Week in review

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

From my twitter feed:

Brendan O’Neill in Telegraph: It is vital that knowledge is controversial, even about climate change http://is.gd/7inGnX

It’s not a shortage of creative scientists, just agencies unwilling to fund creative ideas. http://ow.ly/B4UF7

Caleb Rossiter: Deserting the climate wars [link]

Naomi Klein: Big green is in denial [link]

WSJ: Climate change agenda needs to adapt to reality [link]

David Roberts (@drgrist) is back from digital detox. His reflection is a must read: http://shar.es/11GNPd

Mark Steyn: When science is settled by government [link]

Royal Society blog:  “retrofitting excellent science to a policy problem is all too common and unhelpful” [link]

Carl Wunsch on ocean’s changing temperature [link]

Italian scientists to appeal manslaughter conviction re Aquila earthquake; lay confusion over probability [link]

Un-muzzle the scientists?  Not so fast [link]

“Strategic use of science is fundamentally political” It’s a ‘tool of influence.’ [link]

New Senate report explains WHAT CLIMATE REGULATION IS ALL ABOUT [link]

Matt Ridley in the WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming? http://wp.me/p7y4l-u79

Global Temperature Drops Below IPCC Projection Range [link]

Ban-Ki Moon’s Climate Summit Dead In The Water [link]

The 8% Consensus: Only 11 Of 144 Countries Have Backed The Kyoto Protocol’s Extension [link]

California’s 100 year drought [link]

Reconceptualising risk in research: The call to do no harm goes far beyond the field. [link]

cartoon - GW Dollars

418 responses to “Week in review

  1. Alternative News Now

    Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy.

    • The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis actually has nothing to do with “anthropos.” For those in the know AGW really means, kick an American. That America was responsible for bringing the entire globe to a white hot climax was just too spanky an idea for the Left to pass on. The federal government is incompetent but letting the market dictate how best to serve the needs and wants of the people is nightmarish to Marxists.

      From that point on what we’ve seen is the continued neglect of time-honored principles and a violation of good faith in matters entrusted to academia. We’ve seen a reliance on unsound scientific methods for gathering and interpreting raw data and the wholesale abandonment of the scientific method. We’ve seen a failure to recognize the insufficiency of climate scientists and the ineffectiveness of academia to face and deal with a systemic breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in the field of climatology.

  2. Thank you, the week in review is one of my favorite, especially when I miss 75 percent of the articles like I did this week.

  3. “Not Going to be There
    Indian media has for weeks published that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas-emitting nation, will not join his U.S. counterparts at the United Nations climate summit this month in New York. Chinese president Xi Jinping has now officially decided to skip this meeting of leaders to discuss climate change in New York. Possibly the supreme insult for Barack Obama and his all-new, all-fervent ally on defeating the menace of Global Warming, France’s Francois Hollande who will host the downsized 2015 summit, the German daily TAZ reports that Chancellor Angela Merkel is not going to bother to attend the Ban Ki-Moon conference in New York. TAZ adds that Merkel’s decision to snub the event is probably a clear sign that efforts to forge a global and binding climate agreement are already dead in water.”

    The good news for Obama is that the Prime Minister (no less) of Lesotho (no less) will be there. He was recently run out of town by his military and has nothing else to do.

    • The skeptical reaction to this is what? Relief? Outrage at India and China? Outrage at Obama for even trying? Praise for India and China? Praise for Obama for trying?

      • I guess it is the UN, not Obama. Not sure how Obama got mentioned in here. Seems to get blamed for everything these days. Must be election season.

      • China and India are a couple of big players and without their support the President is going to look a bit weaker on the subject. India seems to have a GDP per capita of about $1500. I am not sure what I’d ask them to give up here?

      • It is not Obama. It is the UN holding this meeting that happens to be in New York. India are currently far below the global average carbon footprint, and are not part of the problem, so it would be hard to ask them to do anything except to plan their necessary expansion in energy-use considering the climate effects of different options.

      • India is the 3rd largest producer of CO2 with about half of their energy coming from coal.
        Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary General from South Korea. His countrymen have a per capita GDP of about $26000. Hence the PR value of having poor India attend.

      • On a CO2 per capita basis, India only is at 1/3 of the world average in CO2 production. They are not high on the list of countries that need to reform their ways. Same goes for most African and other poor countries. I think a fair action would be based on target per capita usage which is going to be much higher than what India and these countries are at, thus allowing for development at the same time.

      • I will explain the joke to you, jimmy. Obama (lead from behind) is out front on this one. Nobody is following. It’s funny and pathetic.

      • Jim D:
        I think you are saying India doesn’t matter so much, while I think they do. With there low per capita income, population of over a billion, and hopes for continued relative stability, there may some serious growth there. The prescription may include, burn more coal. It is their economic potential and size I think.

      • >The skeptical reaction to this is what?

        Sardonic laughter, you dill

        Germany is back into lignite-powered generation in a big way. One doesn’t need to wonder why

      • The skeptics cheer on China hoping they will be a big player in their anti-AGW fight, but the signals are there that China does know the importance of climate change and is already interested in technologies related to alternatives.

      • Ragnaar, I am saying it is unrealistic to ask a country with 1.6 tonnes CO2 per capita to cut emissions when the US is at ten times that much. One third of the world’s population are emitting 2/3 of the CO2, and it is that third that have to do something, not the lowest two thirds, which includes India. Note that China is now in the one third that does bear some responsibility with a per capita rate close to the EU, and a fast growth rate.

      • Don M, sounds like the skeptics don’t want China to do anything about it, or do they? I still can’t tell.

      • < sounds like the skeptics don’t want China to do anything about it, or do they? I still can’t tell

        You’ve got hold of the wrong team roster, Jim D. Skeptics aren’t a choir singing out of one hymnal. About all they all share is profound skepticism towards the political agenda being pushed by alarmists.

      • AK, for sure they are not. On the one hand they say it is no good doing anything unless China does, and on the other they hope China doesn’t, and sometimes it is the same people holding both views. This points to a dichotomy, or unmasks a pretense among some that it is about China when it isn’t.

      • How many skeptics can you name who hope that China does nothing about CO2, jimmy dee? I don’t recall having seen anyone say they hope China doesn’t do anything about CO2 emissions. I think most skeptics are rightly skeptical that China will do anything substantive. Whether they are hoping against China doing something, or they are just skeptical that China will do anything, skeptics who believe that without Chinese action mitigation will not be meaningful are not confused or inconsistent. You are the one with the confusion problem, jimmy.

      • Let me guess this about the Middle Kingdom. They’ll abate the smoky chimney. They’ll make the most acute decision of all nations about whether to mitigate AGW. They have the most to win and lose.

      • Don M, there were a couple in this thread, but clearly you missed them. I don’t see the skeptics complaining that China are not joining the UN conference for example. Seems almost like the reverse.

      • Jim D at 11:22 PM says….

        This skeptic, Jim D, could care less what China does about CO2. I hope they do,something about their air pollution problem as this is a serious issue. Whether they, India, the US or anyone reduces CO2 is not a concern as any threat from AGW is clearly overblown. May they all work to improve their citizens’ lives by supplying low-cost energy in a way that does not put real pollutants (which don’t include CO2) into the air.

      • “Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been very blunt in his criticism of the science produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” – WUWT’s weekly review.

      • Yes, thanks for the link. It can’t get any more blunt than Modi’s statement to school children that “climate has not changed”. At least he says electricity has to be saved (somehow) because of a global energy crisis and it is already too expensive for the poor, and he knows that they are destroying their own environment. Some pluses for awareness, but a big minus on global climate.

    • Don’t worry. Obama will do whatever necessary to ensure the US dumps cheap energy and has to rely on unreliable sources like wind and solar. Note how few permits he has issued to drill on Federal lands and his unilateral ban on coal. He is the United States worst enemy.

      • The irony is almost funny. The US is exporting coal to …. …. green Vallhala Germany; land of the living roof (Disclosue- I love living roofs), photo voltaics, and sometimes running wind turbines. Meanwhile Germany kow tows to Vlad, even as he invades a sovereign nation, because it needs Russian gas. Oh those unintended consequences…

      • Jim2 – …Obama…permits…Federal lands…

        More irony, he even publicly bragged about and took credit for all the hydrocarbons produced on PRIVATE lands, via fracking even, in spite of his words and deeds.

        Life imitating art: “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to discover taking place in this establishment!” … “Your winnings, sir.”

        To destroy a nation: first, blah blah blah…then, throw the eagles and the hawks in the blender….blah blah blah…


      • I meant to have the word “fracking” as in “…to discover fracking taking place…” in that one sentence.

    • Don Monfort – …India …will not join…climate summit …

      About 50% of India’s population still has to poop on the ground. Does anyone really believe that India can afford to stop burning coal?



    • If we were to install your average 16 year old high school kid in the White House, he couldn’t be worse than Obama’s been. He might well be better.

      • I think Obama has done an extremely good job and is likely to be remembered with respect and affection starting about a decade after he leaves office.

        If you look at the somewhat foolish criticism of him just here on this thread you’ll see why. The critics here will transfer their lockstep disagreements from Obama to the next Democrat in the same way they did from Clinton to Gore, from Gore to Kerry and from Kerry to Obama. All they do is change the name.

        Nothing wrong with that, of course. They’re Republicans. It’s natural for them to oppose Democrats and Democratic policies. But to pretend it has anything at all to do with Obama is just funny.

      • GaryM Whos that? Pukite, JimD and Willard :)

      • That’s foolishness, Tom. It wouldn’t take ten years for the people to notice, if Obama had done a good job. We have already been through six years of his crap. You are hoping, but we won’t forget what that clown has done in only ten years. It should be interesting to watch Obama and Hollande (his fellow failed socialist president) lead the next failed effort for meaningful CO2 mitigation. Add their respective approval ratings in their home countries together and you get just a little over 50%. They can’t even lead their own countries. You people live in a dream world. Socialism is an opiate.

      • captdallas,

        The progressive media in general.

      • Tom – Obama was an amateur long before he was President. He’s still an amateur – and that’s the way he’ll be remembered. But I refuse to get into a furball on this blog as why that’s so.

      • Tom Fuller at 9:14 PM praises Obama…

        Please, Tom, list his top three foreign policy accomplishments and his top three domestic policy accomplishments.

        Libya? Iraq? Russia? Afghanistan?

        Obamacare? Unemployment? Economic growth? Immigration?

      • To Tom Fuller: I’ve always admired your work, your capabilities and intentions of getting to the scientific and mathematical truths, the speaking of your mind to anyone, politely but firmly.

        And you may well be right that Obama is doing a good job on climate change, and that ten years from now we will know this.

        However, such a conclusion depends on three conditions, it seems to me:

        1. CO2 climate sensitivity is not at the low end of the range (1 to 1.2 degrees C temp increase for a doubling of CO2, since temp increases of this size are likely to not be very harmful, while CO2 increases will increase agricultural output, if my understanding of the science is reasonably correct);

        2. Natural gas prices remain reasonably low in the U.S., not far from the $3.50 to $4 per MCF range today. If natural gas prices are around $8 to $9 per MCF ten years from now, given that we will have displaced an even larger percentage of coal with natural gas by then (as we have now, but by then more coal plants will have been permanently retired), then electricity prices will be considerably higher as well, and US manufacturing will again be under pressure to move elsewhere. We already have too many unemployable people, unemployable because they can do jobs requiring manual labor, but not jobs requiring technology capability. That is a major reason why there has been such a large drop in males aged 25-54 (prime working years) in the labor force since 2007.

        3. Other major countries also rein in growth of CO2 emissions. If the US and Western Europe cut our CO2 emissions by, say, 20% more in the next decade, but India and China come close to doubling their emissions, it will be a bit of a pyrrhic victory, paid for in lost jobs and revenues and taxes.

        You may well be right about how we look back on the Obama admininstration’s climate policies, but it seems to me that there are reasonable ways in which that might not be the case a decade from now.

    • The New York meeting will be a training ground for new “climate protest activists”. They even have a new movie called “Disruption” being touted at Common Dreams dot org. I found it while trying to refresh my memory about Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman. Klein is an old Hugo Chavez defender and a grifted watermelon. She’s as red as they come, but I noticed her most radical material comes out in communist sites in Spanish.

      When I saw the plug for Disruption I shrugged my shoulders, but the comments section was filled with radical as well as some interesting comments about building your own house and starting an organic fiber peasant like existence. Some of it really funny, I laughed so hard one of my contacts fell off.

      I guess they’ll have a bunch of radicals fighting CO2 in NY when Ban Ki Moon meets Hollande and the Lesotho rep.

    • Why tf should the skeptics complain that the Chinese are not joining the UN conference, jimmy dee? Are you just clowning here? I don’t have any more time or patience for you.

    • I just checked my diary. Sadly the Climate Summit clashes with washing my hair..and I need to rearrange my sock drawer before winter.

      I will not be able to attend.

      Please pass on my apologies to the Acting Assistant Third Under Secretary (Jollies, Junkets and Jamborees) ..or her stand-in if she too has urgent business watching grass grow…….

    • David Springer

      Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy…

      United States CO2 emission per capita peaked in 1970 at 22.5 ton/yr and today stands at 17.5 ton/yr. China meanwhile grew from 1 ton/yr to 6 ton/yr. It doesn’t matter what the US does because our reduction simply becomes an increase somewhere else. Total global production continues to rise despite western economies cutting back.

      That isn’t rocket science, Jimmy honey. Just facts. Inconvenient facts but facts nonetheless.

      • Yes, China is already close to European CO2 per capita levels with most of their population still being rural. Their CO2 per GDP is ten times that of Western countries. They are very wasteful. This should be a global concern.

      • John DeFayette

        JimD, I stopped being an uptight, know-it-all, top-down controlling, government is the solution, banner waving lefty a few years back, probably from senility. Would you please remind me why wasteful Chinese should be a global concern?

  4. Naomi Klein: Big Green is in denial
    The “No Logo” author explains how environmentalists may be more damaging to their cause than climate change deniers


    • Nonetheless, she’s just another “luvvie” with no concept at all of what base load actually means

      “Luvvie” is an Aus colloquialism, perhaps equivalent to the English term “numpty”

    • I tried to read that but it just seemed like a lot of posturing and no substance. Reporters in awe of themselves.

  5. From Caleb Rossiter, who was fired from the leftist groupThinkTank IPS (Institute for Policy Studies) for his WSJ article on the devastating effects of green energy policies on the poor in Africa:

    “I’m gonna miss a lot of it – the excitement of learning about modeling, paleoclimate, satellite sounding, the 100,000 year cycles, how ice cores can provide temperature estimates, and the fun of watching students grapple with the possibility that everything they have been taught about climate change in college might be wrong.  But I’m not gonna miss the stress of being the odd man out in my lefty think-tank, or of being in agreement with my usual foes.  All I can say is, to people in both developed and developing countries, I hope I’ve helped just a little bit by being part of the resistance to the plan to de-industrialize your economies.  So far, so good — not because we skeptics convinced anybody about the dangers of emissions, but because people remain convinced of their benefits. ”

    I would be a shame to lose his voice from the conversation. He wrote some taboo words and was banished from the IPC tribe by the witch doctors in charge.


    • His article cited by Judith above is a good read and worthy of comment in its own right. His belief that the climate wars is not providing anything of value to policy makers and to ordinary people. particularly to ordinary people in Africa, strikes a chord with me. I find these days that I have little to add that would be of benefit to this blog and that I am content to sit on the sidelines and just keep myself informed.

    • I agree with Justin and Peter Davies.

      I actually think almost all the climate activists are barking up the wrong tree. The approach pushed by the climate activists almost certainly will not succeed. Until they genuinely listen to the 97% of the world population who want lower cost energy not higher cost energy the climate activists and doomsayers will make no progress.

      We can have what nearly everyone wants (except a few special interest groups with their own agendas that they use climate alarmism to further their aims). But any policy that will raise the cost of energy or damage the world’s economies has no chance of succeeding. Given that we can’t even get agreement to world trade agreements that would give enormous benefits to nearly all stakeholders, there is near-zero probability of getting the world’s governments to sign up to treaties that will inevitably raise the cost of energy, damage all economies that participate in it as well as threaten sovereign states control over their own economies?

      My submission to the Australian Senate inquiry into repeal of the carbon tax legislation explains why global carbon pricing will not succeed (see Submission No. 2 here http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions ).

      However, there is a way that almost inevitably will succeed. It has been succeeding since humans first began to communicate and began to trade stone tools.

  6. Re: David Roberts back from digital detox …

    Waaaayyyyyy too long. Rebound hyper wordemia.

  7. “Strategic use of science is fundamentally political” It’s a ‘tool of influence.’ http://compassblogs.org/blog/2014/09/03/your-science-is-a-multi-tool/

    Someone needs to explain this ocean acidification theory.

    There are 766 gigatons of CO2 in the in the atmosphere from an estimated 578 gigatons in 1700. There are 38000 gigatons of CO2 in the ocean now.

    Ignoring the land plants (there are about 3000 gigatonnes of CO2 locked up in soil) – we would have to emit the current 26-38 gigatonnes per year (9.8 gigatonnes estimates of annual carbon emission obviously involve some soot) for 1000 years to double the carbon dioxide in the ocean.

    How are claims the ocean will be half as alkaline by 2050 justified?
    Where are these claims of doubled acidity by 2050 coming from?

  8. The latest brief filed by Michael Mann in NRO’s appeal of the denial of Anti-SLAPP Act relief in Mann v. Steyn:


    Mann goes all in on his claim to “exoneration.”

    “…two universities and six governmental agencies independently investigated the claim of fraud and misconduct against Dr. Mann and others in the climate science community. And every one of these investigations concluded that there was no basis to the allegations of fraudulent conduct, data manipulation, or the like.” (pg 24 of the pdf).

    Notice the “Dr. Mann and others.” I suspect Mann’s attorneys are trying to fudge here. It is difficult to come out and openly admit you have made factual misrepresentations in prior pleadings. So I suspect they are laying the ground work to claim later that they meant “and” in the sense of “and/or”.

    You would think that where they (the attorneys) have been accused of making false statements to the court, such highly paid lawyers would quote the actual language exonerating Mann, not just the “and others,” in their brief. But their first two sections on “exoneration” deal with the EA and Muir Russell inquiries. Both sections contain express language regarding CRU. yet nary an exonerating word about Mann.

    It seems what they are trying to do is bootstrap the findings regarding CRY to Mann’s benefit by claiming that, because they found that Phil Jones and the CRU did not engage in fraudulent or misleading conduct by mimicking “Mike’s Nature trick” (as described in the emails), that is an exoneration of Mann himself.

    I don’t see that actual argument in the brief, or elsewhere in the pleadings, but is the only possible explanation I can think of for their doubling down on their claim that Mann was “exonerated” by all of the inquiries. His lawyers may be dishonest, but they’re not stupid.

    • A post on this is coming next week

    • If those were the only flaws, your bootstrapping theory might be plausible. But they are not. For example, Manns own book published before these pleadings specifically said that the CRU investigations did NOT involve Mann or his work. His pleadings expressly say they did. McIntyre has already pointed this fatal comtradiction out in detail. Steyn can use to show legal bad faith and by inference, SLAPP intent.
      His lawyers are going to get their heads handed to them by the judge, since the DC rules of civil procedure follow almost identically the federal ones. Repeated Misstatements of fact are a BIG nono for officers of the court.

      • Rud,

        Oh I understand. But his attorneys, having made the claim, will just be looking for a colorable argument to avoid sanctions. Mann’s statement in his book was not under oath, and not a submission to the court. It is not binding on him in the litigation.

        it is a bad argument, for other reasons as well. But it the only explanation I can come up with for their repeating the claim in the latest brief.

      • FYI,

        I have recently in state court in Illinois, I recently proved indisputably that opposing counsel had lied to the court. The judge reversed his order sending my client to jail, and vacated the judgment against him, both ordered as a direct result of the lies. Burt the judge refused to impose sanctions.

        In another case, still pending, the opposing party has moved to vacate an order, on the grounds that he lied to the court to obtain that order. In other words, he is using his own alleged perjury as a ground to vacate an order he himself requested. Not only is the judge in that case forcing a trial on the request, rather than a summary dismissal, but she is also in the process of trying to disqualify me, at his attorney’s request, because i asked him a question on the witness stand about the date he sent emails to me, about which he had testified previously. If I am out of the case, my client will never be able to afford another lawyer, and the issue will disappear.

        Lawyers lie all the time in court, and allow their clients to do so as well. Sanctions for such conduct are extremely rare.

        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 looks great on its face. And all states have a similar version. When they were first implemented, courts used to actually hear motions for sanctions regularly. But they suddenly found themselves inundated with such motions. The reason being there was and is so much dishonesty in the profession. (As in virtually every profession I know – integrity is one of those “Judeo-Christian morals” modern sophisticates can’t be bothered with). So they simply decided to stop granting sanctions, finding any excuses possible for refusing. Eventually the profession learned, and after some slight changes intially after the rules’ implementation, things did not just go back to normal, they have gotten worse.

        The funny thing is, if they had just actually enforced the rules on a regular basis, the volume of motions would have declined anyway, because lawyers woulds stop being so brazen about being dishonest.

      • If the DC court had been following the rules, the case would have already been dismissed. Look for more of the same. Good luck to Mr. Steyn.

      • Reading his column, I think Steyn can make a good case for pleading ignorance, and perhaps that is what he is now deliberately setting himself up for with his utterances.

      • Here in Spain lawyers lie, submit false proofs, subtract 15 from 19 and get 9 for an answer, give their clients instructions to make false criminal accusations and they don’t even get a mild rebuke.

        The key in these cases is to “paint” the opposition as liars by repeating over and over the lies which have been previously documented, and also anticipating their lies. In such cases it would be a good idea to look up everything the opposition has ever declared even if it was minor and point out to the judge such behavior.

        I had to sit as jury foreman in a criminal case in Texas and I found the judge, the prosecutor and the defense to be all missing bolts in their heads. It made me feel like taking over their jobs, finding the guy guilty and taking him to Huntsville by myself.

      • Gary M, your depressing tales from the legal front are one of several reasons I decided not to practice law after being licensed. Regards.

      • Rud Istvan,

        Good choice. If i was good at anything else…. :-)

    • GaryM,
      Will this be a jury trial?

      • ordvic,

        The Anti-SLAPP portion of the case is definitely decided by the judge. The point of the statute is to decide before triaql iof a trial is even necessary.

        I have read elsewhere that Mann requested a jury trial on his claims in the underlying case. Which frankly surprises me a bit.

      • Mann has requested a jury trial, but I am of the view that this will never reach that stage

        Multiple reasons – Mann’s supporters have way deeper pockets than Steyn et al (SLAPP or not); judges world-wide have studiously avoided having to decide on AGW “truth or not” by any means at their considerable disposal; there is very little public interest in this (the MSM are simply nor publishing it, as is their wont) so Steyn’s finances will just dwindle – Steyn himself has said he would not still be in it but for the support his bric-a-brac has received, so when this drops off, so will he, I think

        I’m aware people are arguing that the case is NOT about AGW truth or not, but the right to robust public criticism. The MSM, if it finally decides to report on this, will not make that distinction – and judges are well cognisant of this

      • New bombshell @ StevieMac’s. May all settle up and scurry. Yet another nightmare scenario to add to ianl8888’s.

  9. Norway funds its socialist programs from its oil production – and I love the irony in that. Argentina has tried socialism and it has failed them miserably – and made the miserable to boot what with the toilette paper shortages and all that. Will Argentina go the way of Norway?
    From the article:
    Soros Signals Argentina’s Shale Is The Biggest Place To Be
    Sep. 4, 2014 5:55 PM ET | 8 comments | Includes: CVX

    Soros is bullish on Argentina.
    Huge shale resources are starting to interest majors.
    An interesting contrarian play.

    One of the world’s legendary investors is upping his bet on Argentina’s shale oil and gas industry, in a show of confidence for shale production in South America’s largest unconventional prize – and a big boost for both supermajors and smaller players making big waves in the heart of new discovery areas.

    George Soros has doubled his stake in YPF SA, the state-owned oil company in Argentina which sits atop some of the world’s largest shale oil and gas resources, and is about to get even larger following a new discovery over the last couple of weeks of a second key shale play.

    Argentina holds an estimated 27 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 802 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas, much of it located in the Vaca Muerta, an enormous shale formation in the Neuquen basin — the second-largest shale gas deposit and the fourth-largest shale oil deposit in the world.

    And on August 14, YPF announced the discovery of oil in another shale formation — Agrio shale — in the same basin.

    Some estimates suggest that combined, the two plays’ reserves could be worth as much as $3 trillion.


    • Jim2, that story reads a bit like planted puff. Soros owns 3.5 % of YPF, but the government is well known to behave irrationally. They are also crooked. For example one of the stockholders got the shares by forcing another stockholder to sell (the sale was forced by the government).

      As regards the Vaca Muerta, portions of it could be like the Monterrey in California. The Vaca Muerta has producing sands in the section which have been depleted in the upper portions of the pre Andean fold belt, and have water in the low spots. When I visited Llancanelo in the 1970’s we were looking for rocks and water samples for a Vaca Muerta exploration project.

      The D129 is a different animal. That rock is legendary because well Diadema 129, a really deep well, struck an oil sand way down there and produced a lot of oil. I was also working with geologists looking for D129 in the 1970’s. When I left Patagonia Bill Fisher replaced me and they kept on looking, but the vertical wells never panned out. I have always felt the D129 was worth pursuing, and some of the better spots could be offshore. But that’s darned expensive.

      In conclusion, I wouldn’t put Argentina as a big producer until they actually get something done. My guess is they’ll never top 1 million barrels per day. It’s not much in the big picture. The Russians have much better targets in Western Siberia.

  10. From the article:
    Washington is facing growing international pressure to ease its long standing ban on crude oil exports, with South Korea and Mexico joining the European Union in pressing the case for U.S. oil shipments overseas.

    South Korean President Park Geun-hye told a visiting U.S. delegation of lawmakers on the House of Representatives energy committee on Aug. 11 that tapping into the gusher of ultra-light, sweet crude emerging from places like Texas and North Dakota was a priority, the lawmakers said.

    One of South Korea’s leading refiners has opened discussions with the government in Seoul over how to encourage Washington to open the taps, three sources in South Korea with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

    Read MoreDennis Gartman reveals his crude oil, nat gas plays

    Mexico is also eagerly awaiting word from the U.S. Department of Commerce on possible shipments and the EU wants U.S. oil and natural gas exports covered by a proposed trade agreement with Washington, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

    Joe Barton, Republican Representative from Texas and one of the lawmakers who met Park, told Reuters that lifting the ban would boost the U.S. economy, but also provide allies with a reliable energy trading partner.


    • jim2:
      Your post has me thinking again, The money knows. Markets know. The link shows a U.S. energy index fund over the past 10 years. Cha ching. You’d have tripled your money over the past 10 years if you went all in to the fund. An index fund is supposed to weight their holdings proportionally and not guess where things are going. So the investment return is saying in my opinion, for the past 10 years the thinking is the energy companies will not be adversely effected effected. Looking at the funds to top holdings, I am suspecting it was not much influenced by renewable projects.

      • Fernando, the British and Israelis have long narrow nations and don’t tend to drive to their respective mainlands.
        Fracking will open huge reserves for both nations and to me it follows that both should use liquified natural gas (not compressed) for their transport needs. The number of vehicle sales in the UK, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan should make this viable for vehicle manufacturers.
        What you think?

    • The USA has an excess supply of light hydrocarbons. Most of that supply is gas condensates and even lighter (butane and propane get absorbed into the condensates in the surface equipment if it’s not stabilized for shipment by tanker the “oil” can hold a lot of these light hydrocarbons).

      The rational solution is for the USA to export the excess lights and import Canadian heavy which can be mixed with Bakken or something around 20 to 22 degrees API.

      • Fernando, here people can judge for themselves. It appears you come up a little light. The US crude oil API gravity distribution is highly desirable.



      • Jim2, I´ll read the report later and write about it more extensively. However, the EIA report starts out on the wrong foot. Did you notice it reports “crude oil” in the 55 degree API range? I would like to see somebody generate an equation of state showing how a 55 degree API “crude oil” can be in the liquid phase in a real life reservoir.

        What the EIA does is mix oil AND condensate. The point I make is that OIL isn´t the same as CONDENSATE. My reasoning gets extremely technical here. I like to focus on the difference because a CONDENSATE is found in the gas phase at reservoir conditions. This is critically important because gases have much lower viscosities, and have a lot more compressibility than liquids. This makes production of hydrocarbons in the gas phase much easier — if the rock happens to be a fractured shale it´s VERY important. Thus the surge in production we see is largely associated with production of a GAS PHASE which condenses as it moves out of the reservoir. The major exception is the Bakken. And that´s hyped because oil just doesn´t have the same compressibility as gas. The Bakken will not have the legs. And I´m taking into account the fact that the Bakken isn´t even a real “shale”.
        I don´t want to write stuff for free when I can charge for it, but the IEA doesn´t inspire confidence.

      • Hell, I just finished skimming over the report. It´s a short term two year forecast. THey also include a statement explaining the refiners will have to make investments to produce the lighter blend to be produced in the future.

        A more rational approach would be to allow liquid hydrocarbon exports. The USA will continue to import oil under any scenario we can foresee, which means exports (mostly light condensates and the butane hidden in the mix) will be the optimum solution. The exported crude is swapped for imports of heavier crude. The price spread and the product slate justify the transport cost. If it doesn´t justify it, then the export doesn´t take place. But it´s pretty dumb to limit exports and insist that refiners start adding units to refineries when in the long term crude production will drop anyway. The USA will not be consuming as much oil in 30 years as it does now, that´s for sure. We are heading into an oil crunch, and that´s inevitable. And this is why refiners really don´t want to invest in more refining capacity in the USA, or in changes to their kit.

      • Hi Fernando, I might not have understood your point in your first post concerning light hydrocarbons. Now that I reread, I think you were saying the US has more light hydrocarbons than it knows what to do with, not that production was mostly light hydrocarbons.

        At any rate, WRT 50 degree production:

        From the article:

        Gas produced in association with condensate is called wet gas. The API gravity of condensate is typically 50 degrees to 120 degrees.


      • @jim2

        Fernando has good insight into the most logical strategy.
        I’m a old downstreamer, a supply and refining guy who spent most of my career heavily involved in downstream optimization modeling
        The formula for converting Specific Gravity (60/60) to Deg API is
        SG(60/60)= 141.5/(131.5 +Deg API)
        SG Deg API
        Propane .5077 147.2
        N-C4 .5844 110.6
        I-C4 .5631 119.8
        N-C5 .6310 92.8
        I-C5 .6247 95.0
        N-C6 .664 81.6
        I-C6 .6247 83.6
        N-C7 .6882 74.1
        N-C8 .7068 68.7
        I-C8 .6962 71.7
        Above numbers are from an old version of the API Data book
        From a refining perspective, condensate as a refining feedstock would generally be referred to as a Pentane Plus stream (and should be well stabilized containing only a small amount of Butane)
        While it is often referred in laymans terms that light crude are worth more than heavy ones, this is only true within a certain range of Degree API.. An old rule of thumb for me used to be that the value of light crude would increase with Deg API only to about say 42 -44 Deg API. Further increases in Deg API would lessen the value of the feed to a refiner.
        The reason for this is that straight run virgin naphtha has relatively low octane, and the lighter components have higher RVP.
        The relative economics of balancing gasoline octane and RVP determine the value of light feedstock for a refiner.
        all the best

      • Jim2, if I may try to over-simplify. Some gas-condensate liquids aren’t easily used. Some can be used to modify the make up of other liquids.

        Our refining structure is was build for generally heavy (but not too heavy) crude. We can mix light with heavy and use some gases very light liquids with chemical process heavy to make some make stock our refining systems can process well. But for the most part, we need to trade our lights for heavier product.

        I wouldn’t be so sure the US must use less fuel in 30 years (population growth etc.), but it is uncertain enough to make investment in refining a very difficult decision. So I guess it is a self fullfilling prophecy.

      • Wow, I don’t know what happened in editing my comment.

        Jim2, if I may try to over-simplify. Some gas-condensate liquids aren’t easily used. Some can be used to modify other liquids.

        Our refining structure was built for generally heavy (but not too heavy) crude. We can mix light with heavy to an extent. And we can use some gases, light liquids, and heavy crude (and bitumen, IIRC) with chemical processes to create stock our refining systems can process well. But for the most part, we need to trade our lights for heavier product.

        I wouldn’t be so sure the US must use less fuel in 30 (population growth etc.), but it is uncertain enough to make investment in refining a very difficult decision. So I guess it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

      • I’ve been off line for a while. Good and appreciated comments on liquids.

  11. I did my own survey recently and I found that over 97% of Global Warming Believers are either hysterical women or emasculated males.


  12. Prof Curry,

    A small request about the item “Global Temperature Drops Below IPCC Projection Range”. If convenient, please link directly to my post at

    The post now links to a Climate Depot page with just a title, which in turn links to a GWPF page which has an excerpt from my post — and links to it.

    It’s a bit of a daisy chain. Instead you can send your readers directly to the content. Thanks you for the link!

  13. David L. Hagen

    Turbulent Science
    Andrew Rivkin picks up Chang and Tung’s Science paper in:
    A Closer Look at Turbulent Oceans and Greenhouse Heating
    He includes a comment by Carl Wunsch of MIT

    The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.

    Bjorn Lomborg on FB highlights the critical issue of IPCC vs Science:

    Global warming is about half of what most models suggest. . . .
    So, over the past 50 years or so, the underlying temperature rise of 0.08℃/decade shows that global warming is real, but also that it is *much less* than what most IPCC models expect (about 0.2℃/decade).

    Lomborg emphasizes Chang & Tung’s quote by Revkin:

    However, the flip side of this is that the anthropogenically forced trend is also 0.08 C per decade during the last two decades of the twentieth century when we backed out the positive contribution from the cycle….”

    See Figures
    GWPF highlights: Global Temperature Drops Below IPCC Projection Range
    Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New Record
    (highest in records since 1980)

  14. QUESTIONS for anyone.
    1) It was known 100 years ago that atmospheric CO2 was saturated with respect to LWIR frequencies it can absorb. What is the CO2 concentration at which it reaches saturation?

    2) The largest absorption bands of CO2 are at frequencies around 20 and 75 Tera-Hz. I have determined that in the lower atmosphere the mean free path of photons is around one meter. Is that correct?

    3) Once a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, that extra energy can be released as a photon or released as kinetic energy imparted to another molecule upon collision. Is that correct?

    4) The lifetime of a molecule of CO2 in the excited state is many orders of magnitude higher than the mean time between collisions, with other molecules. Most of the energy from excited molecules therefore is given by collision and known amounts of energy should be imparted to each molecules in proportion to their quantities, mostly to N2, O2 and AR. Also to H20 in variable quantities in the higher pressure lower atmosphere, Considering the Lower Atmosphere alone (without downwelling from above) there should be little additional down-welling radiation from additional CO2.

    5) As the altitude increases, of course, there will be more emissions of photons because of greater distances traveled between collisions.
    However, as the altitude increases a greater portion of emissions will reach space, and the greater percentage which are down-welling have to go through the higher pressure lower atmosphere. Now the calculus begins.

    6) But, also, as the altitude decreases and the spectrum broadens, some of the photons (radiated from the earth) which are absorbed then emitted upward at the edges of the absorption bands will see a transparent atmosphere when traveling to space through narrower bands.—-

    7) So, do not some scientists model the atmosphere as a single layer model? That would seem very illogical!

    If you choose to respond, note that I am a retired high School AP chem/physics teacher. So, I am not at a level as some of the those who write here, but for reference I will get through Dr. Curry’s book, but with a lot more effort than some of you.
    However, as I keep contacting college/ university instructors in the United States and abroad I really get amazed that when they profess so much,
    they really are quite ignorant outside of their area of expertise.
    The obvious (correct scientific) answer to so much of climate studies is really—possible but uncertain. “The science is settled” is antithetical to science endeavors and the exact opposite of that which we all taught in high school.

    • I would just recommend playing with MODTRAN to answer some of your questions. Specifically you can see how the spectrum and radiation flux looking down on the atmosphere changes as you change CO2, and you can also see what happens at ground level looking up. The US atmosphere is a fairly typical case to start with.

      • Once (s)he investigates MODTRAN, (s)he will find it’s a poorly documented black box.

      • Watching my wife enjoying life on the screen porch, I will note that the questions I gave were mostly rhetorical. The real question is ‘how can the best model of the atmosphere be that of a single layer? Too simplified!

      • MODTRAN has a profile. It is multi-layer as any decent IR radiative transfer model would be. Even though it is now an old code, it shows the basic principles well enough to be used as a teaching tool at U. Chicago.

      • “MODTRAN has a profile. It is multi-layer as any decent IR radiative transfer model would be. Even though it is now an old code, it shows the basic principles well enough to be used as a teaching tool at U. Chicago.”

        MODTRAN is not now, and never has been a radiative transfer model. MODTRAN like HITRAN indicates only the attenuation of the amplitude modulation of EMR, never the attenuation of the flux itself. When the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium no flux is absorbed.

      • wiljan2014 incredibly said, “When the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium no flux is absorbed.”
        The atmosphere of course is not in radiative equilibrium, and this statement is wrong even if it was. Is this one of those “dragonslayer” proverbs?

      • Everyone here is a little right and a little wrong.

        Hopefully on the saturation question, this simplification is helpful. Equalibrium (radiative balance) can happen at many layers of the atmosphere.

        At some height all of radiation of the wavelength that the greenhouse gas absorbes is absorbed. As concentration increases, lower layers will warm more and the layers above will warm less or even cool. The height of saturation will lower. The lower layers will warm until temperature rises and radiates heat at more transparent wavelengths, achieving equalibrium at that layer.

        While working through the atmosphere, the spectrum and absorbtion properties can change, so true saturation may not happen.

        As for being in radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere, it is unknown whether we are in balance or not. Instrument are not accurate enough to say whether we are in deficit or surplus for certain. Some analysis say that in recent years we have actually been in deficit (ie, cooling), assuming relative equalibium prior to measurements (change in outgoingLW/outgoingSW radiation decreased for a couple decade, but recently change in outgoingLW/outgoingSW has increased as much). It may be that we have been in significant surplus/deficit of varying degrees for decades, centuries, or even millenia. It is not particularly relevant to surface warming, but change in budget may be.

      • aaron, for the energy balance argument what matters more is the effective emission level. From above, CO2 emission is an important contributor to total emission, and increasing its amount raises the effective emission level which reduces the emission flux, which then leads to the energy imbalance that has to be restored by heating. MODTRAN can demonstrate the reduction of the outward longwave flux by increasing CO2.

      • Yes, but convective processes, evaporation, and cloud responses come into play. Changes in OutgoingLW/OutgoingSW isn’t great, but may become a good metric with more observations.

      • And I thought my comment included your point.

    • Maybe this:
      At the link Lacis says,
      “The radiative part of the climate system processes is a much easier process to model compared to the dynamic processes…”
      “…line-by-line calculations using the comprehensive HITRAN absorption line database provide the means for calculating gaseous absorption by atmospheric gases with a great deal of precision and accuracy.”
      Seems pretty good.

  15. David L. Hagen

    CO2 aborption increases continuously but a steadily declining increase. CO2 is already absorbing almost all it can
    The critical issue is what is the impact of clouds and water?

    • David Hagen, Clouds and vapor–yes, and that is the big unknown in part because it is the only non-homogenous gas, in part because there is little quantitative history at various altitudes, and in part because the effects of not only of quantity but altitude is a huge variable.
      Hind casting involved much H2O guessing to make things work out, -together with IMHO an exaggeration of volcanic aerosols, another historical unknown.
      It is why Dr. Curry’s book should be a must–digest!

    • David, the base reopening is for show. Ice conditions in that region are very harsh. Read about Shell´s problems in the Chuckchi so you can get an idea about the difficulties involved.

      The day you see the report about a couple of fields developed in the Kara Sea you can start speculating about exploration further East. The Kara Sea fields are discovered, and haven´t been put on production.

    • David L. Hagen

      “Cheap oil” is gone – as evidence by oil companies drilling deep off shore and exploring for polar oil. Putin has now made Arctic oil production a major national goal. See:
      Putin: Arctic shelf development ‘major task’ for oil and gas sector

      Arctic shelf development is among the major challenges facing the Russian oil and gas sector, according to President Putin, who addressed industry workers on Sunday.

      “Today, oil and gas industry workers face a number of important tasks,” Putin said in his address.
      “Among them are the diversification of export flows, the development of promising new fields, the creation of modern clusters for processing and transportation of raw materials, the large-scale programs of the Arctic shelf development, the introduction of high-tech equipment and high environmental standards.” . . .
      US oil giant ExxonMobil confirmed a month ago it would still continue joint exploitation of the Arctic with Russia’s biggest oil-producer Rosneft, despite the sanctions. . . .
      In late August, Rosneft agreed to purchase a stake in Norway’s North Atlantic Drilling (NADL) through an asset swap.
      The Norwegian company will also help Russia with drilling in the Arctic. Under the pre-sanctions, July 2014 agreement, NADL will provide Rosneft with six sea drilling units over a period culminating in 2022 to conduct shelf drilling in harsh weather conditions.


  16. “Not quite sure you feel like taking to the streets to spur action on climate change? This new movie aims to change your mind.
    In the lead-up to the People’s Climate March later this month, filmmakers are releasing a new documentary called “Disruption,” which highlights the consequences of ignoring climate change.”

    • Regardless of what might be the actual facts, which will probably be unknown for awhile, that kind of crap is akin to the stimulus for witch trials.

  17. In The Atlantic …

    How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen

    Environmentalists warn us that apocalypse awaits. Economists tell us that minimal fixes will get us through. Here’s how we can move beyond the impasse.

    The chatter itself, I would argue, has done its share to stall progress. Rhetorical overreach, moral miscalculation, shouting at cross-purposes: this toxic blend is particularly evident when activists, who want to scare Americans into taking action, come up against economists, with their cool calculations of acceptable costs [ … ] Bewildered and battered by the back-and-forth, the citizenry sits, for the most part, on its hands. For all the hot air expended on the subject, we still don’t know how to talk about climate change.


    1,418 comments and counting.

  18. In The Atlantic …

    How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen

    Environmentalists warn us that apocalypse awaits. Economists tell us that minimal fixes will get us through. Here’s how we can move beyond the impasse.

    The chatter itself, I would argue, has done its share to stall progress. Rhetorical overreach, moral miscalculation, shouting at cross-purposes: this toxic blend is particularly evident when activists, who want to scare Americans into taking action, come up against economists, with their cool calculations of acceptable costs [ … ] Bewildered and battered by the back-and-forth, the citizenry sits, for the most part, on its hands. For all the hot air expended on the subject, we still don’t know how to talk about climate change.


    1,418 comments and counting.

    • Do people even consider that additional CO2 may be a benefit”
      Satellite imagery shows as much as a 20% increase in plant life around the world.
      The greatest increase is in semi arid regions because C3 plants (over 95% including all trees) do not have to keep their stoma open as long, thus not losing H2O
      Kind of antithetical to the green movement.

      • There is a market for greenhouse generators based on the belief that plants grow better at co2 concentrations up to 1500 ppm. Google it and see what you get.


      • I meant “greenhouse co2 generators” …

      • Well, yeah.


        From 1982 to 2010 CSIRO says the 14% CO2 increase caused an 11% foliage increase (more than expected). A big part of the effect is decreased water consumption allows the plants to grow more foliage with the available water.

        The fertilization/water conservation effect is also converting some of the 33% of the land mass that is desert into usable land.

        More plant growth benefits all the plants and animals on the planet. Limiting the CO2 growth will harm plants and animals when humans are forced to use more land and water to grow food.

        As far as the greenhouse CO2 generators are concerned:

        The chart is correct – for most plants photosynthesis shuts down starting at 200 ppm (growth decreases with reduced CO2 even for C4 plants). CO2 at 280 PPM is a near starvation level for plants, and this low level is partly responsible for the 33% of land that is desert.

        Claims that 280 PPM is ideal or a reasonable target level for CO2 are just absurd on their face. Absurdum is latin for “out-of-tune” hence irrational.

      • PA- thank you for expanding on my comment.
        This is a realm of the CO2 debate which is much overlooked
        probably because it is ‘An inconvenient Truth”

    • “… we still don’t know how to talk about climate change.” “1,418 comments and counting.”

      So at least we know how to write about it!

  19. Back on this thread the stadium wave was being discussed:
    It’s closed to comments now. It was said it’s not a physical wave. Looking at WUWT’s new page we have this animation: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/beaufortictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
    It occurred to me that the thick red ice might be a standing wave. That sea ice can be that. The ice contains information about the past, physically stores it, and that information has come from other regions. It can transmit information to other regions, at least by either being there or not being there. I’d be interested in any comments about whether I am still lost in the wilderness?

  20. “Clearing Skies” – long piece on clouds in this week’s New Scientist… covers clouds variable warming/cooling behavior… some mentions of modelling challenges, albedo, microphysics, cloud negative feedbacks, Fasullo… No Curry or Spencer… concludes [breezily]:

    “So we haven’t mastered the science of clouds yet. But both observers and models suggest that far from coming to our rescue, clouds are going to suffer along with us. And many independent lines of evidence point to the same conclusion. Looking at past climate, for instance, cannot tell us how clouds behaved but does reveal strong warming in response to rising greenhouse gas levels [!!!]. A slew of studies published this year all conclude that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is at the higher end of the range. The forcast, then, is disturbingly clear and uncloudy.”


    Same issue has a shorter item, “No More Pause: Warming Will Be Non-Stop from Now On.” So sayeth the modellers!

    • Heh, rising greenhouse gas levels in response to strong warming. They got the bow and arrow bass ackwards.

      • O that Cee-oh-too plant food, ain’t it somethin’,
        who could ask fer anything more? …

        He hangs in shade the orange bright
        Like golden lamps in a green night,
        And does in the pomegranate’s close
        Jewels more rich than Orris shows,
        He makes the figs our mouths to meet,
        And throws the melons at our feet, …

        H/t the marvellous and marvelling
        Andrew Marvell.

    • I thought the Berner Curve for Phanerozoic co2 showed that co2 was a trailing indicator. Maybe I misunderstood …


      • No, it is volcanoes then warming, not warming then volcanoes. The other way round makes no sense at all.

      • Arrows of Time, Eras of Time, let’s call the whole thing off.

      • No, it is volcanoes then warming, not warming then volcanoes. The other way round makes no sense at all.

        And there you have it folks: the whole logic behind “global warming climate science”. Ever since Arrhenius, the expectation has been that CO2 (GHG’s) produce warming, so guess what they found interpreting the evidence: CO2 (GHG’s) produce warming. That’s how paradigms are built. On expectations.

        Oh, I’m not saying it might not be true. But once they got the idea in their heads, that’s how they built their paradigm. And contrary evidence gets dismissed. So there’s no real way to know that it isn’t false instead.

        And, given the IPCC etc., it was a “manufactured” paradigm, in the sense that the normal process of scientific skepticism and investigation of alternative theories was suppressed by political means. Making it even more open to valid questions.

      • The Vostok ice cores that go back 420,000 years (holocene, tarantian and part of ionian) shows CO2 lagging temperature by 200 to 800 yrs. Even Sks and new scientist agree with that while still insisting CO2 can drive temperature. Phanerozoic proxies with Breners Geocarb and Moyers shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The first big ice age (ordovician) preceeded a drop in CO2 by millions of years. However, CO2 and temperature rise and fall independently after that. Moyers tries to demonstrate a rough equivalent but it’s not very convincing.

        The rise and fall of CO2 is often explained by plate tectronics and mountain formation starting after ordovician and the break up of the super continent that was over the south pole. The rise and fall of temperatures followed by CO2 in vostok is explained by the Milankovitch cycles.

      • Sorry for no links I have to type them as I have no copy/paste with my tablet and it takes too long. Just type in ‘CO2 lags temperature’ in goggle to find them. The Phanerozoic CO2/temp graphs are also available.

      • Ordvic – I have the same problem with my iPad, and sometimes I lose the link while writing the message and then I’m faced with a choice: post the message without the link and set myself up for a condescending reply, or go get the link and lose the message and start the painful tablet content entry all over again. Today I chose to get the condescending reply.

        Many thanks to you and others with the content rescue.


      • AK and ordvic, some skeptics have noticed that the well-supported and long-established scientific view that volcanic periods have been followed by climatic warming over the past billion years is not good for their own selling of the current situation. It is understandable that they want to rewrite those textbooks too. These ideas date back to Chamberlin (1899) because by then it was already possible for a connection to be made, and since then that connection has only become more established by the evidence. E.g. see the history in the Introduction section of Manabe and Bryan (1985).
        If skeptics want to undo this part of the science, they have a lot of evidence to try to doubt.

      • @Jim D…

        Have you read Kuhn on rewriting of textbooks?

      • AK, OK what is your paradigm shift regarding the explanation of volcanoes and warming in paleoclimate, and is it something you came up with just now or have actually read about somewhere? It is fine to have paradigm shifts, but not to invoke them when no one has even suggested that one is needed to explain the evidence yet.

      • I keep reading references to this “CO2 drives temperatures from the back seat theory”.

        It would seem more likely that some other influence caused the interglacials and CO2 like a faithful puppy dog followed behind the temperatures.

        There are some studies out there that try to reverse the order – but the basic fact is temperature falls during an interglacial while the CO2 level is still rising and the highest temperature is at the start of an interglacial when the CO2 level is the lowest.

      • JimD

        I doubt that anybody doubts that volcanos influence climate via co2, water, ash, sulfur, etc. Consider the earth, it’s biosphere, oceans, atmosphere; the solar system; cosmic rays and other events external to the solar system. Think of it all as one great big dynamical system. The question is, how does it evolve over time? You can’t just say first there were volcanos, then co2, then warming.

        So given the current state of the dynamical system, what will the system look like in, say, 10 years, 30 years, or 100 years?

        Is that question answerable or is it just too chaotic (wicked)?

        If you want to advocate policies that make people miserable, you have to be able to answer that question.

        Can you, JimD, answer that question?

      • @Jim D…

        Salby. He must have good case, or the (hopefully just intellectual) hooligans at Macquarie wouldn’t have sabotaged him the way they did.

        Not that I’m claiming he’s right; I haven’t even had a chance to see his case in writing with ref’s. But the “evidence” for the traditional paradigm is really very thin. In longer paleo terms, AFAIK, many reconstructions don’t even show much correlation. And here’s where paradigm pressure comes in: reconstructions that do show correlation will be preferentially accepted over those that don’t.

        In shorter terms, there is much evidence that CO2 follows “temperature”: both glacial (10,000-100,000 years) and ENSO (1-10 years). That doesn’t preclude strong greenhouse effects on other time-scales, but it does demonstrate that the whole thing is more complex than the simplistic “more CO2 causes higher temps” meme.

      • AK, Salby did not address volcanoes and deep paleoclimate. The carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system is increased by volcanic periods and it takes tens of millions of years for the CO2 to decline after them. It is a net increase in both atmosphere and ocean. Salby only handles atmosphere-ocean exchanges, and wrongly at that, because he leaves out the fossil fuel component which is a net source to both.

      • The carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system is increased by volcanic periods and it takes tens of millions of years for the CO2 to decline after them.

        That’s the current paradigm. Unfortunately, it’s totally deficient in that it ignores biological deposition. (E.g. the Carboniferous, the Azolla incident.)

        And the correlation with “warm periods” is highly speculative, driven primarily by “greenhouse” assumptions rather than independent evidence.

        As for Salby, that isn’t how I took his presentations, and nothing you say about him is credible, because you don’t have any more written descriptions of his current theory than I do. Nor have you repudiated what was done to him.

      • PA, the order does reverse if the warming is driven by something else other than changing CO2. For example the Milankovitch cycles warm the earth in other ways via orbital changes and albedo feedback, and then the CO2 increases in response to warming. Many skeptics are confused by the fact that CO2 can both be a cause and a positive feedback to warming. Another example like this is albedo. You can increase the albedo and the earth cools, or you can cool the earth and the albedo increases. Works both ways.

      • JustinWonder, sure, you can dismiss that the last time CO2 was at 700 ppm, the poles had no ice, or you can think, maybe there will be an impact based on paleo evidence, not just models, observed warming, and energy balance arguments. It may seem complicated, but all the lines of evidence point to the same answer which therefore should not be ignored, but taken account of in planning. Do we want to continue to push towards 1000 ppm given the evidence, or should there at least be a slowdown until we have figured out the rate of climate change exactly?

      • AK, so Salby comes down to the question, how much of the difference in CO2 level now from the pre-industrial level (400-280=120ppm) is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuels? Take into account that total emissions amount to an addition exceeding 200 ppm, and explain why the oceans are acidifying, which Salby didn’t.

      • AK, so Salby comes down to the question, how much of the difference in CO2 level now from the pre-industrial level (400-280=120ppm) is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuels?

        Nope, it’s quite possible the pCO2 has been over 400ppm in the last millenium or so. Perhaps the Medieval Optimum. Perhaps all the known optima. If so, the question of how much difference human emissions make is totally unhinged.

        […] explain why the oceans are acidifying, which Salby didn’t.

        He didn’t have to. Ocean acidification doesn’t have anything to do with the excess CO2 emitted by humans (relative to the excess in the atmosphere). Ocean pH remains at (near) equilibrium with atmospheric pCO2. With a settling time of ~1 year, IIRC.

      • AK, biological sequestering is an important part of the volcano-rock-weathering cycle. When it gets warm there is a geological time scale negative feedback on the atmospheric CO2 content that reduces it until the next tectonic volcano cycle. This comes from both weathering, that increases during mountain building, and biological sequestering that produce geological carbon layers. See for example Richard Alley’s Rock-Weathering thermostat talk for an example of the latest ideas by the experts who study this for a living.

      • AK, so you are not impressed that the Keeling curve has the same shape as anthropogenic emissions with an accelerating rise at the same rate and time. You prefer coincidence? Remarkable.

      • AK, biological sequestering is an important part of the volcano-rock-weathering cycle. […]

        That whole cycle is speculative. Biological sequestration hardly depends on the geological rates. The assumption that it does, AFAIK, was simply a “default” based on the fact that observations could be explained without it.

        Problem is, the Azolla incident probably knocked that for a loop. Besides, the known behavior of living ecosystems strongly suggests that the total carbon content of any ecosystem could vary greatly based on factors independent of geological. Internal variation, for instance.

        Same goes for erosion, at least since the Ordovician. The assumption that bio-erosion will vary with warmth on longer scales just because it appears to on short-term scales we can observe is totally unwarranted. IMO.

        AK, so you are not impressed that the Keeling curve has the same shape as anthropogenic emissions with an accelerating rise at the same rate and time. You prefer coincidence?

        It isn’t really that close a correspondence once you remove short-term variation probably (per Salby) due to ENSO. And what it actually has roughly the same shape as is the overall Industrial Revolution. Many things with similar curves: whaling (a favorite of mine, since the potential mechanism is in my recent backj yard), land use/industrial agriculture, swamp clearance (which may be involved in the Roman and Medieval optima as well), etc.

        As best I can work out what Salby’s talking about pending publication of his whole idea, he’s trying to deprecate everything in the ice more than a century or so old. If true, there could be a variety of factors, more or less anthropogenic, involved in the latest rise in pCO2.

      • Jim D.

        The interglacials feature a declining temperature and increasing CO2 until the tipping point is reached and the ice age resumes.

        The models wouldn’t be able to explain this since the temperature should increase.

        So the best argument that can be made is that CO2 has a weak forcing effect that extends interglacials once the original cause – presumably solar influence – declines.

      • AK, no one has accurate enough paleo measurements to even distinguish between the ideas you are referring to. However in warmer conditions there are more and larger plants and more biological activity which has a long-term negative feedback on CO2 in addition to the enhanced chemical weathering rates.
        Regarding Keeling and emissions, we have this which Salby would find hard to explain.

      • @Jim D…

        I have no idea what the picture you linked to represents. Where did the numbers come from? What assumptions were made? That’s not Keeling’s numbers, for sure. What smoothing was performed? Why? How was “outgassing” estimated?

      • AK, my mistake, it turns out to be another outgassing idea posted to WUWT. Maybe you can critique this idea against Salby’s since this one at least allows for half of the CO2 to be anthropogenic.
        Anyway here is a more obvious one
        and a longer term one

      • Also, Salby’s idea is much the same as Humlum’s, that he managed to publish, which is discussed here with some criticism to consider.

      • @Jim D…

        You’ve misunderstood me, I think. The paradigm of CO2 causing warming is full of circularity and patched over holes. Most scientific paradigms are. Still, if they work, and conclusions drawn on them aren’t too important, there’s no good reason to question them.

        But there are plenty of paradigms where there are good reasons to question them. The CO2/warming paradigm is one of those. Else I would focus all my free time trying to convince people that remediation later is a better option than mitigation now.

        In fact, until I saw Salby’s presentation, and heard about how he was sabotaged, I didn’t spend any time questioning that paradigm. But a lot of many people’s time and money will have been wasted, if it turns out he’s right, and the pCO2 has been regularly floating over 4-500 over the last millennium. I don’t know. I don’t plan on trying to decide my opinion till I’ve seen his work documented with references, which I’ve checked to my satisfaction.

        Till then, I’m perfectly willing to point out defects in the paradigm, because I consider the question on hold, but I’m not going to attack it till I see what Salby has.

      • AK, no, the CO2 argument is about as linear as it gets. It starts with how the earth has its current surface temperature which turns out to depend on the physics related to radiative transfer and GHGs. From this we know how much effect perturbations have on the forcing. Turns out doubling CO2 is like increasing the solar constant by 1%, which ends up having a 1% effect on absolute surface temperature including feedbacks. These may all seem like small perturbations, but that is what we are talking about. If you examine the criticism of Humlum/Salby’s argument and try to follow it, you will have a better understanding of why they are wrong. As a skeptic, you should look at the criticisms too, especially of arguments as “out there” as these had, and the fact they had no response is somewhat odd too. Possibly they have given up on the idea leaving only their unknowing supporters blindly defending their wrong turn. Wouldn’t that be embarrassing?

      • AK, no, the CO2 argument is about as linear as it gets.

        When you say that I hear “the CO2 argument is based on an obsolete paradigm and every part and application of it needs to be rigorously questioned.”

        From this we know how much effect perturbations have on the forcing.

        All other things being equal, which even most (honest) alarmists will admit, tho many won’t remind you if you forget.

        Turns out doubling CO2 is like increasing the solar constant by 1%, […]

        No it’s not.

        […] which ends up having a 1% effect on absolute surface temperature including feedbacks.

        All other things being equal (see above). Keeping in mind that “feedbacks”, in terms of climate science, is a myth.

        If you examine the criticism of Humlum/Salby’s argument and try to follow it, you will have a better understanding of why they are wrong.

        They aren’t the same argument(s) (AFAIK).

        As a skeptic, you should look at the criticisms too, especially of arguments as “out there” as these had, and the fact they had no response is somewhat odd too.

        I’m not interested in Humlum’s arguments, so why should I be interested in refutations?

        As for Salby’s argument, no criticisms are valid, because it isn’t available to criticize. Only straw man imitations.

        When Salby’s work is published, with ref’s, then I’ll look at it, and if I decide it makes sense, I’ll spend time on informed criticism.

        Possibly they have given up on the idea leaving only their unknowing supporters blindly defending their wrong turn. Wouldn’t that be embarrassing?

        Not really. getting to the bottom of CO2 is worth the risk of embarrassment.

      • AK, Salby’s argument is a rehash of Humlum’s. Have you even tried to look at them before believing them? I think you are saying you believe Salby based on his presentation style points, rather than understanding any detail of what he says.
        Also, last I checked doubling CO2 has a forcing of 3.7 W/m2. The solar forcing is 340 W/m2. Change the latter by 1% and you have something like the CO2 doubling effect. Where did you go wrong?

      • AK, Salby’s argument is a rehash of Humlum’s.

        No it isn’t.

        Have you even tried to look at them before believing them?

        I read the abstract of Humlum et al., and scanned both your Klimablogg link and the RC “refutation” (by rasmus). Some of what Salby said in his presentations may have been similar, but much was completely different.

        And I don’t understand why your reading comprehension has left the room: I don’t believe either, although I certainly believe they’re different theories.

        I think you are saying you believe Salby based on his presentation style points, rather than understanding any detail of what he says.

        See above. I’m waiting to see what Salby actually publishes.

        Also, last I checked doubling CO2 has a forcing of 3.7 W/m2. The solar forcing is 340 W/m2. Change the latter by 1% and you have something like the CO2 doubling effect.

        Not very much like. I’ve explained this numerous times before, as have others. You just won’t listen.

        Where did you go wrong?

        Probably by bothering with you in the first place. “There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”

      • AK, if you are waiting for Salby’s paper you will have a long wait because, based on what I have seen so far, I don’t think there will be one. If you don’t believe him until he publishes something, fine, but then what was this argument about? Anyway, I agree that forcings of the same magnitude are not identical in the way they act, but they do have the same effect on the global energy balance and surface temperatures have to rise in some way to restore the balance, maybe with different distributions, but rise they must. For example what we are seeing with CO2 is a surprisingly fast initial warming over the northern continents and Arctic, leaving the major oceans behind, while solar forcing tends to warm the tropical oceans first and appears to have a faster water-vapor feedback as a result. These differences are interesting.

      • AK, if you are waiting for Salby’s paper you will have a long wait because, based on what I have seen so far, I don’t think there will be one.

        Perhaps. If so, people will shout louder and louder about how he was sabotaged.

        If you don’t believe him until he publishes something, fine, but then what was this argument about?

        You wanted to know what “paradigm shift” I was talking about. I consider it speculative at this point, but the longer Salby is kept from publishing, the more seriously I take him.

        Anyway, I agree that forcings of the same magnitude are not identical in the way they act, but they do have the same effect on the global energy balance and surface temperatures have to rise in some way to restore the balance, maybe with different distributions, but rise they must.

        They don’t have the same effect on the global energy balance, because they have potentially very different effects on albedo. Which is why surface temperatures don’t have to rise. Although I’ll admit that’s the most likely outcome, I can think of several mechanisms that might actually produce a sensitivity lower than zero. Certainly locally, in specific places/times. Possibly for the global average, although I’ll admit that’s a long shot. I’d need pretty good odds to bet on that.

        For example what we are seeing with CO2 is a surprisingly fast initial warming over the northern continents and Arctic, leaving the major oceans behind, while solar forcing tends to warm the tropical oceans first and appears to have a faster water-vapor feedback as a result. These differences are interesting.

        The problem is, even with this right in front of you, you can’t see that the assumption that it all just adds up to a “global energy balance” is totally unwarranted.

        As I said, “there’s none so blind as those who will not see.”

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “AK, no, the CO2 argument is about as linear as it gets. It starts with how the earth has its current surface temperature which turns out to depend on the physics related to radiative transfer and GHGs. ”

        And of course, like the average Wobbly Warmist, you are partly correct and completely confused.

        The current surface temperature of the Earth is, to state the blindingly obvious, what it is. It has cooled from presumably white heat to a temperature which could comfortably sustain human life – so here we are.

        If you choose to believe you can warm something by surrounding it with CO2, bully for you!

        A vacuum flask reduces the energy transfer between its contents and the outside by surrounding it with a vacuum. What does your Book of Warm tell you about the forcing power of a vacuum? Clearly not as much as CO2, I would guess, otherwise we’d all boil. So why do people persist with using vacuums rather than the much easier, cheaper, and more effective CO2?

        At this point, the average Waffling Warmist changes the subject, or discovers he needs to urgently replenish hs tinfoil supply. Feel free. In the meantime, you might practise grinding your teeth while the world stubbornly refuses to do your bidding.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • AK, you think Salby has some kind of conspiracy against him rather than just an inept argument. OK, we can differ on that point. Humlum got his published, so anything can happen.
        On forcing, even the small 0.2 W/m2 solar cycles are detectable in the temperature record, so we might suspect that by the time we reach 5 W/m2 it would be rather noticeable, being comparable with individual volcanoes, but more permanent and in the other direction.

      • Mike Flynn, we have had this argument before. Learn about how insulation works. You don’t seem any wiser on this than last time.

      • On forcing, even the small 0.2 W/m2 solar cycles are detectable in the temperature record

        Thats a global average at 1 au.The real change is due to the asymmetry NH/SH where if we include the orbital forcing from the annular mode in the SH is a decrease of 0.4wm^2 over the recent solar minima.

        The recent change in the 21st century in the Co2 forcing in the midlatitude stations in the SH is also clearly evident ie a decrease in the Co2 growth rate and a lag increase from around 18 months to 4 years in comparison with MLO. ie 393 ppm sh/401ppm nh.

      • Jim D,

        I see you wish to play the Warmist insulation ploy. I thought even the most died in the wool fanatical Warmist had realised that insulators do not increase the temperature of that which they insulate, unless possessing an internal heat source, which rather negates the argument that CO2 possesses any warming properties.

        Even so, according to you, increasing the amount of insulation should increase the temperature, but it seems not to, at least according to Warmist measurements. And in fact, putting more blankets on a corpse – or surrounding it with ever increasing concentrations of CO2 – increases its temperature not one jot.

        Your argument, and that of your fellow Warmists is specious in the extreme. Nonsensical, but then some people assign magical properties to pyramids constructed from coat hangers, so you at least have company in the bizarrium which you inhabit.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Mike Flynn, suppose the surface is warmed by the sun, but the atmosphere insulates against the escape of heat. Now does the surface warm when you add more insulation? It’s a basic mechanical engineering question.

  21. “So we haven’t mastered the science of clouds yet.”
    Oh, they shouldn’t let ignorance of the physical world bother them now. Not with their slews of studies. Whole slews! Don’t be so lineal and pre-postmod about having to actually know and observe stuff, okay?

    On the other hand, it was amazing to see that headline in the New Scientist, about how we need clouds. And you thought they were decor!

    While they have our attention on matters global, NS reports on how we don’t need no stinkin’ nation states. Clouds we need, nations we don’t. It’s perfect. The clever types can at last fulfil their dream of combining a Parisian lifestyle with a Pyongyang political system. And so government for clever types, by clever types of everybody else shall not perish from the earth.

    Remember when adults were in charge of stuff like science mags? Seems a long time ago, doesn’t it?

  22. Piomas up and increasing despite small sea ice extent. let’s hope the extent starts to increase with this good volume start.
    Best level in 5 years. I commented 3 years ago at ASI blog saying it might go up for the next 3 years and was banned.
    Very happy now.

  23. Ah the wonders of post-modern, government directed “science.”


    It will come as no surprise to followers of the “climate science” “communication” wars, that a paper written by the whistleblower/researcher was “removed from the public domain” within days of the MSM publicizing the controversy.

    Snopes has already even put up a lengthy finding of the charge of suppressing data as “false,” while quoting from a release from the researcher, through his attorney, as follows:

    “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”


    You see, it doesn’t matter that data adverse to the finding was suppressed. What is important is that vaccines are good, and parents are too stupid to understand the data and make their own informed decisions. Sound familiar?

    I am very pro-child vaccination. I doubt there is a sufficiently substantial link between vaccines and autism that would have changed my decision to have my children vaccinated.

    But I know for a fact that the CDC and government funded scientists do not hesitate to lie to get the public policy response they want. The CDC did it with AIDS early on too, misrepresenting the risk pools (and likely causing many deaths) in order to pose the early epidemic as one that affected the general population. The lie was justified as necessary to insure greater funding than might have been appropriated if the CDC told the truth.

    Conservatives believe science communication should be about informing the public/voters so they can make the best informed choices.

    Progressives believe science communication should be about convincing the stupid pubic/voters to do what their betters have decided is best for them.

    End of story.

  24. Comment in moderation, probably because of two links included, about the CDC whistle blower about the CDC researchers’ suppression of data in the seminal “there is absolutely no link between vaccines and autism” paper. The researcher’s most recent paper was quickly “withdrawn from the public domain,” and Snopes already has a self contradictory article up on the subject, confirming the reporting, but finding is false. (The opposite of the Dan Rather method – the facts are false but the story is true.)

    Government science at its very finest.

    • Anti-vaxxers here.

      What a surprise.

      Go ‘skeptics’!!

      • Anti-reading comprehension warmists here.

        (“I am very pro chld-vaccination “= anti-vaccination)

        What a surprise.

        Go catastrophists!!

      • It’s funny to see, throughout the left’s government/science/media conglomerate, the same types of defenses of the withholding of adverse data in the MMR/Autism research, that we had in defending “hide the decline.”

        1) It doesn’t really matter;
        2) Those pointing it out are just hurting autistic children and their parents; (the “cause”);
        3) They are just “anti-vaccers” (ie. anti-science, see above);
        4) Nary a word of condemnation regarding the intentional suppression of data.

        Yet more proof that integrity is a core value for conservatives/skeptics, and of no relevance to progressives.

        The researchers withheld data because it took away from they proposed headline: “There is absolutely no correlation at all, of any kind, between the MMR vaccine and autism!!!”

        The proper recommendation should have been: “Here are the circumstances, and the fgroups of children among whom we found a statistically significant, but by no means common, correlation between the vaccine and autism.”

        Not quite as pithy huh? Some parents might decide for themselves, rather than engaging the herd response we expect from our inferiors? Well then, we better just hide the data.

        It’s a sad day when Jenny McCarthy has more integrity than the CDC.

      • So Gary, why are you promoting that rubbish currently being spread by the ani-vaxxers??

      • ==> “So Gary, why are you promoting that rubbish currently being spread by the ani-vaxxers??”

        Why pass up an opportunity to post conspiracy-minded comments that hold people he doesn’t agree with politically accountable for everything bad (real or imagined) that occurs in the world?

      • Why am I discussing the admission by a government paid researcher on a seminal paper that he and his colleagues suppressed data that was contrary to their published claims?

        The fact that you ask says it all. But then, you are a Mannian acolyte of the first order, so it is to be expected.

        Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, never to have sex. Progressives take vows of intellectual celibacy, never to engage in critical thinking – of their own positions. Ever. On pain of progressive excommunication.

        Michael is one of the most observant of the intellectually celibate caste.

      • ==> “It’s a sad day when Jenny McCarthy has more integrity than the CDC.”

        Really. That’s beautiful. Perhaps GaryM’s best comment yet.

        Although I am quite concerned about his “sad[ness]. I’m sure it causes him great pain to find a way to criticize progressives by leveraging inane comparisons between the scientific integrity of the CDC and that of Jenny McCarthy.

        I feel for you, GaryM.

      • Gary,

        The purportedly ‘suppressed’ results are in the paper.

        F**k me.

        I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the anti-vaxxers are climate-‘skeptics’ too – same ethically challenged behaviour; stolen emails / secret recordings made public.

        Gary. You say you are a skeptic – try being sceptical.

      • ==> “Why am I discussing the admission by a government paid researcher on a seminal paper that he and his colleagues suppressed data that was contrary to their published claims?”

        Notice how GaryM just ignores any evidence that might distract him from his pre-determined conclusions? It’s really quite interesting how nothing, nothing at all, will deter him from concluding that anything bad must be the result of “government” ineptitude or the inferiority of “progressives.”

        There is no situation in the world, when you ignore any relevant evidence, that can’t be reverse-engineered to prove that “progressives” are incapable of critical reasoning. And even if you don’t ignore relevant evidence, it doesn’t really matter when your so pre-determined as to what the outcome of your analysis will be.

        Yes indeed. “Progressives” are incapable of critical reasoning – in contrast to non-elitists like GaryM. All you need is to understand the superiority of Judeo-Christian ethics to see the clarity of GaryM’s insight.

      • I should add that I could resort to the vacuousness of GaryM’s arguments by arguing that his fallacious thinking is attributable to his political views. But I won’t. There are, in fact, a number of “conservatives” on this very board to don’t resort to the simplistic and tribalistic and lockstep arguments that GaryM relies on.

        And I’m sure that if we think hard enough, we could even name a couple of them.

      • “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

        Surely we can have a third progressive commenter join the fray here so I can use this pic again.


      • Gary,

        Try putting on your sceptical hat for a second and consider if there is possibly any difference between selecting data and deliberate scientific fraud?

        Scepticism demands that you critically assess a claim, rather than simply accepting it because you like it.

      • Michael,

        I quoted one of the authors of the paper. HE says they withheld statistically significant data. HE said the data they withheld showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism rates among African-American children of a certain age, that directly contradicted the reported result of their study. HE said they did not follow their own study’s protocols.

        Now maybe you want to call him a liar. Maybe you want to call him crazy. Maybe you want to say he is in the pay of big autism.

        But don’t blame me for reporting his own words. Vetted by his own attorney.

        I report. You decide.

  25. The ICSU general assembly has called for open access to both publicly funded data and publications (and the misuse of metrics)


    • Yes, Tony, and all 31 climate models agreed with each other.

      That is 100% consensus!

      (Unfortunately none of them agreed with Earth’s climate.)

  26. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    2014 Northern Passage  Wide open (like never seen before)

    2014 Northwest Passage  Luxury cruise-ships are sailing through!

    2014 Michael Mann  Sitting pretty

    Conclusion The Watts/WUWT brand of anti-science climate-change denialism is dead-as-a-dodo.

    These accelerating climate-change and climate-science trends are obvious to *EVERYONE* … especially insurance-company executives, actuaries, and ordinary voters … eh Climate Etc readers?

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

    • There used to be another Fan of More Discourse that hung around here ages ago. Mind you he was an alarmist with a Hansen fixation . I am sure you will be much more sceptical.
      (Welcome Back)


      • Tonyb,

        Speaking of a “Hansen fixation”, here’s a little fictional narrative, just for fun:

        Hansen was observing Venus, Venus has a lot of co2, Venus is very hot, the Earth is getting more co2, the Earth will be very hot. The end.

        I read Hansen’s book “Storms…”. Very nice. I agree with him re: Nuclear Power, but remain sceptical of runaway greenhouse frights of fancy. The concentration of co2 exceeded 6000 ppm in the Phanerozoic, and we are still not Venus. If anyone thinks we might become Venusians, they should consider that we already sent three astronauts to Sunev, and it was populated with beautiful women. How can that be bad?

        I’ve read many books advocating CAGW, but I remain sceptical, which is good. The opposite of a sceptic is a sucker.

        It’s good to be the sceptic!


    • Fan

      Wide open as never before? A link is needed.

      Luxury ice strengthened ships with sat nav and paying customers are sailing through? Explorers such as Amundsen would be jealous

      What a terrible cartoon of Dr Mann. I hope he sues whoever did it as they obviously don’t like him.

      • Fan provide a very nice graph of intrepid explorers experiencing nature in all its grandness. Of the virtual wave of humanity bumping elbows with polar bears along the Northwest Passage, it appears at the graph only the Lady Dana has completed its passage to date. This is not to say some others not on the graph have made it though.

    • nottawa rafter

      Never? Never is a long time. Even longer than the Twelfth of Never.

    • So arctic ice suffered a great decline this year huh???

    • Fan

      The Mann cartoon looks like a propaganda campaign right out of the 1930s in Wester Europe. Repeat the ” 97% consensus” lie loudly and often. Clearly that has to be a lampoon of Mann and his menn and womenn followers. The only things missing are the punch line and the punch bowl.


    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish-Swedish_ice_class

      The “cruise ship” was class 1A which means it can cruise at 5 kts through a “broken brash ice channel with a thickness of 1.0 metre”. One meter ice is not what most people would consider “ice free”.

    • FOMT-the-Charlatan is back with his usual hyperbole and misdirection.

      (1) that green map is a forecast not (yet) a reality, and green is not “wide open (like never seen before)” but a category of widespread ice which can be navigable by a small number of ice-reinfoced ships with sat nav. FOMT has not basis for claiming “never seen before” but he says so anyway, because he is not an honest, competent person.

      (2) By saying merely “luxury cruise ships” the FOMT tries to give the impression that *any* luxury cruise ship could safely complete this version. IN FACT, the Silversea Explorer has a special reinforced hull rarely seen among passenger vessels, meeting the Lloyd’s Register ice-class notation (1A) . Thus, FOMT once again presents tidbit of info which is highly misleading:

      Silversea Silver Explorer

      [emphasis added]

      Silver Explorer – Expedition Cruise Ship

      Silversea’s purpose-built Silver Explorer expedition cruise ship has been designed specifically for navigating waters in some of the world’s most remote destinations, including both of earth’s polar regions. A strengthened hull with a Lloyd’s Register ice-class notation (1A) for passenger vessels enables Silver Explorer to safely push through ice floes with ease….

      (3) Mann’s claims of many hockey sticks is highly misleading, for there are few truly independent proxy studies. We are a long way from seeing any rigorous set of independent proxy studies which would reinforce Mann’s claims. Indeed, the long-standing inability of Mann & friends to explain the “divergence problem(s)” in paleo proxy studies raises serious doubts about whether existing proxy studies should be relied upon at all for climate history. One example of ongoing embarrassment to the field:

      The Original Hide-the-Decline

      In conclusion, FOMT’s bloviations are rarely of any reliable significance.

      • Skilphil, and Silver Exlporer did not make it except with Canadian icebreaker assistance. Otherwise she would have been stuck. See my reply below to FAN. Complements on your fact checking the vessel and calling him on the misperception. Even 1a ice reinforced is not a true icebreaker.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Skiphil froths  “The green map is a forecast   not (yet) a reality  that is now a 2014 reality

        Froth by skiphil, facts by FOMD!

        As for small boats traversing the Northwest passage (without icebreaker assistance), it appears that Novarra is through!

        Good on yah, Novarra!

        It is a pleasure to provide up-to-date information to Climate Etc skeptics!

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

      • sure, FOMbs, sure

        your map shows only what has around 40+% or more ice coverage

        that does not mean what is portrayed as open space is ice-free or safe for commercial shipping, non-assisted routine maritime crossings etc., which are the usual definitions of an open “Northwest Passage”… an “open NW passage” would not require icebreaker assistance….

        it does not mean that the key channels are actually ice-free so that non-specialized ships can safely make the journey unassisted

        the question is not whether any ship or small craft can ever make the passage, that has been done a number of times before (and has thus been “seen before”)

        you claimed what has “never been seen before” and that “luxury cruise ships” can routinely traverse that route

        try routinely sending conventional ships through these routes (especially without Sat Nav):


        and then we can talk about the opening of the fabled “Northwest Passage” — until then, you are merely shifting goalposts and frothing as you usually do. Showing as open ocean areas with “40%” ice coverage in your map is highly misleading.

      • note: I have been focused upon the “Northwest Passage” as referenced in Fan’s 2nd point, but there is also the separate issue of whether the “Northern Passage” north of Russia/Siberia is open to some unprecedented degree, per Fan’s first point. There are some different definitions of “open” since traversing passages have been made there in various eras through the years. The usual definition of “open” as a practical matter is, I think, taken to be that regular commercial ship traffic can be safely directed there, not simply that it is possible to traverse with a few specialized (reinforced) ships or small craft. That has all been done many times before now. One can certainly debate definitions, but my point was that it is incorrect to assert that present conditions are “never seen before.”

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Skiphil says “I have been focused upon the “Northwest Passage”

        Skiphil, it is my pleasure to commend to you the fine ArcticTern Expedition weblog, and also this real-time NorthWest Passage ship position map.

        Yeppers, *PLENTY* of small boats *ARE* making it through the Northwest Passage this year.

        Good on `yah, Arctic small-boat skippers!

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

    • Fan, you picked the wrong example to post with the Northwest Passage 2014. I just finished editing my NWP essay for the book, which goes to the publisher next week. That essay discusses historical natural variability of the sort TonyB has separately documented, the Larsen 1943 transit, and what ‘ice free’ actually means in the satellite sensing era. Hint. Diego Montoya’s famous line from the Princess Bride is apt.

      Here are the NWP facts as of 9/3/2014. 23 vessels registered for the attempt, plus there is Le Manguier that got stuck in 2013 and had to overwinter at Paulatuk. 4 have scratched, 7 have turned back, one is already trapped and will overwinter, one was rescued by USCG icebreaker Healy, four have made it, and the rest are still trying. The cruise ship you cite (ice strengthened Silver Explorer) only made it after being assisted by Canadian ice breaker. The other, Akademik Vavilo (sister ship to the ‘Ship of Fools’ Antarctic fiasco last December) is still in transit after assisting trapped SV Gjoa, who as of 9/4 will be the second vessel forced to overwinter, at Cambridge Bay.
      The various ice maps from DMI, Jaxa, NSIDC, EUMetSat, are all showing more ice T the minimum than in 2013, which was generally a transit fiasco after easy 2012. And this is also pushed into the NWP.
      Sorry to rain on your global warming parade. But the Arctic ice is rebounding, and the NWP is anything but ice free. You might enjoy the essay, though. It has lots of pretty color pictures of ice taken from the 2013 vessels.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Keeping skiphil and Rud up-to-date:

        Data for the 2014 shipping season shows the Northern Sea Route Administration (NSRA) has recorded more than 604 applications from March to sail along all or part of the route this year to date. Permission has been granted to 568 vessels, while 26 have been refused.”

        Compared to 2014’s wide-open Russian Arctic, the Canadian Arctic is seeing “iffier” ice conditions this year … but small boats that wait for favorable winds *ARE* getting through.

        It’s a pleasure to help clarify your appreciation of these Arctic realities, skiphil and Rud!

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

    • Trofim Lysenko was once sitting pretty. So were Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, briefly.

  27. I’ve been reading some of Dr Spencer’s articles and have this question: in 2011 there was a debate between Spencer and Dessler on cloud feedback, where does that debate stand today?

    • In my opinion, unresolved. Dessler’s 2010 paper, touted by NASA, is just awful. Positive cloud feedback determined with an r^2 of 0.02. A pal reviewed statistical joke. But the most recent Spencer and Braswell papers (not the retracted one) contain an unprovable feedback timing assumption that amounts to result biased curve fitting. Not sound, IMO.
      For reasons set forth in my last book, the cloud feedback is most likely neutral or slightly negative. It does not have to be nearly as negative as Spencer asserts if one corrects for the also overstated water vapor (humidity) feedback, itself probably more important than the clouds that result. Several essays on this in the forthcoming book with a forward from our gracious hostess Judith.
      This question is why Judith’s new book is so important, even if I am unable to understand all the math. Have started slogging thru…

  28. In the linked article, Matt Ridley says:

    …the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick…

    This fact apparently goes un-contradicted in the article by Sachs — which is an critical analysis of Ridley’s WSJ article — that, Ridley in turn analyzes, in light Sach’s criticisms. In the end, it appears that the community that Sachs represents would rather spend more time paying obeisance to deep ocean heat sequestration theory to explain why the Left’s mathematical climate models are unreliable, than acknowledging and admitting the simple reality that Ridley’s WSJ article is addresses:

    …their explanations [i.e. of the climate-research establishment] have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

  29. I’m surprised there’s not been any comment on this gem:


    • 31 climate models were used. It must be correct then.


      • Typical denier response. How am I not surprised?

        I cannot wait for the next few years when the oceans release the trapped heat that’s accumulated over the last decade, accelerating AGW to unheard of proportions, and the deniers are left slack-jawed and scrambling for scraps from their heroes: Curry and Watts.

      • Seems to be somebody new.

      • I wonder which one of our resident clowns is responsible for this lame sock puppet?

      • Do you believe all models are always correct then?

        If not what percentage do you think are accurate enough to give reliable pictures of whatever they may be portraying?


      • Don

        I had originally taken it to be David springer

      • Can’t be Springer. Not enough insults :) Maybe Mosher?

      • nottawa rafter

        With the passing of 2 comedic legends recently, we need some humorous relief. Although Web is trying his best with his fresh material.

      • Its not THE Michael Mann I feel sure. Someone trying to stir up the sceptical hornets nest methinks. Silence is the best tactic.

      • climatereason,

        If 31 models produced different outcomes, then at least 30 were wrong.

        Why include the 97% which gave demonstrably false outcomes?

        Surely you’re not going to tell me that the climatologists didn’t know which models were wrong! How can this be? You’ve shattered my faith!

        Woe, woe, thrice woe – whatever shall I do now?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • New Scientist has to be the New Onion.

        If that’s not the case and its recent articles are meant to be taken seriously, then all we can do is welcome our new adolescent overlords – in the faint hope that the juveniles of science journalism don’t overthrow the adolescents.

        Because the adults are long gone.

    • Hello Mike,

      Thought you’d like this:

      Producer Stephanie Foo speaks to Nasubi, a Japanese comedian who, in the 90s, just wanted a little bit of fame. So he was thrilled when he won an opportunity to have his own segment on a Japanese reality TV show. Until he found out the premise: he had to sit in an empty apartment with no food, clothes or contact with the outside world, enter sweepstakes from magazines… and hope that he won enough sustenance to survive.


    • Run mikey, run! Discovery is gaining on you.

    • It is not unlikely that the current hiatus in warming will last until the 2030 timeframe.

      It is also not unlikely that there will be a step function of warming after the hiatus.

      It is HIGHLY unlikely that anyone has reliable information on what areas of the planet will experience net benefits vs. net harms as a result of any changes that due occur.

      It is also highly unlikely that Mann actually made a post here. LOL

      • It’s really Him. You can tell by the odor.

      • Is it also not unlikely that temperatures will decrease until the early 2030s?

      • I would consider it highly unlikely that there will be a step change after 2030.

        A reservoir of heat or a source of change in climate dynamics would have to be identified to get a step change. A hiatus of 30 years means a very low climate sensitivity to CO2. Without a stored heat source there won’t be a step change, warming can’t “catch up” to the predicted increase.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo


      I’m looking at this gem:

      @ 29:25 Michael Mann shows a truncated instrumental series and leaves out the portion that shows his claim to be false.

    • Snow will be a thing of the past after all?

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      ah … as I’ve tried to learn about this subject, most pro CAGW proponents, to my reading, have strongly asserted that the “pause” was a myth …
      wow … is this tacit confirmation that the “pause” is (or was) real?
      (are you “the” Micheal Mann?)
      commoner here, if so, averting my eyes

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        was trying to reply to Micheal Mann above … tech snafu

      • It is not a myth. It is accepted as a natural variation of a typical amplitude seen in the temperature record even prior to the growing warming trend. Even models show this type of variation and pause.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Jim D
        Just went to SkS, they actually say it’s been warming since ’98 … (2005 hottest ever?) – so no pause right? Myth is their word … under Myths (“it hasn’t warmed since 1998”)
        so you say SkS is wrong?
        just curious … this is a thick fog

      • The IPCC had a whole section on the slow-down. They wouldn’t do this if it was a myth. However, there is no pause on timescales relevant to climate trends. For example, the latest decade on decade warming is 0.1 C, and that is when the earlier decade includes 1998.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Jim D wrote:
        “However, there is no pause on timescales relevant to climate trends”

        That depends on what timescales are relevant, eh, Jim D?

        Some people, even some climate scientists who have posted here, wouldn’t admit warming stopped even if temperatures declined for a hundred years.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        well … I’m planting a flag
        Statistically insignificant warming since at least ’98 (0.04 C range)
        and SkS is wrong – there has been no warming since ’98
        timescales? … above my pay grade

      • John Smith, a number of statements are all true.
        1) Surface temperatures haven’t gone up much at all for the last decade or two.
        2) These kinds of “pauses” are not (so) uncommon in the temperature record, even if there is a clear upward trend. There’s a lot of bouncing around (natural variability), and that leads to spans of time where temperatures don’t go up for a while.
        So far, 1) and 2) would not be a problem for AGW supporters. But
        3) The climate models that are mainly used for climate projections do not allow as long a pause as we have been seeing. It seems to be long enough to demonstrate that the models are running “too hot”.
        If the models have been falsified, then we need better models. However, any new models need a period of validation, where you can check that they are good at predicting temperatures. These models have failed, the next set of models isn’t started validation yet, it will take years or decades, and the upshot is that we are not in a good position to say anything very intelligent about what temperature will do in the future.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        thank you
        I get that the current hiatus may be a variance in a postulated longer general trend of warmer surface temps, nevertheless
        what gets me (at my stage of learning about this issue) is that the CAGW camp mostly “denies” the “pause”

        I didn’t expect this obscuring of basic facts (data) and I’m surprised to find myself distrusting the established “pro” side
        the “denialist” come across as more honest to me
        I can’t seem to write a comment on Real Climate that doesn’t get modded
        even though I’m actually agnostic on the issue (I think)

        thanks to JC and everyone here
        It’s odd that I can follow the logic on Climate Etc. (from both sides)
        while most of the posts and comments on SkS & Real Climate make my eyes glaze over … is it me?

        also thanks Jim D, you are excluded from above opinion!

      • Well, as far as my points (1) and (2) are concerned, I think that “denying the pause” is a reasonable thing to do. The climate is a complex of vastly many variables; we look at one tiny slice of it with mean surface temperatures. There isn’t any reason to expect that one slice to grow smoothly in a vast chaotic mass of variables. Just because that one variable didn’t move doesn’t at all mean the system didn’t gain heat.
        But if that one thing (mean surface temperature) is what we are supposed to care about above all else, it becomes important to know if we can predict it. At all. Does it make sense for a scientist to say, If CO2 goes to __, surface temperatures will go up somewhere between __ and __? Seems like an important question, but not one where we have any well-tested answer. The models that were supposed to answer it have failed validation badly right out of the box. That’s the “pause” that I think is important: the surface temperature didn’t go up when all the models said it should. Or not nearly fast enough.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        I hear you – thanks
        you clearly state your argument in way I can understand and that helps me see the issue in a different way
        Dr. Curry has stated here the surface temps matter and that seems right to me
        I get that they may by no means be the only issue for concern
        I think I’ve always thought that the “pause” referred to only one marker, however , best I can understand the predictions were about surface temps
        seems like the pro side thinks that the heat should be there and is struggling to find it – hard for heat to hide, I think

        don’t mean to belabor the point, just wanted to thank your for response

    • Are those the same climate models that DID NOT predict THIS pause?

    • Mann, if real then you display yet again scientific and mathematical ignorance. If not, suggest you choose a better avatar as the real one will be going down in flames. The ignorance display remains indelible.
      As to your foolish ocean comment, you had better brush up on the second law of thermodynamics. And on Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics. Well mixed cold ‘heat’ cannot reconstitute to a higher temperature to suddenly pop out of the ocean. And there is no conceivable physical process by which Trenberth’s missing heat is not also well mixed. You do know about thermohaline circulation? And thermoclines?

      • Rud,
        Tha ATmosphere and Oceans, by NC Wells published in 2012 says on pg 175 that the ocean conveyor return time is on the order of 2,000 years. That means about 1,000 years before the 2* degree C or 2.05* C surfaces in the southern ocean after being heated in the north atlantic and sinking. We can wait for the new carbon free energy sources. Even so , 2.1* C or 10*C cannot heat 14*C air. What in the world is he thinking or is the Michael Mann autobat just sinking? It could not really be him.

  30. Just as it is inarguable that most of the rise in the Earth’s temperature since the LIA has occurred with no assistance whatsoever from humanity — that, such global warming is at the least evidence of a ‘natural component’ that must also exist in the last half of the 20th century — it is only arguable that global warming over the last half of the 20th century is evidence of AGW. The longer the hiatus, it seems, the more difficulty that the climate research establishment has admitting the obvious: global warming due to natural causes – at a rate of about 0.5°C /100 years – is sufficient to explain all of the global warming we see over the last 200 years.

  31. This is a note concerning some of the more tedious trolls on this blog. It is taken from one of the links in the main post. Think about this when you respond to one of the trolls.

    From the article:

    My symptoms were testament to the power of what psychologists call variable intermittent reinforcement. Famed behaviorist B. F. Skinner discovered long ago that if you really want to ingrain a habit, you encourage it with rewards that arrive at variable times, in variable sizes. The lab rat knows that it will periodically be given food for pressing the lever, but not exactly when or how much. The result: a compulsive rat.

    It’s the same with humans. Variable intermittent reinforcement explains why slot machines are so enthralling, why video games contain hidden caches of coins or weapons, and why we’re all helpless before 
our e-mail accounts. One time you check your inbox and there’s a single new message, from LinkedIn, which reminds you that you can’t figure out how to delete your LinkedIn account. Sad face. The next time you check, you have five new messages, including one from an old friend and another from a potential employer. Happy face! So you check, check, check.

    David Roberts (@drgrist) is back from digital detox. His reflection is a must read: http://shar.es/11GNPd

  32. JC

    Here is a paper in Nature that supports your position.

    Reasons for the apparent pause in the rise of global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) after the turn of the century has been a mystery, undermining confidence in climate projections1, 2, 3. Recent climate model simulations indicate this warming hiatus originated from eastern equatorial Pacific cooling4 associated with strengthening of trade winds5. Using a climate model that overrides tropical wind stress anomalies with observations for 1958–2012, we show that decadal-mean anomalies of global SAT referenced to the period 1961–1990 are changed by 0.11, 0.13 and −0.11 °C in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, respectively, without variation in human-induced radiative forcing. They account for about 47%, 38% and 27% of the respective temperature change. The dominant wind stress variability consistent with this warming/cooling represents the deceleration/acceleration of the Pacific trade winds, which can be robustly reproduced by atmospheric model simulations forced by observed sea surface temperature excluding anthropogenic warming components. Results indicate that inherent decadal climate variability contributes considerably to the observed global-mean SAT time series, but that its influence on decadal-mean SAT has gradually decreased relative to the rising anthropogenic warming signal.


    The consensus of the 0.2 deg C per decade is crumbling.

    • Oddly this is the same paper linked by “Michael Mann” above with the opposite view, saying that natural variation is gradually becoming less important with time.

    • The main point seemed to be that the relative strength of natural variability was decreasing by 10% per decade.

      • again, natural variability has no scale or relative strength, it just is, so it cannot decrease by 10% a decade or increase by 10% a decade or it wouldn’t be natural.
        No one even can give an accurate measure of what is now so stop quoting the hooey of 10% a decade.
        It doesn’t exist.

      • You can read the last sentence of the abstract.

  33. The “Reconceptualizing Risk …” link is broken but I think this one points to the intended content:



  34. David L. Hagen

    Renewable Fuel
    Energy comentator Robert Rapier writes:
    U.S. Dominates Globe in Biofuel Production reviewing
    Renewables 2014 Global Status Report

    > expansion of supporting policies in developing economies
    > additions to electricity generating capacity
    > progress made in renewables heating and cooling
    > shifts in investments
    > leaders in renewable energy deployment
    > evolution of the renewable energy field in the last decade

    First released in 2005, REN21’s Renewables Global Status Report (GSR) provides a comprehensive and timely overview of renewable energy market, industry, investment and policy developments worldwide. It enables policymakers, industry, investors and civil society to make informed decisions. The report covers recent developments, current status, and key trends

    Rapier notes:

    Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil
    Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) has emerged as an attractive alternative to biodiesel in recent years. With this process the same kinds of vegetable oil feedstocks that are used in biodiesel production are reacted with hydrogen in a process called hydrotreating — a common process in the petroleum industry. The products of this reaction are diesel-length hydrocarbons (also known as “green diesel”), with propane produced as a byproduct. . . .

    Global biofuel production continues to be dominated by ethanol, and the U.S. is the world’s dominant biofuel producer — leading in both ethanol and biodiesel. HVO is the world’s third largest volume biofuel and its production is growing at a faster pace than the more mature ethanol and biodiesel industries.

  35. From the article:

    Yet van Beurden devoted a surprising amount of time to addressing what he termed “the real and current threat of climate change,” and he promoted Shell’s own initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. The CEO implied that oil companies and conservationists could find common ground in a “skewed global debate” about the environment and oil production.

    “Global companies like Shell have a responsibility to speak up,” about what van Beurden called “the potentially devastating effects of climate change.” He backed growth in renewables, even as he acknowledged they were not yet sufficient to satisfy all the globe’s energy demands.

    To be certain, Shell remains devoted to pumping oil: the company has been embroiled in a regulatory tussle over its $4.5 billion effort to drill in the Alaskan Arctic. Simultaneously, Shell has taken a bath on efforts to tap the U.S. shale boom.

    Yet by giving such prominence to environmental concerns, Shell’s efforts could be seen as either a sincere move to diversify away from oil—or a public relations campaign to neutralize opponents. In a sign of its commitment to curbing carbon dioxide after jettisoning its own investments in the solar sector, Shell is now building a carbon capture and storage plant in Scotland.

    So can Big Oil really go from black to green? Recent history has been less than encouraging, and the environmental movement certainly has its share of doubts.


  36. arctic sea ice extent, has it reached it’s minimum?
    PIOMAS high, AO index negative, Temps north of 80N below freezing.
    but it will not turn.
    time for some really strong wishful thinking.

  37. Jim D,

    Sorry for jumping the threading, but it was becoming tiresome.

    You wrote –

    “Mike Flynn, suppose the surface is warmed by the sun, but the atmosphere insulates against the escape of heat. Now does the surface warm when you add more insulation? It’s a basic mechanical engineering question.”

    I am assuming that, in the best Warmist tradition, you are not seeking knowledge, but rather attempting to be both condescending and patronising at once, Alas, the slings and arrows of outraged Warmism make no impression on my thick Unbeliever skin. If my assumption in incorrect, let me know and I will of course offer a sincere and fulsome apology to your good self.

    But to your bad faith question. The short answer is, of course, no, but I fear that is not the answer you had already determined I was to be browbeaten into providing. Your question as it stands is a pointless example of Warmist nonsense, and assumes that the person being questioned is a gullible fool. You make two assumptions, both of which may be true, but are insufficient to draw any particular conclusion, let alone one that supports the Warmist point of view.

    Without desiring to make you look any more gullible than you have demonstrated so ably to date, I can do no better than suggest that you perform your own experiment. You will rapidly ascertain the reason for the lack of experimental confirmation for the Warmist hypothesis – it requires magic to effect its operation.

    Magic being in short supply, and satellites reading surface temperatures with somewhat wider spacial reach, and possibly greater precision, than was heretofore the case, the Warmist hypothesis runs out of steam. Your magical one way insulator no longer works, and the Earth’s surface stubbornly refuses to warm. Don’t blame me, maybe the Warmists need to chant the sacred Manntra faster or louder or both.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • I think you need to think about the question a little more because your answer was wrong. We are looking for a steady-state surface temperature condition before and after you add the insulator assuming the solar input stays constant. Perhaps someone else can help you. Insulation is measured in temperature difference per energy loss.

      • Jim D,

        Thank you for confirming your original bad faith question was silly, illogical and misleading. Your revised version is just as imprecise, and even more unrealistic. Or am I being a bit harsh?

        No matter. As I said, if you can provide the magical insulator you require, no doubt your hypothetical, whimsical, and nonsensical assumptions might provide the hypothetical answer you want people to accept.

        Unfortunately, no such insulator exists, which is precisely why its actions cannot be demonstrated and why warming an object whose only heat source is external by wrapping it in an nsulator is about as impossible as lifting yourself by your bootstraps. But dream on. Just ignore the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and will probably do so for some time yet, barring unforeseen circumstances.

        Or better still invent an insulator which warms objects. I’m sure with your theoretical knowledge it will be an easy matter to use CO2 to insulate a glass boiler in such a way as to trap the Sun’s unconcentrated rays, boil water, and use the resultant steam to drive a steam powered generator. No need for fossil fuels at all!

        If you can only get a 33C temperature differential, no problem. Use a multi stage process, achieving a 33C increase each time! Hey presto! – any temperature you like – nothing but sunlight, CO2, and a bit of Warmist theory. How hard can it be?

        Seriously, you are sprouting Warmist nonsense. I just prefer that you waste your money, and leave us Unbelievers to spend our money on things that might be more useful. Let me know when Antarctica has been restored to its previously ice free condition due to your magical Global Warming. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Jim D,

        Please pardon my typos. I occasionally find typing and laughing contemporaneously causes hiccups in one or the other.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Jim D,

        According to the American Physical Society, based on Pierrehumbert’s work –

        “In English units this corresponds to R ~ 0.76 ft2 hr oF/BTU. The atmosphere is not a terribly good insulator, equivalent to only about one-seventh of an inch of polystyrene!”

        Bung one seventh of an inch of polystyrene onto the ground, in sunlight. According to leading Warmists, you have now added one atmosphere’s worth of insulation. The temperature of the ground under the insulation should surely rocket upwards by 33C or so, shouldn’t it? If you believe that, then you are equally likely to believe the Earth is warming!

        Ah, but Warmists say, we aren’t talking about the real world, but rather Warm World, where magic rules, and temperatures rise and rise and rise, until the surface melts, and everything is restored to how it was.

        Give me a break!

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Mike Flynn, you think an insulator that lets through sunlight and is semi-transparent to infra red doesn’t exist. That seems to be your problem at this point in the debate. The atmosphere is a perfect example of this, and is far from “magical” in having these properties.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Mike Flynn: I am assuming that, in the best Warmist tradition, you are not seeking knowledge, but rather attempting to be both condescending and patronising at once, Alas, the slings and arrows of outraged Warmism make no impression on my thick Unbeliever skin. If my assumption in incorrect, let me know and I will of course offer a sincere and fulsome apology to your good self.

        But to your bad faith question. The short answer is, of course, no, but I fear that is not the answer you had already determined I was to be browbeaten into providing. Your question as it stands is a pointless example of Warmist nonsense, and assumes that the person being questioned is a gullible fool. You make two assumptions, both of which may be true, but are insufficient to draw any particular conclusion, let alone one that supports the Warmist point of view.

        Your accusation of “bad faith” is unwarranted. He was exploring your beliefs to see whether they were in conflict with each other or if you had a good resolution to what seems to the rest of us false.

        “Other things being equal” is the qualifier you need. “Other things being equal”, if you slow the cooling rate without changing the radiant energy input, the result will be warming. The questions then are: How much warming? Over how long a period? What are the “other things”? Do the “other things” remain equal, and if not how do they change?

        You have written before: you seem to deny the basic premise, that with a steady rate of radiant heat input, slowing the cooling rate will result in a warmer net temperature; but without explaining how the net retained energy is distributed.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Mike Flynn: Bung one seventh of an inch of polystyrene onto the ground, in sunlight. According to leading Warmists, you have now added one atmosphere’s worth of insulation.

        In fact, in wintertime gardeners and farmers add mulch around their plants precisely to reduce the nighttime cooling rate. Mostly it is to reduce the convective heat loss rate. But if you could put down an inch of polystyrene that admitted the sunlight, you would get a consistently warmer ground temperature by slowing the cooling rate.

      • Jim D,

        Thank you for attempting to tell me what I think. Of course, you are wrong. Another example of Wild Warmist assertion, without a shred of fact to back you up.

        You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn, you think an insulator that lets through sunlight and is semi-transparent to infra red doesn’t exist. That seems to be your problem at this point in the debate. The atmosphere is a perfect example of this, and is far from “magical” in having these properties.”

        I can do no more than point out your mind reading abilities, along with your English language comprehension and expression skills, seem to be less than perfect.

        In relation to light in its scientific sense, rather than the Warmist reinterpration, and the interaction between light and matter, I choose to accept the thinking of Enstein and Feynman (amongst others), rather than the ludicrous maunderings of a motley collection of mostly second and third rate minds claiming to be climate scientists.

        Believe what you will – I’m right, you’re wrong. If you produce some new facts, I will change my opinion. Unlikely, I know, but I suppose anything is possible.

        As to your ludicrous assertion quoted above, you seem to be unaware that a perfect insulator for any wavelength is a physical impossibility. You may be unable to grasp the fact that proceeding from this fact, any trapping or accumulation of heat within an object heated from without arising as a result of interposing any type of material between said object and the heat source, is impossible. Unfortunately, unlike Star Trek, the command “Make it so” has no effect in the real world.

        It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is not warming, no matter how much you try to distort the definition of warming. Your Global Warming theories are therefore moot.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Entertaining as usual, MF. I said nothing about perfect insulators, and the atmosphere sure isn’t one. Good try, but this insulator thing does seem to be beyond you. Maybe next time you will have read up on them a bit more.

      • Mathew Marler,

        You wrote –

        “Your accusation of “bad faith” is unwarranted. He was exploring your beliefs to see whether they were in conflict with each other or if you had a good resolution to what seems to the rest of us false.

        “Other things being equal” is the qualifier you need. “Other things being equal”, if you slow the cooling rate without changing the radiant energy input, the result will be warming. The questions then are: How much warming? Over how long a period? What are the “other things”? Do the “other things” remain equal, and if not how do they change?

        You have written before: you seem to deny the basic premise, that with a steady rate of radiant heat input, slowing the cooling rate will result in a warmer net temperature; but without explaining how the net retained energy is distributed.”

        I suppose I must respond.

        I made no accusation. Your comprehension of that which I wrote is defective. I made an assumption, stating my reasons. I sought correction if my assumption was erroneous.

        As to your mind reading abilities, in relation to Jim D’s mental perturbations, I defer to your expertise in this area. Unlike yourself, I make no claim to to be able to read the minds of others.

        As to telling me what I need, I don’t believe thanks are in order. You appear to be of the Warmist persuasion, based on your claimed mind reading abilities, and your bizarre assumption about a magical one way insulator that perfectly reflects any wavelength at all. If you don’t understand the importance of this, you cannot appreciate that any insulator allows energy of all wavelengths to pass through, albeit at different rates with respect to time, and dependent on the strange interaction between light and matter, as Feynman puts it so eloquently.

        So, the Warmist theory seems to posit that CO2 possesses magical properties, and refuses to allow certain photons to escape to the cold sink of outer space, causing a rise in the Earth’s temperature. Alas and alack, this is preposterous nonsense – although I will smartly change my tune, and grovel in abject mortification, if you can show otherwise, using real- as opposed to climate – science.

        What really happens in that energy proceeds from warmer to colder, regardless of insulation you might use to try to prevent the operations of the Laws of Thermodynamics as presently understood, resulting in a reduction of energy within the Earth system and relating in a concomitant and necessary fall in temperature, being a proxy for energy content.

        I am right. You are wrong. On my side I appear to have the assistance of physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the conclusions of first rate minds such as Einstein and Feynman, backed up by objective measurements and experiments,

        On your side you have your mind reading abilities, unsubstantiated assertions, and devout and passionate belief in the Warmist creed. Oh well, you win, I suppose. How can I compete?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

  38. Hawking has posited that a super energetic Higgs Boson could become meta-unstable and suck up the universe into a single bubble of space/time.

    This could happen tomorrow and puts a whole new spin on cloud condensation nuclei and BEC.

    Either that or only an amazin’ idjit could imagine that BEC had anything to do with cloud microphysics and that therefore one of a number of schema for determining the statistical distribution of nucleation rates was demonstrably incorrect – and then to behave so oddly about it.



    Mind you it doesn’t seem an isolated case. Flynn – for instance – is back adding a whole extra dimension to climate narrative with the veneer of distorted science. Jimmy Dee’s narrative is less odd by contrast if that can be imagined.

    Is it my imagination or is climate weirding getting weirder all the time?

  39. With regard to Naomi Klein’s “Big Green is in Denial,” a few thoughts:

    1. She seems to think that most environmental victories and regulations stopped with the Reagan era. But virtually all of EPA’s ambient air quality regulations — for SO2, NO2, particulates, CO, lead, and ozone — came after 1980. Furthermore, EPA is now regulating carbon dioxide under the same laws. So on this point she is completely wrong., EPA command and control is very much alive and well. The R’s in the House wouldn’t be howling so much if she was right that environmental victories stopped in the Reagan era!

    2. Re NAFTA and other trade agreements. Liberals for eons have (correctly) pointed out economic inequality between countries, about getting the billions of wretchedly poor people around the world out of poverty.

    Nothing other that free trade has come close to getting half a billion people out of poverty in China, India and elsewhere. It is certainly true that labor conditions in many places are far poorer than in the US and Western Europe, and it is oh so very true that free trade has increased CO2 emissions. If far more people were in poverty, and if goods cost more in developed countries, there would be hundreds of millions more people still in 2 dollar a day poverty, and GHG emissions would be far lower.

    So liberals have to ask about which poison they prefer — more CO2, or more hundreds of millions of people just barely squeaking by each day. Green liberals perhaps would chose the latter, social justice liberals perhaps the former. Klein seems to miss the tension here.

    3. Kudos to Klein for publicly pointing out that Wall Street would have made yet another bundle on Cap and Trade (Wall Street gave PAC money to both parties to try to make that happen), and would have drowned us in another sea of derivatives had cap and trade happened. Kudos also to pointing out that cap and trade wouldn’t have done much to reduce CO2.

    • Matthew R Marler

      John: So liberals have to ask about which poison they prefer — more CO2, or more hundreds of millions of people just barely squeaking by each day. Green liberals perhaps would chose the latter, social justice liberals perhaps the former. Klein seems to miss the tension here.

      That’s a good comment in what was a good post overall.

      • Thanks, Matthew. Praise of any sort is in limited supply on the net, so I want to encourage it whenever it appears!

  40. David L. Hagen

    What Priority: Climate or Energy?
    Egypt’s Blackout

    The long-awaited failure of Egypt’s electricity grid took place on Thursday when half the country’s power was shut and its economy ground to a halt. Although the immediate problem was fixed after six hours, the rolling blackouts brought on by fuel shortages continue. Egypt’s power problems stem from many years of inattention to an aging grid, insufficient oil and gas to fire the nations power plants, and, recently, reports that sub-standard fuel is leading to breakdowns in power plants. . . .

    Oil Companies failing

    Last July the EIA quietly revealed that 127 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies are running out of cash. They are now spending more than they are earning. Profits have lagged as expenditures have risen. (9/1)

    Peak Oil Review 8 Sept. 2014 ASPO-USA

    Will consumers be concerned over 0.7 C/century?
    Or being able to drive work?
    Or having work?

  41. Tim Flannery gave a talk to the college of Radiologists Friday in Melbourne.
    He used a graph of Arctic melting ending in 2012 instead of a more recent one, possibly that seen in the Arctic Sea Ice blog which also remains hopelessly out of date. He then mentioned flooding in Brisbane as being due to Climate change, not weather and based his proof of AGW on model fitting. Most unsatisfactory though he was well dressed and could talk well.
    I was hoping for more insight but only got agenda.

  42. The quote below from Tomas Milanovic’s denizen entry nailed it. With my mere BSEE background I have no doubt that the prevalent historical feedbacks were negative.
    “Positive feedbacks never exist for a long time because they destroy the system. As our system has not been destroyed in 4 billion years, it is very likely that like almost every natural long lived system, it is dominated by negative feedbacks.”

    • ‘Positive feedbacks never exist for a long time because they
      destroy the system,’

      That’s what serfs were wont ter think, workin’ in the fields,
      experiencin’ climate’s see-saw history, seaons’ variability,
      clouds and clear skies, yer git ter yr thinkin’ about such-like
      … or what passes fer thinkin’ with us serfs.

  43. Looks like Dr. Curry can expects a twitter offensive later in the month, of epic proportions from the framework here;


    “Shilling for big oil” I can hear the refrain already.

  44. Minnesota to lose its loons:
    They seem to have them shifting North. Birders may travel to Canada. Meanwhile, Minnesota has become a bald eagle mecca, with eagle viewing tourism apparently on the rise.

  45. The see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil Democrat PR firm laughably called the mainstream media, is in fine form so far this year.

    “During the first 8 months of the fifth year of George W. Bush’s presidency (2006), the MRC reports that the networks commissioned 23 polls and reported a whopping 52 times on the former-president’s falling approval numbers.

    By contrast, during the first 8 months of the 5th year of Obama’s presidency (2014), the same networks commissioned 15 polls and only reported on the approval results twice.”


  46. “The laws of physics are non-negotiable”
    “Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting.”
    Quotes by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud today on record-high GHG levels in 2013.

    • What laws of physics are those?ie name them

      • You could ask him that and suggest which laws of physics you would prefer to suspend, and see what kind of response you get.

    • “We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” he said.

      We know without any doubt. Push the gas pedal to the floor, rhetorically.

      • When he says we, he probably just means 90+% of the climate scientists don’t doubt that current rates of climate change are largely from burning fossil fuels.

      • I meant to apply, without any doubt to ‘weather becoming more extreme’. The General-Secretary is standing on about 99% certainty. Is that conducive to a compromise?

      • This is what he means by “pleading ignorance” when someone equates a small amount of doubt with “absolutely don’t know”, which is plain wrong.

      • Jim D:
        Not sure I am following here. If Secretary-General stakes out an extreme position on extreme weather, notwithstanding the recent IPCC report, does that help in getting something accomplished? He already has the 99% percenters behind him. He needs the skeptics and lukewarmers support in my opinion.

      • It is not an extreme position, but one held by many including among scientists and the general public. It is consistent with the most recent statements by the WMO, AMS, NAS and RS on climate change effects already being seen. The extreme position would be one that doesn’t recognize that climate change is already having an effect.

      • Please explain by which laws of physics does reduced energy flux lead to more extreme weather.

      • phatboy, all of them. Which ones don’t you like?

      • Proof by assertion! :rolleyes:

    • Jim D,

      It appears that the law of physics that Warmists have been using to heat the Earth using CO2, seems to have been repealed about 18 years ago.

      Said law was repealed on the basis that the Earth was refusing to comply, and the law didn’t seem to work at night. As the Sun was refusing to cooperate by coming out at night, the law was deemed unentorceable.

      Maybe you could lobby someone like President Obama to declare War on CO2. It might have have wait for a few years, as there are a few other US wars in progress, I believe.

      The War on Terror, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and a few real wars in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest which are being finalised – finally, one might hope.

      I wish you every success in your law enforcement career.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • “The laws of physics are non-negotiable”

      But that doesn’t mean they’re what you say they are,

  47. I like it when progressives take off the velvet gloves and show the iron fist of totalitarianism that is their true nature.


    They could just write a much shorter amendment;

    “We the progressives of the U.S. Congress hereby resolve to repeal the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so we can decide who can speak and publish before an election.”

  48. Wanna slow global warming? Chop down the rain forests and plant soy beans.


    “Although human land cover change has dominated BVOC emission variability over the past century2, 3, 4, the net effect on global climate has not been quantified. Here, I show that the effects of the global cropland expansion between the 1850s and 2000s on BVOC emissions and atmospheric chemistry have imposed an additional net global radiative impact of −0.11 ± 0.17 W m−2 (cooling).”

  49. ==> “I have been deleting a number of their posts. I encourage those of you that are interested in a foodfight to head over to the thread at An Then There’s Physics. WHUT is now over there, along with Joshua and Willard. Thankfully Pekka is also over there for adult supervision.”

    C’mon over, boyz,. Let’s discuss why Judith is so testy.


    • joshua, “==> “joshua, the “review” followed a blog comment declaring a fatal issue. It is not like webster had a small issue since his cockroach approach eliminates the possibility of a “small” issue.”

      So then WHT won’t buy the book. Maybe he wasn’t going to anyway. So what we know is that possibly one less copy might be sold. I would assume that most people looking at book reviews before making a purchase would take with a grain of salt any one particular review, particularly if it turns out to be an outlier,

      Sorry – this whole sense of urgency about needing to counter on online book review seems a tad overly dramatic in my estimation – falling right in line with the the “distraction” and “hijacking” arguments.

      I’ve decided to sell my stock in big boy pants after all. Looks like no one is interested in wearing any. I’m going to start investing in pantywaists instead?”

      Well, he won’t buy the book and would like no one else to buy the book based on his “review” after not reading the book. that book happens to be a long term creative effort that undoubtedly took a great deal of time and effort to produce. It is sort of like V&Cs child in a way. How would you recommend responding to someone bullying your child? Do you call the scientific police and hide in your leaky basement until they come?

      • Are the people discussing this even in the target audience?

      • Cap’n –

        ==> “Well, he won’t buy the book and would like no one else to buy the book based on his “review” after not reading the book. that book happens to be a long term creative effort that undoubtedly took a great deal of time and effort to produce. It is sort of like V&Cs child in a way. How would you recommend responding to someone bullying your child?

        My point is that the impact of his review is being drama-queened. Someone bullying my child would likely have meaningful impact. WHT writing a bad review at Amazon likely won’t.

        My point is that the reaction that it will (e.g. it “must’ be countered) is drama-queening – not that I don’t understand why someone might react emotionally to criticism. Of course I understand that.

        ==> “:Do you call the scientific police and hide in your leaky basement until they come?”

        Responding is entirely understandable. Drama-queening is also understandable, as is pointing out how that drama-queening is often hypocrtical – as in this case.

        Also understandable is why people morph volitional discussion of the technical merits of criticism into “distraction” and “hijacking.” These overly-emotional responses are entirely understandable.

        I have noticed that Judith has been particularly touchy on this subject. Understandable. Just as it is when people are touchy when she criticizes their work.

      • Joshua, this is very boring and tedious and pointless. Serious people are trying to read this thread. This is the last one of your comments along these lines that I will allow on this thread. Pls take this discussion over to week in review or ATTP.

      • joshua, and the way you present your case Judith is the only person that needs to be perfect. Which is fine, provided you had anything that verged on useful to offer. She is imperfect and you demand perfection. yada yada yada. It gets very tiresome.

      • Joshua

        Can’t you see that what you have been doing here over the last few days is wildly over the top and highly repetitive?

        It’s meant as a Friendly gesture to you when I say give it a rest and save your powder for another day, another topic and another thread.

        I won’t be responding to any come back as this has gone on long enough and I have more important things to do, like trying to work out how to put into a readable Form all my material gathered over the last two years as I attempt to write ‘tranquilty transition and turbulence’ . This looks at the climate during the period 1200 to 1400 which covers the supposed transition to the LIA.

        Good evening to you


      • Tony: What have you learned about that transition? Is there a pattern? Or does chaos seem more likely? Or something else?

      • Rls

        The period seems to cover the warm and settled characteristics of the MWP in the early part then a very unsettled 13th century in which warmth and cold see saw back and forth with very turbulent weather and many extremes of which heavy rain seem the most prevalent state.

        There is then perhaps a 50 year settled warm mwp type climate in the middle decades of the 14 th century before a downturn and an unsettled end To the century with many extremes.

        It needs to be cross referenced with the science papers but I can see little sign of Mann’s or millers permanent sharp downturn to the lia in the latter part of the 13 th century.


      • Tony: Thank you.

    • > Serious people are trying to read this thread.

      Source: http://imgur.com/nf0yxOz

    • sorry Joshua ATTP deleted my comments.
      too bad

      • ==> “too bad”

        Don’t worry, you can just comment here. Apparently Judith considers calling people “runts” to be “relevant.” Your brand of discourse is quite welcome.

    • Imagine how much of a ‘distraction’ Judith would find this is people starting firing FOI’s at her…..

  50. ==> “Pls take this discussion over to week in review or ATTP.”


    Please explain. Is there another Week in Review that you have in mind other than this one?

  51. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Joshua, one of last year’s would be good.

  52. Bob –

    Re: http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/08/vitaly-khvorostyanov-responds/#comment-626447

    I have told Steve before that I find his arguments about Judith to be quite similar to the arguments that criticize from “skeptics.”

    • really?

      • Steven –

        ==> “really?”

        Delusional thinking is delusional.

        I’ve been explaining that to you for a while now. When you’re ready to start making reality-based arguments, let me know.

  53. The piece by David Roberts was quite good. Thank you for highlighting it. I doubt I can bring myself to unplug for a year, but I have banned media for a week before and abandoned one of my discussion area addictions for a month. I think anyone who’s screen locked like I am (work is computers, recreation is often computers, so yeah…) needs to take a vacation from the chattering class and digital diversions from time to time. You don’t need to list all the no-goods of digital on demand everything to know an occasional break can help your mental well being.

  54. BTW – Judith –

    I have a feeling that you’ll love this:


    Also available as audio…


    “dogma…small group control of allocation of research grants…cholesterol bandwagon…giant wheels of the federal government…warnings of the weak state of the evidence…blood sport of nutrition science…name-calling and relentless sneering and condescension towards anyone who disagreed with them…”

    • Perhaps best of all:

      “…a consensus had been sealed up…”

    • yes, i included some of this stuff in previous week in review

      • ==> “The connection between cholesterol and heart attacks is pretty evident ”

        If you listen/watch the talk (she isn’t hard on the eyes, you might want to watch), she points out (as I have heard before) that the question is about dietary cholesterol and heart attacks.

        Further, In the discussion after the talk, she and the MC discuss also how not all LDL are all the same.

        Somewhat relatedly (by a long tether)- I found this amusing:

        The purpose of the present study was the investigation of interaction effects between functional MRI scanner noise and affective neural processes. Stimuli comprised of psychoacoustically balanced musical pieces, expressing three different emotions (fear, neutral, joy). Participants (N=34, 19 female) were split into two groups, one subjected to continuous scanning and another subjected to sparse temporal scanning that features decreased scanner noise. Tests for interaction effects between scanning group (sparse/quieter vs continuous/noisier) and emotion (fear, neutral, joy) were performed. Results revealed interactions between the affective expression of stimuli and scanning group localized in bilateral auditory cortex, insula and visual cortex (calcarine sulcus). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that during sparse scanning, but not during continuous scanning, BOLD signals were significantly stronger for joy than for fear, as well as stronger for fear than for neutral in bilateral auditory cortex. During continuous scanning, but not during sparse scanning, BOLD signals were significantly stronger for joy than for neutral in the left auditory cortex and for joy than for fear in the calcarine sulcus. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to show a statistical interaction effect between scanner noise and affective processes and extends evidence suggesting scanner noise to be an important factor in functional MRI research that can affect and distort affective brain processes.

        I figure that as a binary-thinking anti-social sciences type, you’d get a kick out of that.

    • The criticism seems less of low saturated fats than of low fat diets.

      The connection between cholesterol and heart attacks is pretty evident – and the link between saturated fats and cholesterol seems good enough to heed. Although – I have upped my consumption of coconut oil quite substantially recently.

      e.g. http://detoxinista.com/2014/05/no-bake-peanut-butter-cup-bars-vegan/

      While keeping an eye on my LDL cholesterol.

      e.g. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Know-Your-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp

      It is very much part of a broader dietary complex.


    • yes, Mann and Keyes are very similar

  55. Love how sceptics are suddenly adverse to having scientists’ time wasted dealing with criticisms of their work.

  56. Ordvic –

    ==> “Web comes along and attacks the scientific value based upon a reading of a postulate that was never used in their research material. He made a challenge for anyone to find a paper related to any other scientists proposing such a perposterous postulate.”

    Every aspect of WHT’s criticism do not have to be proven valid to show that the whining about “distraction” and “hijacking” are hypocritical.

    By many accounts (I’m not one to evaluate) he raised a legitimate technical question about some material that was in the textbook. Even if that specific criticism doesn’t pan out (I’m not one to evaluate), it is clear that people with significant amounts of expertise considered the criticism worthy of discussion.

    That WHT might have painted the entire book with a broad brush on the basis of that one criticism doesn’t justify the whines of “distraction” and “hijacking.” No one was forced to respond to the broader characterizations. If people choose to respond, that’s on them.

    But what is interesting to me is that a relevant qustion about possible underestimation of “certainty” is getting brushed under the rug, cloaked in the claims of “distraction” and “hijackling.” It’s interesting, because is exactly the kind of argument that some “skeptics” complain about from “realists” (with good reason in some cases, IMO).

    ==> ” This scientist said he looked for papers and found none but chose to reference it as a possible partial means for solution for that problem anyway since there is no current mathematics to do it.”

    It isn’t clear to me that there were appropriate caveats used:


    ==> ” I guess one could argue that he shouldn’t think outside the box. Sorry a bit of a sidetrack but it sets up what I’m trying to get across.

    I wouldn’t argue that. Thinking outside the box is just fine if one is clear to describe that’s what they’re doing.

    ==> “Having worked so hard to produce this material only to have it unfairly characterized, I submit, would be a distraction.”

    There was more than that going on. There was also technical criticism that seems to have stimulated some in-depth analysis of authoritative material. Certainly, people who self-describe as “skeptics” should not lump something like that with “unfair criticism.”

    ==> “You don’t think that Judith feels that way in descrbing the whole affair?”

    Perhaps. But if so, she could clarify.

    ==> “I don’t think you even have to be in her shoes to see it was a genuine feeling she expressed about the whole matter.”

    I’m not suggesting that her feelings weren’t genuine – only that people should take pains to distinguish talking about their feelings from discussion of fact.

    I guess I’ll have to remember not to use the D word in future.

    • Joshua’s grotesque post hoc rationalisation – what little I bothered reading – assumes good faith on webbly’s part. This is far from the case – and I contend that Joshua is in the same basket case.

      Webbly is still making odd noises about bosons not forming condensates at room temperature and of equations that don’t behave if you don’t evaluate all of the terms. It is both superficial and malicious – either of which in my book are an indictable offence in the world of ideas. There is no substance at all.

      For instance – that the Bose-Einstein nucleation rate is proportional to 1/(e^50 – 1).

      The nucleation rate is reliant – inter alia – on changes in activation and critical energies.


      Which can be evaluated using the expressions found here – http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9275/2012/acp-12-9275-2012.html – but are probably not equal to 50. The evaluation of all of the terms of the equation is the minimum required for intellectual honesty. If he ever does that – there might be some grounds for taking him at all as a competent commentator.

      There is no possibility that specialist researchers with decades of experience are not aware that crystal nucleation rates decrease with temperature increase. This is indeed shown in Figure 8.2. Webbly has over-simplified the equation and leaped to heroic conclusions.

      Boltzmann – and indeed Bose-Einstein – distributions can be viewed as purely statistical constructs in a process that might be expected to involve velocity and energy distributions. Bose-Einstein has been used – for instance – in ecology, network theory, evolution, information theory – for departures from randomness.

      ‘A Bose–Einstein condensate is therefore a quantum phenomenon characteristic of boson particles. Nevertheless, a similar type of condensation transition can occur also in off-equilibrium classical systems and in particular, complex networks. In this context, a condensation phenomenon occurs when a distribution of a large number of elements in a large number of element classes becomes degenerate, i.e. instead of having an even distribution of elements in the classes, one class (or a few classes) become occupied by a finite fraction of all the elements of the system.’ Wikipedia

      The classic ecological example of a transition state is passenger pigeons. At a certain population mortality exceeds recruitment and the pigeon population collapses.

      Ever seen pure, supercooled water nucleate?


      Cool aye? What seems not cool is the storm of trivial dissimulaton fueled by malice and resentment. One could wonder about the motivation – but frankly it is all a bit distasteful. This has been characterised as a distraction – which has brought about a collective whine on selectivity and hypocrisy. But really – the big problem is that it is just super uncool.

      • “Boltzmann – and indeed Bose-Einstein – distributions can be viewed as purely statistical constructs in a process that might be expected to involve velocity and energy distributions. Bose-Einstein has been used – for instance – in ecology, network theory, evolution, information theory – for departures from randomness.”


    • Josh,

      I wouldn’t bother to rebut your points as im sure its a fair assessment in your view and probably has elements of truth. I don’t agree that Judy is being hypocritical in saying it was a hijacking and a distraction for her. It looked that way to me as well. Web did raise a legitimate question and a fair criticism even if it was malicious intent that we know he is capable of. If they had just ignored it or used some rhetorical devises to attack him then I would say she was hypocritical. Instead they took his skeptical arguments and rebutted point by point.

  57. Maybe the blog should be renamed “Joshua Etc.”??

    I thought Fanboy was supplanting him for most annoying participant, I’ll never doubt again.

    • No cwon14, you have it wrong.

      The blog name should be: Joshua, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, …

  58. McAuliffe’s election overlapped a bit with Mann.
    “McAuliffe appointed dozens of businesspeople, environmental activists and lawmakers to the commission and charged them with producing a report within one year on ways to combat climate change”
    I believe an appointee was Mann.
    “The McAuliffe administration is working on a formal response to the proposed regulations that calls for changes that would take into account Virginia’s efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, such as reliance on ‘nuclear energy’.”
    Backing natural gas and nuclear. It wasn’t as bad as we thought.

  59. Terry McCrann reported on a talk last night by Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute. Extracts:

    … China is now the world’s single biggest source of CO2 emissions by far, approaching one-third of the global total; with India following behind. [But] the biggest increases in coal use and CO2 emissions had been recorded by Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. In Indonesia alone, this has given over 100 million people access to electricity — and critically, they were really only getting started on their power usage. …

    Bryce discussed the energy reality under five headings: scale, the centrality of energy for wealth and freedom, coal as the pivot, the big fibs of renewables, and iteration equalled innovation.

    The world used 256 million barrels of oil equivalent (mboe) of energy every day. About one-third of that is actual oil, 87 per cent in total comes from oil, coal and gas. Barely 2 per cent came from wind, solar and biomass — the renewable that kills people rather than just birds as wind does. The rest is of course nuclear and hydro.

    Over the last decade global CO2 emissions have risen 29 per cent — and the six billion people not in the developed world, are just getting started on their energy consumption. The additional energy will be produced mostly by increased use of coal. As Bryce detailed, over the last 20 years some 800 million people have been given access to electricity by the use of coal; only 65 million have got it from wind and solar. Coal usage has been growing by 2 mboe per day every year. That is more than three times the entire total of existing solar energy in the world.

    The big fib — I‘d describe it as the ultimate mother of all lies — is that renewable energy could be the answer to the world’s appetite for energy. Just to meet the growth in energy demand — not to make any inroad into that 87 per cent of total carbon-based supply — would require installing wind farms covering the area of the UK every year, he explained. That’s one Manhattan — the island, not the institute — every day.


    You can see Bryce’s lecture at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crefcQpwA5w

    • Good post Faustino. The 3rd world deserves this. Maybe the more isolated communities could benefit from small scale solar DC systems such that our pioneering farmers once did, a long time ago, since it would be impracticable/uneconomic to extend AC transmission to cover these isolated communities.

      • Err. Our farmers had DC generators but no solar back then.

      • We got the grid in moved from diesel generator

      • We got the grid in 1964. Before that we had a 4 HP Lister diesel engine driving 110 V generator (a very odd voltage that one! :) ), with many many batteries. But we still had to start the generator if we want to use the washing machine.

    • I was there at the HV McKay lecture and Dinner.Robert Bryce
      is passionate about King Coal.

    • Also, try upgrading or replacing thousands of wind turbines over vast areas without friendly “bodies” like that European Union which used to be so chirpy before 2008. The turbines might be renewable, but who’ll renew them? And if you elect to dismantle, who’ll take the removable bits? How much installation art do you need? How many concrete bases do you want as memorials to the Great Green Folly?

    • Faustino,

      Excellent comment. Thank you. I’ll now watch the video.

    • Excellent speech. Many memorable points and stats. To pick just one: 40% of the world livers in energy poverty. They need more energy, not less.

      It would be great if the climate cultists and renewable energy advocates would watch this with an open mind and willing to think about the message.

  60. Robert Bryce traced the close links between increased access
    to efficient fossil energy and escape from breadline poverty.
    Accounts of ‘green’ energy are largely jest myth.

  61. This seems to be Australian hour. I’m sure that Webby will be following it keenly in order to appreciate our antipodean wisdom and directness, and our capacity to proffer sound advice without need for complex models of dubious validity. Webby, come on in, the water’s fine; just mind the sharks. Six months in Oz will do you the world of good.

    • Like some road users that undertake a personality change (similar to abrupt climate change) when he gets behind the wheel. WHT seems to adopt a persona just for his interactions with Judith’s blog. I’m 97% certain that he would be a perfectly normal person to meet and converse with face to face – so long as you don’t reveal that you come from Australia!

  62. Serfs (and cowgirls) aren’t so impressed with telescopic on high
    long distance expert pronouncements re the antipodes.

  63. Faustino,

    No sharks up here, mate. The crocs eat them.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  64. From the article:
    A new Railroad Commission of Texas map shows more than 100 existing and planned spots in Texas where drivers can fuel up their natural gas vehicles.

    Now there are 60 public fueling stations and 44 private stations. Next year, 67 more stations are expected to open. So far, Texas has more than 7,100 natural gas vehicles.

    “These numbers show that Texas is solving the old chicken-and-egg problem,” said Railroad Commissioner David Porter, in a press release. “Fleets are buying more natural gas vehicles because we have more stations. And the more vehicles they buy, the more natural gas stations get built.”

    Porter has organized a Texas Natural Gas Summit in Austin on Oct. 23. You can get information here.

    The summit is free, open to the public and will include the latest natural gas vehicle technology for commercial and personal use, as well as information and workshops for fleet managers and oil field operators. Job hunters can connect with potential employers.


  65. From the article:

    With limited evidence, several rival theories have been proposed about the event that sparked this period, such as a collapse of the North American ice sheets, a major volcanic eruption, or a solar flare.

    However, in a study published in The Journal of Geology, an international group of scientists analyzing existing and new evidence have determined a cosmic impact event, such as a comet or meteorite, to be the only plausible hypothesis to explain all the unusual occurrences at the onset of the Younger Dryas period.

    Researchers from 21 universities in 6 countries believe the key to the mystery of the Big Freeze lies in nanodiamonds scattered across Europe, North America, and portions of South America, in a 50-million-square-kilometer area known as the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) field.

    Microscopic nanodiamonds, melt-glass, carbon spherules, and other high-temperature materials are found in abundance throughout the YDB field, in a thin layer located only meters from the Earth’s surface. Because these materials formed at temperatures in excess of 2200 degrees Celsius, the fact they are present together so near to the surface suggests they were likely created by a major extraterrestrial impact event.

    In addition to providing support for the cosmic impact event hypothesis, the study also offers evidence to reject alternate hypotheses for the formation of the YDB nanodiamonds, such as by wildfires, volcanism, or meteoric flux.


  66. Moving beyond the science of complexity and uncertainty – anathema to some – we get to a practical and pragmatic multi-gas strategy in a humane social and economic framework with 12 ‘phenomenal’ ways to save the world.


    Which would be preferable – progress or ongoing policy paralysis?

    The problem of webbly is that he is aggressively and bombastically certain that he is right – but that certainty is based on a very superficial understanding of Earth sciences.
    The Bose-Einstein debacle reveals again the recourse to bad faith that is a feature of the discourse. He comes here to abuse and denigrate and goes elsewhere to misrepresent and malign the people he is ‘monitoring’ on climate etc. It is a manifestation of a psychopathology of the climate war – not to be taken seriously as rational discourse.

    I have been looking at realclimate and ATTP recently – I think I will stop now.

    • The real travesty here in the US is that environmentalists are running agencies, like the EPA, but others also, and the environmentalists are against nuclear power. I’m not convinced that ACO2 will result in a catastrophe, but I would still be for more nuclear power here in the US and elsewhere in the world, were it my business to tell other countries what to do.

      On another topic, what do you think of the Catalonian rebellion, the Scottish rebellion, and the idea that the UK could leave the EU. In no particular order or combination.

      • “The real travesty here in the US is that environmentalists are running agencies, like the EPA, but others also, ….”

        The perversion of governance that is occurring here is troubling. I am thinking sedition may be patriotic…and that is not a very comfort state of mind.

      • wrong place

        The motivation seems to be both psychological and sociological. Psychologically because they have been buttressed by ideas of consensus too long – and abused too many anti-science sceptics – to make acceptance of the science of complexity and uncertainty a bridge too far. Thus they need to stridently discredit Curry, Tsonis and whoever else is deemed to have stepped out of line. You will find it here with Joshua, Webbly, Willard, Michael, etc – and everywhere else in the blogospheric battle fields of the climate war. Sociologically because it is linked to progressive ambitions to transform societies and economies. Thus a world that is not warming is undermines both the psychological constructs around in and out groups and the political ambitions that are the most potent expression. The ground they are finding is shifting under them and they are in a losing struggle to shore up the battlements crumbling around them.

      • The question is what is the wreckage they will leave?

      • Rob E. I’m not sure there’s a full blown conspiracy to hijack global warming for establishment of a progressive dictatorship – or a progressive “democracy.” I do know that those who subscribe to CAGW AND want drastic measures, such as an almost zero-carbon existence NOW, are predominately “progressive” and have no qualms about a all-powerful government.

        Me, I’m for the rule of law; limited government; and much individual freedom. That’s because I truly believe that’s the essence of what made the USA a great technological nation. It took not only the inventions, but also the social platform necessary to realize the benefits of same.

      • jim2

        What I wonder about isL “is there a point where democratic institutions fail because of a loss in confidence by the governed in the institutions is eroded?” To be clear jim2…it is a question and no a pretext for advocacy. You might say, looking for something in the user’s manual. This question of course goes back a long way. (Thinking of Washington’s farewell address) Oh well, sorry Jim2, Rob…the evening news has been on.

      • Unlikely in the history of the world, that one tree has ever before
        had such climatic effect or economic and political ramifications.
        Talk about if a tree falls in the forest and nobody …


      • mwgrant. From the article:

        When James Madison spoke to the First Congress he proposed 20 amendments for a Bill of Rights, and not the 10 we all know about. So what did Congress delete from the final list that was ratified by the states?

        There were some very significant deletions as his proposed list went through the House and Senate, and Madison himself took part in the decisions to edit out some of his own ideas.

        That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

        That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”


      • You are the bearer of gifts tonight.

        Somehow I thought you might bring up Madison. He and Washington really seemed to have human nature figured out. … political parties and an occasional rebellion.

        Then there are your micelle papers…I snagged Rodenbush but could not get the other. It is a tease with “Bose-Einstein’ appearing in the one sentence. I need to spend some time with it, but you might say it seems to be a ‘small’ thing :O)

        Thank you on all counts.

      • People lost sight of the fact that bosons can obey Bose-Einstein stats without a BEC coming into play.

      • “People lost sight of the fact that bosons can obey Bose-Einstein stats without a BEC coming into play.”

        Again and again. I think the format of blog comments is a general factor. People coming in at different times…I think a wooden stake should still be kept handy,

    • I go to Real Climate occasionally to remind myself what’s good about Climate, Etc and even WUWT.

  67. I seem in fact to have been put on a blocked list at ATTP – for science dense discussion about why dynamic sensitivity and a relatively modest rate of warming in the 20th century is not contradictory. Odd as hell really – but not unexpected in the hothouse atmosphere of a climate alarmist echo chamber. Here’s a short version of a quite unremarkable comment that entirely disappeared just before I was put on a banned list.

    ‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

    Again – here’s the article – http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/ – discussing the lack of contradiction between dynamic climate sensitivity and a modest rate of warming in the 20th century. If there are any actual refutations that involve actual science – as opposed to repetitive blather disputing data and interpretations offered by Wally Broecker- by all means.

    The Wally Broecker graph and link to the paper is here – http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/06/week-in-review-26/#comment-626544

    Unsurprisingly it shows CO2 and variation based on a Greenland ice core. Remember that this was 1975.

  68. ACO2 is simply ruining world food supplies. The proof:

    World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates
    WASDE: Corn Yield Raised to 171.7 Bushels, Production Boosted to Record-High 14.395 Billion Bushels

    WASDE: Soybean Crop Raised to Record 3.913 Billion Bushels, Yield Inches Upward to 46.6 Bushels

    WASDE: World Wheat Production Could Soar to 720 Million Tons

    WASDE: Forecasts for Total Meat Production Reduced

    WASDE: U.S. Rice Production Forecast Down 10.5 Mil.

    WASDE: 2014 Cotton Production Reduced Nearly 1.0 Mil. Bales


  69. That interview with Carl Munch brings up the point that ocean warming/cooling in response to atmospheric warming/cooling, can be expected to have long lags. So if indeed oceans are now warming, this could be in response to the 1970-1998 atmosphereic warming. And that we should expect such ocean warming to cease in response to the current 18-year pause.

  70. From the article:

    The administration official calling House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) office last week had an odd request.

    Could the Justice Department get some help leaking information about the IRS’s scrutiny of conservative groups? asked Brian Fallon, a top spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder.

    Apparently thinking he had reached the office of Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), Fallon said the department wanted congressional staffers to get documents to selected reporters so that officials could comment on them “before the majority” did.

    After Issa spokesman Frederick Hill replied that Oversight Committee staffers would have to examine those documents first, the line went silent, and Fallon placed the call on hold for three minutes.

    When he returned to the line, Fallon was “audibly shaken,” according to an account of the conversation that Issa recounts in a letter sent to Holder.

    The Justice official then said there had been a “change in plans,” that no documents would be released on Friday and that the main reason for the call was to seek a thaw in relations between the department and Oversight Republicans.

    Issa said it’s clear that the Justice official meant to call Democratic staff and argued the mix-up is proof that President Obama’s administration and Cummings have been collaborating to “prejudice the committee’s work through under-the-table coordination.”