843.

      ABSTRACT: We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

      https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Rahmstorf_etal.html

      • Anonymous

        Do any of David Appell’s models predict global cooling? They say you can use a random number generator to create inputs and still always get global warming. That’s one of the downsides of ClimateGate that Warmists have not addressed. And what about that Green Planet show that showed the Saraha all lush and rivered back when the earth’s orbit was a little different about 5,000 years ago? Can we fix our orbit so that it never changes? Would we want to? How would we choose the fixing point?

        • David Appell

          > They say you can use a random number generator to create inputs and
          > still always get global warming.

          Who says?

          I have never believed this. The MBH analysis was done using Principal Component Analysis. To lowest order, PCA is simply linear regression, which you can do in any spreadsheet or calculator. Such regression does not give a “hockey stick”-like curve. It gives a line with essentially no correlation (ie a Pearson coefficient of 0).

          My study of PCA doesn’t show anything else at higher orders, for random number input.

          Where is this proof that PCA of random numbers gives a hockey stick-like curve?

        • David Appell

          > And what about that Green Planet show that showed the Saraha all lush
          > and rivered back when the earth’s orbit was a little different about 5,000 years ago?

          Good question.

          But first, I’m not sure I would be taking my scientific truth from a show like “Green Planet,” whatever that is.

          Secondly, there _have_ been drastic changes in the Sahara in the last 15-20K yrs. But these changes have taken place with time scales ~1-2K yrs, far slower than the kind of climate changes we’re seeing elsewhere in the globe today.

          (The Roman’s deforestation of Northern Africa might also have had something to do with it.)

        • David Appell

          > Can we fix our orbit so that it never changes?

          No.

    • David Appell

      John wrote:
      > It’s not unusual for SEs to hand calculate parts of the CAD
      > output as a check. Nor is it unusual for SEs to actually build
      > structural components and submit them to destructive testing
      > to confirm the results.

      Why do you think climate models are any different?

      They are essentially a series of subroutines that have each been designed based on physical equations that have been well-established (Maxwell’s equations, Navier-Stokes equations, laws of thermodynamics etc.), and the modules are all tested against real data to the greatest extent possible. Climate scientists aren’t idiots. They’re interested in validating their models and their components in every situation possible. This has been well-documented in 30 yrs of scientific literature (which you seem not to have even tried to read).

    • David Appell

      > This is something your AGW guys will not do. They hold data close

      Really. Then you might try to explain the following portal to an immense amount of climate data:

      About 50 sources of all kinds of data:
      https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

      GHCN data.

      All surface station data for NASA GISS and Hadley are online.

  • David Appell

    > Do any of David Appell’s models predict global cooling?

    These are not my models, but in any case the answer is no — and this is one of the most crucial facts in the whole debate. CO2 is such a strong warming gas that _all_ future scenarios lead to warming.

    This is *exactly* why so many people are concerned about CO2.

  • John in Oregon

    Anonymous you asked > *Do any of David Appell’s models predict global cooling?* David’s answer was > *These are not my models, but in any case the answer is no.*

    Actually the answer to your question is yes. As noted in the UK Daily mail “Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s IPCC … predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.”

    Another climatologist Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, “has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles… ‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries… ‘We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’”

    How much of the past temperature rise is natural and how much CO2? Dr. Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent. Dr. William Gray said ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

    VP unlike others I have not found it useful to call names. Its best to look at what people do. Unlike others who refer to retired senior Americans as “geesers” there by making that segment of the people disposable.

    VP you said you > *have no idea what Kurt thinks about the shape of the earth and don’t know Kurt from Adam.* Yet you had no hesitation linking him to the flat earth insult.

    The tea party movement is named after *The Tea Party,* comma, *Boston,* comma, *1773.* Yet an alphabet cable company with few viewers had no difficulty referring to the “tiny” peoples popular political movement as, giggle, giggle, Tea Baggers, giggle, giggle. Like of course they didn’t know the, giggle, giggle, sexual slur.

    David > *It is not mincing words — it is a fundamental understanding about the mathematics of models. Why do you think the IPCC considers 36 different economic scenarios and not one? Because no one can foretell the future.*

    If the model output is useless then why bother?

    David > *Where is this proof that PCA of random numbers gives a hockey stick-like curve?*

    Dr. Mann’s code, once he was forced to release it, is most likely to produce a hockey stick when fed stock prices, random numbers or just noise.

    David when I described the tests that structural engineers use to confirm CAD designs you said > * Why do you think climate models are any different?*

    My answer.

    YES climate models are different.

    Because they refuse to test the model against the future.

    Structural Engineers are also accountable in court for the damages of their mistakes. That’s another difference.

    When I said your AGW guys hold data close, David you said > *Really. Then you might try to explain the following portal to an immense amount of climate data:*

    Is that the data that Steve MacIntyre asked for?
    Is that the data that was sought under the UK freedom of information act?
    Is that the data that was sought under the US freedom of information act?
    Is that the data that Dr. Jones said in an email he would distroy?
    Is that the same data that some months later had been deleted for “lack of storage space”?

    David you say that models > *are essentially a series of subroutines that have each been designed based on physical equations that have been well-established (Maxwell’s equations, Navier-Stokes equations, laws of thermodynamics etc.), and the modules are all tested against real data to the greatest extent possible.*

    Are these the models that tell us that upper atmosphere CO2 which is warmed by absorbing IR will transfer thermal energy from the cooler CO2 molecule to the warmer surface? Whichever law of thermodynamics that is.

    • David Appell

      > Because they refuse to test the model against the future.

      Baloney.

      First, you’re perfectly free to make such comparisons yourself.

      Second, models from the 1980s predicted a change of about 0.2 C between now and then, just about what it observed.

      The models back-predict the 20th century.

      Do you honestly think professional modelers don’t take advantage of every opportunity to test their models and its subcomponents against every scrap of data they can get their hands on?

      Finally, testing models of 20 years ago is only of limited value, since climate science and esp computer science has progressed drastically in the last 20 years. Do you make sure your spreadsheets can run on an NCR 304?

  • David Appell

    David:
    >> It is not mincing words — it is a fundamental understanding about
    >> the mathematics of models. Why do you think the IPCC considers 36 different
    >> economic scenarios and not one? Because no one can foretell the future.

    > If the model output is useless then why bother?

    With a little reading and research you should be able to answer this for yourself.

    The answer is: because _all_ of of the models predict warming, esp under BAU. They show that CO2, CH4, NO2 are strong GHGs and will overwhelm any of the small details emissions scenarios, land use changes, uncertainties.

  • John in Oregon

    I said model builders refuse to test the model against the future. David you responded:

    > *First, you’re perfectly free to make such comparisons yourself.*

    We did.
    The models failed.
    And you berated us, the unwashed, because we did not understand that models PROJECT.

    > *Second, models from the 1980s predicted [your word] a change of about 0.2 C between now and then, just about what it observed.*

    They did?
    We saw the hot spot?
    They predicted, ohhhh sorry, “projected” cooling?
    They did all that did they?
    But now that you mention it, in the last 30 years since 1980 the year 1934 has been getting colder and colder.

    What did the IPCC team say?

    13 October, 1996 Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa with the bad news that the data does not agree with the models. “The models’ error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital “forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.”

    12 December, 2007 Dr. Ben Santer to Dr. Jones admitting that the basic premise of the work done by Prof. Douglass and his collaborators was correct. “It is difficult to identify a subset of models that consistently does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.”

    > *The models back-predict [again, your word] the 20th century.*

    Another name for this is 20 – 20 hindsight.

    > *Do you honestly think professional modelers don’t take advantage of every opportunity to test their models and its subcomponents against every scrap of data they can get their hands on?*

    YES

    > *Finally, testing models of 20 years ago is only of limited value, since climate science and esp computer science has progressed drastically in the last 20 years.*

    HUH? I thought you just said models from the 1980s predicted [your word, not mine] … just about what it observed. And now they are old and antiquated relics?

    David you told us that IPCC considers many “projections” because no one can foretell the future. I asked the obvious question, If the model output is useless then why bother?

    You tell me that > *With a little reading and research you should be able to answer this*

    It didn’t take much research actually. Back in the Johnny Carson days of the Tonight Show the great Carsonie made regular prognostications. Proving if you make enough of them one is likely to happen.

    Roger Pielke Jr put it this way: “If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that _from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use_ beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And _if none get it right, it won’t mean that any were actually wrong._ If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And _of course, no one needed a model to know that.”_

    Further we are told that > *The answer is: because all of of (sic) the models predict [your word] warming…*

    Which prompts me to wonder when all the lemmings are jumping would you jump?

    However lets look more closely at the idea that all of them “project” warming. In 2008 Professor Mojib Latif at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, and member of the IPCC, predicted a new cooling trend. Now one might quibble that a prediction of cooling after the cooling is observed isnt really a prediction. However he warned of it before the December snow fell in Copenhagen.

    David the alarms should be going off for you. Alarms not directed at those who post here.

    Just this last week a detailed evaluation produced findings that not only was the CRU involved in producing fraudulent weather data, but two United States agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have also been falsifying climate reports for years. NOAA, the report concludes, is actually “ground-zero” for the fraud of global warming…

    I’m not going to argue those results, however the demonstrated manipulation of raw data to make older colder and recent warmer make that conclusion pretty much obvious.

    Another report on the polar bear population explosion in Canada causing major problems. That report is coming from Canadian wildlife agencies that have real live Inuit Indian hunters who count the real, live polar bears on the ground and in the water. Meanwhile the United States Geologic Survey, does a high speed helicopter fly over and based on “analysis” of weather predictions to make the alarming findings that polar bears will be extinct in 20 years.

    Back on February 7th, of last year Roger Pielke Jr made a bold statement. “The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon.” Poised on the knife edge between pessimism and optimism he warned of the blow back for Climate Science if not all science.

    I watched the Science News twice monthly publication with interest. What would they say of Climategate? Like a pebble dropped to a bottomless well, nothing. Then finally in the first January issue, a reader question was published in the letters section. I’m sure the most benign of the questioning communications was answered thus. The AP had studied the issue and found the underlying science sound. Science News would have nothing to say about the theft.

    Oh really? That was the AP science school of what prestigious institution? Is that how Science News handled similar incidents in other fields of study? Hwang Woo-suk who fabricated stem cell cloning data for example. No that Science News condemned.

    Two more dots which I will connect. I have been watching the Massachusetts special election with interest. One comment caught my eye, a write up by Michael Graham a Boston legacy media political analyst. He took a drive through the state and was blown away by the signs.

    “On Saturday, driving between Ashland and Littleton, I saw more people displaying home made signs than printed ones. “Home made signs?” I can’t tell you how astonishing that is to a paid political consultant… There are home made Scott Brown signs all over this state. Some are magic marker on poster board, others are hand painted and carefully designed, but they all show the same thing: Brown’s voters are the most motivated voters I’ve ever seen in a campaign.”

    Michael even posted a picture of one.

    Stand our ground
    On our own two feet
    Vote Scott Brown
    Take back our seat

    The sign caught my eye. It may have been new to Michael but I have seen it all year. At the April tax day protests, at the tea parties, at the town halls, and at the 9/12 multimillion march on Washington. Can you hear us now??? Will you see our signs? The people are angry.

    That last dot is the title of a recent column by Boston political analyst Jon Keller. It’s a warning to the Legacy Science Media and the ivory tower walls circling the wagons. Clean up the corruption. Mr. Kellers title is an echo of Paul Revere, one if by land.

    The Backlash is Coming, the Backlash is Coming.

    • David Appell

      John wrote:
      >> Do you honestly think professional modelers don’t take advantage of every opportunity
      >> to test their models and its subcomponents against every scrap of data they can get
      >> their hands on?

      > YES

      In light of this ignorance — actually, I think you’re outright lying — and in any case I’m certain you have never actually talked to a climate modeler yourself, let alone done a single piece of science yourself…. I’m not going to waste my time on this any longer.

      If you ever want to have a real and honest discussion of science, let me know.

    • John in Oregon

      David I am sorry you are upset > *In light of this ignorance — actually, I think you’re outright lying — and in any case I’m certain you have never actually talked to a climate modeler yourself, let alone done a single piece of science yourself…. I’m not going to waste my time on this any longer.*

      What I and others believe about the AGW modlers is not a mater of science. It’s a mater of judgment.

      When the CRU emails reveal orchestrated manipulation.

      When an IPCC official admits the claim that Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 25 years was taken from a World Wildlife Federation fund raising brochure.

      When that same IPCC official says this was justified in order to coarse Asian governments.

      Well there it is isnt it?

      We no longer believe the words. We do believe the actions.

      The “science” no longer has the confidence of the public.

      Its not like there was no warning. Roger Pielke spoke out more than a year ago.

      It seems to me the next item on the agenda ought to be what can be done to mitigate the damage to honest science.

      • David Appell

        Some incorrect data, however obtained or presented (even if legitimately) hardly undoes a huge body of theory and evidence, and especially the fact that CO2, CH4, NO2… are *greenhouse gases*. The basic physics is still very intact.

        Several years ago Christy and Spencer denied problems with their satellite data, *for years*. Eventually a sign error was found and Christy and Spencer admitted their error. Does this inundate all of their body of work, or their future results? No. In fact, skeptics *still* cite their data as supposed evidence of global cooling.

        I realize that nonscientists like John have little else to go on but some media-driven “judgement” about small subsets of people & data. Sure, it’d be nice if all data were perfect. It will never happen. That hardly means that GHG changes and land use changes don’t impact the climate (though it’s convenient for people like John to fall into this position).

  • John in Oregon

    David this is not about some incorrect data. Nor is it about some small subsets of people. It sure isnt about some media-driven “judgement”. If anything the media has been slow and resistant to reporting the news.

    The CRU email scandal is old news. The scandal has moved on to larger sets of people. To larger fish.

    The IPCC admitted last week that its 2007 report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 and this had nothing to do with the emails.

    IPCC author Murari Lal admitted knowing the claim was false when it was included in the fourth assessment report. Lal explained that “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

    Lal also said that his actions were OK because other climatologists didn’t detect the false data.

    Telling a falsehood is known as a LIE.

    Telling a lie to influence political behavior is FRAUD.

    Not getting caught does NOT make it OK.

    Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, BC, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for global warming.

    The senior Canadian climate scientist who worked with the Fourth Assessment said the IPCC has become tainted by political advocacy. “There’s been some dangerous crossing of that line” Weaver said. Its chairman should resign.

    Rajendra Pachauri head of the IPCC also is director of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi where Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain is employed. Hasnain is the source of the false calim. Several British newspapers have reported Pachauri’s company used the false glacier claim to win multi-million-dollar research grants from the U.S. and Europe.

    David feel free to let me know when you would like to discuss what can be done to mitigate the damage to honest science.

    • David Appell

      John: Carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas.

      So is methane. And land use changes are still warming the earth.

      I know you’re desperate to find evidence against these facts, but they remain.

      So some data on ancillary items has been called into question. Maybe Himalyan glaciers will melt by 2075 instead of 2035. That’s absolutely no reason to stop worrying about our pollution of the atmosphere.

      This happens in *every* discipline. Science is a human endeavor, and so subject to human problems.

      Jan Schön manufactured data about solid-state physics. Does that undo the theory of Fermi surfaces? Not at all. Hwang Woo-Suk fabricated stem cell data. Does that invalidate all of biology? Of course not.’

      All you are doing is following the news and believing it substitutes for scientific truth. It does not.

      News is news. Science is science. Do not confuse one for the other.

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)