Slashdot Mirror

Bill Nye doesn't report what the climate scientists say. Bill Nye is a fraud.

He and Al Gore fake an experiment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
Now he's pushing GMOs: http://www.naturalnews.com/052...

There's a litany. I have no opinion on climate change, except my belief that everyone should stop arguing with each other and fucking do something about it, or STFU. I don't know who Carl Sagan is, or Mann(?) and have no agenda here - except that people without a field of study, or a PhD, or demonstrable knowledge and use of the scientific method should not be called scientists.

Bill Nye is not, nor has even been a scientist, a reputable source of anything, or more than an entertainer and actor. This is like assuming Arnold Swartzeneggar is an expert gunsmith because he's seen using so many in movies.

So climate scientists agree man is causing global warming,now called climate change,soon to be called climate disruption. http://www.scientific-alliance... you heard it here first. What happened to all scientists are in a agreement according to Cook et al (2013)? Apparently it was a complete fraud. https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Not So fast

Oh, so he's taking the position supported by scientific data. What a scoundrel!

You're claiming the UAH satellite data isn't legitimate scientific evidence?

UAH satellite data

I do not deny the UAH satellite data. Do you?

There seem to be Orwellian rules for applying the term "denier." I don't deny the UAH satellite data.

UAH satellite data

Do you deny the UAH satellite data?

Just the other day I had a conversation with an 11th grade student and a science teacher about global warming. Turns out, the students were doing a research essay on the subject, one page, and the teacher accepts every paper that's backed up with good sources. And they have a good conversation even evaluating some of the sources. He openly tells students that he firmly believes global warming is real, but it's an open dialog with students.

Not every school discourages open conversation regarding climate change. And I'm equally frustrated that there's just as much closed-minded fervor from both sides of the conversation.

In my study of the topic, I've concluded that climate change is happening, and humans are partially responsible for the change. But the Earth has ways of compensating for the change, though some of these compensations will necessitate either adaptations or extensions from all walks of human life. We humans have had such success in adapting to our environment that we should have no troubles adjusting, but ironically, we resist change. In order to adapt, we need to talk about the changes taking place and how to respond to them accordingly. That's becoming incredibly difficult; climate-change believers are so self-righteous, they feel humans need to take full responsibility for its existence and pretentiously claim we have to "undo" it all; and climate-change deniers don't want to accept any responsibility at all, especially due to the costs.

Climate is changing every moment of every day, and the complete calculus that is climate is so complex, it's nothing short of arrogance to think we alone are at fault. Milankovich cycles. Volcanic vents. Solar output. Water vapor. Not to mention butterflies, methane emissions from cattle (and don't forget buffalo), forest fires, surface volcanic eruptions, and who knows what else. The only explanation I have for taking a ~30 year warming trend within the billions of years of our planet's existence and constituting it as a global crisis is because we humans like to imagine that we're in control of this world. But we're not.

It angers me even further that, just because there's so much in this world that we do not and cannot control, there's no good reason -not- to do what we can to clean up our planet. Until we can find another one to take its place, and find a way to get a subset of the human population there, this is the only one we have. So let's not fuck it up.

The point isn't "Is the Climate Changing" because the climate is always changing, the points are
1. is the change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, (probably a little bit)
2. if the change is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, will the rate of change accelerate, decelerate or stay linear as CO2 increases,
3. if we reduce CO2 levels, will the Earth actually cool
4. can we reduce CO2 levels without killing off billions of people
5. is the change due to land use changes, (probably a fair bit?)
6. have you really seen any climate change over your lifetime, even the alarmist are saying it's less than a degree
7. if the denialists are in thrall to "Big Oil", why do you assume the Alarmists aren't in the other sides pocket
Bill Nye is an engineer by training, a professional Entertainer by trade and not afraid to commit scientific fraud for "dramatic effect".
OBTW "It's very hard to find a millennial-aged person that is not concerned about climate change. I think the climate denial movement is running out of steam, I guess that's a pun." is a manipulative sales technique known as social validation, it's rather effective on persons with narcissistic tendencies; it strongly appeals to the hive-mind drive to be "one of the cool kids".

4000 ARGO floats for less than 20 years is hardly a sufficient measurement grid to exclude the possibility of a decades long trend, though, won't you agree? When we have limited information, speculation abounds...for example, "the oceans ate my warming" excuse for the pause:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Now, NASA has shown that the deep ocean hasn't warmed in any measurable way:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n...

But the heat transfer necessary to warm the atmosphere is actually smaller than they could measure - remember, water has not only a greater heat capacity than air, but it's got a much larger mass.

Now certainly, we're speculating here - but if you can at least admit that the speculation is *possible*, we've got an area we can direct more effort to study, in this case the complexities of ENSO and possible natural secular trends that occur over many cycles.

So, from the 1800s to 2016, we've had less than half a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the biosphere has gotten more vibrant, and humans have become better off with a minor global average temperature rise. ...so then what's the problem? Why do we expect the beneficial warming of the last 150 years to become painful in the next 150 years? We can't possibly emit enough CO2 to beat the logarithmic nature of the CO2 absorption curve, so where is the emergency?

(it's still called 'acidification' even when the pH doesn't go above neutral)

Of course it is, because that's scarier :) But don't let the fact that the ocean is incredibly *insensitive* to pH changes, and varies orders of magnitude more than any predicted average increase:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Here you go

AGW theory makes a specific prediction - that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The UAH and RSS satellites, as well as thousands of weather balloons show not only that this is not the case, but that the OPPOSITE is happening - the surface is warming faster. That means AGW is FALSIFIED according to the Scientific Method. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about this - the theory made a prediction that is falsified. The Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.

Not everyone agrees with that. Very nice lay summary. The gist seems to be that the model predictions are fairly sensitive to initial conditions, so the 20CEN model predicts troposphere warming of 0.04-0.37 degrees per decade. If you average all of those together to get one number for the each model, then the variation among model predictions is reduced, and the difference between measured temperatures and model temperatures is significant. If you include the variability within each model due to uncertainty in starting conditions, then the difference between measured and modeled temperatures is not statistically resolvable.

The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]

Thanks for posting data. The PAGES 2k study is analyzed and the techniques and proxies are pretty well independently analyzed here
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?

Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.

The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past

Other papers state counter - that sea level rise is slowing. And if you look at the data I linked to, the rate of change is dropping - it's slowing down.

The 50/60Hz powerline frequency is notoriously strong and ubiquitous, touch one end of an amp cable or an oscilloscope probe or an AM radio, forget a pull-up/pull-down resistors and resistor capacitors on an Arduino, you have your 50 or 60 (depending on your locale) Hz reference. Now in order to compensate for load differences, steam/hydraulic pressure at the turbines... that frequency is allowed to go up and down a bit... but over the course of a day, it must be very stable.In the US, for example the standard (once) required that the 60Hz power line averages out to exactly 5,184,000 cycles in any day, But if you live in the US, YMMV as this guarantee seems to be no longer written in stone

d. Digital clocks in plugged-in devices such as microwave ovens use this. Swiss Grid has a very good explanation and time deviation on their website. So synchronous clocks and clock radios of the 1960s and 70s might have held their time better than your untethered Seiko or Rollex ever did. Which makes me wonder why they didn't rely on this instead of the built-in crystal that might have been off by a second or more per month depending on temperature, humidity and how many times I tried to tweak that little variable capacitor with a jeweler's screwdriver.

“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.” Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

With climate you can't measure the micro, a year's data is not statically significant, we just don't have a long enough sample size of data to make any good c conclusions of where the climate is headed. I searched for "climate analysis sample size" in google and this was the second result. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Now I'm sure you will make up so reason to discredit this guy, but his points are valid, you obvious are a true believer of global warming regardless of the evidence. I am not a skeptic, but I look at it for what it is, and in this case this global warming people are the same people who were saying we would all die in a nuclear holocaust or the following nuclear winter. The global warming proponents, will use this fear to take away our rights or make things more expensive or prohibitive to do, and increase their power. You can see them foaming at the mouth to impose their draconian policies. That is where the skepticism comes from, the inability to separate the science from agendas.

Since the original article claims some crap about melting sea ice (heh) here is an appropriate sea ice page, view the charts and check the sources and decide for yourself http://wattsupwiththat.com/ref...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Next.

Use any examples here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I know you hate that site, so dispute it.

-the effect of el nino on the GLOBAL AVERAGE is tiny. even with el nino it still would have been the hottest year. http://www.slate.com/content/d... [slate.com]

Why don't you add the missing bit? "Hottest year since modern surface records began in the 19th Century". Which is completely expected given the recovery since the Little Ice Age. Not the hottest year within the last 500 years, nor 1000, nor 2000. Look again at the REALITY that warmunists must deny:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

Please tell us wall why the Vikings used to farm in Greenland, but are now buried under permafrost? could it be that today is COLDER than it used to be, and we are only getting back to relatively normal temperatures - and all of this is ****NATURAL****.

ROFL you think "SkepticalScience" is anything except blinkered rants from eco-loons who deliberately ignore data (that is, REALITY) they don't like. They don't have neutral peer-review of their drivel.

-your continual pointing to the RSS satellites show only that you are ignorant of what that data is and what it is capable of showing, let alone its relation to the overall picture from all the data. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]

BOOM! here you show you know NOTHING about the CAGW/AGW Hypothesis that predicts that the lower tropic troposphere will show warming before anything else, including the sea and surface. The predictions of this hypothesis are NOT observed (and the UAH and RSS satellites agree with each other, and the tens of thousands of weather balloons, and the well-sited surface stations, etc). The Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of AGW based on the OBSERVATIONS (that is, reality) because the specific prediction of AGW is not observed (in fact, the counter is observed). Did you not know this?

-the urban heat island effect isn't a factor. IE, remove all urban stations from the data and the trend still remains the same. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]

COMPLETELY FALSE. The apparent surface warming decreases significantly when UHI affected stations and the increasing proportion of ESTIMATED data is taken away. Here's a discussion of the developing story, that has been improved by wamists critiquing it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

-the corrections actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data, by ~20%.

Here you show a complete inability to reason statistically. Who cares if the absolute level is reduced? the 'corrections' introduce a systematic effect that cools the past and warms the present - artificially introducing a trend in the first time derivative. But you are not smart enough to see this and instead trot out a deception you were unable to see through.

-there are no observations which "falsify AGW all the time". there are only cranks like yourself who misinterpret the data (deliberately) in order to spread misinformation.

It is you spreading disinformation. It is you who merely parrots talking points because you don't understand the specific predictions of AGW and how the observational data have falsified this hypothesis. You refuse to follow the Scientific Method when it conflicts with your cultural Marxist "Progressive" Narrative. Even your byline "America, shining city on a hill, was built upon progressive ideals. Conservatism has only ever diminished its luster." shows how colossally ignorant you are of economics and American history. But hey, you are prepared to deny th

Polar Ice Caps: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Hurricane Lull: http://www.livescience.com/507...

Greening of Africa: http://news.nationalgeographic...

These are "facts", and the "speculation" from the "Global Warming" nuts is also clearly documented. Here are a few good articles on exaggerated claims that never panned out:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Please go ahead and make excuses as to why nearly 97% of all Global Warming Projections are wrong : http://www.westernjournalism.c...

Or perhaps you'll simply parrot someone else who doesn't actually know anything, or continue to believe "consensus = Science"

Let's see how 2016 does. I bet it'll be back down.

How much?

It was rhetorical. I don't like a sure bet. Besides, I'm sure nobody would pay up if they lost anyway. I seem to have a difficult time collecting especially when the bet points out someone's stupidity, or they at least perceive it as stupidity because they drank the cool aid and believed someone else. Like someone betting that 2016 will be as hot or hotter than 2015. That's a stupid bet. Well they didn't really make the bet, Didn't shake, Didn't mean it, They don't remember the bet, or they didn't realize I was serious or some other complete BS.

Realize that statistically it's not that likely. By definition you're betting that it will match the highest water mark or exceed it in over a 100 years worth of records. If you believe the hype and you'd be very foolish to do that - high water mark of all time. Could happen. Not bloody likely. Probably about as likely as myself getting lucky with a Victoria's secret model. Sure, I own an airplane and fly into some of the most exclusive locations in the world and I've met a few of them that way (they look as delicious as they do in the catalog). However I know it won't happen.

Maybe you're talking about Mark's bet? http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Check update 2. Sure, it's a sucker bet if you bet it'll be above the mean based on what we know. Of course, even he isn't going to bet that 2016 will be as hot or hotter than 2015. Only a fool would do that. However if I knew you, and you are serious, I'd bet you $10. I'd write it down on paper, you'd sign it too, then into my commercial grade safe. I'd come to collect my $10 next year. Understand it's to just prove a point. It's not worth my time to collect $10.

Citation here. The author takes a hard NOAA-claimed "global average temperature" of 62.45 deg F in 1997, and shows that the 2015 "global average temperature" was 58.62 deg F. So clearly the temperature in 2015 is the highest ever! Now sit back and thank Big Brother for increasing your chocolate rations from last year's 30 grams to the new 25 gram amount.

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.

Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.

Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?

Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events

17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.

Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00

8 March, 2007

Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)

28 July, 2003

Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.

Source: Independent Institute report 2003

2 May, 2007

Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"

Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.

Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics

This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.

But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

They remind me of the Drake Equation.

Slashdotters love data, right?

Here is the 10000 year view of the situation:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

Here's the data from the Arctic:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old...

Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Here is a correlation between CO2 and various surface and satellite data-sets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Unfortunately the global temperature range is of the order of 100 K from poles to equator, and the uncertainty in the measurement data is at least +/- 0.2 K, so increases of fractions of a degree are not particularly significant. Here is a paper discussing the same
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

There is Global Warming for sure. We would expect warming after the Sun increased magnetic activity after the end of the Little Ice Age. Some component of that warming is due to human-emitted CO2. Whether the dominant effect is natural or human is still being debated (particularly since CO2 effects are weak and the IPCC's models that the CO2-induced water vapor effects would increase the temperature further appear to be falsified by experiment). To de-industrialize and impose punitive 'carbon taxes' at this stage does not look like it can be supported by the data. The difference between surface and satellite observations has not yet been resolved satisfactorily (the 'science is not settled'). If you think the science is settled please refer to the data I have provided in your response (you need to explain it). Thanks.

You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.

So the content of this study is irrelevant ....but here goes -

The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1
link 2

Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions

here's another posting by your authors Watts Up With That
And here's another debunking.

So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.

Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.

Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.

And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.

I would love to hear your take on Exxon scientists warning the company that carbon emissions would cause climate problems in the 1970s, and then covering it up for decades. If anyone has been dishonest in this debate it has been the oil and gas companies. Manufactured doubt is part of their business plan, just like the tobacco companies did for years, and just like gun manufacturers are doing now by making sure that gun deaths are not recorded and analyzed. I am a scientist and I don't believe for a second that Hansen is being intentionally dishonest like the corporations are. He doesn't have billions of dollars at stake.

Maybe you are also going to places like this for your information

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

It's all part of the manufactured doubt campaign. I get it.

> It's probably too late for emissions cuts to save Kiribati (or Miami, FL for that matter) ...
Those are scary words. And unfounded, because the leaders of these islands have declined to provide any evidence that islands are sinking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Yes, there are "climate models", which can predict anything their creators want them to predict, but no hard data (i.e. real world data) to back up these claims.

As far as Miami is concerned there is real-world data (via planometry) to show that the islands in Biscayne Bay are growing, not sinking. Yes, there are spots where the sea levels rise, but this is due to tides and natural variance. No proven link to rising CO2 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

In fact, satellite-based estimates of the Earth's mean global temperature have shown no statistically significant global warming for almost 20 years. Yet the CO2 levels measured in Hawaii keep on rising. (Even though man-made CO2 production has leveled off for the past two years). How do you explain that?
http://www.science20.com/news_...

"Hysteresis" you say? But the canonical explanations of "CO2-based green-house warming" all say that the warming happens immediately, because the warming is supposed to be directly proportional to the concentrations of green-house gases. Explain how a CO2 (H2O, methane, whatever) molecule, floating in the troposphere and "excited" by a recent absorption of an IR photon, doesn't transfer more thermal energy to the surrounding molecules. Are you denying the "green-house" effect?

So it's all "climate scare". It's a huge fraud, solely aimed at destroying capitalism, by crippling traditionally successful Western economies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This kind of scientific fraud wouldn't happen if there were free and open discussions among the scientific community. But the "dissident" scientists have been harshly suppressed by the political activists. Modern-day Linsenkoism, on a scale much more intense and wider in scope than in the former Soviet Union.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

> It's probably too late for emissions cuts to save Kiribati (or Miami, FL for that matter) ...
Those are scary words. And unfounded, because the leaders of these islands have declined to provide any evidence that islands are sinking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Yes, there are "climate models", which can predict anything their creators want them to predict, but no hard data (i.e. real world data) to back up these claims.

As far as Miami is concerned there is real-world data (via planometry) to show that the islands in Biscayne Bay are growing, not sinking. Yes, there are spots where the sea levels rise, but this is due to tides and natural variance. No proven link to rising CO2 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

In fact, satellite-based estimates of the Earth's mean global temperature have shown no statistically significant global warming for almost 20 years. Yet the CO2 levels measured in Hawaii keep on rising. (Even though man-made CO2 production has leveled off for the past two years). How do you explain that?
http://www.science20.com/news_...

"Hysteresis" you say? But the canonical explanations of "CO2-based green-house warming" all say that the warming happens immediately, because the warming is supposed to be directly proportional to the concentrations of green-house gases. Explain how a CO2 (H2O, methane, whatever) molecule, floating in the troposphere and "excited" by a recent absorption of an IR photon, doesn't transfer more thermal energy to the surrounding molecules. Are you denying the "green-house" effect?

So it's all "climate scare". It's a huge fraud, solely aimed at destroying capitalism, by crippling traditionally successful Western economies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This kind of scientific fraud wouldn't happen if there were free and open discussions among the scientific community. But the "dissident" scientists have been harshly suppressed by the political activists. Modern-day Linsenkoism, on a scale much more intense and wider in scope than in the former Soviet Union.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

> It's probably too late for emissions cuts to save Kiribati (or Miami, FL for that matter) ...
Those are scary words. And unfounded, because the leaders of these islands have declined to provide any evidence that islands are sinking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Yes, there are "climate models", which can predict anything their creators want them to predict, but no hard data (i.e. real world data) to back up these claims.

As far as Miami is concerned there is real-world data (via planometry) to show that the islands in Biscayne Bay are growing, not sinking. Yes, there are spots where the sea levels rise, but this is due to tides and natural variance. No proven link to rising CO2 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

In fact, satellite-based estimates of the Earth's mean global temperature have shown no statistically significant global warming for almost 20 years. Yet the CO2 levels measured in Hawaii keep on rising. (Even though man-made CO2 production has leveled off for the past two years). How do you explain that?
http://www.science20.com/news_...

"Hysteresis" you say? But the canonical explanations of "CO2-based green-house warming" all say that the warming happens immediately, because the warming is supposed to be directly proportional to the concentrations of green-house gases. Explain how a CO2 (H2O, methane, whatever) molecule, floating in the troposphere and "excited" by a recent absorption of an IR photon, doesn't transfer more thermal energy to the surrounding molecules. Are you denying the "green-house" effect?

So it's all "climate scare". It's a huge fraud, solely aimed at destroying capitalism, by crippling traditionally successful Western economies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This kind of scientific fraud wouldn't happen if there were free and open discussions among the scientific community. But the "dissident" scientists have been harshly suppressed by the political activists. Modern-day Linsenkoism, on a scale much more intense and wider in scope than in the former Soviet Union.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

> It's probably too late for emissions cuts to save Kiribati (or Miami, FL for that matter) ...
Those are scary words. And unfounded, because the leaders of these islands have declined to provide any evidence that islands are sinking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Yes, there are "climate models", which can predict anything their creators want them to predict, but no hard data (i.e. real world data) to back up these claims.

As far as Miami is concerned there is real-world data (via planometry) to show that the islands in Biscayne Bay are growing, not sinking. Yes, there are spots where the sea levels rise, but this is due to tides and natural variance. No proven link to rising CO2 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

In fact, satellite-based estimates of the Earth's mean global temperature have shown no statistically significant global warming for almost 20 years. Yet the CO2 levels measured in Hawaii keep on rising. (Even though man-made CO2 production has leveled off for the past two years). How do you explain that?
http://www.science20.com/news_...

"Hysteresis" you say? But the canonical explanations of "CO2-based green-house warming" all say that the warming happens immediately, because the warming is supposed to be directly proportional to the concentrations of green-house gases. Explain how a CO2 (H2O, methane, whatever) molecule, floating in the troposphere and "excited" by a recent absorption of an IR photon, doesn't transfer more thermal energy to the surrounding molecules. Are you denying the "green-house" effect?

So it's all "climate scare". It's a huge fraud, solely aimed at destroying capitalism, by crippling traditionally successful Western economies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This kind of scientific fraud wouldn't happen if there were free and open discussions among the scientific community. But the "dissident" scientists have been harshly suppressed by the political activists. Modern-day Linsenkoism, on a scale much more intense and wider in scope than in the former Soviet Union.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Continues to push bad science. Along with Michael Mann. Their data is shown to be highly manipulated, not what was claimed, and the models built don't follow realit - but they insist they are correct and must be used for setting political policies. Real science wouldn't hide data, wouldn't support models that continue to be in error, and wouldn't constantly "readjust" past, good data to make the models work. Not to mention using his children as foils to sue the Government over his beliefs.

Nicely explained here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Simply put, atolls with no people on them manage to stay level with sea level even though sea level has been rising for millennia.

Atolls with people have problems. Blaming CO2 levels for recent problems with erosion when there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise probably is pointing the finger at the wrong cause. It does allow them to ignore the real cause (too many people) and try and extort money from the first world to help cope.

Seems like there would be an opposite effect in the 70's if we're supposed to be worried about heating flooding the earth, shouldn't cooling have the opposite effect? There's quite a few news stories on it and what do you know - they even say the same thing the zealots are saying now! We're going to have to give up our freedom over it!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

First, you list six - not five. Math obviously isn't a strong suit! As far as those listed, what climate change horrors are they experiencing? After all, the Maldives are not sinking at all, Eritrea has a growing agricultural economic sector, USA hurricanes and tornadoes are way down. Syria has no issues with climate change (but tons with terrorism and gassings and war). Russia and France? What climate change horrors are they experiencing (other than Paris being subjected to hundreds of Governmental blowhards decrying climate change)?

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans. Is Current Warming Natural?

Anything that happened before 1950 temperature wise in regards to human activity is buried under natural variability; so the reality is of the time when measuring a human influence was possible, there has not been any statistically significant warming for the third of the time while a third of all of the CO2 has been added by Humans is without apparent effect other than the planet becoming greener.

Sorry but it's obvious you've been watching Al Gore and Bill Nye too long, Your "experiment both doesn't work and has nothing to do with the way AGW is hypothesised to work. You've been lied to; the Gore-Nye video you're eluding to has been completely discredited, every aspect of it is a case of "Has been edited for dramatic effect" take a look at Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment for more details.

Today's temperature range is not exactly "uncharted territory". We have plenty of charts to say that the warming (such as it is/was) has been on hold for 18 years and 8 months so far: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I'm an out and proud denier. There is nothing to believe in but the scaremongering of scientists who are addicted to an all-you-can-eat buffet of tax-payer funded studies to prove something that just isn't cooperating with their worthless computer models.

I wonder what the left will move onto next when the penny finally drops and they realise that their climate change emperor has no clothes and nobody believes them any more?

I understand where you're coming from, I like the predictable nature of math and logic too. The problem with the physical world is that we can't measure everything to provide a precise answer; we might get a few significant digits at best. To get full mathematical precision, we would need to measure what's going on over the entire planet at a microscopic scale, which is not only unrealistic, but we'd probably interfere with the Earth's processes if we tried. Plus, CO2 is not the only, single factor; the atmosphere is composed of an incredible array of gases. Plus, the Earth's atmosphere is leaky in ways that we don't fully understand. Plus, cloud cover can change the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the ground and the atmosphere, and cloud cover is extraordinarily hard to predict or model.

The best analogy I can offer is that no matter how hard we try, the picture will always be slightly out-of-focus. This doesn't make the resulting picture useless. It's in focus enough to see important relationships. Here is a paper that goes a little deeper into the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

As far as I can tell, all the "investigations" of the ClimateGate situation were whitewashes. "The University investigated its own global warming researchers and concluded that they are doing a great job!"

And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, and all the old data got pushed down and all the new data got pushed up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

Can you find me anyone prominent in the global warming community who spoke out in 2004 against the prediction that sea level rise would start drowning island countries by 2010? It's hard for me to take this stuff seriously when the most outrageous claims are never challenged, and skeptical people are hounded the way the Inquisition hounded heretics, and the computer models are all outside their 95% confidence intervals and yet everyone is doubling down on the conclusions from the models.

If you want me to take global warming seriously, start having all the global warming conferences by teleconference over the Internet to save on CO2 emissions (instead of having everyone fly to Tahiti or wherever) and start having the top guys all endorse nuclear power.

The Persian gulf may be one of the more livable areas as we are sliding into the next era of global cooling.

After all, global temperatures have not increased now for over two decades... if CO2 (which has been rising) is warming the planet, a flat climate with no increase means the natural progression was actually cooling.

Use a super sophisticated algorithm to remove the "adjustments" that are introduced into satellite surface temperature datasets that artificially show exaggerated global warming..

Alternatively, climate scientists are getting real tired of being publicly maligned, and want some investigation to see if there's a massive conspiracy behind that.

I keep thinking about the cluelessness behind your statement. It's been four weeks and the letter in question has been pulled. Why? Maybe because the guy who was hosting the letter and who is the first signature on that latter, a Jagdish Shukla, realized he was going to be investigated as a result.

Roger Pielke Jr recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the #RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled âoenon-profitâ (Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.

Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.

• Pielke had quoted Shuklaâ(TM)s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014.
• In addition, the âoenon-profitâ organization had also employed one of Shuklaâ(TM)s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
• IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shuklaâ(TM)s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.

If the Pandora's box of RICO gets opened, it'll be interesting to see how many of the people who signed this particular letter will become RICO targets. (perhaps under the charge of conspiracy to defraud the public of tens of millions of dollars in research funding over a twenty year period?)

Five other George Mason employees were RICO20 signatories, four of whom are long-time Shukla associates: Dirmeyer, Straus, Paul Schopf and Barry Klinger. (Itâ(TM)s interesting that James Kinter didnâ(TM)t sign it.) The other George Mason RICO 20 signatory, Edward Maibach, is in some sort of climate communications and, together with Heidi Cullen, holds a $2,998,178 grant from NSF. Many of the other RICO20 signatories had previous associations with IGES. Kevin Trenberth and Mike Wallace had both been on its âoeScience Advisory Committeeâ in the past. Nearly all of the RICO20 signatories, including Trenbeth andWallace, attended a large symposium in April 2015 to honor Shukla â" see picture at link.

I recall when it was big news that a notorious Harvard professor, Willie Soon had received over a million dollars since 2001 to fund his research. Here, we have someone who has received tens of millions of dollars over a similar time period to fund his research and whose family has siphoned off somewhere around $600k in just 2014 from that funding. How come it's just fine when your side does it (despite being at least an order of magnitude larger in scale)?

There're reasons I think the current concern over AGW is in large part a scam. This easy money, which no one seems too concerned about, is a big reason why.

Use this one instead.

Yes, it is complicated.

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.

Of course the Kool Aid crown will runaway at the mention of WUWT.

97% Myth by Anthony Watts / November 20, 2013

"Weâ(TM)ve all been subjected to the incessant âoe97% of scientists agree â¦global warmingâ¦blah blahâ meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of âoeanything for the causeâ zealots."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...