Calling out climate change deniers in Congress

by Judith Curry

We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

Note:  revisions have been made to the original post.

The website Organizing for Action http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/ with a list of climate change deniers in both the House and the Senate.

What is the relationship between OFA and President Obama?  Here is what the OFA web site says:

Does President Obama support the establishment and activities of OFA?

OFA is advocating for the agenda that President Obama has presented to the nation, and as an organization dedicated to this purpose, OFA has been grateful for the expression of support for its work by the President, Vice President and First Lady. Although it was privately established and will be privately operated, without government funding, OFA will work hard to retain the support and confidence of the President by effectively advocating for his Administration’s core agenda. It also looks forward to working with other civic organizations that are similarly committed to the successful enactment of this agenda.

Do the organizations working closely with or in alliance with OFA include the Democratic Party?

No. OFA is not a partisan political organization and will not engage in electoral activity with any partisan political organization. It welcomes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to support its work, and its advocacy will be directed to all Americans, without regard to party or other political affiliations.

What is the relationship of OFA and Obama for America?

Obama for America was the re-election committee of the President while OFA is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization not involved in electoral activity. The organizations are separate and established for different purposes. Organizing for Action will draw in part on the network, technology and volunteers that distinguished the President’s successful re-election effort, but only for its purposes of issue advocacy and mobilization of citizens in support of the President’s legislative agenda. OFA will lease and buy assets from Obama for America as the re-election committee retires its debt and prepares to terminate.

The relationship between President Obama and OFA is fuzzy, but it is hard to imagine that a major website with the web address barackobama.com has nothing to do with Obama’s presidency and agenda.

Back to the climate change web page:

We will continue updating the list below as supporters get answers to the basic question of whether their representatives in Congress accept the science on climate change. We hope that this list will shrink as members clarify what they truly believe about climate change.

The website includes a list of 87 Representatives from the House (20% of total), and 23 Senators (23% of total), along with a brief quote for each citing evidence of their denialism.

By my own accounting, only a fraction of these are denying either that climate has been warming or that humans do not contribute to atmospheric CO2 or CO2 does not influence climate.

The list includes the following as ‘deniers’:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn

“Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen.”

Rep. Kevin Brady

“Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.”

Rep. Shelley Capito

Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous.

Rep. Michael Conaway

Science is never settled…they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming.

Rep. Randy Forbes

Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions.

Rep. Cory Gardner

Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming… ““I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey

Filed petition with EPA claiming: “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured”

Rep. Gregg Harper

“I don’t believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming.”

Rep. Andy Harris

Harris said there is a recent warming trend, but “I don’t understand or know, or I don’t believe anybody really knows, how to place that in historic perspective.” He also said human contribution to climate change “is also a complex question,” and that even if humans are contributing, “can you change that contribution given that we burn a lot of carbon-based products to create the energy we need to run the economy of the world?”

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.”

Rep. Tom McClintock

“We’re all told of course the debate is over and that all the scientists agree… and as all of you know, that is succinctly not the case.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney

“Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming.”

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

“What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication.”

Rep. Pete Olson

“The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data.”

Rep. Phil Roe

“Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy.”

Rep. Todd Rokita

“The link between manmade carbon emissions and measureable harm to the environment is a topic currently under debate. While there may exist a link, the current debate continues.”

Rep. Paul Ryan

Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.

Rep. Lamar Smith

“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,”

Rep. Chris Stewart

“The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. “

Rep. Lee Terry

“There’s an argument here on the true impact of man… Is it really 97 to 3? I don’t think so.”

Rep. Todd Young

“The science is not settled.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.”

Sen. John Boozman

“Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.”

Sen. Thomas Coburn

“I’ve read the basic scientific studies, and a lot of it doesn’t add up for me,”

Sen. Ted Cruz

“There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong.”

Sen. Deb Fischer

Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, ‘I certainly don’t support cap-and-trade.’ She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate.

Sen. Chuck Grassley

“But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch

“There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming – regardless of its cause – would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling.”

Sen. John Hoeven

“Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.”

Sen. John Isakson

“Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint.”

Sen. Mike Johanns

There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate.

Sen. Rob Portman

“When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.”

Sen. Pat Roberts

“There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism.”

Sen. Marco Rubio

The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather. — “I don’t think there’s the scientific evidence to justify it,”

Sen. Pat Toomey 

“My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.”
.
JC comments
.
Several things struck me about this web page.
.
The number of ‘deniers’ in the House of Representatives and Senate are less than 25% of the total.  And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.  And many of these support cleaning up the environment and an energy policy that includes renewables, independently of their views on climate change.  Blaming the lack of a sane  U.S. energy and climate  policies on climate change ‘deniers’ in Congress does not seem convincing.  Labeling of these individuals as deniers (particularly those with rational positions) only serves to polarize the situation.  This does not seem like good politics to me.
.
The factors that seem to contribute to the ‘denialism’ of these Congressmen include:
  • Climategate and distrust of climate scientists
  • Claims of  ‘settled science’, which are not convincing
  • Failure to address the issue in a convincing way of how much of the recent warming is anthropogenic (beyond the fuzzy statement of ‘most’)
  • Backlash against ‘alarmism’
  • Lack of convincing evidence that ‘warm’ is ‘bad’
  • Dislike of cap and trade

If President Obama’s supporters in OFA and the consensus scientists focused more on these factors, rather than continued efforts to convince that there is an overwhelming consensus and labelling anyone who disagrees as a ‘denier’, well then maybe some sanity could emerge on energy and climate policy.

777 responses to “Calling out climate change deniers in Congress

  1. No problem, the Department of Justice and the IRS are executive branch.
    ============

    • We the Productive of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    • It’s just good old fashioned Chicago politics. Winning is not about being right. It is about isolating and marginalizing your opposition, then destroying them. (usually through political means)
      This policy worked in Chicago because the US government was there to bail that city out when bad policies were forced into place. Unfortunately, Chicago politics don’t work in the federal government context. There is no higher government authority to cry to for help. Simply taxing the rich won’t work. There isn’t enough rich people’s money to fix all the nation’s problems.

    • Peter Lang

      President Obama calls out the climate change deniers in Congress

      I haven’t read the post yet, but my reaction to the headline is “WOW! What is happening to the world when the person in the world’s most powerful position is screeching terms like “denier” and using religious like advocacy to promote a leftist’s ideological cause?

      How many leaders before him have let irrational beliefs overwhelm rational analysis.

    • Greg House

      JC comments: “The number of ‘deniers’ in the House of Representatives and Senate are less than 25% of the total. And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.”
      ===================================================

      Judith, I remember our short conversation on the “Observation-based (?) attribution” thread, where your essentially told me that the “greenhouse effect” is impossible to prove experimentally but the notion is nevertheless correct, because it fits into “models”.

      Does not sound rational to me. It is even double irrational.

  2. No problem, the Washington Post highlights John Cook’s research confirming the consensus. Don’t those Republicans read the WAPO?
    ==============

  3. Alexej Buergin

    Are you trying to convince us that your president does not understand what he is talking about?

    • He understands just fine. He wants to label and isolate the opposition and deprive it of influence. So he can monopolize it and wield it without interference.

    • More like he doesn’t know how to lead. Word is the President doesn’t like to engage in the nitty gritty back and forth by which Presidents tend to move things along. His perferred method appears to be give a lecture and expect that everyone will see his words of wisdom and do as he says.

      • The cool thing is that as he tries to distance himself from the scandals, it will just accentuate the point that he is not in control of a malevolent machine.
        ===========

  4. Mark Fraser

    scary hit list reminiscent of a black era in Europe. McCarthyism. Next will be a list of people, including me. With the assistance of some of my neighbors. This has crossed the line.

    • Agreed Mark. I don’t think Professor Curry, for all the light she sheds, quite understands how sinister this is…

      • He is in effect, giving his blessing to full on war against the deniers. Can “let’s string the bastards up” be far behind?

      • pokerguy,

        Better: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” And the IRS and Justice Department have heard the message loud and clear already.

      • “Can “let’s string the bastards up” be far behind?”

        More like “I have a list of 104 deniers in my pocket”.

      • Professor Curry recently came out unequivocally in favor of global mandated CCS. Never achieved, incredibly costly, pointless CCS. I’ve registered my request for simultaneous translation when the Chinese are informed their coal and other combustion-based power generation will henceforth cost 30% more. Priceless.

      • I have never come out in favor of CCS, let alone globally mandated CCS.

      • Brian H

        You wrote:

        Professor Curry recently came out unequivocally in favor of global mandated CCS.

        I apparently missed that.

        But on March 23, 2011 Climate Etc. featured a post by our hostess entitled “Inconvenient truths about energy policy”:
        https://judithcurry.com/2011/03/23/inconvenient-truths-about-energy-policy/#more-2734

        This post referred to an article by Rutt Bridges of Georgia Tech on carbon capture and storage:
        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/rutt_bridges_article.pdf

        This study concludes

        The greatest challenge to carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be economic rather than technical.

        and

        the continued development of CCS will be essential to achieve long-term goals for CO2 reduction. But given the lead times for CCS development, natural gas could well offer the only practical bridge to that future.

        There were several comments by denizens (including myself) pointing out that CCS is inherently “non value added” (it produces no “added value”) and the amount of global warming theoretically averted by CCS would be minimal (measured in tenths of a degree C) for $trillions of investment and cost. Others commented that the possible unforeseen negative consequences and risks from sequestration schemes were not yet fully understood.

        In the lead-in post, our hostess commented:

        My main issue with CCS is that I do not view it as a robust policy option. If greenhouse warming is less of an issue than currently envisioned, the expenses of implementing CCS will be sunk, with little or no benefit.

        So I do not see this as support by our hostess for CCS.

        Max

      • curryja | May 27, 2013 at 5:40 pm |

        I have never come out in favor of CCS, let alone globally mandated CCS.

        It’s possible you have the same misreading of Myles Allen as I originally had, until I read harder.

        Globally mandated CCS is Myles Allen’s position. He thinks anything else is a waste of billions of dollars. Or pounds. Or euros. Or whatever denomination socialism thinks in.

        So https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/26/myles-allen-why-were-wasting-billions-on-global-warming/ is pretty much your endorsement of CCS, mandated by command and control regulation, by government, and essentially globally, if you extend Myles Allen’s argument by Bjorn Lomborg’s logic.

        (Which, I’m willing to concede, I don’t think you intend. I certainly don’t subscribe to Bjorn Lomborg’s openly collectivist thinking. And it’s possible Myles Allen only means for the UK to go with mandatory CCS.. though his reasoning would be wonkier by that interpretation than the other way.)

    • Mark,

      You are correct in your interpretation.

      Judith,

      It is also reasonable to conclude that some of the Republicans write over-strong responses because they recognize where climate advocacy is going.

      • Jeff, definitely agree with your statement.

      • If the Republican party were smart, they’d jump in with a more moderate compromise position: “all of the above” except raising energy prices. They could point to the precautionary principle WRT their statements that there’s no proof, and also use the precautionary principle to justify leaving energy prices as low as possible.

        It would make alarmist extremists look like the would-be fascists they are. And if the Democrats (mostly not extremists) refused to vote for such a compromise, they’d look like they were in bed with the extremists.

        Anybody want to start a pool for when the first Republican does that?

      • AK,

        RE: “If the Republican party were smart …”

        If only. I’ve said more than once that the only thing that keeps me voting mostly Republican is the fact voting Democrat is even worse.

        Seems the choice is between dunces and dumbasses or flakes and nut cases.

    • Yes, endorsing Myles Allen was what I was referring to.

  5. No problem, they’re deniers. Reality rules.
    ===================

  6. Guess I have to get off the fence and be a ‘Denier’, as I agree with all the statements made by these Representatives.

  7. Mr. President?, meet Douglas Keenan.
    =============

    • Douglas Keenan? Meet Richard Muller:

      Keenan’s conclusion is that there has been virtually no valid work in the climate field, that what is needed is a better model, and he does not know what that model should be. He says, “To summarize, most research on global warming relies on a statistical model that should not be used. This invalidates much of the analysis done on global warming. I published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal to explain these issues, in plain English, this year.”

      Here is his quote basically concluding that no analysis of global warming is valid under his statistical standards: “Although the AR(1)-based model is known to be inadequate, no one knows what statistical model should be used. There have been various papers in the peer-reviewed literature that suggest possible resolutions, but so far no alternative model has found much acceptance.”

      What he is saying is that statistical methods are unable to be used to show that there is global warming or cooling or anything else. That is a very strong conclusion, and it reflects, in my mind, his exaggerated pedantry for statistical methods. He can and will criticize every paper published in the past and the future on the same grounds. We might as well give up in our attempts to evaluate global warming until we find a “model” that Keenan will approve — but he offers no help in doing that.

      In fact, a quick survey of his website shows that his list of publications consists almost exclusively of analysis that shows other papers are wrong. I strongly suspect that Keenan would have rejected any model we had used.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/11763136868

      • Yes, it would be useful to find a model which would pass the tests of Nature.
        ======

      • Nature? Meet your representative, Douglas Keenan.

      • So who’s gonna represent Thermageddon? The advocates are running for the hills, leaving their President to take the heat.
        =======

      • kim,

        I wish that were a positive sign. But Obama could care less whether climate scientists waffle on climate sensitivity, concede a pause, or back off from demanding decarbonization NOW.

        They have served their purpose. Climate scientists were never more than stalking horses, since the governments saw the opportunity presented by Hansen in 1988. The real drivers of the political movement known as CAGW are politicians. And they show no sign of slowing.

      • Yeah, I’m premature. But dontcha love the tweet willard shows below about ‘issues they don’t understand’?
        =======

      • Maybe you need to re-examine your comment. Doug is simply saying there is no thermometer (model) that can actually measure the temperature change. You turn a light on in your house chances are the nearby increase in temperature is higher than the espoused global warming amount. There is simply no global temperature, period.
        For years those on both sides (including climate scientists) of the debate have run around, totally unsupervised by experts, averaging temperature data on a scale larger than the scale of industrialized agriculture.

        For the most part, Doug is correct. His prose is challenging at times.

      • Willard
        You should be more careful trotting out Muller. He will espouse the model of the week if the flavour pleases him. Quoting Muller does nothing for one’s credibility.

      • timg,

        Since you’re here, please comment on this bit from Muller’s email, for which it is still uncertain if Douglas Keenan obtained Muller’s consent to publish:

        What he is saying is that statistical methods are unable to be used to show that there is global warming or cooling or anything else. That is a very strong conclusion, and it reflects, in my mind, his exaggerated pedantry for statistical methods. He can and will criticize every paper published in the past and the future on the same grounds. We might as well give up in our attempts to evaluate global warming until we find a “model” that Keenan will approve — but he offers no help in doing that.

        Please tell me how you feel about statistical pedantry.

        Many thanks!

        Many thanks!

      • willard,

        I haven’t paid much attention to either gentleman and therefore am not in a position to comment.

      • Sorry, timg,

        I should have addressed my question to Tetris, who commented on this sub-thread.

        So what about you, Tetris: care to comment that bit about statistical pedantry?

  8. As I’ve said before, if only Great Britain had Republicans to blame for the mess they are in.
    ===========

  9. The GWPF is inviting the RS to discuss CAGW. See http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-invites-royal-society-fellows-climate-change-discussion/. Surely the way to “call out” the deniers is to show them where they have got the science wrong. Why doesn’t Obama suggest to the APS that they brief a group of climate deiners, such as the ones that the GWPF has collected together, and thrash the science out on a level playing field? The current attempt by the APS is pathetic, and it would,be good to have something more robust where the real deniers were present.

  10. I don’t deny ‘climate change.

    Here it is graphically illustrated over the last 500 years

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/

    Currently the anomaly in Britain is 0.4C. That is indistinguishable to the 1730’s, fractionally higher than the 1830’s and someway below my (reconstructed) turn of the 16th century figure.

    Until very recently the Met office stated on their web site that climate had been pretty level until man started emitting co2 in quantity. It was obvious they were in thrall to the hockey stick. That statement now seems to have disappeared from their site.

    Obama needs to get out more and talk to some historians

    Naming names like this is also somewhat scary. Has McCarthy returned to the US?
    tonyb

    • David L. Hagen

      No statistically significant global warming since 1850?
      Under persistent formal “questions” submitted in Parliament by Lord Donoughue with the help of Doug Keenan, the Met Office has had to admit that its claims of significant temperature rise are untenable.

      “Then Lord Donoughue asked the question a sixth time (HL62). The Answer, this time, included the relative likelihood. The full Answer (excluding footnotes) was as follows. . .
      “The statistical comparison of the model fits shows the likelihood of a linear trend model with first-order autoregressive noise in representing the evolution of global annual average surface temperature anomalies since 1900, ranges from 0.08 (Met Office data) to 0.32 (NOAA data), relative to the fit for a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model. The likelihood is 0.001 if the start date is extended back for example to 1850 (Met Office data). These findings demonstrate that this parameter is very sensitive to the data period chosen and to the dataset chosen for a given time period, for such a statistical model.” . . .

      Doug Keenan notes:

      “The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

      Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Additionally, the Met Office needs to reassess other claims that it has made about statistically significant climatic changes.”

      See Keenan’s op-ed discussing this, and related issues, in the Wall Street Journal, on 5 April 2011, supported by his Technical details.

    • tony b

      You raise a very valid point.

      If one looks a bit into our past, it becomes apparent that climate has always changed, and that there is nothing unprecedented or even unusual about this time.

      The problem that President Obama has is two-fold:

      – he desperately wants to believe that this time it’s different plus caused by humans and we can actually do something to change it (by implementing a tax on energy, which is his hidden objective), and

      – he is surrounded by advisors (Holdren, etc.) that are feeding him the consensus party line, so that’s essentially all he knows about the issue, i.e. he is poorly and only partially informed.

      He should read up on history a bit to get a better understanding.

      But I do not suppose he will, because he knows what he wants to know and for him the science is settled.

      Max

  11. The list of reasons the listed congressman deny the need to decarbonize the economize has a huge omission. Here’s a hint. The list is the product of the most radically progressive president in the history of the U.S. (he makes Wilson and Roosevelt look positively Reaganesque), who has stated outright he wants to “fundamentally transform America,” and has done everything possible to follow up on his words.

    Distrust of climate scientists? James Hansen and Michael Mann don’t run the EPA.

    • I think that’s Richard Windsor, right?

    • > [T]he most radically progressive president in the history of the U.S.

      Barack Obama? Meet your regulative ideal:

      Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform. Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

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

      • wikipedia defining progressivism is like Leni Riefenstahl defining National Socialism.

        Merriam Webster defines it as : ” the political and economic doctrines advocated by the Progressives.”

        As I have said again and again, forget what people say, look at what they do. The progressives gave us prohibition, eugenics, and centralized control of the economy by the government. Historical illiteracy is the sine qua non of modern progressivism. If people knew what they actually stand for, almost no one would vote for them.

      • GaryM? Meet Leni Riefenstahl:

        Helene Bertha Amalie “Leni” Riefenstahl (German pronunciation: [ˈʁiːfənʃtaːl]; 22 August 1902 – 8 September 2003) was a German film director, actress and dancer widely noted for her aesthetics and innovations as a filmmaker. Her most famous film was Triumph of the Will, a documentary film made at the 1934 congress in Nuremberg of the Nazi Party.

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

      • Steven Mosher

        trying to be charitable to GaryM I propose he was pointing at this

        http://www.pdamerica.org/

        rather than wikipedia. but of course one can read what he wrote uncharitably and make him look.. well, you get the picture.

      • willard and Mosher
        Go see “Triumph of the Will”. If Riefenstahl were still alive consider the possibility that Obama would have hired her to do a sequel to showcase the Triumph of his executive will- using government agencies to circumvent Congress and shadow groups like Organizing for Action [with his site address no less] to tar and feather opponents [come to think of it, Goebbels would no doubt have appreciated both the set-up and the group’s name..].

      • GaryM is simply using anti-leftist memes to bash progressivism. To that effect, he dichotomizes political alignments around the wrong theorical concept, and when confronted to a basic description of that concept, he attacks its source by associating its source to a figure of the Third Reich.

        His sloganeering is made at the expense of all the Conservatives who could endorse social progressivism, all the Liberals who could entertain more conservative values, and perhaps other combinations, as minimally a sound political model should have at least two axis, e.g.:

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

  12. It is all so sad. He entered office offering great hope to many but this latest manifestation about climate change only proves how misinformed he is. He has used the EPA, the IRS, the Justice Dept. to do his dirty work. One can only guess what agency, yet undiscovered, will be next. Without a doubt he will go down as the most corrupt ever. At least FDR with all his mistresses and use of the IRS and FBI had some redeeming virtues.This guy has none.

    • You should have read his books. Or looked at his record. Or read his speeches before he decided to run for president. You would not have been so surprised.

      • As with CAGW, it was an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and a Madness of the Crowd.
        ========

      • My problem was McCain who in the full wisdom of his years picked the tragically uneducated Governor Palin to be the proverbial heart beat away. I’m sorry. That’s a scary prospect. A man who has changed his stripes more often and with less shame than his successor, the feckless Mitt Romney…

        Truly though, the problem isn’t in our politician, it is with us. That this is the best we could do speaks volumes.

      • Palin, who years ago said words to the effect that she wasn’t one to ascribe all of climate change to man.
        =================

      • Why did McCain do something dumb like that when he could have had that brilliant buddy of his from the Senate who knows how to order donuts at 7-11 with an Indian accent?

      • Repost of the politics of closed societies including
        a comment by Gary M on pro – gress – iiv – ism …
        ‘look at the record.
        ‘http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/
        B t s

      • McCain needs to retire and go fishing. He’s had a good run. Go enjoy life.

      • pokerguy,

        Watch any of Palin’s debates and then talk about how uneducated she is. Not just the VP debate where she cleaned Joe Biden’s cloak (granted a low bar to meet), but there are two debates when she was running for governor. One from the primary, and one from the general election.

        You are a recovering progressive, and this is the second step. To revisit all the things you have accepted as true because everyone else you knew said they were.

        She was not my first choice, and I would have preferred she had more time in office, but I would have preferred her to be president than McCain. And she was certainly better than either Obama or Biden.

      • David Springer

        GaryM | May 27, 2013 at 11:49 pm |

        “Watch any of Palin’s debates and then talk about how uneducated she is.”

        How about watching the Katie Kouric interview and then talk about how educated she is?

        Give me a break. Palin was a mistake. If she’d been better vetted another choice for running mate would have been made. They needed an evangelical for one and they needed some under-represented demographic to counter the affirmative action attractiveness of Obama. A woman was perfect for the latter as Hillary demonstrated by almost winning the DemocRAT primary. McCain’s campaign knew he was going to lose unless they could energize the evangelical base to get out the vote then maybe steal some of the women’s vote who hated Obama for clobbering Hillary. They had a chance with the right running mate. A good chance too. Lieberman was McCain’s choice but polling showed that was a losing combination. Palin had the right stuff on paper, as long as you didn’t read too deep, but turned out to have way too much baggage and turned off as many independents as she energized in the fundamentalist base so they lost by the same margin they would have with Lieberman.

        My pick was Condoleeza Rice. A black (not half black either) woman so doubly effective for a counter against Obama’s white guilt and black solidarity advantage. Plus Rice is so far from stupid it’s ridiculous having a PhD in political science, a track record as Secretary of State, and fercrisakes she was Provost of Stanford. Unfortunately she is no tongue-speaking snake-handling evangelical Christian and McCain’s advisors were convinced that was a non-negotiable qualification and Palin is certainly deep enough into that. An unwed teenage daughter coming out of the woodwork at the most inopportune time wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for how well she’s able to project her moral goodness however. It was pretty much a comedy of errors.

      • Personally I don’t (and didn’t at the time) believe the Republican party machine(s) were prepared to really support McCain. He won the primaries primarily because the voters were fed up with the party machine(s), so they just went into passive resistance mode. Perhaps they thought that a term or two of Obama would build up more support for their candidate(s) later. And perhaps they were right.

      • pokerguy,

        the irony is that former Gov Palin had more experience and better leadership skills than Obama at the time. She still probably tops him on leadership skills.

  13. I had just decided that the most typical behavior of wingnuts is using the D word. But it’s illegal here to insult the head of state of a foreign country, so I’ll just take that back.

    OK, I’m kidding. But it actually used to be illegal. Could be as much as 40 years ago, not sure.

  14. A part of the Bush legacy is his refusal to sign Kyoto; and, Bush was right. AGW is not evidence-based science. Bush had respect for a better way — a proven way — and that way is the way of humanists.

    Free market capitalism is far more than economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility… It is what allowed entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to change the way the world sells products and searches for information. It’s what transformed America from a rugged frontier to the greatest economic power in history — a nation that gave the world the steamboat and the airplane, the computer and the CAT scan, the Internet and the iPod… Ultimately, the best evidence for free market capitalism is its performance compared to other economic systems. Free markets allowed Japan, an island with few natural resources, to recover from war and grow into the world’s second-largest economy. Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself into one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore and Hong Kong and Taiwan into global economic players… Meanwhile, nations that have pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. And while Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gas… in their cars. ~George Bush

  15. I am disappointed. You would think the president of the United States would be able to understand that democracy is majority rule, and that blaming the minority is absurd.

    • Dagfinn | May 27, 2013 at 12:50 pm |” am disappointed. You would think the president of the United States would be able to understand that democracy is majority rule, and that blaming the minority is absurd.

      He tried that one already..

  16. Rob Starkey

    Imo, the President has been a disappointment on the issue of climate change as he has not allowed his position to evolve as more has been learned on the topic. This from someone who admits to voting for him in ’08.

    • Me too Rob, But imo “disappointment” doesn’t quite cover it.

    • He’s just a typical obedient president – you have to be one to get to the top. Misinformed too.

      • Clean and well-spoken, well, except ad libbing.
        ============

      • David Springer

        Not as clean as you might think. The press pool complained that his campaign jet stunk to high heaven. The next president will have to replace most of the furniture and carpets in the white house because you just can’t wash out stink that’s soaked into a fabric for 6 years.

      • David Springer

        BO stands for more than Barack Obama. ;-)

      • Six years. From your lips.
        ======

  17. From Obama’s tweet:

  18. “◾Lack of convincing evidence that ‘warm’ is ‘bad’”
    Thank you. This is the very issue that started me on my journey to what by now is full on proud “denialism.”

  19. Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented:
    Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market system provides the incentives that lead to prosperity — the incentive to work, to innovate, to save, to invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit. ~George Bush

  20. What I don’t see in any of the comments is ‘sky dragon’ism or denial of some anthropogenic contribution to the centennial trend.

    So what exactly does this hyperbolic “denier” label mean?

    • You can ask those who use it what it means, and it will be clear that they don’t agree. The last time I asked, I was unable to get a straight answer.

    • max (note the small m)

      hard to tell since Richard Tol was kumoed in with deniers. (yes, that Richard Tol).

      • max (note the small m)

        erg lumped not kumoed, hand slipped.

      • After googling a definition of “kumo,” a straight answer was not apparent.

        So, kumoed does have a place in the denier discussion.

      • Tol once thought the science was settled. To his credit, he’s now less certain.
        ========

  21. Judith Curry:

    The factors that seem to contribute to the ‘denialism’ of these Congressmen include:
    Climategate and distrust of climate scientists
    Claims of ’settled science’, which are not convincing
    Failure to address the issue in a convincing way of how much of the recent warming is anthropogenic (beyond the fuzzy statement of ‘most’)
    Backlash against ‘alarmism’
    Lack of convincing evidence that ‘warm’ is ‘bad’
    Dislike of cap and trade

    That’s odd.
    None of these “factors” are scientific, or even quantifiable, in nature.

    Speaking of “fuzzy statements”, we have “distrust”, “not convincing” , “failure to address the issue in a convincing way”, “backlash”, and “dislike”.

    Congress-critters cough up hairballs.

    Meanwhile – I could have sworn I saw an Armani-clad fossil fuel lobbyist with a large bag of cash discussing the physics of albedo feedbacks with Sen James Inhofe.
    I’m sure they’ll publish something eventually.
    Keep your eye on CATO’s website for the latest data.

    • Lemme tell you, if the Washington Post depends upon John Cook to uphold the consensus, it is a sign.
      =================

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      heinrich,
      Instead of confusing your opinions regarding skeptics with facts, why not supply some facts to support the AGW claims?

    • The science for catastrophe doesn’t hold up, the financing of ‘green’ energy has collapsed and the politics is dissolving before their eyes. They know not what they do.
      ========

    • heinrich,

      If you are going to be a smart ass, you need to do better. Right now all you are getting right is the ass part.

  22. Climate Weenie

    This is good.

    Because it can re-center the ‘debate’ from ‘real or a hoax’ to degree and risk-reward ratio.

    The objective measures of extent of global warming being at the low end, the rewards of energy use, crop fertilization, drought tolerance, increased rainfall, potential reduction in disease, versus some of the exaggerated risk assessments.

    • Dang I’m glad you could find a silver lining to that dark cloud. I’ll let you know if it turns out rainbows or tornados and hail.
      ==================

  23. Omigod, I’ve now read some of the comments by the Congresspeople. Is someone playing a trick on Obama?
    ==================

  24. After reading the Congressmen’s statements, they seem to be the sane and rational ones. This might backfire in Barry’s face.

    • Bee Eye En Gee Oh! And Bingo was his name, oh.
      ================

    • John DeFayette

      The Denier page reads like a manifesto to reason. Call me Denier from now on. Just deciding this campaign was a good idea demonstrates our president has lost his mind.

      • None of the answers were in anyway nutty. Most were quite measured and gave the impression that the politicians were well briefed.

      • Agree that the statements generally made good sense.

  25. Also, I bet Barry would love to distract everyone from AP-gate, Fox News-gate, Benghazi-gate, Boston Militant Islamist Bomber-gate, IRS-gate, and Arab Spring-gate. I swear, he is beginning to rival Carter as a failure.

    • There is a new Barry-gate: CBS News-gate, seems the White House doesn’t like Sharyl Attkisson either.

      “Sharyl Attkisson has problems.

      The Obama administration won’t answer the CBS News correspondent’s questions because her investigations — into Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra — often reflect negatively on it. Some colleagues at CBS News, where she has worked for two decades and earned multiple Emmy awards, dismiss her work because they perceive a political agenda. And now, she says, someone may have hacked into her computers.

      Attkisson’s one piece of solace may come from finally gaining some like-minded colleagues in the media. For years, Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream reporters pursuing critical stories about the Obama administration. Today, as “scandal season” takes hold in Washington, she has seen her longstanding skepticism of the White House and the Justice Department become the conventional attitude among a formerly deferential Beltway press corps.”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/sharyl-attkisson-91871.html

  26. Here’s our non-ideological, non-partisan president threatening the UK with economic harm if it dares to resist the ever greater centralization of power in the EU.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal?CMP=twt_fd

  27. Even not being one of them, I am ashamed of Mr Obama, the President of all USA citizens, behaving like a fundamentalist, targeting dissenters. Unbelievable.

  28. Who expected B. Obama would be qualitatively different from Al Gore? Both were awarded a Nobel for the same reason. On the Left, it’s, “No, no, no, not God bless America.”

  29. Curious George

    To exaggerate is American. To exaggerate a “climate change” is doubly American. The refusal to do so is unpatriotic.

  30. If President Obama and the consensus scientists focused more on these factors, rather than continued efforts to convince that there is an overwhelming consensus and labelling anyone who disagrees as a ‘denier’, well then maybe some sanity could emerge on energy and climate policy.

    Well, I’d say it wouldn’t hurt.

    Then again, I can’t help but notice what’s missing in your normative advocacy about what politicians should and shouldn’t do, Judith.

    Something on the order of: “If James Inhofe and other powerful Republican politicians focused more on these factors, rather than continued efforts to convince that there is a “hoax” climate change conspiracy, and labeling anyhone who disagrees as “warmist/capitalism-hater/statist/” intent on destroying capitalism, well then maybe some sanity could emerge on energy and climate policy.

    • That would be a refreshing heresy.

      Pearl-clutching is obviously far too important to be left to the consensus-mongers.

      • One thing I can say for sure about many folks on both sides of the debate: they’re absolutely convinced of their victimhood.

      • There are plenty of victims, Joshua, but they are victims of mistaken climate change policy rather than of climate change. This may always be.
        ===========

      • kim sees Obama’s Muslim sympathies and climate policy victims.

        Has 20/-5 vision, don’t you know.

      • The question for your research, Joshua, is at what age did Obama repudiate Islam, and for what? We’ll leave why and if to the side, for now.

        BTW, Hillary sounds pissed.
        =======

    • It’s something like James Inhofe vs Obama, GE, Soros, the main stream Press, the leftist Alinsky spin machine non-profits, most academics, etc. etc. Maybe Inhofe is more like David vs. Goliath and Judith likes to root for the underdog.

      • Righ, jim –

        Mainstream Republicans, mainstream Republican politicians, Fox News, Fox News watchers, The Koch brothers, Art Pope, ALEC, Limbaugh … such victims, one and all,. So disenfranchised and beaten down by the all powerful enviro-Nazis.

        Oh. The humanity!!!!

        Pardon me while I weep.

      • The crocodile carried the scorpion across the creek.
        ============

    • Funny. The Republican Party supports fracking for natural gas and expansion of nuclear energy- the only two policy choices that have actually reduced emissions.
      The OFA campaign is basically a whine that the GOP won’t let us take action that doesn’t work. And OFA says Obama and the greens are the “victims” of this “obstructionism.”
      So, of course, Joshua says the GOP is playing victim and obstructing action.
      Shall we play a game?

  31. David Wojick

    Gee, we skeptics have been trying to be called out for 25 years. About time somebody listened. Just kidding of course as they are not listening just calling. Calling what one wonders? Each to each? I do not think they call to me.

  32. B. Obama now:

    “We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable.”

    B. Obama then:

    “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

    Plus ça change, the tiger’s stripes. Or something.

  33. OT:

    Today is Memorial Day. My daughter likes pictures of abandoned/wrecked cars. So somebody gave her an old photograph they found at Goodwill of two badly damaged cars in a field. Out in front there is a large tow rope. Not the kind a farmer or a tow truck outfit would use. We took the picture out of the frame and on the back of the photograph there is a date, NAS secret, and the name of a town in Florida.

    I thought maybe the vehicles had been used for target practice.

    Intrigued, I did a search of the date and the name of the town. Sure enough, there was a wikipedia article on the incident. A USMC plane crashed after takeoff, and in the defense of our country 38 midshipmen and 5 crewman were lost.

    I want to thank Al Gore for helping to invent the internet.

    • > I want to thank Al Gore for helping to invent the internet.

      Do not forgot Big Dave, who had Al Gore on his shoulders all along.

    • Hey LA Tom – how do you know the quality of information on SoD and RC?

      • Jim2;
        I read the article, read all of the discussion, and then go to the peer-reviewed literature and do my best to follow the original work. On issues of chemistry, thermodynamics, radiative energy transfer and such, I do very well (I’m a chemist). On other things, If I can’t make out the paper I go to basic texts. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate is a good one.”

        Right now I’m reading “Greenhouse gas radiative forcing: Effects of averaging and inhomogeneities in trace gas distribution” by R. S. Freckleton et al. in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1998, 124, 2099-2127. This is apparently one of a set of papers that is regarded as state-of-the-art for calculating radiative forcing (RF) of specific gases. There are a couple of things I don’t understand in this paper. RF is defined from the surface to the tropopause, and then stratospheric adjustment is also included or not. Can anyone out there tell me why the calculation is not carried out directly including the stratosphere? I was going to go to Skeptical Science to ask this (they can be real Adam Henrys, but they do know a lot of science) but your question prompts me to try it here as well.

      • Jim2;
        I realize you are probably not into the science that directly. Do you know if there is a relevant thread on this site where one can get into this kind of discussion? .

      • Forget the question — I found the answer.

  34. Obama’s black listing of “deniers” is the same as the German Ministry for Environment (Umweltbundesamt [UBA]) which recently released a 123-page titled: Und sie erwärmt sich doch…Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel (It is indeed warming…What’s behind the climate change debate?).
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/16/german-ministry-of-environment-identifies-targets-american-and-german-enemy-skeptics-in-123-page-pamphlet/
    This is scary.

  35. lurker passing through, laughing

    The Obama Administration is exploring new frontiers in black listing, intimidation, suppression and deception. Joe McCarthy and Nixon would be proud.

  36. If a given legislator is not a “denier” he or she can surely defend him/herself.

    The problem is that entrenched economic interests fear the reversal of their fortunes if AGW is true and effective action is taken to try to mitigate it. This becomes a cause for their wholly-owned legislators and thence a cause for the entire political far right which controls the GOP these days. At that point facts cease to matter as many individuals make up their minds emotionally and then construct arguments to back up their preferred conclusion. Research shows [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216469] that at the point where the worldview has taken over, knowing more science makes no difference in the outcome – increased scientific knowledge correlates with greater polarization, not less.

    IMO this site is largely populated by political and economic conservatives who have a lot of scientific literacy who are trying to come to grips with the cognitive dissonance of their scientific vs. their political world views. It’s kind of upsetting to behold.

    • If you think that is upsetting to behold, just wait until they discover the real reason why Obama has not closed Gitmo.

      • Heinrich;
        Why has Obama not closed Gitmo?

      • Tom,

        As I understand it there are a couple of reasons.

        1) They can’t get another country to accept some of the detainees.

        2) The House is refusing to authorize the funds to have them transferred to the Colorado super-max facility.

        You can’t blame the President for the first one. (Bush ran into the same problem.)

        You could blame Republicans if you wanted to, but the fact is transferring them to Florence doesn’t change anything other than the location they are being detained at. It is window dressing to allow the claim the Presidemnt kept his promise.

      • Tim;
        Thanks for responding. I was aware of what you are saying. I just thought Heinrich was going to come forth with some interesting conspiracy theory. :)

    • First of all, heinrich, that is funny as hell. Second of all, Tom in LA, you are correct in your second paragraph, but have examined the wrong zoo in the third..
      ==================

      • Actually, it’s a pretty good precis of the Madness of the Crowd which is CAGW.
        ============

      • Kim;
        What additional zoo should I examine? I have already also examined the obnoxious true-believers at Skeptical Science.

      • Oops, replace ‘if AGW is true’ with ‘if AGW is false’ and ‘right’ with ‘left’ and ‘GOP’ with ‘Dems’ and your second paragraph is a guide to the zoo.
        ===============

      • And the disinformation fiasco at WUWT.

      • Tom, it’s tough to tell the players without a program. Keep questioning.
        =============

      • Actually, the best places I have found for good information with a minimum of attitude are Science of Doom and Real Climate.

      • Tom in LA

        If you think you are getting a balanced view on CAGW from RealClimate you are extremely naïve.

        Max

      • Max;
        Please notice I’m talking about AGW not CAGW. They are different.
        I’m a competent scientist and am confident of my observation that the science presented on AGW is generally accurate and reliable. As to alarmist extensions of the science, I don’t have anything to say.
        As to WUWT, it’s like Fox Propaganda — any correspondence between assertions and reality are coincidental and, to the presenters, irrelevant.

    • Tom in LA: “The problem is that entrenched economic interests fear the reversal of their fortunes if AGW is true and effective action is taken to try to mitigate it.”

      This problem exists only in the wishful thinking of climate-fixated environmentalists. Real businesses live in the real world, and in the real world, politicians are making loopholes to avoid enacting the extreme measures that would cause a crisis in the demand for fossil fuels.

    • lurker passing through, laughing

      Tom,
      Since the money is promoting AGW and the ‘solutions’ AGW promotes, I would suggest you look in the mirror to answer the question of just who is a wholly owned legislator. As to the dissonance, it is always entertaining to read the ignorant pap that passes for progressive thought.
      What is upsetting is that self-righteous lefties keep lying about the climate, its current state, and the rent seeking solutions their guys embrace.

    • Your research looks like more BS from the soft sciences. They are called soft because it is difficult to run a controlled experiment. Most of what they do isn’t verifiable, so you have to take anything they say with many grains of salt. They fact that you cite them lessens your gravitas.

    • Real Science matters. Climate Science is not yet up to that standard.

    • You see, Tom, what we have here is your failure to understand that blog comments are the last scientific frontier.

      Once you get past all the evidence for Godwin’s and Pommer’s laws, the rest is easy.

    • Aside from a few initial clarifications, I haven’t read any serious comments — only aspersion and polemic.

      Q.E.D.

      Unless I see a serious intellectual engagement, I will not respond further here.
      I will continue to occasionally check out this site (just as I do all of the sites mentioned above) because it is useful to read what deniers who seek cover as agnostics will say.

      • True and pretty sad. The “debate” rages and no concensus ever emerges except CAGW “science”.

      • He who knows it all,
        Aspersions and polemic.
        Naustique, urp, naustique.
        =================

      • No hint of arrogance from you tc.

      • tcflood – you mentioned that you read climate science papers and I infer that is why you believe the man-made component of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet and I assume you believe that warming will be catastrophic. At any rate, if you have 2 or 3 papers that you believe nail down CAGW, I would be happy to read them as I’m sure would some of the other denizens. As long as they are on the internet and free, bring ’em on. I’ll be interested to know why you believe as you do.

      • Jim2;
        I think CAGW is unlikely, but I find the bulk of evidence for AGW pretty convincing, as seems to be true of others who comment here because they seem concerned about GHGs. I suspect we might both agree that the distinction is a matter of both extent and timescale.

      • tc – agreed.

  37. President Obama is a manifestation of the information that reaches him; that is, the gatekeeper of access and information to the President is in a powerful position.

    As of January 2013 Denis McDonough is White House Chief of Staff whose stated position is to renew the campaign for climate change legislation and treaties.

    As some of you will recall, in the media recently, there was news of the IRS targeting individual groups who whose politics just happen to be opposed to President Obama. Further, you will recall, that the Chief of Staff did not inform President Obama about the results of the internal investigation regarding the IRS’s special attention to some groups, and it was a complete surprise that the IRS was behaving so badly. Of course, President Obama stated that he would get to the bottom of this bad behavior and hold the IRS accountable.

    It seems now that Climate Change has acquired a new twist. Just as the temperatures have paused, the President speaks of deniers that need to be held accountable for their bad thoughts.

    My question, how much access to information, that the science is not settled, does President Obama have? I wonder if he is not listening to skeptical arguments because, the White House Chief of Staff prevents the President of even hearing of skeptical science?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

    • You missed the reference to ‘obedient’ above.
      ===============

      • Kim

        In my mind the question is: Obedient to Whom? certainly not the chief of staff? The Chief of Staff filters the news via his/her own prejudices, transmitting a story good enough to sell, not good enough to hold water. If you are saying that the President is beholden, for whatever reason, to a green lobby agenda, then his outbursts, re: affirmative tweets to John Cook and more recently by affixing the label of “denier” to members of Congress are completely consistent, and, unfortunately, have devolved to the utterings of an ideologue and demigod.

        A couple of threads ago Peter Lang asked if I could identify a rational person in the antinuclear movement and I said I could not. Here also I peer into the abyss of climate change and, not only do not find a rational person, but my President can not hold his tongue before blurting out non-sequiturs. I fear I am not at a loss, but he certainly is.

    • lurker passing through, laughing

      Obama was firmly entrenched in the lefty world view long before 2008. He is not persuadable by evidence, to judge by his actions since being elected.

    • Look at the czars. Holdren. Sunstein. Etc.

    • +100

    • RiHo08,

      We have the same problem in Australia.

  38. Why is there nothing about this at WUWT?

  39. Denizens, meet Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s linear model:

    I appreciate the opportunity to serve on this committee and look forward to a healthy and judicious debate over the issue of climate change.

    It is our charge to find out why it has or has not changed, what factors are responsible, and what, if anything, we can to alter it.

    If it has changed, As we look at the causes of the climate change, it is imperative that we look at the whole problem, from several different angles because the conclusions we reach affect not only the health of our planet and safety of our citizens, but on how we, and other countries conduct ourselves in the global marketplace for centuries to come.

    There has been an enormous amount of time and unfortunately much hype committed to this debate in the media. No matter where you look, one can find one report on climate change that contradicts another.

    The American people are inundated by these conflicting reports.

    Are we doomed to rising temperatures that will melt the polar ice and raise the ocean levels that will swamp our coastal cities or are we safe? When I was growing up and the temperatures were dropping, science told us that the next ice age was around the corner. At that time, science was wrong.

    It is our job to sift through testimony from an array of experts on the subject and make sensible, reasonable recommendations on what is happening to the Earth’s climate. We must not base our decisions on half truths, inconclusive science and media hype. If the sky is truly falling, let’s fix it. If it is a cyclical change, then let’s find ways to lessen the effect. But before we take action that will have lasting affects for centuries to come, let’s get all the correct information first.

    Finally, we must make the right decision based on testimony and science, not political party or special interest agenda items.

    http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=65724

    • Rep. Marsha Blackburn sponsored H.R. 97, the Free Industry Act

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:97:./list/bss/d112HR.lst::

      There were the 127 co-sponsors:

      Alexander, Rodney [R-LA5]
      Barton, Joe [R-TX6]
      Bishop, Rob [R-UT1]
      Bono Mack, Mary [R-CA45]
      Boren, Dan [D-OK2]
      Boustany, Charles [R-LA7]
      Brady, Kevin [R-TX8]
      Broun, Paul [R-GA10]
      Burgess, Michael [R-TX26]
      Burton, Dan [R-IN5]
      Calvert, Ken [R-CA44]
      Capito, Shelley [R-WV2]
      Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT3]
      Coble, Howard [R-NC6]
      Coffman, Mike [R-CO6]
      Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
      Davis, Geoff [R-KY4]
      Garrett, Scott [R-NJ5]
      Gohmert, Louie [R-TX1]
      Graves, Sam [R-MO6]
      Hall, Ralph [R-TX4]
      Herger, Walter “Wally” [R-CA2]
      Hunter, Duncan [R-CA52]
      Issa, Darrell [R-CA49]
      Johnson, Sam [R-TX3]
      Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
      Kingston, Jack [R-GA1]
      Lee, Christopher [R-NY26]
      Lummis, Cynthia [R-WY0]
      Lungren, Daniel [R-CA3]
      Marchant, Kenny [R-TX24]
      McClintock, Tom [R-CA4]
      McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA5]
      Myrick, Sue [R-NC9]
      Olson, Pete [R-TX22]
      Paul, Ronald “Ron” [R-TX14]
      Petri, Thomas “Tom” [R-WI6]
      Rehberg, Dennis “Denny” [R-MT0]
      Roe, David [R-TN1]
      Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA46]
      Scalise, Steve [R-LA1]
      Sensenbrenner, James [R-WI5]
      Shuster, Bill [R-PA9]
      Simpson, Michael “Mike” [R-ID2]
      Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
      Young, Don [R-AK0]
      Biggert, Judy [R-IL13]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Ellmers, Renee [R-NC2]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Flores, Bill [R-TX17]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Gallegly, Elton [R-CA24]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Gerlach, Jim [R-PA6]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Gingrey, Phil [R-GA11]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO4]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Lamborn, Doug [R-CO5]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO9]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Mack, Connie [R-FL14]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      McKinley, David [R-WV1]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX19]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Poe, Ted [R-TX2]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Schock, Aaron [R-IL18]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Shimkus, John [R-IL19]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Sullivan, John [R-OK1]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Young, Todd [R-IN9]
      (joined Jan 07, 2011)
      Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [R-TX23]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Carter, John [R-TX31]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Gibbs, Bob [R-OH18]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA6]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Granger, Kay [R-TX12]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Hayworth, Nan [R-NY19]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX5]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      King, Steve [R-IA5]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Long, Billy [R-MO7]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      McKeon, Howard “Buck” [R-CA25]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Pence, Mike [R-IN6]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Pompeo, Mike [R-KS4]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Renacci, James [R-OH16]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Smith, Adrian [R-NE3]
      (joined Jan 12, 2011)
      Aderholt, Robert [R-AL4]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Camp, Dave [R-MI4]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Campbell, John [R-CA48]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Cole, Tom [R-OK4]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Emerson, Jo Ann [R-MO8]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Fleming, John [R-LA4]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Gardner, Cory [R-CO4]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS2]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Lewis, Jerry [R-CA41]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      McCaul, Michael [R-TX10]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      McCotter, Thaddeus “Thad” [R-MI11]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Miller, Jeff [R-FL1]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Posey, Bill [R-FL15]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Rogers, Mike [R-AL3]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Ross, Dennis [R-FL12]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Thompson, Glenn [R-PA5]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Wilson, Joe [R-SC2]
      (joined Jan 18, 2011)
      Bachus, Spencer [R-AL6]
      (joined Jan 19, 2011)
      Crawford, Eric “Rick” [R-AR1]
      (joined Jan 19, 2011)
      King, Peter “Pete” [R-NY3]
      (joined Jan 19, 2011)
      Quayle, Ben [R-AZ3]
      (joined Jan 19, 2011)
      Bachmann, Michele [R-MN6]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Bucshon, Larry [R-IN8]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Graves, Tom [R-GA9]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Griffith, Morgan [R-VA9]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Lankford, James [R-OK5]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Miller, Candice [R-MI10]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Tiberi, Patrick “Pat” [R-OH12]
      (joined Jan 24, 2011)
      Harper, Gregg [R-MS3]
      (joined Jan 25, 2011)
      Latta, Robert [R-OH5]
      (joined Jan 25, 2011)
      Austria, Steve [R-OH7]
      (joined Jan 26, 2011)
      Jordan, Jim [R-OH4]
      (joined Jan 26, 2011)
      Paulsen, Erik [R-MN3]
      (joined Jan 26, 2011)
      Young, W. Bill [R-FL10]
      (joined Jan 26, 2011)
      Guinta, Frank [R-NH1]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Labrador, Raúl [R-ID1]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Landry, Jeff [R-LA3]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Stearns, Clifford “Cliff” [R-FL6]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Wittman, Robert [R-VA1]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Yoder, Kevin [R-KS3]
      (joined Feb 08, 2011)
      Forbes, Randy [R-VA4]
      (joined Feb 10, 2011)
      Platts, Todd [R-PA19]
      (joined Feb 17, 2011)
      Hurt, Robert [R-VA5]
      (joined Mar 03, 2011)
      Franks, Trent [R-AZ2]
      (joined Mar 08, 2011)
      Kline, John [R-MN2]
      (joined Mar 08, 2011)
      Turner, Michael [R-OH3]
      (joined Mar 08, 2011)

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr97

    • Willard

      Looks like Blackburn is spot on. Smart lady.

      • MiniMax, meet Rep. Marsha Blackburn, answering Wolf Blitzer question So you’re not convinced that the Earth is warming up?

        No I am not. When it comes to climate change… Climate change is cyclical. This is something that we know. But are we toward a trajectory of global warming that is not reversed? No. We’re not.

        Does that mean that Rep. Marsha Blackburn denies AGW?

        Auditors ought to know.

        Write that down.

    • willard,

      My opinion of Rep Blackburn is that she is not very well informed on the matter.

      But then my general opinion is that one should rarely expect members of Congress to be well informed about anything, including the bills they pass. While Rep Pelosi’s comment about the AHCA was a classic, she certainly holds no monopoly on making stupid statements among members of Congress.

      There is also the possibility to consider that Rep Blackburn was far enough outside her depth on the topic that she made errors in what she said, but that some of her policy positions may not be totally outside reasonable bounds.

      On AGW, there is some evidence to cause one to question just how big the human component to AGW really is. Personally I think evidence still supports the position that at least half and possibly more is due to human activities. (With CO2 emissions being only one of those activities and not necessarily the dominate one. Ever notice we rarely hear about any of the other human impacts?) So we’ve been warming and we are warmer than we would likely have been without the added CO2. What next? It’s pretty much a big So What? after that. If the cyclical nature of climate were to have continued towards warming conditions and should there be no feedback mechanisms in place to check that, then the additional warming from human activities should be a concern. How big of a concern depends on a lot of factors. However if the cycle is heading into a cooling phase, then human impacts may end up being an overall positive thing.

  40. Denizens, meet Rep. Kevin Brady role in the Free Industry Act:

    The signatories to H.R. 97, the “Free Industry Act,” acknowledge that carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are greenhouse gases. “Greenhouse gases,” after all, is the title of the bill heading under which they are discussed. The signatories also acknowledge that greenhouse gases affect climate change. After all, “climate change” is the title of the bill heading under which it’s discussed what is to be done with these greenhouse gases.

    The supporters of H.R. 97 acknowledge that these chemicals are greenhouse gases related to climate change. But they propose to do absolutely nothing about greenhouse gases or climate change. Indeed, H.R. 97 forbids the government from doing anything to solve the problems of greenhouse gases or climate change. The members of Congress who support H.R. 97 are intransigent in the face of an acknowledged environmental problem.

    Rep. Brady has followed a conservative course by cosponsoring this bill.

    http://thatsmycongress.com/house/repBradyTX8112.html

    • OK, willard – where can I go vote for these guys?

      • jim2? Meet Rep. Kevin Brady, The Six Trillion Dollar Man

        Simultaneously with re-introducing the Sound Dollar Act, Brady introduced a new, and even more potent, piece of monetary legislation H.R. 1176, “To establish a commission to examine the United States monetary policy, evaluate alternative monetary regimes and recommend a course for monetary policy going forward.”

        […]

        This legislation responds to a mandate in the GOP 2012 platform, memorably championed by the well-respected Blackburn, calling for a “commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar.” It responds to a demand by the influential, 100-group strong, Conservative Action Project for the 113th Congress to “establish a national monetary commission to review the likely outcomes of principled monetary policy prescriptions.”

      • jim2? Meet Rep. Kevin Brady:

        Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.

        […]

        Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

        […]

        Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

        […]

        Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

        http://www.ontheissues.org/Tx/Kevin_Brady_Energy_+_Oil.htm

      • This Brady guy sounds good to me. Everyone has a bad idea from time to time, but most of his are good – the ones concerning drilling and energy that is. This is exactly the kind of guy we need in Congress.

      • willard,

        I don’t have any problems with Brady’s vote on all except perhaps the last measure.

        What are your issues with the first three?

      • > Before we decide what actions should be taken to solve the problems of climate change, don’t you think it wise that we first identify what those problems are?

        Good question, timg. Please refer to this:

        This relationship between expertise and policy is described as the linear model of expertise, or ‘speaking truth to power’, whereby first science has to ‘get it right’ and then policy comes into play.

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/

        and tell me how you feel about the linear model.

      • Rep. Kevin P. Brady has an immaculate voting record against environmental measures:

        Broad Environmental Assault
        Carbon Pollution Endangerment Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
        Climate Change Education
        Environmental Assault in the Transportation Bill
        Drilling Everywhere to Fund Transportation
        Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
        Climate Change Adaption
        Global Warming Pollution
        Sweeping Environmental Funding and Policy Assault
        Ocean Acidification Prevention
        Estuary Protection
        Algal Bloom Reduction
        Dirty Air Act Cosponsorship
        Defunding Environmental and Energy Staff
        Climate Change and Clean Energy
        Energy Legislation: Fuel Efficiency and Clean, Renewable Energy III
        Energy Legislation: Fuel Efficiency and Clean, Renewable Energy II
        Energy Legislation: Fuel Efficiency and Clean, Renewable Energy I
        Reducing Global Warming
        Global Warming and National Security
        Liquid Coal
        Global Climate Change
        Removing Anti-Environment EPA Riders
        Global Warming Gag Rule

        http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/kevin-p-brady

        Yes, but Climategate.

    • willard,

      Before we decide what actions should be taken to solve the problems of climate change, don’t you think it wise that we first identify what those problems are?

      • timg56,

        I misplaced this good question:

        > Before we decide what actions should be taken to solve the problems of climate change, don’t you think it wise that we first identify what those problems are?

        Beats me, timg. What about you? Please refer to this:

        This relationship between expertise and policy is described as the linear model of expertise, or ‘speaking truth to power’, whereby first science has to ‘get it right’ and then policy comes into play.

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/

        and tell me how you feel about the linear model.

      • willard,

        I’m neither a model nor a statistical analysis guy. I do however tend to agree with Dr Curry about “science getting it right” before jumping to policy debate.

        As for science getting it right on climate change, I’ve seen little evidence they are anywhere close to being “right” when it comes to impacts. In other words, no one has clearly defined the problems we should expect and backed up that explanation with any evidence. We’ve had no shortage of claims about the problems we should expect, but none that stand up well to scrutiny. The disappearing Himalayan glaciers, the 50 million climate refugees, the disappearing species, extreme weather, the list seems endless. I’m still amazed that people are making the increase in tropical disease case (as Markey did in the video you provided).

        One of the many loose threads in the CAGW storyline that got me to wondering about its validity was the complete absence of any positive benefits which might accrue from a warmer planet. That is near mind boggling. However it does help support the argument that “hey, lets not worry about proof, this is sooo bad we have to do something right now.” As I mentioned to heinrich, it has been my experience that when folks play to people’s fear, honest presentation of the pros and cons of an issue is unlikely to favor them. And I believe it is almost impossible to show that people’s fear has not or is not currently being played to.

  41. The Climate Alarmists are the Ultimate Climate Deniers. They say that seventeen years of being dead wrong should not be considered in any way. To be wrong for seventeen years and accuse someone on the other side of being a Denier, is some kind of sick.

  42. Obama’s source for the views of Rep. James Lankford R (OK) is a 2010 Edmond Sun report on a debate by the following Republican candidates for Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District: Rick Flanigan , Dr. Johnny Roy, Kevin Calvey, and James Langford who won the election that followed.

    The ignorance and stupidity displayed by the debating candidates is so outrageous it’s ludicrous, as the following selected quotes from the report demonstrate.

    “Republicans campaigning for the 5th Congressional District at a recent debate appeared unified on at least one topic — they described man-made global warming as a myth.”

    “Cap and trade is a sick joke perpetuated by a bunch of global warming mystic hooligans that believe the globe is warming up and it was caused by man,” said Rick Flanigan.

    “No amount of tax in the world is going to change the thermostat that God has his finger on,” Flanigan said.
    “This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else,” Lankford said.

    The federal government takes a new commodity, air, and begins to tax the use of air,” Lankford said. “It’s a ridiculous concept. It’s basically just a tax increase and not a way to control environmental issues.”

    “EPA regulations are pushing for a farmer driving down a country road, if he kicks up enough dust, he’s in violation of EPA rules,” Lankford said.

    Calvey said cap and trade is probably the worst public recommendation made in his lifetime. He said it is based on faulty science that has been proven to be fraud.
    He agreed with Lankford that the purpose of cap and trade is to exercise control by “certain elites” on Americans.

    “I am absolutely passionate about energy independence and I’ll tell you why,” said Calvey, an Army National Guard veteran of the war in Iraq. “I’ve had rockets shot at me that were smuggled into Iraq from Iran.”

“Every time we gas up our cars with oil out of the market, some of it is going to people like Iran.”

    Roy said cap and trade regulations would harm small business and farmers already struggling to stay in business. The 2009 Copenhagen summit on climate change was a hoax,

    Roy said.

“I’m a scientist. I know what I’m talking about,” said Roy, a physician specializing in urology.

 Roy said he does not know why politicians should not be involved in climate change when the science of global warming and melting glaciers is inconclusive.

    Audience member Cheryl Williams said she was impressed by the caliber of Republicans competing for the House seat.

“I think we can end up with a congressman in the U.S. Congress that can be like a Dr. Coburn, said Williams, former vice chairwoman of the Oklahoma Republican Party. “They’re very bright — very thoughtful — obviously not fly-by-night or politician. That’s the one thing we’re missing up there tonight is the politician.”
    ____________
    Oklahoma has more than its share of mouth breathers, but most are well meaning. The problem is “well meaning” and “stupid” are not a good combination.

    • Oh no, I was bamboozled by Judith Curry. It was not Obama’s web site like she said. I will never trust her again!

      Just kidding. Everyone errs occasionally, and she corrected her mistake.

      • “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

        Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

  43. Judith Curry

    You commented:

    Blaming the lack of a sane U.S. energy and climate policies on climate change ‘deniers’ in Congress does not seem convincing. President Obama’s labeling of these individuals as deniers (particularly those with rational positions) only serves to polarize the situation. This does not seem like good politics to me.

    Agree fully with the first two statements.

    But to the third statement: Whether or not President Obama is practicing “good politics” depends on how you define “good”.

    If one defines it (Chicago-style) as “winning at all cost” politics, Obama’s team has usually found a way to do that. For example, what better way to distract from the scandals that seem to be plaguing his administration right now than posture the “high ground” in a moral (“good” versus “evil”) debate on climate?

    But if you define it as “good for the nation”, I’d agree that this is not “good politics”.

    Better politics would be to address the real problems the USA faces – and these do NOT include CAGW.

    Max

    • Scandals? Do you Swiss know something that we don’t?

      • Naw, Harold. I just read the papers.

        Max

      • Alexej Buergin

        What Manacker means is that you can buy almost any newspaper in Switzerland (you do not learn much by reading the swiss ones). And since the internet was invented in Switzerland, there is no reason not to use it, too.
        So I was quite shocked to learn that Lois Lane took the Nickel, I mean Lois Lerner (still shocking, but not quite as bad). Not automatically the proof that she is innocent.
        (The Swiss version of the IRS is absolutely not corrupt.)

  44. The majority are still not convinced it is manmade. When they catch up with the “skeptics” who have moved to the Otto/Lewis/Allen/Michaels/Watts position of 1.6-2 C sensitivity, they will see that this mathematically makes it manmade with no room for doubt. I suspect this excuse may then evaporate in favor of the “warming is good” approach to planning, which I see a couple have already done.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

      It seems the ‘noise’ is far bigger than the ‘signal’ in the satellite era.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=1

      The change in ISCCP between the 80’s and 90’s is 0.05 W/m2 in OLR (cooling) and -2.4 W/m2 (warming) in reflected SW – a net of 1.9 W/m2. Net positive being warming by definition….i.e. Net = – OLR – RSW

      ‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

      The ‘noise’ is greater than the ‘signal’ in the satellite era. There is no reason to suspect that this is anomalous.

    • +1, as they say

    • If the Cato Institute (Michaels, Knappenberger) have shifted to this position, since they are apparently advising the Republicans, they need to look at the ramifications of this sensitivity on the IPCC ‘most’ attribution statement, which logically they would now agree with. Then they should take these Congressmen aside, who say manmade attribution not certain enough, and educate them on the latest findings and say “well, actually…”. It has to be very delicate, because for a Republican to change position on something is usually a killer for their hopes of future re-election.

      • “It has to be very delicate, because for a Republican to change position on something is usually a killer for their hopes of future re-election.”

        Re-election by whom?
        If you look at Congress, the seats are so Gerrymandered that the vast majority of incumbents only need to get through the primary. The Democrats are much more likely to be deselected than Republicans.

      • Indeed, there is a new verb “primaried”, as their biggest threat is from their right within the party. With any luck, this leads to such an extremist that even mainstream Republicans won’t show up to vote for them, but that is a remote hope.

    • Jim D

      You are splitting hairs.

      The majority do not accept that human influences have in the past or will in the future result in potentially catastrophic effects (CAGW), as IPCC has outlined in its AR4 report.

      That is the crucial point.

      (And I’d agree fully with them).

      It appears to be the general opinion that warming of up to 2C above today’s temperature would have more beneficial effects than harmful ones, so the real question is whether or not human influences could result in warming that significantly exceeded 2C above today’s temperature.

      At 2xCO2 ECS of 1.6C to 2C this becomes highly unlikely, especially now that the unusually active sun of the 20th C (highest in several thousand years) has become more inactive and the unusually high number of El Nino events (including the super El Nino that caused the record warm year 1998) has given way to more La Nina events.

      The current lack of warming is telling us something, Jim. We should pay attention – and it looks like some of these politicians have done so.

      If so, good for them.

      Max

      • manacker, it is not splitting hairs, it is a common theme of the majority of them when you just rad through them, almost like they have the same speaking points, that manmade attribution is uncertain when at least some of the Cato Institute leaders appear to be endorsing numbers inconsistent with that idea. As I said, they may adapt to this new information by saying it is manmade (or perhaps quietly stop denying that) but will want to plan according to it being assumed harmless.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can also
        arise from variations within the climate system due to, for example,
        interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this document,
        this is referred to as “internal climate variability”.

        Such internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of
        a chaotic system: one that can exhibit complex unpredictable internal
        variations even in the absence of the climate forcings discussed in the
        previous paragraph.’ http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

        The key word is unpredictable. Most recent warming was ‘noise’ rather than ‘signal’ – it suggests that ‘an outlook on response theory as applied to random dynamical systems, rather than in the more familiar context of statistical mechanics near equilibrium. This theory provides the response function R(t) of a chaotic system to time-dependent forcing, as well as its
        Fourier transform, the susceptibility function (x). In fact, climate change involves not just changes in the mean, but also in its variability [3]. Thus,
        the susceptibility function will allow us to get a handle on mechanisms of high sensitivity in the response of climate variability to deterministic, anthropogenic forcing—such as increases in aerosols and greenhouse gases—as well as to random, natural forcing, such as volcanic eruptions.’
        http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math-Clim_Sens-SIAM_News%2711.pdf

        It takes a sort of insanity to keep on reiterating simplistic drivel about climate sensitivity.

  45. Denizens, meet Rep. Shelley Moore Capito:

    The EPA’s attempts to control climate change through regulation and stall the approval of mining permits can only lead to coal states like West Virginia bearing the brunt of poorly thought-out policies that translate into greater job loss and higher energy costs.

    http://capito.house.gov/op-eds/politico-note-to-epa-coal-isnt-a-dirty-word/

    Her being not convinced about climate change having nothing to do with that.

    • Now that we’ve been introduced, let’s follow her stream of tweets:

      • So, Willard. Are you trying to paint her in a bad light? Just askin’.

      • Willard

        This sounds like a well-informed lady who is representing the interests of the voters who elected her.

        Good for her!

        Max

      • > Are you trying to paint her in a bad light?

        Are you suggesting that a tweet of Shelley Moore Capito could paint her in a bad light? Perhaps it’s because you have not been introduced properly.

        jim2? Meed Rep. Shelley Moore Capito:

        In a speech Monday announcing her bid to take the seat that Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller has held since 1984, Capito pledged to “continue to stand up against the EPA’s dangerous and unconstitutional crusade to dictate our nation’s energy policy to the detriment of West Virginians.”

        “We are a state rich in natural resources with our coal reserves, natural gas and even oil,” she said. “They have played a major role in the course of our state and driven our economy.”

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84244.html

      • willard (@nevaudit) | May 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

        It’s funny.

        Keystone is promoted in Canada, the USA, and China.

        In each of these countries, the promoters sell the locals on jobs and investment.

        The first problem is, these are mainly the sort of jobs that vanish once construction is over, or must be taken from the other two countries. Of China, Canada or the USA, which do you suppose will get these jobs?

        The second problem, when they say ‘attracts investment’, they largely mean ‘demands subsidy and government favors’. The land expropriated in the USA by a mainly Chinese/Russian-owned Canadian company, do you think the land owners feel they’re ‘investing’ in the pipeline? The full court press of Canadian politicians and diplomats, funded by Canadian taxes and leveraging Canadian diplomatic and trade strength for the pipeline, do you think that’s ‘investment’?

        The investors with controlling interests and who will collect essentially all the dividends are mainly foreign, and their foreign investors with deep connections to foreign governments that are not your friend. They are selling you something much, much more expensive than what you can produce domestically and securely on US soil. They’re not doing it out of friendship or benevolence.

        Any pro-Keystone politician is a reckless nitwit, or is in their pocket.

      • Bart R:

        “It’s funny.”

        Canadian tax dollars at work – defending the spin of Suncor and Syncrude from formerly obscure artists…

        http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/17/artist-inspiration-canada-silence-climate

        That’s “funny” in the same way that eating broken glass is “delicious”.

      • Sources tell me that part of the job creation comes from cleaning up leaking pipes:


      • cleaning up leaking pipes

        Pipes do not leak. They become laissez faire.

        That’s glorious hydrocarbon Freedom in that there river.

      • And all those windmill and solar panel installer jobs last forever and never, need subsidy or favor?

      • willard discovers maintenance. Hey, buy Granger.
        =======

      • JeffN | May 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm |

        The Canadian _advertising_ budget of Keystone XL in the USA is larger than the entire worldwide windmill subsidy.

        http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2013/05/28/pro-keystone-ads-outrageous-union-argues

        Get some sense of perspective.

        Any subsidy is obscene (where the Infant Industry argument does not apply.. which it might to some select new technology; the case for windmills is dubious, for pipelines is nonexistent): but bigger subsidy is more obscene than smaller subsidy. You throw the Canadians off the US land they expropriated, and out of the US newspapers and television and internet their tax dollars pay to lie to Americans, and then by all means, you’ll be hearing me making noise about cutting Canadian subsidies to US windmills.

        Because foreign ownership of US land, water rights, and jobs is a bit more sick than any psychogenesis from windmill infrasound.

      • Ahem, “perspective”.
        Those who salivate over the prospects of (temporary) green jobs of solar panel installer should not then argue that pipeline jobs are meaningless because they are temporary.
        Those who want massive deployment of subsidized windmills and solar panels should not then argue that they oppose subsidies because the ones they want aren’t massive yet.
        And really, you’re claiming that the Canadian government is going to build the pipeline on land stolen from Americans? Really?

  46. Max_CH, Obama is not a one issue president.

    The GOP is trying hard to make a scandal, but the public yawns.

    American’s need to be aware GOP means Go On Polluting,
    so there’ s nothing wrong with bringing that to America’s attention.

    • Max_CH

      Nor was Nixon a one-issue president.

      But the Watergate cover-ups finally caused him to fall.

      Whether the current scandals in the Obama administration and their attempted cover-ups will cause Obama to fail is conjecture – it probably depends a lot on how he himself addresses them.

      To your second point: CO2 is not pollution, Okie. It is a naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is absolutely essential for all life.

      The increase from an estimated “pre-industrial” 280 ppmv to today’s measured 395 ppmv has caused no adverse climate effects that you can name – in fact, we are arguably better off with today’s slightly warmer climate than we were as we were recovering from the Little Ice Age 200 years ago.

      Max_CH

      • Obama hired burglars to brake into GOP offices?
        Ha Ha, that’s a good one.

        I don’t mean just CO2 when I say GOP means
        Go On Polluting. If I meant just CO2, I would say:

        GOP means Gas Our Planet.

        Two facts about Republicans you should know:

        1.Republicans believe in pollution for profit.

        2. Republicans are anti-science.

      • Max_OK

        Each scandal is different in its own way, of course, but they all point to an arrogant abuse of executive power – and they all only really become critical in the “cover-up” phase.

        I can’t argue that you aren’t closer to the scene than I am, but, from what is out there, it looks like this one is beginning to “get legs”.

        http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon0514hs.html

        Max_CH

      • Max_OK

        I can’t argue about Republicans versus Democrats.

        I think history shows that your country has had some great presidents (Roosevelt, Reagan) – and some bummers (Carter, Nixon) from both parties.

        But, with barely under half of the voters voting Republican at the last presidential election, I hardly believe that polluting the environment is part of the Republican party platform – do you?

        (Or did you just make that up?)

        Max_CH

    • David Springer

      MAX_OK every time you exhale you’re polluting the planet. Do the right thing and stop breathing.

      • David Springer

        And let me know if you need help. I’m a USMC sergeant. We’re trained to help people stop breathing and are really, really good at it. Just give me the word.

      • Ebriety is no excuse for a veiled death treath, Big Dave.

      • Spinger, I would like to think the messages in the following posts resulted from lapses of judgement on your part:

        On May 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm, you recommend I kill myself.

        On May 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm, you offer to use your Marine training to help me kill myself.

        I won’t ask for theses two posts to be removed because I think it would be better if everyone reads them. I would, however, welcome your apology, and I believe you also could help yourself by apologizing.

      • Steven Mosher

        Dave, can I suggest Nick Stokes or Brandon as a legal team to explain exactly what you said and meant. Since I practice charity, I get it.

      • Scott Basinger

        Internet tough guy?

      • David Springer

        Max_OK is a fiction. It was saracasm on my part but even if it wasn’t it’s like telling Bugs Bunny to stop hiding from Elmer Fudd. You people are ridiculous.

      • David Springer

        You want an apology, Max? Fine. Post your name and address and I’ll mail it to you. Otherwise I consider you to be the equivalent of a fictional character from a novel.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘You want an apology, Max? Fine. Post your name and address and I’ll mail it to you. Otherwise I consider you to be the equivalent of a fictional character from a novel.”

        +1.

      • Springer, I am not a fiction, and your request that I post my name and address as a condition for an apology is not acceptable to me.

        Your recommendation I kill myself and your offer to use your Marine training to help me kill myself is at least a wish and a worst a threat. You posted the message here so here is the place to apologize for it.

        Since you don’t wish to retract your message or apologize for it here, I am left with no recourse but to remind you of it. The message is not something I am going to forget and you shouldn’t forget it.

        On May 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm, you offer to use your Marine training to help me kill myself.

      • Springer to the fishin’ hole, for Max a Pinto pony.
        ===========

      • HUNH ?

        Ooo eee ,ooo ah ah ting tang Walla walla ,bing bang
        Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang Walla walla bing bang

        Now, kim, we are even.

      • Springer,

        Nice exercise in showing how fast the “death threat” card gets played.

        willard and Max,

        grow up.

      • timg56, if you are suggesting I should “grow up” by recommending you kill yourself and offering to help you kill yourself, I will pass.

        That’s the kind of behavior I would expect from a child, not an adult. Unless of course the adult is mentally defective.

        I suspect David Springer suffers from personality disorders. I hope you aren’t like him.

        I never have and never will recommend a person kill himself and offer to help him kill himself.

      • Oh do get over yourself!

      • One simply does not indulge into such thing publicly, timg, more so when it is to display poor ecological kung fu.

      • Willard, a psychopath might “indulge into such thing publicly.”

      • Max (and willard),

        I don’t care all that much about suicide. I consider it a personal choice and tend to reserve most of my sympathy for those left behind. I also think of it as a waste. But again, that’s the choice of the person committing the act. Would I try to stop them if opportunity prsented itself? Yes. Because I think it a waste. But I don’t loose sleep over someone checking out.

        And if either of you are of the opinion that CO2 is a pollutant, then perhaps you should consider your role as a point source. But before going there I recommend all the other ways you contribute and work on them first. Because eliminating yourself from the equation would still be a waste.

        PS – ever wonder why all of the folks who worry about the planets carrying capacity and over population and argue for a world population of 1 billion or less don’t ever provide us with evidence of their conviction and check out of this life? Guess they think doing so would be such a great waste. Too bad they don’t give the same consideration to those who they believe are too many.

      • tmig56, I never said I had any desire to kill myself. David Springer recommended I kill my self. He said “Do the right thing and stop breathing.” Then Springer said he would help me stop breathing. He said “I’m a USMC sergeant. We’re trained to help people stop breathing and are really, really good at it. Just give me the word.”

        You may feel Springer’s comments are appropriate and innocuous. I obviously do not. But his comments were directed at me, not you.

        indulge into such thing publicly

      • timg56

        You wrote:

        Nice exercise in showing how fast the “death threat” card gets played.

        Hansen’s “coal death trains” as another example?

        Max

      • manaker,

        I was thinking more along the lines of the “Climate scientists receive death threats” stories we saw a year ot two ago. The one that stands out was the one in Australia. I recall David Arppel making a big deal about it. When the emails finally got released to the public it turned out to be someone with an over active imagination and a lot of hyperbole.

        But the death trains can count.

      • timg56,

        Thank you for your concerns and your locomotive squirrels.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I have no idea why Steven Mosher would suggest me as a defender in this situation. While there are quibbles one can raise about exactly what David Springer said, there is no defense or excuse for it. Max_OK’s description of it is fair, and Springer’s comments are every bit as reprehensible as he says (if not moreso). I would never defend Springer’s remarks, nor would I ever support his facetious requirement that Max_OK relinquish his anonymity before receiving an apology.

        Springer’s behavior was, as it often is, reprehensible. That Mosher tacitly defends and supports Springer’s behavior is pathetic.

      • Brandon, thank you.

      • > I have no idea why […]

        Thank you for taming your inner Chewbacca, Brandon.

        What Moshpit did does make sense to me.

        Look at the silly monkey!

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon

        “Springer’s behavior was, as it often is, reprehensible. That Mosher tacitly defends and supports Springer’s behavior is pathetic.”

        Huh, I dont defend it. PLease show me where I defended his behavior. I suggested that somebody with your skill or nicks skills would be a good defender. See if you can figure out why. Why do I think that you or nick would be good defenders. You will note that I said that I “get” what Dave was saying. Not approve, not endorse. I get it. If he wants a defender then he needs to employ somebody like you or Nick. Do you understand why?

        In the end David apologized. That always gets a +1 we want to encourage good behavior.

      • David Springer

        Max_OK | May 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm |

        “Springer, I am not a fiction”

        I don’t believe you. I think you’re a figment of someone’s imagination. A writer, and not a very good one, experimenting with fake persona’s for a cli-fi novel.

        Looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree. LOL

      • David Springer

        Steven Mosher | May 29, 2013 at 12:30 am |

        “In the end David apologized.”

        No, he didn’t. As a general rule I don’t apologize to avatars and I made no exception in this case.

      • Steven Mosher

        perhaps there are limits to charity.. na…

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Max_OK, of course. No matter what I may think of you or your views, it is never okay to call for the death of another commenter. It is possibly the worst thing anyone can do in a discussion. There is nothing that can ever justify treating another commenter like that.

        Steven Mosher, you suggested someone defend David Springer’s comments. Saying such can be done is tacitly offering a defense. That you then responded to a follow-up comment of his with “+1” enhances that view, and it shows you supporting his actions. You now claim to have given him a +1 because he apologized, but the reality is he did no such thing. You are now supporting him via misrepresentation.

        The reality is the comment you awarded a +1 was not anything admirable. It was, instead, a dishonest use of rhetoric to try to smear Max_OK. Springer even admitted he didn’t apologize, yet you did nothing to retract your support of any of his actions, much less condemn any of them.

        Suggesting another commenter kill himself is not acceptable behavior, and it is not acceptable to defend such. In fact, it’s pathetic.

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon.

        I suggested that you or nick would be good defenders because you both defend the indefensible. Nick, as racehorse, defends some pretty shody stuff in climate science, and you defend some of your crazy positions to the bitter end and beyond.

        Not very good with analogies are you?

      • Steven Mosher

        David

        “No, he didn’t. As a general rule I don’t apologize to avatars and I made no exception in this case.”

        I’m sorry, you are correct. You didnt apologize, you offerred an apology. My bad.. ok + 1/2 for offering the apology and -1/2 for attaching conditions..

        so +0.

        It won’t happen again. Look if you hired Brandon to defend you, all your troubles would vanish

      • David Springer

        What troubles?

      • willard,

        If coal trains are another species of squirrel, please note it ws not I who looked them up in the field guide.

        Speaking of which, there are reports that the Northern coal train squirrel may be expamding its habitat. Already indigenous to the PNW, the coal train squirrel is on the verge of increasing its numbers and expanding its range. However it does face the threat of extermination attempts from avid environmental activists who believe it is a non-native, invasive species, whose expansion will destroy the world as we know it.

        Foot note: They can’t explain how the world will be destroyed, just that it will. My guess is squirrel farts.

      • Brandon,

        May I make a correction to your comment about “calling for someone’s death”?

        Springer did no such thing. He simply made a suggestion. And if someone is as concerned about CO2 as Max claims, then the suggestion has bearing.

        His offer of assisting Max, should he decide to act on the suggestion is, in my opinion, in bad taste. Jarheads exhibit that from time to time. Just be happy they are our jarheads. It is a small price for what they do otherwise.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        timg56, bull. David Springer did not merely offer a suggestion (that would have still been reprehensible). He flat out told Max_OK to die, even saying it would be the “right thing.” There is no excuse or justification for that, and it’s horrible you would say it has “bearing” for any reason. What’s next, telling everyone who worries about world hunger they should kill themselves so they don’t eat food?

        It’s disgusting anyone would support, in any way, Springer telling another poster the “right thing” is to kill himself. Please stop.

      • Brandon,

        To you question about people who worry about world hunger – my reply, depending on who was stating these worries, would be to put up or shut up. I’ve noticed that a large percentage of the leading voices telling us we need to worry about world hunger, resource depletion, carrying capacity, etc, as they relate to overpopulation rarely do anything about it personally. They simply tell the rest of us we are consuming too much, while telling each other about how better a place it would be if there were a few billion less souls in existence. To those folks I say stand up for your beliefs. Commit your time and resources to help those in need. Would I recommend the ultimate act of conviction? No. But I don’t mind tossing it in their faces. If you want to talk about disgusting, I’d start with the hypocrites who enjoy the benefits of a modern, energy rich life while wanting to deny the same to billions of others. What is truly disgusting are those people who use the non-existent “unborn generations” as a shield to hide behind. Be well assured that whenever someone says “Think of the children.” children are likely among the least of their concerns.

        As to what I’d say to someone worrying about hunger and without food? Here, take some of mine.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        timg56, I am at a loss as to why you’d make such a long comment to respond to a rhetorical question, facetiously asked, while completely ignoring the actual topic being discussed. I know I posted the rhetorical question, and you are free to use it as a springboard for your rambling commentary on whatever, but you should at least have the decency to address the actual point of my comment.

      • Hey, willard –

        You got any pom-poms?

      • Climate change policy based on the delusion of CAGW is killing actual people right now. Pay attention.
        ================

      • Brandon,

        I respect you and pay attention when the topic is science (and other things). When you start channeling some circa 10 BC rabbi with your nitpicking over what someone said or didn’t say, I start to tune you out.

        I did respond to your point. If I am guilty of rambling while doing so, well it is neither the first time nor the last. I am starting to think that you too own a high horse, which you like to get on from time to time. If so, I recommend looking up Bart. Another guy who I pay attention to when he’s not aboard this trusty steed.

    • Steven Mosher

      Hmm.. “yawns” is not exactly correct. below average is more accurate, and folks would like to see more .

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/162584/americans-attention-irs-benghazi-stories-below-average.aspx

      • Interesting the usage of ‘average’.
        =========

      • Mosh is right.

        These things often start off as “yawners”.

        Watergate was a “yawner” throughout 1972. Didn’t really “get legs” until 1973.

        From what I’m reading and hearing the Benghazi story is generating less public interest (and outrage) than the IRS story. The press is most interested in the story concerning AP plus the one journalist that was harassed by the Justice Department (since it involves “freedom of the press”).

        It appears from the articles I have read that three incidents together, all pointing to abuse of power in the executive branch of government, could go “viral”, mostly because of the cover-ups, particularly if there has been any lying under oath involved.

        But they could all three die down and become “yawners”. Too early to tell.

        Max

      • Max_Ch, or not die down and backfire on the GOP like the Clinton impeachment did.

        As for Mosher, I question whether he has good sense. He thinks I should tell David Springer where I live, despite the fact Springer recommended I kill myself and offered to use his Marine training to help me kill myself.

      • Max_OK

        As seem from over here the Clinton impeachment was really “much ado about nothing”. Was it “sex” or was it “foreplay” that occurred in the Oval Office? Huh? Who cares?

        Lying under oath is another story. But what married man wouldn’t lie about having an extra-marital affair? Especially if he’s a smooth-talking politician.

        From what I read, though, it appears that these “scandals” involve something more basic than “sex”, namely the abuse of executive power. So there appears to be more “meat” here. Nobody likes the IRS to start off with. And attacking the press is never a good idea. Whether or not it will grow to the size of Watergate will probably depend on how the administration reacts.

        The best way to defuse this IMO would be to admit that mistakes were made, identify those who made them and remove them from their positions and move on.

        The worst thing to do would be to follow the Nixon example: attempted cover-ups, lying under oath and finally getting caught..

        But that simply reflects what I have read over here and you may be better informed.

        Max_CH.

      • Max_CH said: The best way to defuse this IMO would be to admit that mistakes were made, identify those who made them and remove them from their positions and move on.’
        _________

        Why not let the Republicans make a lot of unfounded charges first ?

      • Max_OK

        Again, I’m too far away from the picture to have any opinion on whether or not “Republicans” are making any unfounded claims of misconduct by the IRS or Justice Department.

        If the claims are all “false”, this will soon blow over.

        If not, it won’t, unless those who are guilty of the misconduct are named and (if necessary) removed from their positions.

        Seems pretty simple to me.

        Max_CH

      • The 1983 Marine Barracks fiasco in Beirut, then turning tail and pulling out of Lebanon, then selling arms to the paymasters of the Beirut bombers to fund death squads in El Salvador didn’t hurt Ronny RayGun WWII ChickenHawk and secret government rat from getting reelected in 1984. Now, all the teabaggers get their panties in a wad over a four dead in Bengahzi and wonder why it’s not a major issue with the public.

      • @manacker…

        Again, I’m too far away from the picture to have any opinion on whether or not “Republicans” are making any unfounded claims of misconduct by the IRS or Justice Department.

        They’re not. Obama himself is on a rampage about the IRS thing. And it’s the press, who by and large support(ed) him who are upset about the justice dept. going after Rosen.

        Forbes: Never Let A Good ‘Scandal’ Go To Waste, As Conservatives Push Their Agenda

        President Barack Obama’s agenda for the immediate future, and probably for the next three years, is dead. D-E-A-D. One reason he has survived this long is that the media have been so supportive—one might say “coddling.” No surprise, since major news executives have siblings working for the White House.

        Politico’s Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen just published a piece entitled “D.C. Turns on Obama.” That apparently includes the authors. They write, “Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats.” And in the next paragraph they say, “This White House’s instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system.”

        Obama seems more interested in forcing a switch from coal to gas than going after all fossil carbon. From HuffPostBlog: Obama EPA Shut Down Weatherford, TX Shale Gas Water Contamination Study

        […] the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) censored a smoking gun scientific report in March 2012 that it had contracted out to a scientist who did field data on 32 water samples in Weatherford, TX.

        And: Ed Rendell Intervened for Fracking Giant Range Resources to Stop Texas EPA Water Contamination Case

        A breaking investigation by EnergyWire appears to connect the dots between shadowy lobbying efforts by shale gas fracking company Range Resources, and the Obama EPA’s decision to shut down its high-profile lawsuit against Range for allegedly contaminating groundwater in Weatherford, Texas.

        At the center of the scandal sits former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the National Governors’ Association.

        […]

        The new twist exposed by EnergyWire’s Mike Soraghan is that Ed Rendell, acting “as a spokesman for Range” Resources, “proposed certain terms” to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Exactly what was said remains unclear, but the EPA ultimately dropped its case against Range. More than a thousand pages of emails obtained by EnergyWire “offer behind-the-scenes insights in a case that has come to be seen as a major retreat by the agency amid aggressive industry push-back and support for natural gas drilling by President Obama.”

        This may be an effort by the left to hijack what’s left of Obama’s influence.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘As for Mosher, I question whether he has good sense. He thinks I should tell David Springer where I live, despite the fact Springer recommended I kill myself and offered to use his Marine training to help me kill myself.”

        Huh. he offered an apology. That’s always a good thing. I dont think you should give him your address. Why would you think such a thing.

      • His apology offer was conditional. Presumably no name and no address would mean no apology.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        JCH, beyond that, David Springer has called for people to discard their anonymity before. He had every reason to believe Max_OK would not do so here. That means his offer to apologize was conditional, requiring something he knew would not happen. Since he knew his requirement wouldn’t be met, the only interpretation for his offer is one of facetiousness.

        Quite simply, David Springer had no intention of apologizing. He simply used a mock offer of apology as a means to attack Max_OK for his decision to remain anonymous. It was nothing but a dishonest use of rhetoric to attack the person whose death he calls for.

        And Steven Mosher is supporting him.

      • David Springer

        That’s correct Brandon. I’m not in the habit of apologizing to internet avatars and I’m not about to start now. For all I know Max_OK is a method actor practicing for a role in a movie. He certainly needs the practice if that’s the case because the persona isn’t really credible. The description of the macaw attack sounds like it came out of Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds”. Only less credible. Even parrots it seems want to help Max stop polluting the planet with his breathing. ;-)

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon

        “And Steven Mosher is supporting him.”

        Supporting him? I suggested that he take you or Nick on as defense lawyers, since you both have experience defending the indefensible. Look, just because I’d suggest that OJ hire Johnny cochrane does not imply I think he is innocent. In fact, If I thought David were innocent, I wouldnt suggest a lawyer at all.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Steven Mosher, congratulations on failing to read what I said. Nothing in my comment referred to you suggesting someone defend Springer’s remarks. It only referred to a later set of comments. You’ve simply created a strawman by failing to read simple sentences, an amazing feat. You should be complimented on your ability to create strawmen.

        On a different topic, we now have indisputable evidence I was right and you were wrong. Springer has openly admitted he not only offered no apology, but facetiously offered to make one solely as a rhetorical ploy. This directly contradicts your claim that he had offered an apology and deserved praise for such.

        I anxiously await your refusal to address your mistakes.

      • The apology offer was insincere. It’s worse than no apology at all. So -1 on the insincere offer, and -1 more on its insincere conditions.

        People have every right to be anonymous on the internet. Many lawyers advise it. Mine is one.

      • David Springer

        Ask your “lawyer” if anonymous internet handles have legal standing in a court of law. Can I threaten or slander an avatar named Bugs Bunny, for instance? How would a lawsuit read? Bugs Bunny vs. David Springer? Hilarious.

      • Nice chain-jerking, Springer. All the word-boys in a tither fighting over inconsequential nonsense burbling out of your moneymaker. The next screwdriver is on me.

      • I believe that would be a question for your lawyer, not mine.

      • David Springer

        Howard | May 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm |

        “Nice chain-jerking, Springer. All the word-boys in a tither fighting over inconsequential nonsense burbling out of your moneymaker. The next screwdriver is on me.”

        Thanks. But make it a greyhound.

      • David Springer

        JCH | May 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm |

        “I believe that would be a question for your lawyer, not mine.”

        No need. I already know the answer.

  47. Denizen? Meet Rep. Michael Conaway:

    By 1984, the outlook was bleak. “We didn’t find much oil and gas,” said Michael Conaway, Bush’s chief financial officer. “We weren’t raising any money.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

    • Mike Conaway has voted in favor of oil companies on 91% of important oil-related bills. These include Iraq War Funding, Climate Change Studies, Clean Energy, and Ending Oil Subsidies. See money in politics below.

      http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/K._Michael_Conaway#Oil_Record

      Here’s Money in politics below:

      Mike Conaway has received $146,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $56,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. Since 2000, he has received a total of $520,718 from oil companies. See above for oil voting record.

      http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/K._Michael_Conaway#Oil_Contributions

      • willard flails around with his distractions. It is said that he is bright.
        ===============

      • Meet Mike Conaway, Kold one:

        Well, I think it’s a false urgency. It’s a made-up urgency in order to try to scare people into doing something they might not otherwise do. We’ve already seen, over the last three or four weeks some question about the data that’s being used to drive the climate change models that were there. If you look at the models that they have in place — there are 21 of them that the IPCC has put together — they are spectacularly intricate. They are complicated. They are based upon reactions of reactions to reactions to reactions, formulas that just look spectacular on paper and give you a false sense of legitimacy.

        If you chart those guesses as to what Earth’s temperature will be over a 75-year time frame, you’ve got a high and a low and the other 19 or in between those. Start that track in 2000. You’ve got it coming across, they begin to spread out, and then you get out here 40 or 50 years, 50 years, and then they go straight up, kinda hockey-stick-lookin’ thing. If you go back, then, and plot America’s or the world’s actual temperature from 2000 to today, it’s below the bottom estimate and falling away from their track.

        So, what the argument would be is that look, these things didn’t get it right the first nine years. Somehow, there’s a self-correcting mechanism somewhere out there in the future that needs to rely on that data and it feels that sense of urgency. So, most projections, in fact all projections, are the most accurate in the near term. If we’re this financial projection of whatever. And if not getting around in the near time, you gotta question the issue. So, now we’ve seen the data’s going bad. And the other issue is that we all want to breathe clean air.

        […]

        And man wasn’t around when that change occurred. So, climates change. Yes, that happens. Whether it’s made change has yet to be determined. The other thing they’ve not established is causation. Just because something correlates does not mean there’s a causation relationship between the two. If you looked at temperatures, you might say, “Oh, postal rates correlate with some number.” Does it mean that the postal rates caused that? Not likely. So, the causation is what’s missing, but, you know, there may be some things that correlate, and so the proponents would argue that, the science is settled, that there’s no additional need for continuing to question.

        Let me throw one other thing at you. Galileo, and I know you thought about Galileo this morning. I get up every day and think, “I wonder what Galileo is doing to…” Galileo was one of the preeminent scientists of his era, the only one that’s generally recognized in the general public. Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because the Roman Catholic church was offended that he said, “Rather than the Earth being the center of the universe,” which was the consensus, settled science of his time, Galileo boldly said, “No, the sun is the center of the universe,” a dramatic difference.
        Now, you and I both know that Washington, D.C., is the center of the universe, but that’s a different argument. So, who are the Galileo’s today? And where are all those skeptics? Because the scientific model really only works if the scientists themselves continue to question what they know. You can look across all of history, where scientists settled the Earth is flat, Christopher Columbus said, “Well, it might not be. It might be a round deal.” And so, science is only valuable to us if it continues to question itself, and climate change is one of those, particularly man-made climate change, is one of those arenas where to be fair to everybody, we oughta question all of those assumptions.

        http://www.pricelessmovie.org/interview-transcripts/politicians/mike-conaway/

    • Kold One? Meet Michael Conaway:

      Our nation’s energy sector remains one of the few bright spots in our economy, despite this administration’s best efforts. I have opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to slow-walk new permits, nationalize hydraulic fracturing regulations, install complicated and costly new regulatory burdens on power plants, and impose a backdoor cap-and-trade scheme through the rulemaking process.

      The president seems fixated on eliminating the deduction independent oil and gas companies can take for their intangible drilling costs and the percentage depletion deduction as a way to balance the deficit. While the president finds it convenient to characterize these two tax provisions as loopholes and giveaways to giant oil companies, they are not. They have been part of the tax code for decades because drilling for oil is a risky, capital-intensive business built around a declining asset. These two provisions allow independent oil and gas companies to generate the cash they need to continue to drill and explore for resources.

      Eliminating these deductions would do little, if anything, to raise revenue, but they would have enormous consequences for our local economy, as the cash available to drill new oil and gas wells could fall by a third overnight. For our nation it would mean higher oil and gas prices, but for West Texas it would mean fewer jobs, lower lease revenues, and declining local tax revenues. I have and will continue to oppose the president’s politically-motivated attacks on our oil and gas industries and jobs.

      http://conaway.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=3972

      • Wow, Willard! You found politicians that don’t always explain themselves well, and ones that like to provide jobs for constituents? That’s astounding. A good thing that subsidies for things you like are never used by politicians to buy votes.
        And being “clean” energy, none of them involve any pollution or negative effects at all (that one is allowed to talk about and not be called a denier).

      • Bill? Meet Michael Conaway:

        Although I remain highly skeptical of the science underlying this debate and dispute the fundamental need for this legislation, todayʼs hearing is not about computer modeling and variables or formulas and graphs; it is about the very real costs that this bill will impose on our families, our businesses, and ultimately, our economy.

        http://www.farmpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/conoway.pdf

        Michael Conaway thus clearly completes the hat trick.

  48. From what I’ve observed over hear, “raising his voice” is the one thing that President Obama does marvelously. You might say it’s his strength.

    But this one sounds like an attempt to distract from recent problems resulting from areas where he is weaker.

  49. Obama says: “Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.” Well, here’s an answer: the background paper prepared by the GWPF for discussions with the Royal Society. It seems to be an excellent summary of the state of play and issues to be resolved.

    GWPF Background Paper By Dr Benny Peiser

    A. Matters where we agree with the dominant scientific establishment and can quantify the outcome
    1. The greenhouse effect is real and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2. CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from approximately 0.029% to 0.039% over the past 50 years.
    3. CO2’s greenhouse warming potential follows a logarithmic curve with diminishing returns to higher concentrations.
    4. Absent feedbacks, and other things being equal, a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would warm the atmosphere by approximately 1.1C.
    5. Since 1980 global temperatures have increased at an average rate of about 0.1C per decade. This is significantly slower than forecast by the vast majority of GCMs.

    B. Matters where we agree with the scientific consensus but cannot quantify the outcome.
    1. Positive feedbacks from water vapour and soot, negative feedback from clouds and aerosols, and other factors, mean that actual climate sensitivity is a matter of vigorous scientific debate.
    2. Natural variability caused by ocean oscillations, amplified solar variations and other factors also act to increase or decrease temperature change. Thus overall temperature prediction is doubly uncertain.
    3. Arctic summer sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased; this is more consistent with regional albedo changes due to soot than with global temperature changes due to greenhouse warming.
    4. There is no consensus that recent climate change has affected the variability of weather or the frequency of extreme weather events.
    5. Economists generally agree that net economic damage will occur above 2C of warming, net economic benefit below that level, but this cannot be certain.

    C. Matters on which we think the evidence does not support the scientific consensus
    1. There has been no net increase in global temperatures for about 16 years, a period about the same length as the warming period that preceded it.
    2. Paleo-climate proxies agree that worldwide temperatures were higher and changed faster during other periods of climate change about 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 8,000 and 12,000 years ago.
    3. Predictions of increasing humidity and temperature in the tropical troposphere, a key prediction of rapid greenhouse warming, have been falsified by experimental data casting doubt on whether the warming of 1980-2000 was man-made.
    4. Ice core data clearly show carbon dioxide responding to temperature change, rather than preceding them during glaciation and deglaciation episodes.
    5. Satellite evidence confirms that vegetation has increased in density, in natural as well as agricultural ecosystems, probably as a result partly of carbon dioxide increases.

    D. Why alarm is not secure
    1. All sides of scientific debates have vested interests and display confirmation bias. Science keeps itself honest not by expecting unrealistic self-criticism by scientists but by encouraging challenge, and diverse interpretations of data, rather than trying to enforce a single “consensus”.
    2. Forecasting of all kinds is extremely unreliable and predictions of ecological disaster have an especially poor track record.
    3. Policies to decarbonize the economy using today’s technology are likely to be harmful to human welfare and natural ecology.
    4. Integrity, openness and objectivity need to be introduced to the conduct of the scientific debate to restore the damage done by the Climategate, Hockey Stick, Gleick, Gergis, Lewandowsky and Marcott episodes.
    5. Exaggerated alarmism is not harmless and is not scientific.

    E. GWPF’s policy position
    1. Policy needs to take account of uncertainty.
    2. Policy needs to be subjected to thorough cost-benefit analysis.
    3. An enforceable global agreement on emissions reduction is unrealistic.
    4. Adaptation may be a cheaper and less harmful policy than mitigation.
    5. Public funding should support open debate, not one-sided advocacy.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/05/GWPF-Background-Paper.pdf
    http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-invites-royal-society-fellows-climate-change-discussion/

    • Faustino

      An excellent summary of the situation today by Benny Peiser.

      Thanks for posting it here as a comment.

      Max

      PS Too bad President Obama apparently did not read this before his call for action.

    • From the GWPF “4. Absent feedbacks, and other things being equal, a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would warm the atmosphere by approximately 1.1C.”

      I do wish that the GWPF had not included this nonsense.

      • ” Absent feedbacks, and other things being equal, a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would could theoretically warm the atmosphere by approximately 1.1C.”

        Like it better, Jim?

        Max

      • Max, you write “Like it better, Jim?”

        No. The concept of no-feedback climate sensitivity has no meaning in physics, except as a means to estimate (my meaning of what estimate means) and then help measure (my definition of what measure means) total climate sensitivity; i.e. how much do global temperatures rise as a result of adding CO2 to the atmopshere. This latter number can, in theory, can be meaasured (my definition of measured). The value of no feedback climate sensitivity is a number which can a never be measured (my definition of what measured means), and should never be accepted as having any meaning by anyone.

      • Jim Cripwell

        That’s why I changed it from “would” to “could theoretically”.

        Benny Peiser is apparently willing to concede that there is agreement at the GWPF that no-feedback 2xCO2 ~1C.

        I’d see it more like this:

        The hypothesis exists that, based on laboratory determinations of the LW absorption capability of CO2, a doubling of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere could lead to a theoretical global warming in our climate system of around 1C, excluding any positive or negative net feedbacks that might possibly enhance or reduce this amount of warming.

        This hypothesis has not yet been corroborated by empirical evidence, however, and it is extremely unlikely that it ever will be, since it would be virtually impossible to extract any naturally caused warming signals or those caused by any feedbacks from the signal.

        So it is, and will remain, a hypothetical construct.

        Of more interest to me is the CO2 temperature response as determined by actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation. But we do not have these empirical data, so we really have no notion what a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere would cause. (Anyone that claims otherwise is simply deluding himself.)

        We have a surface temperature record that goes back to 1850 (warts and all). This shows warming in multi-decadal fits and spurts with an underlying warming trend of around 0.6C per century.

        We have an atmospheric CO2 record that goes back to 1958 (and some published ice core estimates prior to 1958, which are more dicey). This shows no “fits and spurts”, but a gradual increase at an exponential rate, which has leveled off at around 0.5% per year.

        Statistically speaking there is no robust empirical correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

        And, in addition, we are unable to extract the effect of natural forcing and variability from the record.

        And until we can do so, the whole exercise of trying to establish a CO2 temperature response is a guessing game.

        That’s how I see it.

        Max

      • Jim,

        There are times you sound like a Hebrew rabbi.

  50. Chief Hydrologist

    ‘In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can also
    arise from variations within the climate system due to, for example,
    interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this document,
    this is referred to as “internal climate variability”.

    Such internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of
    a chaotic system: one that can exhibit complex unpredictable internal
    variations even in the absence of the climate forcings discussed in the
    previous paragraph.’ http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

    Then again – http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/02/ellison

  51. David Springer

    Straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

    Mr. Fuggin Uniter alright. What a dirtbag.

  52. Nice to see, once again, how there is not any clear-cut association between climate “skepticism” and political ideology.

    Motivated reasoning? Good thing it only exists amongst the “realists,” eh Judith?

    • Rud Istvan

      I planned to stay out of this thread, since was just observing an ugly manifestation of ‘Chicago style’ politics. Then you showed up with another asinine comment.
      Did you ever consider that most of the Senators and Congressman listed above are not deniers, but rather sceptics with apparently reasoned views? (I leave Inhofe off that list). What is your excuse for the unforgivable comments of Whitehouse and Boxer concerning the Moore tornado?
      Eh, Joshua?
      When the President acts unpresidentially, that is a sad day for our country. When the country invests many billions in provably bad science (Hansen, Mann, Trenberth,…, that is another sad day. When Boxer gets tornados wrong, sadder still because constitutes knew or should have know gross negligence (or more likely just plain lying). On Memorial Day, such dishonors to our country’s foundational principals are extra sad. As are you.
      Again disregards

      • > Did you ever consider that most of the Senators and Congressman listed above are not deniers, but rather sceptics with apparently reasoned views?

        Data and code for that claim, Sir.

        PS: Still waiting for that mea culpa, btw.

      • Steven Mosher

        ha bully boy willard asks for mea culpa’s. now that’s funny

  53. David Springer

    I bet that language on his website doesn’t last a week. He’s going to get bitch-slapped over it big time. The office of the president of the United States should exhibit more respect for the other branches of government. He’s already got supreme court justices that refuse to show up a state of the union addresses because he’s dissed them like you’d expect from a hood rate. The senate will be appalled on both sides. Governors across this great land will speak out. I hope the asshat is impeached and deported.

    • David – from the site FAQ:
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Does President Obama support the establishment and activities of OFA?

      OFA is advocating for the agenda that President Obama has presented to the nation, and as an organization dedicated to this purpose, OFA has been grateful for the expression of support for its work by the President, Vice President and First Lady. Although it was privately established and will be privately operated, without government funding, OFA will work hard to retain the support and confidence of the President by effectively advocating for his Administration’s core agenda. It also looks forward to working with other civic organizations that are similarly committed to the successful enactment of this agenda.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      I’m not in the US so I’ve no idea how close his links are with them, but I think if he didn’t like what they do it’d be difficult for them to carry on using his domain name.

      • David Springer

        Thank you, Curious.

        I’ve been had. That’ll learn me for taking something Curry says at face value re;

        President Barack Obama’s web site.

        President Obama has a web page http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/ with a list of climate change deniers in both the House and the Senate.

        And yes it is hard to imagine someone could have a website barackobama.com without the blessing of barackobama so you’re almost certainly right to point that out. Regardless Curry blew it and, not that I should use it as a defense, but I’m fairly inebriated at the moment.

      • D. Springer:

        I guess I’m an old fashioned guy. Perhaps even somewhat of a stuffed shirt, at least for a grizzled old ex-hippie who once wore the same hat for 6 months straight without ever once taking it off except for the occasional shower. I was 19 and a girl I liked told me it looked good on me. So there’s that.

        But I don’t get how some of you guys (hello Joshua) speak to a woman of such accomplishments and of such manifestly good and humane intentions, in such tones. I don’t know who you are , but even if your cv rivals Dr. Curry’s which I very highly doubt, it’s still quite distasteful. Truthfully, I don’t think you’re fit to carry the woman’s brief case.

      • David Springer

        Curry puts her pants on one leg at a time like everyone else, Pokerguy. Are you an American? If so you don’t really act like one. We eschew titles. All men are created equal and so on and so forth.

        Write that down.

      • How’s that old ditty go?

        Springer and Joshua sitting in a tree. Tossing acorns at Dr Curry.

        Along came the farmer with his (Joe Biden approved home defense) shot gun and delivered a load of rock salt to both of these juveniles.

      • “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

        Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

    • I didn’t think it was possible for him to get the tingle-legged media upset with him, but it appears that he’s pulling that off. It’s really quite breathtaking. Maybe there’s a book in the works; ‘how to make enemies and lose influence’.

      • Harold

        It appears that the “tingle legged” media have just realized that the warm, tingly feeling was actually a result of loss of bladder control.

        Now that they’re getting p***ed on, they’re really getting p***ed off.

        Max

    • > The office of the president of the United States should exhibit more respect for the other branches of government.

      You’re right, Big Dave.

      I just sent Obama’s webmaster a suggestion to redirect the offensive link to:

      http://www.barackobama.com/climate-dittoheads

      Do you think it would be more respectful?

      Thanks!

      • David Springer

        It’s not Obama’s website. I was flabbergasted that his handlers wouldn’t have known better. In fact they probably do. As it turns out barackobama.com is not officially connected with Barak Obama. This was too undignified even for him. I’m blaming vodka for how I missed it. What’s your excuse?

      • Post has been changed to reflect this.

      • Try managing your commitments, Big Dave.

      • David Young

        With this White House, you never know what they are really behind and what is “freelance” supporters. This sounds just like your garden variety Obama stump speech. He’s the first American president to have a perpetual campaign even in his second term.

      • David Springer

        Practice what you preach, Wee Willie.

      • What can I say, Big Dave, curious spoiled all the fun.

      • Minions and millions,
        It’s fun for flying monkeys.
        Hazard on the course.
        =============

      • David Springer – I don’t know where you got the idea Organizing for Action isn’t associated with Barry.

        “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

        Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

    • It is true, this is not his site. Obama’s website is a whitehouse.gov address. This is the main website of the election organizing campaign supporting him. I think they are looking at putting congressmen’s records out there for upcoming elections. The 2014 election cycle has already started.

      • “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

        Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

  54. I must have missed something. Is Willard Fanny’s alter ego?

    • Naw. He’s a bit sharper (if just as confused). Big difference is that he hasn’t figured out how to use emotocons yet.

      • Thank Gaia for that. :roll:

      • Steven Mosher

        Hmm willard needs some lesson in how to be kawaii to achieve FOMD status. emoticons are important and the following explains how to create nicknames

      • David Springer

        Samaurai are no doubt spinning in their graves. Interesting transition in Japanese culture to say the least. Oh how the mighty have fallen comes to mind.

      • David Springer-

        Re: Spin and fall. Maybe, in some manner, it reflects a new, strangely ‘innocent’ society.

      • Steven Mosher

        david

        “Samaurai are no doubt spinning in their graves. Interesting transition in Japanese culture to say the least. Oh how the mighty have fallen comes to mind.”

        Kawaii is more than a japanese phenomena

        ‘The Kawaii concept has become something of a global phenomenon. The aesthetic cuteness of Japan is very appealing to people globally. The wide popularity of Japanese kawaii is often credited with it being “culturally odorless.” The elimination of exoticism and national branding has helped kawaii to reach numerous target audiences and to span every culture, class, and gender group.[45] The palatable characteristics of kawaii have made it a global hit, resulting in Japan’s global image shifting from being known for austere rock gardens to being known for “cute-worship”.[7]”

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

        In taiwan you should see how this is playing out.

        Hmm remember blade runner.. imagine that future in pink.

      • In WW2 my father’s USMC platoon did their dead level best to spin as many Samurai types into those graves in which they are said to be spinning as possible.

        Historical fact, my father treated some 28th Marines with Samurai sword wounds. The silly idiots would attack with swords.

      • I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe; bananas being peeled, trains crammed with passengers.
        ==================

      • “In taiwan you should see how this is playing out.”

        Taiwan is a very interesting and complex place. Very, very dynamic these days. There are a number of places in East Asia that would be interesting to live in these days.

      • Steven Mosher

        Taiwan is a very interesting and complex place. Very, very dynamic these days. There are a number of places in East Asia that would be interesting to live in these days.

        ################

        yes, lucky damn fuller has moved to china. the west is dead.

      • the west is dead.

        At least between the ears.

      • David Springer

        Steven Mosher | May 28, 2013 at 11:23 am |

        Let’s settle this like men.

        http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kawaii&word2=ninja

        ROFL

      • David Springer

        I spent quite a bit of time in Taipei. I wouldn’t recommend it unless you’re in a 5-star hotel all expenses paid then I can’t recommend it highly enough!

        Here’s my digs. Back in days (1990’s) when Michael Dell wasn’t such a penny pincher.

        http://taipei.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html

      • I’d go back to Taipei in a heartbeat. (There this spring.) I suspect a lot of big changes I saw–I was there in the mid 70’s–have taken place since you were there, e.g. Daan District (Daan Park, NTU, Taiwan Normal) is really nice. But to each his own.

    • Harold? Meet Rep. Cory Gardner:

      I believe one of the biggest impediments to creating jobs in this nation is a government that is now bent on working cap and trade policies, not just through the legislature, but through the administrative and through the regulatory process.

      http://www.npr.org/2010/11/24/131561154/climate-change-bill-languishes-on-capitol-hill

      You may wish I were Fan as you like.

  55. David Springer

    This is what happens affirmative action gets so out of control it puts someone in the whitehouse. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

    • The EU was so happy with the outcome. Big clue there… much like Sartre lacking the intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong about communism from the comfort of a French café as the Russians were living and dying under Stalin’s vision.

    • One person’s “affirmative action” is a nation’s “democracy in action”.

      Be afraid.

      • heinrich,

        Why counsel fear?

        It has been my experience that those who do to achieve an objective usually do so because they are uncertain as to whether they would success solely on the facts.

  56. There is no doubt that the planet has warmed by about 1.0C since 1900 and fossil fuel and CO2 are the most likely cause. But is that of serious concern? The UN’s IPCC. which was not set up to do scientific research, has failed to convince the world that it is.

    Since 1900 there have been two periods of global warming: 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to about 2000, the rest of the time to the present, temperature has either fallen or remained constant on average. So when people say, but CO2 concentration has always increased, why has temperature not always increased? No one knows for sure. Models should be able to answer these questions, but those sponsored by the IPCC have not been properly validated and lack credibility. So the field is wide open for polical polarizers like Al Gore to fo their work.

    • Rud Istvan

      The IPCC was set up to do meta analysis. Which opens the door wide open to selection bias in many forms, all of which forms they practice, some examples of which were shown elsewhere.
      Your factual observations are directionally correct ( hard to say for sure since the data has been fiddled, and is inherently uncertain [UHI, varve compaction]). And inconvenient for alarmists with political agendas like Gore. So as ‘truth’ (uncertainty monster, ECS, …) becomes clearer, the policy advocates for drastic reactions to CAGW become more strident.

      When the President stoops to attempted shaming of a quarter of the national legislature, you can figure the tide has turned against him and his agenda. He already did that to the Supreme Court in a SoU. Sad to have such a discussion on Memorial Day.

      • Rud – check the OFA site credentials.
        +++++++++++
        Re: meta analysis – I can’t remember where I saw it or the exact words but someone posted a gem along the lines of “ah, metaanalysis – the subprime of the academic world!”

    • Chief Hydrologist

      There are 2 possibilities.

      1. Decadal scale changes in partitioning of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere.

      2. Decadal scale changes in cloud cover.

      3. Both of the above.

      I would include sulphides but the quantification doesn’t seem quite right.

  57. David Springer

    Curry needs to print a retraction most riki tik. That’s NOT President Obama’s website.

    • It is a 501(c)(4) that the IRS under Obama has no problem with:

      Does President Obama support the establishment and activities of OFA?

      OFA is advocating for the agenda that President Obama has presented to the nation, and as an organization dedicated to this purpose, OFA has been grateful for the expression of support for its work by the President, Vice President and First Lady. Although it was privately established and will be privately operated, without government funding, OFA will work hard to retain the support and confidence of the President by effectively advocating for his Administration’s core agenda. It also looks forward to working with other civic organizations that are similarly committed to the successful enactment of this agenda.

      • Still – I agree with David that Judith needs to bottom that out in the head post.

      • Get real:

        WASHINGTON — Organizing for Action, the Obama-allied group that sprang from President Barack Obama’s campaign network… (Huff Post)

    • Rud Istvan

      But it is barackObama.com.
      Are you suggesting the President let somebody else hijack his name on the Internet? And he didn’t know, just like with the IRS targeting? And the rest of the federal government allowed it?
      No easy way out of the dilemma you potentially highlight.
      What all this does show is the egregious politicization of what should have been uncertain science. Corruption of fundamental ideals and values.

      • This group organized the ground game for his elections and were very successful at that.

      • Malfeasance lists are kept
        by denizens of closed society
        seekin’ ter keep the rest of us
        con -troll – ed. List keepin’s
        a tradi – shun o east
        and west persuasion.
        Inqiisi – shun, race –
        suprem -acist or eastern
        po – ten – tate.
        And so terday,
        Stephen Shneider’s
        little list,* Gene of Green
        Peace ‘We know who you
        are.’ * And
        of course, there’s this …

        * Tom Fuller 24/06/10 WUWT
        * Paper ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change’ (2010)
        WUWT 26/06/10 2010

      • Speaking of Stephen Schneider, his spirit may still live among honest brokers:

      • You might bulk up a little if you inquire into the distinction between the spirits.
        ========

      • Please mind Big Dave’s habits
        Comment down under less spirits

      • “Climate change is a problem where complexity meets poor data meets ethical choices. You can’t be clear and honest at same time.”

        Willard, I work with brain surgeons who work on brain cancers most of the time. They have to advise a 31 year old mother of four what treatment choices she has and what the likely outcomes are going to be.
        They would lose their licenses for making statements like Tol.

      • David Springer

        His real name isn’t Barack Obama. See below.

        http://tinyurl.com/ntxbhqm

  58. maksimovich

    Politicization of uncertainty will introduce a confirmation bias that will further entrain the political bias(ideology) already evident in the debate.Which will act as a constraint on further limitations on environmental problems and more simply Obama has made the problem worse by polarization and personification..

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

  59. Biggs,
    So the earth has never before rose 1.0 degree C in 110 years before now?
    Was it CO2 then? Curious.

    • And, it has been down — Global mean at the surface has really been -1°C — over the last 25 years. And there is now common agreement among sane and rational people that, Americanism does not lead to Catastrophic, Calamitous Runaway Global Warming and Extreme Climate Change Weather Disasters to Kill All Life.

  60. Judith – do you know what the relationship is between OFA and President Obama? In your post you say:

    “President Obama’s labeling of these individuals as deniers (particularly those with rational positions) only serves to polarize the situation. This does not seem like good politics to me.”

    yet it is unclear if these really are Obama’s words? Or even if he is aware of them? Can I suggest you write to his office seeking clarification of his personal position on the web page you linked to and that you include a copy of your expert testimonies?

    • If Obama is upset with what this organization is doing, he can call them out. It was set up by his people and for him. Just because Godfather Barry doesn’t run it doesn’t mean he doesn’t run it.

      “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

      Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

      • David Springer

        I’m not an expert on PAC legal status and don’t intend to remedy that situation anytime soon but my understanding so far is that OFA is like a super-PAC which can accept donations without reporting the sources and can spend to influence elections but cannot coordinate with the official election campaign. When mentioning “no coordination” there’s always a wink-wink-nudge-nudge connotation with it such that everyone knows they’re coordinating through back channels.

        So Obama has no official control over the organization, no official position within it, and I seriously doubt that minutae such as approving individual web pages crosses his desk. One might hope he’s a bit brighter than whoever decided it was okay to call US Senators and House members, especially Senators, climate deniers which is almost certain to backfire if many people take notice of it.

      • David,

        I don’t get why you are acting like some attorney on this. Saying he has no official control sounds like you are splitting hairs for no good reason.

      • David Springer

        tmg56

        http://www.billclinton.com

        The above is for sale.

        I’m acting all attorney-like because if Obama is not the owner of the domain, if he isn’t listed as an officer in the 501c corporation, then it’s not his website and he has no authority over it. It appears to be a bunch of his campaign lackeys. In this case I’m sure they know they won’t be working on any more Obama campaigns so they have little to lose by doing their own thing. My guess is they’re just milking big donors with promises of spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom or some schit like that and Obama lets them do it as payback for what they did for him in 2011. Fair’s fair. I won’t blame Obama if he isn’t in control and as far as I can tell he isn’t.

    • David Springer

      ” I won’t blame Obama if he isn’t in control and as far as I can tell he isn’t.”

      For future reference–may I use that out of context?

    • David,

      OK, fair points. Your scenario sounds very plausible. Also plausible is that President Obama is fully aware of what this organization is doing and implicitly supports it. At least until things start to blow back on him. At which point he will disavow any knowledge and promise to bring his full powers into play to stop such behavior.

  61. This initiative appears to be spearheaded by Grant Fuller, who wrote this.

  62. Actually it might be good politics.
    However, it’s not good.

  63. Rally the core. shake the money tree, do some diversions, maybe a little chumming, 2014… yawn.

  64. Some points:

    1. Barack Obama is likely the most conservative Democrat president in a century on most scorecards, at least as conservative as LBJ in his voting record, and far more on matters of protectionism, gun rights, and reduction of government. His healthcare plan? That’d be the Bob Dole plan. Are you calling Bob Dole a Progressive?

    2. The website appears to be a private enterprise or group. While such nutty groups might frighten certain alarmists who see government spooks behind every action on the Intertubes, they’re harmless and ultimately good for democracy by free expression of their wonky ideas.

    3. As a propaganda exercise, the website is shooting itself massively in the foot. It’s inviting those few visitors who bother to contact and open dialogue with 87 people who want to open dialogue with people who disagree with them. In particular, as it pre-selects people by district, it is providing the service of letting politicians talk directly to, and do whatever they wish to, to convert voters to their point of view.

    4. Comparing this to the German UBA pamphlet is instructively pointless. The German government responds to climate critics in a typically blunt and direct germanic way? So what? Who cares? It’s public, it’s open. It’s a socialist country in a socialist continent where people do things like that. Now, if it’d been secret, hidden, and a multi-year campaign of actual censorship and blacklisting, for instance like Canada practices against its scientists, authors, public speakers and artists.. that’d be concerning for someone who objected to government tyranny. Indeed, you could practically predict whether someone was a conservative or not by their ability to distinguish real corrupt government intervention in private matters from fake.

    • Bart,

      I’d say your assessment is pretty spot on.

      While the President may be “progressive” in his opinions and philosophy, it is hard to show where he has succeeded in pushing such a philosophy as President.

      As a registered Republican I never understood why Republicans went after Clinton so hard. I personally am of the opinion that history will show him as one of the most suceesful moderate Republican Presidents of all time.

    • “The formation of Organizing for Action was announced by Chairman [6] Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, and First Lady Michelle Obama on January 18, 2013. White House official Jon Carson left the Obama administration to become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod serves as a consultant.[7]

      Organizing for Action succeeds Organizing for America, which was formed under similar circumstances but operated under the control of the Democratic National Committee.[8] In preparation for President Obama’s second term, Obama for America was relaunched as a nonprofit group in order to mobilize support behind the president’s legislative and political agenda.[2]”

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

    • Bart, put your psychoanalyst on danger money, you have gone over the edge.
      The idea that Bob Dole or anyone wanted everyone in states outside Nebraska to pay for Medicaid to everyone below 133 percent of the ‘poverty-line’. Whereas in Nebraska the Fed’s pick up the tab.

      • Whatever.

        I’m not turning this into a rehashing of an idiotic and overlong debate that frankly made America a laughingstock throughout the civilized world. Have some personal sense of dignity and put that behind you before you embarrass the whole country even more.

  65. The Medium is the Message. AGW is a Left v right issue. Accordingly, global warming is undeniably political. The fact that AGW can be couched in the trappings of science without academics pointing and rolling on the floor with laughter proves how dishonest academia really is. That the UN and the EU are the major movers of the AGW movement proves it is motivated by hatred of Americanism. High schooler Kristen Byrnes at age 15 knew Al Gore was full of bullcrap.

    • Wagathon | May 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm |

      You misunderstand Marshal McLuhan. Grossly.

      And while you think of AGW as a Left-Right thing, most of the world doesn’t.

      Certainly photons don’t. Molecules don’t. Thermometers don’t.

      So the logic of an argument so deeply distrustful of science it prefers to hand our fate to 15-year-olds doesn’t particularly move me to seeing any virtue in it.

      • Global warming alarmism is a Western phenomenon. There is no logic in that except that Western civilization is has become a deeply disturbed culture of bankrupt societies. In the rest of the world AGW theory is likened to the ancient science of astrology.

      • I’ve long used ‘a precious conceit of a Western elite’ to describe the madness of the crowd which is CAGW. Unfortunately, both ‘precious’ and ‘conceit’ are used in an archaic manner, so I’m rarely understood. Art doesn’t care about comprehension, though. So there.
        ==================

    • If you mean ‘AGW alarmism’ is a figment of the imagination of Western Red Scare pee pants, while most of the world — West, East or Other — simply accepts the Science on balance.. I guess you might be right.

      The people who fear that scientists are ‘in it for the chance to get money from the public troughs to promote socialism’ are, frankly, insane.

      This mass hysteria Cold War holdover, or hangover, bears zero similarity to the actual distribution of socialist opinion in science, to how funding decisions in science are made, to the impacts of scientific opinion on other public spending or public decisions.

      Sure, there have been a marginal few tie-dye wearing loonies who believe in leftist politics who also do science, and they may through a blue hempy haze somehow believe they’ll achieve some commie utopia because Gaia bla-bla-bla. But they’re at least as ignorant about how decisions in science are made, the impacts opf scientific opinion on other public spending, and on public decision-making.

      The simple fact is, if you wanted to manipulate public opinion, the last place you’d go to is to a bunch of scientists in some obscure field involving a lot of obscure math. You _might_ go to medical doctors, or veterinarians, or food scientists, because that involves something people think they can relate to. But climatologists? Ludicrous.

      This Left-Right slapfight belongs in an asylum, not a serious forum.

      I’m still deciding whether or not that means it’s in the right place, here.

      • The Earth warms and cools over time. That is a fact. Currently, it is politically attractive for the Left to claim a bigger government with greater control over the economy will save the world from being too hot; and, it sounds silly but it is a fact that many people — generally all on the Left of the political spectrum — say they believe this. Similarly, it is inconvenient for the Left to concede that if the mean global surface temperature of the Earth continues to drop at the same rate as over the last 25 years — i.e., going down a -1°C — the Earth will be “in an ice age” by 2100. Even so, the Left simply cannot get over the undeniable fact: —i.e., “Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” ~William Gray

      • The higher the climate sensitivity to CO2, the more likely we would be in an Ice Age already without man’s influence.

        So pick a sensitivity that frightens you and calculate how cold we’d now be without AnthroGHGs.
        ============

      • Bart R, Is there a possibility of being insanely stupid? Like Kim?
        She claims we would be in an Ice Age, have to be at least -1C per decade cooling, which means that AGW would have to be at least +1C per decade warming to compensate.

        Worse than being insanely stupid is the possibility that Kim and all her Aussie buddies are just pranking everyone, to see how gullible the run of the mill denier is.

        We have found ourselves in a fake asylum of fake nutsos.

      • webster, “She claims we would be in an Ice Age, have to be at least -1C per decade cooling, which means that AGW would have to be at least +1C per decade warming to compensate.”

        Pulled those numbers right out your butt. Ice Age is one of those less than definitive terms. The Little Ice Age had approximately 0.7 C cooler “global average temperatures” than today +/- about 0.4 C. Since there has been ice stored in glaciers for million of years or more, we are and have been in an “Ice Age” for quite some time. With the technology available during the “Little Ice Age” there was considerable human suffering in the northern high latitudes that would likely not be as severe with today’s technology. In fact, due to technology, we will likely not experience another “catastrophic” “ice age” without some major impact event because we are very good at snow removal and ice breaking. You can’t have a “major” “ice age” without having major ice stored in places ice isn’t stored now.

      • So what number for sensitivity frightens you? Now take that and calculate how cold we’d be without man’s effect.

        Now look at Marcott’s obscene Holocene.
        ============

      • An Ice Age is at the bottom of the interglacial cycles. We are at the top.

        Here is a cartoon for Cappy Dick’s Sunday comic strip

        ” — there is no other fighter actually in the ring.

        Exactly. And the watching crowd is loaded with individuals with an excess of self-esteem, each sure that yes, of course, if he were to deign to step into the ring he could beat this Climate Model with no problem, in fact they’re so sure that none of them cares to bother. Instead they just heckle.

        What the cartoon needs, if the Archers want to make it an animated GIF, is a plethora of balloons popping in one after the another, sometimes overlapping. “It’s the Iron Sun!” “It’s the Local Bubble!” “It’s the barycentric alignment!” ….

        Funny how they never get into arguing with each other, though their kibitzes are mutually contradictory.”

        Face it, you have nothing Cappy. Since the top-level post is about deniers in Congress, I am very happy to report that my own LOONY Denier Representative, Michele Bachmann, won’t be running for another term. She is at about your level of knowledge on science Cappy. Ha ha, it’s just a bunch of babbling nonsense, walking back anything one says, just so you can’t get pinned down.

        In 2006, Crazy Eyes Bachmann said,

        “Lord, the day is at hand. We are in the last days, your Jehovah God, We know that the times are in your hands and we give them to you. But we also, Lord, are astute enough to recognize the blossom on the fig tree is opening. The day is at hand, Lord, when your return will come nigh”

        That is your Ice Age. Putting the science in the deep freeze.

      • kim said


        ============

        Wow, that’s quite an intelligent thought.

      • Out of the moths of webs.
        =============

      • Webster, they actually called those “glacial” and “interglacial” periods. The glaciers are the ice storage which by dumping a little black carbon, ash or using a solution called deicer, can be melted PDQ. The expansion and contraction of those ice storage bins called glaciers has an albedo forcing that dwarfs CO2. You should probably write that down.

        As the ice storage area decreases, the “sensitivity” to CO2 forcing which is in the range of 15% of the total atmospheric forcing, decreases. With less ice storage, there is greater cloud response which also dwarfs CO2 forcing since clouds produce approximately 80% of the albedo of the Earth. That is in the ballpark of 80 Wm-2 versus about 3.7 Wm-2 per doubling.

        Terms like “Little” ice age are often used for lower impact events that the “ice age” or “glacial” events. It is one of those subtle linguistic things that seem to baffle you, though some believe you are intelligent enough be be deliberately confusing the issues.

      • It’s important to remember that the effect on albedo is produced by year-round snow cover, not glaciers. It takes a lot of snow piling on before you actually get glaciers, but the albedo effect starts immediately.

        It’s also important to remember that the effect isn’t just global. A large area of year-round snow cover can actually produce a bubble of cold air that, in turn, can uplift westerlies enough that precipitation that otherwise would be rain can be snow and/or hail. This can produce a positive feedback on albedo: despite the hot sun and warm westerlies, there is frequent summer snow that counteracts the melting.

        I don’t know how well the models emulate this process. My impression is that the last few decades of models don’t, very well, and thus the whole effect has been sort of shuffled out of sight. Like the Tropical Easterly Jet, and the influence of Tibetan glaciation.

        Of course, this could just be the effect of paywalls and limited searching.

      • Little Kim didn’t rap about a Little Ice Age.

        She said Ice Age on purpose to mislead and alarm.

        Deniers are in the 3% class. Within that 3% are hundreds of alternate theories destined for the garbage dump. And mixed in there are all sorts of nutty political theories. That is what Bart and I question.

        It’s a mix of two-bit science and political framing.
        Worst of both worlds.

    • Wagathon | May 28, 2013 at 11:38 pm |

      A) the authority of William Gray is seriously suspect, he’s known to have a political bias that he freely and maliciously wielded inside the field he dominated, and to its detriment.

      B) Argument by authority is weak.

      C) Your grasp of what facts are relevant is nonexistent.

      D) This “Left” you tremble under the sheets about is a puny, insignificant and imagined construct of your own insecurities. By and large believers in the left half of political discourse are perfectly happy to go with more reasonable solutions from the right half of the political discourse, which is natural as the right side of political discourse tends to come up with better solutions when it isn’t flagellating itself over some mania or other, or being led around by the nose by fearmongering extremist loons. The left half is orders of magnitude than anything you’ve described as ‘The Left’: you’re blowing the influence of the extreme minority at the far end of your imagined spectrum all out of proportion; this leads to setting bad priorities and believing in myths. The “Left” is not all-knowing, omnipotent, present everywhere, skulking in every shadow. It’s the usual mix of emotionally stunted people who embrace theories without proof. Much as you demonstrate in your own way.

      E) Your focus on myths leads you to say and apparently believe many things that are contrary to real American core values from the right half of the foundations of your nation. You persecute people for association, and without trial. You outright make up numbers and thus bear false witness against your neighbors. You diminish the value of education that is the right of all free people. You advocate against democratic institutions and democratic freedoms. You promote anti-capitalist measures. You’re simply a bad citizen.

      • Your ad hom attacks are proof of the failure of public education. When you live a hoax you become the hoax. And, the myth. It is a myth CO2 stores heat. CO2 traps heat; acts like a blanket. CO2 turns Earth into a greenhouse. It is a myth that changes in solar activity and ocean heat levels are irrelevant to climate change. Itis a myth that the planet is not being warmed by heat being released from the oceans into the atmosphere. It is a myth that there is no historical precedent for current global warming.

        And, among the biggest myths of all are that the UN-IPCC and European governments don’t hate America and they really believe taxing fossil fuels will save the world from global warming and if you sign an agreement with them they would do everything they promise and never stab you in the back because they are honest and not politically motivated.

  66. pottereaton

    Given the IRS, AP and Fox News scandals, and now this kind of partisan viciousness, it’s becoming apparent that fascism is making a comeback in the Democrat Party and affiliated organizations. Fascism at its core is an irrational ideology based on resentments and the need to destroy the lives and livelihoods of those who fascists blame for the perceived shortcomings of society and the government’s inability solve problems. It’s a convenient ideology for those who think government can’t be too powerful or destructive of individual liberty. Respect for the law and difference of opinion is cast to the wind in order to enforce compliance with prevailing fascists views.

    “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and need to be corrected.”

    Re-education camps can’t be far behind.

    It’s sickening, really.

  67. Steven Mosher

    Looks like Dana and Obama should get together on their definition of denier

  68. The website is Obama’s. Organizing for America is the political arm of the Obama campaign transformed into a political action committee.

    “The formation of Organizing for America was announced by then-President-Elect Obama on January 17, 2009.[4]

    The group officially began operations on the third day of the Obama administration, January 23, 2009. On the same day, it was announced that Mitch Stewart would serve as the first Director. Jeremy Bird, a former Obama for America field operative, was named Deputy Director.[5] In mid January 2013 the organization was transformed into a nonprofit group Organizing for Action. The president’s 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina, was announced as the group’s national chairman, and White House official Jon Carson will leave the administration and become the executive director. Campaign senior adviser David Axelrod will serve as a consultant.

    The organization will accept donations from individuals and corporations but not from lobbyists and political action committees. Offices will be in Washington and Chicago.[6]”

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

    The permanent campaign incarnate.

  69. On climate change, Obama faces an attack from his left flank

    Environmentalists have become increasingly frustrated that Organizing for Action, the non-profit 501(c)(4) group that conducts issue advocacy on behalf of the president’s agenda, isn’t doing more to press for executive action on global warming. So these grassroots groups — including CREDO Action, the political arm of the company CREDO Mobile, 350.org and others, intend to demonstrate at events OFA will conduct in the weeks ahead.

    Can Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA) help save the planet? The jury is out.

    Organizing for Action(OFA) is an offshoot of the Obama campaign, a grassroots non profit that is separate from any campaign committee (so they don’t support or run candidates) that organizes in favor of Obama’s issues like getting some sensible gun regulation or immigration reform passed in Congress, or keeping Obama care intact.

    Obama tells Organizing for Action group they can play powerful role in helping his agenda

    “Members sometimes are scared about making the right decisions,” Obama said, telling the group that they could make the difference in marshaling support that would help lawmakers come to the right decision.

    • I believe you nailed it AK.

      I get the feeling that President Obama’s interest in climate change extends only so far as it keeps environmentalist folks (who would probably support him in any event) from jumping ship.

      It is evidence of how good his political skills are.

  70. Obama is readying himself as the next Al Gore for when he leaves office. Greenfleecing is too good an opportunity to miss, it’s made fortunes for very mediocre men like him. Obama has seen the green light.

    Finding Gaia, his post presidency autobiography is already in the works, no doubt.

  71. Huh, just realized. Now we’ve go two vast wastelands…

  72. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them…

    ~Crichton

  73. My pick of the 10 dumbest statements Republican politicians have made about global warming
    10. Rep. Ralph Hall TX “I’m really more fearful of freezing. And I don’t have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they’re not basing it on real scientific facts.”
    9. Rep. John Culberson TX “This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being…”
    8. Rep. Duncan Hunter CA-50 “Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2.”

    7. Rep. Steve King IA “ But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted.”
    6. Rep. Dan Benishek MI has said that climate change is “all baloney” and “just some scheme.”  Pointing to his background as a general surgeon, Benishek claims he’s “a scientist” who has the expertise to know that climate change is “unproven science stuff.”
    5. Sen. Ron Johnson WI “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.”
    4. Rep. Blake Farenthold TX “Global warming is scare tactic used by groups with a political agenda. [sic]”
    3.Rep. Don Young AK “I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.
    2. Rep. James Lankford OK “This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else.”

    1. Sen. Jim Inhofe OK “I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.
    _________
    Honorable mention goes to Rep. Michele Bachmann
    MN for giving the House of Representatives the lowdown on CO2. Addressing the Speaker of the House, Bachmann said “Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide.”

    I look forward to Rep Bachmann shedding some light on the importance of water and dirt.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Your not even trying. I can come up with 10 much dumber statements from your comments alone.

      • OK, list my 10 dumbest comments in reverse order.

        I think I can beat all of them together with just one of your dumb comments.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        1. ‘I’m sorry, Beth but “subtle allusions” require some thinking, which isn’t my favorite activity.’

        2. ‘I never put bumper stickers on my car. There’s always the possibility the message, even if it’s not political or religious, will anger some nut enough to cause a problem.
        I don’t wear T-shirts with messages or brand names. I don’t have rings through my nose, tongue, or ears. I don’t dye my hair or wear it in a ponytail. I do nothing to attract attention to myself.’

        3. ‘Nah ! The only hole I fell into was hope for your redemption. I should have known better.’

        4. ‘Crony capitalism is good if you are one of the cronies. I wish I were a crony capitalists. I’ll bet GaryM does too. He’s always talking about crony capitalists, which suggests he is green with envy for the green.’

        5 ‘You missed my point on unfunded liabilities. An unfunded liability is not something you need money for right now, but it’s enormity can be alarming. So, if you want to frighten people, you can estimate unfunded liability as you have done for Social Security.

        As for you not wanting to be a crony capitalist, I think not being very successful suits you.’

        6. ‘Crony capitalism is good if you are one of the cronies. I wish I were a crony capitalists. I’ll bet GaryM does too. He’s always talking about crony capitalists, which suggests he is green with envy for the green.’

        7. ‘If believe coal has a bright future, invest in coal. It’s easy to do if you have the money.’

        8 ‘Solar power is anathema to pollution advocates.’

        9. ‘Myrrh, every time we exhale, our bodies are ridding themselves of some CO2. So, if CO2 is as good as you seem to believe, why is your body constantly working to expel the stuff? On second thought, I don’t know for certain how your body works. Maybe you have a weird body that keeps all the CO2 in.

        I’m not surprised people don’t want to eat carbon. They may think it’s some kind of black powdery stuff. Yecch !’

        10. ‘Max_CH, a carbon tax would hasten the switch from gasoline- and diesel-powered motor vehicles to those powered by natural gas. The faster America does this, the better. The free market would eventually do it, but the market is slow, so we need to give it some help. I’m all for helping the market.’

        No particular order.

      • Chief Hydrologist | May 28, 2013 at 3:36 am |

        Trying to be helpful.. That’s only 9.

        Your 4 and 6 overlap.

        Also, you haven’t really done much of a job parsing, as Max_OK’s said much ‘dumber’ things than any of the gems you selected, some of which appear sober, prudent, commonsensical and within the ordinary definition of average intelligence.

        Which I expect is not dumber than what politicians say, on that basis alone.

      • Say, Chief, go fer it!
        Btcg.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Well – I didn’t put a whole lot of effort into it. More a selection from recent posts. Everything he says seems pretty dumb.

      • 10?

        Max averages that in a single thread.

      • Rob Starkey

        I’ll offer one of my favorite Max Ok silly comments.

        ” those people in developing countiries don’t need electricity, they can live fine without it”

      • My ancestors lived in mansions and had house servants before they had electricity. They probably lived better than any of us.

        And now they say they had higher IQs because their nonelectric lifestyle made them think better.

      • JCH,

        It is possible that your ancestors lived better than you do today. It is also the case that far more people today live better than their ancestors (with the caveat of “better” not being defined).

        I’m one generation removed from immigrant coal miners. Well, 1 & 1/2, as my dad, the youngest, was born here. (Technically, he may not have been the “youngest”, as I lack knowing who came out first, my dad or his twin brother Henry. Henry never made it to his first birthday. Were he born today, he would have.)

        There is no doubt about my brothers and I having it better.

    • Max_OK | May 28, 2013 at 2:34 am |

      Wait.. you didn’t think the CO2=carcinogen thing made the top 10?

    • Chief, I said list 10 dumb comments, not list 10 comments you are too dumb to understand. You got it backwards.

      Anyway, I promised to identify the dumbest thing you do.
      It’s mixing Jack Daniels with soft drinks. That’s a terrible waste of fine sour mash whiskey. It’s also a concoction for sissies. You should learn to drink your whiskey like a real man.

      • That would be dumb for Chief, as he’s reported that he’s diabetic.

        Moving on: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp201-c8.pdf

        Boehner apparently confused CO2 with carbon monoxide from the days when carbon monoxide was on the list of dangerous products of cigarettes. You can understand how he might have a Fred Singer moment and get the two mixed up in his talking points.

        I say apparently, because there’s no public clarification from Boehner on what he meant. Either Boehner was honestly mistaken, or deceptively and underhandedly posing a straw man. People should want to know if a man in high elected office making decisions that affect their taxes and laws is stupid or a liar. So the out-of-nowhere “CO2 is not a carcinogen”, when no one in the discussion had ever mentioned, implied, or alluded to the who cancer topic up to then is a bona fide comment to call out for explanation.

        Or it would have been, four years ago when it was made in an interview to a reporter, who clearly didn’t have the chops to catch and clarify that little Boehner faux pas.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        This is just the past 2 days. Such persistent dumbness is gift.

        Let’s see if I understand. Yep – utter drivel – check – adolescent posturing – check – inane snark – check…

        Sissy? Real man? The most consistent response to you seems to be to grow up. Being a real man has nothing to do with drinking.

      • I’m sorry to hear Chief is diabetic.

        On global warming, I’m not sure if the Republicans In Congress are mostly leading or mostly following the voters who elected them, or if there’s a difference between it and other divisive issues such as Obama Care, and taxes and spending.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Max – I am fit and not noticably overweight. I prefer diving over coral reefs to drinking. So I will be sober in the morning – but you will still be a dumb Okie.

      • While I am of similar opinion when it comes to drinking whiskey Max, Chief’s choice is not a dumb one if that is how he enjoys it.

        As for the too dumb to understand point – perhaps that is my problem as well, since much of what you post I find difficult to understand.

        A large percentage I consider to be idiotic, but I usually chalk those up to your self confession of wanting to spin up people here. Meaning the idiotic part is contrived.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Jack and Coke is the taste of America. Disneyland with a redneck undercurrent. Doris Day on a Harley. Speed week at Bonneville meets Jerry Lewis.

      • timg56 said on May 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm
        While I am of similar opinion when it comes to drinking whiskey Max, Chief’s choice is not a dumb one if that is how he enjoys it.
        _____

        If he can taste the difference between Jack Daniels and a less expensive substitute mixed with the soft drink, it’s not dumb. If he can’t (in a blinded test) he’s dumb for wasting money.
        _____________________________________
        timg56 also said “As for the too dumb to understand point – perhaps that is my problem as well, since much of what you post I find difficult to understand.”
        ______

        If you give examples of post you find difficult to understand, I will try to explain them.
        ____________________________________

        timg56 then said: “A large percentage I consider to be idiotic, but I usually chalk those up to your self confession of wanting to spin up people here. Meaning the idiotic part is contrived.”
        ________

        If something looks contrived to you, it probably is contrived.

    • Max,
      A part of that Bachmann diatribe that I like even better:

      “As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful!
      But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.”

      I just Googled “CO2 toxicity” and got 5,170,000 hits.

      • Yes, C02 is toxic at extremely high concentrations, which Bachmann doesn’t appear to know.

      • “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” – Paracelsus

      • I’d be interested in studies showing CO2 at a consentration of 400 PPM is toxic.

        If this is true, perhaps I have a case against the Navy.

        Probably not. I volunteered.

      • tcflood

        Looks like Rep. Bachmann is better informed than you are.

        – CO2 is NOT a “harmful gas”.

        – CO2 IS “natural”

        – CO2 IS “part of Earth’s life cycle”.

        But just like water, another NON-harmful compound, if you get TOO MUCH CO2 that is not good.

        But, fortunately “too much” lies way outside the limits that could ever be reached in our atmosphere from human CO2 emissions for many reasons.

        Which is something Bachmann apparently understands.

        Do you?

        Max

    • Max_OK

      You pick the “10 dumbest statements” made by CAGW skeptics.

      The quotations attributed to the representatives, which were cited in the link above are much more intelligent and insightful than the ones you (cherry) picked..

      I could quote you the “10 dumbest statements” made by CAGW believers, but that wouldn’t bring us any further than your comment did.

      Max_CH

      • Well, Max_CH, of course I cherry-picked ’em. How else would I pick what I think are the 10 dumbest. Are you having a “senior moment” ?

        If you want to quote what you think are the 10 dumbest statements on global warming by Congressional Democrats, go ahead.

      • manaker,

        Got to give Max the points on this one. He is correct regarding the cherry picking comment.

  74. This is Obama’s site, created by him and his aides for the specific purpose of campaigning for his policies.

    He’s put his name to it.

    • I would like for it to be, but it’s not. I will make a generous contribution to it anyway.

      • Steven Mosher

        cool, since they promise transparency WRT to Donors that should be interesting.. psst. its not tax deductible.

      • Obama put his name to it.

        He fully endorses it. It is speaking on his behalf.

  75. Here’s the thing.

    You won’t see a lot of websites mounting a similar challenge from the other side.

    No one listing all the politicians who have said something about how serious climate change is, or what they’re committed to doing about global warming.

    No one inviting their base to call out those politicians publicly.

    For one, propagandists generally understand how blacklisting works, so they tend to do it in secret, in private, behind closed doors. Their hit lists are private, or disguised as something else, or rely on tribe marks rather than naming names.

    Because if you name names, you risk humanizing your opposition. Sure, you can demonize a single name, or a small clutch of opponents, effectively if you focus on just them. You can turn their names into devil words among your team, and even in broader society. But if you make the mistake of listing too many names, you might name someone’s personal hero. Someone whose halo for some past kindness or deed or remark buffers them and shield those near them from the tar and feathers you seek to muck-throwingly taint them with.. plus, you give your target more, not less, of a platform.

    Go ahead. Put up a list of six or seven thousand politicians in the USA who have made statements supporting science and declaring for action to solve the economic issues caused by burning fossil fuels, with choice quotes of how they said what they said.

    See if it doesn’t move the dialogue toward their favor.

    • Yes, but Denier.

      barackobama.com should have used Dittoheads.
      Nobody rips off one’s shirt when ‘dittoheads’ get said.
      Or Dissenters. Or Contrarians.

      Besides, these politicians should be more lukewarm when expressing concerns. Some of them already do that quite well.

      Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.

      • willard (@nevaudit)’ | May 28, 2013 at 8:30 am |

        Or maybe that, at a time when there ought be six or seven thousand politicians loudly and directly making accurate scientific statements about climate, with adequate economic plans to address relevant issues meaningfully and effectively.. there aren’t?

        Six or seven thousand.
        Or hundred.
        Or score.
        Or dozen.
        Or even six or seven.

        Can you name seven exemplary, accurate, pragmatic, persistent politicians who’ve done so?

        In the USA, I mean. Where it matters.

      • Bart R,

        That might be tough to find, but perhaps that’s not impossible. I’d even venture that when all these good representatives stop rehearsing talking points, they start making sense. To me, what matters are the talking points, as they become thinking points [1].

        Your challenge is tempting. I wonder how you’d score Bernie Sanders’ proposal:

        Legislation that I introduced(pdf) with the support of leading environmental organizations in the country can actually address the crisis and do what has to be done to protect the planet. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, co-sponsored the bill that would reverse greenhouse gas emissions in a significant way. It also would help create millions of jobs as we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and such sustainably energies as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

        A major focus of this legislation is a price on carbon and methane emissions. This fee on the largest fossil-fuel polluters affects fewer than 3,000 entities nationwide but covers 85% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the Congressional Research Service. The legislation ends fossil fuel subsidies. It also protects communities by requiring that drillers engaged in a new technology called fracking must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and disclose chemicals they use.

        To help consumers, 60% of the carbon fee revenue will be rebated to every US resident. To level the playing field for US manufacturers and create incentives for international cooperation, there would be a border fee on imported fuels and products unless the nation they were shipped from had a similar carbon price.

        To transform our energy system, the legislation would make the boldest ever investment in energy efficiency and sustainable energy. That includes weatherizing 1m homes a year, as President Obama has advocated. It also means tripling the budget for advanced research and investing hundreds of billions through incentives and a public-private Sustainable Technologies Fund focusing on energy efficiency and clean transportation technology, as well as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass alternatives.

        In our bill, we also provide funds to train workers for jobs in the sustainable energy economy and to help communities become resilient in the face of extreme weather. We accomplish all of this while paying down the debt by roughly $300bn over 10 years.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/16/bernie-sanders-climate-change-legislation

        Would that kind of proposal meet your capitalistic requirements? As a ninja, I must admit that the emphasized bit does appeal to me. I also like the concept of weatherizing, if only because I will try to include it in my poetic project:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/weatherandclimate

        Please note that I am not an American citizen. I am encountering most of these names for the first time. That’s the main reason for paying due diligence to their claims regarding climate, for which barackobama.com’s page was quite suboptimal.

        The thinking points these good people promote (in a technical sense) deserve more exposure.

        [1] http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/

      • Steven Mosher

        “I’d even venture that when all these good representatives stop rehearsing talking points, they start making sense.

        So are you implying they make no sense otherwise?

      • Steven Mosher

        willard

        ‘Legislation that I introduced(pdf) with the support of leading environmental organizations in the country can actually address the crisis and do what has to be done to protect the planet. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, co-sponsored the bill that would reverse greenhouse gas emissions in a significant way. It also would help create millions of jobs as we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and such sustainably energies as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.”

        Hansen says that Boxer’s approach is crap. And it is. Do please read everything Hansen writes. It doesnt take that long.

      • He just resents the central message, and chooses ‘rehearsed’ in his sulk.
        ==============

      • It’s a conspiracy, you know.
        =========

      • Steven Mosher

        Hansen on Sanders/Boxer:

        “g more and more toward trying to make the science and its implications for policy clearer.
        I appreciate very much the well wishes I have received from many of you. I am not good
        at keeping up with e-mail correspondence, so I apologize to anyone who I may have failed to
        respond to. I also realize that the interview I gave regarding my retirement3
        may have left the
        impression that I would now be working mainly on specific actions to stem fossil fuel extraction
        and use. I believe all the individual actions occurring at many places are very important and the
        sum of them may help turn the tide to clean energies. But I must keep up with and contribute to
        climate science or I cannot be effective, so I hope to be doing more science rather than less — and
        science requires more than 40 hours a week –so it is not practical for me to respond to all the
        requests that I am receiving. I also want to support two or three people working with me, so I
        need to spend time in fund raising – and I am finding that it is not easy to get foundation support.
        I hope that papers and testimony that I provide for cases of Our Children’s Trust, or cases
        regarding coal exports, tar sands and other unconventional fossil fuels, can find wider use with
        little modification. I will continue to support the growing 350.org movement. I support
        CitizensClimateLobby.org especially, because of their focus on fee-and-dividend, which I
        believe is the sine qua non for phase out of fossil fuels. I hope you noticed the op-ed supporting
        fee-and-dividend in the Wall Street Journal by George Shultz and Gary Becker15, who point out
        that fee-and-dividend plus removal of energy subsidies would provide a level playing field and
        be good for the economy and jobs. There is also a Democratic (Boxer/Sanders) bill in Congress, 7
        but as usual they cannot keep their hands off our wallets, proposing to take 40% of the money to
        make government bigger, including congressional specification of how 15% of the money is to
        be spent. Washington seemslikely to remain dysfunctional on climate policy, so when we get a
        bit closer to 2016 I will argue why I think we need a third party.”

        who gives a shit about what anyone else thinks about sanders/boxer. The scientific consensus is that its stupid. Ask Hansen.

      • > So are you implying they make no sense otherwise?

        Echoing a frame requires some meaning to be conveyed. This is not a syntactic ordeal. The meaning conveyed matters less than the frame it echoes. Once the frame is echoed, that meaning can be dropped. The point of these sound bites might not to convey meaning, but to score points, in which case the question if they do make sense or not might be moot at best.

        Not unlike what Moshpit is trying to do right now.

        ***

        The point behind I made about Chewbacca’s “you make no sense” is the escapism with which it comes. So far, my research justifies my claim.

        Also compare:

        (1) **You** make no sense.

        (2) **They** make no sense.

        The two sentences are not used in the same situations (dialog vs. public statement). The granularity of what is questioned is not the same (particular vs general). &c.

        So thank you for your concerns.

      • Blah blah blah. They are sensible comments, as you may someday understand, and Obama’s minions have erred. You finding less sensible instances of speech is irrelevant and distracting. But I see you try hard.
        ====================

      • Steven Mosher

        willard.

        It was a simple question. try to be clear and honest. Did you mean to imply that they make no sense when rehearsing talking points.

        ‘I’d even venture that when all these good representatives stop rehearsing talking points, they start making sense. ”

        So, if they merely stop rehearsing talking points ( and havent even said anything) they start making sense?

        Put another way. is it possible to make sense when rehearsing a talking point?

        Your talk against talking points begs for a definition of ‘talking point’
        How do you spot one? Is there some special diacritical mark?
        rhetoricians also have talking points, about talking points. When they stop rehearsing them, they start making sense

      • Thank you for your concerns.

      • Steven Mosher

        and lastly willard you dont much charity when it comes to understanding what these folks are saying and how it makes sense.
        It’s far easier easier to dismiss what they say with a ‘yes but talking talking points.” its much easier to tell others that these people will start to make sense when they stop doing what is normal in their cultural circles.
        They use talking points. Its rather poor etiquette to suggest that a politician should stop with talking points. Rather you should try to understand what a talking point “does” and understand how they are vital in political discourse, how political discourse goes off the rails when public officials stray from talking points. We have smoke filled back rooms for a reason.

      • I’m concerned. This hackneyed sophistry is tragic.
        ==========

      • Steven Mosher

        honest and clear as always willard. talking points are the only way politicians can make sense.

      • > Did you mean to imply that they make no sense when rehearsing talking points.

        Echoing a frame requires some meaning to be conveyed. This is not a syntactic ordeal. The meaning conveyed matters less than the frame it echoes. Once the frame is echoed, that meaning can be dropped. The point of these sound bites might not to convey meaning, but to score points, in which case the question if they do make sense or not might be moot at best.

        Not unlike what Moshpit is trying to do right now [1].

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress/#comment-327007

        TL;DR. What talking points mean does not matter much. What matters is that they connote thinking points.

        [1] Which is to make Bart R’s subthread about me, cf. https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/21/how-to-humble-a-wing-nut/#comment-325315

      • Your talk against talking points begs for a definition of ‘talking point’
        How do you spot one? Is there some special diacritical mark?
        rhetoricians also have talking points, about talking points. When they stop rehearsing them, they start making sense

        I would define a “talking point” as a ritual formula, that isn’t intended to contribute to the discussion in terms of its literal meaning. This can be because everybody in your “choir” already knows the longer arguments/rhetoric around it, or because it short-circuits an opponent’s argument without actually answering it.

      • > This can be because everybody in your “choir” already knows the longer arguments/rhetoric around it, or because it short-circuits an opponent’s argument without actually answering it.

        Compare and contrast with Roberto Benigni’s at the Oscars:

        Somehow, people are usually good at determining when a person is genuine or not, however they master their discourse.

      • ‘Thinking point’. Take that to heart. Ooh, no, sorry, take that to brain.
        ============

      • willard, you are just not persuasive with your raggedy collection of derivative alarmist literature. This balloon of belief was a human conceit, arrogant of Nature.
        ==============

      • Please revisit Benigni’s performance, kold one.

        Benigni learned his speech by heart.
        When he won another Oscar, he had to recite his speech all over again.
        Benigni does not speak English.

        That does not prevent him to mean what he says.

        Language is a social art.

      • Sorry, I’m busy with my system to bring all the deep ‘missing heat’ out of the ocean just as the Holocene ends. So far, I can’t top Nature, and it’s frustrating.
        ============

      • Since our Gaia rep. is busy,
        we can hold on the kibitz
        and wait for Bart R’s move.

      • Bart R can perfectly time the release of stored solar energy to stave of the next glaciation? If this ocean thingy is for real, Nature can only do it with man’s help.
        =========

      • Meet Bernie Sanders (all quotes are from the article Willard conveniently links to:
        “The crisis facing our planet is much worse than they had thought only a few years ago. Twelve out of the last 15 years ranked as the warmest on record in the United States. Now, scientists say that our planet could be 8F warmer or more by the end of this century if we take no decisive action to transform our energy system and cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
        “What would that mean to planet earth? Sea levels would rise by three to six feet, which would flood cities like New Orleans, Boston and Miami and coastal communities all over the world. It would mean that every year we would see more and more extreme weather disturbances, like Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year and resulting in devastating blows to our economy and productive capabilities.”

        There you go- the consensus is that CS isn’t falling, it’s “worse than we thought” with daily hurricanes and an iron-clad forecast of six feet of sea level rise putting Miami underwater.
        The classic line from Boxer and Sanders’ announcement seems to be missing lately. The line was: “The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.”
        http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=2a869a44-1597-42a8-b625-1a88db3febbc

        Ooooh, those awful companies, how dare they pass costs to consumers!

      • kim | May 28, 2013 at 1:03 pm |

        In sometime between 20,000 and 30,000 years, when it’ll be arguably necessary to geoengineer to avoid the end of Holocene-level temperatures and a new ice age due the tilt of the Earth?

        Sure. We can do that with modern technology. While I think the calculation is dubious, there’s a claim for the modern geological era the Earth cannot enter a snowball phase with CO2 above 240 ppmv, we know it takes less than half a century to drive CO2 levels up from the lowest levels we’ve ever seen in the geological record — 180 ppmv — to that level.

        And we won’t even need to burn new CO2e to get there, if we follow Myles Allen’s CCS plan that Judith Curry appears to explicitly endorse until she’s told she’s explicitly endorsed it by endorsing the commentary Myles Allen wrote setting out that plan.. Because CCS lays in virtually limitless supplies of CO2 that could be tapped by just opening up the 20,000-year-old valves.

        If that’s a real worry.

        Tell you what. In 19,950 years why don’t you and I get together on the blog and check CO2 levels to make sure they aren’t dipping too low, and if they are, I’ll spring for the monkey wrench.

      • Bart R – that was cold.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | May 28, 2013 at 12:11 pm |

        and

        Steven Mosher | May 28, 2013 at 11:04 am |

        Sorry, I don’t follow the whole talking points digression. It appears you two do, but the rest of us likely are all feeling a bit like you’re talking over our heads.

        Could you both maybe contribute to the discussion at hand, rather than henpecking and nagging each other, or maybe take that married-couple routine to backchannels?

        Bernie Sanders’s proposal, at 85%, has roughly the maximum current administratively practical coverage for a fee and dividend system. The other fifteen percent of lucrative CO2E emission perhaps could be covered by a secondary very limited cap-&-trade plan, local government command and control regulation, or technical improvement perhaps by LIDAR monitoring (or a mix of all three) to more-comprehensively capture the Free Riders.

        As a Capitalist and minarchist, I’d hope innovative technology would do the job without increasing command and control, and as a cynic about fraud in cap-&-trade, I’d prefer it be kept to the smallest possible scope if done at all.

        At only 60% return to residents, I’m disappointed with this plan. I understand why Sanders’ lack of faith in the Market leads him to think as he does. He has plans for the other 40% of that money, to do work for his CO2-reducing agenda. I have an alternative that gives America — and I note your admission you’re not American, which bears no shame, really. There are many other fine nationalities; though I ought reduce slightly your score for wit as it’s well known wit has a foreign bias. I’ll try to keep the discussion as general as possible, and about principles not regional specifics, to not disadvantage the large foreign audience for this topic. — ..an alternative that gives America everything Sanders seeks, and more, more cheaply and efficiently, set out in three paragraphs:

        1. DON’T DO IT! This dividend belongs naturally to every citizen, per capita. If the nation chooses it to go to residents, or through payroll to employed citizens, or through income tax refunds to taxpayers, or whatever, that’s a local detail determined by culture and mores. Splitting out 40% of the dividend for the government to spend by command and control dilutes the sense of resource ownership, and is simply theft. It’s 60% less theft than goes on now, it’s theft by government instead of by Free Riders.. but how is that better, than by matter of degree?

        2. Let the Market determine the level of the fee, hence the level of the dividend by the law of supply and demand. No government regulator, no expert, will intervene between Market forces and that number, except insofar as any merchandizing expert in any commodity determines the quarterly price of goods to maximize dividends by calculating sales volume times price and selling at peak price of dividends for that quarter. Sure, in the long run this will reduce dividends overall to a dull roar. But it will be the money of the owners, of private people, delivered to them by their own democratic individual buying and selling decisions in the Market.

        3. After you have a reliable price determination for how much the country, the Market, values the resource, you also have a reliable, Free-Ridership-removed, price for the carbon emitting commodities, and all dependent commodities. You have new, valuable information we cannot know now without pricing the carbon cycle on the open Market. This is important, as you will have two different desirable outcomes:A) maximum Market efficiency (reduced inflationary pressure, more innovation, reduced barriers to entry and exit, reduced distortion on prices, more jobs) and other benefits like reduced tax churn, reduced absolute tax burden and reduced tax burden relative to the size of the now enlarged Market; B) the ability to tax the now enlarged Market fairly across all commodities in a fair and balanced way to general revenues to pay for spending programs that stand or fall in legislation on their own merits, not because they’re linked to something else.

        Finally, government investment in technology innovation is almost always the most expensive way to get it. Sure, as NASA proves, as wartime R&D show, it is fairly reliable as a way to get innovations no one wants based on current consumer taste and needs. However, it ought be a last resort, with every possible opportunity given the Market and entrepreneurship, which will be more efficient and faster.

        If you’re in a Socialist country, you may not be so affected by the fine points of a desire for democracy of individual decision-making or entrepreneurship. But in the Free World, we go for stuff like that.

      • http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/american-environmentalist-bill-mckibben-wins-sophie-prize-for-his-fight-against-global-warming/2013/05/28/ce7198d0-c77d-11e2-9cd9-3b9a22a4000a_story.html

        See, now I don’t know what to think about McKibben, now that the Socialists have embraced him.

        Do you think he could actually convert Norway to Capitalism?

      • Thanks, Bart R.

        I’ll try to find six other positions another time, on other threads.

        Until then,

        Due diligence,

        w

        PS: The handbag fight about “making sense” relates to my critique of Brandon’s release of his inner Chewbacca. It was injected here as a black hat marketing technique to question my coherence, my charity, my clarity, and my honesty. It’s based on a misunderstanding, which might serve as a decoy based on an hypothesis akin to “willard can’t miss pointing out a misunderstanding”. Same old, same old, as would perhaps say Joshua.

  76. Bad News for Australian Coal Producers ?

    The future for Australian coal exports to China is questionable. China may not need the coal if it develops its shale gas resources.

    The following excerpt is from a recent Motley Fool report.

    “Like the U.S., China has massive shale gas deposits, and the technology we possess could help them develop domestic sources and allow them to become more energy self-sufficient. We’re starting to see it happen. Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-A  ) has signed a deal withPetroChina (NYSE: PTR  ) to spend $1 billion a year to develop shale resources there. Also, fracking specialists Haliburton (NYSE: HAL  ) and Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB  ) are partnering with various Chinese companies to supply the country with hydraulic fracturing equipment and specialty fluids”

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/27/3-ways-the-us-energy-boom-will-change-the-world.aspx

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Although China is an increasingly important trade partner – most of our coal actually goes elsewhere. http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/mining/australian_mineral_commodities/coal/Pages/australia_coal_industry.aspx

      But you have to remember as well that capitalism is not a zero sum game.

      Development + trade = good

    • Max, it’s good you are getting a grasp on how things go out of use without catastrophic “peaking” (only averted by activism and general bedwetting). Someone comes up with something else, hence the fall in demand for sailcloth, koala pelts, mast timbers, whale bone, Minogue sisters etc.

      A short while ago Australia was surpassed as the world’s largest coal exporter – by Indonesia, as I remember – but that does not tell the full story. You see, Australia is by far the world’s biggest exporter of high quality hard coking coal. (Curiously, the second biggest exporter is the USA, but it’s way back there.) While we have enormous supplies of thermal coal, the Rugby League states of NSW and Qld, rich in metallurgical coal, make us pretty unique as producers and exporters.

      We are, of course, dependent on China for our present prosperity. There’s again talk of us being “The Lucky Country” – but the pensive classes have often treated us as a bunch of yobs who just get lucky. Let me tell you, we’ll keep on getting lucky – in spite of parasitic unions, dopey “public intellectuals” and green fetishists – because those Aussies who do knuckle down knuckle down in a fashion that is awesome to behold.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I used to think that you occasionally made a modicum of sense. Not about half crazy girls in rags and feathers – getting lucky here has the old meaning – but generally as a sort of gestalt. The same way Spike Milligan was generally more right than wrong. A goon but a lovable goon.

        But when it comes to the Minogue sisters you should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Oh, Chief, I too am old enough to remember when Kyles had straight fans. That was back when borrowed money could buy you a GT Falcon with Ken Done duco. But nobody in the proto and early Minogue eras used words like “gestalt”, that’s for sure. Next you’ll be saying “normative” and even “ideation”. Stop it! Can’t you see what you’re doing to yourself?

      • Peter Lang

        Chief,

        Thanks for that video. I love that sort of opera! :)

      • David Springer

        Ahem. Using the word ‘gestalt’ in the states implies a certain quality about the user. It appears to hold true in Australia as well.

        http://tinyurl.com/qbvj4od

      • Interestingly, Gestalt Psychology is a trademark from the Berlin School, ca. 1922.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hell – I aspire to a Ford GT with a Ken Done paint job. My 4L absolute-black Ford Falcon XT is OK – and might attract less police attention – but it is not quite the same.

    • Peter Lang

      Max_OK,

      This is a bit OT, but may be OK since it relates to so-called ‘Deniers’ and skeptics being older and wiser than the younger and more gullible who tend to be believers in Catastrophic AGW.

      I just watched an interview with Bill Gates. It occurred to me to ask you if you think Bill Gates would have been wiser when he was younger?

      It also prompts me to ask if you think you were you wiser when you were younger? Do you think you would have made better decisions about matters of planetary importance when you were younger? If you recognise you are better informed, have a greater depth and breadth of experience and able to make better decisions now than when you were younger, why do you expect that will change at the age you are at now and it will be all down hill for you from now?

      [I am addressing this question to you because you are one of the people who frequently argue that deniers are older, therefore, dummer and don’t care about the future of the planet because they will depart soon (or ideas like that, sorry for not quoting from your many comments on this subject).]

      • There is one decisive advantage to being old in this kind of context. It’s having seen scientific experts being unanimously wrong (while being sure that they are right) before. And having seen how incredibly ignorant some scientists can be. This is much more important than any generalized kind of wisdom.

        It just doesn’t happen to everyone beyond a certain age. If you’re lucky, you get one or a few powerful eye-opening experiences.

      • And that’s what happened to Richard Feynman, by the way.

      • David Springer

        Max_OK making sounder judgements when he was younger? If he was any younger he’d still be in middle school. I’m not certain he isn’t still there.

      • I agree, you have to see it to believe it (the ignorance of experts).

      • Re Peter Lang’s post of May 28, 2013 at 6:09 am
        ______

        Peter, I believe ability to make good decisions increases slowly with age up to a point, levels off for a while, then drops rapidly. Picture a flat-topped bell-shaped curve that is skewed to left.

      • Maxok
        That age when senility suddenly sets in is when?
        Tonyb

      • The Wonderful One Hoss Shay collapses @ 85. Compare survival curves from 1850 and 2000.
        ==============

      • Tonyb, I don’t know for sure, but I suppose it’s starting to set in when a person realizes he’s having a “senior moment” or someone close to him notices.

  77. David Springer

    Good clarification at the top. If the climate deniers in congress posting gets enough attention for its offensive comparison of United States Senators and House members to holocaust deniers the perhaps the press will push the whitehouse into denouncing or confirming it.

    • Big Dave rips off his shirt.

    • David Springer

      Try to contain yourself, Wee Willie.

    • Heh, Dave rips off his shirt in expectation of media curiosity. Put in back on, I’ll let you know when the sun shines in.
      ================

      • Kold one? Meet

        Madam speaker, thank you. I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. I’m just not sure to which I’m more opposed. Americans are watching as from Iran to North Korea, the forces of darkness are attempting to silence the forces of democracy and freedom. The irony is on this day, the Democratic process and the nation’s economic freedom are under threat not by some rogue state, but in this very chamber in which we stand. Good people may disagree on the impact or the merits of this bill. But no one can disagree with the fact that the speaker and her rules committee have silenced the opposition.

        http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/06/26/47948/gingrey-forces-darkness/

        I’m sure I heard this “forces of darkness” not long ago. But where?

        ***

        There’s also this interesting Salon article entitled Phil Gingrey once sat on the House Science Committee, with the subtitle is Gingrey, who partially defended Todd Akin on “legitimate rape,” also chairs the GOP Doctor’s Caucus:

        Gingrey and Akin are in good company. Among the current members of the House Science Committee are Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who recently said that ”All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who once suggested a period of dramatic climate change 55 million years ago may have been caused by”dinosaur flatulence.” The current chair, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, decried several major news networks for coverage that was “largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/phil_gingrey_once_sat_on_the_house_science_committee/

        But that’s Rep. Lamar Smith. Another time.

        So much to do, so little time.

      • Distract, distract, willard. What about the regime in power?
        ================

      • What about paying due diligence to the angle chosen by the op-ed, Kold One?

        Pray tell again about distraction.

      • We read different op-eds.
        ===================

      • Here’s what I read:

        > The number of ‘deniers’ in the House of Representatives and Senate are less than 25% of the total. And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress

        I think reading first hand statements should come before judging, don’t you think?

        Also, please do notice the op-ed’s title and URL.

        WP users should mind their URLs.

      • Do you think this action wasn’t Obama’s responsibility?
        ===============================

      • David Springer

        For those with a neurotic compulsion for pigeon-holing (hello Wee Willie) “Forces of Darkness” is the containing group for, among many others, the “Axis of Evil”. It’s a huge group and is thus atypical for the pigeon-hole neurosis sufferer as it’s more like an aviary than a pigeon hole. Wee Willie might be past his bedtime and not giving his neurosis the full measure of his attention.

      • David Springer

        kim | May 28, 2013 at 11:04 am |

        “Do you think this action wasn’t Obama’s responsibility?”

        Two words: plausible deniability

      • Heh, Dave, plausible hubris.
        ==================

      • Obama didn’t learn at his mother’s knee that authority can be delegated, but not responsibility.
        ==========

      • I have no commitment on that question. Please ask Judge Judy.

        Meanwhile, here’s Gingrey, again:

        Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) apologized Wednesday to “my fellow conservatives” for comments critical of talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh – saying he sees “eye-to-eye” with Limbaugh and that his remarks defending House Republican leadership came across more harshly than intended.

        He also took issue with a headline on a Politico story about his comments, saying he never told Limbaugh to “back off,” as the headline read.

        “I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent,” Gingrey said in a statement. “I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.”

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18067.html

        What does Rush say about climate change, again?

      • Hee, hee, Dorothy and Toto can help you with that ‘commitment’ deficit.
        =======

      • If you ask for fuzzy business from me,
        Here, now, you’ll get more Gringey.

      • Took the shoes. Find your own damn way home.
        ==========

  78. As it heats up between the two antagonists, Mosher scurries in the background combing the Berkeley Hills for a Manga artist to document the confrontation–maybe his next book!

  79.  

    The Medium is the Message. What’s sorse than fake – worse perhaps than we even know? Reading newspapers may be old news but it is not that the West has become a sight and sound electorate again with no Shakespeare to bring truth to the people. The real Message is worse.

    Al Gore’s global warming hockey stick is a lot worse than a fake Picasso. It isn’t being fake but what the Gore’s fakery says says about modern consumers of information. What’s worse than a fake Picasso is not even knowing Western academia has so eager to take full advantage of what it knew about its audience — We the People – or that they were so willing to take advantage of what we’d become, which is what enabled academia to abandon the scientific method.

    he AGW movement wasn’t stuck with the hockey stick, it desperately wanted that graph. It needed it to convince us. Not more filing cabinets full of junk science that we can’t read, and not with math that we don’t understand, nor with history that we don’t care about. The horrible MESSAGE is that we no longer have the courage to think meaningfully and have become meat for the brain-eaters of Western academia and we don’t trust honest scientists who won’t tell us what we want to hear. Sometimes the truth sneaks up unseen on cat feet and we should learn to feel the prickly whisker of reality on our bare ankle:

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    ~Stephen Henry Schneider, a once respected and (now deceased Stanford University climatologist turned global warming propagandist who before that warned of the looming catastrophe of global cooling, caused by humanity’s pollution which was triggering an ice age)

    • I’ve seen a long ago video of Stephen Schneider in which he was quite honest about how little we know about the climate. Sadly, later, he fooled himself.
      ======

      • Compare the relativity of the knowing and purposeful fakery for a noble cause — like we see with Stephen Schneider — with an honest broker of truth like Freeman Dyson — a denier of fake climate science — who can never bring himself to tell a lie. That’s what it has come down to. Honest people must sometimes take a stand despite the hard consequences. Science has been so politicized that it is no longer self-correcting. That is why we need scientists to step forward and start telling the truth. Men of honor understand that. Dyson readily admits to what he does and does not know –e.g., he cannot understand how the media has been ‘brainwashed.’

      • David Springer

        Wagathon | May 28, 2013 at 11:08 am |

        “Dyson readily admits to what he does and does not know –e.g., he cannot understand how the media has been ‘brainwashed.’”

        Truth and lies are faced alike; their port, taste, and proceedings are the same, and we look upon them with the same eye. I find that we are not only remiss in defending ourselves from deceit, but that we seek and offer ourselves to be gulled; we love to entangle ourselves in vanity, as a thing conformable to our being.

        ~OF CRIPPLES – Michel de Montaigne, Essays of Montaigne, vol. 9 [1580]

      • The truth of the AGW believers are more in line with the effortless faithful obedience to things based on spiritual laws where believers only choose a guide and then place themselves, as Emerson says, “in the middle of the stream of power and wisdom which flows into you as life… the full center of that flood, then you are without effort impelled to truth, to right, and a perfect contentment.”

      • lurker, passing through laughing

        Kim,
        SS ‘fooled’ himself all of the way to the bank.

      • I can’t understand why people get so upset about Dyson.
        Can’t you give the man a break? He looks so nice on those vacuum clear advertisements.

      • I think Freeman Dyson’s biggest mistake was carbon eating trees. He should have gone with carbon eating cannabis. Making it a global imperative to grow more pot would have mellowed out most of his detractors.

        It is all in the delivery in this sound bite age.

    • Nobody is going to smoke up the carbon eating trees.

  80. Compare and contrast with Tom Curtis’ own interpretation:

    While commenting, Tol claims:

    > “Climate change is a problem where complexity meets poor data meets ethical choices. You can’t be clear and honest at same time.”

    That is not at all the same as Schneider’s claim that:

    > “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    It is not the same because Schneider holds out the option of, and the hope that we will be both. Not only that but he went into considerable detail as to how to be both, and practiced the principles he enunciated in his interviews, talks and articles.

    It is also not the same because being clear is not the same as being effective. In fact, clarity is required both for effectiveness and honesty. If you are unclear, that means only that your communication is ambiguous, ie, that those to whom you communicate are either left in doubt as to what you intended, or worse, pick among several possible meanings, only one of which can be correct. Being deliberately unclear is only a way of lying, while lying to yourself about what you are doing.

    So, I like Schneider think we should be both effective and honest in our communications. That sacrifice of the later is never justified to enhance the former. But what is more, I believe that we cannot choose between being honest and clear for only by being clear can we be honest.

    http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/05/tol-erasion.html?showComment=1369712900178

    Tom Curtis’ emphasis.

  81. Global warming alarmists are not called deniers but should be. The Message is that ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ of Al Gore is more akin to ‘The Scary Movie Show’ of Kim Jong Un. Gore’s science is nothing at all like real science and no one can deny it, except… global warming school teachers and politicians on the Left.

    The Consensus of Climatology cannot even question the sagacity of fake threats. No matter how scientifically moronic the claims of imminent doomsday may be academia goes along because capturing the public’s imagination and getting loads of media coverage is all that matters.

    It’s like Freeman Dyson has been telling us: “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” and “Climatists are no Einsteins.”

  82. lurker, passing through laughing

    Frankly the White House should withdraw the post in question and apologize for posting it. It is shameful that any Administration would indulge in this sort of list making and rabble rousing to push any policy, much less ones that are so mired in failure and abuse as are the initiatives associated with AGW belief.

    • I like what I see –e.g.,

      “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.” ~Rep. Kevin Brady

      The same can be said for the Government-Education Complex.

    •  

      “Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.” ~Rep. Paul Broun

      And, you can follow-up with defining CO2 as a pollutant by Leftist econoenvirowackpots being the second greatest hoax to have been perpetrated upon a sleepy Western society.

    • Sort’a make ‘ya proud and we should call these folks out — for telling it like it is:

      “The truth … is that global temperature fluctuations are a normal earth cycle. We may or may not even be in a warming cycle. Even if we are, scientific evidence does not conclude that activity by man plays any significant role.” ~Rep. John Carter

    • Rep. Bill Flores may actually be for greater employment opportunities and less reliance on energy from unstable, American-hating tin pot dictators. Call him out:

      It is time we stopped putting petty politics based on dubious “agenda-driven, scientific” research ahead of creating more American energy. ~Rep. Bill Flores

    • “I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.” ~Rep. Trent Franks

      –i.e., The null hypothesis of AGW Theory, that all global warming can be explained by natural causes, has been rejected!

      • Waggy, do you realize by saying that null “has been rejected” you are saying all global warming can be explained by man-made causes.

        While I have never had a course in statistics, I feel confident in advising you to avoid talking about statistics.

      • …but, the null hypothesis of AGW theory is not that man is causing global warming.

      • Waggy, read what you wrote.

        You said The null hypothesis of AGW Theory has been rejected.

        If you reject the null, it means the hypothesis of AGW Theory is true.

        While I have never had a course in English composition, I feel confident in advising you to not write sentences.

      • You’re correct — the null hypothesis of AGW theory, that all global warming is natural, has never been rejected.

      • lurker, passing through laughing

        Wagathon,
        Thanks for getting Max_OK to admit he has never actually paid attention.

      • It’s pretty clear from his comments here that Max_OK is suffering from an acute case of post-adolescent ADD.

        Makes “paying attention” difficult.

        But the good news is that this is normally a passing disorder

      • Holy Cow, lurker, you know no more about statistics and English than Waggy. I’m afraid Waggy is hopeless, but perhaps you aren’t

        Waggy said:
        “The null hypothesis of AGW Theory, that all global warming can be explained by natural causes, has been rejected!”

        This is the same as saying:
        “The null hypothesis of AGW Theory has been rejected!”

        If you don’t think the above two sentences are in agreement, English may not be your first language and you should be very careful about what you say.

        Now, moving on, if you reject the null you accept the hypothesis. That’s not just a matter of opinion, it’s the way hypothesis testing works. So, Waggy has said the hypothesis of AGW Theory has been accepted. Knowing him, I doubt that’s what he intended to say.

        But it’s moot anyway because Waggy does not present a hypothesis which lends itself to statistical testing. I ‘ll give you a simple example of one of those.

        Hypothesis: I can taste the difference between Pepsi Cola and Samuel Adams Lager.

        Null hypothesis: I can’t taste the difference.

        Now, this hypothesis can be tested in a blinded taste test. I forget the exact number, but I believe if I get it right 17 or 18 times out of 20, it means my ability to taste the difference was more than just luck (.95 confidence thing). So we can reject the null.

        Here’s the tricky part. What if I correctly identified the Pepsi only 10 times out of 20? Does that mean we accept the null. Nope, It may only mean I was having a bad day.

      • You are more an expert on clan warfare.

      • Wagathon said on May 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm
        You’re correct — the null hypothesis of AGW theory, that all global warming is natural, has never been rejected.
        ______

        GOOD ! You finally see the difference between that statement and your previous statement, which was:

        “The null hypothesis of AGW Theory, that all global warming can be explained by natural causes, has been rejected!”

        But you still haven’t stated your hypothesis. It isn’t useful to have a null hypothesis without a hypothesis. So state your hypothesis.

      • Hypotheses — Facts have nothing to do with global warming politics. AGW is really about Left vs. Right —i.e., Secular-Socialism vs. Individual Liberty. And, it matters not one wit how many millions will suffer and die for lack of energy.

        Null — most AGW catastrophists voted for George Bush not Al Gore.

      • No, Waggy, that’s not a testable hypothesis, and your null is for some unrelated untestable hypothesis. What a mess!

      • Of course it is testable… unless global warming alarmists cannot be trusted to be honest enough to say who they voted for.

      • Waggy, if you believe you have a statistically testable hypothesis state it and we can test it.

      • Are you saying you believe Al Gore voted for George Bush? That’s incredible.

      • I’m saying state your statistically testable hypothesis if you have one. Quit farting around and get off the pot if you don’t have one.

      • The UN, Al Gore and Barack Obama were given a Nobel. Keep up the war on reason. You may be next.

  83. The Republican war on science must be stopped!

    • Let the Republican war on science continue. Republicans are known for shooting themselves in the feet.

      • Well, except maybe for Cheney.

      • Call this guy out — and give him a nobel:

        “We have a moral duty to be good stewards of the environment but growing the government’s coffers and killing jobs based on questionable science is a bridge too far.” ~Rep. Jack Kingston

    • The line for Mao’s red shirts is forming on the Left.

  84. All of these guys are just talking common sense –e.g.,

    “Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame.” ~Rep. David McKinley

    Is everyone on the Left must a denier of common sense.

  85. –>I guess it wasn’t the crowd that put him in office:

    “[Rep. Peter] Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science.” (as called out by Obama todies)

  86. Did he really say THAT?!

    “The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. ” ~Rep. Chris Stewart

  87.  

    GOP Rep. Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township doesn’t think there is a consensus among scientists about whether global warming is proven.

    That’s amazing

  88. We have a problem when there are people who refuse to believe this:

     

    “There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate.” ~Sen. Mike Johanns

  89. I hope everybody won’t be too disappointed when the pointy headed people who write our history books will rank Obama near the top in great presidents.
    What!?
    Yep because they use a weighted scale that over-weights stock market performance (S&P doubled) and foreign affairs (bin Laden/Iraq war ended) and under-weights stuff like domestic policy. What really matters is that capitalism has excelled during his term and that will cover a multitude of other shortcomings. All the problems with unemployment and rising poverty will be explained away with demographic trends.

  90. Sparrow

    Stand by for a call to have his face immortalized at Mt. Rushmore (ears + all).

    Max

  91. Missing Bush yet?

    • By partisan solution: Put both Bush and Obama at Rushmore, with Obama holding a sign pointing to Bush saying “it’s all his fault”.

  92. Last three years in Us worst drought on record, What more do you need to know. Flooding and drought, warming planet.

    • jl cowley

      Last 3 years did not show any warming, so the “floods and droughts” in the last 3 years must not be from “warming”.

      Right?

      Max

      • What are you going to do when climate scientists finally figure out that CO2 could (possibly) cause climate change without producing any warming? Deny it all as a propaganda hoax?

      • Dr. Happer testified before Congress that Earth CO2-deficient.

  93. Willard likes to invoke the “look, a squirrel” line.

    But isn’t that precisely what this whole “Calling out climate change deniers in Congress” is all about?

    An attempted distraction from other more unpleasant things that are going on?

    Hmmm…

    • > But isn’t that precisely what this whole “Calling out climate change deniers in Congress” is all about [squirrels]?

      Saying “look, squirrel!” is just another way to refer to what is called an ignoratio elenchi. Even if a webpage accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things (it’s about time Denizens acknowledge this about our weekly hurly burly), it still should be about what it is.

      Topicality is a fuzzy concept and aboutness is even worse:

      While information scientists may well be concerned with the literary aboutness (John Hutchins, 1975, 1977, 1978), philosophers of mind and psychologists with the psychological or intentional aboutness (John Searle, 1983) and language of thought (Jerry Fodor, 1975), and semantic externalists with the external state of affairs (Hilary Putnam, 1975). These seminal perspectives are respectively analogous to Ogden and Richards’ literary, psychological, and external contexts (1923), as well as Karl Popper’s World 1, 2, and 3 (1977).

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

      ***

      The topic of this op-ed is not exactly the topic of that Obama page, which might be said to be about the use of the term “deniers” by the political establishment. The thesis should minimally be something like, understating: this usage should raise concerns.

      Everything that serves to support this position is up for grabs. This can include implications about the thesis (e.g. deaths and taxes), or not (cf. CA). This is settled by ground rules. Everything that lies beyond these ground rules is squirrel territory,

      This does not mean that as soon as you make a move in that ball park, you are not ignoring the question. Because once you make a move M, you are somehow commited to it. (It’s more complicated than that, but this will suffice for now.) That is, if you question point P1 with the move M1, if that move M1 gets attacked by ~M1 (“M1 is false”) or M1? (“how do you know M1?”), you can’t reply, “but P2”!

      In other words, pointing at another, independent point to dodge any kind of monkey wrench characterizes what a squirrel is.

      ***

      There are bigger squirrels than others.

      It might not be possible to have a conversation without squirrels.

      As long as the bigger squirrels get resolved when called, everything should be alright.

      ***

      The semi-formal outline above justifies in a way why I prefer to talk about squirrels. Let’s take an example. Please recall that the argument of our current op-ed rests on this claim:

      The number of ‘deniers’ in the House of Representatives and Senate are less than 25% of the total. And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.

      https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress

      Most of my moves so far have been to question the second sentence of the quoted claim. To that effect, I have no reason to trust Judge Judy, Barack Obama, his grassroot organisation, nor anyone else to find the positions of the House or Representatives and Senate say about climate change. So far, my skepticism has been warranted.

      That does not mean I’ve found anything irrational. In fact, I have no reason to believe that these elected officials are expressing much more than talking points, at least as far as the official lines are concerned. In which case, their personal rationality is quite safe.

      Could we talk about the rationality of talking points? Perhaps. Myself, I’d rather stick to talking points simpliciter. My character is nota cognitive scientist, but a ninja. The moves are what they are. In the strange game of ClimateBall, the only losing move is not to play:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5986919630

      So thanks for playing, everyone.

      ***

      How many Denizens it takes to realize that a webpage is more or less a rip-off from ThinkProgress’:

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate-zombie-caucus/

      ?

      I don’t know.

      ***

      I’ve sent them a note about both about their use of the D word and the poor diligence they paid to their quote hunting.

      Zombies deserve better than that, at least for David Chalmer’ sake.

      Thanks for playing and for your overall concerns,

      Over and out,

      w

  94. ”GLOBAL warming deniers”, not climate change deniers!!! Climate is in constant change; some places for the better, others for worse. If anybody cannot see that the climate keeps changing every few days,; he needs a shrink.

    confusing climatic changes with the phony global warmings; is the stinkiest thing on the part of the Warmist and the dumbest thing on the behalf of the Fakes. Climate changes YES; GLOBAL warmings NO!!!

  95. Ron O'Daniels

    This blog – and especially – responses to Dr. Curry’s posts – is beginning to read like typical anti-democrat anti-progressive rants that show up all over the net in places like yahoo comments or twitter. Snark by scientists is all that I am finding here lately. I started reviewing this blog to look for the science, presented in a credible way, that seems to go against consensus thought. In other words real scientists – not crackpots – who have issues with the theory – presenting their case . I thought that I found a blog that would present the science surrounding climate change in a way that someone like myself who is not a scientist, but is greatly interested in the policy implications of the science would find helpful. Comments from today’s post include accusations of “McCarthyism”, “String em up,” “Climate is in constant change” (Thank you for that gem – does it take a PhD to know that?), “Obama holding a sign pointing to Bush,” “face immortalized at Mt. Rushmore,” “line for Mao’s red shirts…”moronic the claims of imminent doomsday,” “defining CO2 as a pollutant by Leftist econoenvirowackpots” (really? all that work all of those scientists who have worked over the years on such a connection? ..all crackpots?) If all of your are really scientists that are posting here. I am ashamed for you all. If you are all correct that there is no connection between the warming of our climate (is it warming?) and CO2, or that the IPCC is all wrong, and it is you who are right in various degree, then act like scientists and keep writing and quit crying. So you think that 97 to 98 pct of all scientists on board with IPCC is incorrect? What is it then? Is it 50 pct? 10 pct? Do you not see any risk at all? What should policy makers do? Nothing because its a 50-50 deal? If we have a 50-50 shot of a hurricane hitting do we evacuate? What is the magic number here? Should we just go on as usual? Not prepare? Or should we prepare? What should our relations with China be? Do we attempt policy that slows their burning of coal? do we seek global carbon tax? Do nothing? I think really that none of that is the direct concern of scientists on either side of the issue. What I do understand is that scientists do research, and If your research is credible and goes against the consensus you deserve to be heard, but if you are in the minority view, recognize that for what it is and quit crying. Keep publishing. You cannot expect that policy makers are going to pick up and run with the minority view with so much at stake. Can you? Really? It is up to you to continue to do what you do – which is publish your data on the issue, right? And you have no right to expect the Obama administration to listen to anything except what they hear. Got something to say? Say it. If you feel like you are in the minority maybe its because you are. And why is that? Stop calling your contemporaries and colleagues idiots. Politics is not your worry. Politics is going to listen to the science in the end. Comments? Point to studies.Point to latest data. Point to evidence, or lack of it. Some non scientists actually try to weed through that because they understand there is no value in hyped up media releases on either side of the issue.

    • I don’t know where you got the idea that real scientists talk about their work here that much. You’ll find a lot of stuff, most of it amateur, some of it just as good as a lot of the stuff that gets into peer-reviewed pubs. Much of which is cr@p. IMO

      If you want that sort of stuff, go to Climate Audit.

    • Very nice Ron. The science isn’t settled, there is no 97% other than a number conjured up by a social scientist that thinks he can pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. The global temperature is lower than that predicted by the models. Doesn’t that raise a red flag for you? If not, why not? A number of new papers are suggesting the climate sensitivity is lower than thought earlier. Does that raise a red flag? If not, why not? Do you want to start a trade war with China? Or worse, do you want their economy plunged into a depression which might result in a revolution there? Sounds like a dumb idea to me. When it comes to “progressives,” they have made their own bed like everyone else. They now have to sleep in it.

    • Ron, what about the quality of “latest data”? A great intellectual failing lies in the assumption that best available knowledge is adequate knowledge. You may say that’s just horse-sense, but we live in the era of Publish-or-Perish, which is anti-scientific barbarism, and common horse-sense gets left to the side in the rush to conclude, prove, gang-review, advise etc. Next to nothing is known about the earth (except the bit we walk and drive on); the atmosphere surprises us constantly; we have visited maybe 5% of the oceans; climate history, with its great events and evolutions, is actively repressed; and the papers we are meant to take seriously are programmed for debunking within the decade, so somebody else can publish before perishing…

      To point to the science, we must have the science.

    • Ron – I, too, like Climate Audit. Also, The Air Vent, Bishop Hill, Tallbloke, Jo Nova, The Blackboard, Roy Spencer’s blog. I know lot’s of people don’t like WUWT – but Anthony is a contributor to climate science, like it or not, and he does post articles about papers written by climate scientists. I’ve learned a lot about the issues in climate science on these blogs. I have also read a bit on SoD, that testy guy’s Open Mind (?) blog, and Real Climate.

      • jim2 | May 28, 2013 at 11:17 pm said: ” I know lot’s of people don’t like WUWT – but Anthony is a contributor to climate science, like it or not, and he does post articles about papers written by climate scientists”

        in other words: ”Anthony is on a sneacky way advertising constantly the crap produced by the so called ”’climate scientists”. Anthony Whats is the biggest Warmist billboard / Fake’s soapbox!

      • Welcome to the world of krackpot science blogs. Tallbloke has at least twice featured posts by the infamous krank, Miles Mathis, renowned for trying to prove that the number pi is equal to 4.

        BTW, SoD, Open Mind, and Real Climate are fine.

    • Ron O’Daniels, what I have learned from blogs is to not trust blogs. I see blogs as little better than rest room walls as a source of information. Many of the posts are even less useful than the messages scrawled on walls. In either case, there is no accountability, and no one need take responsibility for what he says.

      • David Springer

        Max_OK | May 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm | Reply

        Ron O’Daniels, what I have learned from blogs is to not trust blogs. I see blogs as little better than rest room walls as a source of information. Many of the posts are even less useful than the messages scrawled on walls. In either case, there is no accountability, and no one need take responsibility for what he says.

        Would you venture an opinion as to whether the use of made-up names works towards or against accountability?

        You don’t need to answer that Max, whoever you are, it’s a rhetorical question.

    • Max_OK would like to know if you voted for Al Gore or George Bush. He is doing a scientific study on whether global warming alarmists are Leftists and if disastrous climate change catastrophism nothing more than a Western new age religion.

    • Do you not see any risk at all? What should policy makers do? Nothing because its a 50-50 deal? … Should we just go on as usual? Not prepare? Or should we prepare? What should our relations with China be? Do we attempt policy that slows their burning of coal? do we seek global carbon tax? Do nothing?

      Yes, I do see some risk. However, the policies are proposed, often stridently, incur far greater risks than the risk of climate change, in the short term (decades). The policies being advocated are wrong. It’s as simple as that.

      For me the answer to your question about what the policy response should be is fairly simple and would be relative simple to implement. It would be far easier to implement than international agreements to a global carbon pricing scheme, and/or targets and time tables with penalties for countries that breech their commitments.

      The solution could be implemented if the US President got the right advice and then used his oratory skills to lead the US citizens away from the dogma they have been fed for fifty years and mostly accept. He could persuade people to support the changes that are needed.

      The US holds the keys to the solution to cutting global GHG emissions. Emissions can be cut in a ‘No Regrets’ way. And there is not other way that will succeed. Any solution has to be economically rational or it will not succeed. This is clearly demonstrated by 20 years of failed international negotiations which pushed for economically irrational policies – such as the Kyoto Protocol, the failed Chicago Climate Exchange, the failing EU ETS and the soon to be repealed Australian carbon pricing scheme. And now many countries are starting to walk away from their green energy schemes, like renewable energy.

      What the US President needs to do, IMO, is to release the US’s enormous capacity to innovate, compete, improve technology through competition and to ramp up manufacture to whatever rate is needed to meet demand.

      How can he do this?

      Here are some of the steps along the way:

      1. Get rid of the advisors that surround him who are telling him to support economically irrational policies like carbon pricing and renewable energy while at the same time playing a dead bat to nuclear energy with faint praise.

      2. Become informed and wise about what nuclear power could do for the USA and the world, its safety, its potential for major reductions in cost of electricity, etc.

      3. Remove the legislative, regulatory and licensing impediments that are preventing nuclear power from competing on an even playing field with fossil fuels and renewable energy.

      Once he persuades USA citizens and the Congress to support the development of nuclear power, no more government intervention will be required anywhere in the world. Nuclear power will become the cheapest option for electricity generation with no need for carbon pricing or any other government interventions.

      Furthermore, USA will retain its technological lead and gain economically by maintaining a lead in manufacturing and supplying equipment all over the world. US vendors and manufacturers will, of course, have to compete with vendors and manufacturers in China, India, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the EU countries that have nuclear power industries.

      The results:

      1. reduce global GHG emissions more and faster by mid century than any other option. Eventually, transport fuels will also be produced from nuclear generated hydrogen and electricity.

      2. Reduce black carbon

      3. Reduce avoidable fatalities globally, by over a million a year, from pollution from fossil fuel power stations

      4. Help to get electricity to more people

      5. Reduce by a factor of 20,000 the shipping and transport of fossil fuels – thus increase energy security, energy independence, and reduce the environmental impacts of shipping and transport.

      Irrationality of blocking nuclear power

      Nuclear power is 150 times safer (USA) and 600 times safer (world average) than coal fired electricity generation. Given this, why are we blocking nuclear power on the basis of safety? Isn’t that irrational? We block nuclear power because it is said ro be too dangerous but we are happy to stick with technologies that cause 150 to 600 times more fatalities per unit of electricity supplied.

      The US President, if he understood, could persuade the US citizens to get over the irrational nuclear phobia which has been caused by 50 years of anti-nuclear propaganda.

      • Peter Lang

        Everything you have written is 100% correct.

        I cannot speak for the general opinion of the US public on the “dangers” of nuclear power (I hope they are more reasonable than those of the German public, for example).

        There has been a staggering amount of fear mongering against nuclear power in Europe (France excepted). Chernobyl is still cited as a major environmental disaster that has killed (or will do so in the future) close to one million (actual death toll is 64). Fukushima Daiichi is close behind in the public’s imagination with thousands of deaths projected (actual = 0).

        The same environmental lobby groups that are spreading hysteria about CAGW (Greenpeace, WWF, etc.) are the ones who spread these scare stories.

        In the USA you had the 3 Mile Island incident (over 30 years ago). Again, no one actually died from this incident, but there are unsubstantiated (but persistent) claims by environmental groups that cancer rates and deaths increased.

        The Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas film “The China Syndrome” tells a frightening fictional story about a nuclear plant meltdown. It came out about the same time as the 3 Mile Island mishap, and was very effective in frightening people.

        So, despite the nuclear power industry’s excellent record on safety, the myth persists that nukes are dangerous and kill people. Arguably, those who lean to the left have been more likely to believe these scare stories.

        Will President Obama take up the fight to rehabilitate nuclear power in the USA, leading to a global resurgence of nuclear power plant construction (if this means angering many of his anti-nuke supporters)?

        Or will he continue to do what he is doing now, i.e. “calling out” CAGW skeptics in congress and using the EPA to curb CO2 emissions while giving lip-service (and subsidies) to “green energy” initiatives?

        Unless the USA takes a very strong leadership role in rehabilitating nuclear power, I do not see the even more timid governments of Germany and other European nations (beside France) doing anything in this direction.

        And that appears to be the basic problem here.

        Max

      • yet another lurker

        The lack of serious energy thoughtfulness seems to me to be the ‘tell’ in the CAGW prattle. Many times I have searched ‘wonky’ energy policy papers/recommendations and nuclear is lucky to be mentioned even offhandedly.
        I’m sorry, but anyone who can’t see that the future is somewhere in the nuclear spectrum is just deluded (or well paid).
        Education must be started to defuse the fear of nukes…that would be a start.
        Even Hansen knows this…but would rather be chained to a coal mine fence along with Darryl Hanna.
        Yes, energy politics is a farce. Sad really.

      • rogercaiazza

        I agree with most of what you wrote and my disagreements are quibbles over some numbers that do not change any of the points made. The problem that may not ever be overcome is the emotion based fears that are fertile ground for opportunists such as the environmental lobbying groups and those industries that only survive if there is a catastrophe coming (wind energy springs to mind). The politicians who could potentially change minds and calm the fears seem more inclined to stoke those fears to strengthen their political base and insure that the donations continue to roll in.

  96. Rand Paul’s latest rant

    “I’m a physician, and when you come in to see me, I put down a little diagnostic code and there was 18,000 of these. But under Obamacare, they’re going to keep you healthier, because now there’s going to be 140,000 codes. Included among these codes will be 312 new codes for injuries from animals. 72 new codes for injuries just from birds. Nine new codes for injuries from the macaw. The macaw? I’ve asked physicians all over the country: Have you ever seen an injury from the macaw?”

    http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-hilarious-obamacare-explanation-require-diagnostic-codes-141223911.html
    ________

    Rand, you ignorant libertarian clown, macaws can inflict serious injuries. I was injured by a macaw while rescuing a little girl who was being attacked by the bird. If you think that’s funny I would to see a macaw sink it’s wire-cutter like beak into your dumb fat butt and watch you run like scalded dog.

    Two things two remember:

    1. Macaws do not make good pets.

    2. Rand Paul isn’t bright enough to flush a toilet.

    • Max, if you keep beating up conservatives, I’m just gonna … cry.

    • Max_OK

      Rand Paul makes good sense.

      Having a separate claim form for injuries sustained while being attacked by a macaw is a bureaucratic absurdity.

      Cover it on a general form.

      Macaws may not make good pets but Rand Paul seems like a pretty bright guy. I’d bet he could go toe-to-toe with you, Okie.

      Max_CH

      • Max_CH, I have no trouble flushing my toilet but Rand Paul has trouble flushing his. Haven’t you heard he was whining about his toilet during a hearing, and some government lady said she would help him. Maybe the problem is he’s more full of crap than a toilet is made to handle with one flush.

        I’m not making this up. I actually subdued a macaw that was attacking a 9-year old girl, and prevented her from being more seriously injured than she already was. That damn bird got me pretty good in the process. I was employed in a pet shop at the time and the little girl and her mother were customers.

        Rand Paul said “When I’ve asked physicians all over the country: Have you ever seen an injury from the macaw?”
        I read that and immediately thought about the little girl who was terrified and screaming in pain as that bird dug it’s claws into her flesh and clamped down on her with its powerful beak. Then I thought Paul, you didn’t ask enough physicians.

        I don’t know why nine new codes for injuries from the macaw are needed. If Rand Paul knows, he doesn’t say. If he doesn’t know, he should find out before being critical.

      • Max_OK

        Yeah. I can imagine that a macaw can do quite a job with that beak. (Don’t they use it to crack nuts?) Sorry to hear about your encounter, but glad all ended well.

        I had a less threatening encounter with a macaw (in a bird park in Brazil).

        Got splatted on from above.

        Max_CH

    • Wow. You find out that the number of asinine codes will increase by a factor of 10 and you call the guy pointing it out an idiot. I work at a university that, like many others, is in danger of closing. But in the last few years we have hired a disaster planning administrator, several federal “compliance” officers, and special legal counsel, in addition to the dozens of other compliance officers, lawyers who are in charge of risk assessment, and special needs and gender issues directors. Most of these are due to federal and some state regulations. If you do not understand that a plan that says it will cut medical costs and then immediately adds thousands of regulations and codes will add to costs, then there is little hope for you. In a few years when costs have sky-rocketed, no doubt you will blame it on the Koch brothers or evil wreckers and we can have a pogrom.

    • What is the code for Hot World Syndrome?

    • Max,

      You really test my desire to avoid name calling. That a macaw can inflict serious injury is irrelevant to Rand’s point that having to provide documentation to satisfy the government to the level he describes is idiotic.

      Amd even if one could come up with a reasonable justification to have a code for “injury by macaw”, what could possibly justify 7 specific codes? Personally, the thought of someone taking the time (at my expense as a tax payer) to think of 7 different ways a macaw could cause injury being involved in making decisions about someone’s health care is worrisome.

      As for Rand Paul, you can disagree with his politics, but as far as his intelligence goes, I doubt you are in the same time zone. Comments like that contribute to the impression you haven’t gotten past the stage of 15 year old wanna be.

      • timg56, I’m not in the same time zone as Rand Paul when it comes to being truthful. I shouldn’t have presumed Paul was correct when he implied Obamacare was responsible for the new diagnostic codes. The Blaze just finished fact-checking Paul on this and found he is wrong. A summary of the fact-check is quoted below:

        “BOTTOM LINE: Sen. Paul raises valid concerns over the seriousness of the new codes and perhaps he isn’t incorrect to poke fun at them.

        However, when all is said and done, he is incorrect when he implies that Obamacare is responsible for 122,000 new diagnostic codes. The WHO wrote up the new codes a long time ago and it was approved by a Bush administration official.

        Sure, the new coding system may seem silly and it may turn out to be a costly mistake — but you can’t blame Obamacare for this one.

        Senator Paul’s office did not immediately return TheBlaze’s request for comment.”

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/fact-check-was-rand-paul-actually-off-when-he-made-fun-of-obamacares-supposed-new-health-codes/

      • While I was not specifically calling out Obamacare, it is always preferrable to have better information on a topic. The point about the potential problems caused by increased bureauracratization (sp?) of the health care system still stands. No matter which administration is responsible.

        I’m not against some sort of national health care program. I happen to believe that up to the age of 18 every one should have access to basic health care services. We can argue over the definition of “basic”, but mine would include pre-natal and early childhood care, annual physicals, dental care, and treatment for things like broken bones and common illnesses.

        After the age of 18, I’d look at what was included on the list. I would be less inclined to expand it.

      • timg56, I am reluctant to pass judgement on something I know nothing about. I don’t know the purpose of the codes. I don’t if more detailed codes better serve the purpose.

    • Steven Mosher

      max_OK

      The macaw? I’ve asked physicians all over the country: Have you ever seen an injury from the macaw?”

      http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-hilarious-obamacare-explanation-require-diagnostic-codes-141223911.html
      ________

      Rand raised an issue about 9 new codes for injuries from Macaws. I suspect max, that you’ve never seen one of these codes or understand the cost imposed by these regulations.
      here’s one view, but of course consider the source.

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/more-than-1600-pages-of-regulations-added-to-federal-register-last-week-cost-now-1-8-trillion-per-year/

      The complaints are about ICD-10. let me suggest that you talk to some of your doctor friends about it.

      for example

      Hurt at the opera: Y92253

      Stabbed while crocheting: Y93D1

      Walked into a lamppost: W2202XA

      Walked into a lamppost, subsequent encounter: W2202XD

      Submersion due to falling or jumping from crushed water skis: V9037XA

      of course medical coders love it. have you ever worked with medical coding data?

      You might think Rand is stupid, but the doctors, the experts, agree with him
      http://www.bna.com/ama-state-physician-n17179871768/

      “The American Medical Association, along with 42 state medical organizations and 40 medical speciality groups, urged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cancel implementation of the ICD-10 code set, according to a letter sent in late December.

      “The implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patient care, and will compete with other costly transitions associated with quality and health IT reporting programs,” the letter said.”

      Now that obama is in charge we have a code for struck by chicken

      http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/W50-W64/W61-

      and there is a code for bitten by dolphin.

      • Mosher,

        gotta love these two:

        Walked into a lamppost: W2202XA

        Walked into a lamppost, subsequent encounter: W2202XD

        Jay Lemo’s writers couldn’t do any better.

      • mosh

        in gloomy anticipation of a repeat of last summers washout and my valiant attempts to protect my tomatoes against shelled predators, can you urgently confirm there is a code for ‘slimed by snails?’
        tonyb

      • Mosher, I’m not sure I agree. It took me about 10 seconds to pick the correct diagnosis for the injuries I received from a macaw using the linked findacode.com, and I’m not experienced at doing this. I just typed “macaw.” Try it yourself on some injury you have had.

        http://www.findacode.com/icd-10-cm/icd-10-cm-diagnosis-codes-set.html

      • Limited experience working with ICD data in another life suggests that it is better to spend effort on improving record keeping.

      • Is there one for abduction by aliens?

      • Climatereason, I know your post about snails was for a different reason, but out of curiosity I entered “snails” in the linked findacode and found nothing, which would suggest to me the food poisoning from eating escargot may not be be common.

        Do you think that would be useful information to have in a data base that could be easily accessed?

        http://www.findacode.com/icd-10-cm/icd-10-cm-diagnosis-codes-set.html

      • Steven Mosher said on May 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm

        “Now that obama is in charge we have a code for struck by chicken.”
        ____

        Mosher, Rand Paul suckered you along with the mouth breathers. The new diagnostic codes are not Obama’s doing.

      • One of the Myths about ICD-10

        ICD-10 is impractical or even impossible to use because it contains such an overwhelming amount of codes.

        A longer code set doesn’t mean that it’s more challenging, even given the fact that ICD-10 contains significantly more codes than ICD-9-CM. Actually, the opposite is true for a number of reasons:

        ICD-10 is more accurate, more specific, and more logically structured than ICD-9-CM.

        You don’t need to search the entire code list to find the code you’re seeking in ICD-9-CM, and the same is true of ICD-10.

        Unless you work in an office that provides an amazingly broad range of services, you probably only use a small portion of the current code set on a daily basis now. This is another thing that won’t change in October 2013.

        Electronic coding tools and the Alphabetic Index will still be around to help you when you’re looking for a specific code.

        New software will be developed for ICD-10, allowing you to track down codes even faster than you can today.

        http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medical-billing-and-coding/understanding-the-upcoming-medical-coding-language/

      • What’s the code for getting bitten by a rabid greenie?

      • What’s the code for when socialist-leaning politicians tax you into oblivion? Or the one for when they don’t let you control your own property? Or where you live. There had better be codes for those, too.

      • jim2,

        to borrow a line from one of my favorite movies, Breaker Morant, I suggest code .303.

  97. jim2, Rand Paul has presidential aspirations. I wish him the best of luck in getting the GOP nomination.

  98. Leftists believe the secular, socialist pinkonomy of the French is what we should emulate in every state in the Union except that no state in the Union should be permitted to emulate the French nuclear-energy-production model. Nuclear energy is okay for the French and the Germans who buy energy from the French and it is okay for America’s enemies and competitors but “made in the USA” nuclear energy is verboten.

  99. Every day a new bear, until Springer coughs up a figure for the polar bear hug.

    • David Springer

      Let’s make it TWO bears!

      • David Springer | May 29, 2013 at 1:49 am |

        It appears you’re confused.

        That’s (a) a huskie being hugged, and (b) not a hug.

        Which, if you’d pay to see a person and a polar bear doing, you may wish to seek professional help.

      • David Springer

        Is there some sort of professional who puts on shows where bears hugs people? Circus acts were famous once for lion tamers putting their heads into the mouths of lions. People payed to see it. Is there something wrong with that?

        Here’s my half of our bear pictures for today. People probably pay to see this too. Enjoy.

      • David Springer

        Here we go. Maybe you need to get out more. May I suggest you attend a circus? They have circuses in the UK?

      • Speaking of bears (not polar), a Bosnian shepherd killed a brown bear with his axe few days ago. In self defense. True story.

  100. It does not help the debate to misrepresent the views of one’s opposition so badly. To claim that these named people truly deny global warming or climate change and all that means requires evidence that denial. It should then be shown that what is being denied is seen in the observed record and not just modeled predictions, and what is observed is a problem.

    The paper as issued is childish as it has not defined what is meant to call someone a denier, nor is there evidence these named people are denying the climate has changed over the period of study. If the topic is to condemn people for their opinion then the scope of the discussion should be limited to what they are actually “denying” in their opinion. For that there should be an open debate that includes all of the named people and they should be given an opportunity to state unambiguously what they believe. Once it is known what they believe it should be compared to the observed record and any evidence the believers can produce that shows what is disagreed with is both real, of the claimed magnitude and scale, and a problem. I think this last part is going to be problematic as the Met Office has recently admitted.

    The burden of proof is on the believers to produce irrefutable evidence the so-called deniers true beliefs are wrong. It is inappropriate for the believers to characterize the named people without also presenting the means and methods of that characterization. It is inappropriate to open this conversation without proof their position is supported in the observed record and with a statistically significant degree of certainty.

    • @-dp
      “The burden of proof is on the believers to produce irrefutable evidence the so-called deniers true beliefs are wrong. ”

      As John N-G recently posted, the AGW part of the theory is not in dispute, and hasn’t been for at least a couple of decades. That is the import of the 97% figure on scientific consensus. It is the size of the ‘c’ the potential for catastrophe that is a matter of uncertainty.

      The ‘so called deniers’ all seem to use as one of their tropes that there is still dispute, discussion and controversy about the reality of AGW, rather than the extent of its impacts, a belief that is clearly wrong in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of AGW.

      • The whole of the AGW theory is in dispute or at least the GHG part. There could be some land change global CC, but it’s likely insignificant compared to the natural variation.

      • “The burden of proof is on the believers to produce irrefutable evidence the so-called deniers true beliefs are wrong.”

        That is backwards. The deniers do not have an opposing model.

        Without a denialist model available there is no way for the realists to refute it. What are the climate realists supposed to do? Do the work of denialists such as Edim, create an opposing model for him and then refute it?

        That is a ridiculous strawman.

    • @- Edim
      “The whole of the AGW theory is in dispute or at least the GHG part. ”

      Not with 97% of the scientists publishing on the subject.
      This fact-free assertion that Tyndall’s work on the absorption of energy by CO2 and the subsequent definition of radiative transfer in the atmosphere by Plass et al are in any dispute is ridiculous.

      @- “There could be some land change global CC, but it’s likely insignificant compared to the natural variation.”

      There is absolutely NO scientific backing for this fatuous claim, it is impossible that such a statement taken in conjunction with the 97% consensus in the scientific community can represent rational thinking.

      • The consensus is only a example of paradigm paralysis.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm#Paradigm_paralysis

        Non-radiative heat transfer (evaporation especially) rules at the surface. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) cannot radiate significantly to space – only the so-called GHGs can cool the atmosphere, by radiating the gained energy to space. Atmospheric radiation (to space) is the heat transfer bottleneck.

      • Edim said:

        “The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) cannot radiate significantly to space – only the so-called GHGs can cool the atmosphere, by radiating the gained energy to space. Atmospheric radiation (to space) is the heat transfer bottleneck.”

        Edim is a strict contrarian much like the infamous krackpot known as Miles Mathis, he of the theory that the constant pi actually has a value of 4. Somebody once said this about Mathis:
        “If Miles Mathis saw a maiden tied to the tracks in front of a speeding locomotive, would he untie the maiden and save her? No. He’d rush back to his website to declare that the locomotive is a CIA hologram, the maiden consists only of charge photons, and the rope is actually much looser than it seems because pi = 4. Shameful.”

      • Webby, I’d rather be contrarian than insincere, illogical or against the scientific method. Bringing up Miles Mathis is a well known logical fallacy. It seems that’s all you can do.

      • izen,

        Since I lean towards the opinion that there is enough evidence to show AGW has progressed from hypothesis to theorem, I should be predisposed to your point of view. But my ability to give credence to your argument is hulled by your use of the 97% figure. It is a made up number. Both sources for that number (George Mason survey & Cook study) are grossly flawed.

        And even if the majority of climate scientists do accept the AGW theorem as valid, that is not justification to ignore competing hypotheses. Is the hypothesis that human impacts on climate may be swamped by natural variation without merit? I would argue otherwise. Is the hypothesis that climate models are insufficient at predicting future climate change bogus? Based on our current (lack of) knowledge about our climatic system and the divergence between model output and recorded temps the past 15 or so years, I’d say this one has certainly developed legs.

        So when I see comments like yours, it provides fuel to further call into question some of the arguments from scientists backing the AGW theorem. If you can get something like the 97% thing wrong, what else have you gotten wrong?

      • Edim has two painfully contrarian ideas.
        She thinks that excess CO2 is caused by increasing global temperatures.
        She disagrees with Kirchoff’s law that a good absorber makes a good emitter.

        Edim is like Miles Mathis in that she rails against well established scientific principles, essentially spitting in our face while asserting that pi=4.

      • Webby, again you’re making things up.

        I don’t think that “excess” CO2 is caused by increasing global temperatures. I hypothesise that the annual (and longer) change in atmospheric CO2 is caused by global temperature levels, not increasing temperatures.

        I don’t disagree with Kirchoff’s law, in fact I point out that a good absorber makes a good emitter. Warmists seem to forget that.

      • Edim, you are a 3% denialist contrarian. Of that 3%, you share models of climate science from the garbage dump.

        Look at the figure I linked to above. This is the Mauna Loa data with the seasonal outgassing of CO2 removed. To do this is very easy, all you have to do is get the SST from the equatorial Info-Pacific warm pool and take a differential representing Henry’s law. Subtract that out and what is left is the man-made additions of CO2.

        You are the one that makes stuff up. I am here to help you understand the 97% consensus.

    • dp, you write “The burden of proof is on the believers to produce irrefutable evidence the so-called deniers true beliefs are wrong. ”

      We have been round and round this mulberry bush, so many times, ever since Climate Etc. started, and many years before that. I have tried to point out, over and over again, that AGW is almost certainly real, while CAGW is merely a hypothesis. The issue was, is, and probaly will be into the future, the status of the numbers associated with climate sensitivity. What do these numbers mean? Are they guesses, which is what I maintain, or do they have some basis in real physics? Until this issue is thoroughly thrashed out, and both sides of the debate agree on the PHYSICS of these numbers, these neverending discussions will continue.

      • Cripwell says that

        ” I have tried to point out, over and over again, that AGW is almost certainly real,”

        Yet also claims over and over again that the effects of CO2 are “indistinguishable from zero”.

        Watch the krank kripwell try to walk this one back, using only rules that exist in his tired mind.

      • WHT you write “Yet also claims over and over again that the effects of CO2 are “indistinguishable from zero”.”

        I do wish people would not put words in my mouth and misquote what I write. I have NEVER claimed that there is proof that the effects of CO2 are indistinguishable from zero; as you imply. What I have stated is that the empirical data, the fact that no one has measured (my definition of measured) a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. An apology would be in order.

      • Nobody here seems to understand the entire premise of the alarmist position at least in this thread is that “deniers” are in denial of climate change. Full stop. My post above demands the alarmists prove that. Reveal the people who are denying climate change and post their denial in the actual words of the deniers. I’m aware of no well-informed skeptics who are in denial of climate change. The point of contention is the cause, scale, consequence and appropriate response regarding the recent (using 1850 – present) climate change which is but one identified change among many.

        My point, to put a fine point on it, is there are no climate change deniers among the well-informed skeptics. There is profound disagreement about the observed record and the hyperbole spewed out by models. Since it is the alarmists who have made the claim that the “deniers” are denying climate change itself and not the disputed “consensus” view of the data, they need prove the data are above dispute. That cannot be done. The data are very disputable. We know this to be true by the fact that the consensus interpretation of the data is heavily disputed. If you and others defending the consensus analysis of the data do not see the clear truth of that statement I suggest you are in denial.

      • When will they ever learn?
        =========

  101. @- “And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.”

    I have been trying to find any who could be described as holding rational positions on AGW in the above list, without success.
    Any suggestions ?

    • Many are arguing that we can’t make an accurate attribution between AGW and natural variation. You find this irrational?

      • @- steven
        “Many are arguing that we can’t make an accurate attribution between AGW and natural variation. You find this irrational?”

        Many are not. Around 97% at last count.

        So to argue that there is still any dispute about attribution of the majority of the warming over the last few decades is not only irrational, it is also wrong, ignorant, stupid or dishonest.

    • Izen, what is the attribution that the 97% agreed upon?

      • More than half of the warming in the last few decades is attributable to human causes.

      • There’s certainly no 97% agreement on that, and there’s no published paper claiming there is.

      • Izen that’s not true – the consensus is that more than 100% (or at least 100%) of the warming is attributable to human causes.

        With natural forces only it’s flat or cooling.

      • izen, you write “More than half of the warming in the last few decades is attributable to human causes.”

        As Edim puts it, very gently, this is not true. I feel like being a little more blunt. See

        http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html
        where, in answer to a question in the UK Parliament, the Met. Ofice, surely an expert on this issue, states that you claim is just plain nonsense. No this is not a peer reviewed paper, but I would suggest that an answer in the House of Westminster from the legitimate authority in the UK on this subject carries far more weigth than any peer reviewed paper.

      • Izen, so you have about 3% that either don’t believe it has warmed or don’t believe man has anything to do with it warming, ie 3% that believe that man has done 0%. From there you skip from 1% – 50% and have 97% that believe man has caused more than 50% of the warming. I’m afraid I find this illogical and irrational and will have to request you support this with some documentation that specifically supports your premise.

      • To all those asking for a source supporting the claim that more than half the observed warming is attributed to human factors over the last five decades I would draw your attention to the rather cpnservative and watered down conclusions of the IPCC reports.

      • What about for those of us asking for a reference to 97% of climate scientists believing that over half of the recent warming is due to man? Have anything for us? You can’t even get to 97% above neutral if you include future warming. Page 46.

        http://ncseprojects.org/files/pub/polls/2010–Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf

      • I would draw your attention to the rather cpnservative [sic] and watered down conclusions of the IPCC reports.

        The IPCC reports have been deprecated by the discovery of malfeasance in the process (climategate) and the papers they’re based on have recently been deprecated. And there’s nothing even purporting to claim that 97% of scientists or scientific papers agree with the IPCC conclusions.

    • izen, you write “I have been trying to find any who could be described as holding rational positions on AGW in the above list, without success.
      Any suggestions ?”

      Let us be absolutely clear on this issue, before I weigh into the discussion. Do you mean AGW, the idea that greenhouse gases cause some, unknown, amount of global temperature rise, or do you mean CAGW, the idea that greenhouse gases cause a catastrophic global temperature rise?

      • @- Jim Cripwell
        ” Do you mean AGW, the idea that greenhouse gases cause some, unknown, amount of global temperature rise, or do you mean CAGW, the idea that greenhouse gases cause a catastrophic global temperature rise?”

        As I have stated, AGW as a scientific theory is not in dispute. The idea that the rise in CO2 as a ‘greenhouse’ gas will cause an unknown, but bounded amount of surface temperature rise, is beyond credible refutation. No rational observer can see anything but a doubling of CO2 causing between 1.2degC and 3degC over the next few decades. Much less, or more than that amount of warming is less probable.

        Wether that amount of warming {and the associated climate disruption and weirding} is catastrophic for advanced global societies and the agricultural infrastructure that supports them is more a matter of the resilience of the system, not the amount of warming.

        AGW is as much a scientific consensus as evolution, smoking causing cancer and CFCs causing ozone depletion. It is the size of the ‘c’ before it that is a matter of uncertainty.

      • izen, you write “As I have stated, AGW as a scientific theory is not in dispute. The idea that the rise in CO2 as a ‘greenhouse’ gas will cause an unknown, but bounded amount of surface temperature rise, is beyond credible refutation. No rational observer can see anything but a doubling of CO2 causing between 1.2degC and 3degC over the next few decades. Much less, or more than that amount of warming is less probable.”

        This is self contradictory. If the amount of the rise is unknown, as you state, then a rational observer could conclude, as I do, that the rise is indistinguishable from zero. You are writing nonsense.

      • @- Jim Cripwell
        “If the amount of the rise is unknown, as you state, then a rational observer could conclude, as I do, that the rise is indistinguishable from zero. ”

        No, YOU stated it was unknown,
        I stated it was unknown but bounded by the probability limits {95%} between 1.2degC and 3degC. That is a function of the thermodynamic processes involved.
        Claiming that the accumulation of energy caused by the rising CO2 could cause a rise indistinguishable from zero when much smaller energy shifts have caused MWPs and LIAs is not rational.

      • izen, you write “No, YOU stated it was unknown,
        I stated it was unknown but bounded by the probability limits {95%} between 1.2degC and 3degC.”

        You are talking nonsense. You claim it is “unknown but bounded”. That is an oxymoron. Either it is bounded, in which case it is known, or it is unbounded, and, therefore, unknown. And if it is unbounded, then there is not reason why I cannot claim the value is indistinguishable from zero.

      • @- Jim Cripwell
        “You are talking nonsense. You claim it is “unknown but bounded”. That is an oxymoron. Either it is bounded, in which case it is known, or it is unbounded, and, therefore, unknown. ”

        It is not an oxymoron. Your life span is unknown but bounded.
        Or are you claiming immortality?

      • izen, you write “It is not an oxymoron. Your life span is unknown but bounded.
        Or are you claiming immortality?”

        It is an oxymoron. Of course my life span is limited. There is no record of anyone ever living to be 1000 years old. There are excellent medical reasons why we die before we reach some upper limit of life. If the numeric value of a quantity is bounded, then we know it’s value within certain limits. This is true of any physical measured (my definition of measured) quantity. Unless there is an exact mathematical formula to define a number, ALL physical quantities have a +/- value associated with them. So, if the numeric value of climate sesntivity is bounded, we know what it’s value is, within the bounded limits. It is only unknown if there are no bounds to what the value can be.

      • izen, I think you are confusing two words, namely “uncertain” and “unknown”. The numeric value of climate sensitivity can be uncertain, but if the value is bounded, it is NOT unknown.

    • @izen…

      Any suggestions ?

      Here you go:

      Rep. Kevin Brady

      “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.”

      The models are well known by most climate scientists to not really emulate Earth’s climate. The degree of uncertainty has been repeatedly misrepresented by the IPCC and alarmists pushing an agenda hostile to the Industrial Revolution.

      Rep. Shelley Capito

      Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous.

      Note how these items are strung together in series. There’s certainly no 97% consensus that it’s dangerous.

      Rep. Cory Gardner

      Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming… ““I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.”

      Neither do many scientists. There’s certainly no 97% consensus on what the sensitivity is.

      Rep. Gregg Harper

      “I don’t believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming.”

      It isn’t, and the only “scientists” who say it is are liars. And there are very few of those in the climate science community.

      I could go on, but that’s enough to start with.

      • @- AK

        I find all those statements to be functionally equal to the same sort of statement the same type of politician makes about biological evolution.

        “I don’t believe the science is settled” is one of those plausible deniability constructs. It is always true, there are aspects and details of any science that remain unsettled, but the basic central thermodynamics certainly are not in dispute, but I would contend that that is the impression that these politiciansare intending to give to their voting base.

      • @izen… You said:

        I have been trying to find any who could be described as holding rational positions on AGW in the above list, without success.

        These are perfectly rational positions for conservative politicians. Every single one is perfectly consistent with current science, every single one offers their supporters the idea that they agree with them. What’s irrational?

        The fact that you don’t like them, or agree with the inferences that a less-than-fully-informed hearer might draw hardly makes them incorrect or irrational.

  102. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html

    An example of a really strong premise, well-presented, well-argued, that goes wrong near the end.

    The problem with the ‘ice free Arctic’ that people put on paper is it sounds like such a warm, friendly place to people who have never been north of 70 lattitude. All beaches and sunshine and waves quietly lapping on the docks, where otters frolick with porpoises.

    Well, it ain’t going to be like that. The Arctic is a natural maelstrom. Further, it’s still every bit as cold in the heart of night no matter how much global warming affects it by day, leading to a steeper temperature gradient and far more storm power.

    What happens when the ice thaws and stops blocking the currents? What happens when there’s more heat driving the winds that have increased as much as the sea ice volume has decreased? When there are more teleconnections with hurricanes and severe storms from lower latitudes forming frankenstorms?

    It ain’t gonna be a party for oil drillers and shippers. It will be weeks of perfectly still, calm water followed by one minute of darkening sky and then a storm surge and severity 3 cyclone, plus a blizzard. Rinse. Repeat. That’s what the Arctic is heading for. This is not the vacation spot of the future. Every major oil exploration effort has either closed up shop there already or is privately concluding the technical challenges will never be overcome.

    • Bart R

      Your imagined vision of what the Arctic will be like if and when late summer sea ice recedes to less than 1 million square km (i.e. is “ice free” in NSIDC parlance) is interesting but hardly convincing.

      Chances are very high that it won’t be much different from today.

      But you’re right. It is (and will be) a very hostile and difficult place for oil exploration (making the North Sea look like a stroll in the park).

      Max

      • manacker | May 29, 2013 at 4:18 am |

        When ice recedes to less than 1 million.. ?

        No, no.

        I’m talking about the past two years. It’s already happened. It’s documented.

        It’s real.

        There’s no reason to expect it to get less extreme.

        And that’s before we even mention permafrost.

      • Bart R

        NSIDC defines “ice free” as an extent that is smaller than 1 million square km.

        This is what some folks are predicting to occur by late summer within the next 30 to 90 years.

        As you know, the sea ice grows and shrinks seasonally by around 10 million square km and the average annual decline since 1979 has been (msk):

        End September (minimum extent)
        1979 7.20
        2012 4.00
        -1.76% per year

        End March (maximum extent)
        1979 16.44
        2013 15.04
        -0.26% per year

        Annual Average
        1979 12.48
        2013 10.71
        -0.45% per year

        So if the decline continues at the past rate it would take 79 years (i.e to year 2092) for the end-September sea ice extent to shrink from the latest 4.0 million square km to less than 1 million square km.
        (1 – 0.0176)^79 = (1.0 / 4.0)

        I’m not going to get too excited about this “death spiral”.

        Are you?

        Max

      • kim u r a delight.
        If a serf might
        command then I
        do so command:
        “Nevah – go – away.”
        Bts

      • Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
        ============

      • manacker | May 29, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

        Who is freaking talking about NSIDC’s “ice free” 1 million sq. km figure? Why are you introducing that totally irrelevant STRAW MAN?

        Can’t you read any harder?

        Go back and look at what I said. What happens when the ice thaws and stops blocking the currents? What happens when there’s more heat driving the winds that have increased as much as the sea ice volume has decreased? When there are more teleconnections with hurricanes and severe storms from lower latitudes forming frankenstorms?

        How does that freaking equate to a dissertation about NSIDC definitions, or warrant a specious and silly example of poor fake trendology.

        Because the best trendology doesn’t point at a linear model for the Arctic ‘death spiral’. Indeed, seldom does ‘spiral’ mean ‘straight line’. I know you’re not from America, but in America, we don’t make our corkscrews straight.

        The range of predictions for when the TOTALLY IRRELEVANT 1 million sq. km summer date will be hit, based on the actual data and competent curve fitting, is between seven and thirty years, with a central probability around 2030. Which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

        See, I’m talking about things that have already happened. Things as they are right now. Things that are likely to only get more extreme.

        How can you not follow that?

      • Islands are sinking, willard. Guam might capsize.
        ============

      • Steven Mosher

        yes, the government forced those villagers to move to bad location.
        and their building practices sucked ass. see that concrete in the picture..
        yikes. sod houses much more resilient.

        But these people were relocated long ago before they became refugees.

        ‘The Yup’iks, who had lived in these parts of Alaska for hundreds of years, had traditionally used the area around present-day Newtok as a seasonal stopping-off place, convenient for late summer berry picking.

        Even then, their preferred encampment, when they passed through the area, was a cluster of sod houses called Kayalavik, some miles further up river. But over the years, the authorities began pushing native Alaskans to settle in fixed locations and to send their children to school.

        It was difficult for supply barges to manoeuvre as far up river as Kayalavik. After 1959, when Alaska became a state, the new authorities ordered villagers to move to a more convenient docking point.”

        So ya, move them to a bad place to build. disturb the permafrost by building and you will get erosion. Looking at the temperatures for that region it had nothing to do with the change in temps which are still conducive to permafrost formation and maintenance ( some charts on this forth coming as we happen to be looking at perma frost)

        “Newtok’s riverine erosion on the Ninglick River is aggravated by wave action and thermal degradation of the ice-rich riverbank. The long-term, average erosion rate is 71 feet per year, with peak erosion of approximately 113 feet in a single year. The community is experiencing almost annual flooding and has a water supply contaminated by flood-driven sewage spills. Severe damage is expected within 10 years. The community is actively involved in relocating and is pursuing several
        projects to relocate as quickly as possible.”

    • Bart,

      RE your question about what happens. Apparently what happens is the climatic system reacts by moving heat northward from the equator to the Arctic, contributing to ice loss, which increases the amount of heat that gets transferred back into space.

      Another possible occurance is increased winter showfall in the NH.

      Both of which appear to be negative feedbacks.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc.

        Increased winter snowfall would not necessarily be a negative feedback to warming of NH unless it stays around into the summer months. So far, warmer winters have led to increased winter/spring snowfall, but so too, warmer summers have seen a decrease in late spring/early summer snowcover. Given that overall (with some exceptions) glaciers are in decline globally, we are not seeing any sort of meaningful negative feeback from NH snowcover, but rather, long-term declines in late spring/summer snowever that parallel the declines we’ve seen in Arctic sea ice and glacial mass loss from Greenland. More net energy (on a yearly basis) in the NH.

      • R gates

        Sounds just like the 1920-1940 period.

        Tonyb

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.’ http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

        ‘Clouds are important to the Arctic climate because they trap warm temperatures and reflect sunlight in spring and summer. There has been a nearly linear increase in the cloud cover over the central Arctic in the previous two decades. The linear trend of the time series and the western Arctic location of the major changes contrasts with the regime-like variation of the Arctic Oscillation. The difference between the linear trend of clouds and the behavior of the Arctic Oscillation highlights present uncertainties in understanding Arctic climate.’ http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-clouds.shtml

        Complexities on complexities. If I had to pick a meta-simplification – it would be regimes.

      • RG,

        Isn’t increased NH snowfall a relatively recent phenomenom? That is, it is too early to determine if it is short term or long? If the latter, then shouldn’t we have to wait a bit to determine the impact?

      • timg56 | May 29, 2013 at 1:58 pm |

        Too many people focus on temperature, especially on net temperature over longer periods.

        So you have a negative feedback depending on faster winds, changing circulation patterns, different humidity, more extreme temperature changes on a daily or hourly basis? You call this a negative feedback?

        While that’s true, it’s a “negative net temperature feedback” on a monthly or annual scale, it’s also extreme weather. It’s not the relief to AGW. It’s part of the harm AGW delivers on its way from the surface out into space.

        And it’s not like it’s a very effective negative feedback in terms of pure net temperature. Or even like in total all negative feedbacks to date are such a big deal.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/last:180/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/last:120/detrend:0.65

        Otherwise, instead of the rising red line, instead of the green line in such a high range of temperatures that the _coldest_ 12-month period in the past 15 years is hotter than the _hottest_ 12-month period on record up to 18 years ago, we’d see something like the imaginary blue line.

        Incidentally, if you show readers of headlines talking about “global warming has ended” such a graph, what percentage do you think would point to the fictitious blue line as being what is meant by the “end of global warming”?

        Or that the totally fabricated thin blue line represents what would be going on if negative feedbacks were what they’re made out to be?

      • Thanks Bart.

        I was looking at the graph and wasn’t sure what it was telling me.

        The part about extreme weather wasn’t convincing (though it at least is a better job of illustrating the possible link).

    • Further, it’s still every bit as cold in the heart of night no matter how much global warming affects it by day

      You’ve got that exactly back to front. The greenhouse effect slows down the loss of heat from the surface, meaning the nights don’t get as cold, but affects daytime temperatures much less.

      • phatboy | May 29, 2013 at 4:19 pm |

        You’ve got that exactly back to front. The greenhouse effect slows down the loss of heat from the surface, meaning the nights don’t get as cold, but affects daytime temperatures much less.

        We’ve covered regress elsewhere. Now, let’s discuss paradox

        Paradoxically, the mean monthly tmin is more affected by AGW than tmax. The statistics pretty conclusively show this. So, you state a correct fact. If nights are taken in groups of 30 days at a time.

        However http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1213/pdf shows that when you do analyses of daily variability, especially in the Arctic, you find AGW leads to more changeable daily conditions, ie ‘more extreme’ daily changes. True, you see twice as many warmer tmin and hotter tmax due AGW, and only see a third as many extreme cold tmin records, but you still see them, and more often close to warm records, meaning you’re also seeing more extreme daily or hourly shifts.

        This is just one of the types of data we don’t collect enough of, and don’t analyse enough, to be able to prove extreme weather is a result of AGW. Where we do have enough data for decent statistical methods, the results are patent. AGW makes more extreme weather.

      • That’s all well and good – all that’s lacking now is a plausible mechanism to explain how that happens.

      • phatboy | May 30, 2013 at 1:32 pm |

        Mechanism? It’s called time.

        If the Earth were entirely in darkness, there’d be no GHE. But Earth is only half in darkness, and that half changes every second the Earth spins. How long does it take to go from the GHE-influenced temperature to the temperature of darkness? How much mixing is there? What feedbacks delay or speed this rate of change?

        Perhaps in the tropics, GHE warmth lingers through much or even all of the night. But it does drop off with time. At the poles, night can last weeks or months. At the poles, mixing follows different, ice-dominated rules. And oceans, too, differ from land.

        There’s plenty of mechanism to explain the increasing extremity and variability and fickleness of weather as AGW progresses.

      • Bart R,
        Temperature of darkness? Is this another of your inventions?
        If you think Arctic nights are cold, they would be massively colder if not for the GHE
        And you have not come close to explaining how AGW leads to more extreme Arctic weather

  103. Thanks for the list, now i know who to vote for.

  104. Next topic, please.

    • “As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945,” says William Gray, CSU’s famous hurricane hunter. “No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.” What happened is a cooling spell began in the ’40s, by the ’70s Gray says, “there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.” Then, there was a resumption of global warming in the ’80s and from that sprang the “current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us” about, as Gray says, and has been blamed on “the fossil-fuel-burning public.”

      Gray continues…

      “Our global climate’s temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

      “Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

      “It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

      “This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.” ~William Gray

      • There was a time that
        we believed the earth
        beneath our feet was
        solid as a rock. Believed?
        No, knew that this was so.
        And Ptolemy who taught
        that the fixed Earth was
        the centre of the universe,
        the sun encircling us,
        would turn in his grave
        to learn that this was false.

        (Doubtless similar
        certainties regarding
        other miss –
        conceptions prevail
        today.) B-t-s

      • Further to Beth’s insightful poem, some thoughts of a serf:

        For thousands of years
        We serfs have known
        That storms, droughts, frosts and floods
        Were caused by some greater force
        We were unable to control

        Priests, oracles and prophets
        Warned us from their towers
        That these were punishment by an Almighty
        For past transgressions
        But we knew they were simply part of life

        Now the prophets with their models
        And the rulers with their laws and taxes
        Are again telling us from their ivory towers
        That we are the cause of these disasters
        And must change our sinful ways or be destroyed

        We must all be taxed as penance for our sins
        But we serfs who have always suffered most
        From these disasters when they hit
        Still know as always
        That they are simply part of life

    • Faustino

      I think the denizens are in urgent need of fresh meat they can circle round then tear to pieces

      Tonyb

      • uh oh, looks like i need to come up with a new post

      • Judith,
        How about the latest Met data on the temps in CET?
        Scott

      • Judith

        I am not sure we have ever had an article on the huge impact that soil has as both a sink and a source.

        For example i found this intriguing

        ‘The researchers found that soil respiration had increased by about 0.1% per year between 1989 and 2008, the span when soil measurement techniques had become standardized. In 2008, the global total reached roughly 98 billion tonnes, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year. The change within soils “is a slow increase, but the absolute number is so large, even a small percentage increase is quite a bit,” says Bond-Lamberty.’

        So it was the worms that did it….Have you got a soil expert up your sleeve?

        Tonyb

      • good topic, if any one wants to do a guest post on this let me know.

      • Tony, you’ve now had resilience, and soon you will have the state-of-play brief by Bennie Pieser of the GWPF for prospective discussion with the Royal Society as a topic which might provide a basis for a focused discussion.

        Should keep you off the streets.

      • Long term changes in the carbon pool of soil is certainly of some importance, but what’s perhaps more important is the future of carbon in deep ocean.

        The total amount of carbon in deep ocean is about 50 times that of the atmosphere. Due to the Revelle factor the ocean does not take 98% of all additional carbon of atmosphere and ocean combined even after the long delays in reaching the balance, but it does certainly take most of it, perhaps 80% although I don’t know what the Revelle factor of the deep ocean is.

        Assuming that ocean takes 80% of all carbon, adding 1000 Gigatons carbon to the whole system would add 200 Gt in atmosphere or about 110 ppm.

        From this it seems obvious that the maximum level of CO2 concentration that can be maintained for hundreds of years is not very high. It takes long for the ocean to warm and at the same it’s absorbing CO2.

        As long as I haven’t seen a clear explanation of where my thinking is erroneous, I cannot take seriously proposals that the most important consequences of CO2 releases are those that materialize over hundreds of years. In other words, I do believe that the emphasis can be put on next 100 or 150 years little weight given to what might happen after that.

        The right period to consider now in decision making is not even that long, because our near term decisions do not determine the actions to be taken in the future. They do affect the alternatives that the future decision makers will have, but they are only one factor in that and not nearly the most important. We cannot affect the state of Earth so rapidly that our decisions would affect essentially the future (except by actions like initiating a nuclear war). The question of what is morally and ethically right in decisions that affect future, is really complex.


  105. Whisper words of wisdom
    Let it be

     
    “Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” ~William Gray

  106. Judy said in her summary:

    “Labeling of these individuals as deniers (particularly those with rational positions) only serves to polarize the situation. This does not seem like good politics to me.”

    But Judy, that IS good politics, its just BAD governance. The politics of polarize and conqueror is taken directly out of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, No.13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This is of course a direct attempt to undermine the democratic institutions of our civil society by making it uncivil. It works great, its just evil; imposing one’s will upon another being one definition of evil.

    W^3

  107. Obama Signs Fundraising Email for ‘Non-Partisan’ Organizing for Action
    10:24 AM, May 29, 2013 • By JERYL BIER

    Today, President Obama personally became re-involved in his former campaign organization’s new incarnation Organizing for Action. On the same day he is scheduled to appear at two DCCC fundraisers in Chicago, the president of the United States sent the following email to OFA’s mailing list, signed “Barack”:

    Although the president and first lady were both heavily involved in OFA’s re-launch shortly after President Obama’s inauguration in January, more recently OFA has downplayed the president’s role in the continuing mission of the group’s effort to support his agenda. Nevertheless, OFA has retained the barackoabam.com website address and @BarackObama Twitter account with its 32 million followers. OFA’s new Twitter account, @OFA, has been rather less successful signing up followers. It currently stands at 288,000.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-signs-fundraising-email-non-partisan-organizing-action_731835.html

  108. I had an interesting excange of ideas with someone calling him/herself izen. izen, clearly,

    1. Uses a cowardly pseudonym so that no-one can identify who is writing what is written.
    2. Believes everything the IPCC has written, as if it were written on tablets of stone.

    I suspect there are many izen’s in the world today, who simply have not taken the trouble to look, in detail, at the alleged “science” that the IPCC has presented, and so realise that it is a load of garbage. In the end he/she abandoned the discussion , as I was clearly correct in what I claimed.

    Unfortunatley the izens of this world are also voters, so until we can show them how wrong they are, our politicians are unlikely to do the right thing with respect to CAGW. Oh well!!, we will just have to wait for Mother Natrure to produce the empirical data showing that CAGW really is a hoax

    • It is not cowardly to be anonymous on the internet. This blog clearly allows it. If you have a personal problem with it, man up and participate only in blogs that require real names.

      Calling it cowardly is a direct personal attack. It could be construed as harassment. It could be construed as stalking.

      • Rob Starkey

        Just because it is allowed does not mean it is not cowardly. Being cowardly is not always bad.

      • He has zero basis upon which to make the accusation.

        His theory of manhood is dawgchit.

    • Mr. Cripwell,

      I share your frustration at people who rely unduly upon appeals to authority, especially a single authority, to make their argument whether that be the IPCC or Steve McIntyre; however, I would defend izen’s [who ever he or she really is] choice to be pseudonymous as ‘common sense’ rather than cowardly. I don’t think anyone would suggest that izen is making professional or learned claims that might require backing up with a real identity.

      For the rest of us in the blogosphere, maintaining one degree of separation between our public ‘mask’ and our private lives is only common sense. There ARE predatory sociopaths out there and you don’t know who it will turn out to be, go ask the Pointman what happens when one of these types feels sufficiently ruffled by something you write in a comment to him to try to destroy your life. So long as we are consistent it really does not matter what our real identities are – really. ‘Well, there goes that long winded polemicist Wygart again!!! I wish Judy would ban him forever!!’ It really doesn’t matter who I really am, I don’t have any professional creds to defend here, maybe you do. I wouldn’t use someone’s choice to use an internet ‘handle’ as a means to invalidate their argument, that starts to smack of the ‘ad hominem’. What I’m more concerned about is if you are polite and cogent. I fail at both of those from time to time myself, and not just as Wygart.

      Webhubtelescope [who ever that is] might owe you an apology, but you might owe izen an apology as well.

      Regards,

      W^3

  109. Webhubtelescope, You are another who hides behind a cowardly alias, and is then rude to people. You owe me an apology.

  110. More developed analysis would include an examination of the past. In conclusion, OFA is mostly rallying support for future legislation – given the (Republican) opposition to past legislation and the need to engage more fully with the public and community efforts.

    Consider Obamacare. Legislators needed to engage with the public. OFA is now a nonprofit and remains openly politically associated with the Obama leadership and the implementation of policies e.g. healthcare reform, legislation on climate change and gun control – but successful implementation requires even more future public support. OFA openly ties policy implementation to multiple state organizations and citizen participation.

    In comparison, past administrations have been highly centralized/anti-democratic in t their implementation strategies.

    That OFA is transparently messaging less collaboration with those who would delay/deny the administrations stated election goals and more collaboration with those who support taking steps to curb emissions, is neither surprising nor inconsistent with democratic processes. The only question is whether it can sufficiently engage communities and grassroots organizing. If Obamacare is any indication, the answer is yes.

  111. Judy,

    Just an observation; this article seems to begin with you confirming the alarmism, and advocating that congressman skeptical of the alarmism be called out and labeled as deniers.

    Then, at the end of the article where you post your comments it becomes a bit more clear that you consider the tactics OFA et. al. to be counterproductive, even as you continue to call people with legitimate skepticism “deniers”.

    I take your point that name calling and exaggeration are counter productive, even as I see that you inadvertently call certain congresspersons ‘deniers’ because they don’t agree with the alarmism or urgency. Even to the point that you blame such ‘denialism’ on unsupportable meme’s as ‘unconvincing settled science’ and ‘backlash against ‘alarmism”. Am I confused?

    Judy, I have read enough of your missives and other work to know that you are very comfortable with the fact that ‘science is never settled’. Yet, from your comments it seems you consider this particular science to be ‘fairly close’, even though your very next comment indicates that you know all too well that the issue of attribution is really really important in this argument, going forward and that it (attribution) is far from settled.

    Maybe I am picking at nits here, but if I wasn’t very familiar with your position in regards to CAGW, I would take this as an endorsement and a call to arms to begin castigating these elected officials. I realize that the ending paragraph negates that, but 90% of the people who read this did not get that far.

    The last line about ‘sanity could emerge in energy and climate policy’ gives you away, however. Without sound science supporting the notion that we are having a controlling and detrimental influence on our climate, our energy policy ought to be ‘drill, baby, drill’, even as we work to perfect the technology that allows us to make more efficient use of our energy resources. I am not saying we shouldn’t have and enforce pollution controls, but CO2 is not pollution as far as I can tell, and holding back on developing our natural resources is not a winning strategy for anyone except China and the middle east. Last time I checked, they will not be participating in either human rights issues or alarmist climate policy. Hobbling our economy while they work to get ahead does not bode well for the state of humanity on this planet.

    Cap and trade is not a solution to anything but capitalism. And before you say anything about capitalism please realize that, as bad as it can be, it is the only economic system that has produced anything resembling prosperity OR equality anywhere on this earth.

    Without it, you and I would likely belong to some feudal lord somewhere or in a gulag somewhere for speaking our mind in a communist state.

    Just my $0.02

  112. If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.

    Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.

    When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.

    This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.

    The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.

    The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.

    The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.

  113. Seriously – let’s focus on what’s important here. Obviously, whether or not someone calls someone else a “denier” is what’s important about this debate. In fact, to talk about anything else is “anti-science” nonsense from libz and eco-Nazis.

    Oh, and speaking of being “anti-science,” finally I see that someone, no doubt a “skeptic,” understands:

    “I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” [Erik] Erickson explained. “But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.”

    “We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it is tearing us apart,” he continued, adding that “reality showed” it was harmful for women to be the primary source of income in a family.

  114. intrepid_wanders

    Seriously – Nobody takes you seriously. But, you seem to like stupid, here ya go…

    Oh, and speaking of being “science,” finally I see that someone, no doubt a “warmer” understands:

    Joe Biden on culturalism: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

    California Senator Barbara Boxer: “Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.”

    Henry Waxman on Environmentalism: “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

    Nancy Pelosi on legislation: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

    Former DNC Chairman Donald Fowler on possible delay of RNC convention due to Hurricane Gustav: “Plus they think the hurricane’s going to hit (starts laughing) New Orleans about the time they start. The timing, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God’s on our side”

    I am sure Joshua says nothing stupid. Beyond human, it must be something else…

    • Never forget “Mosquito Line” Gore, and his special drill bits for those hot rocks two kilometres down at millions of degrees. (He’d just written a book on the subject.) My favourite parts of his legendary Conan interview are the disconnected giggling fits…and those drill bits, of course. He goes all serious when he talks about highly specific and technical things like million-degree drill bits. Then he giggles again. Ah, warmies…he’s your guy!

      I never tire of pointing out the person who was nominated for the Nobel which Gore won:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

      • By the way, I’m aware that Sendler was not qualified to win under the guidelines of the Nobel Committee, though her nomination was accepted. I’m also not an admirer of Alfred Nobel, except as one of many successful capitalists, inventors and industrialists of the 19th century. (In his last two years of life, this pacifist steered steel producer Bofors into modern armaments – very profitably and right to the end!). I’d be perfectly happy if they cancelled the Nobel Prize (oh, and Belgium and the EU…oh, and Eurovision. Cancel them too.)

        What I’m really saying is that we have to stop heaping riches and prestige upon utter buffoons when they won’t take the least trouble to conceal their buffoonery. If Gore claimed to see Russia from his house the Posh Left would be stroking their chins and finding the comment terribly deep with all kinds of layers and resonance.

    • Ah yes. “Mommy, mommy, they do it toooouuuu.”

      Never seen that before!

  115. What is really needed to is call out the alarmists in Congress.

    – politicians who are not blind to the rampant corruption and bias in government-funded climate science that crucially underpins the alarmist consensus and its hidden agenda of fomenting more taxes and government – but who keep silent about it because they share the same totalitarian objectives.

  116. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  117. As a kid raised in the Sixties by hippies, I was pounded with “question The Man,” so I do. Which is why I’ve done enough research to see all those squealing global warming… er, climate change seem to have funds (or potential funds) going in their direction.

    Follow the money. Many legitimate scientists will tell you nothing is proven, warming periods could also be solar related.

    Count me in the Proud to be a Denier camp.

    http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/climate-change-hysteria/

    • http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/06/americans-for-prosperity-carbon-tax

      There you go. Following the money.

      “The Man” isn’t just one man. The world isn’t divided into good people and Deatheaters. That’s why we don’t stop at questioning “The Man”, and we don’t trust the money.

      There’s a whole world of mathematics and science we can each of us understand, and are obliged to make decisions about ourselves, not trusting “many legitimate” people of any stripe. Because science isn’t about “many” people, “legitimate” people, or trust in people.

      Science is about what we can observe, and which explanation of what we observe is most universal, most simple and most parsimonious. The solar effects that have been measured stopped explaining warming in about 1955. That can be shown by mathematics. Simple mathematics. Math that works for radio signals and demographics, medicine and the color of light, music and trends in commerce, and more.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:29/mean:31/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:29/mean:31/isolate:57/from:1800/scale:-0.01/detrend:-0.6/offset:-0.5

      Only the GHE from CO2 can accurately explain Tyrannical (as it is caused by emissions of a few acting without the consent of or compensation to those they steamroll) Global Warming.

      We all of us question “The Man”. Questioning “The Man” doesn’t make anyone special. And it doesn’t turn wrong conclusions into right ones.

  118. “Even when the system works just as advertised, with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content. That is described as “incidental,” and it is inherent in contact chaining, one of the basic tools of the trade. To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in. Intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target, which increases “incidental collection” exponentially. The same math explains the aphorism, from the John Guare play, that no one is more than “six degrees of separation” from any other person.

    Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who had classified knowledge of the program as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were unable to speak of it when they warned in a Dec. 27, 2012, floor debate that the FISA Amendments Act had what both of them called a “back-door search loophole” for the content of innocent Americans who were swept up in a search for someone else.

    “As it is written, there is nothing to prohibit the intelligence community from searching through a pile of communications, which may have been incidentally or accidentally been collected without a warrant, to deliberately search for the phone calls or e-mails of specific Americans.””

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html

  119. “The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

  120. I enjoy what you guys tend to be up too. This type of clever work and reporting!
    Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my own blogroll.