Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?

by Judith Curry

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable. – Spiegel

The Bengtsson affair is continuing to stimulate some important discussions on the climate consensus and its ‘enforcement.’  Here are some recent thought provoking articles.

Lennart Bengtsson

Uppsalainitiativet has a blog post Lennart Bengtsson: My view on climate research.  Bengtsson’s essay is prefaced with the following text:  In a series of recent blog posts, we in Uppsalainitiativet have sharply criticized meteorologist and climate scientist professor Lennart Bengtsson (post 1, post 2, post 3). Unfortunately those 3 posts are in Swedish, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.  Here are excerpts from Bengtsson’s essay:

As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”.

I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. 

What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.

I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. 

The comments are entertaining – Dana Nuccitelli and Chris Colose show up to tell Bengtsson that he doesn’t understand the science.

Spiegel

Spiegel has an article Heated Debate: Are Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?  Subtitle: After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.  Excerpts from what scientists have to say:

Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.”

Nevertheless, by joining the political lobby group, Bengtsson opened himself up to criticism that he had taken a position inappropriate for a scientist of his stature.

University of Washington climatologist Eric Steig says the activities of the GWPF are more reminiscent of McCarthyism than Bengtsson’s case. GWPF, for its part, calls itself a think tank that documents arguments stating why climate change as a problem is being overestimated.

Reto Knutti of the ETH Zürich technical university is also critical. “Organizations like the GWPF contribute to whipping scientific debate into a religious war,” he argues. “Jochem Marotzke, who is Bengtsson’s successor at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, says, “GWPF works deliberately in a selective way. They mention only arguments that suit their purposes. Counterarguments are kept under wraps.”

Professor Myles Allen, a climate researcher at Oxford, says, “The problem is their anti-science agenda, clearly illustrated by the fact that they refused point blank to submit their recent report criticizing the IPCC 5th Assessment Report to the same kind of open peer review that the IPCC report was itself subjected to.”

GWPF Director Benny Peiser challenges assertions like that. “We are not an interest group; our scientists have no official or collective opinion — to any topics. If there were no taboos in climate science or climate policy, the GWPF would probably not exist.”

Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado says, “Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson.”

But who is doing the politicizing? Knutti says that it is pretty easy to tell. “If you are on the left politically, you believe in global warming,” he says. “If you are on the right, that is much less likely.” He adds that the line between opinion and fact is often blurred, even among scientists.

“Each side maintains the other is politicizing the debate,” explains Werner Krauss, an environmental ethnologist at the Helmholtz Center for Materials and Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. He says climate research is dominated by “strongmen” who know how to exploit the media whenever they like.

At the same time, Heinrich Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research says, “I find the way his colleagues reacted shocking. Apparently there is now pervasive disappointment because a shining scientific example is making his scientific doubts public,” he says. Miller adds that the Bengtsson case reminds him when politicians use “dirty tricks” to muzzle opponents.

Pielke Jr. confirms that climate research is a tough business. “We see hardball politics,” he says. “I have personally seen very strong social and professional pressures over the years. These include threats to my job, professional ostracism, public misrepresentations of my research and views, efforts to prevent me from speaking publicly and personal threats, many of which have been publicly documented.” He advises that “anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.”

Miller says that scientists were politicized more than anything else by having to seek a consensus on results for the 5th IPCC report. “Global warming is taken as dogma. Anyone who doubts it is bad,” says the renowned researcher, who was branded a “climate skeptic” after questioning the scientific validity of computer simulations.

Knutti, by contrast, warns about overemphasizing the lack of certainty about the evidence. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception.

Pointman

Pointman has a hard hitting essay The Age of Unenlightenment.  Excerpts:

That slick expression you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, now has a deeper meaning in this latest stage of the post-enlightenment. If your facts plainly contradict someone else’s orthodox beliefs, then you are simply being “unhelpful” or even “harmful” and should therefore be suppressed. That’s to be done not by logical refutation or counter argument, but intimidation, bullying, shunning, character assassination and threats to a person’s career or livelihood.

The next line of defence was declaring that it was all settled. It had been so thoroughly proven, incidentally an impossible thing for any scientific theory, that it was no longer an open question. Move along now. The proof had been done by taking a vote and the novel idea of science by consensus rather than scientific method was born. There was to be no debate but it fell foul of that rebellious child it largely shaped, the skeptic blogosphere, which insisted on taking a can opener to every hermetically sealed debate, and so often found Blake’s great red dragon of chaos ready to emerge from it grinning in triumph.
By now, they were increasingly desperate men in a hurry towards some finishing line only they could see, and acted accordingly.

Bengtsson had to be destroyed. Not only was he opening up a dialogue with the climate skeptics, which meant he was straying away from the teachings of the one true church, but he’d also called into serious question the ability of the computer models to generate credible climate predictions.

Their very public and violent intimidation of Bengtsson will probably ensure there won’t be another attempt at rapprochement by a high-profile warmist with the skeptics. They are in effect skipping over the bargaining phase in the death of their belief system.

 JC reflections

I have heard that a number of leading scientists are pretty disgusted with the way Bengtsson has been treated and see the larger issues of concern about the social psychology of our field.  People are talking about writing blog posts for professional societies, trying to get signatures on a statement, etc.  I hope that these individuals follow through, and that the ‘climate’ for climate research can improve.

This is a very welcome change from the 2009 reactions to Climategate, which reflected most silence, but solidarity with the climate scientists whose emails were made public.

With regards to Pielke Jr’s statement: “anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.”   I agree with this statement.  As someone participating in the in public debate on climate change, I certainly expect barbs from the media and advocacy groups.  What concerns me greatly is other scientists behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way, in other words, playing dirty politics with their science.

Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause?  Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?

901 responses to “Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?

  1. A C Osborn

    This has been a long time in the making, it was shown to be in existence by the Climategate emails, it is only now that a reasonable number of genuine Scientists are prepared to speak out against it.
    Well done JC for being one of those, I hope you all get much more support from your fellow scientists.
    I remember well your first Post on WUWT and the stick we gave you at the time, my apologies for that as you have stuck to your principles and grown in to someone who doesn’t take nonsense from either side of the debate.

    • +1

    • “who doesn’t take nonsense from either side of the debate.”

      Equivocal nonsense.

      One side is trying to expropriate carbon value through dictates and contrived totalitarian “science” authority and the other is trying to do what? Stop them?

      How does the “nonsense” ever get equalized in light of these different agendas?

    • What a strange narrative to try to build on top of such a shambles.

      Bengtsson’s been shown to have lied outright and suffered zero negative consequences for his lying, except only that the publication that already rejected his substandard submission on grounds of lack of value and lack of quality has found itself needing to defend its honor and its reviewers by publishing the full letters of rejection.

      Dr. Curry’s supposedly suffered how again, exactly? She’s in a position of prestige and power at a much larger and more powerful institution than the IPCC.

      Dr. Gray? Hardly could have a career of more support from federal politicians, nor hardly could have produced less of value for so much support.

      Dr. Christy? Not suffering for funding, support or power.

      Dr. Spencer?

      Dr. Lindzen?

      The list goes on and on; while the 3% (and people who claim to be within the 97% but nonetheless are on speed dial for the GWPF) is smaller, it’s not exactly small, and it’s far from powerless.

      Do we force advocates of phlogiston theory to toe the line? No, we look at the substantive body of evidence and reject their claims.

      Do we force people whose submissions add nothing new to the field to toe the line? No, we simply don’t see reputable journals dedicated to advancing their field publish those submissions.

      Do we force people who use or seek to furnish support for invalid arguments to toe the line? No, we simply let them know in peer review that they have used or produced support for invalid argument.

      That’s what happened to Bengtsson.

      What is “forcing to toe the line”?

      Is it as SE Cupp claims, scientists like 67-year-old stringbean Bill Nye bullying politicians and the public with fact and reason?

      Or is it more of http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/a-skilful-counterstrike-john-holdren.html where a sitting US Senator accused scientist John Holdren of perjury, based on the support of Roger Pielke Jr.’s misleading previous testimony?

      Who’s using force on whom?

      And who’s using fact and reason?

    • Don Monfort

      You need to close your gadfly, barty. You impressed about four other clowns with that offensive rant. I am sure I don’t need to identify the anonymous little creeps. It’s the usual suspects. What is it that you hope to accomplish with this crap? Do you think you are going to get your carbon taxes by incessantly trolling a website that attracts mostly skeptics? Get your own side on board first, you clown. Did you see that little Bernie Sanders and Babs Boxer have introduced a bill for a $20 a ton carbon tax in the Senate? That’ll get about 20 votes, if Dingy Harry let’s it come up.

    • k scott denison

      Bart, thanks for reinforcing the point, again. Your diatribes simply prove that one side is out to suppress discussion via intimidation. Own goal I’d say.

    • Oh, Bart R, I’m sorry; I hope you didn’t read that brute.
      ========

    • I agree, Professor Curry has shown great courage and wisdom in the climate debate.

      To answer the question: Yes, grant funds are used to force climate scientists, cosmologists, astronomers, nuclear scientists, planetary scientists, solar scientists, etc., to fudge the results so they appear to agree with post-1945 STANDARD MODELS of the climate, the cosmos, stars, the nucleus, the proto-planetary nebulous, the Sun, etc.

    • omanuel: Maybe your opinions are for sale. But for most of us, they are not.

    • fizzymagic

      Bart R wrote:

      Bengtsson’s been shown to have lied outright

      Immediately going to the character assassination. Didn’t take more than a sentence or two to get there. Thanks for making your techniques so obvious, Bart!

    • Maybe your opinions are for sale. But for most of us, they are not. … Pride is more valuable than money. Some people cannot be bought, regardless of cost

    • Peter Lang

      A C Osborn

      +100

    • One might think the 97% would welcome those, no matter how misguided in their scientific inquiries, for looking at the system with a minority view and finding holes in the theory, or shedding additional light on the climate system. It’s not as if the 3% have actually changed policy.

      Policy is what it is because of the expensive nature of implementing CO2 neutral policies. I’ll point out here in CA, we need 33% or so of energy by renewables (one article, the old ones are 20%). Hydro and Nuclear do not count, for some strange reason. You can see clearly and obviously CA policy is not addressing CO2 concentrations only. It’s a hodge podge of Green environmental concerns. Nuclear, Bad. Hydro, bad for the fish. Ineffective Green Cars, expensive CO2 neutral energy, good. Oh, and CA is also implementing “Energy Storage,” despite that there isn’t a known energy storage technology that can scale up. It’s based on faith. It’s expensive, and its going to make a lot of people mad as their energy prices increase for no meaningful abatement of CO2 concentrations.

      China isn’t building Coal fired plants because of the 3% who say “Well, maybe it’s wrong.” They are building Coal fired plants against the opposition because it’s the right policy for their people despite the 97% consensus.

      The anger of Warmists is misdirected. You want to put it where it belongs, get angry with the Sierra Club. CA is committed to spending its citizen’s money to implement some very expensive energy plants, and it won’t change CO2 concentrations in a meaningful way. That money could have gone into nuclear power that is 30 or 40 years more advanced if the Greens hadn’t put the kabash on nuclear plants, for instance. Maybe nuclear would be cheaper, and could have provided the power the Chinese need.

      Or get angry with other Greens who are pushing insanely expensive “Electric Cars,” despite they won’t make a dent in CO2 concentrations.

      Also, you should get angry at the influence of Greens on Climate Scientists. The advocacy of Greens in the IPCC leaves a lingering taste that it is nothing more than a religious rag, with Polar Bears dying, Ten Million (or was it twenty million) Climate Refugees by 2010, melting Himalayas by 2030. Or other prognostication of climate disasters cast in old testament Claptrap: “The Seas will Rise, plague and pestilence will rule the day, Climate Wars, Drought, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Fire and Flood” etc. Didn’t happen on your timescales. Oh, it was fun to get the articles written up, but it has made people doubtful about the certainty of your views.

      Stop blaming the honest 3% Scientists who stick their necks out trying to understand the complexity of planet earth’s climate system, or who actually try to measure the effects. They have done no damage to your cause. Greens, and a lot of your own religious zealotry, as evidenced in Climategate, the IPCC, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the future damage done by religious “Green” advocacy groups has and will continue to.

      Of course, maybe your damage to your own cause is a good thing. How has all this warming messed up planet earth? Expensive energy is killing old folks in Great Britain (30K deaths last year due to cold), rising costs of food probably killing folks due to the misguided and CO2 concentration increasing gasahol, but where are the proved negative influence of CO2 induced heat, outside of these misguided attempts to reduce CO2 concentrations?

      If you want to know why this world relies on fossil fuels, look in the mirror. Stop blaming the 3% for problems you yourself made.

  2. I agree that Dana’s comment on Bengtsson’s article is one of the comic highlights of the Climate Wars. Go Dana! You tell that half-wit Bengtsson where he left his trousers!

    I also think the real importance of the Bengtsson affair is ultimately that it adds another distinguished name to list of scientists that refuse to accept the IPCC-backed consensus. This is because, for any office-holding politician to start rolling back anti-CO2 legislation, there must exist a creditable scientific ‘side’ for them to select. We are getting closer to this critical mass all the time.

    More at http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/scientists-one-by-one/

    • Senator George Brandis, Australian Parliamentspeaking against
      The Finkelstein Report 2012 recommended restrictions on
      freedom of the press and against proposed 18c clause of the
      proposed Racial Discrimination Act said:

      ‘The practitioners of political correctness have grasped the
      connection between language and and thought, so that limiting
      what may be said , they seek to limit what may be thought … As
      Winston Smith discovered, there is hardly any distance between
      speech crime and thought crime. So the censorship of language,
      which the Left finds objectionable is not merely about the
      censorship of language which the Left finds objectionable. At
      a deeper level it is an attack upon intellectual freedom itself.’

      Controls on what may be said, what may be published? So what
      about consensus fortresses like the IPCC? Isn’t it time fer the
      walls ter come tumbling down?

      beth the serf.

    • Peter Lang

      Jonathan Abbott
      and Beththeserf

      Well said
      + π^(10*π)

  3. Pingback: Climate Scientists | Transterrestrial Musings

  4. Yes, next question.

    The only question is if and when it will change and how. What will it take to restore scientific values to the “scientific” debate?

    • John McClure

      It will take a heroic effort by the Scientific community as a whole to restore public trust. The Scientific community needs to reprimand the behavior of individuals who undermine the integrity of Science and Scientific Research. The reprimand should include political organizations and NGOs who are gaming Science.

      I’m amazed scientific organizations have allowed this Climate Science Creationism to last this long.

  5. It’s almost certainly most common and widespread in Climate Science but is found in virtually all disciplines. This is why yours and others commitment to “just the facts” is absolutely crucial. It serves to define a line that must not be crossed if facts are to drive both science and policy. It is currently writ large as regards Climate Science.

    I first tumbled to the political advocacy collision with science too many years ago with regard to wolf behavior. There’s a famous author, Farley Mowat (“Never Cry Wolf”) who claimed that wolves were essentially harmless predators that mostly ate mice. He claimed to have lived on his own on the tundra doing research to support this assertion at the behest of the Canadian Wildlife service. His associates at the time eventually came forward to say that dear Farley had never been left alone in the wild…ever. When confronted, Farley said words to the effect of, “So what? It’s too important not to make the case for wolves no matter the facts.”

    To this day, I’m a wolf fan in so far as their place on the food chain is concerned. They do work that needs doing. However, they do both kill and maim wildlife for reasons that have much more to do with prey drive than with need. I’ve seen this first hand in Wyo after the reintroduction of wolves there. To my mind, the contribution of a high order predator is best evaluated without regard to how much he looks like Fluffy or how closely she aligns with our sensibilities.

    Likewise Climate Science. It will never be helpful to align CS with our values. In fact, every attempt should be made to ignore values in evaluating evidence. This represents the mashing of ethics and science into a new and meaningless mush. It corrupts both science and ethics.

    • RobertInAz

      Just amazing. A heavily discredited work of fiction remains to this day a successful environmentalist call to action.

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

    • ceresco kid

      …Farley said words to the effect of, “So what? It’s too important not to make the case for wolves no matter the facts.”

      Replace the word wolves with “global warming” and you have the sentiments of much of the consensus scientists. It is their duty to convince the public regardless of the facts because it is too important not to make the case. I am sure many would gladly admit to this. How sad for science.

    • What? You mean he didn’t go piss all around his territory? Well, shoot, I’m demoralized.
      ============

  6. Was the German citizenry forced to turn its eyes to what was happening under its nose or did these citizen’s anti-Semitism come first?

  7. Jim Bender

    Why would this sort of behavior be allowed in any scientific field? I don’t understand what the political goal is that is driving people to do what they are doing.

  8. Sweet Old Bob

    The love of money (and power and position) is the root of all sorts of evil .
    Clearly evident in the actions of those advocating for climate alarmism.
    It is time for science to return to Science and stop being “bought”.

  9. pottereaton

    Revkin had a piece on Gavin Schmidt and his view of models that was entertaining:

    Why models are always wrong and yet still wonderful

  10. Pretending that academia is being forced to toe the line is just living yet another lie.The CAGW movement also can trace its roots to as early as the 50′s when, “a longstanding inclination among some members of the upper class,” according to Dr. Donald Gibson, was broadcast nationally (with the help of a willing mainstream media). “This inclination was to redefine achievements in science and technology as either evil actions threatening to nature or as futile attempts to reduce human suffering that was said to be the result of overpopulation.”

  11. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry wonders “Unfortunately those 3 posts are in Swedish, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.”

    Wonder no longer, Judith Curry!

    Article 1  “It is increasingly clear to me that Lennart Bengtsson in recent years has brought great confusion and great harm to the Swedish climate debate. […] Let me, for clarity, to emphasize that I in these words do not encourage anyone excommunication of him or his opinions, or suggest that his writings are burned at the stake. What I call for is only a slightly higher level of critical thinking (and correspondingly lower degree of naivety) in facing him, now that we got so clear information on what kind of agendas that drive him.”

    Article 2  “Lennart Bengtsson’s decision itself is naturally gratifying, but I would also have liked to see a different tone in his emails. There is apparently not a shred of remorse or admission of the unwise in gifting to the GWPF the propaganda victory they got in through his connection […] which if truth be told is a tad pathetic.”

    Article 3  “It is becoming increasingly clear that Bengtsson’s allegations that his article was rejected because it was politically inconvenient do not have anything to do with reality.”

    Conclusion  Not for the first time, and not for the last time, an elderly scientists has failed to keep pace with the advancing literature, has made imprudent public statements, and has aligned him(her)-self with ideology-driven special-interest organizations of doubtful objectivity and morality.

    As post $2 says, “If truth be told, Lennart Bengtsson’s story is a tad pathetic.”

    Take a lesson, Judith Curry and Climate Etc readers!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Uppsala Initiative is very much the Swedish version of Real Climate. It was set up specifically to attack the long running & wildly most popular Nordic climate skeptic blog – Climate Enlightenment (very much like a Swedish WUWT) – http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/
      As you can see, the UI comments are very much derogatory. UI does not usually get much traffic. Maybe publishing this Bengtsson Article was a means to remedying that end … says skeptical me.

    • Troll FOMD expects everyone to accept his “conclusions” as if they came from On High. In fact, he is like a train on a track; unable to deviate from his destination; the insular alarmist world of James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes, and the like as he arrogantly and condescendingly criticizes those who disagree with his simplistic glyph-ridden “wisdom.”

    • In Sweden Uppsala Initiativet are regarded as crackpots. Olle Häggström is known to be a querulant. No one takes him/them seriously.

  12. cue Climate Etc. trolls to chime in raging against Judith Curry, rather than thinking through these issues….. 3….. 2…… 1

    How dare she question the formation and aggressive imposition of “The Consensus” ?????

    • ha ha, cross-posted with FOMT

      easy prophesy

      hot air by FOMT

      sunlight disinfectant by Judith Curry

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Skiphil predicts “Cue Climate Etc trolls to chime in  raging against  urging moderation and collaboration upon Judith Curry.”

      Ideology-driven extremism advocated by Skiphil, science-respecting moderation advocated by FOMD.

      That’s common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • FOMT, it is ludicrous to characterize any of my comments as “ideology-driven extremism”

      I am for more intelligent dialogue not less, but you are in a continual war against intelligent, fair-minded discourse. Your spaghetti rants are predictable, shallow, dishonest, and tedious.

      Sometimes I feel like returning your mockery, that is all. You cannot bear the anti-FOMT because I point out and remind people of the kind of charlatan you are. I hold up a mirror to you and your vicious, dishonest ilk. If sometimes I mirror a bit of your own tone and tactics, that is merely so that you can see (if you were honest and not such an ideological extremist) how your rantings come across to independent, non-fanatics.

    • yet again, FOMT fails to provide the slightest attempt at rational defense or analysis for his drive-by smears.

      He truly is a pathetic dishonest troll….

  13. Jim Cripwell

    Our hostess asks “Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?”

    I am afraid the answer is “Not yet”. At sometime in the future, climate “science” will come back into the scientific field, but conditions, at present, prevent this from happening.

    I suspect one of two things need to happen before the wishes of our hostess come to fruition. Either

    1. There is overwhelming, irrefutable, observed data which shows CAGW to be what it is; a hoax,

    Or

    2. Some scientist of immense stature puts his/her career, prestige, health, etc. on the line, and calls out the proponents of CAGW for what they are; charlatans selling snake oil.

    I don’t hold out much hope for the latter, unless someone like Dr. Susan Seestrom sees that a very strong message indeed, is sent to the President of the American Physical Society. There may be very long shot for the former, if Arctic sea ice really rebounds substantially this season, and the NW passage does not open up for traffic without the use of icebreakers.

    But I am not holding my breath. At the rate things are going, I suspect that it will be at least 5 years before sanity returns to science in general..

    • It isn’t snake oil, it’s political culture and peer enclaves. It might smell the same in your backyard but they are very different commodities.

      Dr, Curry gets my respect when she crosses the Rubicon and admits what the “cause” and who culturally runs it from inception long ago are and is. That she was a member, the Whittaker Chambers moment;

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/whittaker-chambers-man-of-courage-and-faith

      “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.”

      –Statement before the House Un-American Activities Committee, August 3, 1948

      This is sequentially how climate fraud dies.

    • She said ‘Please’. Like a dreamer wishing the nightmare would end.

      Hey, sometimes it works.
      ============

    • Mike Jonas

      One event, one person, can do it once the climate (npi) is right. Remove Sir Paul Nurse from the Royal Society presidency, for example, and the floodgates could open.

    • The cool thing is that it is often possible to awake from a nightmare when the disconnect to reality gets outrageous. We’re about there with consensus alarmism.
      ==========

    • Speaking of which, you should read Ambrose Bierce in a work with that title.
      =========

  14. “Nevertheless, by joining the political lobby group, Bengtsson opened himself up to criticism that he had taken a position inappropriate for a scientist of his stature.” But joining a green group is OK, and then you can be an IPCC lead author? I wonder if there is a widespread blindness to the fact that enviornmental groups are in fact political lobby groups.

    • If a scientist joins a group, he’s open to criticism. So what? Is this really that hard?

      The scientist Bengtsson says tipped the scales was a US government scientist (above somebody implies Gavin Schmidt was either accused of being this person or somebody has denied he was).

      As an example of a US Government scientist, how many green lobbying groups has Stephen E. Schwartz joined?

    • k scott denison

      JCH, before you dismiss Bengtsson I suggest walking a mile in his shoes. I have made my skepticism of global warming/ climate change/climate disruption know to friends and colleagues only to be quite viciously attack, en masse. It was very eye opening tome how not a single person wanted to discuss facts, but they all wanted me to shut up and quickly. Lots of name calling, and not by me. I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be for a climate scientist who expresses skepticism.

  15. At the same time, Heinrich Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research says, “I find the way his colleagues reacted shocking. Apparently there is now pervasive disappointment because a shining scientific example is making his scientific doubts public,” he says. Miller adds that the Bengtsson case reminds him when politicians use “dirty tricks” to muzzle opponents. …

    What colleagues? What are their names? What did they say?

    Lol. Just one little ray of sunshine on this matter would be fantastic because right now the evidence of Bengtsson’s mistreatment is missing in action in a darkroom.

    If anybody knows a scientist who communicated something to Bengtsson about his affiliation with the GWPF, I suggest they start posting their communications on the internet. They need to follow the example of the editor.

    I’m starting to think Bengtsson wildly exaggerated the level pressure placed upon him. His failure to provide examples could mean he’s crying wolf. Some people are drama queens. It’s just the way they roll.

    • ceresco kid

      JCH- Just can’t deal with reality, eh, J? You have mastered the psychological defense mechanism of rationalization to a tee. If evidence was forthcoming, it wouldn’t be the right kind. Then it wouldn’t be enough. Then it would be tainted. On and on and on. Just deal with how the warmists react to those who have differing views It is obvious to reasonable people. Which leaves you out.

    • RobertInAz

      Are denying Gavin Schmidt’s published comments or that he withdrew from a paper with Bengtsson? Does this constitute crying wolf?

    • Asking for evidence of his claims, and the claims others are making based upon Bengtsson’s claims, is not a rationalizing.

      People smearing a large number of human beings when Bengtsson has provided not a shred of evidence are the ones doing the rationalizing.

      High-tech lynchings are justifiable because the lynchers think they know the evidence. Here there is no evidence. All I have done is ask for the evidence. So far, with every tiny release of fact, Bengtsson backs off.

    • k scott denison

      If Bengtsson’s claims are false JCH, please tell us the motives.

      By the way, calling an eminent scientist a drama queen sort of proves his point, no?

    • JCH, if you wish to contact Heinrich Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute, it probably would not be too difficult.

      Run off and do your research and we’ll wait for you to return with the results.

  16. S.C. Schwarz

    As Pointment says, what we are witnessing here is nothing less than the end of the Enlightenment. Don’t think it’s just climate science because there is a whole range of topics (race, IQ, GM foods, genetic differences between men and women, etc.) that cannot be discussed. The West is, sadly, turning away from rationality towards a strange kind of pseudo-religious dogma and heaven help you if you blaspheme.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      We absolutely do have a climate problem, but not the weather related kind.
      I think I’m more hopeful than you are though. We’re not seeing anything we’ve not seen before, and in the relatively recent past. There will be the inevitable backlash when things get bad enough. Already I’m seeing some liberal commentators recoiling at some of what’s going on in our universities. It’s a good sign.

    • Steven Mosher

      ended long ago, probably never existed

    • Lives on in our dreams.
      ==============

    • nottawa rafter

      Neuroscience is very close to being able to read thoughts of individuals. As they perfect that technology, wait for the ultimate thought police to emerge. This kind of intimidation
      is child’s play compared to what is coming in a few decades.

    • “Neuroscience is very close to being able to read thoughts of individuals.”
      Human beings can’t even read their own thoughts. There are 100 to 500 trillion synapses in the average human brain and the active firing rate is typically about 100 useconds. The number of logic pathways that neurologists/neurochemists have been able to identify is zero. Reading what is going on in my CPU, on this laptop, from a mm away is peanuts compared to being able to ‘read thoughts of individuals’, with an intact skull.
      How much ‘information’ leak do you think you can detect from a single neuron?

    • nottawa rafter

      Doc-
      I would have thought it impossible 5 years ago, but research at several universities are making great strides. I recommend “Future of the Mind” by Kaku. They do have problems to overcome, but what they have accomplished to date is stunning.

  17. Matthew R Marler

    Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.”

    Schmidt’s comments were more like “Lysenkoism” than “McCarthyism”, including the communist/Maoist/religious commandment to do penance. His “[appearance of bad faith]” comment was especially gross.

  18. pokerguy (aka al neipris)

    “For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. ”

    Somehow the understandable lack of linguistic precision…though the meaning is all too clear….makes this even more chilling. I make an effort to avoid black and white thinking in my own life, but there are times when it can’t be helped. There are good guys and bad guys in the climate wars, and they’re as easy to identify as the villains and heroes in old cowboy movies. All you have to do is look at the color of their hats.

  19. Matthew R Marler

    Knutti: “GWPF works deliberately in a selective way. They mention only arguments that suit their purposes. Counterarguments are kept under wraps.”

    This is absurd. The counterarguments are widely disseminated by the IPCC, and are cited by GWPF-affiliated writers..

  20. A rough English translation of what we at Uppsalainitiativet labelled “Post 1″ appears at Rabett Run: http://rabett.blogspot.se/2014/05/laffaire-bengtsson.html

    The others (Post 2, Post 3) you can get at least the basic gist of from the Google Translate translations provided by the “fan of *MORE* discourse” above.

    We also posted a rebuttal to the Bengtsson guest post today: http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/these-are-just-some-of-shortcomings-of.html

  21. Anyone who’s convinced that climate conformism is breaking up should spend some time reading a recent book, “The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry” (http://www.amazon.com/The-Climate-Change-Debate-Epistemic/dp/1137326271).
    Scary.

  22. Lest we forget …

    “In 1905 Boltzmann corresponded extensively with the Austro-German philosopher Franz Brentano with the hope of gaining a better mastery of philosophy, apparently, so that he could better refute its relevancy in science, but he became discouraged about this approach as well. In the following year 1906 his mental condition became so bad that he had to resign his position. He committed suicide in September of that same year by hanging himself while on vacation with his wife and daughter near Trieste, Italy.” (Wikipedia)

    • RobertInAz

      And more:
      Boltzmann’s kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald disbelieved their existence. During the 1890s Boltzmann attempted to formulate a compromise position which would allow both atomists and anti-atomists to do physics without arguing over atoms. His solution was to use Hertz’s theory that atoms were “Bilder”, that is, models or pictures. Atomists could think the pictures were the real atoms while the anti-atomists could think of the pictures as representing a useful but unreal model, but this did not fully satisfy either group. Furthermore, Ostwald and many defenders of “pure thermodynamics” were trying hard to refute the kinetic theory of gases and statistical mechanics because of Boltzmann’s assumptions about atoms and molecules and especially statistical interpretation of the second law.

      Around the turn of the century, Boltzmann’s science was being threatened by another philosophical objection. Some physicists, including Mach’s student, Gustav Jaumann, interpreted Hertz to mean that all electromagnetic behavior is continuous, as if there were no atoms and molecules, and likewise as if all physical behavior were ultimately electromagnetic. This movement around 1900 deeply depressed Boltzmann since it could mean the end of his kinetic theory and statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.

      After Mach’s resignation in Vienna in 1901, Boltzmann returned there and decided to become a philosopher himself to refute philosophical objections to his physics, but he soon became discouraged again. In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section. Rather, he was stuck in a section called “applied mathematics”, he violently attacked philosophy, especially on allegedly Darwinian grounds but actually in terms of Lamarck’s theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics that people inherited bad philosophy from the past and that it was hard for scientists to overcome such inheritance.

      In 1905 Boltzmann corresponded extensively with the Austro-German philosopher Franz Brentano with the hope of gaining a better mastery of philosophy, apparently, so that he could better refute its relevancy in science, but he became discouraged about this approach as well. In the following year 1906 his mental condition became so bad that he had to resign his position. He committed suicide in September of that same year by hanging himself while on vacation with his wife and daughter near Trieste, Italy.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      “It is difficult for people to imagine the wounds and scars that attend the rise of an acclaimed scientist.”
        — Red Jost

      For several dozen examples, see The Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics survey article Founders of thermodynamics and suicide.

      Why thermodynamics in particular? The modern-day synthesis of quantum information theory and symplectic geometry shows us that thermodynamics is — in Ed Witten’s phrase — “a piece of 21st century science that fell by accident into the 19th century.”

      Conclusion  Those who tackle tough scientific questions, that have urgent practical and moral consequences, yet who are armed with manifestly inadequate mathematical tools and physical postulates, must inescapably grapple with doubts and confusion, and sometimes with despair.

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  23. On June 2 the EPA is set to announce sweeping climate change rules and regulation. Having a distinguished scientist in the field try to publish a paper that says we know a lot less than we think we do a few months before the announcement and then join a skeptic think tank a few weeks before challenges the credibility of the science these regs are based on. Given the reluctance of the world to warm as predicted, I suspect the EPA is looking to have its spotted owl moment where rules were established to stop logging before the world realized it was an invasive species problem. Once those rules were in place, no amount new research showing the real issue would dislodge them.

    • Distinguished? Bengstton recently wrote:

      “Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.”

      http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html

      Is there a single other climate scientist in the world who agrees with that?

    • RobertInAz

      “Is there a single other climate scientist in the world who agrees with that?”

      Why would they not? Bengstton’s point is simple – even if they models captured all of the planetary and solar physics to include cloud formation etc. they would still not accurately forecast the future. The reason is because of stochastic events. Volcanoes and solar storms come to mind.

    • Except climate models clearly do do a good job of hindcasting the past, and even of forecasting the future.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ AR3

      ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker

      ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer

      ‘‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

      ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ James McWilliams

      It seems that all leaders in the field do believe that leaving Appell fulminating like some street evangelist with an end is nigh sign.

    • Climate is obviously very predictable — look at the regular cycles of the ice ages over the last million years.

      Look at the predictions from the 1960s and 1970s, which are now coming true.

    • nottawa rafter

      Apple-
      That is a very reasonable position to be taking. All you need for evidence are all the laughable predictions that were total fails. It takes hubris to think otherwise. But then the consensus have plenty of hubris. They just lack common sense. That is how you differentiate teenagers from adults. I will put my money on the adults every time.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Wally was prescient or lucky that warming started 2 years later than his 1975 paper.

      http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

      This is of course the article that kick started ‘global warming’. He was a bit wrong on ‘cycles’ – both timing and the deterministically chaotic nature. You can be smart or lucky but it is better being smart and lucky. Appell seems neither.

      Currently predictions of non-warming for decades seem more relevant – especially if they were made a decade or more ago.

    • Which scientific predictions, specifically, were “total fails?”

    • How about this prediction?

      “Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,” National Academy of Sciences (1975).
      – page 43: “[changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 excess] could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5°C between now and the end of the century.”

      https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf

      Actual warming from January 1975 to December 2000 = 0.44 ± 0.06 °C, according to the NASA GISS dataset of monthly average global surface tempertures.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The predictions that warming would continue at 0.2 degrees C/decade.

      ‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics.’

      http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

      It seems in fact due to deficiencies in cloud dynamics related to ocean dynamics.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=106

      And just in case Appell can’t find the citation by Googling Palle and Laken 2013.

      http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf

    • “David Appell

      Except climate models clearly do do a good job of hindcasting the past”

      that is because they are fits and so of course they fit the past, but even there they are regionally crap.

      “and even of forecasting the future”

      Just how do you live with yourself? You know that statement is untrue.

    • Over the last 30 years (shorter time periods aren’t indicative of climate), the Cowtan & Way dataset shows a surface warming of 0.19 C/decade.

    • No, climate models aren’t “fits,” they are numerical solutions to the PDEs that describe the physics of climate.

      “Hansen’s 1988 Predictions,” Tamino, 3/21/14

      http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Climate is chaotic on decadal timescales.

      e.g http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

      So the relevant periods are 1979-1997 over which the residual warming is some 0.1 degree C/decade.

      e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

      And 2002 to date – in which the trend is effectively zero.

    • Climate is chaotic on decadal timescales.

      That change is calculated by climate models, like this one:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-useful-paper-on-one-models-results.html

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The researchers used a climate model, a so-called coupled ocean-atmosphere model, which they forced with the observed wind data of the last decades. For the abrupt changes during the 1970s and 1990s they calculated predictions which began a few months prior to the beginning of the observed climate shifts. The average of all predictions for both abrupt changes shows good agreement with the observed climate development in the Pacific.

      “The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.” Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

      The changes are observed – and models are equivalent to tossing a coin. Swanson et al 2009 – quoted above discuss the reliability of models on shifts.

      Very odd and superficial thinking indeed that GCM models chaos at all well – or even that we have the mathematical functions to do so.

    • k scott denison

      David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
      Except climate models clearly do do a good job of hindcasting the past, and even of forecasting the future.
      __________

      That’s a good one?!! Hahahaha.

      Oh, wait, it wasn’t sarcasm?!?!?!?

      Well riddle me this then, what is climate and who predicted this year’s climate and when did they do it?

      Hint: temperature isn’t climate.

    • In my long quest to understand things, we have help from David Appell:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-useful-paper-on-one-models-results.html

      A graph comparing natural to forcings results with some climate models. We can see that when the forcings are added the lines that had a near zero trendline now have an upward one and that matches pretty well with the historical record.

      We might assume that what was variable was the CO2 levels plus the sensitivity factor.
      CO2 X 2.5.

      I think some have suggested that the only thing that makes the GCMs match the historical record is something like: CO2 X 2.5.

      What we might say is the GCMs don’t work without CO2 X 2.5. Now is this proof? CO2 X 2.5 would show a warming if CO2 was increasing which it has been doing but is this good enough? The GCMs seemed to be based upon a fairly constant increase in CO2 times a multiplier. Such a straight forward driver and answer. But some lines snapping into place by such a simple thing? Changing from a near zero slope to an upward one.

      The models fail without this assumption. When we add CO2 X 2.5 they work. We can’t get the line to trend up without the assumption.

      If the assumption was partly a recovery from the LIA (LIA) would the GCMs then work?

      To guess at it:
      LIA X 2.0 + CO2

      Some tuned version of the immediate above might make the GCMs work. Would it prove something?

    • CO2 X 2.5

      Frankly, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

      Climate models calculate the effects of CO2, they don’t assume it.

    • Generalissimo

      It seems that all leaders in the field do believe that leaving Appell fulminating like some street evangelist with an end is nigh sign.

      Is this Appell?

      Max

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ David Appell

      “Except climate models clearly do do a good job of hindcasting the past, and even of forecasting the future.”

      When your published ‘predictions’ are effectively ‘from DC to daylight’ it is pretty certain that one of them will match the observed frequency pretty well. That does not mean that the prediction that matched was in any way scientifically superior to the predictions that did not.

    • I don’t know what “from DC to daylight” means. Enlighten me.

    • Context supplies indirect lighting, and in that light it is funny as Hell. Give me a couple of hours, and I’ll explain, David.
      ==============

    • David Appell, “I don’t know what “from DC to daylight” means. Enlighten me.”

      DC or direct current is zero hertz and day;light is around 600 tillion hertz. That would be a large spectrum.

    • Well, dangit, Cap’n, that’s marvelously apt. I had an entirely political interpretation which is way funnier but less apt.
      =================

    • David Appel, in yesterday’s thread I defended climate models. However, your gross over-simplification of their utility in the climate debate is pathetic. The best of them do track with broad changes in the climate. However, they over-estimate the amount of warming and are useless as support for the pseudo-scientific claims of extreme weather and hottest year ever nonsense that you periodically come forward with.

      The best climate models do capture broad movements.
      They cannot be used to look at decadal measurements.
      They do not resolve to sub-continental weather.

      They are not at this point in time adequate for informing policy makers.

      When Bengsston, Curry, Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer and dozens, if not hundreds, of other eminently qualified scientists point this out to people like you, you usually change the subject.

    • Thom: Climate models don’t need to capture every decadal variation to know that CO2 is creating, and will create even more, big problems.

      In fact, you don’t even need a climate model at all to know that — you just have to understand past changes in climate.

    • Ah, thanks, David. I’m so glad you brought that up. We do so thoroughly understand past changes in climate.
      ============

    • David Appell writes:

      Distinguished? Bengstton recently wrote:

      “Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.”

      Is there a single other climate scientist in the world who agrees with that?

      Firstly, we cannot know if they agree with that exact statement without asking them. How many have you asked? That said, there are plenty of scientists who hold similar views and as a journalist familiar with the debate I would expect you to know of them anyway. The fact you claim not to seems surprising. The list is long but here are a few to get you started:

      Dr Demetris Koutsoyiannis, professor of hydrology at the National Technical University of Athens
      Dr Timothy Cohn, John Hopkins University, USGS risk expert, AAAS congressional fellow, one time governing member of the APS
      Dr Harry Lins, PhD climate science
      Dr Alberto Montanari, professor of hydraulic works and hydrology, University of Bologna

      I can’t speak for these people but these distinguished geoscientists would be top of the list to ask if they would agree with Dr. Bengtsson’s comments. Note some of them have backed up the points made by Dr Bengtsson directly with papers published in the peer reviewed literature directly on the topics raised.

      Come back to us when you have asked these scientists their views on the topic (although something tells me you will find a way to dismiss them). For what it is worth, to show that there is something predictable within a chaotic system you need to show you have an invariant property of the attractor or prove it on out-of-sample data beyond what would be expected by chance alone. Pointing at hindcasts (which are not out-of-sample) or data mining the plethora of old predictions to find one that matched what happened do not meet either of these criteria (since a stopped clock is right twice a day).

    • > [D]ata mining the plethora of old predictions to find one that matched what happened do not meet either of these criteria (since a stopped clock is right twice a day).

      How to build an impractical requirement in one easy step:

      http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/publications/pdf/otluotgp.pdf

    • Willard,

      Not at all. If I check a clock 20 times, and determine whether it gives the correct time on all 20 occasions, I can be very certain that it is not giving the correct time by chance. If I check it 20 times and it only gives the right time once, there is a high chance that it got that time correct by chance alone.

      There is no high bar set here, just basic standards of evidence. If that is beyond your understanding, I cannot help you.

    • fizzymagic

      De Apple wrote:

      Except climate models clearly do do a good job of hindcasting the past

      Good thing I wasn’t drinking a cake when I read that. Am I to infer that Appel sees this as a strength of climate models? Really? Is it possible that in the 21st century there exists a human so completely ignorant of the foundations of statistics and modeling?

      I’ve seen this before — the claim that climate models hindcast the past with only a few parameters. Unfortunately, there is a wealth of statistical literature that shows how meaningless is the claim.

      A great example of this exact problem was shown me by the late Stewart Freedman, a physicist at Berkeley, with the results from the original “cold fusion” neutrons from Utah. He was able to show that with exactly ONE degree of freedom, the ability to choose when to start and stop measurements, he could obtain 5-sigma neutron count signals from pure noise.

      Hindcasting means nothing. Repeat that with me: HINDCASTS ARE MEANINGLESS in evaluation of a model’s ability to forecast.

      Seriously, dude, this is stuff that any grad student should know inside and out. Isn’t even a little embarrassing to spew this kind of nonsense in a public forum, putatively defending “science?”

  24. “Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?”

    Obviously no to the first question and it’s a disservice to act as if this anything remotely new or unique to the climate science debate. Time to move on to the specific drivers of “why” and “who” the aggressor community represents. If we followed your logic Dr. Curry then the police would arrive at the scene of the crime, study the deceased, announce there is an ice-pick in the skull but doubt the importance of knowing why or whom would want to commit such a crime. We would decry ice-picks in general and the use of ice-picks abstractly. It’s even worse, for the police know it’s too upsetting to admit the ice-pick was used in a politically motivated assault (They all know it privately but this political segment runs a good part of society and they hate being associated or embarrassed by their track record with ice-picks. They tend to be more friendly with ice-pick users and help get them elected often enough.), knowing exactly who the political interests are and their culture by wrote. It’s back to the terrible nature of ice-picks and maybe we can build a consensus about them. The body is secondary, the ice-pick is everything.

    As to the second question, when was this time? The early 70’s? It was pretty nasty if not a much smaller community debate then. I’m sure the trillions wasted, the totalitarian inclinations concentrated in the climate “cause” are shocking since but there was something pretty wrong right from that time as well. We better do better than turning a clock back to when this evil was incubated and released. Climate science is only a symptom of the actual schism that is painstakingly unassigned and equivocated by many leaning toward “skeptic” who want talk about ice-picks but not so much about the motives and cultures that make them a weapon of routine choice and what that “cause” is really all about in the first place. Do you really think “cause” people are motivated by a sincere “science” belief system in trying to manage carbon output all over the world? Would it ever come to ice-picks if that’s all it was?

    That ice-pick consensus culture starts ice-picking each other for not marching fast enough in line instead of their usual targets there is nothing shocking about this historically.

    • RobertInAz

      ?????????????

    • Well, it’s a reference to Trotsky, but I was taught it was a geologist’s pick.
      =========

    • No, it was a drinks ice pick,

      not the type shown in the famous newspaper image.

      this climbing ice-pick was a prop used by the photographer.
      Trotsky had a drinking hobby, not a climbing hobby.

  25. Mike Ozanne

    “Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?”

    Heretic….. :-)

  26. j ferguson

    I’m astonished that Gavin Schmidt wouldn’t understand Bengtsson’s reference to McCarthyism. Likely, the specific concern was blacklisting. Particularly in Hollywood, an entry on the House Un-American Affairs Committee list of people thought to be, have been, or were sympathetic to Communism made it very difficult to get work in the US. You could find your name on these lists without ever having done anything overt.

    I wonder what Gavin thought Bengtsson was getting at.

    • At one time there was discussion on climate blogs by a group of people who were trying to get Schmidt fired for blogging on the government’s dime. They were trying to shut him up. Trying to ruin his career. Lol.

    • Until examples of communications to Bengtsson from climate scientists who exerted fantastic pressure on Bengtsson are produced, we do not even know that any pressure at all was exerted.

      A US government scientist resigned as a co-author. Bengtsson seems to be indicating that resignation was the precipitating event leading to his resignation from the GWPF. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why an employee of the US government would not want his name attached in any way to a lobbying group. So we do not even know why this government scientist resigned. On a personal level, he might agree with the GWPF.

      There is almost no evidence in this affair, and the few facts that have come out, like the rejected paper, have led to Bengtsson retreating.

    • And now Gavin Schmidt has won an award for his public communication of climate science.

    • RobertInAz

      Gee – if I blogged on the governments dime, I would be fired and might go to jail.

    • if I blogged on the governments dime, I would be fired and might go to jail.

      Not if communicating science was part of your job description — as it should be for all scientists.

    • They were trying to shut him up. They wanted him shut down. They wanted him fired. They wanted him out of the debate.

      I rather doubt they ever went after another government employee.

    • RobertInAz

      “Not if communicating science was part of your job description — as it should be for all scientists.”

      On a non federal Web site? I correct myself. If I were to participate in discussions on federally sponsored web sites related to my job – then my job might be safe. Non federal – tenuous.

    • Yes, on a nonfederal Web site — which clearly has done good things for climate science.

      This blog also isn’t on a state- or federal-sponsored Web site, you’ll notice….

    • Heh, had it not been for the egregious propagandizing @ RealClimate, the alarmist and totalitarian consensus might hold full sway now. So yes, much social benefit from that bought and paid for site.
      ==========

    • RealClimate does a better job of communicating the science than nearly anyone else.

    • Real Climate does a better job of creating skeptics than almost anywhere else. I know for me it was reading some of the closed minddness vituperation against questions at RC which first made me wonder what is really going on with the “consensus”…..

      Folks at RC are not serving the climate science fields very well, imho.

      I am not a scientist but I recognize and distrust bullying, intolerance, pressure tactics, and dubious consensus building.

    • Like many blogs dedicated to communicating the science, RC has opinions about unscientific comments. Calling them out — and calling them wrong — is how science works. Anyone who has studied science knows that well.

    • Confronted with a blindingly magnificent irony, David averts his eyes. Yes, science is happening, and whoa, baby, it’s unfunded.
      ===========

    • Government workers shouldn’t be blogging (spewing) political hate dressed as “science”. He should have been fired.

    • It is part of a scientist’s job to communicate science, which Schmidt has done admirably. (Hence the award.)

    • Gavin has appeared to do a great job of communicating consensus alarmism, such the applause. The critic ‘Science’ sits in the audience, and sits on its hands.
      ===================

    • Curious and somewhat obnoxious Dr. Bengtsson uses a term to describe routine left-wing political correctness with a word pregnant with left-wing fairy-tales and a pejorative meaning toward conservatives, “McCarthyism”;

      http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-11-07.html

      Of course we’ve reached the generational point that many using the term have no idea what it means at all or who any of the parties were. Liberal folklore, successfully planted in the lexicon, in a few generations they have the same ambitions for the words “consensus” and “science”.

      The Europhile Sweden culture gap? Likely something else less innocent. Not ten years earlier Sweden was supplying critical war materials to the Third Reich and before that assisting the Bolsheviks and later Stalin. A dis-informative, pompous and arrogant term like McCarthyism might have been reconsidered to describe left-wing cultural inclinations of his peers after all. I’m sure it was a measured and conciliatory use toward his peers as he is cut generally from the same cloth. A spat between friends, not too much contrition for what his friends represent. I’ve seen this before haven’t I?

    • Gavin Schmidt, call it red meat “science”, 4/30/14;

      “The article with the fake quote has done the rounds of most of the major contrarian sites – including the GWPF, right-wing leaning local papers (Provo, UT), magazines (Quadrant in Australia, Canada Free Press) and blogs (eg. Small dead animals). The only pseudo-sceptic blog that doesn’t appear to have used it is WUWT! (though it has come up in comments). This is all despite some people noting that the last line was fake (at least as early as April 2011). Some of the mentions even link to the Snopes article (which doesn’t mention the fake last line) as proof that their version (with the fake quote) is authentic.”

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/faking-it/

      Smearing, politicizing in the name of “science communication”.

    • Congressman (chair of Un-American Affairs Committee) to witness:

      Are you now, or were you ever, a member or fellow-traveler of the Global Warming Policy Foundation?

    • manacker, and the answer would obviously be yes, he publicly declared himself to be a member of that organization and all that goes with it, so the analogy stops there.

    • McCarthyism is not new as a political adjective. That it has traction in this is interesting.

      The instantaneous call for Bengsston to produce the communications that he considers as pressure is telling. It means that the label ‘McCarthyism’ is perhaps uncomfortably close to the truth.

    • Gavin Schmidt got an award for ‘ public communication of climate science’?

      That’s like giving Michael Mann an award for ‘transparency in science’.

    • David Appell

      A correction:

      Like many blogs dedicated to communicating the science consensus viewpoint, RC has opinions about censors out unscientific comments that dissent from the consensus.

      There. That ought to get it right.

      Max.

    • > I wonder what Gavin thought Bengtsson was getting at.

      But is Gavin honest, anyway?

    • > The instantaneous call for Bengsston to produce the communications that he considers as pressure is telling. It means that the label ‘McCarthyism’ is perhaps uncomfortably close to the truth.

      The instantaneous call for Aussie scientists to produce the communications that they considers as death threat was telling. It meant that the label ‘hate mail’ was perhaps uncomfortably close to the truth.

      Until the FOIAs, at least.

      More FOIA to Bengtsson.

      Release the clowns.

  27. Bengtsson joined an organization dedicated to (let’s not pretend otherwise) negating and defeating the consensus position on manmade climate change.

    So why should scientists who agree with the consensus respect him — and let him know their opinions?

    • Really, you can’t see why they shouldn’t act the way they have towards him (and many others)?

      It’s the same reason why the UQ shouldn’t act the way they have toward Brandon Shollenberger, which you clearly understood and I which gave you credit for on your blog. Some principles of good behavior transcend the debates of the moment. Not acting like a dick towards people you have an intellectual disagreement with should be one of those. If the idea of consensus is that you don’t “respect” people who disagree with you and you can and should throw out all rules of polite discourse then it’s a pretty sorry concept of consensus. Consensus is an inclusionary word and in the dictionary is defined as “general agreement”. It does not mean forced totalitarian conformity.

      Bengtsson joined an organization dedicated to (let’s not pretend otherwise) negating and defeating the consensus position on manmade climate change.

      Even, if that were wholly true (and I doubt that was his reason for joining) so what? That’s life in science. A theory holds up or it doesn’t based on its merits. That’s normal. You’re acting like Bengtsson was associating with a group dedicated to killing off climate scientists like it was some kind of Robert Ludlum novel come to life. “The Bengtsson Identity”, anyone?

    • No, life is science is most definitely not joining nonscientific groups who are dedicated to undermining science. Bengtsson was extremely naive to think otherwise.

      Also, biologists can’t join Creationist societies and still expect to be respected.

    • David, do yourself a big favor and drop that particular analogy. It only appeals to those but lowly informed. It is not in the least apt.
      =====================

    • So acting like dick is fine if you disagree with someone enough? Again, a sorry standard for trained professionals. And not very persuasive to those one the fence.

    • Who, specifically, acted like a “dick,” and in what way? Specifically.

    • David, it’s being a ‘dick’ when you refuse us the use of your cowbell. How selfish of you.
      ============

    • My colleague and collaborator is a born again Christian and Creationist. He is a Chemist, and not a biologists, but I don’t think that matters.
      All the practicing Muslims I work with are Creationists, a Saudi told me that Adam and Eve were our mother and father.
      In two weeks time I have a Saudi scientist visiting the lab; do you think I should question his views about evolution and kick him back to Medina if he affirms his faith?
      As I understand it, under US law, it would be illegal to discriminate against someone for their religious faith and this would include your views on what it is and what it isn’t allowable for biologists to believe.

    • You are, of course, free to make your own decisions. And others are free to make theirs — which weren’t about Bengtsson’s religious views, but about his wisdom.

    • Religion? Who brought up religion? But now that you bring it up, let’s talk about your faith.
      ===========

  28. Counter-factual comparisons are sometimes useful even if there can never be a conclusive argument stemming from such hypotheticals…..

    Try to imagine a young Bengtsson in the first years of his scientific career, a young scientist with exactly the same intellect and capabilities and types accomplishments as the actual Bengtsson had at that age.

    His career would now be toast. There is no genuine tolerance for freedom of thought and expression in this field.

    Compare to someone like a young Michael Oppenheimer, who spent the first 2+ decades of his career as scientist for political enviro lobby group the Environmental Defense Fund. Not only does Oppenheimer get to enjoy a promnent role with the IPCC consensus making body, but for the last decade or so he has enjoyed the jump from a “political” lobby group (much more uniform, aggressive, and well-funded than can possibly be said of GWPF to date) to a senior tenured position at Princeton University.

    He even gets to be Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy!

    http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/

    oooh, but we are told that Bengtsson has violated some fixed barrier between academic science and “advocacy”!!

    The hypocritical double standards in this field are breathtaking.

    • much more [..] well-funded ..

      Really? Do you have any idea of the funding of IPCC? Most of the work is done almost without any funding, and largely on spare time of the authors.

    • Why would any young scientist join an organization that denies the findings of his field?

      You might as well ask why didn’t a young Stephen Hawking join the Flat Earth Society.

    • Pekka, I was referring to the EDF as “political lobby group” which yes, is funded to many millions of dollars per year…. sorry I didn’t make that clear.

      The IPCC is indirectly extremely well funded if one counts all the contributions from full-time scientists and bureaucrats as “in-kind” funding, but I understand that such a comparison is controversial and not accepted by scientists who maintain that their work for the IPCC is volunteer.

      So I did not mean to assert a position on the IPCC funding issues, only on the EDF, which I think is more clear-cut.

      Pekka, thank for helping (I hope) to spur me to make my comment more clear.

    • RobertInAz

      “Really? Do you have any idea of the funding of IPCC? Most of the work is done almost without any funding, and largely on spare time of the authors.”

      Spare time in a profession in which there are no strict time accounting standards is an intriguing concept.

    • Spare time in a profession in which there are no strict time accounting standards is an intriguing concept.

      Sure, let’s make the thinkers of the world punch a time clock. That should solve everything, right?

    • I know, let’s intimidate government scientists into not donating spare time to the IPCC. Let’s make them fear for their jobs if they communicate with the public. Otherwise, there might be McCarthyism in the wind.

    • RobertInAz

      “Sure, let’s make the thinkers of the world punch a time clock. That should solve everything, right?”

      Are you being deliberately obtuse? Let’s not wax poetic about their noble contribution of spare time in support of a cause in which they believe and will likely further their career.

    • Spare time is, indeed, a flexible concept. Some of the IPCC authors have been released of part of their regular duties during the busiest time by their home institutions, but for many the work on the reports is really on top of regular duties. As far as I know most are paid as before, even the travel costs are in most cases paid by their home countries in some way, not by IPCC.

      The motivation to participate is based on other factors than direct economic compensation.

    • RealClimate.org is a valuable use of Gavin Schmidt’s time — not that it appears very large at all.

      Is Judith Curry wasting taxpayer dollars by blogging?

    • Which is more valuable, suppressing or expressing dissent?
      ================

    • Straw man. RealClimate communicates the science, whether you like it or not.

    • RealClimate communicates a ‘science’, a consensus that is alarmingly moving out of concert with nature.
      ================

    • Funny — the 5AR says the science has never been stronger.

      But I’m sure you know better than the world’s experts, of course.

    • Science stronger than ever, policy even more deluded than ever.
      =============

    • RobertInAz

      “Funny — the 5AR says the science has never been stronger.”

      Yep – the summaries written by the political appointees say the science has never been stronger. The science sections written by the volunteer scientists – not so much.

    • The 5AR WG1 science sections put more confidence on the findings that man is responsible.

    • Oh, David, you do crack me up. It’s as if you’ve never heard of the ‘attribution’ argument. C’mon, ‘A’ is the first letter of the alphabet.
      ==============

    • And ‘M’ is smack in the middle. What is it about ‘moving out of concert with nature’ that you don’t understand?
      ==========

    • RobertInAz

      “RealClimate.org is a valuable use of Gavin Schmidt’s time — not that it appears very large at all.”

      If he got maintaining a somewhat snarky, non-federal blog on NASA’s time written into his job description – more power to him.

      Compare the professionalism and civility of Dr. Curry’s posts to his. The taxpayers are not getting a good deal.

    • RobertInAz

      “The 5AR WG1 science sections put more confidence on the findings that man is responsible.”

      ROTFL – and how exactly did they come to that conclusion?

    • I think Gavin Schmidt’s professionalism and civility compares favorably to anyone’s.

      He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That is an attitude that has served science well over the centuries, and all scientists learn it during their education and training.

    • and how exactly did they come to that conclusion?

      Is there something physically preventing you from reading the 5AR WG1?

    • This comment was meant to go here, re: Real Climate, consensus, and “climate communicators”

      Just one example of serious problems with how Real Climate seeks to enforce a consensus in self-defeating ways.

      As mentioned, I cannot assess a lot of the scientific issues (but as a citizen and taxpayer I have every right to decide on my own who/what I find credible).

      These are a couple of threads which gave me strong distrust of the Real Climate team, and a lot of respect for Steve McIntyre. Raging sarcasm, straw men, and careless dismissals from Real Climate; calm, thorough, dispassionate rebuttals from McIntyre. Now you can say until blue in the face that McIntyre is wrong and that I am wrong to respect him more than Real Climate, but until there is a far more careful and impressive rebuttal from RC, they are doing poorly at climate communications.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

      http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

      Yes, I know very well that I am speaking of impressions rather than the details of the science and statistics….. also that tree rings are not atmospheric physics etc.

      I am merely addressing the issue of whether or not the Real Climate team does an effective and convincing job at “science communications.”. For me, they are often striking out, to date.

    • Pekka,

      My Admission’s committee assignments are on my “spare time.”
      My dissertation committee participation is on my “spare time.”
      My community outreach and night time lectures are on my “spare time.”
      My office hours for students is on my “spare time.”
      My committee (Local, State, Federal) participation is on my “spare time.”
      Etc etc etc
      My “spare time” is no less or more encumbered than IPCC work.
      Please spare me the song and dance.

    • “Appell

      He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That is an attitude that has served science well over the centuries, and all scientists learn it during their education and training”

      Please do not speak for ‘all scientists’. Some of us recall that when we first went into the lab, we were fools too.

    • Skiphil, every time I see Oppenheimer’s name mentioned I can’t help but wish we could redefine the ‘Streisand effect.’

    • Paid for fools
      They get the jewels.
      What a waste;
      It’s all just paste.
      ==========

    • Yes, but Oppenheimer helped save the world. His policy paper saying that the world would warm 0.3 to 0.8 C per decade helped get the IPCC started. As usual, the effects were exaggerated about 10-fold.

    • … and this thread describes, with link to Oppenheimer et al. (1987) position paper projecting global temp. increases of 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE, how politically oriented activists shaped the movement toward UNFCCC and IPCC right from the pre-dawn. Oppenheimer himself boasted of it (in 2007), the founding was political, not scientific:

      http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2352447

    • k scott denison

      Pekka, the funding is roughly $10 million. Not exactly bare bones.
      _________
      David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      Why would any young scientist join an organization that denies the findings of his field?
      _______________

      I’d call her someone with an open mind and likely to be a success. Science is ALWAYS about challenging the findings and searching for new answers. Otherwise no one would have ever thought to look for the atom as the consensus was it didn’t exist or need to.

  29. Pekka, this is what I was trying to refer to, an annal budget currently at $120 million per year (certainly not all for climate issues, for sure):

    http://www.edf.org/finances

    David Appell, the comparison of GWPF to “Flat Earth “Society” is not accurate; whatever you may think of them, Lindzen, Bengtsson, et al. are not like flat-earthers!

    btw, I applaud David Appell for promptly publishing that University of Queensland recent letter to Brandon Shollenberger. Whatever the other disagreements in various areas, I hope that many/most can agree that David’s action was admirable.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Well, I admit to being surprised in a good way. My impression of Mr. Appell altered slightly. But I think you’re setting a low bar for what qualifies as admirable. Then again, perhaps in today’s world it does merit the word.

    • I’m sorry, I’m just cynical enough to believe that David Appell thought the University of Queensland was demonstrating its superior legal and ethical position with that correspondence.

      Hey, we could ask. How about it David?
      ============

  30. Wayne Jett

    I detect an even more severe enforcement of orthodoxy on one very significant aspect of concerns relating to global warming and climate change: no discussion of human/government intervention of the type called “geoengineering.” More than 150 US patents describe technology used in “geoengineering” changes in weather and climate. Worse, mounting evidence proves these techniques are fully deployed worldwide and have already caused tremendous destruction to society and to natural climate.

    If you haven’t noticed it, the head guru of US intellectuals actually has a book out called “The Case for Geoengineering” in which he argues for spraying 20 million tons of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere annually. The sulfuric acid proposal is a ploy allowing Keith to hide behind the natural events in which volcanoes emit sulfur into the air. Keith himself has noted that nano-sized aluminum particles are many times more efficient in diffusing sunlight – what he calls “solar radiation management.”

    Aluminum, strontium and barium are the primary metals being sprayed by classified jet aircraft flights daily according to techniques which determine rainfall, drought, temperature and other vital details of weather and climate. See the evidence gathered and shared by scientists at http://geoengineeringwatch.org and inquire with head researcher Dane Wigington.

    Tragically, geoengineering is the single most destructive force at work in the environment, and it most certainly endangers our future. It is well along in the process of producing the “Al Gore Predictions.” He undoubtedly knows about it, but pretends all the trouble is being caused by pesky humans working for a living.

  31. Chris Colose:
    “It is not lack conformity to the consensus that leads to being shunned, but the association with obviously wrong ideas…”

    • Marvelous fella to elucidate a distinction without a difference. Was he trying?
      =========

    • Steven Mosher

      he meant wrong people.

    • He meant wrong ideas. That’s why he wrote, “wrong ideas.”

    • Heh, moshe; Appell exposes his rotteness.
      ==================

    • Wayne Jett

      David Appel, your numerous efforts at wit do not exempt you from looking at evidence. I have credentials in engineering, law and economics, not climate science, but I know evidence. And you are not exalted above examining it. Look at the rainfall samples, the soil tests, now even water runoff tests – all with aluminum content far, far above any natural explanation. Look at the metering of UV-B radiation in northern California last summer – 14 times the natural portion of UV reaching the surface. Look at the many, many videos of jet aircraft actually spraying. No jet engine every made emits aluminum particles or leaves emissions that remain across the skies from horizon to horizon, as tens of thousands of people are seeing daily across the world.

    • Yes, the ideas are so obviously wrong that they can never see the light of day. By the way, Bengstsson was going to act as an advisor to GWPF. He did not say he agreed with every word they had ever written.

    • Wayne Jett seriously? chemtrails?

    • Steven Mosher

      David.

      How does one “associate” with wrong ideas?

      One has wrong ideas or one does not.

      Further read the quote again: Here is a hint. the wrong ideas are not in conformity to the consensus.

      I will tell you that its association with the wrong people, and not the ideas.
      t

    • Perhaps Chris meant something weaker than “to endorse,” and something stronger than “to find interesting.” It may be nearer “to find interesting” than “to endorse.”

      Mileage varies.

    • willard pumps up a flat tire without removing the nail.
      =========

    • The Koldie with a thorn on the side.

  32. Excellent post.

    Thank you Dr Curry

  33. This by Pointman is good:
    There was to be no debate but it fell foul of that rebellious child it largely shaped, the skeptic blogosphere, which insisted on taking a can opener to every hermetically sealed debate, and so often found Blake’s great red dragon of chaos ready to emerge from it grinning in triumph.

    That rebellious child it largely shaped. And this was to be expected, the stronger the consensus became, the more the push back against it. That the more the consensus down played uncertainty the more they were vulnerable to the as he writes, red dragons.

  34. “Knutti, by contrast, warns about overemphasizing the lack of certainty about the evidence. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception.”

    Not a quote but deconstruction of this set of statements might go far to explain one of the problems of climate science.

    I read it as

    1) Uncertainty exists (to what extent???)
    2) Don’t overemphasize it (how do you know when you’ve crossed the line???)
    3) If you do, maybe even by just 1mm beyond the consensus, then I’ll accuse you of deliberate deception (who made you the policeman???)

  35. Steven Mosher

    Forced to toe the line?

    Forced is probably the wrong word.
    And there is no well defined line to toe to.

    What happens is quite different.

    There is an invisible not very well defined thin green line.
    If you cross it, you will be punished, sometimes.. and the punishment will vary.

    The line has no real definition for very good reason. If it was defined it could be challenged. Its much more effective social control to leave the line ill-defined. That way people cant cozy up to the line. This ensures that most people will stay well away from the actual line.

    Further the punishments doled out for line crossing are somewhat random.
    Some times the punishment is slight, a strong letter from a friend. Being left off the list of speakers being removed from a journal, losing co authors. it works best when no connection is made between the line crossing and the punishment. So, if you have a tribe member who crosses the line, you never tell him “you lose funding because of this bad deed” instead, you just cut his funding. make him wonder. fear of random punishment works better than knowledge of sure punishment at controlling people.
    The randomness of the punishments, the fact that the punishments dont fit the crime, is a very effective enforcement policy.

    • It has been an Extraordinary Popular Delusion, and there are those who’ve goaded the herd to catastrophic madness.
      ==============

    • Nice straw man argument. But was Bengtsson’s funding cut?
      Did anyone threaten to cut it?
      Does he even get any funding anymore?

    • Bengtsson bleeds and Appell watches.
      ============

    • If Bengtsson is bleeding, it is self-induced.

    • The knives are in the back, David, but nice try there.
      ===========

    • RobertInAz

      “Nice straw man argument. But was Bengtsson’s funding cut?”

      You are being obtuse!!! Clever though. Making a straw man argument whilst accusing Mosher of same.

    • How is Bengtsson bleeding?
      Was his funding cut?
      Has his ability to do science been impaired?
      To communicate it?
      He’s been communicating more lately than ever before.

    • Heh, I’ve noticed his communication. He seems to have developed a model which can predict the debate weather out about 7-9 days.
      ===================

    • “The randomness of the punishments, the fact that the punishments dont fit the crime, is a very effective enforcement policy.”

      This is how it’s done by the real pros, but the concept is the same.

      Starts at about 1:40, narrated by the inimitable Christopher Hitchens.
      (Hint, McCarthy was a piker.)

    • Steven Mosher

      David Appell. Im not talking about Bengtsson. I’m explaining why the concept of forcing people to toe a line is not what goes on in these types of social situations.

    • Steven Mosher

      GaryM

      precisely

    • Mosher, my brother-in-law is a Rugby Football Referee. He told me that a referee never tells a player or the captain “If ‘X’ happens again, then I will be forced to do ‘Y'”, because it destroys authority.
      Instead, one says something along the lines of ‘unsafe play is dangerous to all and can be punished robustly’. That way the players cannot know your views of team discipline and generally become very cautious.

    • Steven Mosher

      Don

      “If ‘X’ happens again, then I will be forced to do ‘Y’”, because it destroys authority.”

      Yes, a good tyrant never draws a line in the sand. When you draw a line explicitly in the sand you create a symbol for the resistance. And people are encourage to do all manner of behavior that approach the line but dont cross it.. or step across and then pull back.

      every two year knows how to test and expand boundaries.

      So, you keep people in line by having general guidelines ( play safe) and then you randomly enforce that rule.

      Of course if you are too unfair or too random you’ll drive people too crazy.

      So it requires a good touch.

    • Steven Mosher

      “You are being obtuse!!! Clever though. Making a straw man argument whilst accusing Mosher of same.”

      Trust me if I could ban appell from the team I would. bad optics and worse reasoning.

      Somedays I think the skeptics planted him on our team just to make us look stupid

      • Somedays I think the skeptics planted him on our team just to make us look stupid

        Most days I think plenty of commenters here were planted on the team the appear to play for just to make them look st00pid. On both “teams”.

    • You don’t get half the cleverness, moshe. Some of them we get your team to pay for.
      ==========

    • BEST is now a member of some “team?” Interesting, given Muller’s history — I don’t see any team that really needs him. Curious that you find that necessary.

    • Steven Mosher

      kim
      in korea there is fun new fad of getting paid to eat on TV.

      guys do it

      this gal earns 9K a month.

      it seemed relevant

    • I hear the North Koreans will work cheap.
      ========

  36. Speaking of being forced to toe the line, I’m outta here.

    One too many arbitrary Curry moderations.

    • Yeah, sure, retreat to a rational world. How enlightening you’ve been.
      ========

    • RobertInAz

      Thank you Dr. Curry..

    • Beware your wishes, Robert.

    • RobertInAz

      “Beware your wishes, Robert.”

      Wishes? More like appreciation.

    • I wish willard would wonder well. Naw, that’s sounds too much like a curse.
      =============

    • Bart R was a pleasure to read. His absence will diminish the quality of the comment section.

      Are you suggesting you’d prefer an edulcorate version of Judy’s, Robert?

    • Brilliant, crystalline, nasty, and cynical. You’re not even crystalline, willard.
      =============

    • Don Monfort

      I hope joshie doesn’t join in your boycott, bartski. We would be left with no entertainment.

    • RobertInAz

      Bart R was a pleasure to read. His absence will diminish the quality of the comment section.

      Are you suggesting you’d prefer an edulcorate version of Judy’s, Robert?

      Interesting observation and I respect your appreciation for his style of interaction. I obviously have a completely different response. I generally ignore his posts. My most recent interaction a couple of days ago was typical. Rather than engage on any particular topic he changes the subject.

      In conversation, I call the behavior all transmit – no receive. I avoid people like that.

      I’m glad our hostess also has reservations about some of his posts.

    • Bart R will be back sometime next week, so I wouldn’t count chickens, etc.

    • > My most recent interaction a couple of days ago was typical.

      Citation needed, Robert.

      Also, two questions:

      First, if you ignore Bart R’s comments, why complain about them?
      Second, if you ignore Bart R’s comments, how can you judge them?

    • It’s a paradox, willard. If you’ve got a lot of time, I might not try to explain that to you.
      ==========

    • That would be prejudicial to paradoxes, Koldie.

    • RobertInAz

      willard
      “First, if you ignore Bart R’s comments, why complain about them?
      Second, if you ignore Bart R’s comments, how can you judge them?”

      There appears to be an epidemic of reading comprehension problems today. I typed: “I generally ignore his posts.” you misquoted me (twice):”..if you ignore Bart R’s comments… ”

      Do I need to explain how I formed my opinion of Bart R and how I came to engage with him recently more than that?

    • Heh, David, I’ll translate moshe for you. He means the ‘alarmist’ team, to which he amusingly sometimes attaches himself to, for the irony, you know.
      ===========

    • Well, shoot, that translation got lost in the threading. It’s supposed to be a response to David Appell misunderstanding moshe’s use of the term ‘team’ to mean BEST.
      =============

    • Robert,

      If you “generally” ignore BartR’s posts, how come you can judge them?

      See? Adding that “generally” changes very little to my question, if nothing at all.

      There are lots of commenters I generally don’t read. I can’t say I’d be happier if their comments were not here. It would make little sense for me to say so.

      I. Generally. Don’t. Read. Them.

      Judging and criticizing imply you read. You can’t judge or criticize what you don’t read. That’s not complicated.

      ***

      Also, I think you forgot that link to that discussion you had with Bart R, so that Denizens can judge what you’re talking about.

    • willard, from you, Joshua, and others, I get zero insight into climate. Bart R could bring that occasionally, heck even David Appell manages the feat, now and then.

      Try, sometime. You might like it.
      =================

    • kim | May 24, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
      “From you….I get zero insight into climate. ….Try, sometime. You might like it.”

      ‘I have zero insight’ might be closer to the mark.

      Koldie is terrified of the next ice age……20,000 yrs away.

  37. ===> ” JCH | May 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

    Until examples of communications to Bengtsson from climate scientists who exerted fantastic pressure on Bengtsson are produced, we do not even know that any pressure at all was exerted. ” <===

    It really is rather spectacular. Self-described "skeptics" and scientists such as Judith and political scientists such as RPJr. tripping over each other to find the most apt analogy for l'affaire Bengston. .

    "It's McCarthysism. No it's Lysenkism. No, it's like Goebbels. No, it's a reign of terror. No, it's the end of the enlightenment."

    And yet, none of these self-described "skeptics" can even tell us what kind of treatment Bengtsson was actually subjected to.

    Conclusions drawn in the absence of evidence.

    Y'all crack me up.

    • Corruption by any other name would stink as badly.
      ==========

    • Good point. Everyone reads into these things what they want to see. Actual facts are few.

    • ==> “Actual facts are few.”

      It’s remarkable. People who pride themselves in their “skepticism” – in their steadfast refusal to believe something w/o overwhelming evidence in support.

      All of them, absolutely convinced that l’affaire Bengtsson is analogous to some of the worst incidents of intolerance in modern history.

      Absolutely convinced.

      Not a doubt in their minds.

      It’s not a question of whether it is analogous to the worst incidents of intolerance in modern history, but only a question of which analogy is most apt.

      All these “skeptics” signing on to websites to comment. Articles being published. “Experts” such as RPJr. weighing in. And as of yet I think that I’ve seen a grand total of one, self-identified “skeptic” who’s even willing to admit that the reactions might be overly-dramatic and hyperbolic: Tim, on these threads.

      Remarkable. The power of motivated reasoning is truly remarkable. Smart, knowledgeable people, many of them trained in the practice of careful reasoning, of comprehensive analysis, of not formulating conclusions in the absence of evidence.

      Remarkable! It’s spectacular! It’s a work of beauty! A thing of art! Really. I am very, very impressed.

    • Feel the power, and note its cowardliness.
      ========

    • Joshua, you may have missed it (or I may not count as I am a minor voice here), but I did say about a day into the fuss over Bentsson and GWPF that absent hard evidence I thought/think the comparisons with McCarthyism etc. are “overwrought” (I believe that was my term) and unjustified.

      That does not mean that there is not excessive peer pressure, along the lines of “no real scientist can be associated with GWPF”….. that sort of guilt-by-association certainly is troubling, but so far there has been no strong evidence presented that Bengtsson has suffered in career terms etc. (of course it is still very early….). I do think that a younger scientist would suffer seriously as the unjust comparisons with “flat earth society” and “creationism” would surely damage career and funding prospects.

    • Skiphil –

      I may have missed it, or I may have forgotten. Either way, I acknowledge it now.

      ==> “That does not mean that there is not excessive peer pressure, along the lines of “no real scientist can be associated with GWPF”….. that sort of guilt-by-association certainly is troubling, but so far there has been no strong evidence presented that Bengtsson has suffered in career terms etc. (of course it is still very early….). I do think that a younger scientist would suffer seriously as the unjust comparisons with “flat earth society” and “creationism” would surely damage career and funding prospects.”

      I’m not going to defend the tribalism on either side of the climate wars. I don’t support many of the reactions to Bengtsson that I’ve seen from many “realists.” It’s certainly part of the same ol’ same ol’, IMO.

      But I think that equally destructive, although probably not worse, is the hyperbolic drama-queening – comparing the Bengtsson situation to McCarthyism of Lysenkoism, even while turning a blind eye to the very same sort of same ol’ same ol’ from “skeptics” on the other side of the battle lines.

      Until people stop craving the satisfaction they derive from drama-queening themselves and those they identify with as victims, and start recognizing how their behaviors are part of the problem, and even more importantly start evaluating their own conclusions for bias, nothing will improve.

      I mean seriously, RPJr. whinging about nastiness, after the ethics impugning does (excused by throw-aways about how nastiness is part for the course in academia)?

      Judith, participating in this mess as she has, labeling people as McCarthyists, after telling Mann to put on his big boy pants when he complained about vitriol?

      The science is buried under this tribalism. Look at the rate of comments for the posts about Bengtsson, or about Mann. That is where the real energy in this debate is. The science is a proxy for identity aggression and identify protection. How ironic, RPJr.’s comments on this topic so closely aligned chronologically with his recent comments at that conference about the politicization of the science.

    • RobertInAz

      Joshua,

      What was the standard of proof you expected when scientists of an alarmist inclination complained of harassment and death threats? Are you on record anywhere expressing similar skepticism of those claims?

    • RobertInAz

      In fact, were any of those death threats ever documented anywhere?

      Who made them?

    • Robert –

      ==> “What was the standard of proof you expected when scientists of an alarmist inclination complained of harassment and death threats? Are you on record anywhere expressing similar skepticism of those claims?”

      I didn’t compare that situation to McCarthyism, or Lysenkoism, or a “reign of terror,” or Goebbels, or Stalinism, or Sandinista, or Naz*sm, or scientists being “forced to toe the line,” etc. So your analogy breaks down before it even starts.

      There is tribalism on both sides of the climate wars. It is abundant. Comparing what happened to Bengtsson, without evidence, to McCarthyism is part of the tribalism. You don’t extract the science from the tribalism by fueling the tribalism. It just doesn’t happen. You don’t advance the cause of skepticism by failing to exercise the most fundamental principles of skepticism, in the most obvious of contexts. It is so easily predictable that “skeptics” would drama-queen this kind of situation, and compare what happened with Bengtsson to the worst cases of intolerance in modern history; to people being brought up on trial because of their beliefs, to people being thrown into Gulags and executed. The very nature of “skepticism” and motivated reasoning predict, exactly these behaviors.

    • In fact, were any of those death threats ever documented anywhere?

      Yes.

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/death-threat-captured-on-video.html

    • Robert –

      ==> “In fact, were any of those death threats ever documented anywhere?

      Who made them?”

      What difference does that make. How could any answers be, in any way, relevant to the question of whether the hyperbole related to the Bengtsson situation is consistent with honest-to-God skepticism.

      Do you not see how asking me those questions is irrelevant? Do you not see how asking me those questions is nothing other than asking to continue the tribalism?

      Suppose I gave you evidence. What would do? Would that change your mind about whether “skeptics” are being unskeptical?

      Suppose I said that I have no evidence. Would that somehow justify “skeptics” comparing the Bengtsson situation to McCarthyism? Do you not see the logical disconnect? Whether or not climate scientists were threatened is completely irrelevant as to whether how Bengtsson was treated is analogous to people being thrown into gulags.

      Completely. There is no logical connection.

    • Don Monfort

      That’s a death threat? That’s theater, apple. You should know that. You are a drama queen.

    • There, Robert –

      Now you an argue with David about the threats.

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • RobertInAz

      The video of a Lyndon LaRouche acolyte attempting to give Schellnhuber a noose does not contain a death threat. Neither does the post video explanation of their disruptive behavior. My impression is it was to represent the fatal consequences of alarmist policy.

      IMHO, David gets it completely wrong in his final comment.

    • The video of a Lyndon LaRouche acolyte attempting to give Schellnhuber a noose does not contain a death threat.

      Sure — it constitutes a welcome wagon!

      Lots of people in this world know what a noose means, Robert, even if you choose to pretend you don’t.

    • Don Monfort

      That video does not document a death threat. You are a little liar. Are we clear now?

    • RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

      Bengtsson is a drama queen, right Joshua.

    • RobertInAz

      David
      “Lots of people in this world know what a noose means, Robert, even if you choose to pretend you don’t.”

      I do, I consider it marginally (very marginally) more civil than throwing a bunch blood on somebody. When left wing radicals do that, it is not considered a death threat.

    • Don Monfort

      I think appel is busy getting together the videos, emails, dead fish wrapped in newspaper and court records of some of the many other death threats against climate scientistas. The next one he will share is the story about the guy who mentioned that he had a hunting license. Scared the crap out of 97% of climate scientistas.

    • RobertInAz

      Joshua
      “I didn’t compare that situation to McCarthyism, or Lysenkoism, or a “reign of terror,” or Goebbels, or Stalinism, or Sandinista, or Naz*sm, or scientists being “forced to toe the line,” etc. So your analogy breaks down before it even starts.”

      I don’t think it breaks down. You said there is no proof of Bengtsson’s claims other than his assertion –> therefore the claim should not be used as evidence of the behaviors described. The analogy is, since there are no proof of death threats against climate scientists, then those claims should not be used as evidence of harassment of climate scientists..

    • Joshua, this should be your theme

      Can’t you see, whoa, can’t you see
      What that woman, Lord, she been doin’ to me
      Can’t you see, whoa, can’t you see
      What that woman, she been doin’ to me

      Can’t you see (oh, she’s such a crazy lady), can’t you see
      What that woman, she been doin’ to me
      Can’t you see (Lord, I can’t stand), can’t you see
      What that woman, she been doin’ to me

  38. Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?

    The tension binding the consenus whole is palpable

  39. Climate science is now the bitterness of asteroids vs volcanoes (dinosaur extinction) or paleontology (my bones vs yours), multiplied to absurd levels by billions of dollars and by political investments.

    Someone gave the 3 Chinese curses recently:
    * May you live in interesting times
    * May you come to the attention of the authorities
    * May you get what you wish for

  40. In this video from a few years back, Lindzen comments on Obama marginalization of naysayers, on the university PC environment and that Senator Al Gore:
    “Gore did it all the time. He would call scientists who he disagreed with to testify in front of the managers of all the funding agencies so they knew who he was against”

    min 22-23

  41. Speaking of Junior and Benny, here’s what Junior says of the GWPF:

    In short, yes, I think that GWPF is both an advocacy group and also engages in stealth advocacy. It signals this stealth advocacy via its logo (temperature trends) an also its frequent proxy arguments about science, which are really about politics. I don’t think this is a surprise or controversial.

    http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/14/bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-5993

    If “JC Comments” could take that tension into account, that would be nice.

  42. Just one example of serious problems with how Real Climate seeks to enforce a consensus in self-defeating ways.

    As mentioned, I cannot assess a lt of the scientific issues (but as a citizen and taxpayer I have every right to decide on my own who/what I find credible).

    These are a couple of threads which gave me strong distrust of the Real Climate team, and a lot of respect for Steve McIntyre. Raging sarcasm, straw men, and careless dismissals from Real Climate; calm, thorough, dispassionate rebuttals from McIntyre. Now you can say until blue in the face that McIntyre is wrong and thatnI am wrong to respect him, but until there is a far more careful and thorough rebuttal from RC, they are doing poorly at climateball.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

    Yes, I know very well that I am speaking of atmospherics rather than the details of the wcience and statistics….. also that tree rings are not atmospheric physics etc.

    I. am merely addressing the issue of whether or not the Real Climate team does an effective job at “science communications.”. For me, they are often striking out, to date.

  43. Mark Bofill

    Judith,

    Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?

    I don’t think so. I think the answer is no.

    Maybe it seemed expedient for some scientists to indulge in politics / political advocacy on both sides. But while scientists might support certain political agendas and still care about their science, the politicians do not reciprocate. Politicians, pundits, and demagogues care about power, specifically I think power manifested as the cultural dominance of their particular ideology. Logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with? Nah, our numbers show ridicule and ostracization plays better with the demographics we’re trying to manipulate. It’s not about science, it was never about science, and if one’s scientific practices impede the pursuit of power, one can go join Bengtsson on the discredited bench. Nobody cares about the stinking science, unless it means the voters aren’t going to stampede when the next new policy passes into law.

    I could be dead wrong about this, and I freely admit I can’t support this suggestion, but I think it’s the case regardless: Put simply, it’s not grabbing the tiger by the tail that’s the problem, it’s letting go that’s the bitch. I doubt it’s as easy as saying, ‘Oh, Judith Curry’s probably got a point there.’

    Just my two cents.

  44. “With regards to Pielke Jr’s statement: ‘anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.’ I agree with this statement.”

    Oh good. No more “I am surprised by the nasty/dirty/destructive reaction of the (fill in the blank) consensus scientist’s/advocate’s to (fill in the blank).”

    Cool.

    • Please, may it reform. Well, actually better is ‘Please, may it not reform’. What would I do for fun, then.
      ===============

    • I will continue to gripe about dirty, nasty, destructive behavior by climate scientists themselves.

    • “With regards to Pielke Jr’s statement: ‘anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.’”

      And yet RP Jr. wrote to Kevin Trenberth’s management when he didn’t like Trenberth’s comments on his 538.org article.

      People in glass houses.

    • Trenberth manages himself, and poorly.
      =======

    • > No more “I am surprised by the nasty/dirty/destructive reaction of the (fill in the blank) consensus scientist’s/advocate’s […]

      Well, we do have this to fill the blank:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/24/are-climate-scientists-being-forced-to-toe-the-line

    • Judith –

      ==> “I will continue to gripe about dirty, nasty, destructive behavior by climate scientists themselves.”

      Excellent. I look forward to your criticism of Lindzen for comparing people to Eugenicists.

      And your self-criticism for comparing people to McCarthy will be just fascinating.

      Will the post be up this week?

    • curryja | May 24, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

      I will continue to gripe about dirty, nasty, destructive behavior by climate scientists themselves.

      //////////////////////

      Just not specifically about their political I.D. and motivations that rationalize their actions. Other than the abstract equivocation as if there are really two equal sides in conflict with similar tactics, which is nonsense.

      It was always a left-wing power play, right out of the late 50’s and lust for carbon rules. Reform has to start with honesty about the players and their motives which are on their sleeves.

    • It was always a left-wing power play, right out of the late 50′s and lust for carbon rules.

      Actually, it’s an extremely conservative, libertarian idea: those who pollute, pay for its damages.

      No one gets to damage the Commons. Pay up. And stop it.

    • Yikes, what have you done with Bart R, and why are your commons so polluted with ‘externalities’?
      ============

  45. Would you buy a used GCM from the Prophet Lovelock or Schellnhuber?? et al

    James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
    Monday 29 March 2010
    One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

    Another German “Will Soon Unveil A Master Plan For A Transformation Of Society”
    By P Gosselin on 29. März 2011
    The English edition of Der Spiegel has a recent interview with Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In this interview Schellnhuber announced that he would unveil his “Master Plan” for transforming society – one no doubt that suits his world view. In Schellhuber’s view, human society needs to be scaled back and managed by an elite group of “wise men” who know what is best for the rest.
    snip
    The belief that the planet needs to be dictated by a higher authority is what makes people like Schellnhuber so dangerous to democracy. Their impatience and frustration with democracy, and their claim to have superior knowledge, remind us of others who have led us down very dark paths back in the 20th century

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/29/another-german-will-soon-unveil-a-master-plan-for-a-transformation-of-society/

    “Building Trust” and FOI Refusals
    Steve McIntyre
    Jul 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM
    Willis, on the other hand, took a position that anyone in business understands: if someone is dishonest with you in business, you are never going to trust them again. That’s just the way it is. You may have no alternative other than to deal with them, but you’ll never trust them. Nor does it mean that everything that they say is wrong. It just means that you will no longer believe them on their word.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/23/building-trust-and-foi-refusals/

  46. Hans von Storch: Science Has Failed To Answer Legitimate Questions – Warmists Have Responded With “A Stroppy Reply”
    By P Gosselin on 4. Mai 2011
    On the loss of credibility, climate science itself is to blame. The science has stirred up scientifically unfounded expectations, says von Storch. The demand that the public has to rapidly accept instructions on how to act in order to save the planet has blurred the boundaries between policy and science. As a result, science has not become something that has to do with “curiosity”, but rather gives the impression that it’s all about pushing a pre-conceived value-based agenda: “As scientists we have become political tools who are to deliver sought arguments to get citizens to do the right thing.”
    If anything confirms this claim, it is the WBGU’s master plan unveiled by PIK Director Hans Schellnhuber to radically transform society in what he calls “The Great Transformation”. Indeed von Storch is right. Some elitist scientists are all about changing the current socio-political system, and so distort science in order to get the needed arguments.

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/04/hans-von-strorch-science-has-failed-to-answer-legitimate-questions-warmists-have-responded-with-a-stroppy-reply/

    Von Storch Blasts Climate Scientists: Not The “Keepers Of The Truth” – Says They “Oversold” The Science
    He says the climate issue needs to be debated, and warns scientists against acting like they are the “keepers of the truth”.
    Snip
    HvS has always been critical of scientists interfering in the political process. FOCUS asks HvS if Chancellor Merkel ought not have a climate advisor, to which HvS replies:
    Just a single advisor? No.”
    FOCUS then asks HvS about efforts by scientists to intimidate any media critical of alarmism, a practice Stefan Rahmstorf is infamous for:
    That is a not taking one of the most important institutions seriously, namely the media. Anyone who behaves like that obviously views himself as the judge who knows how media reporting is supposed to be.

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/26/von-storch-blasts-climate-scientists-not-the-keepers-of-the-truth-says-they-oversold-the-science/

  47. Pointman’s essay contains numerous obvious errors. I attempted to discuss them with him; if you go to his blog, you’ll find a bizarre one-sided conversation, since he suppresses all my posts. Rather than try to reconstruct what I say from his quoting of fragments, its better to read the full conversation from http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html

    I admit to some surprise that you didn’t notice the obvious problems with his essay.

    • Heh, Connolley thinks of himself as a truth-seeker.
      ==========

    • The sentient internet grieves at your disinformation, William, and it has a long memory.
      ==========

    • Don Monfort

      Imagine that, somebody suppressing Connolley’s posts. Why don’t you use Wiki to your advantage? That’ll show him.

    • > I admit to some surprise that you didn’t notice the obvious problems with his essay.

      Read Judy’s harder for less surprise.

    • Heh, William bemoans censorship and wishes to set the record straight. willard follows obediently into the curve.
      ============

    • It would be hard to find a more objectionable post to promote at Climate Etc. I really wonder why prof Curry would do so.

      If only already because of all the clear factual errors, some of which William mentions, which no one here has commented on.

      We have:
      A KKK picture
      A Nazi fetish: “Berlin, April ’45, the last bullet and complete destruction.” & A trending post on “Do we call them Nazis or not?”
      And a fury of further curse words.

      And the titled is not only terrible, but now also turns out be rather ironic: The Age of Unenlightenment. The Pointman is destroying the Enlightenment in an error riddled post claiming others do and betrays all Enlightenment ideals by moderating a critical comment with arguments. Seeing arguments as having some importance in understanding the world was a main innovation of the Enlightenment.

    • The best fun I’ve had in ages. Kicking his derriere all over the place. You be sure and visit me again real soon Willy, and I’ll do exactly the same.

      What’s that thing they say about payback …

      Pointman

    • > What’s that thing they say about payback …

      Do you promise to let my comments stand for once, Pointman?

    • Don Monfort

      It’s really pathetic that he comes whimpering to Judith.

      +1000 points to the Pointman!

    • Yeah, Don, a wonderful irony. Will get 24 hour special lighting in my museum of ironies.
      =========

    • Basement. Our insurer didn’t like the water damage precautions engineered into the second floor, so we’ve been forced to the sump-pump, with triple back-up, guaranteeed to perform in brownouts and blackouts.
      =========

    • Scott Basinger

      Surely, Mr. Connolley, you’ve been deeply aggrieved. You should take the opportunity to shout about this great injustice to all who will listen.

      Perhaps you may consider taking the fight for justice further, say to the point of writing a Wikipedia Article on the “Great 2014 Censoring of William Connolley at Pointman”? Surely this deserves a mark in history. It certainly will provide you with plenty of editing opportunities.

  48. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    Let’s analyze the case of Reto Knutti of the ETH Zürich. He warns about overemphasizing the lack of certainty about the evidence. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception.
    Reto is one of the main authors of IPCC’s WGI AR5 chapter 12 (about long term projections). After my analysis I understand that Reto has created science fiction and has presented it as if it was actual science. More info on the foundations of my analysis in:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/

    Furthermore, I think that at the beginning of ch.12 Reto should include the disclaimer: projections are inventions with no predictive capacity and since we base our projections in invented values of climate sensitivity parameter: this chapter should not be taken seriously by any reader.
    I believe that this example clarifies if scientists are being forced to toe the line.

    • Climate sensitivity is not “invented” — it is calculated.

      You’ve struck out right there.

    • Don Monfort

      It’s not calculated, apple. It’s guesstimated.

    • It’s calculated.

    • I can always tell when people are starting to lose on this blog — they resort to the ad homs. Monfort is typically one of the first to go.

    • Hah, it’s been ‘measured’. Thousands of times.
      =========

    • Don Monfort

      Show us your “calculation” for TCR over the last 15 years. You can do the math, can’t you?

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Appell indulges in the blogospheric equivalent of a drive by shooting and imagines that’s a win.

    • RobertInAz

      “Climate sensitivity is not “invented” — it is calculated.”

      I thought climate sensitivity was an abstraction used as an input to the climate simulations. And that Don is correct – it is an estimate. The estimate is “validated” if climate models can be “tuned” to the 20th century temperature record. Am I wrong?

      Critics uncharitably point out that the models have many inputs – climate sensitivity is only one. With enough inputs, a model can be tuned to almost any hind cast. Those uncharitable critics continue by pointing out that the inability of models to make forecasts argues against their “validation” of climate sensitivity.

    • RobertInAz

      David
      “I can always tell when people are starting to lose on this blog — they resort to the ad homs. Monfort is typically one of the first to go.”

      Ad homs as in ad hominem attacks? Hmm. Earlier, your use of straw man was creative. This accusation does not apply to this little thread. Did I miss one up above? What constitutes an ad hominem attack in your mind?

      For example – some might consider “RobertInAz is a pathetic loser who only comments here because he does not have a life.” to be an ad hominem attack. I might consider it uncomfortably close to the truth.

    • Show us your “calculation” for TCR over the last 15 years.

      It isn’t a meaningful calculation, since 15 years isn’t indicative of climate, but of (oceanic) weather.

    • I thought climate sensitivity was an abstraction used as an input to the climate simulations.

      You thought wrong. Climate sensitivity is an output of climate models, not an input.

      For example, see Manabe and Weatherald, 1975:

      https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Greenhouse-effect/more/Manabe-Wetherald-1975.pdf

    • Now David, has that output been ‘measured’ or ‘estimated’. Have the models been verified or validated? ‘Calculated’ seems to be a calculated guess, and I calculate you guess wrong.
      ===========

    • Don Monfort

      If temperatures had spiked up in the last 15 years, you would have been happy to shoe me your precise and definitive calculation of TransitoryCR. You are a transparent little apple.

    • Don Monfort

      Transient and show

    • Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

      David Appell if you want to know why I said that climate sensitivity value range has been invented, please read my pdf in:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/

    • RobertInAz

      David
      “You thought wrong. Climate sensitivity is an output of climate models, not an input.” See link above

      That’s mean. Now you are just messing with me. That paper calculates no such thing. Instead is says: “Because of the various simplifications of the model described above, it is not advisable to take too seriously the quantitative aspect of the results obtained in this study.”

    • Monfort — when you are ready to can the ad homs and stop acting like a boy, let me know.

    • Antonio: I have learned not to waste my time on amateur stuff like your PDF, which I invariably find to be full of egregious errors whenever I look at them. Sorry.

      If you can summarize your point in a sentence or two here, or have some real science to quote, let me know.

    • Robert: Yes, Manabe & Wetherald 1975 calculates climate sensitivity. Then they give their estimate of its uncertainty.

      They certainly didn’t take climate sensitivity as an input, as you claimed.

    • Amateurs can’t do ‘real science’. You’ve got to leave it to the pros.

      Oh, wait a minute, that can’t be right. But it is in bright shiny Appell World.
      ========

    • Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

      David, sorry for having made such a huge pdf with so many (12) pages. It is indeed an amateur stuff and you should not waste your time with my pdf or my comments. Good bye.

    • Monfort: I think boys first tried to ridicule me by misprouncing my last name in the 3rd grade. But maybe it was the 2nd.

      Welcome to their club.

    • RobertInAz

      David
      “Robert: Yes, Manabe & Wetherald 1975 calculates climate sensitivity. Then they give their estimate of its uncertainty.

      They certainly didn’t take climate sensitivity as an input, as you claimed.”

      Are you looking at table 1? If yes, how did the various models calculate that result without assuming a climate response to CO2?

      Hanson takes a cut at analytically deriving climate sensitivity using the CO2/temperature relationship coming into the current interglacial. That is how he got 3 degrees. I think the most recent was Hanson 2010? There are a lot of assumptions in that paper.

    • Robert: Table 1 is the *result* of Manabe and Wetherald’s calculation.

      It is getting tiring to have to explain the most basic things to you.

    • how did the various models calculate that result without assuming a climate response to CO2?

      Wow.
      Just wow.
      It’s like you don’t understand anything.

      Climate models are the numerical solutions to the partial differential equations that describe the Earth’s climate system.

      If you don’t understand what that means, then go get a B.S. in physics and/or applied mathematics. Then you can come back to the discussion.

    • Hanson takes a cut at analytically deriving climate sensitivity using the CO2/temperature relationship coming into the current interglacial. That is how he got 3 degrees.

      Try reading Hansen’s famous 1988 paper:

      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html

    • RobertInAz

      David Appell
      “If you don’t understand what that means, then go get a B.S. in physics and/or applied mathematics. Then you can come back to the discussion.”

      I do have a BS in Physics. It was a simple question. If the temperature response was the output of the model and CO2 was the varying input – how was the impact of varying input on the output calculated without assuming (or estimating) a climate response to CO2?

      Somewhere in that system of equations, the CO2 input is translated into something (possibly watts per square meter) that translates into temperature. That translation is where the climate sensitivity is buried.

      • RobertinAz raises a very legitimate point – what with all that heat allegedly hiding in the deep ocean, melting ice etc. Unless all this is correctly accounted for (which it isn’t), the translation of a surface flux of W m-2 into a global average surface temperature change is not straightforward.

    • Robert: This is all covered in the paper. Go read it. Manabe wrote very clearly — he was known for that.

      You might also read his earlier papers, on incorporating radiative transfer into climate models. Basically, it comes down to solving the Schwarzschild equations, also known as the two-stream equations. Pierrehumbert covers it extensively in his textbook.

    • RobertInAZ, it follows from the physics. Increasing CO2 leads to surface warming. Surface warming leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere (we see for example that there is always more water vapor on average above warmer oceans). Water vapor is a GHG and it amplifies the CO2 effect. This gives the sensitivity.

    • Manabe himself tells you to go read Manabe and Strickler (1964), and (the famous paper) Manabe and Wetherald (1967).

      They are well worth reading — exceptionally clear, and very good introductions to the methods of climate modelling. It’s difficult to find the same in papers these days, since they all build on this knowledge, though I’m sure it’s covered in modelling textbooks I haven’t bought and read.

    • It ‘follows from the physics’, and the clouds mock the ignorance of the followers.
      ==========

    • Unless all this is correctly accounted for (which it isn’t), the translation of a surface flux of W m-2 into a global average surface temperature change is not straightforward.

      It isn’t correctly accounted for? And where are all your papers setting the world straight on that?

    • kim, the sign of the cloud feedback is not known because it is somewhere in the vicinity of zero.

    • RobertinAz raises a very legitimate point – what with all that heat allegedly hiding in the deep ocean, melting ice etc.

      Except that wasn’t Robert’s point. His question was essentially, how do you calculate CO2’s radiative forcing.

    • Don Monfort

      Did they beat you up and steal your lunch money and take your little plastic sheriff’s badge, when you were in 3rd grade? I am not surprised that mispronouncing your name still bothers you, apple. Those things leave scars on little dudes.

      There is more to it than just mispronouncing your name, but you are probably not from Detroit. You should be happy to be called apple. Appell sounds very effette. Is that your stage name?

    • Jim D | May 24, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
      “RobertInAZ, it follows from the physics. Increasing CO2 leads to surface warming. Surface warming leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere (we see for example that there is always more water vapor on average above warmer oceans). Water vapor is a GHG and it amplifies the CO2 effect. This gives the sensitivity.”

      That is exactly the model used by the the alarmists. Positive water vapor feedback. Make an estimate and out pops climate sensitivity. Very well demonstrated by the papers David A. cites and they are internally consistent.

      What I have not seen is a satisfactory explanation of what cuts the positive feedback off and causes temperatures to stabilize and then decline. Consider the prior interglacial. Since sea levels were six meters higher, it was arguably warmer than at present. So the positive water vapor feedback should have been present. Where is that impact?

      What I see in the long term temperatures reconstructions is a strong damping effect at our current temperature and a little higher. Nobody has provided an explanation as to why the feedbacks are positive this time where they were not in prior, warmer interglacials.

      What I see is the alarmists argue the Milankovitch cycle is not sufficiently strong to explain the climb out from a glaciation, but it is sufficient to damp the supposed positive feedback from water vapor to increased temperature. The really weird thing to me is the alarmist claim that CO2 is the key positive feedback after the Milankovitch warming starts, not water vapor.

      I find the entire (internally consistent) chain of reasoning circular, inconsistent with the historical evidence of recurring glaciation, inconsistent with common sense (CO2-not water vapor as the control knob) and inconsistent with current observations.

    • David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
      “Except that wasn’t Robert’s point. His question was essentially, how do you calculate CO2′s radiative forcing.”

      Aaarrgghhh. Another reading problem. CO2’s radiative forcing is non-controversial. That leads to a climate sensitivity of a little over 1 degree. It is the estimates of other physical parameters required to get scary climate sensitivities that I questio – principally water vapor feedback.

    • Robert: This isn’t the time or place to go into a long description of the ice ages — I would refer you to Pierrehumbert Chapter 7, though all the carbon cycle feedbacks admittedly aren’t understood…but as the world warms, ice melts and the ice-albedo feedback, which is powerful, declines. The planet reflects less sunlight.

    • It is the estimates of other physical parameters required to get scary climate sensitivities that I questio – principally water vapor feedback.

      They aren’t estimates — they are calculations. Why is that so hard to understand?

      Less ice means less sunlight reflected. More greenery means a different albedo. Water vapor saturation follows the Clausius-Claperyon equation. Air flow follows the Bernoulli equation. The effect of GHGs comes ultimately from quantum mechanics and the Planck law of blackbody radiation.

      These things aren’t mysterious — they’re covered in all the textbooks. Go read one, and stop pretending like no one has ever thought of your issues.

    • David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
      “They aren’t estimates — they are calculations. Why is that so hard to understand?”
      Right – they are calculations described by Manabe as “Because of the various simplifications of the model described above, it is not advisable to take too seriously the quantitative aspect of the results obtained in this study.”
      In other words, the simplifications are so large as to render the models qualitative rather than quantitative. A reality demonstrated by their constant record of failed predictions (or projections).

    • Robert, you don’t get it. Climate is well understood, because it follows from the physics. That’s why the models are so spot on.
      ===========

    • “David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
      Robert: This isn’t the time or place to go into a long description of the ice ages — I would refer you to Pierrehumbert Chapter 7, though all the carbon cycle feedbacks admittedly aren’t understood…but as the world warms, ice melts and the ice-albedo feedback, which is powerful, declines. The planet reflects less sunlight.”

      Right – like I said – no CO2 “control knob” required.

    • Robert: Yes, they are calculations. And all calculations have assumptions and uncertainties.

      If you have a BS in physics, you should know that.

      Of course, Manabe’s model is from 1967. The principle holds, but the science has progressed at least a little bit since then.

    • Nope, Robert — CO2 is a very good way to control your climate, if that is your aim.

      Someday if we try to terraform Mars, we will think seriously about melting its CO2 ice caps in order to thicken its atmosphere and warm the planet.

      See Lacis et al, Science (2010).

      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

      “Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature”

    • David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
      “Robert: Yes, they are calculations. And all calculations have assumptions and uncertainties.” Yes!! Finally!! Bless you David Appell!! These are not generally agreed on physical constants like Boltzmann’s constant.

      “Of course, Manabe’s model is from 1967. The principle holds, but the science has progressed at least a little bit since then.”
      But the error bars on estimated climate sensitivity have not closed since 1975. If the models had done a better job of prediction, I’m sure they would have closed a bit.

    • Heh, Callendar had a sweet little model, and a sweet little understanding of the benefits man could wreak with CO2.
      ===========

    • These are not generally agreed on physical constants like Boltzmann’s constant.

      There isn’t a single scientist in the world who thinks climate sensitivity is an agreed-upon constant.

      You are fighting demons in your closet, not in the real world.

    • If the models had done a better job of prediction, I’m sure they would have closed a bit.

      The models include many more physical processes than did Manabe, each of which brings in its own uncertainty.

      The uncertainty in climate sensitivity is still around 50%. It may well not be reduced much further. We will have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty — but then, we do that all the time in other areas of life.

    • David Appell
      “See Lacis et al, Science (2010).

      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

      “Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature””

      Just a nit, but the authors use a climate simulation that assumes CO2 is a control knob to validate that CO2 is a control knob.

      A few years ago I spent a lot of time working through RealClimate and SKS, reading papers trying to get a sense of where the truth lay. I found Real Climate and SKS to be very circular.

    • Omigod, don’t tell me there are different ways to calculate it! The sums, please find me the ‘sums’.
      ==========

    • Just a nit, but the authors use a climate simulation that assumes CO2 is a control knob to validate that CO2 is a control knob.

      False yet again. The authors calculate the effect of CO2 — they do not assume its effect — and they find it is a good control knob.

    • Don Monfort

      Is apple admitting that climate sensitivity is an estimate? More precisely, any number of estimates depending on who is doing the alleged calculations. By the way, I have a BS, in BS. Like you, apple.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘Although we may expect a chaotic AOS model to be structurally unstable, it is difficult to explicitly make this determination. The attractor cannot be fully visualized or measured because the phase space has such a high dimension (i.e., high order). Probability distribution functions (PDFs) (Fig. 1) give at least a rough view of an AOS attractor. There are many aspects to the equation set for a model, most notably in the choices of discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling scope, and these are usually not systematically explored in AOS practices. To do so requires formulating multiple models for a given problem. Even systematic scans in the parameter values of a complicated AOS model are rarely published, although parameter variations are commonly made while tuning a model to improve its plausibility. †

      Nevertheless, I advocate the hypothesis that plausible, chaotic AOS models have important levels of irreducible imprecision due to structural instability resulting from choices among a set of modeling options that cannot be clearly excluded. The level of irreducible imprecision will depend on the context, and this level is likely to be greater the more chaotic and multiply coupled the targeted flow regime is…

      AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ James McWilliams

      It’s calculated in chaotic models that have unlimited divergent solutions within the bounds of feasible inputs and couplings.

      Pick a solution – any one that has pleasant a posteriori solution manners will do.

    • RobertInAZ, the Ice Ages don’t help you because CO2 levels were 190 ppm when it was 6-8 C colder, which implies very high sensitivity. We are lucky it is not that sensitive now, which is because the glaciated area is much smaller, so there is less positive feedback from ice albedo. Had it worked the right way, we would surely have heard from the skeptics, but it doesn’t help their argument, so they prefer to ignore it, and hope other people don’t notice.

    • Yikes, Appell tells me climate sensitivity is calculated and you tell me it differs through time. Do we need a new calculation every instant?

      First, tell me how long one of those instants lasts. We might get somewhere then, but when, who knows.
      ============

    • David Appel
      “False yet again. The authors calculate the effect of CO2 — they do not assume its effect — and they find it is a good control knob.” My last post – let me try again.
      They calculate the impact of CO2 using “[And all] calculations which have assumptions and uncertainties.” Your words. The relevant assumptions are in the direction of CO2 having a strong influence on the hydrologic cycle. Assumptions that continue to be annoyingly difficult to empirically verify.

      I think this discussion encapsulates the science disagreement. Alarmists are annoyed at skeptics for not accepting the models. Skeptics are annoyed at alarmists for not acknowledging the issues with the models.

      Good night.

    • The relevant assumptions are in the direction of CO2 having a strong influence on the hydrologic cycle.

      False. There are no such assumptions. They calculate the effects on the hydrological cycle.

      You are either trying to pull off a joke, or the worst physics major I have ever encountered.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Runaway ice feedbacks to insolation changes seem to be the go here – with CO2 changes a long way behind and responding to temp rather than the other way around.

      Interestingly CO2 was at 400ppm at the last transition.

      http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions

    • kim, yes, there are long-term ice-albedo feedbacks, like if Greenland melted or the Ice Age recovery. Surprised you didn’t know that. You need to read around a bit.

    • Yikes, Appell tells me climate sensitivity is calculated and you tell me it differs through time. Do we need a new calculation every instant?

      In principle, yes. Climate sensitivity depends on the current climate, i.e on its temperature and CO2, etc. It will not necessarily be the same now as it will be in 100 or 200 or 1000 years, or the same as it was in the at the PETM (or after it).

    • RobertInAZ, you don’t need GCMs. Arrhenius did it essentially one-dimensionally with just physical reasoning a century ago, and his methods agree somewhat with what we have seen more recently in models and observations. Simple models, complex models, paleoclimate and recent climate all converge on similar results for sensitivity.

    • Hooray, sensitivity varies with albedo. Now tuck that idea under your brain and run with it. You might catch some skeptics, but they have a long head start on you.
      ==========

    • Manabe’s 1967 calculation was also one-dimensional (vertical).

    • kim has just discovered the Ice Ages. Oh well, progress, I guess.

    • Oh, poo. Don’t try to tell me the globe glaciates even with a high CO2. You’re gonna have to show me that one.
      ==============

    • kim, well, sorry to say it doesn’t, but in a related story, you tend to get high sea levels instead.

    • maksimovich

      Simple models, complex models, paleoclimate and recent climate all converge on similar results for sensitivity.

      indeed.It is random ie irreducible (whereas no one can write an algorithm shorter then the natural program generating it) eg Ghil 2008

      As the relatively new science of climate dynamics evolved
      through the 1980s and 1990s, it became quite clear – from
      observational data, both instrumental and paleoclimatic, as
      well as model studies – that Earth’s climate never was and is
      unlikely to ever be in equilibrium. The three successive IPCC
      reports (1991 [2], 1996, and 2001 [3]) concentrated therefore,
      in addition to estimates of equilibrium sensitivity, on estimates
      of climate change over the 21st century, based on several
      scenarios of CO2 increase over this time interval, and using up
      to 18 general circulation models (GCMs) in the fourth IPCC
      Assessment Report (AR4) [4].

      The GCM results of temperature increase over the coming
      100 years have stubbornly resisted any narrowing of the range
      of estimates, with results for Ts in 2100 as low as 1.4 K or as
      high as 5.8 K, according to the Third Assessment Report. The
      hope in the research leading up to the AR4 was that a set of
      suitably defined “better GCMs” would exhibit a narrower range
      of year-2100 estimates, but this does not seem to have been the
      case.

      AR5 continued the trend.

    • Don’t try to tell me the globe glaciates even with a high CO2.

      It did. The Ordovician–Silurian ice age of 450 M yrs ago occurred when CO2 was about 3000 ppmv.

      But the Sun was about 4% less intense, so the physics still works out.

      Details here:
      .http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html

    • “The Ordovician–Silurian ice age of 450 M yrs ago occurred when CO2 was about 3000 ppmv.

      But the Sun was about 4% less intense, so the physics still works out.”

      At that time the continents were in quite different positions, with a land mass larger that Antarctica at the South Pole.

      In addition, life had not conquered the land, there was sand and bare rock on all the land surface, no plant life except at the margins of the rivers and estruies.

      Still, the physics works out.

    • Gee, I wish we could prevent glaciation with CO2. That would simplify things for our grandchildren unto many grands.
      =============

  49. You have to give Uppsalainitiativet credit though for posting Bengtsson’s response. Imagine that at Real Climate or Skeptical Science.

    I think the internet would break.

    • > You have to give Uppsalainitiativet credit though for posting Bengtsson’s response.

      Yes, and how many credits for cleansing Bart R’s critical comments?

    • J & DA, observe the proportionality, if you can see that far.
      ======

    • willard,

      You should go back to trying to seem cryptic. You are much more entertaining that way.

      I don’t think you want to compare Dr. Curry’s light moderation of Bart R with the treatment of Bengtsson by…well pretty much anybody.

      Uppsalainitiativet allowed Bengtsson to post apparently main, negative posts about him on that blog. And again, it was decent of them to allow him to reply.

      Dr. Curry to my knowledge has never written a comment, let alone a main post, dismissive of Bart. Nevertheless she allows Bart to post long, confused, meandering off topic comments, on a daily basis. As he has failed to get any positive response over the last couple years, from anyone, he has become increasingly insulting. So I can see some moderation.

      Shoot, Dr. Curry even deletes the occasional comment by me. And I have never once complained, nor am I complaining now. It is her blog.

      See, your moral equivalence proves to be rather vapid on actual examination. That’s why it’s so much better when you just write cryptograms for your own amusement.

    • should be “allowed contributors”

    • > See, your moral equivalence proves to be rather vapid on actual examination.

      There was no moral equivalence, GaryM. Read harder instead of arguing like you would in front of an underpaid, enslaved, and sleep deprived jury, bored to death by your repetitive tirades.

      I asked a simple question. This question does not imply that you compare Bart R’s cleansing with the overly silly Bengtsson case in scope, magnitude, web entity, importance, relevance, or anything else than “credit for posting a response”. You know, the freaking thing you were talking about.

      I feel for the judges who are forced to suffer you.

      ***

      Oh, and there was also the mention of “cleansing”, for you know, the Auditor likes the term:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/14/the-cleansing-of-lennart-bengtsson/

      Sometimes, what looks clear can be cryptic too.

      It was a question. Not a question or right, btw, so your “your blog, your rules” has little merit.

    • Scratch the last part:

      It was a question. Not a question or right, btw, so your “your blog, your rules” has little merit.

      It would have been simpler to say that it was not even a question of right but of virtue and that GaryM’s harangue was irrelevant, but eh, I decided to poe GaryM instead.

    • willard,

      It wasn’t a comparison, it was a question?

      It would have been just “a question” if the question was all there was to your comment. But you asked it in comparison to my comment regarding Uppsalainitiativet.

      You were comparing the posting by one blog, with the moderation of Bart on this blog. You apparently didn’t know that was what you were doing, but that was it.

      And your “question” wasn’t a complaint either? So you don’t view Dr. Curry’s moderation of Bart negatively? Uh huh.

      Oh, and those “underpaid, enslaved, and sleep deprived” jurors of whom you are so dismissive, as a rule are better at critical analysis that you could ever be. At least they try.

      Like I said, stick to intentionally obscure writing. When you try to write cogently. your failure is embarrassingly apparent.

    • Don Monfort

      Just willy being silly. Nearly all of barty’s comments are critical and nasty. If they were being deleted arbitrarily and merely for being critical, the little whiner would have almost nothing to show for his years of 24/7 trolling here. I get plenty of comments deleted. And I am one of the nicest, uncritical people here. I almost never whine about it. Try to lighten up, willy. You alarmist characters are so humorless. That’s a sure sign of insecurity.

    • Don Monfort

      We should do something like lucia has on guessing the monthly UAH anomaly. When will barty be back? Is it possible that he can find other activities to fill the huge void in his life? Will he follow my advice and try trolling Walmart? There are always Occupy Wallstreeters and other loons to keep him company.

    • > It wasn’t a comparison, it was a question?

      How judges don’t start to scream when they see you might always be a Great Mystery, GaryM. You talked about moral equivalence:

      Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides.

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

      The only relevance with the publication of Lennart’s rant on Uppsala’s is a vague reference of double standard, perhaps the only cardinal sin of argumentation.

      The problem is that I’m not accusing you of that. I’m asking you to extend your analysis beyond your favorite whipping boys (e.g. RC). So try what happens here, viz. Bart R’s critical comment. No, GaryM, “your blog, your rules” does not answer that question. It may be the reddest herring lawyers can use, as if it could.

      Search for “question” yourself, silly nitpicker.

      ***

      I’m glad you consider that Uppsala’s deserves credit. I agree. Lennart’s claptraps deserve to be heard, if only to make sure we understand where he comes from. But of course, instead of offering a constructive criticism out of your sport comment, you use this as a rhetorical trick to bash RC.

      Talk about “yes, moral equivalence.”

    • Heh, ‘claptraps’. Gittin’ a little skeert you might have the wrong end of the stick, willard?
      =========

    • willard,

      The more you write, the more confused you get.

      “The only relevance with the publication of Lennart’s rant on Uppsala’s is a vague reference of double standard, perhaps the only cardinal sin of argumentation.

      The problem is that I’m not accusing you of that. I’m asking you to extend your analysis beyond your favorite whipping boys (e.g. RC). ”

      More silly word games. I never said you accused me of anything. (Lord I hate these semantic diversions.)

      I accused you of moral equivalence. Explicitly. Not sure how you missed it. “See, your moral equivalence proves to be rather vapid on actual examination.”

      I’ll give it one more shot, just in case you are genuinely befuddled, rather than just wasting time on a Friday night.

      You compared the two, suggesting a double standard, “vague” or otherwise.

      There can only be a double standard if they are morally equivalent.

      Hence you were engaging in moral equivalence. Simple.

      You weren’t “accusing” me of a double standard (which was a good start since I made no mention of Bengtsson), but you were just asking me to extend my analysis, with respect to my “whipping boys like RC?”

      OK, fine. Here’s the extension. It would be nice if Real Climate would be at least a tenth as accommodating of commenters with whom they disagree as Dr. Curry is here. But I won’t hold my breath, and I really don’t care – it’s their blog.

      There. Is that better?

    • should be “made no mention of Climate Etc.”, not Bengtsson.

    • You gave credit to Uppsala’s to snigger at RC and SkS, GaryM. This is cheap, and silly. Your extension targets RC specifically, this time by giving credit to CE:

      > It would be nice if Real Climate would be at least a tenth as accommodating of commenters with whom they disagree as Dr. Curry is here.

      This is “Yes, but RC moderation” all over again. It is cheap, and silly.

      ***

      Both comparison between Uppsala’s or JC and RC or SkS rests on moral equivalence. I see a problem with that: RC or SkS represents the establishment, and JC represents the anti-establishment. The roles are not symmetrical.

      While the types of entities involved between Uppsala’s c. Lennart are not the same as in JC c. RC or SkS, what is most important to note is that the only relationship where there’s an open channel is between Uppsala’s and Lennert. All the other channels are closed, including between Judy and Bart R.

      It would be nice if people would be at least a tenth as open to criticism as they claim to be accommodating. And no, I’m not only targeting Judy here. This applies to everyone, including you, GaryM, and me.

      ***

      This is how we extend from people to principles, and can start to make sense of expressions like “moral equivalence” and “double standard”.

      Good night,

    • Don Monfort

      willy, willy
      If I were you I’d show them by taking my ball and going home, as your pal barty did. You could get out of here so fast it would make their heads spin. You don’t have to put up with this crap. We will miss you, willy.

    • willard.

      “While the types of entities involved between Uppsala’s c. Lennart are not the same as in JC c. RC or SkS, what is most important to note is that the only relationship where there’s an open channel is between Uppsala’s and Lennert. All the other channels are closed, including between Judy and Bart R.”

      As I have said, you shouldn’t try to express your opinions clearly. They don’t stand scrutiny very well.

      I have no idea what Uppsalainitiativet’s policy or history on commenting is. I do know what the practices are at Climate Etc., Real Climate and Skeptical Science. RC is a black hole, SS is not much better. Dr. Curry allows even the most obstinate, uninformed, nasty commenters to go on at length.

      Bart R has been one of the most prolific commenters here. He has also over time given up the civility he once displayed for an angry, insulting style that I will wager is the reason any of his comments were moderated.

      I notice he said moderated, not censored. As an expert in language I am sure you noticed the difference, right? What consensus or contra-Curry comments by Bart R were deleted? What dazzling consensus arguments is she unwilling to allow to be presented here?

      I wasn’t complaining about RC or SS moderation, I was pointing out that there appeared to be at least one consensus site that allowed Bengtsson to publish a response to their criticism of them. It made no sense to commend them for doing so if that was the norm among consensus blogs. As of course it is not.

      But since you insist on continuing to suggest a comparison is necessary, and that Climate Etc falls by comparison, let’s do a tally:

      Real Climate – the borehole of the internet for skeptical comments (as is their right)

      Skeptical Science – Not much different from RC from what I have seen.

      Climate Etc. – the most open climate blog of which I am aware, with the lest moderation as far as I can tell.

      Uppsalainitiativet – damned if I know. I only read of this one incident with Bengtsson, for which I praised them. But kudos for posting the Bengtsson rebuttal.

      What got your panties in a bunch is that I made a comparison among warmist web sites, that put your favorites in a bad light. Then you made a silly retort, that you have been trying to defend at length ever since.

      Uppsalainitiativet posted a rebuttal (by a scientist who is apparently a strong believer in AGW, but skeptical that it is C) to three critical posts of their against him. RC would not do that. SS would not do that. Climate Etc. would do that.

      I do not think RC or SS would have any obligation to do so. Nor would Uppsalainitiativet or Dr. Curry. But one did, and I believe the evidence is the other would. (Dr. Curry’s guest posts by Andy Lacis, discussed elsewhere on this thread, being cases in point.)

      There is moral equivalence between one site posting a rebuttal and the unlikelihood of another doing so.

      There is no moral equivalence between one site posting a rebuttal, and another moderating (not even necessarily deleting or editing) the insulting comments of the occasional obnoxious commenter.

      As I originally said, Dr. Curry occasionally deletes a comment of mine. And I am darned if I know why sometimes. But I have never asked, or complained. For the same reason I don’t gripe about RC or SS.

    • Don Monfort

      Gary, you are going to have to stop using RC as your whipping boy. It upsets willy. He is already hurting from the treatment that barty has received from that Judith. Over the years, thousands of barty’s comments have been moderated into oblivion He barely gets a word in edgewise on the blog that he has made his home. It’s a testament to barty’s good natured patience that he has put up with it for as long as he has. Please go easy on the cryptic one. We don’t to lose him, too.

    • That GaryM uses Uppsala’s as a whipping boy is just par for the course, Don Don. As long as Denizens acknowledge that this is what GaryM does, I could not care less. That Judy tolerates you and your kin only makes GaryM’s commendation of Uppsala’s more splendid.

      ***

      There is no moral equivalence between a contrarian site throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the establishment, and the establishment that tries to restrict these points of contention to a minimum.

      There is no moral equivalence between the relationship between a contrarian figure that leads a PR campaign against the establishment and a member of a small community of Swedish science activists. I assume any scientist that goes ranting on the Internet is one. No, not Swedish, just a science activist.

      There would be a moral equivalence between moderating critical comments on a website and refusing to publish a formal rebuttal, but only if the channels of communication between the party involved is minimally open, which is only the case between Lennart and Uppsala’s.

      ***

      The main criterion for any moral equivalence to apply lies in the type of communication channel involved. Here’s something to start you with that idea, Don Don:

      http://glossarium.bitrum.unileon.es/Home/teoria-de-canales/channel-theory

      Considering that GaryM can’t even bookkeep his own political mantras, perhaps this counterfactual would help. Imagine the possibility to have Dana publish a post here. Does that make sense to you? Why would it? Dana has his own outlets to publish his rants, we know how Dana and Judy relate to one another, and Dana has nothing to gain by coming here and let Judy run his show with the circus going on right hereunder. I’m not saying that this ain’t possible (I’ve seen more absurd ClimateBall ™ moves played in my career), but I would not use that implausibility against Dana.

      Now, compare, Lennart’s and Andy’s situation, and report. That’s the silly part in GaryM’s use of “Yes, but RC moderation.” For good measure, compare also with Bart R’s.

      Eventually, we can also see what kind of comments Judy promotes, I mean “finds interesting.”

      ***

      Lawyers are paid to create havoc in the world. If you want peace, hire notaries. They’re the ones who get money out of conciliating parties by book keeping properly.

    • Don Monfort

      Willard,

      There is no good reason to get bogged down in useless arguments over this moral equivalence bullcrap. If the climate consensus crowd want to save the world, they have to be better than the so-called deniers.

      RC has done more harm to the cause than good. When I first became interested in the alleged looming climate disaster, I was directed to RC. What an experience. I soon hated those clowns. I spent a lot of time with my life on the line fighting for truth, justice and the American way. But those soft egghead clowns would not let me speak. I hadn’t made up my mind. I wasn’t hostile. I had an inquiring mind.

      It was then and it is now very clear, that the RC/Team crowd are dogmatic nasty propagandists. Not to be trusted. But hey, they may yet be proven to be correct. The possibility of dangerous consequences from ACO2 is plausible. I still want to now if we really have something to worry about.

      You are a smart guy and you could influence me, if you played it straight. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Stop the denigration. Try honest, patient communication. I will say it again: emulate Pekka.

    • Gee, I musta touched a nerve. I don’t think willard’s used so many words in any given month here as he has in defending his silly comment the last two days.

    • > There is no good reason to get bogged down in useless arguments over this moral equivalence bullcrap. If the climate consensus crowd want to save the world, they have to be better than the so-called deniers.

      Thank you for making my point, Don Don. I’m not the one who argues that RC and CE should be held to equivalent standards. GaryM is.

      I agree that the establishment’s outlets should be better than the contrarians’. They already are; mileage varies, of course. The contrarians’ outlets are of such a low standard that this does not mean much. There’s always room for improvement.

      Your personal anectdata on RC is duly acknowledged. I have no idea how you can credibly claim anything about RC’s success, nor do I care to know. As far as I’m concerned, you’re just rehearsing “Yes, but RC moderation”.

      But hey, if you agree with me that GaryM’s claim is bullcrap because the roles are asymmetric, you can repeat it all you want on this thread. I can even applaud if you do. Deal?

    • willard,

      Now it’s just getting embarrassing for you.

      “I’m not the one who argues that RC and CE should be held to equivalent standards. GaryM is.”

      I compared RC and SS to Uppsalainitiativet.

      I didn’t compare RC and CE, you did, in the second comment on this sub-thread. “Yes, and how many credits for cleansing Bart R’s critical comments?”

      I then made fun of you for doing so, as follows: “I don’t think you want to compare Dr. Curry’s light moderation of Bart R with the treatment of Bengtsson by…well pretty much anybody.”

      Later in the thread I gave examples of why you should not make such a comparison as you did. But this is starting to go ’round in circles. So I will let it go at that.

    • > I didn’t compare RC and CE.

      Here you go:

      OK, fine. Here’s the extension. It would be nice if Real Climate would be at least a tenth as accommodating of commenters with whom they disagree as Dr. Curry is here.

      When lawyers will have to convince juries by way of the words they write, GaryM might need to change his pleading style.

  50. Generalissimo Skippy

    Who can doubt that the movement I dub the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets (BCCAGWGSS) are vicious little troglodytes utterly convinced of their group mediated moral rectitude and intellectual astuteness – and who regard resistance by the morally repugnant and intellectually inadequate – as well as incomprehension of their superlative intellectual and moral standing from the great unwashed– as futile.

    Lennart Bengtsson is the example de jour. Who can doubt that he has been lectured, berated and bullied by hordes of vicious little troglodytes. It is not as if it is unprecedented. Most of them then feel justified that he has recanted and rejoined the fold. Some feel he has made his bed and should be stripped of every honour and distinction before being cast into the outer darkness – where there shall be gnashing of teeth etc.

    They alternate between butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths qui moi and vindictive decalarations that he deserved everything he got. Instructive but hardly news.

  51. Judith –

    Here’s a fascinating comment from you from a couple of days ago:

    ==> “curryja | May 16, 2014 at 9:32 pm |

    No victim card – I’m over it already and on to better and more interesting things :)”

    Indeed. Move on to better and more interesting things, eh?

    Compare and contrast:

    “As someone participating in the in public debate on climate change, I certainly expect barbs from the media and advocacy groups. What concerns me greatly is other scientists behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way, in other words, playing dirty politics with their science.”

    I have to say, Judith, it appears more and more that you have flat out given up trying to have any consistency in your standards. I suppose that it coincides with your admitted trajectory into the land o’ “skepticism.”

    Well, rest assured. The longer you follow your trajectory, the more you will find unskeptical adoration from at least 1/2 of the climate battlefield. Certainly, the less you will have to feel any effects from tribalism from the other side, as you will be well-protected by your tribe.

  52. Judith Curry wrote:
    “Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause?”

    This is laughable. You certainly are not unaware of the history of abuse heaped on Schneider, Santer, Mann, and others for their scientific findings.

    So why are you pretending otherwise?

  53. Sociologist Joseph R. Gusfield, in a book that I have misplaced but I think is called Contested Meanings, goes into the usual route to power.

    1. Identify a new “public problem.” It may have been normal life before, or a personal moral failing. Now it’s a public problem.

    2. Take ownership of the problem.

    3. Stress that the debate is already over. Everything has been decided.

    He has a series of books all around the same sociological organizing phenomenon.

    So it’s not as if this is new terriroty.

    • The coming Ice Age, oil running out, acid rain, Pershing deployment in Europe, SDI, Satanic child abuse, vCJD and Global warming/Climate Change

    • The dangers of tobacco, and air pollution; and lead paint and leaded gasoline; and the indiscriminate use of pesticides, the early warnings about CO2 warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain (largely controlled in the US via cap-and-trade), the predicted (1978) irreversible melting of the WAIS, global warming/climate change,

    • k scott denison

      David, where is the evidence that CO2 can be equated to pollution? Are there not negative feedbacks present in the earth’s climate system that have and will keep temperature within relatively narrow bounds? Why won’t those work today?

  54. The extremity of viewpoint, the intolerance to others, the nastiness of behavior, the rudeness and disrespect, the certainty with which they view uncertain data, and all the other traits exhibited by climate scientists of one persuasion to another, is exhibited quite generally, with amplification, right here on this Blog by commentators. (e.g. Generalissimo, Springer, Fan, …)

    • Et tu, Beaut?
      =====

    • Donald Rapp has been asked to toe the line by fellow skeptics.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Then again we are just pizza delivery people so it doesn’t matter – eh Donald? And my identity is open secret – although part of the game of the nom de geurre is to neither confirm or deny.

      Mostly I find it amusing when I am bored and want to try for some actual humour and wit on a site that is sadly diminished – or when someone makes an especially compelling case for the intervention of a climate warrior – and part time pizza delivery person – on a blue horse called Shibboleth. Didn’t get that? I’ll try harder to take him less seriously than he takes himself.

      Basically – we faced a choice of accepting holus bolus a quite simplistic theory that seems motivated by being smarter than blogs he didn’t read – as offering additional tit bits like evaporation, actual global energetics as measured by satellite and a nuanced interpretation of ocean heat content got us declared persona non grata pizza delivery people.

      Give it up Donald – you are flogging a cold pizza.

    • Donald Rapp

      Sounds like you’ve had a bellyfull as of late. That is understandable.

    • Peter Lang

      Donald Rapp,

      The extremity of viewpoint, the intolerance to others, the nastiness of behavior, the rudeness and disrespect, the certainty with which they view uncertain data, and all the other traits exhibited by climate scientists of one persuasion to another, is exhibited quite generally, with amplification, right here on this Blog by commentators.

      Indeets!
      I agree!
      +100

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Peter

      I take it we have got past your intemperate and heavily moderated – libelous – and ethically questionable commentary?

      Perhaps you missed the part about pizza delivery – getting beaten by wives – or at least not getting any? Such an example for us all.

  55. From the article:

    A common corrupt path to scientific success is to discover and overpromote a new danger; perhaps something that causes cancer, hurts children, or poisons the environment. The scientists who discover and overpromote the new danger become heroes and get more grants and more money.

    Take, for example, the government program to fight radon pollution. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that comes from the decay of trace amounts of radioactive isotopes in the soil. In some areas people have “high” levels of radon. It is alleged that the radon seeping into houses causes lung cancer. The scientific evidence for the radon program is based on dubious theory not backed by good statistical evidence. But radon is a gift that keeps on giving, providing jobs and grants.

    Acid rain (scary sounding) is caused by sulfur emissions from burning coal in electrical generating plants. In a 1984 editorial the New York Times said: “…the warning signs — dead lakes, damaged crops, forests of stunted trees – presage a massive natural disaster.” Acid rain turned out to be a tempest in a teacup. The government program to ameliorate acid rain cost the economy billions and only has a target of reducing sulfur emissions by half. If acid rain is so dangerous, why does the government only cut it by half?

    Some other science-based scare stories include: asbestos, DDT, lead, plutonium, nuclear power, the ozone hole, species extinction, vaccines causing autism, power lines causing cancer, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification, global cooling and the biggest scare, global warming. Typically, there is a core of real science behind each scare and then the danger is blown up out of all proportion to the real danger.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/the_corruption_of_science.html

    • Wow. This is exactly why people like you are called “deniers.” I couldn’t have proven it better myself.

    • Appell catches on, well, a little. The common thread among ‘deniers’ is incredulity at future catastrophe. That was the error made by the alarmists in the first place. But, I guess they just couldn’t help themselves. Hubris, nemesis, the eternal dance step.
      ===========

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The catastrophe de jour is the necessary justification for the neo-UNtopia. This is not something we could ever dream up by ourselves. We get it from the lips of horses arses themselves.

    • Appell – AM didn’t say there was no science at all behind these “terrors.” They said the effects were exaggerated and in some cases the evidence weak.

  56. Well, it must be a quiet week in the climate blogosophere – interesting to have William Connolley, Victor Venema, Pointman and David Appell show up here.

    Apparently unlike other sites, my linking to or quoting from a post does not imply my personal endorsement of the entire post or everything that person has ever said. I highlight what I think are interesting arguments or statements that are worth discussing.

    • Sensitive plants. Someone touched a magic spot.
      =========

    • interesting to have William Connolley, Victor Venema, Pointman and David Appell show up here.

      You sound like you’d prefer applause, not a readership who can think for themselves.

    • Interesting how David interpret’s Judy’s interest. Three cheers for his dumb show.
      ======

    • Always a pleasure to visit and sit for a spell, Miss Judy. Sorry if I trailed in some dirt on my boots.

      Pointman

    • Don Monfort

      How does her comment sound like Judith would prefer applause, apple? She doesn’t censor or complain about your gratuitous insults. Why don’t you apologize for coming into Judith’s parlor and pissing on her floor.

    • Don Monfort

      That’s stuff is not dirt, or Shinola that you trailed in here on your boots, Pointman.

    • My preference is for people who make interesting comments – topical, well-argued, logical, with evidence

      Which we are doing more than your usual band. You’re welcome.

    • Heh, Appell protesting his authority, Connolley protesting his innocence, Joshua protesting, futilely, his sophistry, willard protesting, nay squealing.
      =======================

    • Yup, a quite weak in the blogosphere.
      =============

    • Don Monfort

      Where is your evidence for the death threats against climate scientistas, apple?

    • Maybe you just manage to outdo yourself in terms of hypocrisy and cant?

      It is an entertaining spectacle.

    • Hi Don. Ta for the compliment but It was a circumspect reference to Willy Boy. Just trying to keep the tone up. Youse guys get to suffer that high pitched whine now …

      Pointman

    • > It [“dirt”] was a circumspect reference to Willy Boy.

      So was “Shinola”, Pointy:

      Shinola was immortalized in colloquial English by the phrase “You don’t know [sh*t] from Shinola” which first became widely popular during World War II.

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

    • Heh, the Four Line-Toers of the Thermocalypse. Little do they know the line they toe is attached to their toes, and towing them.
      =============

    • Peter Lang

      Judith Curry,

      Thank you for your posts, and the range of perspectives you cover. Much appreciated.

      Australia is experiencing extremely unpleasant Left orchestrated vitriol against anyone who dares to disagree with their ideological beliefs. They are going to extreme lengths to prevent debate that does not suit their agendas. The language of hate they use, and their efforts to prevent anything being said they don’t approve of is surprising. There are some example son a recent post by Don Aitkin (an occasional commenter on Climate Etc.) on this recent post. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16331

      David Appell’s comments suggest he is one of those extremest Lefties who is overcome by hate and wants to prevent serious discussion about issues such as climate change and the appropriate policies needed to address it, or not.

    • David Appell’s comments suggest he is one of those extremest Lefties

      Leftist? Protecting the commons is a *libertarian* idea, a conservative idea — no one gets to pollute it, without paying the cost of the damage they cause.

      Do you really think you should not pay the cost of the damages of your pollution?

      If not, are you OK with your neighbor dumping his trash in your yard? Because it would save him a good bit of money….

    • –Leftist? Protecting the commons is a *libertarian* idea, a conservative idea — no one gets to pollute it, without paying the cost of the damage they cause.

      Do you really think you should not pay the cost of the damages of your pollution? —

      Is this the pollution which must be created by living sentient being?
      Is the pollution of breathing?

      By what realm of twistedness requires libertarians to imagine that by increasing taxes that this could solve anything.
      How could this be considered sane, particularly when majority politicians are unable to have fiscal responsible and continue to place mountain of debt upon the nation?
      Even in world where politicians were not excessively greedy and corrupt,
      why would one want to encourage them to be so?

    • Breathing is carbon neutral.

      If you don’t know that, you don’t know much of anything.

    • They haven’t so much sold their souls to big oil and industrial corruption, worse – they’ve given their souls away for free

    • k scott denison

      David Appell | May 25, 2014 at 3:11 am |
      Breathing is carbon neutral.

      If you don’t know that, you don’t know much of anything.
      _________________
      So please, what isn’t carbon neutral? Last time I checked it’s pretty hard to destroy a carbon atom.

  57. > I highlight what I think are interesting arguments or statements that are worth discussing.

    Some might say you’re jumping the shark, Judy.

    Tomato, tomacco.

  58. In my opinion the largest unknown in climate science is the extent to which the CO2 molecule can absorb (and emit) IR radiation at tropospheric temperatures. Because carbon is an isotopic element i.e. having a varying number of neutrons, and neutrons have heavy mass, then energy absorbing vibrations can vary. Typically such vibrations would change as step functions which is why I have often referred to climate as having an on/off properties..This can explain the 1940 temperature singularity.

    It follows that if we can predict the sequence of future vibration modes, we can predict future climate. Some may object that gases also absorb energy by kinetic motion, but in that regard CO2 is little different from N2,the latter being much more populous in the atmosphere.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Sigh.

    • Because carbon is an isotopic element i.e. having a varying number of neutrons, and neutrons have heavy mass, then energy absorbing vibrations can vary.

      Except carbon isotopic ratios for CO2 aren’t changing nearly fast enough for this to be a significant factor. See

      “Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research,”
      Prosenjit Ghosh and Willi A. Brand, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228 (2003) 1–33.

      http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

      Also, I’d like to see the absorption spectrum of CO2 with its various isotopes of carbon.

    • David: No one knew how fast the neutron population was changing in 1940. It is likely that the neutron population varied to some extent depending on where the parent fuel came from, before 1940, most of the world’s fuel probably came from West Texas. Because of the activities of Uboats in the Atlantic, it is likely that other sources of fuel were tapped i.e. middle east in 1940.

      Skippy: thank you for your sigh.

    • There aren’t proxies of the isotopes of atmospheric CO2?

      And I’d still like to see the difference in CO2’s absorption spectrum, based on its different isotopes. Where is that data?

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      As I have sighed before Alexander – the C14/C12 ratio is about 1.3E-12. Far from sufficient to make much difference. The CO2 absorption is undifferentiated – it all absorbs in the same narrow bands. This is the result of the vibrational modes of the molecules – which is a function of valence shell bonding and not atomic mass of the central carbon atom. Changes in energy states as quantum vibrational transitions are the basis of the statistical thermodynamic expectation that the heat of the parcel will increase with the number of CO2 molecules. Statistical thermodynamics do not have quantum states.

      Your ‘singularity’ is the result of macroscopic changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation and not changes in quantum vibrational states of individual molecules.

      I have been polite – and I have said this again just yesterday – but the truth is that your that your theory is astonishing, utterly unphysical nonsense that you have made up by linking an idea that applies to the very small to the behavior of the very big system to which in no way ever could it realistically apply.

  59. “anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.”   I agree with this statement. – JC

    Well, you’d know Judith, being at the forefront of such behaviour for almost a decade.

    Remember the Gray affair?

    Judith was leading the charge in “the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause”

    What’s changed since then? Nothing, Judith just use her blog to the same effect; all the broadbrush smears that she refuses to back up with details, or retract.

    True to form, there’s plenty of that in this latest rhetorical excess.

    Look at this for an amazing example of a expert exponent of the art of innuendo and smear;

    “I have heard that a number of leading scientists are pretty disgusted….” -JC

    “heard” – rumour.

    “a number” – one??

    Well played! – another smear against every scientist in the field based on a rumour.

    “What concerns me greatly is other scientists behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way, in other words, playing dirty politics with their science.” – JC

    Concern is good.

    But maybe for now we might have to start with getting some to tone down their self-indulgent self-righteousness about ” behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way” while simultaneously ” behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way…playing dirty politics with their science”.

    Here’s an interesting thought – we run a poll amongst climate scientists and ask them whom amongst their profession they think is most guilty of;
    “intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? ”

    My impression is that Judith Curry would come out somewhere near the top, possibly even No.1.

    • > Remember the Gray affair?

      No, Michael.

      Citation needed.

      • It was a misquote, but I definitely learned something from that episode, and I have discussed it extensively elsewhere in the blogosphere

    • Thanks, Michael:

      Dr. Gray, who is 76 years old, has been studying storms for nearly a half-century. He is the author of seminal early models for predicting the atmospheric conditions that lead to storms and was a mentor to 70 doctoral and master’s students — including Dr. Holland.

      Dr. Gray hasn’t been shy about firing back at his critics. After Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, co-wrote a paper linking global warming and hurricane intensity, he said: “Judy Curry just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

      Dr. Curry, in an interview at her Georgia Tech office, said Dr. Gray has “brain fossilization.” She added: “Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say.”

      Interesting.

      That is, topical, well-argued, logical, with evidence.

    • “brain fossilization” was a misquote? That’s a very colorful phrase that a journalist would naturally note and remember….

      Did the journalist agree it was a misquote?

    • willard got a big clue. Will he break the field to the goal? News @ 11.
      =============

    • Assuming the accuracy of that article (the link to the supposed interview does not work), it is no surprise. Dr. Curry used to speak the language of her tribe. As she has become more intellectually independent, she has also increasingly left behind the condescending, insulting language that is the lingua franca of progressivism.

    • Evidence of plasticity fuels the fossils, trapped in a late 20th Century narrative tar pit.
      ===========

    • Yes, GaryM, Judy’s becoming conservative.

      Does it mean she’ll take Lennart’s place at the GWPF?

      I hope you don’t mind that thatcherism’s economic ideology may have been liberal.

    • What’s amusing is progressives lapsing into liberalism.
      ==============

    • willard,

      “…thatcherism’s economic ideology may have been liberal.”

      Oh no, don’t venture into economics. I am not sure I can take the hilarity.

      I remember once when Tobis tried to explain to me that Obama’s economic policy was straight out of the Chicago School (and he was not referring to Obama’s attendance there). You guys crack me up.

    • I’ll take Thatcher’s word over yours, if you don’t mind, GaryM:

      The kind of Conservatism which he and I…favoured would be best described as ‘liberal’, in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists.

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

      ***

      Oh, and for your own hilarity:

      “The outside perception of Chicago economists is that they all believe whatever Milton Friedman believed in 1950,” said Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and an adviser to Mr. Obama. “The correct perception here is: Data rules.”

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122610604643110229

      “Whatever Milton Friedman believed in 1950.”

      I like this way of putting things.

    • Oh, you little old ‘outside perceiver’, you. Yeah, data stinks, unless it’s adjustable, persnikkety purveyor of unfortunate circumstantial data.
      =================

    • willard,

      Seriously, did you actually read what you posted, and not understand it? Or are you suggesting that when you wrote your comment today that Thatcher’s view were “liberal” you were using the term as it was used in the 19th century?

      Word games? Really? That’s not just juvenile, it’s boring.

    • Data is in the drive of the beholder.

    • > Or are you suggesting that when you wrote your comment today that Thatcher’s view were “liberal” you were using the term as it was used in the 19th century?

      Yes, GaryM, I actually read Wiki pages when quoting them. In fact, sometimes I even read them before that:

      Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as: “Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, ‘Victorian values’ (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism.”

      http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/14/bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-8097

      Notice the timestamp.

      Thank you, by the way, for the training on the “but it’s conservative!” trick that Herman tried on me at Marcel’s.

      The only serious gig you shown so far is the dash of populism.

    • ‘Liberalism’, what strange territory for the few adventurers. Goreblimey, it’s the Heart of Darkness.
      ===========

    • willard,

      Now you’re trying to be obscurantist rather than cryptic. You should leave that to Mosher. He’s better at it.

    • Bah, I can’t get no respect. What’s great about moshe is that he strives for clarity.
      ========

    • Here’s what it was, GaryM:

      Loosen up, man.

    • curryja | May 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
      “It was a misquote…”

      Very possible – maybe Judith said “petrified brains”.

      Possible all copletely false – except for the patten of behaviour which suggests an alarming consistency of “behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way”.

      More recently, remember Muller – Judith again attacking fellow scientist via media.

      Then the repititious borad brush smears – the IPCC “cabal” , “thought police”, and more lately, and even more ridiculously, “McCarthyism”.

      Then the use of the media to atack Mann – we’ll ‘media’ (yes, scare quotes) – the repetitive linking to, and quoting of, the lowest gutter-dwellling, bottom-feeding trash tabloid ‘journalism’ (AKA Mark Stetn) to attack a fellow scientist.

      A pattern of behaviour.

      Over a lengthy period.

      This leopard won’t be changing its’ spots.

      But CONCERN. But INTEGRITY.

    • more OT: it is worse than useless to throw around the term “liberal” in reference to Thatcher without distinguishing between “egalitarian” liberalism ala Rawls, Dworkin et al. (with whom she did not identify) and the far more free-market “classical” liberalism of Hayek and Friedman (in different ways).

      Certainly Thatcher claimed to be deeply influenced and connected with Hayek and Friedman as “liberals” — but not with late 20th century “re-distributionist” liberalism:

      http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/lady_thatchers_relationship_with_friedrich_hayek_and_milton_friedman

    • > It is worse than useless to throw around the term “liberal” […]

      That American neo-cons decided to denigrate their opponents using the epithet that serves as a foundation to their own economic ideology is the lesser of my concerns.

      It was a reference to the last discussion I had with GaryM, Skiphil:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433578

      Sometimes I think Denizens restart new threads in tabula rasa.

      Hope this helps [1].

      [1] See? that’s a reference between you and me, Skiphil.

    • “That American neo-cons decided to denigrate their opponents using the epithet…”

      Yeah…uh…no. Progressives started calling themselves liberals long before there was any thing such as a neo-con. Progressivism got a bad name because of the honesty of its original adherents, and their fondness for eugenics, prohibition, and fascism in general.

      “Liberal” was used by progressives as a nom de plume from roughly the 40s, until the policies of Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter et al started to give the word “liberal” a bad name. It started to poll test badly, and progressive/liberal candidates like Bill Clinton had to start denying they were liberal.

      I remember a floor speech, I think it was in the House, where a Republican called a Democrat a liberal. The target of this horrific insult then took to the floor and denounced the Republican for engaging in the “politics of personal destruction.”

      Now progressives are trying to avoid a label at all, hence their faux claim to be against “ideology.” Rather than favor their usual menu of central planning policies, they couch everything in terms of “fairness” and “for the children.” It is merely a coincidence that the policies of fairness and for the children just happen to require enactment of the same progressive agenda they have been pushing since the 20s and 30s. Centralized planning of healthcare, energy policy, basically the entire economy.

      The “third way” of the non-liberals Tony Blair and Bill Clinton was already tried. It was the economic system in Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s and 40s.

      Progressives (the activists, not the default progressives commenting here) have to obscure the terms of the debate. If they were honest with the stupid voters, they would never gain the power they so desperately desire.

    • GaryM revises history again:

      Without a qualifier, the term “liberalism” since the 1930s in the United States usually refers to “modern liberalism”, a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. It is a form of social liberalism, whose accomplishments include the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Act in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Community Reinvestment Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

      According to Louis Hartz, liberalism in the United States differs from liberalism elsewhere in the world because America never had a resident hereditary aristocracy, and so avoided the worst of the class warfare that swept Europe.

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

      Lawyers are paid to exploit equivocations like that all the time, and to distance themselves from their own fabrication of straw men. Not unlike the Auditor does when he trademarked “The Team” to refer to the Kyoto Flames:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/thekyotoflames

      The excuse (“but they used them first!”) is even the same.

    • Neverendingamusement is watching progressives lapse into liberalism.
      ====================

    • Actually, the opposite happened.

      How can they look into my eyes
      And still they don’t believe me ?
      How can they hear me say those words
      Still they don’t believe me ?

  60. Yeah, no offense, but if you feel bullied by Dr. Curry, it is way too late to even worry about big boy pants. You want one of my granddaughter’s pacifiers?

    Seriously, don’t leave the house. You’ll never survive.

  61. “I have heard”???? You – a scientist – offering hearsay? A standard of evidence below even the notoriously unreliable eyewitness? Undermines any credibility you claim

  62. Bob Ludwick

    “Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?”

    Forced?

    Of course not; don’t be silly.

    Unless they want to be published in the mainstream scientific media, continue receiving research grants, be considered for tenure, be invited to attend/speak at international conferences (all expenses paid, naturally), etc, etc.

    • Unless they want to be published in the mainstream scientific media,

      If they do, then they shouldn’t submit obviously bad papers. like Bengtsson did to ERL.

      And if they do, they shouldn’t whine to the press when they are rejected — they should correct them and resubmit, like every other scientist out there.

    • Bengtsson demonstrates that climate models are unfit for policy. Tell me, David, how does he correct that error?
      ==============

    • Bengtsson and Schwartz had a recent paper in Tellus where they observationally derived a lower limit of 2 C per doubling for the sensitivity in agreement with AR4. This would be sufficient for policy alone. You don’t need models.

    • I would also note that Bengtsson attributes all the warming since 1970 to GHGs, so he may not be the ally the skeptics think he is. OK, he criticizes models, but in these other areas he is mainstream.

    • My Gosh, how cold we’d be without AnthroGHGs. Cold, and not even pausing, but chilling.
      ==========

  63. I have heard that a number of leading scientists are pretty disgusted with the way Bengtsson has been treated and see the larger issues of concern about the social psychology of our field.

    Silence is consent. Until those”leading scientists” start speaking out – as you have done – they are complicit in the action. There will always be mindless sycophants like Apple. The true moral scientists will not bow down to the dunning herd.

  64. David in Cal

    I have a model that can accurately predict all the wars in the 21st century. I can prove my model’s accuracy. It correctly hindcasted the 1st World War, the 2nd World War, and the Vietnamese War.

  65. Paul Vaughan

    Judy Curry asked:

    “Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause?”

    Judy,

    Excessive arguing is unhealthy. I suggest giving more priority to harmony & civility.

    You have control locally at least.

    If I were in your position I would permanently ban rude, negative Climate Etc. commentators who bully, harass, etc. I would do this immediately and I would not look back.

    With a cleaner environment you can attract brighter contributors capable of contributing positively.

    Regards

    • “Excessive arguing is unhealthy. I suggest giving more priority to harmony & civility.”

      You mean let’s go for total congenial dishonesty?

      The “advocates” (gag, choke on the obfuscation of the term) are here because they are being outed. Thread jacking, smoke and mirrors,
      ad hominems, strawmen, authority appeals (we are SCIENCE, YOU ARE NOTHING) is the response. Then comes the inverted meme management; “you’re one too” (h/t, Joshua) in five year old speak.

      The Der Spiegel story cuts right to the bone of the phony advocate culture and spells it right out (in wimpy fashion of course, that’s the protocol in leftist circles and media), a line towing climate orthodox publication if ever there was one, which makes the pain only that much greater to “advocates”. Who of course are left-wing operatives, selling a dying 45 year old save-the-Earth collectivist meme to empower themselves and more importantly in their minds assault (wealth redistribute, control, silence) their enemies (free citizens).

      Paul you sound like a conformist character. The fact is when the topic is honest and revealing this is the way it’s always going to go. While skeptics have many sides there really is only one monolithic subplot to AGW advocacy; central planning and authority over individuals. It’s right out of an Orwellian distopia. AGW is a brutal, totalitarian human impulse and we should exchange candy and flowers when we discuss it? I’ll give Dr. Curry credit for being a light censor, it’s ugly here because climate politics is about as ugly and deceitful as it gets. Paul, what do think the U.N. and global collectivists are dreaming up for you, your country and your grandchildren in the climate meme? How exactly does that get blog sanitized?

    • It’s right out of an Orwellian distopia.

      Is that the best hyperbole you can muster? I think you can do better, if you really try.

      Did the cap-and-trade that diminished acid rain bring a totalitarian hell onto the country?

      Or the protocols that saved the ozone layer?

      Or do you think you should be allowed to degrade the Commons without consequence, all so you can greedily save a few dollars a month?

    • A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. How dare you monopoly money my commons.
      =================

    • “Or the protocols that saved the ozone layer?”

      Mythology. http://junkscience.com/2013/08/08/myth-montreal-protocol-saved-the-ozone-layer/

      Acid rain? Pure greenshirt garbage;

      http://junkscience.com/2014/02/11/remember-acid-rain-what-a-crock/

      You’re a waste of time David, legendary in that regard. I’ll let others address the other bogus points.

    • The ozone layer is doing exactly what it was doing before humans did anything.

      The ozone hole has stopped growing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Observations_on_ozone_layer_depletion

    • Acid rain is decreasing:

    • Paul Vaughan

      Just fire the discordant political dark agents Judy. Arguing with them is a complete waste of time.

      4-3-2-1…
      Sensibly Reinterpreting ERSST EOFs is as Easy as 1234…
      (It’s the sun & the moon, stupid.)

  66. What protocols that saved the ozone layer, David? The ozone layer is doing exactly what it was doing before humans did anything. And the “It’ll take decades or centuries” is pure garbage.

    OTOH, WHAT cap and trade that diminished acid rain? The only thing cap and trade did was to make millions for Al Gore & Co.

    As for the subject of Dr Curry’s post – Oh, yeah, do I have some stories about that. But not tonight. We’ll do that tomorrow.

    • Acid rain is decreasing:

    • …. But CO2 emissions are increasing. Interesting

    • David Appell

      Ozone hole stopped growing? That is a little selective

      ‘The area of the ozone hole reached a maximum of 24.0 million km2 on 16 September according to OMI data from NASA. This is more than in 2012 and 2010, but less than in 2011. Data from KNMI, based on GOME-2, show that the ozone hole area averaged over the ten last days of September was 20.9 million km2. This is more than in 2012 but less than in 2010 and 2011. The ozone mass deficit averaged over the same period was 19.59 megatonnes. This is more than in 2010 and 2012 but less than in 2011. The results are similar for the average ozone hole area and ozone mass deficit for the time period from 7 September to 13 October. If one considers the last twenty ozone holes (1994 until present), fifteen ozone holes have been larger/deeper than in 2013 and only four have been smaller (2002, 2004, 2010, 2012). ‘

      http://www.theozonehole.com/2013ozonehole.htm

      Of greater interest is to determine whether or not the ozone hole has always been a permanent feature of Antarctica. I asked both the Max Plank institute and Cambridge University if the hole might have existed prior to it being discovered in the 1950’s when measurements became available and they said they didn’t know. Perhaps you do? I see William is here who might have direct knowledge. Perhaps he knows?

      tonyb

    • Iolwot

      Why have you linked to a single graph that shows the ozone hole size has stalled, as per my comment?

      Perhaps you could answer my question that the Max Plank Institute and Cambridge University were unable to answer?

      tonyb

    • I thought you were questioning it.

    • The size of the ozone hole has varied over the years. There has been no evidence that it was ever actually decreasing – or that anything humans have done or could do would induce it to decrease. While I have not looked at the data for several years, the responses here are entirely unsatisfactory. If the best you can do is Wiki, then you’re not talking science but opinion.

      As for acid rain, of course it’s decreasing. The statement was inane and unnecessary and a distraction from the subject at hand from the start.

      But then I promised you a story last night. I’ll keep it short and the name will be changed to protect the real scientist. Long ago I worked with a scientist that I respected because he was honest. Not all of them are. So one day I asked his opinion of what was then called Global Warming. This was prior to the onset of the “pause”. and Joe (not his name) said, in essence, that the evidence was much too weak to support the claims that were being made at the time. But the story got better – because he said, to put it bluntly, that he HAD TO support those claims or he would lose his job and his career. He was really hopeful that the science would win, but it didn’t. Instead, the Hockey Stick and the IPCC ran over his hopes – and the science. After that, I made a practice of asking scientists what they thought about the subject. And most of them agreed with Joe – that their careers depended on toeing the line and that they hated the pretense. Note that I had worked with some of these scientists for years. I was not a stranger. Nor was I ignorant of the science or of the data.

      So – are climate scientists being forced to toe the line? You betcha. And after the recent incident, any argument about it is either ignorance or malice – or stupidity. I know – that’s not nice. TS, Kiddies. It’s reality .

      I wonder if Bengtsson realizes that the “pressure” he’s experienced to date will continue – that his mea culpa will not bring forgiveness because he has become the enemy and can no longer be trusted?

      This isn’t the science that I spent most of my life with. In fact, it’s not science at all. And I’m happy that I don’t need the job any more. But I probably will bother some of you again in the future. Especially if I run across the occasional outrageous idiocies that sometimes grab my attention.

  67. Off topic, but interesting.

    About the other dismal science.

    ” Piketty’s data is simply so incomplete and so sensitive that it’s not sufficient to make up the empirical half of his grand theory of the fate of capitalist societies — and therefore certainly not sufficient to justify the policies he recommends (an 80 percent top income tax rate and a global tax on wealth) to avoid that fate.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378751/piketty-fraud-patrick-brennan

    Limited data, dodgy statistics, confirmation bias, and cherry picking.

    Sound familiar?

    • Heh, the Hero of Europe, but what the heck did they do to deserve that?
      ============

    • As if the National Review is the last word on anything.

      I wouldn’t even rule this a good try. It’s a lousy try.

    • Peter Lang

      GaryM
      +1

    • David Appell,

      ofc this is OT, but your sneering remark is a prime example of how NOT to conduct any rational discussions about science, data, public policy, social science, etc. Contrary to your brusque dismissal, the National Review piece didn’t pretend to be any “last word” on anything, as you would know if you had actually looked at the piece. In fact, it tentatively references another NR piece which in turn explicitly acknowledges depending upon the analysis of data in the Financial Times….. and the NR author explicitly qualifies the entire discussion with various caveats and lack of finality and need for more research and better data:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/378742/are-there-problems-pikettys-data-course-patrick-brennan

      Soooo, your sneer that the NR is not the “final word” is just silly, irrelevant, and ignorant, kind of like what you purport to disdain in so many others online. No one was claiming the NR piece was any final word….. Does this sound like any pretense at a “final word” — [emphasis added]

      Piketty — unlike plenty of economists — made the data underlying his book publicly available so that people far smarter than I can poke at it, and Chris Giles, an economics editor of the FT, is one of the first to do so in depth. Has he gutted Piketty’s empirical argument?

      No, but there are real problems here. Piketty’s empirical work is both clearly impressive and ultimately unreliable. And when Giles looks at Piketty’s source data, he doesn’t see much evidence for the idea that wealth inequality has been rising in the rich world over the past several decades….

    • The national review lol, why not just link to mein kampf?

    • Aaaaand….lolwot goes Godwin for the win!

    • i was just being an idiot

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Of course Krugman had his automatic sneering defense at the ready in the NYT”s. Or at least I assume it was a sneering defense as I didn’t have the stomach to read it. Can someone surprise me…I should say shock me…with the news that I have it all wrong?

      No? Didn’t think so.

    • The Big K kneejerked his foot into his mouth.
      ========

    • More one this:

      The central theme of Prof Piketty’s work is that wealth inequalities are heading back up to levels last seen before the first world war. The investigation undercuts this claim, indicating there is little evidence in Prof Piketty’s original sources to bear out the thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest few.

      Prof Piketty, 43, provides detailed sourcing for his estimates of wealth inequality in Europe and the US over the past 200 years. In his spreadsheets, however, there are transcription errors from the original sources and incorrect formulas. It also appears that some of the data are cherry-picked or constructed without an original source.

      For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. An independent specialist in measuring inequality shared the FT’s concerns.

      http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32ihSl8VL

  68. Latimer Alder

    Meanwhile, the general public’s concern about climate change/climate chaos/climate weirdness plummets to new lows, as does the reputation of ‘climate science’.

    Viewed from outside you seem like a particularly ill-disciplined bunch of precocious, but not very bright kids arguing over nothing very much in particular, but expecting Bank of Mom and Pop to fund your little games.

    I think the appropriate phrase is ‘spoilt brats’. Grow up.

  69. I know Lennart Bengtsson as one of the reviewers of a paper of mine that was published in Tellus B a year ago. This was a paper was part of the Bert Bolin Symposium held in Stockholm in May 2012. In this paper I describe in detail why it is that atmospheric CO2 is the principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature of Earth. For those interested, this paper is available via the GISS webpage at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la06400p.html
    In writing this paper, I wanted to formulate the discussion of the global warming problem in terms of the basic physics involved, rather than presenting it as just another climate modeling exercise.

    The other reviewer of this paper was Ray Pierrehumbert. Lennart Bengtsson is a classical meteorologist with decades of experience in that field; he also has a good understanding of atmospheric physics. Ray Pierrehumbert is known as an outspoken climate scientist; his recent book Principles of Planetary Climate describes well his credentials as a knowledgeable expert in climate science. Both reviewers had numerous criticisms on various aspects of my original manuscript. These criticisms led to a much improved paper, and I stated so in the acknowledgments. The kind of review that I wouldn’t like to see is one that says “Great paper! Publish as is!” To me, a review like that would be a clear indication that the reviewer most likely never read the paper, or simply did not care enough about the topic to express an opinion.

    At 25 pages, the paper is a bit long, but it is composed of six distinct sections that are largely self-contained. RP thought the paper was at best a review paper with little new material; he thought that my comparison of the terrestrial greenhouse effect and those of Mars and Venus was weak; he objected to my describing the greenhouse effect as being driven by solar radiation; he liked the section demonstrating the fast-feedback response of water vapor feedback; but he thought that the section on radiative transfer was unnecessary and should have been deleted; and, RP was unhappy with the way I characterized of the run-away greenhouse aspect of ever increasing CO2 in the terrestrial atmosphere.

    LB, on the other hand, rather liked the radiative transfer section and thought it provided a useful description of how radiative transfer was calculated; he wanted more discussion of how the greenhouse effect could be evaluated by direct observation; he also wanted more discussion on the nature of feedback effects, and thought that cloud feedback effects were handled poorly, in particular the cloud solar albedo component. LB also raised the issue of transient climate sensitivity vs equilibrium sensitivity. (The paper addresses the equilibrium sensitivity, and not the transient response, except in demonstrating the fast-feedback response of water vapor).

    Both reviewers suggested multiple improvements to get the historical facts about the greenhouse effect described and referenced more accurately. Neither reviewer questioned the validity of the main theme of the paper, i.e., that atmospheric CO2 is the principal LW control knob of the terrestrial climate system.

    Addressing all of these concerns and criticisms resulted in the quality paper as it now stands. Accordingly, I have absolutely no criticism to direct toward Lennart Bengtsson. What the current GWPF-Bengtsson brewhaha is all about, I really don’t know. And, I am not sufficiently motivated to investigate further. I have seen it pop up on Foxnews, and can surmise that Foxnews would not hesitate to spin and inflate any minor incident into another “climategate” conspiracy.

    There are more than a few topics in the climate system where uncertainty abounds. But there are also some aspects of the global climate system that are quite well established and documented, such as the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2, and the radiative effect of this CO2 increase to intensify the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus causing global warming and the accelerated melting of polar ice that will eventually make all coastal areas uninhabitable. This is the consequential and serious climate problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

    In Lennart Bengtsson’s remarks on his view on climate research, there is one telling sentence that summarizes Lennart’s perspective on climate change. Lennart states that “Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time.” Superficially, the statement is quite correct. But fundamentally, that statement is flat wrong. This is because climate is a boundary value problem in physics, while weather is an initial value problem. The physical nature of these two problems is quite different, so also is the numerical approach that has to be taken in order to model climate change, and to forecast the changing weather.

    In my Tellus B paper, I described the ongoing global warming as a cause-and-effect problem in physics. Understandably, Lennart Bengtsson might be inclined to view the global warming problem from his meteorology perspective in terms of changing weather patterns. But there is a reason why summer weather is warmer than winter weather. And there is a similar physics-based reason why global warming will change the weather patterns as the global temperature rises. There is substantially more uncertainty in how the local and regional weather patterns will change than in how the global temperature will change. So, when it comes to discussing regional climate change, as opposed to global climate change, there is far more room for differences in opinion.

    As for Lennart’s joining GWPF, then resigning – I have not formed an opinion. Perhaps Lennart Bengtsson was hoping to instill some rationality to an organization that could benefit from an improved understanding of climate. Perhaps Lennart’s colleagues then persuaded him that that objective would be a hopeless endeavor.

    If I really thought that I could instill some common sense regarding the nature of global climate change to such organizations like the Cato, Heartland, and George C. Marshall Institutes (among others), I too would be more than willing to go talk to them. But their goal and agenda (on behalf of the short-sighted interests of the fossil fuel industries) is to spread disinformation about global warming, rather than to seek a clearer understanding of global climate change. Thus, I don’t think that they would really want to hear from me. So far, they have succeeded in deceiving, duping, and brainwashing a significant fraction of the American public into believing that global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated by the climate scientists.

    This unfortunate nonsense needs to be counteracted by continuing to repeat ever more clearly the basic facts and physics of global climate change. As the climate effects of global warming become ever more apparent (increases in larger weather extremes – droughts, floods, forest fires), the public awareness will shift in favor of the science and away from the climate deniers.

    Climate etc. denizens should keep in mind that the consequences of global warming are not a question of “if”, but of “when”, and that the climate modeling uncertainties are not one-sided, but cut both ways. Thus, the nasty stuff in ecological disruption and the rise in sea level that is predicted to happen by the end of the century could be arriving a lot sooner than expected, accompanied perhaps by totally unanticipated maladies.

    • Dr. Lacis: Your comment is a breath of fresh air here, but I worry that this is not the audience for it. Your points are very well made, but this crowd doesn’t exactly care what the science says.

      I have read your 2010 Science paper several times, and refer to it often. I’m looking forward to reading your new paper.

      Thanks for commenting here. You are needed.

      • Andy Lacis has often commented here, and has done several guest posts. I personally appreciate his occasional participation very much, and the denizens (most of them anyways) genuinely appreciate his participation.

    • David Appell said;

      ‘Dr. Lacis: Your comment is a breath of fresh air here, but I worry that this is not the audience for it. Your points are very well made, but this crowd doesn’t exactly care what the science says.’

      That is not true. Whilst there is much solid science there are also many uncertain aspects of science backed up by data that is not very solid. For example SST’s back to 1850 or so are largely interpolated from virtually non existent data for a large part of it. It becomes more useable around 1960. Similarly the land temperature has many flaws in the methodology and becomes more reliable-or at least more consistent-when automatic recording is carried out .

      Dr Lacis has provided a very interesting insight and it would be nice to get more such input here, but I dare say many scientists are put off commenting by the continual and increasingly irritating food fights and outright snark that often go on here.

      tonyb

    • Hang on Appell, you’ve been slating Dr Bengtsson up to now.
      Two-faced, much?

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter…

      The global climate system is composed of a number
      of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
      Michael Ghil

      Should we ever redefine science as drive by alternately blogospheric shoot outs and sycophancy – you’ll be the man Appell. In the meantime we’ll go with the scientific method in which theories explain data and have predictive power.

      The theory of climate as an emergent property of a chaotic system explains abrupt shifts, inputs and outs that are disproportionate and multiple equilibria. A jostling amongst the sub-systems before settling into an emergent pattern. Tremendous energies cascading through powerful mechanisms. As Ghil suggests – it requires a redefinition of the nature of sensitivity.

      It suggests the climate may continue in the current cool state space for 20 to 40 years from 2002 – if we may take that as a prediction that has been made often since the turn of the millennium – as a result of changes in cloud and/or ocean atmosphere heat transfer. The satellite data says that the former prevails in the energy budget.

      Nor can we expect climate to shift again to a warm state next. A yet cooler mode seems more likely than not as we pass the threshold of bond event zero, a 1000 year solar peak and a 1000 year peak in El Nino frequency.

      Neither – from 1000 year and Holocene spanning ENSO proxies – have we seen in the instrumental records anywhere near the limits of natural variability in floods and drought.

      As for the credibility of predictions to the end of the century – zilch even if models were capable of more than probabilities in systematically designed families of solutions. Even if climate were co-operative. Unfortunately for one especially inept brand of climate science – it’s a beast.

      ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. Wally Broecker

      The paradigm of global warming is past it’s use by date – to be replaced by something with a lot more explanatory power.

      ‘Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ NAS

      ‘… the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’
      Swanson and Tsonis

      This – btw – is Appell’s version of a lack of science. It is in fact the paradigm most likely to succeed.

    • Cue attacks on A Lacis in 5 4 3 ..

    • lowlot, quite evidently neither you nor Appell actually read what Andy Lacis wrote, otherwise you’d know that there’s no reason to attack him over anything he wrote within the context of this thread
      Unless you’re just out to make mischief…

    • nottawa rafter

      Lacis
      I thought 99% of your comments were objective and balanced. A thoughtful piece. Until you said the public was being brainwashed. You just couldn’t let that juvenile absurdity lie there.

      I have tried to analyze data and facts for several years now , and the underlying weakness in CAGW is the lack of proof that our climate is in unprecedented territory. From 2000 year record of temperatures to

      lack of accelerating sea level rise in last 20 years to 3100 days since last major hurricane on US mainland to below average tornado activity to historic high Antarctic sea ice to no increased trend in global droughts for last 30 years. What do you have ? The Arctic. And there are nascent signs of recovery in Sea Ice volume.

      There will have to be much more observational data showing deteriorating conditions before your level of certainty is justified. If you want to have a greater influence on the public’s perception, cut out the brainwashed absurdity. It does not add. It detracts. Skeptics are not the enemy. You are your own worst enemy.

    • I wrote a short while the following comment on another site. It’s not exactly on the topic on this main thread, but it may relevant to this subthread where the weight various comments have in the discussion has been discussed.

      The discussion is not productive, when the participants are:

      1) Someone who is interested in science and convinced that the risks are really severe, but not knowledgeable of practical problems of mitigation,

      2) A person worried about the economy, and believing that the cost of mitigation is excessive, while not fully convinced that climate scientists give the correctly balanced picture of the situation.

      The participant (2) does not really know science, while he is convinced about his general starting point. He may try to criticize specific scientific points based on what he has learned from other skeptics. He knows that his knowledge of science is lacking. Thus being shown wrong on one point doesn’t matter, he can easily try the next one. All that is just rhetorics, his trust in the basic conclusions is not based on the science arguments.

      To solve really the problems we need something better. The intuitive conviction of many that putting great costs to mitigation has not been justified must be accepted as fact. It’s also largely a justified view, because the connection between the science and the policies has not been made properly. To make that connection properly an equal weight must be given on technology knowledge and economics, without that it’s not possible to even start considering what’s right on balance.

    • nottawa rafter said;

      I have tried to analyze data and facts for several years now , and the underlying weakness in CAGW is the lack of proof that our climate is in unprecedented territory. From 2000 year record of temperatures to lack of accelerating sea level rise ….’

      That was precisely my point above. The ‘data’ in many fields is very thin and yet is being used to support a hypothesis that is riven with uncertainties.. As yet we have not passed into unprecedented territory. However, as you will have noted, many here dislike historic observations even when tied into scientific papers.

      tonyb

    • Bah, A Lacis with his worsening weather, uninhabitable coast lines, and inchoate fear.

      Pekka catches a clue. The politics are absurd, the science uncertain.
      ===========

    • Hi Andy, thanks much for your comments. I particularly like this statement

      “Perhaps Lennart Bengtsson was hoping to instill some rationality to an organization that could benefit from an improved understanding of climate.”

      If such engagement was more common, we possibly wouldn’t see the kind of polarization and grid lock that we currently have

    • I love Pekka’s Dismal Doubled Equation. Following his formula we might project climate science as frightfully malinvested as the banks are. Oh, wait, we are there.
      ==========

    • Judy, they can’t help themselves. The ‘polarization and grid lock’ are built in to the debate, as Pekka Pirila and Steve Fitzpatrick have so astutely noted this morning. Suppression, overt and occult, of dissent are built in to the alarmist perspective.
      ===============

      • I disagree, I feel like my efforts with U.S. Congress have helped bring them to a more defensible place regarding climate science.

    • Heh, yes, Bengtsson might have afforded the GWPF an improved understanding of the flaws in climate science. Then again, GWPF may have given Bengtsson an improved understanding of the flaws in climate science. They are already astute enough about the flaws to scare the bojangles out of the alarmist consensus.
      ========

    • Peter Lang

      Pekka Pirila says:

      <blockquote<The discussion is not productive, when the participants are:

      1) Someone who is interested in science and convinced that the risks are really severe, but not knowledgeable of practical problems of mitigation,

      2) A person worried about the economy, and believing that the cost of mitigation is excessive, while not fully convinced that climate scientists give the correctly balanced picture of the situation.

      The participant (2) does not really know science, while he is convinced about his general starting point. He may try to criticize specific scientific points based on what he has learned from other skeptics. He knows that his knowledge of science is lacking. Thus being shown wrong on one point doesn’t matter, he can easily try the next one. All that is just rhetorics, his trust in the basic conclusions is not based on the science arguments.

      Pekka displays his own biases by making the slurs and assertions about the motivations of those who are not persuaded by the climate scientists claims of dire consequences if we don’t implement the policies they advocate (like carbon pricing, renewable energy and UN mandated legally binding agreements).

      While the last paragraph in the quote may be true of some, it is unwarranted to make such a generalised assertion. In my case I’ve asked Pekka repeatedly for answers to what I suggest are some key policy relevant questions. Pekka invariably dodges the questions or makes some excuse such as “there is no point responding to Peter Lang” [presumably because on several occasions I’ve shown he does not know what he’s talking about on a number of issues, including: carbon pricing, fossil fuel taxes as a substitute for carbon pricing, renewable energy, costs of renewable energy, effectiveness of wind and solar energy at reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 abatement cost with wind and solar energy, the proportion of wind energy generated in Denmark that is ultimately consumed in Denmark, and others].

      To give Pekka another opportunity I’ll post in a separate comment below that “policy relevant climate questions” Pekka (and others) repeatedly dodge.

      I expect he will avoid it or find another excuse to not give proper answers to the questions, or do what he should do if he was honest and acknowledge that we do not have the information needed to answer the questions.

    • Peter Lang

      Policy relevant climate questions

      These are some of the questions we need answers to.

      1. What is the value of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR)? [This question is asking for the ‘value’; to clarify:
      One rather fundamental point need[s] to be clearly understood at the outset of the discussion: there is no “correct” pdf for the equilibrium sensitivity. Such a pdf is not a property of the climate system at all. Rather, the climate sensitivity is a value (ignoring quibbles over the details and precision of the definition) and a pdf is merely a device for summarising our uncertainty over this value.”, James Annan, ClimateDialogue: http://www.climatedialogue.org/%5D

      2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly [1], [2], [3], not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?

      3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate – will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later?

      • Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later?

      • Or will it cause a sudden warming event?

      • What are the probability density functions for each?

      4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)? What is the probability density function?

      5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling? What are the probability density functions?

      6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?

      • To answer this question we need to understand the short- and medium-term economic impacts of the proposed policies for each nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (game theory) through the situations that could occur over the next century or so.

      7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energy and allowing lightly regulated markets to deliver the benefits at least cost)?

      References

      [1] James Annan, ClimateDialogue, ‘Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response’, http://www.climatedialogue.org/

      [2] Wallace S. Broecker, 1995, ‘Chaotic Climate’, http://www.slc.ca.gov/division_pages/DEPM/Reports/BHP_Port/ERRATA_CSLC/Vol%20II/EDC%20Attachments%20Vol%20II-02.pdf

      [3] Jose A. Rial, et al, 2004, ’Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth’s Climate System’, http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Rial2004.NonlinearitiesCC.pdf

    • Steve Fitzpatrick

      A Lacis,
      It is clear that you want to convince people about the potential for catastrophic consequences. Fair enough. But you aren’t making much progress, so I would suggest three things if you want to actually engage those who are skeptical of the future consequences of warming:

      1) Don’t ever say things like “So far, they have succeeded in deceiving, duping, and brainwashing a significant fraction of the American public into believing that global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated by the climate scientists.”
      Please. I have worked 40 years in science and engineering, and I can assure you that those organizations have in no way influenced my thinking on GHG driven warming. Such a statement insults the intelligence of anyone who has looked at the available data and come to a reasoned conclusion that the consequences will not be anywhere near as severe as you (and many others) consistently claim. If you want to convince people who are skeptical that you are right, do it with data and analysis, not with insults.

      2) Do not downplay the glaring divergence between the IPCC climate model ensemble and reality. The ensemble is comically, even absurdly wrong, and would appear even worse if the IPCC’s own best estimates for aerosol forcing were used instead of each modeling groups chosen (large) aerosol kludge. The models are WAY off, yet there is never even a feeble acknowledgement by most climate scientists of that fact. If you want to you gain credibility with skeptics, there is not better place to start than by stating that the models are not currently capable of making the kinds of quantitative predictions of warming needed for the development of rational public energy policy.

      3) Don’t make statements like: “As the climate effects of global warming become ever more apparent (increases in larger weather extremes – droughts, floods, forest fires), the public awareness will shift in favor of the science and away from the climate deniers.”

      There is a wealth of published work (including the IPCC AR5) showing that droughts, floods, tornadoes, and other extreme weather have not changed in any statistically significant way. How do you expect people to believe what you say about the future when you make statements which are so obviously incorrect about the present? I mean really, do you think people are incapable of reading AR5?

      The real disagreement is not if rising GHG’s will warm the Earth (they must). The disagreement is about how much and over how long, and even more, about the likely consequences. If you are willing to address the real disagreement, then you may make some progress. If you insist on blaming fossil fuel interests (and think tanks, and the Koch brothers, and all the other corrupt, dishonest and evil types so frequently pointed at) for YOUR failure to convince people, then you are likely to not ever succeed. There has been some technical progress in climate science over the last decade (eg. much better ocean heat data, and gradually improving aerosol data), but the shrill talking points used by you and many others to argue for immediate changes in public policy have hardly changed at all. The talking points are not working. I suggest it is time you considered changing your approach.

    • Heh, Judy, you’re the traffic cop brought to a grid-locked intersection, but your whistles and gestures can hardly be heard over the blaring horns, or seen by the eyes locked on their GPS’s. I’ve little doubt that you’ll eventually clear the intersection. Maybe divert a river through it.
      =========

    • Don Monfort

      Well, I found andy’s comment to be tedious, self-promoting and ultimately insulting and therefore counterproductive to his goal of convincing the unconvinced. He appreciates LB’s wise,helpful reviewing and rather liking of andy’s wonderful paper, but claims that LBs understanding of the nature of climate is fundamentally wrong. Perhaps that’s why LB rather liked andy’s paper.

      Look andy, you people have been trying to make the dissenters go away by marginalizing and demonizing them as nutcases and serial disinformers, for a long time. And that has included shunning and defamatory attacks by prominent colleagues of yours on fellow climate scientists, who have strayed from the reservation. It ain’t working. If you pulled your head out and looked around, you would find that the vast majority of folks remain unconvinced that the climate stuff you are threatening us with is a major problem. That is an indisputable cold hard fact. You are failing. Clean up your act. You are supposed to be professional scientists. Act like it.

      • I think the fundamental scientific disagreement between AL and LB would be a good topic for discussion, i will try to get a post together on this within the next day or so

    • “not a matter of if, but when” is incomplete. It is a matter of HOW MUCH when. If how much is a little, and when is a long time from now, then mitigation is out and adaptation is in. That is why TCR and ECS are so important. And why CO2 per se is not the main story, the feedbacks are.
      Those are, to quote RGBatDuke, noncomputable. The reason is that the necessary convection cell scale is much smaller than the finest grid resolution that is.
      To assert that weather is an initial conditions problem while climate is only a boundary conditions problem is incorrect. The EPA definition of climate is weather averaged over 30 years. Ditto WMO. Belief that climate models are ‘good enough’ is unwarranted. The pause, the extent of Antarctic sea ice, the return of Artic ice to ‘normal’, all show that empirically.

    • AL – thank you for the comment.

      I, too, would like to see more observational markers as evidence of dangerous global warming. For example, it has been forecast that more droughts will occur. And, looking at the US, one might believe that has come to past. Yet, if you look at the global drought pattern, there aren’t more droughts.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/interesting-graph-fraction-of-the-globe-in-drought-1982-2012/

      How do you explain this given CO2 is up about 40% from 280 ppm?

      Also, what other measurable markers can you bring to the table?

    • “come to past” should have been “come to pass”.

    • Dr. Lacis,

      Regarding your 2013 Tellus B paper– overall very thorough, and explains the basic “control knob” functionality of CO2 quite well. A few things that seem somewhat missing or in need of expansion in a future paper:

      1) Relationship between the “control knob” function of CO2 and ocean heat content. Given that the real story of the climate energy balance is going on in the ocean, a tighter connection between the control knob forcing from CO2 and ocean heat content changes needs to be made. A decline in the net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere would need to be directly accounted for by the control knob mechanism, given that the input to the ocean of SW is essentially unchanged.

      2) While you cover volcanic forcing, there is not enough discussion of the lingering long-term effects of large volcanoes on the the system from an ocean heat content perspective. The immediate 1 or 2 year tropospheric effect that large volcanoes have on the system, doesn’t speak to the longer-term effect on ocean heat content and related positive feedbacks on sea ice. I am thinking here of papers like:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026771/abstract

      Why this is important is that major volcanic activity can mask or counter CO2 and other GH forcing for longer than seems to be widely acknowledged through ocean heat content and sea ice interactions. This should be included in future climate models perhaps?

    • Don Monfort

      It’s really rather simple. Andy can’t allow LB’s meteorological perspective on climate cause the meme is that climate is a big dangerous machine and CO2 is the control knob. Man turns the control knob up and you get catastrophe. Keep the message simple and do not allow any deviation or uncertainty. It’s not working for them.

    • AL said:
      If I really thought that I could instill some common sense regarding the nature of global climate change to such organizations like the Cato, Heartland, and George C. Marshall Institutes (among others), I too would be more than willing to go talk to them. But their goal and agenda (on behalf of the short-sighted interests of the fossil fuel industries) is to spread disinformation about global warming, rather than to seek a clearer understanding of global climate change. Thus, I don’t think that they would really want to hear from me. So far, they have succeeded in deceiving, duping, and brainwashing a significant fraction of the American public into believing that global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated by the climate scientists.
      (end quote)
      This statement is analogous to what is wrong in climate science. Too much model, too little data. If you had actually offered your services to these organizations and been rebuffed, you would have a case. You didn’t and you are simply taking an opportunity to slime them. You have no evidence they are simply shills for the petroleum industry. None.

    • AGW may be a problem, but it is amortized over centuries at affordable rates measured in hundredths of a degree and millimeters sea level rise. More severe weather means possible increases in the frequency and intensity of stuff that already happens anyway! AGW may be a serious problem but there is absolutely nothing urgent about it!

      Any actions taken need to be publicly debated and scrutinized thoroughly!

    • “rising GHG’s will warm the Earth (they must).”

      … unless it gets colder.

      Andrew

    • Don Monfort

      jim2,

      Yeah, andy is just being deliberately disingenuous. There is no way that the alarmists will engage with skeptical organizations or individuals. The debate is over and it’s time to get on with the drastic mitigation schemes, or we are toast. As far as I know, this is the last time they engaged in a public debate/discussion with the skeptical side:

      http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis

      Andy’s Team got their clock cleaned. The NPR green peanut gallery was flipped:

      “In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”

    • Someone in the know!

      Maybe Andy could explain how a process which began – this time around – in the late 1700s and has decelerated slightly in the last 150 years can have disastrous consequences “a lot sooner than expected”. I am, of course, talking about sea level rise. You see, apart from the odd bit of subsidence or erosion, you can’t buy a decent sea level rise around the Australian coast. Just the same old few millimetres you’d get in any post-glaciation, if that. Where is the trend I can take hold of, to scare my conservative friends into “action” and get them to move our rusted, unused desal plants and tide generators to higher ground?

      Many of my conservative friends (probably Fox viewers) are under the impression that Australia was actually far more drought ridden in the half century before 1950. They base this shallow conclusion on rainfall records, which, as you know, are far more resistant to compassionate adjustment than are temp records. How do I convey to them the dangers of unadjusted and unhomogenised data? Should I use a milk analogy?

      Since we provided the world’s greatest storm surge and world’s biggest wildfire in the 1800s, many Australian’s are under the impression that there is no “stable” climate to return to. Then there’s that El Nino mess of the 1790s which nearly wiped us out just as we were getting started in Oz. Perhaps if Andy nominated some golden decade from the past, we could tax ourselves back there and keep ourselves there with twiddles of the all powerful CO2 button.

      I do so want to be the mature empiricist among my Fox viewing conservative friends! My plans to sell condos in Antarctica are taking such a hammering lately because of this latest beatup about record sea ice levels down there and mad rumours of global sea ice running above the post 1979 average. What to do? Is there a crumbly ice sheet somewhere I can use to scare ‘em. Can I include polar bears, even if it’s the wrong pole? Let me tell you, Andy, these stubborn souls need convincing and if we have to fly in a polar bear or two – so be it!

      Lastly, how hard should I patronise, invent and distort in order to educate? As they say in the alternative energy and carbon pricing industries, sometimes you have to break all the eggs in order to burn an omelette, right?

    • A. Lacis: climate is a boundary value problem in physics, while weather is an initial value problem

      Is this supposed to imply that the climate BVP is constant, simple and or well understood? Humans are only one part of the slippery and evolving boundary structure.

      I would feel happier by knowing that the ‘weather’ of the fluxing properties were known

    • Andy Lacis always speaks candidly. He is not trying to make friends here for sure, nor does he see the need to. His views are representative of a lot of scientists, and they always come as a shock to people who are insulated from them in these skeptical enclaves where Judith is careful to not highlight them. I read other areas like HuffPost to get the other side. There, for example, you find we just tied the warmest April on record, or the tumbling prices of renewable energy, or the House telling the Pentagon to ignore climate change, or the latest Republican to deny basic science, that you won’t see mentioned here.
      Following from another thought by Lacis, I also think it would be great if several mainstream scientists could join the scientific advisory boards of GWPF and Heartland to influence their pronouncements, but no one sees an openness to alternative views or even debates being possible there, so they would likely be shut out of those committees.

    • Sour grapes.
      ========

    • Don Monfort

      moso, moso

      Andy can’t stay here very long, or he will be shunned by his brethren. I will stand in for him:

      Quote:You Ozzies are only worried about yourselves. So what if you have it better now than then? That’s local. The rest of the world is getting hammered by unprecedented deadly horrific extreme weather events. I almost forgot to mention wars, famine, prostitution, general mayhem, cats sleeping with dogs, it’s a freaking climate Armageddon. And stop making fun of the plight of the cute little polar bears. By the way, we have applied for a FOUR $BILLION$ DOLLAR$ GRANT! and we will be moving our white furry friends to Antarctica, as the ice seems to be increasing there, just as our models predicted. : Unquote

    • Don Monfort

      jimmy dee,

      You are accusing Judith of cover up by omission. You characters are extremely unhappy and bitter about the way Judith runs her blog. Why do you hang around here? I will help you, jimmy dee: You all are here to harangue Judith and her denizens with your incessant lame whining attempts to discredit Judith and anyone else who doesn’t toe the party line. You are tedious little runts.

    • > [T]he denizens (most of them anyways) genuinely appreciate [Andy’s] participation.

      That qualification may be crucial, and therefore deserve more than a parenthesis, e.g.

      I do not know what Andrew Lacis’s qualifications are but it is clear that he has little knowledge of heat and mass transfer. […] Anyone who thinks CO2 is of major importance clearly has no understanding of technology.

      http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermostat/#comment-120035

      There’s also this gem:

      Judith – you HAVE to explain …why is a technical thread opened with accusations of conspiracy and worse? Are you afraid of Andy Lacis? Or desperate of getting his likes involved to the point of allowing him what you deny your commenters?

      What’s the meaning of censorship for the comments and eyes wide shut for the post author?

      http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermostat/#comment-120106

      Playing the ref is a fine art.

    • Steven Mosher

      “That qualification may be crucial, and therefore deserve more than a parenthesis, e.g.”

      Huh, a parenthesis works just fine. one might bold it.. or maybe provide an example, but the parenthetical qualification works just fine.

      A) it is clear what is qualified.
      B) it qualifies the statement accurately enough to be challenged or confirmed.
      C) alternative methods of qualifying add nothing.

      However, you needed some kind of coattrack to hang your cite on, so a off hand subjective comment about style sufficed. ordinarily countering a claim of “most” ( however expressed ) is not accomplished with a single quote.

      Germans are tall ( well most of them)
      Willard: more than parenthesis is needed Look at this squirrell

    • Don Monfort

      Now you have done it, Mosher. Willy is going to nail you. That’s not a squirrel.

    • David Young

      Andy, You once again say that climate models “convert an initial value problem into a boundary value problem.” Exactly what does this mean? Strictly speaking the climate problem is really an initial value problem with varying forcings (right hand sides).

      Thomas’ previous post at Climate Etc. gives some rather strong theoretical reasons why we might expect climate to be very difficult to predict.

    • Steven Mosher

      Dr. Lacis

      “If I really thought that I could instill some common sense regarding the nature of global climate change to such organizations like the Cato, Heartland, and George C. Marshall Institutes (among others), I too would be more than willing to go talk to them. But their goal and agenda (on behalf of the short-sighted interests of the fossil fuel industries) is to spread disinformation about global warming, rather than to seek a clearer understanding of global climate change. Thus, I don’t think that they would really want to hear from me. So far, they have succeeded in deceiving, duping, and brainwashing a significant fraction of the American public into believing that global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated by the climate scientists.”

      I find this attitude interesting. We agree that if we do nothing and continue business as usual that the planet and we are in danger. We also know that decades of talking to politicians, decades of writing reports (IPCC) has done little to change minds. There is no global treaty. Resistance to the findings of the IPCC remains strong.

      Despite the objective and historical futility of trying to get action accomplished through large organizations, you persist in those efforts.
      That is, your own personal experience shows you that working with various governments around the world does not work. Your experience shows you that contributing to the IPCC reports does not work to change peoples’ minds. On the other hand, when you think about taking individual action with group like Cato, you dismiss the possibility of changing minds without even trying. Take the sum total of your experience working with the IPCC, take those days, months and years. Try this. try an experiment to test your hypothesis. Take 1/10th of the time you have devoted to working to change minds through organizations, and devote it to a individual effort to change an organization or hell one individual withing that organization.

      I suspect you won’t. You’ve decided that your individual effort to change the thinking of Cato or an individual within Cato will fail. Its called contempt prior to investigation. On the other hand, after seeing 3 IPCC reports fail to change minds, you persisted and worked on the 4th? on the 5th? ( Im assuming you did ) In short, if you think as I do that we need to do something, then there really is no choice but to try everything within our power. That would mean working with the IPCC, that would mean changing our lifestyle. That would mean trying to change the mind of one person at Cato. I dunno is saving the planet worth a discussion with Pat Micheals?
      And we really dont need to change minds. First we need to Open them.

      One way to open a mind is to find the grounds of agreement and disagreement. So as an experiment, sit down with Pat. See if you can define the areas where you agree and disagree. But wait, the problem is not that important. give up instead.

    • Very well said. Thanks for this story.

    • John McClure

      Steven Mosher,
      This has always been a simple situation to resolve.

      Any solution which saves the taxpayer money, improves the human condition, and mitigates pollution of any kind will be supported and can be implemented immediately.

      The fundamental issue is the UN foolishness and stupid solutions. The IPCC, a publishing clearing house, is not nor can it ever be a solutions group.

      Its not the science its the stupid was of money that this is all about and you wonder why the public doesn’t support it?

    • John McClure

      Its not the science its the stupid was of money that this is all about and you wonder why the public doesn’t support it?
      s/b
      Its not the science its the stupid waste of money that this is all about. You wonder why the public doesn’t support it?

    • I think if Lacis sat down with Pat Michaels the GWPF would make sure to give the Times a story that Lacis had become a climate skeptic.

      That’s the danger.

    • Lennart states that “Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time.” Superficially, the statement is quite correct. But fundamentally, that statement is flat wrong. This is because climate is a boundary value problem in physics, while weather is an initial value problem.

      I’m not completely sure of what meanings you’re assigning to the terms you’re using, but based on my best guess, I’d say you’re wrong. A more correct statement would be “climate is a boundary value problem in physics chaos theory”.

      As I understand it (according to my own admittedly simplistic mental models), the state of the weather can be considered as a point within an n-dimensional space with very high n lying within a “basin of attraction”, or, more likely (IMO) multiple intertwining “basins of attraction”. Perturbations from outside the system knock it off the attractor (if it’s on it yet) and it follows a path that will sooner or later bring it back.

      The word “climate” has two distinct meanings, one being the “sum of all weather events during some representative period of time”, while the other is a more vaguely defined representation of the basin(s) of attraction, that might be able to produce stochastic predictions of the weather, or some average of the weather over some range of location and time.

      By representing the effect of “forcing” agents (e.g. CO2) as “a boundary value problem in physics”, you are AFAIK building in a number of unwarranted assumptions regarding the nature of the “basin(s) of attraction”, and their response to changes in “forcing”. In fact, the effect(s) of increased GHG’s (e.g. CO2) are manifested at each particular point in space and time, with various results on the “basin(s) of attraction”. The effect(s) on the whole are then integrated over the entire range of location/time. The assumption that the outcome of this integrated effect can in any way be modeled by simplistic systems based on averages, whether over the entire globe (in 0/1 dimensional models) or over entire cells (in GCM’s) is AFAIK completely unwarranted.

      As far as I can tell, all of the efforts to justify these average-based models boil down to rationalizations of the type “we can’t do it any other way”. This doesn’t mean it’s right, and if wrong it’s worse than useless by giving false confidence in false (or at least unlikely) predictions.

    • lowlot, real danger of what?

    • David Young, the climate is not an initial value problem because you can take two climate-length periods and say that these are climatically the same, and it won’t matter from the climate perspective what starting date you chose for those periods. Completely different for weather where a shift of a day makes all the difference for weather variables, and that is because the initial weather matters a lot to the weather a few days later. Climate runs can start with conditions a year apart, and after a century their climate is determined by forcing, not the particulars of the year they started with.

      • Climate runs can start with conditions a year apart, and after a century their climate is determined by forcing, not the particulars of the year they started with.

        Do you mean “Climate model runs”? What makes you think they’re like the real climate in that regard?

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Mosher writes: “I suspect you won’t. You’ve decided that your individual effort to change the thinking of Cato or an individual within Cato will fail. Its called contempt prior to investigation.”

      Would take courage to go into the very belly of the beast. The ironic thing is he would be welcomed in such venues.. I’m certain of it. Skeptics would like nothing better than an open dialogue. The other side, not so much.. I can’t imagine what that might mean

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The divergence grows with time. Jim’s pedestrian and quite mistaken analogies notwithstanding. It reveals a lack of understanding – but perhaps more significantly it reveals an inability to review assumptions in the light of what is quite evident maths and science.

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html

      http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709/F1.expansion.html

    • Steven Mosher | May 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      Dr. Lacis

      =======================================================================================

      I think that Stever Mosher’s proposal to Andy Lacis (about talking with someone like Pat Michaels) is excellent, but I’d guess the chances of it actually happening face-to-face is vanishingly small.

      What about a correspondence at a distance, so that Dr. Lacis could not be accused (not too easily anyway) of consorting with evil critics. I’m thinking of the kind of proposal that Steve McIntyre made to Caspar Ammann in 2005, which unfortunately went complete ignored.

      If “mainstream” climate scientists will not even bother at times to engage in this kind of exercise (see below), seeking to determine what the real scientific points of agreement and disagreement are, then there really is very little hope for dialogue or improved “science communications” anywhere.

      =======================================================================================

      Steve McIntyre in 2005 re: Ammann on Mann

      Anyway, this gave me a really interesting idea. Rather than trying to hash out the rights and wrongs of who did what to whom, I tried a completely different tack. I pointed out to him that there was very little remaining community interest in more controversial articles on the same topic, which would undoubtedly leave the situation pretty much where it stands. However, I surmised that there would be very strong community interest in a joint article in which we summarized clearly:
      (1) the points of agreement;
      (2) the points of disagreement and
      (3) how these points of disagreement could be resolved.
      Because our algorithms were fully reconciled and almost identical to start with, I expressed optimism that we could identify many results on which we could express agreement. We could each write independent supplements to the joint text if we wished. If we were unable to get to an agreement on a text within a finite time (I suggested the end of February), we would revert back to the present position, with neither side having lost any advantage in the process. Pending this, both parties would put matters on hold both at journals and at blogs- and you’ll notice that I’ve been silent on this particular issue lately.
      Shortly after, I ran into the chairmen of our session, Hugo Beltrami and Fidel Gonzalez-Rauco, and later to Eduardo Zorita. I outlined my proposal to them; they all heartily endorsed the idea. I told Ross about the proposal and he endorsed it too. A few days after I returned from San Francisco, I emailed Ammann with the offer in writing, with an expiry date to the offer (hey- I’ve been doing business for many years). No response – not even an acknowledgement. On the expiry date, I sent a reminder email, this time both to Ammann and to his coauthor, Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, urging them to accept the proposal. Once again, no response – not even an acknowledgement. Since then, nearly 2 more weeks have passed without any word from either Ammann or Wahl. So the offer has obviously been refused without even the courtesy of a reply.

    • Mosh

      I suspect that you are premature with your funeral arrangements for BartR and that even now he is reading this blog, itching to comment.

      I for one hopes he returns. He can be by turns infuriating, incomprehensible, entertaining, illuminating and insightful. Webby took a long sabbatical and returned less hostile and altogether an improved version.

      Perhaps BartR will do the same.

      tonyb

    • re: my 3:22

      ofc I do realize that if such exchange could result in any kind of joint statement or publication then Dr. Lacis could face strong push-back from the Climate Science community, etc.

      But if the attempt cannot even be made, on any level or in any venue, then that does say a lot about the unwillingness of mainstream climate science to engage in any way with dissenting views.

      Obviously Andy Lacis does a lot more than most by even commenting or guest posting here, but it would be valuable perhaps to see if there are common points of scientific approach, or not.

    • “I also think it would be great if several mainstream scientists could join the scientific advisory boards of GWPF and Heartland to influence their pronouncements.”
      —–
      This would go against the very reason these organizations exist. They exist not to illuminate or even simply balance perspectives, but to come down on the side of a very specific policy agenda. They exist to lobby on behalf of their benefactors, either by proposing policy or delaying or altering potentially detrimental policies. IOW, they are not meant be be neutral dispassionate arbiters.

    • “In my Tellus B paper, I described the ongoing global warming as a cause-and-effect problem in physics. Understandably, Lennart Bengtsson might be inclined to view the global warming problem from his meteorology perspective in terms of changing weather patterns. But there is a reason why summer weather is warmer than winter weather.”

      This is why it would be an exercise in futility for Andy Lacis to try to ” instill some common sense” in anyone about globalclimatewarmingchange.

      It is inescapably apparent that Lacis does not have the faintest understanding of what the skeptical views held by GWPF, or any other skeptics, actually are. He wants to explain the error of their ways without having the faintest clue of what they believe or why.

      I think it was Lacis himself who said on this blog to the effect “I don’t know why Lindzen thinks what he does, and I don;t care.” If it wasn’t Lacis, it was another climate “scientist” for whom counter arguments to dogma were to be ignored, not reviewed and answered.

      Climate advocates don’t want to debate. They don’t want to discuss. They don’t want to listen. They want to lecture. This is the real reason for the almost absolute moderation and exclusion of dissent everywhere from the BBC to Real Climate (that one’s for you willard).

      If Lacis went to GWPF, it would be to conduct a lecture, not a dialogue. And somehow, I can’t see the folks at GWPF pining away for the august one to lower himself to “instill common sense” in them.

    • R. Gates,

      “This would go against the very reason these organizations exist. They exist not to illuminate or even simply balance perspectives, but to come down on the side of a very specific policy agenda.”

      Uhhhh…

      http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/12/Geological-Perspective.pdf

    • “We also know that decades of talking to politicians, decades of writing reports (IPCC) has done little to change minds. There is no global treaty. Resistance to the findings of the IPCC remains strong.”
      —-
      If it were even possible (which I don’t think it is) would changing a few minds at Cato or Heartland really make a difference? There are several essential roadblocks to ever getting any successful international treaty related to anthropogenic climate change, and neither can be solved by mere education, no matter how widespread and intense the efforts.

      1) Humans are not hard wired to perceive slowly developing, locally inconsistent, or distant threats to their well being. Numerous studies display this essential psychological fact. If smoking would kill you in a matter of minutes rather than decades, smoking would nearly cease except for those who strongly desire immediate suicide.

      2) Extremely entrenched social, economic, and even religious positions prevent the ability of either side to perceive the potential validity of the other side, and it takes some fairly intense (and infrequent) conversion to get someone go cross from one side to the other. This conversion will have more of an emotional, rather than rational basis, although the converted will always insist the opposite for obvious psychological reasons, i.e., it takes the strength of emotion to power a conversion, but the converted will attach themselves to the rational basis.

      In short, the conversion of a few individuals, from either side, no matter what their position of influence, is unlikely to make a difference, in that fundamental human psychology is challenged by the kind of potential threat that anthropogenic climate change represents. It could well be a case of the lobsters in the slowly heating pot. Even if one or two suggest the pot is getting slightly warmer, the mass are unlikely to much care or take note until the warmth is at some obvious point of criticality which cannot be ignored.

    • Gary, from the (forgone) conclusion of your GWPF paper:

      “Gathering these various thoughts together, we conclude that the risk of occurrence of damaging human-caused global warming is but a small one…”

      Were you trying to score an “own goal”? Because all I can say is “GOAL!”

    • These organizations, like Heartland and GWPF, are not funded to have their minds changed, so that won’t work. The best you can do is get the members who care more about the science than what the funders want them to do, to resign, like Bengtsson.

    • R.Gates,

      Somebody musta spiked the CAGW Kool Aid with demerol for Memorial Day.

      “They exist not to illuminate or even simply balance perspectives….”

      The point of the GWPF link was that GWPF in that instance, ala Uppsalainitiativet, posted arguments contrary to their position regarding climate on their own site. It was a mini-debate at best, but still an example of “illuminating” the competing perspectives, and allowing a “balance” by providing a forum for the other side.

      You have cause and effect backwards. They do not “exist…to come down on the side of a very specific policy agenda.” They exist to provide counter-balance to, and perspective on, the debate that has been presented as “settled” since 1988 by CAGW activists.

      That is why they were willing to take a lukewarmer like Bengtsson on.

      Imagine Skeptical Science taking Lindzen as a contributor. No, seriously. I mean it. Stop laughing….

    • Steven Mosher

      R Gates

      “If it were even possible (which I don’t think it is) would changing a few minds at Cato or Heartland really make a difference? ”

      Well thre are two possibilities.

      A) it wont
      B) it will.

      very simple. Apply the precautionary principle.

      At a small cost of his time and effort ( say a few days ) Lacis will get one of two results: No difference, zero benefit. and some difference: Non zero benefit. It could in fact be a great benefit.

      Small cost, potential for a big benefit. Where is the downside?
      Oh, Andy’s time.
      Ya, the planet is not worth it.

    • Don Monfort

      Sorry Mosher, I shouldn’t have told on you. Willy likely would have not noticed. Strange video. I like the other one with the dancing Korean women. You usually present videos that involve dancing Korean women. Couldn’t you find one with a laughing midget and a squirrel/camel? Did you check liveleak?

      Re. your encouraging andy to dialogue with the minions of the vast fossil fuel anti-science conspiracy, it ain’t gonna happen. Consensus dogma forbids it. They have convinced themselves they only legitimate skeptics, when they treat them as human beings.

      On the other hand, I tend to agree with andy and the other consensus goons that throwing up our hands because climate is chaotic is not a sensible position. In the case of a definable and significant new external forcing, I don’t think it is all that mysterious what’s likely to happen. Por ejemplo; if the earth suddenly rolled closer to the sun so that we received an additional 10w/sq m of energy, just about everybody could be persuaded that it’s probably going to get significantly warmer. If it’s 4 or 5 w/sq m, most would get it.

      Climate science needs a do over. Back to the drawing board. Involve the skeptics in open examination of all the data. Don’t try to hide stuff that doesn’t support the dogma. Admit the uncertainties and spend the money on clearing things up. Worry about polar bears and butterflies later. Divide the problem, instead of having various groups of clowns working on their own versions of ersatz climate models. Manhattan project. Put somebody in charge, other than that clown at the IPCC. This is supposed to be serious.

    • David Young

      JimD, Your statement is not even true for the Lorentz system where ultimate “climates” are dependent on initial conditions and numerical methods used. Paul Williams showed that. Thomas’ previous post here pointed to the real problem, the dimension of the attractor may be very large. The Lorentz system is simple by comparison.

    • ” (on behalf of the short-sighted interests of the fossil fuel industries) ”

      I read A. Lacis’ post with great respect and interest until this phrase (above).
      This reveals unequivocally that he is nuts.

    • All of Andy’s research is readily available to any serious scientist in the world, as is the research of hundreds of other scientists who have reached similar conclusions related to anthropogenic climate change. The general population doesn’t care (for the most part), owing to the previously discussed psychological barrier for humans to perceive slow moving or distant threats.

      ““If it were even possible (which I don’t think it is) would changing a few minds at Cato or Heartland really make a difference? ”

      It would akin to going into a fundamentalist Christian church and trying to convert them to paganism. Maybe, there is an outside chance you could convert a few, but what is the ultimate value? Only a global, comprehensive, consistent policy effort based on solid science will be of lasting value. The captains of industry and policy makers and majority of scientists worldwide must be behind the effort. If the members of Cato or Heartland or GWPF want to get Andy’s perspective, his numerous papers, talks, and congressional testimony is readily accessible to them.

    • > Huh, a parenthesis works just fine.

      A parenthesis is good when you can read the sentence without it. That’s not the case with Judy’s claim. Anyway, that was a figure of speech to convey the idea that it might be quite simple to contradict what Judy claims, qualifier or not, by paying due diligence to it. Another example:

      Your sophistry is matched only by your naivete in trying to run this line on a thread about ethics at this blog.

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/26/gleicks-testimony-on-threats-to-the-integrity-of-science/#comment-177940

      See also:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/andylacis

      But yeah, Andy Lacis already commented here, and (most) Denizens like that Andy comments here.

      ***

      But that’s the past. Here’s a simple test for the incoming future.

      Andy Lacis’ comment that sits in the comment thread, somewhere very few without an RSS reader might find and read. Nevermind the replies to it for the moment. Meanwhile, we have Pointman’s crap that sits in the post box. Let’s see if Judy what kind of comments she will lift up during the week.

      Very interesting, all this identity politics mixed with some good ol’ schadenfreude.

    • David Young, no the Lorenz system is not an initial value problem. It happens to be a bimodal climate, but which state it is in at a given time is not predictable. For this system, the climate would be the range and probability of both lobes of the state, not the one that it happens to be in temporarily. The climate analogy would be which phase of the ENSO we were in. This is not predictable far ahead, but the mean state is more deterministic, and doesn’t depend on whether or not we started in an El Nino.

    • Don Monfort

      That’s right, gatesy. Little andy and the rest of the 97% crew don’t have to talk to the fo$$il fueled deniali$t minion$. Just keep whining about false balance and the great fossil fuel interest funded conspiracy to destroy the planet. Things are going swimmingly. Mitigation is breaking out all over. Keep up the good work.

    • Fernando Leanme

      Dr Lacis I was wondering what’s your opinion about the net forcing in watts per m2 reported for ocean heat uptake over the last 5 to 10 years, and how that compares with the IPCC reported net anthropogenic forcing? I ask because my degree is in engineering and I estimated the value using the data from the Lyman and Johnson 2013 paper and I can’t match the IPCC figure. Is it possible there’s an unaccounted or underestimated feedback acting at this time? Or maybe my engineering degree isn’t enough and I have to take the IPCC opus on faith?

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      What a long thread.

      More fundamental but dogmatic error from Jim. It just gets so egregious that I have often suspected him of simply pulling it out of his arse.

      Lorenz is the proto-typical initial value problem. It arose because Lorenz started his convection model in the middle of a run – using output truncated to three decimal places rather than the six of the output. To all intents and purposes – it should not have a made a difference.

      Climate models use the same PDE and the inputs are variable within a feasible range of values. couplings are variable as well. The first is sensitive dependence and the second is structural instability.

      If you don’t understand this about climate models – you understand nothing. Andy appears to understand nothing.

      ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ James McWilliams

    • Andrew Lacis:
      I think your complimenting Bengtsson at this time and place was a good thing to do. Almost diplomatic. It seems the reaction to it demonstrated a higher than average amount of civility. Maybe there’s hope. Thank you.

    • “Just keep whining about false balance and the great fossil fuel interest funded conspiracy to destroy the planet. Things are going swimmingly. Mitigation is breaking out all over. Keep up the good work.”
      —–
      If it is important to enough people, it will happen. Problem is, what’s important to people, isn’t always what’s really important. There may be some fundamental reason, intrinsic to our advanced civilization, running now as it does on pure consumption, for the Great Filter to be looming close by:

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

    • Skippy, a “chief” hydrologist, said to Dr. Lacis:

      “If you don’t understand this about climate models – you understand nothing. Andy appears to understand nothing.”
      —-
      Imagine the inflated ego it takes to say this to one of the most knowledgable climate experts in the world.

      Classic Skippy.

    • Generallissimo Skippy

      The weight of science – and quite clearly the nonlinear maths – says it is not a ‘boundary’ problem.

      ‘In mathematics, in the field of differential equations, a boundary value problem is a differential equation together with a set of additional restraints, called the boundary conditions. A solution to a boundary value problem is a solution to the differential equation which also satisfies the boundary conditions.’ Wikipedia

      It looks somewhat like this.

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html

      We have not a clue about the solution state space or future climatology.

      But I suppose it could be a boundary problem – if we accept that the boundaries are fairly arbitrary and based on ‘a posteriori solution behaviour’.

      ‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. Plausibility criteria are qualitative and loosely quantitative, because there are many relevant measures of plausibility that cannot all be specified or fit precisely.’ James McWilliams

      So yes Lacis is wrong – and gates is clueless again.

    • David Young

      JimD, Please see my response on the Lorentz system later in this thread.

    • David Young

      For JmD, Rud and other interested parties, here is the video I was referring to. The “climate” even in this simple system is a strong function of initial conditions. This should not be a surprise, but I do sometimes wonder where the doctrine of the “boundary value problem” comes from. It is really as Climate of Doom observed elsewhere that “every time I run the model I get a reasonable climate.” That’s not in my view a scientific verifiable statement.

    • The trajectory through the mouse ears depends on initial conditions.
      The shape of the mouse ears is the boundary. The greater the driving force of the system, the more chaotic the path and the shape can change also. At low driving energy, there are no ears.

    • David Young | May 25, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
      Boundary value problem.

      Assume CO2 changes the right side of the diagram.

    • David Young, as far as I could tell, the video only offered weather examples which makes the Lorenz initial value problem appropriate. As I mentioned below and somewhere above, climate is not an initial value problem.

    • R Gates:

      This would go against the very reason these organizations exist. They exist not to illuminate or even simply balance perspectives, but to come down on the side of a very specific policy agenda. They exist to lobby on behalf of their benefactors, either by proposing policy or delaying or altering potentially detrimental policies. IOW, they are not meant be be neutral dispassionate arbiters.

      Sounds like a good description of the IPCC

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      A Java applet can be downloaded here – http://www.compadre.org/osp/items/detail.cfm?ID=8986

      The Lorenz equations are:

      dx/dt = P(y – x)
      dy/dt = Rx – y – xz
      dz/dt = xy – By

      where P is the Prandtl number representing the ratio of the fluid viscosity to its thermal conductivity, R represents the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the system, and B is the ratio of the width to height of the box used to hold the system. The values Lorenz used are P = 10, R = 28, B = 8/3.

      They are simplified N-S.

      It is a simplified convection model.

      The solutions can be mapped for any reasonable value of P, R and B – and the solution falls within the strange attractor – the solution state space.

      In climate models the topology of the attractor is unknown in many dimensions – climate itself is 1000′s of times more complex.

      The attractor at time t(i) might look like this.

      It might not. Each solution evolves chaotically through time in response to sensitive dependence and structural instability. The boundary currently is the solution space that is qualitatively determined to be plausible a posteriori. It is not known beforehand or rigourously investigated through systematic design of families of model solutions.

      ‘ Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ James McWilliams

      In reality we don’t know what the range of possible solutions is for any model – which is the irreducible imprecision of the ensemble of model families that occurs as a result of sensitive dependence and structural instability. There is no rationally determined boundary – so the concept seems moot except as climate war propaganda.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Come to think of it – the system of equations in climate models has a strange attractor determined by the chaotic trajectories of multiple feasible solutions that emerge from sensitive dependence and structural instability – an initial values problem. But defining the topology of the strange attractor as the boundary and saying it is therefore a boundary problem is a lot circular.

      Not that we know what the topology is.

  70. stevefitzpatrick

    Scientific understanding can evolve, even if it is an awkward process (as Thomas Kuhn explained). Moral/philosophical/politic views are intractable…. That includes both skeptical people and those who support immediate action to force reductions in CO2 emissions. What makes the debate so bitter is the apparently broad political/philosophical consensus among climate scientists. If there were a broader range of political views among climate scientists, I doubt there would be anywhere near the level of venom in this debate. Very few trust those who fundamentally disagree with them politically; this is not going to change.

  71. Generalissimo Skippy

    I sometimes describe myself as a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom. Thom was a French mathematician who studied earthquakes and landslides. It is essentially an application of chaos theory. Chaos theory in climate implies a mathematically finite risk of catastrophic climate change in as little as 10 years.

    This seems a bit cold blooded for our friends from the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets (BCCAGWGSS for short). They need dramatic tales of impending apocalypse to sell a new and bucolic UNtopian dream in which families again wander across the savannah trying to avoid being lunch. Seriously – it’s in their vision statement. This requires – inter alia – the destruction of industrial society and the cloning of smallpox from infected victims preserved in glaciers. Articles 5 and 8 of the new economic manifesto.

    This is how it works.

    Impact = population X affluence X (fossil fuels + black carbon + tropospheric ozone + land clearing + loss of soil carbon + nitrous oxide + methane)

    One solution might be to increase the cost of fossil fuels so horrendously that affluence and population crash. Especially if the smallpox can be engineered in time.

    Reminds me a bit of the sensei at my dojo.

    What do you do if someone grabs your shoulders? Push your hands though their arms – grab their shoulders – headbut – knee to the solar plexus – rabbit punch to the back of the skull.
    I see – that will work. Why don’t we try something a little less lethal?

    Population pressures are the easiest to address. In principle the 8 Millennium Development Goals are in combination the best approach to constraining population growth. Ignore for a moment that this is a UN program and so doomed to failure. All of our western governments have committed to raising aid to 0.7% of GDP and this is probably best not sent off to the World Bank but used to supplement existing bilateral aid programs.

    You may note that the eradication of extreme poverty is one of the laudable goals. This is in fact best achieved by free trade and the adoption of democracy and models of fair and transparent market regulation. Perhaps it is best to avoid using the US as a model. Affluence allows the moderation of most factors in the brackets – and is quite a good thing for people and the environment. I learnt that reading Our Common Future in environmental science school.

    Other than returning the human race to a hunter gatherer state – the only thing that is going to moderate the burning of fossil fuels is technological innovation. This is not a quandary but an opportunity.

    • I don’t see anyone arguing for an end to affluence. I think you made that up.

      What will foster technological innovation is making polluters pay the damage costs of their pollution. That is the conservative solution — no one gets to damage the Commons without paying for it. Americans are easily rich enough to do that now.

      Until fossil fuels are held liable for their damages — which in the US now total over $150 billion per year — clean energy will likely never happen.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I thought it would have been obvious that western CO2 is the smallest part of the problem. The classic liberal approach is to actually so something useful and likely to succeed. As opposed to the fantasy economics of the far left.

      ”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
      David Foreman,
      co-founder of Earth First!

      ”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
      Ted Turner,
      Founder of CNN and major UN donor

      ”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
      Jeremy Rifkin,
      Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

      ”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
      Paul Ehrlich,
      Professor of Population Studies,
      Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

      ”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
      Sir James Lovelock,
      BBC Interview

      ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
      Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      Lead author of many IPCC reports

      ”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
      Sir John Houghton,
      First chairman of the IPCC

      ”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
      Paul Watson,
      Co-founder of Greenpeace

      ”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
      David Brower,
      First Executive Director of the Sierra Club

      ”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
      Timothy Wirth,
      President of the UN Foundation

      ”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
      Christine Stewart,
      former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      ”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
      Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin

      ”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      Maurice Strong,
      Founder of the UN Environmental Program

      ”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
      Paul Ehrlich,
      Professor of Population Studies,
      Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

      ”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
      Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
      husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
      Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation

      ”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
      Michael Oppenheimer
      Environmental Defense Fund

      ”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
      Professor Maurice King

      ”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
      Maurice Strong,
      Rio Earth Summit

      ”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
      Amory Lovins,
      Rocky Mountain Institute

      ”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
      John Davis,
      Editor of Earth First! Journal

      I say send the all to a re-education camp in UNtopia, Minnesota and let God sort them out.

    • What gave David Appell the idea that alternative energy is clean, and what gave him the idea that CO2 is dirty? What kind of serial disinformer got to you, David?
      ==============

    • stevefitzpatrick

      Generalissimo,

      I had seen most of those quotes individually, but forming a compendium makes the pure idiocy combined with a hatred for humanity ever more clear. They should be published in newspapers regularly. Here is the most pertinent question: How many climate scientists hold similar views? Here is the second most pertinent question: If even a small fraction hold those views (and I think it is pretty clear some do) what does that say about the general credibility of “the science”.

    • David Appell

      You write

      Until fossil fuels are held liable for their damages — which in the US now total over $150 billion per year — clean energy will likely never happen.

      What about getting credit for their benefits to humanity (i.e. lifting the presently industrialized world out of the poverty and vulnerability of the pre-industrial times)?

      Many, many times the $150 billion per year which you cite.

      You have to look at the whole picture, David – not just cherry-pick one aspect.

      Max

    • Generalissimo

      Excellent listing of various nutters’ thoughts. Seeing them all together in one post is impressive (and depressing). Some of these nut-jobs are in responsible advisory positions, where they can do real damage.

      Max

    • Have done, are doing and will continue to do. Frankly, it’s suicidal.
      ==============

    • stevefitzpatrick

      David Appell,
      “I don’t see anyone arguing for an end to affluence. I think you made that up.”

      Humm… after reading Generalissimo Skippy’s list of quotations, many arguing directly for an end to affluence, maybe you should consider retracting that statement. The entire green cabal wants less global wealth, less material production, and drastic reductions in human population; how is it possible you are unaware of this? You are aligned with a bunch of green nut-cakes, as those quotes demonstrate.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      No my list. Can the real owner of said compendium please step forward.

      Their science is misguided – and the proof is in the pudding. The world is not warming for another decade to three at least. But a deterministically chaotic climate leaves us with the potential for abrupt and unpredictable climate change. Hence a quandary.

      The viable solution is the multi-faceted solution of trade and development on the one hand and energy innovation on the other.

    • Skippy:
      Your list of quotes brings to mind guilt and self loathing on the part of people quoted, at least some of them.

    • David Appell

      You made the claim that:

      Until fossil fuels are held liable for their damages — which in the US now total over $150 billion per year — clean energy will likely never happen.

      The “$150 billion per year” is a bogus number to start of with, but let’s accept it.

      What were the benefits accruing from the use of fossil fuels in the USA?

      In “pre-industrial” 1800, US per capita GDP (constant 2005$) was $1,150.
      In 2010 it was $43,500. The increase (on a 2010 population level) was around $13 trillion per year.

      If we ASS-U-ME that only 2/3 of this resulted from the ready access to a low cost source of energy from fossil fuels, we have a net benefit of $8.7 trillion per year.

      Makes your $150 billion per year look like peanuts, David,

      Add in the fact that the average life expectancy at birth in the USA has increased from around 28 years in 1800 to around 77 years today (2.8 times), and you can see that fossil fuels have been a real boon for the USA.

      It always pays to look at the whole picture, David, and not just “cherry-pick” out a small piece.

      Max

    • General Skippy,

      Thanks for compiling that list of quotes.

  72. Pointman> The best fun I’ve had in ages. Kicking his derriere all over the place.

    Normally, derriere-kicking involves letting the audience see both sides of the conversation, and your comments being so much better that the audience agrees you’ve won. Having to suppress the other side is a confession that you’ve lost.

    Compare and contrast your version (http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/) with my version (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html).

    > a quiet week in the climate blogosophere

    Not really; the LB fuss woke us all up though BishopHill did his best to keep things quiet (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/)

    > I highlight what I think are interesting arguments

    Fair enough, its your blog. But I’d also expect you to highlight obvious errors in posts you discuss. For example, Pointman said “Lennart Bengtsson… resigned from an advisory committee of the GWPF… The reason he’d been forced to resign was an intense campaign of vilification and intimidation. Former colleagues even refused to work with him and his papers in the publication process were suddenly being rejected”.

    But this is clearly wrong: his paper was rejected (for not being innovative, an inconvenient fact few on the “skeptic” side can bear to see, let alone mention) *first*: the GWPF stuff came afterwards. The “vilification and intimidation” is wrong too, obvs.

    Someone who, nominally, wants to encourage dialogue ought to be calling out those who make deliberately inflammatory statements designed to prevent dialogue.

    • Do you think Begntsson is lying or is being disingenuous regarding his statements in general? If so, what’s his motivation?

    • William Connolley caricatures himself as a truth-seeker. Whoa, baby, it’s Sunday, and the comix are in color today.
      ============

    • Steven Mosher

      Connelly

      ” Having to suppress the other side is a confession that you’ve lost.”

      you wanna stand by that?

      in all cases?

    • Connolley panics at the realization he doesn’t actually control the internet.

    • The Weasel is locked in tarentella with Nemesis.
      ==========

    • There is no a single piece of evidence that colleagues vilified Bengtsson.

      It amazes me the claims people will make based upon almost zero evidence.

      If Bengtsson wants to be believed, he needs to make all of the evidence of him being pressured public. He needs to reveal the name of the co-author who resigned so that person can be asked why he resigned.

    • Connolley as the “seeker of truth”?

      Hmmm…..

      Max

    • I rescind my earlier comment regarding Dana. Seeing William Connolley complain about suppressing of comments on the internet is the comic highlight of the Climate Wars sans pareil.

  73. Pingback: Lacis at Curry’s on Bengtsson – Stoat

  74. “Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?”

    You mean like you and the GWPF did in regards to Chris Turney and his expedition to the Antarctic Dr Curry?

  75. “Knutti, by contrast, warns about overemphasizing the lack of certainty about the evidence. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception.”

    This shows that Knutti is stepping into advocacy for action.

    Now, he has a right to do so, like any (climate) scientis, but I don’t think (climate) scientists in general consider possible consequences of doing so (like losing credibility, and that politics is a whole different game).

    Personally, I think the primary (and secondary and tertiary …) responsibility of scientists is to do proper science, and keep society informed about issues that are or may be relevant for society. Whether something should be done about these issue, and what should be done, are questions for others to answer, and in the end to be decided by society. Scientists definitely can provide input for answering those questions, but in the end, they are not the ones to decide. That’s what politics is supposed to do in our society (and scientists are by and large not trained in politics).

    In climate research this distinction is lost – if it ever even has been present. And since it is never really discussed – neither by individual scientists of professional organisations – I don’t think it will quickly change.

    • “but I don’t think (climate) scientists in general consider possible consequences of doing so (like losing credibility, and that politics is a whole different game).”

      See Bengtsson’s backfired attempt to join the GWPF as an example I guess.

  76. Nate Silver noted in his recent book that there is an implicit assumption by the climate warriors (Mann, Emmanuel, etc) that we could easily stop using fossil fuels if only the political will was there and that is being slowed down by skepticism about the science. They don’t however deny that skepticism is justified given the uncertainties but they themselves just ‘know’ that warming will get worse and may be catastrophic, hence (Mann says) they cannot stand back and let doubt (he says ‘disinformation’) win the argument.

    Clearly they have not bothered to consider that the politicians have already been persuaded (naively assuming scientists don’t lie) and that the reason fossil fuels are still in use is because the alternatives are just not there and won’t be for some time. The GWPF exists to remind policymakers not to kill millions and destroy growth in the short and medium term based on massive pessimism + flawed models combined with equally ridiculous optimism about energy alternatives. Skeptics are listened to only because so far their skepticism has been correct. The models are most certainly inadequate for policy because they are based on flawed assumptions. Everyone knows this but few want to admit it!

    Yes we need to investigate alternatives. That the oil and gas will certainly run out sometime is sufficient reason to be alarmed without bringing in a climate bogeyman that forces the wrong policy and hence wastes money that could be better spent.

    I hope there will be many more like yourself and Bengtsson soon. The reputation of science depends on it! Yes it will affect policy, but mainly the current bad policies. I hope we then get a grown-up discussion about real priorities and sensible energy research.

  77. > Do you think Begntsson is lying or is being disingenuous regarding his statements in general?

    I think in general “disingenuous” or perhaps “partial” are closer than lying. For example, now that we have the full reviews available (from http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times) it is clear that LB’s original quotes, whilst accurate, were extremely selective, and omitted highly relevant information that would have destroyed his storyline.

    For another example, he originally stated that colleagues (plural) had withdrawn from co-authorship; later, he said colleague (singular). He’s never explained the disparity, or clarified which if either were correct.

    > If so, what’s his motivation?

    He is partial in his own cause. There’s nothing strange about that. We should always be cautious about people talking of their own affairs, and should always seek the other side’s view.

    • Was it his storyline? Or the GWPF’s? Here’s a theory:

      Bengtsson is a scientist, and not from the UK. He does not have a line to the Times editorial board. Someone did though. That someone is the GWPF.

      The GWPF carefully engineered the “Begntsson affair” from the start. First when Bengsston joined them they made sure to get that out loudly as propaganda in the media. “scientist becomes a skeptic” kind of thing.

      It’s because of the GWPF’s shouting about it that scientists probably heard about it. Recognizing what the GWPF is (I can’t be the only intelligent person to have these theories), other scientists voiced their disapproval to Bengsston.

      Bengsston got cold feet and decided to leave, but the GWPF realized they could exploit the situation for yet more propaganda. Through back-channels they have to the media they told the Times they had a big story. For material they exaggerated a bunch of stuff including a story from Bengsston about the rejection of a paper. They turned a colleague refusing to co-author with him into a hail of abuse from colleges.

      The GWPF had gone too far though (again!) and the Bengsston was forced to distance himself from the Times article – the very article that supposedly he was responsible for creating but wasn’t at all.

      Bengsston won’t provide evidence for the abuse he supposedly received from colleagues – because there is none. But he doesn’t want to admit this because it would make him look like a liar – and he isn’t, it was the GWPF who made the accusations that hit print.

      All he can do is give interviews in which he kind of backtracks a bit to set the record straight and hope that’s enough to make up for it.

      Well that’s one interesting theory anyway..

    • Bengtsson backtracks? Every communication of his strikes deeper at the heart of the Beast.
      =========

    • “I do not believe there is any systematic ‘cover up’ of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being ‘deliberately suppressed’, as The Times front page suggests.”

      Just a little quote from Bengtsson you probably haven’t heard Kim. Curiously the GWPF have not reported it.

      • Last night Professor Bengtsson, said: “I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests.

        “I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

        “I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence.

        “Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full.

        “I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.

        Always amusing to see the context out of which partisans cherry-pick their quotes.

    • Heh, AK, I’ll defend lolwot here. I don’t think he’d read the whole Bengtsson quote, which I had. The cherry-picking was done elsewhere.

      C’mon, lolwot, defend yourself, and admit it.
      ===========

    • The context is Bengtsson backing away from the Times article and the climate skeptics who touted it. The context clearly stands. Sorry for quoting the sentence that was the hammer blow to the skeptic meme.

      The rest of his text is watering down the complaint to drivel. So he’s concerned that a single reviewer’s comment (just one?!) suggested something.

      Hardly front page material.

      Yes that’s called backing down, a back peddle, or a back track.

    • Heh, lolwot, your rubber hammer bangs onto the anvil of corrupt politicization of climate science. Did you hurt yourself wielding that elastic toy?
      ================

    • It’s a major backtrack.

    • Riddle me this.

      Climate skeptics believe there IS a systematic cover up of scientific evidence on climate change and that acedemics’ work IS being deliberately suppressed.

      Yet…
      ““I do not believe there is any systematic ‘cover up’ of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being ‘deliberately suppressed’, as The Times front page suggests.””
      -Professor Bengtsson

      So humm, Bengtsson is lying?

      Nevermind lets just keep pretending. All aboard the GWPF propaganda train! TOOT TOOT

    • It’s not cooling; it’s warming.

      Months ago here I suggested the PDO was shifted to a warm phase:

      Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly

      PDO since my proposed climate shift

      Papers on observations-based climate sensitivity are about to get very interesting.

    • Au contraire, the globe is cooling, or probably would be without our pitiful efforts.
      =========

    • JCH

      It’s not cooling; it’s warming

      Tell it to all those thermometers out there, JCH, even those next to AC exhausts in summer or heated buildings in winter – that are all telling us that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature has cooled since the 21stC started.

      You’ve gotta get up-to-date, JCH.

      Max

    • Oh, yes, almost forgot. The higher the sensitivity the faster we would be cooling now, without, of course, our pitiful efforts at warming.
      ===============

    • GISTEMP shows warming since 2001

    • lolwot

      Yeah.

      GISTEMP shows cooling since 2002.

      HadCRUT4 shows cooling since 2001.

      Face it lolwot – there has been a pause in warming of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature”, which JCH has apparently missed.

      Max

    • kim

      Yep.

      That’s the “catch 22″, in which the warmers find themselves caught.

      It has not warmed (actually cooled slightly) over a prolonged period during which around one-fourth of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans was emitted.

      At the high sensitivity estimate of IPCC it should have warmed 0.2C over this period, yet it cooled slightly.

      Ouch!

      Poor JCH. Poor lolwot. Nature has confounded their most sacred beliefs and they are caught in a dilemma.

      It’s sad, actually.

      Max

    • “GISTEMP shows cooling since 2002″

      lol so it’s slipped to 2002 now has it?

      1997 then 2001 then 2002.

      I see a pattern.

      Not long before you are claiming a pause since 2010.

    • Plus I give it 2 months before you have to shift your Hadcrut “cooling” from 2001 to 2002.

  78. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    A Lacis posts [concisely] “In Lennart Bengtsson’s remarks on his view on climate research, there is one telling sentence that summarizes Lennart’s perspective on climate change. Lennart states that “Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time.”

    “Superficially, the statement is quite correct. But fundamentally, that statement is flat wrong. This is because climate is a boundary value problem in physics, while weather is an initial value problem. The physical nature of these two problems is quite different, so also is the numerical approach that has to be taken in order to model climate change, and to forecast the changing weather.”

    This is a terrifically concise analysis by A Lacis!

    • If A Lacis’ summary is right, then James Hansen’s energy-balance worldview is scientifically correct.

    • If Hansen’s scientific worldview is right, then Naomi Oreskes’ worldview is historically correct.

    • If Oreskes’s historical worldview is right, then Wendell Berry’s worldview is economically correct.

    • If Berry’s economic worldview is right, then Pope Francis’ worldview is morally correct.

    Conclusion  If Lacis, Hansen, Oreskes, Berry, and Pope Francis are scientifically, historically, economically, and morally correct … then the Bengtsson / Pielke / Curry / Steyn / Watts (etc) scientific worldview is a 21st century dead-end … and the GGWPF / Heartland / CEI / Cato Institute / Marshall Institute / National Review / Koch brothers / Duke Energy / TEPCO / BP / Enron ideology is a 21st century dead-end too.

    Young scientists, and young voters *ALREADY* appreciate this accelerating reality, eh Climate Etc readers?

    So the worldview of Bengtsson / Pielke / Curry / Steyn / Watts and the ideology of GWPF / Heartland / CEI / Cato Institute / Marshall Institute / National Review / Koch brothers / Duke Energy / TEPCO / BP / Enron *ALREADY* are dead, eh? But like dinosaurs, don’t know it yet.

    Summary  Obsolete scientists and obsolete ideologues desperately *HATE* modern climate-science, and do all they can to disrupt/delay/distract/destroy its accelerating acceptance.

    Everyone sees *THAT*, eh Climate Etc readers?

    Thanks for a terrifically thought-provoking post, A Lacis!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  79. @ David Appel. Great series of posts in this thread. Thank you.

  80. Jim Cripwell

    Climate Etc remains one of the few, if not the only, place, where both warmists and deniers freely discuss CAGW. However, as I have noted before, the discussion has become sterile, a “dialogue of the deaf”, where the two sides are talking past each other, and are not discussing, scientifically, the key issue, which is the numeric value of climate sensitivity, however defined. This is vividly illustrated in two quotes from David Appell, namely:-
    @@@@@
    David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
    CO2 X 2.5
    Frankly, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
    Climate models calculate the effects of CO2, they don’t assume it.
    David Appell | May 24, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
    Climate sensitivity is not “invented” — it is calculated.
    You’ve struck out right there.
    @@@@@

    Now if there is to a scientific discussion between the two opposing sides, then we need to use words whose meaning is agreed. Clearly, David is using the word “calculated” to mean something completely different from what I, and I suspect the majority of skeptic/deniers, understand what the word means.

    I fear that we wil never have a proper discussion as to what the numeric value of climate senstivity is. And unless, and until that discussion takes place, Climate Etc. will not fulfill the desires of our hostess to have a place where both sides of the debate discuss CAGW. I will continue to monitor what is happening on Climate Etc. particularly for everything that Saint Judith writes. But I am not inclined to write too much more in the future.

    • Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

      Hi Jim,
      David’s first missunderstanding was related to climate sensitivity (as he did not want to read point 3.1 in my “Refuting …” document in:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/

      ). In there you can check how climate sensitivity’s tuning has been done or why inaccuracies do not allow to deduce scientifically a valid climate sensitivity value range.
      IPCC WGI AR5 concludes that no best estimate of ECS can be given, I go one step further and I say clearly that ECS value range has been invented: “deduced” from IPCC’s science fiction.

      His second missunderstanding is that CMIP5 models use climate sensitivity (due to CO2 doubling) as an input. And you can check this in my document’s sub-chapter 3.3.2 (in the value of that alpha). In JC’blog this has been explained in many post. The key technique used by IPCC is “multimodels” (meaning different values for uncertain variables like, for example, climate sensitivity). The wrong thing here is that Ruti et al. prefer to collect only the simullations with most extreme values (i.e. ECS = +3K, aerosol RF below the usual, … apart of using non justified scenarios). This procedure disables their projections from having any predictive capacity. And they know it.

    • Jim Cripwell

      Yes. Bloggers here are “talking past one another”.

      But it is still instructive to see how guys like David Appell grasp for straws to keep their ingrained belief system alive.

      You are right.

      The debate is not about “AGW” itself: the concept that there could be a potential greenhouse effect on our planet’s climate, primarily from water vapor but also from other greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

      The debate is about “CAGW”: the premise as specifically outlined by IPCC that human GHG emissions have caused significant past warming and this will represent a potential future threat to humanity and our environment, unless drastic steps are taken now to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2.

      But guys like Appell will dodge and weave between the two, switching back and forth when necessary to keep their argument alive.

      This is not science; it is dogma.

      And you cannot debate dogma with a true believer.

      And then there are the silly trolls, who just post anything without really thinking too much; these can normally be ignored, although it is occasionally fun to show them how foolish their comments have been.

      Nevertheless, I think that the discussion here is often interesting and Judith’s posts are informative and often provocative.

      I always read your comments, because they represent (to me) the commentary of someone, who insists on empirical evidence following the scientific method before accepting at face value a hypothesis, no matter how well thought out it may be or who has proposed it (Feynman). We need more of this kind of thinking in climate science. We need you here.

      So don’t give up on us, Jim.

      Max

    • Jim Cripwell

      Max, you write “We need you here.

      So don’t give up on us, Jim.”

      Thanks. However, the main reason I write things is for my own education; I can float ideas, and see them criticized by people who know what they are talking about. I don’t think I am learning anything new any more. I am convinced that we need to wait for the empirical data, The Supreme Court of Physics, to rule as to whether CAGW is more than a hypothesis.

      Time is on our side. The public is no longer bothering about CAGW. The MSM are having a real problem. Their revenue depends on advertising, and does it make sense for them to continue to publish things that no-one is interested in? I have hopes that Arctic sea ice this year will be a real game changer. We will see. I will continue to monitor CE, because what our hostess writes could be absolutely vital. I don’t think that anyone, except for Judith, knows how much of what she writes is what she believes, and how much she feels is needed so as not to annoy her superiors in academia.

  81. pottereaton

    The simple answer to the question is that if they disagree with the “consensus” and they are in a situation where they are surrounded by those responsible for the “consensus” speculation on catastrophic warming, they are probably choosing silence as a wise career move.

    The Consensus is King. Long Live the Consensus.

  82. Wonderful blog. Thank you Judith.

  83. Pingback: Lacis at Curry’s on Bengtsson [Stoat] | Gaia Gazette

  84. The Left’s obsession with the successful in the free enterprise system blinds them to the threat of a metastasizing government bureaucracy that like a disease already has infected academia and the public-funded government education complex.

  85. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    kim says “The  [cooling] brakes  warming mechanisms are on so hard that all  four tires  denialist shills are screeching but  Fan  ComSymp scientists expect to pop a wheelie [of continued warming] any moment.”

    Juvenile ideological fantasies by kim, sobering scientific realities by FOMD.

    `Cuz as that pesky communist/scientist Richard Feynman reminded us, “Nature cannot be fooled”!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fanny

      Richard Feynman reminded us, “Nature cannot be fooled”!

      Yep. That’s what Nature is showing us with the current pause in warming despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels (ya can’t fool big Mama).

      Max

    • Fan of Maximum Trolling’s method (so far as he has one) is particularly ill suited to persuading anyone of anything. Hence FOMT’s output here is worthless for purposes of “science communication” and his gastric effusions serve only to flatter his own ego.

      It is the breathless, predictable combination of egotism, condecension, and spaghetti-hits-the-fan embrace of ranting-with-irrelevant-links that intelligent commenters here disdain.

  86. Pingback: How do you gin up global warming fear in a world which hasn't warmed in decades?

  87. Keep rattling the chain, Judith.

    I’m convinced that through your efforts, plus those of others like you (Pielke, Bengtsson, etc.) the whole debate on climate change will eventually return to being a rational debate about the science, and not a McCarthy-type witch-hunt on those who deviate from the IPCC forced consensus view.

    Max

    • From the article:

      McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy’s daughters, Patricia and Eunice,[58][59] and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy’s first child, Kathleen Kennedy. Robert was chosen by McCarthy as a counsel for his investigatory committee, but resigned after six months due to disagreements with McCarthy and Cohn. Joseph Kennedy had a national network of contacts and became a vocal supporter, building McCarthy’s popularity among Catholics and making sizable contributions to McCarthy’s campaigns.[60] The Kennedy patriarch hoped that one of his sons would be president. Mindful of the anti-Catholic prejudice Al Smith faced during his 1928 campaign for that office, Joseph Kennedy supported McCarthy as a national Catholic politician who might pave the way for a younger Kennedy’s presidential candidacy.

      Unlike many Democrats, John F. Kennedy, who served in the Senate with McCarthy from 1953 until the latter’s death in 1957, never attacked McCarthy. McCarthy had refused to campaign for Kennedy’s 1952 opponent, Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., due to his friendship with the Kennedys.[61] When a speaker at a February 1952 final club dinner stated that he was glad McCarthy had not attended Harvard College, an angry Kennedy jumped up, denounced the speaker, and left the event.[62] Asked by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. why he avoided criticism of McCarthy, Kennedy said, “Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero.”[63]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Tydings_Committee

  88. Judith Curry,

    Were you still looking for translation of the three posts?

    “Unfortunately those 3 posts are in Swedish, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.”

    From my handy-dandy Swedish translator with a bit of editorializing thrown in for good measure.

    “THere’s not much there. The second two are just summaries and quick commentary on articles/debates that took place in English. The first is on that guy Bengtsson’s slide towards “climate deniers” (or whatever the English term is) and a critique that he criticizes climate scientists for politicizing the subject but then goes does the same thing himself (and gives different examples). Also some debate about the time frame of impending climate disasters: he says 2100, they say 2050??

    But aside from the critique, all three posts are citing news that was originally in English.”

    Better late than never.

  89. Bengtsson said: “Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks.”
    This is likely where he diverges from most climate scientists. However, in his own Bengtsson and Schwartz paper in Tellus, he demonstrates that global climate is changing and calculates sensitivities of at least 2 C per doubling given an attribution to GHGs, which seems contrary to his statement of it being just chaos. Therefore he knows that high levels of CO2 will lead to a significantly different global climate, yet makes the statement above. How do we reconcile these two lines of thought that he has? His skepticism appears to be with regional predictions that he has seen for Sweden, and knows are uncertain from model to model. The IPCC is also very cautious about regional predictions only making very general statements based on consensus abut areas that may become drier or wetter with some uncertain. He is generally skeptical of model predictions, but believing of the significant effect of CO2. There are these areas where it looks like it is the models he doesn’t like, not climate-change theory in general. He manages to make a subtle distinction, and has not expressed this clearly enough. Where he has advocated, it is to move away from coal, but it is not urgent for him as he resists anything that says climate change is already a problem. On the spectrum, I put him definitely to the left (more consensus-like) of Judith Curry, by not asserting any importance of natural variation in affecting the implied sensitivity of recent decades, and generally going with the consensus sensitivity, even deriving it for himself.
    Perhaps there is another axis to this scale which we may label the alarmism axis. On this, he is right there at the bottom with Judith and Lindzen on the nothing-needs-to-be-done-now end of the scale.

    • Ah, and when you consider that a warmer world sustains greater total life and greater diversity of life, I’m on the extreme end of an inverted scale.
      ==============

    • By the way, Jim, this comment exemplifies why I still bother to read you, sometimes. This is pretty acute stuff.
      =============

  90. Generalissimo Skippy

    It is not the case that climate is a ‘boundary’ problem. Nor is it the case that models are not chaotic at their core – capable of in principle elucidation of probability in a systematically designed family of solution. Why they persist in wrong science is less material than the fact that they do.

    ‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial.’ Hurrell et al 2009

    ‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ AR3

    ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker

    ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer

    ‘‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

    ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ James McWilliams

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Generalissimo Skippy asserts [ludicrously] “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      LOL … quoted from a 2001 context in which “climate state” means “weather”.

      Meanwhile, throughout the past thirteen years (and more), the planet has heated without pause, continuously and without obvious limit, as long-predicted by consensus climate-science … and as long-denied by willfully ignorant shockingly amoral special interests.

      That’s increasingly obvious to *EVERY* thoughtful scientist and citizen, eh Climate Etc readers?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan

      With your 11.55 post just above you posted to a link as follows

      http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/el-niño-coming-back

      It clearly stated there was apparently a 15 year pause. Are you being rather selective in using that link to make a point to Kim but then wishing to ignore it when claiming to the General that there has been warming without pause?

      Which is it? You can’t have your cake and eat it

      Tonyb

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      What a funny little tendentious troll he is.

      ‘In climate research and modeling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible ‘ IPCC AR3 WG1 s14.2.2.2

      The rest I assume is equally wrong and deceitful.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Tonyb asserts [wrongly] “Which is it [pause or no pause]? You can’t have your cake and eat it.”

      That is precisely what climate-science achieves TonyB!

      • Small-scale thermal reservoirs (e.g., the troposphere) exhibit strong decadal-scale fluctuations.

      • Global-scale thermal reservoirs (e.g., the oceans) exhibit steady global-scale heating, without pause or obvious limit.

      Theory predicts these scale-dependent temperature fluctuations naturally, and data shows them plainly … as climate-scientists have understood for a full century.

      That’s common-sense, and obvious to *EVERYONE* (scientists and citizens alike) eh TonyB?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan

      You are sidestepping. You made a link to an article saying that apparently there had been a 15 year pause and then in the next breath you conveniently forget that link and assert there has been warming without pause. Come on, just accept with good grace that you’ve been caught out.

      Create a diversion by saying the pope has done a good job in kick starting middle east peace talks.

      Tonyb

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Tonyb bafflegabs “FOMD. You are sidestepping. You made a link to an article saying:

      “The El Niño event could not only wreak havoc on weather around the world, but could also trigger a resumption of global warming that has been seemingly stalled for the last 15 years [FOMD-supplied link precisely as in the original]”

      Aha … but you never clicked-through the link-phrase “seemingly stalled for the last 15 years”, did you TonyB?

      If you had, you would have seen the data and read the link-sources’s vigorous scientific condemnation of denialism’s willful ignorance and cherry-picking:

      ScienceShot: No Letup in World’s Warming

      Global warming contrarians remind the public that the world has not warmed all that much, if at all, during the past decade or so.

      But that’s the atmosphere.

      Oceanographers with their thermometers in Earth’s biggest reservoir of heat—the world’s ocean—report in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters that greenhouse warming has in fact been proceeding apace the past decade, not to mention the past half century.

      Ninety-three percent of the heat trapped by increasing greenhouse gases goes into warming the ocean, not the atmosphere.

      So taking the ocean’s temperature is the most comprehensive way to monitor global warming.

      TonyB, it is an ongoing pleasure to provide *COMPLETE* and *IN-CONTEXT* scientific references to help inform your thinking, and the thinking of science-minded Climate Etc readers!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • fan

      you are incorrigible. two different science commentators two years apart and showing a chart which doesn’t even reflect the average depth of the oceans. hardly convincing.

      ah well, its very late here, and i’m off to bed, i’m only still up as i’ve been watching the European election results which show the sceptical UKIP -of Europe and climate change-coming first. mind you UKIP are moderate compared to the worrying French results.

      tonyb

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      [falls-back on politics]

      Some folks bring reasoning, scientific evidence, and verifiable references to climate-change discourse. Other folks provide bluster, excuses, conspiracy theories, and political slogans … then fall silent. The former folks are more fun, eh TonyB?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      “Come on, just accept with good grace that you’ve been caught out. ”

      Tony, As you must realize by now Fan has accorded himself a kind of papal infallibility, which must be a pleasant way to go through life. I wouldn’t know for sure though, since as a mere mortal I’m wrong at least half a dozen times a day. Oh well, the nice thing about being wrong is that it opens the way for learning something. It has to be tedious, knowing everything in the world.

      I just want to know why Bill Nye the Science Guy hasn’t yet cracked Fan’s inner circle of equally infallible beings, along with Naomi, Hansen (amazing that he found the time in between turning off air conditioners and getting arrested to create the muppets. ), and of course Wendell Berry, the world’s greatest poet.

      .

    • bob droege

      Hey Fan,
      You would think I guy from the British Isles would have a better grasp of the terms seemingly and apparently, wouldn’t you?

      Seems like but maybe not.

      Your cite said seemingly, but someone took it to clearly mean apparently, apparently he seems to be mistaken.

  91. Christopher Winter

    So Bart R posts a quite reasonable series of questions about supposed bullying in science, the penultimate question being “Who’s using force on whom?”

    An answer is almost immediately provided by Don Monfort and K. Scott Denison — an answer which amounts to, “We are!”

    Shortly after, there’s more of the same. It’s all too typical of this blog. And the fact that Judith Curry lets it continue tends to discredit her stated position that the object of the blog is constructive discussion conducted in a civil manner.

    • Christopher

      You are quite right, there are far too many food fights as I noted above ,which must cause any potential visiting scientists to think again.

      Its a shame as many comments are made that are good, but after a while it degenerates into name calling. Judith gives everyone a long rein but unfortunately a small number of people sometimes abuse this trust. Infuriatingly some of those who are the most abusive can also be the most insightful.

      I don’t know the answer as to how to weed out the more outrageous comments as the mix of people here make this a rumbustious , often funny, often insightful blog.

      tonyb

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      You’re kidding right? Bart is a mendacious little troll who revels in it and is incapable of reasonable behavior. Hence the moderation.

      There is a long history of abuse by the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. Denier, psychologically aberrant, criminals being the least of a persistent and concerted campaign.

      Lennart Bengtsson being the example de jour. They are vacillating between butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths qui moi and he deserves everything he got. Bart ups the ante with scurrilous and probably quite libelous allegations.

    • k scott denison

      Yeah, let’s see Christopher, Bart opens his series of “reasonable series of questions” with:

      “Bengtsson’s been shown to have lied outright and suffered zero negative consequences for his lying, except only that the publication that already rejected his substandard submission on grounds of lack of value and lack of quality has found itself needing to defend its honor and its reviewers by publishing the full letters of rejection.”

      Yup, nothing unreasonable there. No questions either, but hey, you’re not too picky I guess.

    • So you think because Dr. Curry is a woman that you can just bust in here and tell her how to run the blog?

  92. Blog discussions strongly encourage “fast” (or system 1) thinking rather than “slow” (system 2) thinking. For the difference between the two, and how it’s impossible to change people’s minds when using system 1, check out this presentation: http://longnow.org/seminars/02013/aug/13/thinking-fast-and-slow/

  93. To: David Appell on May 24, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    “omanuel: Maybe your opinions are for sale. But for most of us, they are not.”

    You remind me of Richard Nixon’s statement shortly before resigning, “I am not a crook.”

  94. What is Memorial Day about? The brave soldiers, sailors and marines who gave their lives to preserve democracy?

    Nope. It’s about those heroes of the green movement who disdain democracy because it interferes with their beggar thy neighbor progressive policy of decarbonization. No seriously. Just ask Thomas Friedman.

    In his column titled “Memorial Day 2050″

    “What containment was for our parents’ generation — their strategy to fight for freedom against the biggest threat of their day — resiliency will be for our generation against the multiple threats of our day: climate change, petro-dictatorship and destruction of our environment and biodiversity. Let’s act so the next generation will want to honor us with a Memorial Day, the way we honor the sacrifice of previous generations.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/opinion/sunday/friedman-memorial-day-2050.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1

    Yeah, forget the dead buried in Normandy. Let’s have a memorial day for rich progressives like Friedman.

    Yeah, that’s the most disgusting thing I’ve read in a while.

  95. GS and David Young, the Lorenz model is an analogy for weather, not climate. Climate would be the full range of its behavior with a given set of parameters. Climate change would be how that changes as you change one of its parameters.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      So you bring it down here?

      Contrary to Jim’s absolute error in Lorenz as not an initial value problem. Lorenz is the proto-typical initial value problem. It arose because Lorenz started his convection model in the middle of a run – using output truncated to three decimal places rather than the six of the output. To all intents and purposes – it should not have a made a difference.

      Climate models use the same PDE and the inputs are variable within a feasible range of values, couplings are variable as well. The first is sensitive dependence and the second is structural instability.

      If you don’t understand this about climate models – you understand nothing. Andy appears to understand nothing. Jim less than nothing.

      ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ James McWilliams

      Climate and weather model share the same underlying mathematical dynamic and if you look under my nom de geurre – you will find plenty of examples from leading researchers.

      So models are undoubtedly chaotic and there are many feasible and divergent solutions within the bounds of feasible inputs.

      ‘The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm.’ http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Rial2004.NonlinearitiesCC.pdf

      ‘Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=14

      Climate is what emerges from these abrupt transitions – and there are likely to be four or more this century – counting the 1998/2001 transition to a cooler planet.

      e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

      Science has moved on and left these people fulminating in it’s wake. It’s seems much more incredulity that they have put so much into being intellectually and morally superior to deniers and have got it so wrong. They are more of a problem than a solution.

    • Private Jiff

      “…They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.”

      Oh dear! We have a big problem? Mother Nature can not decide the future? Oh, she is not one of them axiomatical type math systems? Whew!

      Yeah, you can go into the weeds, Sir, but watch out for the chiggers.

    • GS, I did not say Lorenz wasn’t an initial value problem. Of course it is. It is the archetypal initial value problem and it applies to WEATHER not climate. Which part of that did you not follow?

    • Robert I Ellison

      That’s why you’re a private and I’m a Generalissimo.

      What makes you think that when we are talking prediction that it has any semblance to reality?

    • Robert I Ellison

      Jim D | May 25, 2014 at 6:05 pm |

      David Young, no the Lorenz system is not an initial value problem. It happens to be a bimodal climate, but which state it is in at a given time is not predictable. For this system, the climate would be the range and probability of both lobes of the state, not the one that it happens to be in temporarily. The climate analogy would be which phase of the ENSO we were in. This is not predictable far ahead, but the mean state is more deterministic, and doesn’t depend on whether or not we started in an El Nino.

      Is this a goldfish/bowl moment?

      Following Lorenz’s seminal work on chaos theory in the 1960s, probabilistic approaches to prediction have come to dominate the science of weather and climate forecasting. This paper gives a perspective on Lorenz’s work and how it has influenced the ways in which we seek to represent uncertainty in forecasts on all lead times from hours to decades. It looks at how model uncertainty has been represented in probabilistic prediction systems and considers the challenges posed by a changing climate.

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.abstract

      Climate and weather models are chaotic without a doubt.

      Weather and climate behaves like deterministic chaotic systems. There seems not much to distinguish between them in fact.

      ‘‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial.’ Hurrell et al 2009

      Which part didn’t Jim get? Oh that’s right – all of it.

    • Mike Flynn

      Jm D,

      You may not be aware of the definition of climate according to the IPCC –

      “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the �average weather�, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. ”

      If there are no weather quantities to average, there can be no climate. In order to predict the climate, one first needs to predict the quantities, which, when averaged, are called climate. In any case, any prediction of climate needs to specify a location, a time, an amount, and a type of climate to be of any use at all.

      Unfortunately, with climate being regarded as an average, average conditions over a thirty year period may be completely useless. Fifteen years of floods, followed by fifteen years of severe drought might average out to appear just right – but may not be properly appreciated as such by the population alternately drowned and parched.

      It would seem fairly pointless to say it will become hotter – or colder – by an unknown amount in an unknown location at an unspecified time in the future, with unknown consequences. Maybe consulting an astrologer might be more effective, or casting the runes. There’s probably a suitable app available which will provide results equally as useful as those produced at vast expense by the followers of Warmism.

      Or you may be right, and we reduce CO2 emissions, the global temperature drops by 33 degrees, the oceans freeze, and we all die. I hope not.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Ah – that’s why you’re a private and he’s a Generalissimo.

    • GS, if you are going to use Lorenz for climate, it is not an initial value problem. For climate, as I said, it is the whole pattern that describes the state, not an instant or even one lobe. The pattern (climate) of the Lorenz system does not depend on the initial value. See the difference? I am trying to make this clear, but you will probably muddle it up again.
      Also you keep bringing in climate forecasting, also known as decadal prediction, which is not the same as climate projections that are relevant to CO2 doubling and beyond. Climate projections are a boundary-value problem. Decadal prediction is an initial value problem. See the difference?

    • Private Jiff

      “What makes you think that when we are talking prediction that it has any semblance to reality?”

      So far, nothing.

    • Mike Flynn, yes, climate is the average of weather, but also the climate determines the weather. For example if the sun became 1% hotter, the climate would become 1% hotter and the weather would follow along and also be 1% hotter. Climate sets the average, weather just does the variation about it.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘The quantification and understanding of hydrological variability is of considerable importance for the estimation of flood risk. At present, traditional methods are largely empirical in that annual maximum floods are assumed to be independently and identically distributed [Franks and Kuczera, 2002]. Despite the development of rigorous Bayesian frameworks to assess the uncertainty of flood risk estimates, these techniques have not acknowledged the possibility of serial correlation within periods of elevated or reduced flood risk [cf. Kuczera, 1999]. However, recent research has highlighted the persistence of multi-decadal epochs of enhanced/reduced flood risk across New South Wales [Erskine and Warner, 1988; Franks, 2002a, 2002b; Franks and Kuczera, 2002]. In particular, Franks and Kuczera [2002] demonstrated that a major shift in flood frequency occurred around 1945. Previous authors have noted that the mid-1940’s corresponded to a change in both sea surface temperature anomalies as well as circulation patterns [Allan et al., 1995]. Franks [2002b] showed that the observed change in flood frequency could be objectively identified as corresponding to this shift in climate parameters. Furthermore, it was shown through the use of a simple index of regional flood risk that the observed shift in flood frequency was statistically significant at the <1% level.'

      http://www.chinagoabroad.com/en/commentary/multi-decadal-variability-flood-risk

      These rainfall regimes in NSW are caused by decadal modulation of Pacific Ocean States. We can safely say that on average it is wetter here or drier there – by considerable margins – or globally warmer and cooler – during one decadal Pacific mode or another. Mean and variance of rainfall, temperature, SST, winds, cloud and currents change at these Pacific Ocean climate shifts.

      This is the only rational way of thinking climate averages.

    • ” … climate is the average of weather, but also the climate determines the weather”

      At last Jimmy old bean has perfected it – rotating goalposts

      Wunderbar

    • maksimovich

      The initial value problem includes climate as it is sensitive to initial conditions of which we can include any condition.

      This is well understood as we can describe climate is recursively enumerable (with all its undecidable problems)

    • Jim D,

      You wrote –

      “Mike Flynn, yes, climate is the average of weather, but also the climate determines the weather. For example if the sun became 1% hotter, the climate would become 1% hotter and the weather would follow along and also be 1% hotter. Climate sets the average, weather just does the variation about it.”

      One problem you have is where you say climate sets the average, which is quite nonsensical given that climate is the average of weather. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying that the average is the average in a roundabout way achieves nothing. The IPCC agrees with me – climate is a convenient term to replace the more lengthy description including weather, averaging, parameters and so on.

      Weather is more than temperature. Your example is not accurate – in the past the Sun’s output apparently increased, and the Earth continued to cool. You might choose to believe that the Earth was created as it is, with a molten centre and a congealed crust, and the internal temperature gradient is unchanged from several billion years ago. I do not.

      Maybe Doug Cotton is right, and the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has warmed internally to Al Gore’s millions of degrees (well, I suppose if you add them all together there would be more than millions, actually), by the mechanism of heat creep.

      In any case, as I said, predicting the climate is a foolish waste of time and effort unless someone can benefit either directly or indirectly.

      Rather like forecasting the average value of a 240 volt alternating current supply. The average of the sine wave is indistinguishable from zero over a period, so it couldn’t possibly hurt you if you inserted yourself into the circuit, could it?
      WARNING – DO NOT TRY THIS IT AT HOME! AN AVERAGE VALUE VALUE OF ZERO CAN BE FATAL!

      Still keen on averages? We may have to agree to disagree.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • David Young

      JimD, The asymptotic state of the Lorentz attractor, the climate, is strongly a function of initial conditions and numerical methods. There is a great video on this by a fellow from U. of Vermont. You can find it at One Happy Bird. Its the long one that compares numerical solutions for the Lorentz system with detailed Navier-Stokes solutions for the single cell convection problems. Very illuminating.

    • David Young, the shape of the Lorenz attractor is not a function of the initial state, and that is what represents the climate. You might be able to change it slightly with numerical methods, but that is just like using a different model to represent climate. The attractor should not change strongly with method unless you do something wrong and then you would have an outlier model.

    • David Young

      JimD, You are just wrong about that. The climate is the statistics of the trajectory and that is strongly dependent on the initial conditions. Please look at the video to see that. It is really very good.

    • David Young, if the statistics of the trajectory are changing randomly, you haven’t averaged out the weather properly. The whole point of averaging weather over 30 years is to get steady statistics. If two 30 year averages are different, there is very likely a forcing change to account for it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      A Java applet can be downloaded here – http://www.compadre.org/osp/items/detail.cfm?ID=8986

      The Lorenz equations are:

      dx/dt = P(y – x)
      dy/dt = Rx – y – xz
      dz/dt = xy – By

      where P is the Prandtl number representing the ratio of the fluid viscosity to its thermal conductivity, R represents the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the system, and B is the ratio of the width to height of the box used to hold the system. The values Lorenz used are P = 10, R = 28, B = 8/3.

      They are simplified N-S.

      It is a simplified convection model.

      The solutions can be mapped for any reasonable value of P, R and B – and the solution falls within the strange attractor – the solution state space.

      In climate models the topology of the attractor is unknown in many dimensions – climate itself is 1000’s of times more complex.

      The attractor at time t(i) might look like this.

      It might not.

    • Jim D,

      You wrote –

      “Mike Flynn, yes, climate is the average of weather, but also the climate determines the weather. For example if the sun became 1% hotter, the climate would become 1% hotter and the weather would follow along and also be 1% hotter. Climate sets the average, weather just does the variation about it.”

      One problem you have is where you say climate sets the average, which is quite nonsensical given that climate is the average of weather. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying that the average is the average in a roundabout way achieves nothing. The IPCC agrees with me – climate is a convenient term to replace the more lengthy description including weather, averaging, parameters and so on.

      Weather is more than temperature. Your example is not accurate – in the past the Sun’s output apparently increased, and the Earth continued to cool. You might choose to believe that the Earth was created as it is, with a molten centre and a congealed crust, and the internal temperature gradient is unchanged from several billion years ago. I do not.

      Maybe he who must not be named is right, and the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has warmed internally to Al Gore’s millions of degrees (well, I suppose if you add them all together there would be more than millions, actually), by the mechanism of heat creep.

      In any case, as I said, predicting the climate is a foolish waste of time and effort unless someone can benefit either directly or indirectly.

      Rather like forecasting the average value of a 240 volt alternating current supply. The average of the sine wave is indistinguishable from zero over a period, so it couldn’t possibly hurt you if you inserted yourself into the circuit, could it?
      WARNING – DO NOT TRY THIS IT AT HOME! AN AVERAGE VALUE VALUE OF ZERO CAN BE FATAL!

      Still keen on averages? We may have to agree to disagree.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • Jim D | May 25, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
      …climate is the average of weather, but also the climate determines the weather. For example if the sun became 1% hotter, the climate would become 1% hotter and the weather would follow along and also be 1% hotter. Climate sets the average, weather just does the variation about it.

      I think each cubic kilometer of atmosphere at the surface does influence the whole system. It will resist the whole system and lose but in losing, change it. As others have said, the distinction between the two things may be artificial.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ NAS

      If 2 30 year averages are different it is very likely a transition has occurred.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/#comment-570185

    • When I say climate determines the weather, I mean the weather is quite different in an Ice Age for example, and that is a climate effect, not a weather effect.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | May 26, 2014 at 12:53 am |
      If 2 30 year averages are different it is very likely a transition has occurred.

      If I have a herd of 30 cats on day 1 and a least squares fit of the center of the herd is position A, does a change to position B on day 8 imply the addition of catnip?

  96. This whole episode is another example of a conservative, white male playing the victim card. What is it about conservatives which cause them to shuck personal responsibilty and instead blame others? Sad really.

    • k scott denison

      +1, pegged my sarcasm meter.

    • They follow the advice – play to your strenghts.

    • Generallissimo Skippy

      Sounds about – a conservative, white male who is vilified and deserves everything he gets because it’s his fault. Is this not rather the ‘blaming the victim’ card?

  97. Last year, the president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, wrote to Lord Lawson saying:

    “It is important to have a range of opinions in the public debate about climate change and the GWPF that you chair could play a role in that debate, but the GWPF has lost its way. The Foundation needs to have more mainstream active and expert climate scientists giving it advice.”

    My question is, how is Sir Paul’s recommendation to be addressed? Prof Bengtsson has been described as “coming out as a climate denier” for joining the GWPF’s advisory board. Would this criticism be levelled at any mainstream climate scientist who chose to advise the GWPF? If so, how can Sir Paul’s recommendation be taken up?

    Like it or not, the GWPF is not going to go away, and they will continue to comment publicly on climate science. To me, their criticisms often seem either ill-informed or deliberately undermining of individuals or scientific institutions (particularly the Met Office), often focussing on criticism of seasonal and decadal forecasts despite these being (a) clearly described as experimental (b) of little relevance to global warming (they are to much more to do with internal climate variability than long-term external forcing). However, with nobody in the GWPF circle telling them what can and cannot be expected of these forecasts, it is hardly surprising that their criticisms will be poorly-informed. While clearly the GWPF is a political organisation and will continue to take a particular position, surely it would be harder for them to criticise from a position of ignorance if there were somebody who actually knows about this areas of science on their own advisory board.

    If Sir Paul’s letter to Lord Lawson is to be taken seriously, there should be space for somebody to give scientific advice to the GWPF in an objective manner. How can this be achieved?

    [PS. I previously posted this at Uppsala Initiative but it’s currently awaiting moderation approval. I thought it might be relevant here too.]

    • You have two links, Richard. It triggers moderation.

    • Thanks Willard. I left the links out of my Uppsala post because of this – I think it’s just because I’ve never posted at Uppsala before.

    • Thanks Richard, you raise the key issue about this entire affair, IMO

    • Didn’t they already have a meeting, that for reasons unknown, and apparently at the insistence of the Royal Scientism Society was shrouded in secrecy?

      So Nurse’s team were able to tell me little I did not already know. But what did emerge was that, if anyone needed educating, it was them

      http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-lawson-secret-meeting-royal-society-fellows/

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse attests  The GWPF seems to have lost its way … it does not help that you will not reveal who funds the GWPF.”

      Richard Betts wonders  “How is Sir Paul’s recommendation to be addressed?”

      That is a very sensible question to ask, Richard Betts!

      This week the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences — unsecretly funded by THIS GUY — have published their Final Statement of the Workshop: Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility

      The massive fossil fuel use at the heart of the global energy system deeply disrupts the Earth’s climate and acidifies the world’s oceans.

      The warming and associated extreme weather will reach unprecedented levels in our children’s life times and 40% of the world’s poor, who have a minimal role in generating global pollution, are likely to suffer the most.

      Industrial-scale agricultural practices are transforming landscapes around the world, disrupting ecosystems and threatening the diversity and survival of species on a planetary scale.

      Yet even with the unprecedented scale and intensity of land use, food insecurity still stalks the planet, with one billion people suffering from chronic hunger and another billion or so suffering from the hidden hunger of micronutrient deficiencies.

      Tragically, a third of the produced food is wasted, which as Pope Francis said is “like stealing from the table of the poor and the hungry”.

      Conclusion  The answer to Sir Paul Nurse’ question is simple: the un-secretly funded Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences have taken over the role that the GWPF should have filled … and in consequence, the GWPF has ceased to serve any useful purpose, and can be disbanded without appreciable loss to science or society.

      That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers? …

      …  now let the Francis-smearing begin!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • And there I thought the main issues were McCarthyism and “reign[s] of terror.”

      Say, Judith, I have a few interesting quotes for you. See if you can figure out who said them:

      ==> “I further stated my concern that owing to this inflammation that debates at professional societies are being cancelled, and the public debate is occurring the media and on blogs, which is to the detriment of our field,”

      ==> “The motives of groups of people should be of interest to a political scientist, but publicly attacking a piece of research owing to your perception of the scientists motive is unprofessional behavior, what is expected of yellow journalists not scientists”

      ==> “Lindzen stated that without the feedbacks (of either sign), the warming from doubling CO2 would be 1C (which is arguably still large enough to be concerned about, IMO)

      ==> “Re funding. Lindzen made the point (correct IMO) that the quickest way for scientists to lose their funding is to declare consensus, “the debate is over”.”

      Interesting how rapidly things change, isn’t it?

    • > If Sir Paul’s letter to Lord Lawson is to be taken seriously, there should be space for somebody to give scientific advice to the GWPF in an objective manner. How can this be achieved?

      Judy, perhaps?

      • Benny Peiser asked me to review the Lewis and Crok article (and to write the foreword). I am happy to review future articles, and write forewords for those that I think are meritorious. I would also be happy to attend a GWPF sponsored workshop, if I thought my participation would be worthwhile given the topic and participants. This kind of engagement falls well short of any formal affiliation, however. Like I said on the previous post on advocacy groups, I am still trying to figure out the various ethical and political dilemmas associated with engaging with advocacy groups/think tanks. I think it might move all this in the right direction if the GWPF were to cosponsor some workshops, inviting some scientists from across the spectrum.

    • The secret society of warmists
      The climate scientists who advise our politicians are so sure they are right that it is impossible to have any serious dialogue with them

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485309/The-secret-society-of-warmists.html

    • In their letter about the meeting (Spectator, 7 December) the Royal Society team state that: “The science summarised by the climate scientists was generally agreed by all present”. This is a half-truth. There was indeed a wide measure of agreement over some basic aspects of science; but there were also some significant differences. In particular, the scientists on our side of the table placed more emphasis on empirical observations, while the team led by Sir Brian Hoskins appeared to have more confidence in climate models and future projections generated by such models

      http://www.thegwpf.org/royal-society-fellows-meet-reactions/

    • David Young

      Richard, I think part of the problem is the string of seasonal and decadal forecasts from the Met office that have turned to be rather badly wrong. McIntyre discussed the big decrease in the decadal forecast temperature for the globe. If in fact these forecasts are not very skillful, that needs to be strongly emphasized or else the forecasts should not be made at all.

    • Richard Lindzen: The Perversion Of Science

      Date: 09/02/12

      Foreword to Andrew Montford’s Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change

      Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.

      http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-the-perversion-of-science/

      Peter Foster: Crazy over climate
      The Royal Society, the U.K.’s once-venerable academy of science, has arguably lost its collective mind over the theory of projected catastrophic man-made global warming. Recently, its president, Paul Nurse, in seeking to avoid a meeting with skeptical experts from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, GWPF — the think tank set up by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Nigel Lawson — linked skeptics with those who reject evolution and believe that the weather might be changed by prayer. Whatever kind of argument that is, it isn’t scientific, but it certainly invites analysis of the mindset that made it.

      An even more egregious example of the Royal Society’s support for treating skepticism as the result of ignorance or psychiatric disorder came with the granting earlier this year of a Wolfson Research Merit award — designed to attract and keep academic talent in Britain — to Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian “cognitive scientist,” who recently moved to Bristol University. The award was for a project titled “The (mis)information revolution: information seeking and knowledge transmission.”

      Mr. Lewandowsky’s work in fact provides a window into the lurid fantasies of those who are so committed to the paradigm of climate catastrophism that they have abandoned all trace of objectivity or balance. It also demonstrates a clear link between catastrophism and the urge to demonize markets.

      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/08/08/peter-foster-crazy-over-climate/

    • This whole episode with GWPF and Bengtsson makes me think of the account Richard Lindzen wrote (1992!!) of his early attempts to give any scientific feedback to proponents of the IPCC process, Science magazine etc. Lindzen was relegated to writing up such an account to be published by the Cato Institute in the USA (sometimes compared to the GWPF although of much wider economic and political scope).

      Anyway, the point I am getting to is that if one troubles to read the early history by Lindzen, it is clear that the process of marginalizing and even ostracizing scientists who had any independent views about the developing consensus was established right from the start. Someone relatively prominent in atmospheric sciences like Lindzen, tenured in a senior position at MIT, at that time) was instantly marginalized in what was esentially a political, not scientific, process.

      If it was so difficult for Lindzen to receive any genuine or respectful hearing from the start, then one must suspect that all hopes for scientific “advice” to GWPF ala Paul Nurse are only intended to lecture and hector, not to engage in any sincere scientific discussions. These problems exist from the start of the IPCC process and a few years before, it. seems. Who in the “mainstream” of climate science truly has an interest in dialogue with the GWPF?

      If a scientist like Lindzen could be declared persona non grata so early in the “consensus-building” process (1988-1991), then it is difficult to know which scientists cpan now achieve dialogue across the parapets, and how.

      I urge all to read (or review) this Lindzen piece to consider how early on such formidable barriers were being erected:

      http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf

    • A more succinct version of my point: the fundamental problems of communication are not created by GWPF and not created by Bengtsson. They were built into the entire CAGW and UNFCCC-IPCC movement, right from the start.

    • ” it is clear that the process of marginalizing and even ostracizing scientists who had any independent views about the developing consensus was established right from the start” – skiphill

      We want Science to discard/reject error.

      This is not happy-clappy, everyone-is-right, kindergarten.

    • Fan of Massive Trolling,

      your latest verbiage is more contemptible and loathsome than usual. Far from allowing for any dialogue, you express an expectation that GWPF should disappear, i.e., be silenced. You display your usual totalitarian aspirations, to bombard, ostracize, and/or silence all opposition. You are rightly despised here by all who have any genuine commitment to rational discussion.

      Meanwhile, you continue your ludicrous policy of citing endless verbiage from a RELIGIOUS group, the Pontifical Academy. It is not pope-bashing or Catholic-bashing to say that citing your RELIGIOUS authority has no place in a science-oriented discussion. You do it ad nauseum. Go to a religious blog if you wish to rant about such tangential, specious, and unhelpful sources.

      [emphasis added]

      Fan of More Trolling:

      Conclusion The answer to Sir Paul Nurse’ question is simple: the un-secretly funded Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences have taken over the role that the GWPF should have filled … and in consequence, the GWPF has ceased to serve any useful purpose, and can be disbanded without appreciable loss to science or society.

      That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

    • Michael, you never graduated from Kindergarten, for you never learned the most elemental lessons of human decency and interaction.

      As for rejecting error, Lindzen’s piece describes how a distinguished scientist (senior MIT professor, i.e., Lindzen himself) was not even permitted to join the discussion seriously, right from the start. That is not about “rejecting error’ that is about enforcing a political conformity right from the start, by politicized means. Al Gore & company were unfit to decide what a scientific consensus should look like, but the politicians and international bureaucrats were in the driver’s seat from the beginning.

    • also Michael, science? discard error??

      Had you read Lindzen’s piece you’d see how he describes a process that was politicized from the start, and when “scientific” bodies fail to provide the extreme outputs desired, activists and media simply make stuff up:

      While the International Panel on Climate
      Change’s reports were in preparation, the
      National Research Council in the United States
      was commissioned to prepare a synthesis of the
      current state of the global change situation. The
      panel chosen was hardly promising. It had no
      members of the academy expert in climate.
      Indeed, it had only one scientist directly involved
      in climate, Stephen Schneider, who is an ardent
      environmental advocate. It also included three
      professional environmental advocates, and it was
      headed by a former senator, Dan Evans. The panel
      did include distinguished scientists and econo-
      mists outside the area of climate, and, perhaps
      because of this, the report issued by the panel was
      by and large fair. The report concluded that the
      scientific basis for costly action was absent,
      although prudence might indicate that actions
      that were cheap or worth doing anyway should be
      considered. A subcommittee of the panel issued a
      report on adaptation that argued that even with
      the more severe warming scenarios, the United
      States would have little difficulty adapting. Not
      surprisingly, the environmentalists on the panel
      not only strongly influenced the reports, but fail-
      ing to completely have their way, attempted to
      distance themselves from the reports by either
      resigning or by issuing minority dissents. Equally
      unsurprising is the fact that the New York Times
      typically carried reports on that panel on page 46.
      The findings were never subsequently discussed
      in the popular mediaexcept for claims that the
      reports supported the catastrophic vision. Never-
      theless, the reports of that panel were indicative of
      the growing skepticism concerning the warming
      issue.

    • Skiphil | May 26, 2014 at 3:27 am |
      “As for rejecting error, Lindzen’s piece describes how a distinguished scientist (senior MIT professor, i.e., Lindzen himself) was not even permitted to join the discussion seriously, right from the start….”

      I read it, as painful as it was.

      It’s full of assertions and claims…and not a single reference to support it.

      Much whining directed towards some very strange targets; Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand (i kid you not!) and Meryl Streep.

      What’s most interesting if what it tells us about Lindzen – despite the massive increase and research and data confirming agw, Lindzen seems to have stuck dogmatically to his beliefs of 22 years ago.

    • I think that GWPF plays an important role in providing a counter voice to the non stop alarmist diatribes we get from liberal political leaders and the media. Between their Scientific Advisory Council and others such as Judith Curry the GWPF has access to top notch scientific and economic input.

      The fact that they have become a lightening rod for the alarmist clique makes them that much more attractive.

      The CAGW “debate” is not only about science, it is also about economics, sociology and politics.

      For my money, I’ll take Nigel Lawson and Richard Lindzen over Obama/Kerry/Gore and Richard Holdren any day of the week.

    • Michael, I don’t think you have read or listened very carefully to what Lindzen has to say.

      IMO, he does not really question the concepts around AGW. He has always asked: how much, how fast, what are the likely impacts and what can we rationally do about it?

      The massive research and data of the past 20 years that you refer to, continue to show that we don’t know how much or how fast and that the impacts are most likely manageable without taking drastic measures to curtail the use of cheap fossil fuels.

    • Scott Basinger

      Great post, and great question, Richard. You get right to the heart of the matter.

  98. Richard –

    ==> “My question is, how is Sir Paul’s recommendation to be addressed? ”

    Is there some reason why the GWPF can’t “have more mainstream active and expert climate scientists giving it advice” w/o those experts joining the organization? If the GWPF is seeking to follow Paul’s advice, aren’t they entirely capable of seeking out the advice of yourself, or other active and expert climate scientists?

    Not to say that I think there’s any reason that Bengtsson shouldn’t join the GWPF if he so chooses, but I think that you’re setting up a false dichotomy. And just as Bengtsson should do as he chooses, so should scientists criticize him for his decisions if they choose to do so.

    • Can Joshua tag me, GaryM? I’ll do my best.

      Let me dust up my Gorgias…

    • willard,

      I have suggested it several times. I would be glad to see if you can fully and fairly state the skeptic position on any issue. And I will do the same for the consensus side. I would love to see some critical thinking, of the consensus view, by a warmist. Have at it,

      No google and no cut and paste.

    • GaryM –

      Here was my challenge.

      Give it a shot. I challenge you. If you think this is a valuable approach – put yourself on the line. Explain a position that you oppose in good faith.

      My challenge was not for you do follow your principles on a condition of what I do or don’t do. It’s up to you to take up my challenge or not. I have no responsibility in that regard.

      Then there’s this:

      However, I know that you are incapable of critical analysis, so I’ll make you a deal…. The question is not whether you can find a skeptical article on a subject, but whether you are capable of engaging in critical thought based on what you already know.

      This is vapid at a number of levels. The first is that whether you are capable of meeting my challenge has nothing to do with my critical reasoning. The second is that first you say that I’m not capable of critical reasoning and then offer a challenge to me to prove that I am capable of critical reasoning. Well, that looks like a fool’s errand. Third, I couldn’t care less whether you think I’m capable of critical reasoning. Not only do I realize that it would be impossible for me to convince you otherwise (given the proven elitism of the beliefs you espouse), I have no reason to try anyway.

      Then, there’s this:

      You pick a climate science subject of debate. Your choice. I will then post what I believe to be the consensus position, as fairly and objectively as a warnmist would.

      This has nothing to do with my challenge. My challenge to you was to explain the position of someone you oppose in such a way that they would agree that your explanation was accurate. Your proposed scenario would not fit the description, because you left out the most important step. All you would do in this case is repeat the same inaccurate mischaracterizations of the opinions of others that you frequently offer. How telling it is, that you didn’t even see the difference between what you have offered to do and what I challenged you to do.

      And then there’s this:

      But when you either refuse to reciprocate, or demonstrate your inability to do so, then you agree not to respond to any further comments of mine here in the future. It’s a small price to pay to prove your intellectual superiority.

      First, I will choose to respond to your posts whenever I choose to do so, just as you can choose to respond or not. It’s not my responsibility if you assert that you wont’ respond, in fact tell others why they shouldn’t respond, but then still go ahead and respond anyway. You’re a “conservative.” I suggest that you read about what “conservatives” say about personal responsibility. Second, I have never claimed nor felt intellectually superior to you. You’re a smart an knowledgeable guy. Obviously smarter and more knowledgeable than myself. Third, I have no wish nor need to prove myself intellectually superior to you. While I’d like to be smarter, it would be futile for me to try to prove myself smarter than I am, so why should I try?

      And then there’s this:

      Your choice, but if you decline, this is my last response to you. You are a serious waste of time on this site. It is Climate Etc., not Joshua Etc.

      Gary – if you or anyone else thinks that reading my comments is a “waste of time,” then I humbly suggest that you just don’t read my comments. I don’t feel responsible for your decisions about how to spend your time. Never have. Never will.

      Anyway, my challenge to you stands. Prove that your can uphold your avowed principles. Go for it. Find someone whose opinions you oppose, and try to see if you can explain with their opinions are in good faith. Upon doing so, you need to check with them about the accuracy of their opinions. I am not in a position to judge whether you explained their opinions accurately

      Try reading my challenge again, and if you’re interested, make a better attempt to understand it before thinking that you’re asking me to “take yes for an answer.”

    • Willard –

      If you want to take GaryM up on his challenge, feel free to do so. But please be clear that his challenge is completely different to the challenge I offered him. I’d prefer if you’d let him respond to my challenge to him first before taking up his challenge.

      I’d like to establish clearly that he’s ducking my challenge before moving on to something else.

    • Jopshua,

      That was the longest no I have ever read. But exactly what I expected. Bye.

    • willard,

      Pick a topic. I will then go first if you like.

    • Gary – that wasn’t a “no.” That was a restatement of my challenge to you, with an explanation for why your offer was not consistent with my challenge.

      Here, I’ll repeat the challenge again. Feel free to continue ducking if you’d like. It’s up to you.

      You don’t need to debate me, anyway, to take on my challenge. All you need to do is make a good faith explanation of the positions you oppose, in such a way that those who hold those opinions would assent that your explanation is accurate.

      It would have nothing to do with debating me.

      It would have to do with you demonstrating the principle that you spoke of.

      Equating my challenge with debating me is a duck.

      Don’t debate me. I’m not challenging you to debate with me. I’m not asking you to debate with me.

      Prove that you can follow through on what you think should be a fair expectation of others. Be accountable.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I’d offer the same challenge to Josh. Obviously I don’t think he has the slightest chance of understanding any of the science. This as a result of the pedagogic principle of threshold concepts. Once past the threshold – the field is redefined and understood in different ways.

    • So Gary – willard can, of course, do as he wishes, but I won’t tag him until you either accept my challenge or acknowledge that you’ve refused my challenge.

    • I have a first draft ready. Just tell me when.

      Don’t let Don Don drag you out of the ring to hammer you with a chair.

    • Joshua,

      I am not a student in your English 101 class at the junior college. You don’t get to give out assignments. I already regret even acknowledging you again. But I have agreed to do what you ask, provided you act like an adult and agree to reciprocate. The penalty phase was a joke, I would never expect you to honor a promise anyway.

      But I will do exactly as you ask, f you agree to do the same.

      OK, that’s the 4th offer.

    • willard,

      The offer was that you get to pick the topic. Not that I have to guess what it is.

    • I’m interested in what philosophers call the Master Argument, GaryM. I’m not sure this is what you want, but this is what I want to do. I just spent some time at Marcel’s and read enough of the GWPF’s website that I think I could pull this off.

      I hope you won’t mind my literary license, and expect some feedback, so that I can revise that argument. I’d rather lose this challenge and have a good Master Argument than win this challenge and end up with a lousy one.

    • Master argument? I said any issue, not all issues.

    • But go ahead, I’ll give it a shot.

    • GaryM –

      But I have agreed to do what you ask, provided you act like an adult and agree to reciprocate

      There are two problems there. The first is that you haven’t agreed to take on my challenge. Me giving you a topic and you offering what you think is a good faith explanation of an opposing view on that topic was not my challenge. My challenge is for you to pick a topic in communication with someone you are in opposition to, and to offer your explanation of their view and to ask for confirmation that your explanation was accurate.

      Here is what you offered to do:

      You pick a climate science subject of debate. Your choice. I will then post what I believe to be the consensus position, as fairly and objectively as a warnmist would.

      That was not “what I asked.” I didn’t “ask” for you to offer some generic opinion about some hypothetical position of some “warmist” to the best of your abilities to do so in good faith. That is almost the antithesis of what I “asked.” That’s same ol’ same ol’, Gary. I am asking you to engage in a good faith discussion with someone, where you check your conceptualization of their opinion with them, to ascertain its accuracy. This goes back to the elitism of your arguments. Like how you determine that Kerry Emanuel isn’t really a “conservative,” despite him saying that he is, w/o you even knowing whether your conceptualization of his viewpoint is an accurate conceptualization.

      You can keep repeating your offer – but it isn’t an offer to meet my challenge So why are you saying that you’re offering to meet my challenge, when you aren’t offering to meet my challenge? I have already explained this to you. I already told you that you’re missing the key component. I already told you to go back and reread my challenge to see how it doesn’t match your offer. I have already reposted my challenge to help you understand.

      And GaryM –

      provided you act like an adult and agree to reciprocate.

      I think that the adult thing to do here would be for you to uphold your stated principles, not to say “I’ll live up to my stated principles provided that you agree to live up to my stated principles even though I know that you won’t live up to my stated principles because you’re a liar and aren’t capable of critical thinking anyway.” Since when does an “adult” do the right thing contingent on the actions of someone else. Are you a parent, Gary? If so, didn’t you tell your children that an adult lives up to being accountable irrespective of the actions of other people?

      Gary – my challenge still stands for you. Just say whether you will accept the challenge or refuse to accept the challenge. Willard is chomping at he bit to accept your challenge, and I want to tag him so he can go at it.

      Saying that you have accepted a different challenge than the one I made just won’t get the job done, no matter whether you repeat that incorrect statement 4 times, 5 times, or a hundred times.

    • Don Monfort

      Gary has got one gnawing at each ankle.

    • Don Monfort,

      I think willard is making a genuine offer to attempt the process. I would just like to see someone who is a consensus believer try it. I hope he follows through. I think an exercise in genuine critical thinking, by arguing the opponent’s position, would be interesting from both sides.

      So if he posts a pro-skeptical argument, I will respond with the best pro-consensus position. Or if he posits a topic, I will go first. assuming it is a topic with which I am familiar, or can familiarize myself with relatively quickly.

      I am more interested in the process than the actual arguments.

      I remember one consensus commenter making a stab at it once, but it was a pretty poor, pro forma effort, and did not meet the standard of a fair exposition of the consensus argument.

    • should be “I will respond with the pro-consensus position the best I can.”

    • Steven Mosher

      jesus christ.

    • Uh oh, Climate Etc’s obscurantist in chief appears not to approve. Oh the horror.

  99. Robert I Ellison

    GS, if you are going to use Lorenz for climate, it is not an initial value problem. For climate, as I said, it is the whole pattern that describes the state, not an instant or even one lobe. The pattern (climate) of the Lorenz system does not depend on the initial value. See the difference? I am trying to make this clear, but you will probably muddle it up again.
    Also you keep bringing in climate forecasting, also known as decadal prediction, which is not the same as climate projections that are relevant to CO2 doubling and beyond. Climate projections are a boundary-value problem. Decadal prediction is an initial value problem. See the difference?

    Lorenz is a simplifying concept – two attractor basins in two or three dimensions. Models have very many more basins in many dimensions on an exceedingly complex topology of the state space. Climate is thousands of times more complex again.

    The solutions of the Lorenz equations through time map the Lorenz butterfly. It is the evolution of the solution that is sensitive to initial conditions – and the topology of the attractor defines the state space of the equations. That’s why it is an initial value problem. Changed initial values change the trajectory of the solution within the solution space.

    This is the original model – http://www.runthemodel.com/models/run.php?popup=1&id=201 – updated of course.

    There are many sets of non-linear equations.

    e.g. http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html

    Climate models are chaotic for the same reason – they are based on non-linear equations. I have provided sufficient science from leaders in the field to show that.

    Here’s Fig 8 again from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer. Small differences in starting points influence the trajectory of the solution and these continue to diverge through time with a range of solutions at any point in time. A chaotic model doesn’t magically become unchaotic.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html

    ‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor). The character of the changes can be either metrical (e.g., different means or variances) or topological (different attractor shapes). Structural instability is the norm for broad classes of chaotic dynamical systems that can be so assessed (e.g., see ref. 7).’ James McWilliams

    Magic thinking is that these models converge to a solution – they do not. They converge to a range that is unknown and is more or less a measure of ‘irreducible imprecision’ – i.e. chaos.

    ‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

    Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ James McWilliams

    • Robert I Ellison

      They converge to a range that is unknown – a priori unknowable.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

    • Weather is chaotic but limited to a range which is governed by climate. The trajectory in the Lorenz attractor is chaotic, but limited by the area of the attractor. That is the extent to which they are similar in my view.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Models are chaotic – weather is chaotic – climate is chaotic. They are chaotic because they all have qualitatively similar behaviours. If it quacks like a duck…

  100. David Young

    Josh, You are off base here. If climate scientists pressure anyone associating themselves with GWPF to disassociate themselves, then they are perpetuating the very situation Nurse decries. Just a little hypocritical wouldn’t you say? Why don’t you tell climate scientists to stop the pressure tactics?

    • David –

      That’s a fair point, but there’s a fine line.

      Should scientists not criticize Bengtsson for making decisions that they believe have potentially damaging ramifications? I have a hard time saying that they shouldn’t.

      Is the tribalism in the climate wars counterproductive? Yes.

      Does criticizing Bengtsson make a material difference in the level of exchange across the climate war battle lines? I think most likely not.

      Does hand-wringing about “McCarthyism” and reigns of terror make a a material difference in the level of exchange across the climate war battle lines? I think most likely not.

      The bottom line w/r/t Richard’s question, IMO, is that if the GWPF wants to diversify the range of opinions they rely on for advice (in a way that is consistent with Nurse’s suggestion) there are certainly many ways that they can do so, and I would say that there are ways that they can do so that would be more expedient than simply affiliating with Bengtsson. Criticism of Bengtsson for affiliating with the GWPF would not significantly hold them back if they were serious about increasing their credibility in Nurse’s eyes, IMO.

  101. David Young

    The problem here is the response of the politically motivated warmest community, which is to some extent the mouthpiece of the climate science inquisitors. Conolley is his usual sarcastic and name calling self, a dictatorial personality who tries to control the debate. ATTP is a little better, but still his blog belies the motto “trying to keep it civil.”

    • Politically motivated warmest community
      Mouthpiece of the climate science inquisitors
      His usual sarcastic and name calling self
      A dictatorial personality who tries to control the debate
      A blog that belies the motto “trying to keep it civil”

      Well played, Sir!

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I’d call them vicious little troglodytes. But hell if you want to pretend that the Borg collective isn’t nasty, cruel and bent on global domination.

    • “…bent on global domination.”

      Indi,

      your paranoia is showing.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Hardly. The whole thing is hilariously inept.

    • The Gang That Couldn’t Compute Straight.

      alt. The Laitykillers.
      ==============

  102. David Young

    The problem at ATTP is the trolls, specifically our old disenfranchised friend BBD and the SS (oops, I mean SKS) brigade. These people are not interesting in a debate, but in shutting it down.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I had a quick look at ATTP – I don’t read blogs as a rule – an unimportant fringe echo chamber. What is the point of it all?

  103. Generalissimo Skippy

    Prove that you can follow through on what you think should be a fair expectation of others. Be accountable.

    All you need to do is make a good faith explanation of the positions you oppose, in such a way that those who hold those opinions would assent that your explanation is accurate.

    Anyway, my challenge to you stands. Prove that your can uphold your avowed principles. Go for it. Find someone whose opinions you oppose, and try to see if you can explain with their opinions are in good faith. Upon doing so, you need to check with them about the accuracy of their opinions.

    So Gary – willard can, of course, do as he wishes, but I won’t tag him until you either accept my challenge or acknowledge that you’ve refused my challenge.

    I have made the same challenge Josh – it would be amusing to see you flounder.

  104. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  105. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Skiphil proclaims [unilaterally] “It is not pope-bashing or Catholic-bashing to say that citing [the Final Statement of the Workshop: Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility (SHuSNaOR)] has no place in a science-oriented discussion.”

    LOL … Climate Etc readers are invited to assess for themselves the relative scientific merits of “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature” versus the 5,667 tweets of TheGWPF

    TheGWPF  “Public Interest In Global Warming Melting Away”

    SHuSNaOR  “Human action which is not respectful of nature becomes a boomerang for human beings that creates inequality and extends what Pope Francis has termed “the globalization of indifference” and the “economy of exclusion” (Evangelii Gaudium), which themselves endanger solidarity with present and future generations.”

    ——–

    TheGWPF  “Sea Level Rises Are An Insignificant Problem To Which We Can Easily Adapt”

    SHuSNaOR  “Humanity’s relationship with nature is riddled with unaccounted for consequences of the actions each of us take for both present and future generations. Socio-environmental processes are not self-correcting. Market forces alone, bereft of ethics and collective action, cannot solve the intertwined crises of poverty, exclusion, and the environment. However, the failure of the market has been accompanied by the failure of institutions, which have not always aimed at the common good.”

    ——–

    TheGWPF  “Another Hockey Schtick Trick?”

    SHuSNaOR  “The massive fossil fuel use at the heart of the global energy system deeply disrupts the Earth’s climate and acidifies the world’s oceans. The warming and associated extreme weather will reach unprecedented levels in our children’s life times and 40% of the world’s poor, who have a minimal role in generating global pollution, are likely to suffer the most. Industrial-scale agricultural practices are transforming landscapes around the world, disrupting ecosystems and threatening the diversity and survival of species on a planetary scale.”

    ——–

    TheGWPF  “Will Solar Doldrums Lead To Global Cooling?”

    SHuSNaOR  “We have the innovative and technological capability to be good stewards of Creation. Humanity needs urgently to redirect our relationship with nature by adopting the Sustainable Development Goals so as to promote a sustainable pattern of economic development and social inclusion. A human ecology that is healthy in terms of ethical virtues contributes to the achievement of sustainable nature and a balanced environment.”

    The difference is incredibly obvious, eh Climate Etc readers?

    Conclusion  What willfully ignorant frenetically “tweeting” denialist astro-turfers *REALLY* despise are scientists and religious leaders who challenge them to think rationally, scientifically, and morally.

    That’s become obvious to *EVERYONE*, scientists and citizens alike, eh Climate Etc readers?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘What willfully ignorant frenetically “tweeting” denialist astro-turfers *REALLY* despise are scientists and religious leaders who challenge them to think rationally, scientifically, and morally.’

      I guess FOMBS is neither scientist or religious leader then. What rationally freedom loving people’s despise is ignorant bombast that has not a skerrick of real content.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Generalissimo Skippy proclaims [insightfully] “What rational freedom-loving people despise is ignorant bombast that has not a skerrick of real content.

      Common sense by Skiphil, affirming links by FOMD!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Thanks, FOMBS,

      I had not previously looked at GWPF tweets (don’t pay much attention to Twitter) but there are some useful links in their feed, so I thank you.

      As for citing religious leaders, poets, politicians, etc. for as your “authority” on a science oriented blog, just don’t do it. It only makes you look obtuse, ignorant, unable to argue a position with your own ideas and words.

      *** Flatulence by FOMBS ***

      *** Fresh air by Skiphil ***

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Skiphil contributes “[fact-free raving and abuse redacted]

      Let’s go out on a limb and guess, Skiphil … yah don’t much like Naomi Oreskes’ summary lecture, or oceanographer Walter Munk’s praise of it … and most of all, yah don’t like how young-and-old scientists alike, from every nation around the world, are embracing the energy-balance climate-change worldview of James Hansen, and are embracing Naomi Oreskes’ historical account of it, and are embracing Pope Francis’ view of the moral implications of it.

      Conclusion  Denialism is overdue for some in-depth psychoanalysis.

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I commend the video below – hell of a punch line. As does this from the people’s cube.

      Experts in the world’s only settled science are up in arms today as a blunder committed by a staunch ally threatens their efforts to raise taxes and save the planet.

      On a recent visit to Washington DC, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius told President Obama and Secretary of Climate John Kerry, “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” The remarks came less than a week after the White House released its 829 page National Climate Assessment which introduced the term “climate disruption.”

      “That French cretin wasn’t supposed to use ‘climate chaos’ yet!” screamed a government-funded climate scientist at a leading research facility, as he was polishing his hockey stick. “We just started using ‘climate disruption’ last week and hadn’t even come close to getting all the money and regulations we wanted from it yet. Dammit!”

      His colleague, a computer scientist, who was busy cooking fudge to mix with temperature data, concurred: “Fabius ruined our best new synonym by springing it far too early. The only good one we have left to use is ‘catastrophe.’ Good synonyms don’t grow on trees, you know. Thanks to morons like him, nothing else will either!”

      Many in the climate science racket downplayed the damage. One expert, addressing a UN conference on sustainability via telephone from his 10,000 sq. foot mansion, told the only-mildly-inebriated delegates that there were still some good synonyms left to use, such as “calamity.”

      “Besides,” continued Mr. Gore, “as someone once said, ‘What’s in a name? Bulls**t by any other name would still sell as sweetly.'”

      But others were not so sure. “You can’t use ‘calamity’ after you use ‘chaos’ and ‘catastrophe’,” said one Hollywood environmental activist during a save-the-earth orgy. “It’s a step down! It’s like driving a Tesla Model S and then having to use a Chevy Volt. You might as well plug it in and let the whole garage burn down.”

      “Climate science needs to start thinking out of the box on this,” stated Secretary of Climate Kerry. “Now Senator Reid, he suggested ‘Climate Koch Brothers’… I think he’s on the right track but I’m not sure it’s quite what we need at this crucial hour in earth’s history.” http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/shortage-of-frightening-new-euphemisms-latest-climate-crisis-t13985.html

      Clumsy moral posturing and trivial intellect from FOMBS – great fun from Skippy.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Ya gotta try sumthin’ else FOMBS – the world is just goin’ to hell in a handbag.

      Time to get all the useful and interesting people – like FOMBS – off planet

  106. JPC Lindstrom

    Do You want to know what happened behind the scenes in the “Bengtsson affair”? :

  107. Some remarks regarding some of the comments from above

    Skippy –
    The universe – and the terrestrial climate system – both operate according to the laws of physics. That means that even the chaotic looking climate system variability is ultimately the result of cause-and-effect physical processes subject to the conservation of energy. That makes climate modeling possible, and understandable. Things don’t just happen for no reason at all.

    nottawa rafter –
    Climate is best understood as a problem in physics. The natural variability of the climate system is too large, and the documented climate record is too short to enable a clear understanding of climate change in terms of its statistical variability alone. By the way, I am not looking for enemies. By definition, climate skeptics are those who do not yet have a clear understanding of the climate problem at hand. Climate deniers are those who have made up their minds without taking the time to consider the relevant facts and physics. You should not be so trusting as to automatically believe everything that is said in the public forum either for or against the ongoing global climate change. There really are organized efforts out there to deliberately spread disinformation about climate change. Climate change is a matter of physics. If you stay focused on the basic physics of global climate change, you will be less likely to become misinformed.

    Pekka –
    Whether or not a discussion is productive depends on the expectations of the participants, and I suppose, the expectations of any onlookers as well. I have set the bar rather low for myself in that if I feel that I have made my point clearly enough, then my expectations have been met. If anybody else finds my statements informative, then I am gratified beyond my expectations. Also, I don’t harbor expectations that any of my comments will positively advance the understanding of climate by Climate etc. denizens – that way I will never be disappointed. Occasionally, there are comments made here by some people that are useful and informative – that is a plus. But at this point in time I am more interested in the science of global warming, and much less about all the possible options and costs of adaptation, mitigation, and/or geoengineering countermeasures to counteract global warming.

    Steve Fitzpatrick –
    Glad to hear that you are not influenced by the likes of Heartland and Cato Institute propaganda. But I would not say that makes you have a good understanding of the basic physics relevant to global warming. Try reading that Tellus B paper I mentioned above. It is not just me who is blaming the fossil fuel interests for spreading climate change misinformation – the Koch brothers efforts in this effort have been well documented by many others. As for MY failure to convince people, I tend not to blame myself too much, being satisfied for the most part in just placing my climate research material out in the public forum. How about YOUR failure to understand the basic aspects of the global warming problem? Who do blame for that?

    Don Monfort –
    I don’t really care that much what some climate dissenters may or may not think about global climate change – they all have the Constitutional right to believe whatever their hearts may desire to believe, even if their beliefs are totally contrary to reality. But when people make deliberately erroneous public statements regarding the nature of global climate change, then we do have an obligation to make an effort to correct those misrepresentations – that’s part of our job. Then too, the climate system could not possibly care less whether some public opinion poll is 57% against with 13% undecided. The climate system responds only to the laws of physics, and to the fact that atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.

    Rud Istvan –
    While the EPA and WMO are both respectable government supported organizations, why on Earth would you take as the Gospel Truth their arbitrary definition that climate is weather averaged over 30 years? Relying on the basic physics approach taken for weather forecasting and climate modeling provides a far more reliable assessment. As you may know, weather forecasts begin with an accurate characterization of the reference pressure, wind, temperature, and humidity fields. Hydrodynamic modeling calculates how this atmospheric reference state evolves with time. After about a week of simulated time, the unresolved eddy energies will have overwhelmed the initial wind field configuration, and the weather forecast will have totally exhausted its predictive capability. In climate modeling, while the evolving weather patterns are continuously being calculated, it is only the statistical distribution of these weather patterns that is of interest. There is obviously a reference atmosphere that serves as the initial modeling starting point, but it does not define the final equilibrium state of the modeled climate – that is defined by all the radiative forcings that define that particular climate change simulation. A notable example of climate forcing in action is the seasonal change from warm weather in the summer time to cold weather in the winter time, driven the seasonal shift in solar irradiance. Over longer time scales, it is the radiative flux imbalance at the top of the atmosphere due to changes in greenhouse gases, solar luminosity, or aerosol distributions that drive the climate system toward a new energy balance equilibrium.

    jim2 –
    It is very important to distinguish between the natural variability of the climate system (in particular the local and regional variability) and the steadily rising global warming component (which is the long-term problem that we need to worry about). Droughts, heat waves, and floods have many contributing factors. So it is not really a proper inference to state that a particular extreme weather event either was, or was not, caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. Suffice it to say that with global warming, the sea surface temperatures are warmer and the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (the principal fuel for weather activity). Climate models suggest that a more strongly activated hydrological cycle arising from global warming enhances weather extremes such as droughts, floods, and heat waves. In regard to the likes of Cato, Heartland, and Marshall Institutes, what makes you thing that these “Institutes” are really interested in understanding global climate change. Typically, the publications that they produce do not pass objective scientific muster, and are not designed to inform but rather are designed to confuse and obfuscate climate science issues. Take for example their NIPCC report, total garbage compared to the far more objective analysis of climate science as reported in the series of IPCC reports.

    R. Gates –
    The climate modeling runs in the 2013 Tellus B paper were designed to simulate the equilibrium climate response over a wide range of CO2 concentrations. So, the ocean heat content was never an issue. Proper accounting of the ocean heat content is an important issue for transient climate simulations over the recorded surface temperature period. For those climate simulations a fully interactive coupled atmosphere-ocean model is used with the full SW and LW radiative effects of all major volcanoes included. A detailed description of such climate simulations for the 1880-2003 time period with the GISS climate GCM can be found at via the GISS webpage at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html

    Canman –
    It might appear that the global warming problem merits little urgency since the rise in global temperature is slow in coming and sometimes even exhibits pauses in the steady rise in global temperature. The climate indicator that you should be watching is the unending rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration (now topping 400 ppm compared to the interglacial maximum of 280 ppm). Failure to address that problem serves only to make fixing the climate problem that much more difficult. This will surely make life that much more miserable for future generations. But perhaps that does not concern you.

    mosomoso –
    I am sure that you will not be disappointed if continued global warming brings more fire and drought episodes to the outback. Same here for your conservative Foxfriends in the southwest. As the polar ice keeps on melting at an accelerating pace, the sea level has nowhere else to go but up. If you happen to reside on high ground, then you have nothing at all to worry about. It is just us low-lifers here in New York, Miami, and New Orleans that might need to be thinking about re-locating before this century runs out of time.

    Raving –
    Modeling climate is indeed a boundary value in physics. But the radiative forcing at the top of this atmospheric boundary is actually NOT constant. That is why we have a climate problem. It appears that it is the desire of the humans to want to keep burning 10 cubic km of fossil fuel per year so as to increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This upsets the radiative energy balance of the Earth causing the global surface temperature to rise, the polar ice to melt, the sea level to rise, etc.

    Jim D –
    If understanding could be so easily achieved, I am sure that a great many of us would be more than willing to engage in discussing climate issues with Cato and Heartland denizens, even Congressional Republicans. But I hardly think it rational to expect good things to happen when there is so much irrationality to overcome to deal with.

    kim –
    Sour grapes – buying or selling?

    David Young –
    Bob Woodward resolved the Watergate problem by adopting the approach of “follow the money”. In modeling climate you need to adopt a similar recipe, except that in climate you “follow the energy”, and make damn sure that energy (also mass, water substance, angular momentum, and vorticity) stays conserved at every single modeling time step.

    Steven Mosher –
    Interesting contemplations about improving the climate discourse. Like the saying goes, you can bring horses to water, but you can’t make them discuss climate in any productively rational manner. Would discussions with climate skeptics and climate deniers actually accomplish anything useful? I suppose that we will never know, if we don’t try. But I remain skeptical that Pat Michaels would even care to read my comments here on the Climate etc. blog. The principal objective of any meaningful discussion would be to first establish a clear understanding of just what are the relevant facts and physics of global warming. But that is a topic that the climate skeptics tend to avoid – because they can’t win their case on that topic.

    AK –
    Climate modeling, as it is performed with current state-of-the-art climate GCMs, is basically a problem in physics, and not one of statistics or abstract mathematics. You should look at the Hansen et al. (1983) paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha05900x.html which describes the primitive equations that are being solved to simulate the atmospheric dynamics. There is also the current GISS ModelE2 version at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc02500z.html Or, for a simplified conceptual overview, but with a more detailed description of the radiative transfer modeling, there is my 2013 Tellus B paper at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la06400p.html There are also a great many climate modeling simulations generated with the GISS ModelE version at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/ with more than a superficial resemblance to real-world climate variability.

    GaryM –
    I think you are viewing the climate science landscape through the wrong end of the telescope. I would characterize most climate scientists as being quite objective as to the basic nature of climate change. And I tend to see the “skeptics” as being stuck in their dogmatic views, unable to comprehend the basic facts and physics of global warming that are really quite well understood. At the same time it is also well known that there are some aspects and areas of climate modeling that have significant degrees of uncertainty. The climate system is after all quite complex. But that doesn’t mean that nothing can be understood if there are some aspects that are less well understood. I do tend to view organizations such as GWPF, Cato, and Heartland as having a set dogma and agenda on global warming with a distinct reluctance to accept or address the basic facts and physics. Can holding discussions with these guys really lead to improved understanding?

    Jacob –
    What makes you think that fossil fuel industries don’t have interests?

    Fernando Leanme –
    The recent paper by Hansen et al. (2011) available from the GISS webpage at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html should provide a good description of the Earth’ energy imbalance and its implications.

    • Well, a correction. Glancing through your responses it appears that you have tunnel vision in addition to root infection. That frightening locomotive bearing down on you is the light at the end of the tunnel. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. It doesn’t necessarily include increased severity of