Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips

by Judith Curry

Climate depression is real.  Just ask a scientist. – Madeleine Thomas

Wow.  Here I was, hard at work on my long promised post on clouds, and I spotted this article on twitter.  Much easier to write about this one than about clouds.

At Grist, Madeleine Thomas has penned an article Climate depression is real.  Just ask a scientist. Excerpts:

Two years ago, Camille Parmesan, a professor at Plymouth University and the University of Texas at Austin, became so “professionally depressed” that she questioned abandoning her research in climate change entirely.

“I felt like here was this huge signal I was finding and no one was paying attention to it,” Parmesan says. “I was really thinking, ‘Why am I doing this?’” She ultimately packed up her life here in the States and moved to her husband’s native United Kingdom.

“In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding system, and when I give public talks in the U.S., I have to devote the first half of the talk to [the topic] that climate change is really happening,” says Parmesan, now a professor at Plymouth University in England.

From depression to substance abuse to suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, growing bodies of research in the relatively new field of psychology of global warming suggest that climate change will take a pretty heavy toll on the human psyche as storms become more destructive and droughts more prolonged.

“I don’t know of a single scientist that’s not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost,” Parmesan is quoted saying in the National Wildlife Federation’s 2012 report, “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared.”

Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. — and co-author of the National Wildlife Federation’s report — calls this emotional reaction “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” a term she coined to describe the mental anguish that results from preparing for the worst, before it actually happens.

What’s even more deflating for a climate scientist is when sounding the alarm on climatic catastrophes seems to fall on deaf ears. “How would that make you feel? You take this information to someone and they say they don’t believe you, as if it’s a question of beliefs,” says Jeffrey Kiehl, senior scientist for climate change research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. “I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about facts.”

“I could imagine that if scientists start to talk about how they’re feeling about the issue and how emotional they’re feeling about the issue, those who are critical about climate change would seize that information and use it in any way they could to say that we should reject their science,” Kiehl says.

It’s only natural then that many climate scientists and activists often feel an extreme pressure to keep their emotions in check, even when out of the spotlight.

“You don’t just start talking about unbelievably fast sea-level rise at a cocktail party at a friend’s house,” Tidwell says. “So having to deny the emotional need to talk about what’s on your mind all the time … those are some of the burdens that climate aware scientists and activists have to endure.  But nobody talks about how it makes them feel personally.”

So how does a climate scientist handle the stress? Van Susteren offers several “climate trauma survival tips” for those in the field. Meditation and therapy are two, as are taking particular care to reinforce boundaries between work and one’s personal life. But she also says being honest is just as important. “[Don’t] believe that you are invulnerable,” she writes. “In fact, admitting what you are going through makes you more resilient.”

And a dose of honesty may be more than just therapeutic. Some real talk about how we’re all screwed may be just what the climate movement needs. “Forgive my language here, but if scientists are looking for a clearer language to express the urgency of climate change, there’s no clearer word that expresses that urgency than FUCK,” [Grist’s Brentin] Mock writes.

Perhaps it’s time for those deeply involved in climate science to come forward about the emotional struggle, or at the very least, for those in mental health research and support to start exploring climate change psychology with more fervor.

“There’s a taboo talking about it,” Lertzman says, adding that the tight-lipped culture of the scientific community can be difficult to bridge. “The field of the psychology of climate change is still very, very young … I believe there are profound and not well-recognized or understood psychological implications of what I would call being a frontliner. There needs to be a lot more attention given to frontliners and where they’re given support.”

JC reflections

Oh my, where to start with this one.  Lets try this:

I feel your pain.  Circa 2007 I felt the same way you did, and ran around turning off lights and unplugging things, feeling really uncomfortable about the carbon footprint of myself and my surroundings.  But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief –  based on the IPCC consensus.  That is, I believed in the consensus without having done a real detailed assessment of my own.  Then when climategate triggered me to closely examine everything, notably the IPCC’s attribution argument, I realized that the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998.  Once you raise questions about 20th century attribution, then your angst about impacts that you think are attributable to AGW becomes much less justified.

In terms of tips, try reading some literature on history, philosophy and sociology of science – you will become more humble as a scientist and less likely to believe your own hype.  Read Richard Feynman.  Hang out at Climate Etc.  Listen seriously to a serious skeptic.

If these strategies don’t work, try learning about aberrant psychologies, such as the God complex and paranoia and look in the mirror (there are probably others, but I don’t know that much psychology myself).

And also inform yourself about psychological hardiness (something I learned from days at U. Chicago and hanging out with grad students in Salvatore Maddi’s group).  Excerpt from Wikipedia:

The coping style most commonly associated with hardiness is that of transformational coping, an optimistic style of coping that transforms stressful events into less stressful ones. At the cognitive level this involves setting the event into a broader perspective in which they do not seem so terrible after all. At the level of action, individuals high in hardiness are believed to react to stressful events by increasing their interaction with them, trying to turn them into an advantage and opportunity for growth, and in the process achieve some greater understanding.

The ‘pre-traumatic stress’ thing clicked a link in my mind to my old U. of Chicago pal Colonel Paul Bartone, a military psychologist and a member of the hardiness group.  The following paper seems relevant:  A Model for Soldier Psychological Adaptation in Peacekeeping Operations.  I think these concepts are relevant for what is going on with Parmesan et al.  Seems like skeptics are more hardy?

The psychology of all this is probably pretty interesting, and worthy of more investigation.   But Jeff Kiehl is right – whining scientists aren’t going to help either the science or their ’cause.’

cartoon

517 responses to “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips

  1. Lance wallace

    “How would that make you feel? You take this information to someone and they say they don’t believe you, as if it’s a question of beliefs,” says Jeffrey Kiehl, senior scientist for climate change research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. “I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about facts.”

    Precisely describes how we deniers feel.

    • Unfortunately, consensus opinions on global warming seem to be based more on beliefs than facts.

      The chain of events after Climategate emails surfaced in late Nov 2009 has weakened, rather than strengthened, confidence in government science.

    • Lance wallace | October 29, 2014 at 3:24 pm | Reply

      “How would that make you feel? You take this information to someone and they say they don’t believe you, as if it’s a question of beliefs,” says Jeffrey Kiehl, senior scientist for climate change research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. “I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about facts.”

      Precisely describes how we deniers feel.

      Oh, really.
      Then I fear for your immortal soul, also.

      The problem is, that it is exactly a religion. And one doesn’t know that it is religious belief.
      Just as mad as the silly terrorists have. And they have reasonably good excuse, for being so confused.

      You know, it’s all the fault of those silly atheists, as they promote the notion that one could actually not have any religious beliefs.
      That is a certain path to doom and folly. It like the South Park story of Eric
      lacking patience and ending up in 3000 year future with the talking sea otters, and such.
      A major advantage the “religious types” even the Mormons, is at least they
      know that they operating under religious beliefs- and it’s “normal” to lack a bit of faith. And in the end, of course, you settle down and you simply and quite rationally, hate the French.

  2. “that the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998. Once you raise questions about 20th century attribution, then your angst about impacts that you think are attributable to AGW becomes much less justified.”

    Right on JC.

    • Interesting that if you add up the periods noted above for which there is no explanation of warming or cooling you find that there is no explanation for 59 years out of a 90 year span. Depending upon which starting point is selected, you could extend that to include the on-going “hiatus” and have a total of 73 years out of the last 104 years for which there is explanation of warming or cooling. And yet we are expected to panic?

    • Perhaps it would be useful for one of the climate scientists to explain why what appears to be a majority actually buy in to CAGW.

      We keep getting told that 97% of scientists believe in CAGW.

      Perhaps if a true believer in the climate field can explain why the pause and other contradicting evidence hasn’t shaken his/her faith or made them at least a “moderate to slight” warmer.

      • The pause fails to pass statistical tests. Is that a good enough reason to maintain my perspective? The pause evidence is rather weak.

        It is still as warm as 1998 when it should be cooling without the effect of CO2.

        The radiative properties of CO2 are what they are.

        And in my opinion 0% of climate scientists believe in CAGW, for various reasons.

        Perhaps you could guess a few.

      • PA it is simple the 97% know that where the funding is.

      • If you read the 97% study by Cook et al. you will find that the actual number is for those papers that indicate that human activity has had some effect on climate in the 20th century.

        But the result has been twisted in several ways: first,the claim has morphed into a claim that the consensus is that human activities are the most significant driver of climate in the 20th century, and then, going a bit further, that human activities will result in catastrophic climate change.

        Even if the Cook paper weren’t junk science, it does not make the claims that are attributed to it. When someone makes one of those stronger claims, they are lying.

      • John Carpenter

        “It is still as warm as 1998 when it should be cooling without the effect of CO2.”

        And you know it should be cooling how?

      • John

        Prof Parmesan is fortunate to be teaching at Plymouth.the coastline and historic Barbican and Hoe are full of natural beauty and historic interest.

        From the university you can see nearby dartmoor said to be the finest climate laboratory in Europe due to the number of artefacts that can be found.

        Prof Parmesan might be able to Put things into a less frightening context by reading the copious literature and actually visiting the place.

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmoor

        In the archives in Exeter are many fine records and these, combined with personal visits to the Moor by the Prof will demonstrate that at times the past was warmer and colder than today and the physical evidence for this can still be found in many places

        Tonyb

      • John,

        Pick your answer

        The IPCC’s chart of the radiative forcings…

        or It’s the Sun stupid

        try this

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

        or this

        http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

      • John Carpenter

        Bob, from a climate sensitivity perspective an inactive sun should make little difference. I guess it’s not the sun until it is the sun. I don’t see how the links you offered help your argument.

      • ‘Timendi causa est nescire – Ignorance is the cause of fear.’
        Seneca.

      • Well the effect of the sun depends on the climate sensitivity, if climate sensitivity is low, then the sun has little effect. If sensitivity is high then the sun could have a larger effect.

        From the cites I posted, it seems CO2 forcing is larger than the total of all forcings, so If you remove the CO2 forcing, then the net forcing would be negative, thus cooling.

        Its all pretty straight forward.

      • David Springer

        Then again maybe clouds are a negative, not positive, feedback and CO2 driving up temperature against negative feedback from clouds is like trying to piss up a rope.

        Just sayin’

      • John Carpenter

        I dunno Bob, I would think if climate sensitivity was low, i.e. the climate is not too sensitive to CO2 forcing, then the sun would have more of an effect than if CS was high. It appears that the surface temp increase hiatus would suggest CS is not as high as reported since there appears to be a balancing.

      • John Carpenter – why do you refer to CS as if it’s a fixed value? Do you have any proof that is the case? It could vary month to month as far as you know.

      • John Carpenter

        jim2, I understand CS as a range of values, like from 1.5 to 4.5 C per doubling of CO2. It is an equilibrium emergent value, so I dont see how it could vary from month to month. So when I refer to CS on the lower side, I an referring to a value closer to 1.5 rather than a value of 4.5. Observational evidence would support a lower value for CS at this time while theoretically it could be higher. You could look at CS as a PDF. I don’t know if it is really a fixed value, but I don’t see it as a variable since it is an emergent value. Natural variability gets in the way of knowing what that CS value may actually be. My point to Bob is that if CS is really on the lower end of the range, then variation in sun activity would have a larger affect on our climate than if CS was on the higher end of the range. If CS was high, i.e. the climate is very sensitive to CO2 forcing, you would expect there to be little influence by natural variation, like the sun, to affect that forcing. The CO2 forcing would swamp out the natural variation signal. The surface temp hiatus suggests that CO2 forcing is not strong enough to swamp out effects of natural variation, hence sensitivity to CO2 forcing appears to be on the lower end of the range.

      • John Carpenter, CS depends on the sensitivities of the sum of the components of the system. The oceans would be the least sensitive to change and the stratosphere close to the most sensitive to change. Snow fields and glaciers are sensitive to different things than deserts and oceans. Assuming the LIA existed and as a result there were more expansive snow fields, CS would have been more sensitive to black carbon, seismic activity and tidal forces than to changes in radiant forcing. The oceans are more sensitive to solar forcing, but have a much slower response than the stratosphere. All that should combine into something that is more chaotic than most folks are capable of dealing with.

        So let’s assume that chaos is the primary cause of PTSS and reduce regulations on Valium so more scientists can cope.

  3. You forgot the most important coping mechanism… the cartoon :)

  4. The recursive behaviour of many climate scientists would most definitely lead to some sort of disorder. Think of how many of them espouse broad statements of guidance to the globe, but refuse to debate. Think of how many publish policy impacting papers, but don’t share their data or methods.

    Eventually the conscience catches up and becomes a precurser impacting psychological behavior moving forward.

  5. But the writer of the article actually won some award on the topic.

    How does one formally turn away from what originally gave one fame?

    • To me, the article reads like something from the Onion. I couldn’t stop chuckling.

      Soon we will have “trigger warnings” where comments skeptical of CAGW will have to be screened out for fear of causing psychological stress.

      More cartoons, please. It is important to continue to point out how silly this is.

      • Look around. Many papers just not accepting / printing such comments to avoid the discussion. Not difference in impact other than they don’t think you’re sufficient adult to deal with the idea that somebody doesn’t share the CAGW concepts.

  6. I used to work on geriatric neurodegenerative disease and now work on brain cancer, median survival 14.1 months; yet this stupid woman wants to talk about ‘pre-traumatic stress disorder’?

    • People’s beliefs justify their actions. In this case she believes that the world and millions will be harmed if immediate actions are not taken. Beliefs do not have to be accurate to be sustained. Religions are a prime example of the behavior.

      • Sometimes ’tis the other way around. People start believing all kinds of things that justify the behavior they are already engaged in.

        Andrew

      • True. Sad, but true

      • @Rob
        Then the Left should have a great deal of sympathy for the right to life people who think abortion is murder. I’d say they have as much sympathy for those folks as I have for Miss Thomas.

    • DocM, I bet most folks in your line of work indeed have a way of “putting things in perspective” as JC’s hardiness school claims. But that is a particularly harrowing game of inches you are engaged in.

  7. This is just S.A.D.

  8. “I felt like here was this huge signal I was finding and no one was paying attention to it,”
    “But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus. That is I believed in the consensus, without having done a real detailed assessment of my own. Then when climategate triggered me to closely examine everything”

    Says it all.

  9. The problem doesn’t lie there it lies here. My CAGW studious friend insists that the difficulty is that skeptics won’t look at the most recent (4-5 years) science but instead insist that analysis incorporate historic data in the discussion.

    What to do? What to do? Think I’ll have a pre-anxiety beverage out of an abundance of caution.

    • I would be interested in knowing what revelations have happened in the last 4-5 years that are difficult for skeptics. The last 4-5 years has been better for the skeptics than the CAGW crowd IMHO.

      In this time period;
      1. The “pause” has moved from the we can ignore to we must explain range.
      2. Climategate.
      3. IPCC develops a report, and leaves out the calculation for most likely value for sensitivity, leading to an independent report that shows it to be below the concern threshold by the IPCC’s own definition of 2 degrees C.
      4. Hanson supports nuclear energy.
      5. Extreme weather refuses to cooperate.
      6. Certain scientists move to a more skeptical stance.

      These are just a few things that I came up with in a few brief moments, not sure where your friend is coming from.

      • As do I. I cannot get detail, only the rhetoric. Therin lies the reason for apply medicine (beverage) for my pre-anxiety. Since I have no anxiety with which to share with him figure I better be safe than sorry. Apologies for leaving out my sarcasm font.

      • A fan of @MORE@ discourse

        ATAndB  “what revelations have happened in the last 4-5 years that are difficult for skeptics?”

        Six tough realities for denialists

        • Sea-level rise without pause or obvious limit
        • Ocean-heat rise without pause or obvious limit
        • Ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limit
        • 2014 shaping up as hottest-ever
        Science & art unite, denialism left out.
        • Pope Francis; `nuff said.

        FOMD’s prediction  All six realities are destined to accelerate & intensify, year-by-year, through many coming decades.

        \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}

      • Actually, I have a serious post as it pertains to the topic of “psychology and CC”. I’ve been supplied with resources purporting to be about the psychology of CC communication. This is such a grey area for me as I fear it treads in to psychobabble, but I’m not educated in the least about psychology.

        Here are the resources:”Kahan et al., The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risk, Nature Climate Change, May 2012
        Druckman, Stunted Policy Support, opinion, Nature Climate Change, July 2013
        Corner and Groves, Commentary, Breaking the Climate Change Communications Deadlock, Nature Climate Change, September 2014.

        The Druckman piece is an opinion. All 3 are pay to view and I don’t care enough about continuing the debate about AGW/CAGW to invest in the subscription so if anyone here has researched these and can offer perceptions I’d appreciate the commentary and available references.

        Hope this is not too off topic. If it is, please forgive the indiscretion and ignore the posting here.

      • Danny,
        Yeh, I got that you were being sarcastic, but was wondering if you could give specifics. I like your remedy, though. Some others could use a dose of that.

        FOMD,
        1. Sea level rise likely without pause or limit since before the industrial age — it appears to be happening, but not as a result of CO2.
        2. Ocean heat rise — may or may not be happening, we do not have enough data to really say for sure. Based on the likely sea level rise that started before the industrial age, it is also likely that ocean heat rise started before CO2 output.
        3. Ice mass loss in the Artic, but increase in the Antarctic appears to be simply evidence of natural climate change.
        4. Hottest ever? I think there is pretty good evidence that is not true. I believe Phil Jones has a quote something like neither the trend nor the value is unprecedented.
        5&6. No idea what your last two points are about, and suspect that I still will not understand even after you explain it to me again.

      • I think you’ve confused me with fan??? Is that possible? I didn’t post 6 items.

      • fan,

        you are such a clown.

        I know you know that sea level has been rising for as long as mankind has kept track and that you are also aware that the rate of rise is not increasing.

        I know you are smart enough to know that the rise in OHC is so miniscule as not to matter.

        I know you are aware that your loss of ice mass applies only to the Arctic and that if measured gobally, would falsify your statement.

        I know you can’t point to any negative impacts having occur to date in 2014 from it being perhaps the hottest year ever.

        I have no idea what your last two items mean, but then you probably don’t as well.

        In other words fan, you are still the fan of dishonest discourse.

      • No, I did separate the comments for you with the comments for him. The first paragraph to you then

        FOMD,
        and the comments for fan.

        Hope that clears that up.

      • Gotcha. I lost the thread after falling off. ;)

      • Well your remedy does have certain side effects ; )

      • Science and art unite? Foamy is hallucinating

      • FOMD: • 2014 shaping up as hottest-ever

        That statement is Simply Not True. No self-respecting scientist would ever say anything resembling that. The whole “hottest on record” thing is dodgy enough; but the “hottest EVAH” takes it to a whole new level.

        Posting falsehoods here is not likely to gain you much respect.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        FOMD remarks “2014 [is] shaping up as hottest-ever”

        fizzymagic froths “That statement is Simply Not True. No self-respecting scientist would ever say anything resembling that.”

        LoL … fizzymagic, life must be a burden to you, `cuz scientists *ARE* saying:

        The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September.

        Estimated trends and accelerations [in Antarctic ice-mass loss], combined, are of sufficient amplitude that they cannot be explained using a stochastic only model

        Polar melting is accelerating, so is sea-level rise

        Good on `yah, rational, respectful, responsible, plain-talking scientists!

        \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}

      • Look, squirels!

        Can’t you understand that sea level is rising at 1.8 x 10^8 nM per century? That’s some BIG numbers! We’ll all die, I tells ya!

      • FOMD says:

        • “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September.“

        Are you really this unable to actually read English? You somehow managed to turn “highest on record” turn into “highest ever.” Is it possible that anyone with basic logic skills could fail to understand that those are not the same?

        I refuse to believe you are that stupid. I am forced to conclude that you are purposely being mendacious.

      • “Six tough realities for denialists

        • Sea-level rise without pause or obvious limit
        • Ocean-heat rise without pause or obvious limit
        • Ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limit
        • 2014 shaping up as hottest-ever
        • Science & art unite, denialism left out.
        • Pope Francis; `nuff said.”

        The first three aren’t new at all FOMD, and have been hyped precisely because the atmospheric temperatures have ceased to rise. In reality the sea level has been rising as a result of the warming that started in 1850-ish. OHC is a joke, go an do the 4 Hiroshima/second sum put out by SkS and calculate the temperature increase, it’s a number very close to zero and unmeasurable in degress C (which is why NOAA use big scary Joules). As for ice mass loss I just watched a scientist explaining to everyone why global warming was the likely cause of ice mass gain in the Antarctic.

        As for 2014 being the hottest year ever, listen to yourselves. When the temperatures failed to rise over the last 18 years we were told it was because the heat was going into the ocean, and was to be expected. So what’s happened now? Why have the oceans suddenly stopped taking in the heat and given us an unmeasurable increase in temperature of a hundredth of a degree or so, well within the error possibilities of our measuring devices.

        You couldn’t make it up, but your are.

        I have to admit though, that for all that, the killer is science and art uniting and leaving denialism out. I’m just wondering which SPM it will appear in in AR6.

      • Nicely raved, ‘Foamy’. Frothy works too.
        ================

      • Thanks, fan, for the little artwork at the end of your replies. I use it as a page marker — while scrolling down, when it appears at the bottom, just keep scrolling ’till it’s at the top. Convenient.

      • Fan, will C&W show 2014 as the hottest year ever? I thought that was the new gold standard.

      • .FOMD
        …”Pope Francis” …is.. “….destined to accelerate and intensify, year by year, through many coming decades”.

        Is there good data on which this statement is based, or is it derived from Climate models alone?

    • Yep.

      Us nasty old, sceptical sceptics keep on insisting on looking at the data, not ‘the science’.

      And the data is pretty unequivocal. If there is any CO2 induced warming it has gone into hiding in the last 20 years. And stubbornly refuses to be found.

      Smart move says I.

      If I was being pursued by a horde of grant-chasing climatologists desperate to capture me prod me poke me and generally ascribe all sort of nastiness to my unremarkable self, I’d be off like a shot too. It may be no coincidence that the heat’s disappearance from thermometers coincided with the huge increase in academic climate studies.

      • “Was there any super-fragil-i-stick heat in the first place?”
        a serf asks.
        “Could that super-fragil-i-stick heat be merely an artifact
        of super-heat-ass-uming-climate-models (by modellers
        in ivory towers wiling away the tenured hours?” )

      • @belinda asks

        ‘Was there any super-fragil-i-stick heat in the first place?’

        H’mm. A moot question.

        But it’s worth noting that, human nature being what it is, people whose status and future employment and career prospects depend on some heat being found somewhere will most likely be a little more diligent in looking for supporting evidence than they will be for the contrary.

        People work at what they’re rewarded to do. There is no money or kudos or status in killing the golden goose.

        It’s not rocket science.

      • Ah, Belinda, Are you looking for your daughter? :)

      • Latimer Alder,

        I admire your ability to write like this. You get the point across so weel and with humour. I just read the three posts (your two and Beth’s) to me wife. We laughed. I’m still giggling. I’ll go and have a beer and giggle a bit longer.

      • @peter lang

        Kind of you to speak admiringly of my style. UK has a long and proud tradition of ridicule and satire going back to the days of Hogarth – and maybe even Chaucer. To my mind the current masters are Chris Booker, Boris Johnson (also Mayor of London) and the incomparable James Delingpole. I commend them to your attention.

        As it happens, I have a personal friend who was recently appointed a Professor (in an unrelated field) at Plymouth University. No doubt she’ll be able to pick out Prof. Parmesan in the Common Room as she’ll be the one weeping uncontrollably and screeching

        ‘Why does nobody notice me? I am the Big Cheese’

        Until recenty Plymouth Uni was most famous for a great course on Naval Architecture (=how to build warships). I wonder how the US style psycho angst will go down among those more used to welding and 21″ guns?

      • Latimer: “Until recenty Plymouth Uni was most famous for a great course on Naval Architecture”

        I believe schools of naval architecture usually have great tanks in which model ships are tested. Not a safe place to be for the professor, given her mental state.

      • @richard (rls)

        :-)

        There is also Plymouth Hoe. On which our great naval hero Sir Francis Drake is reputed to have said

        ‘We have time to finish our game of bowls and still see off the Spanish’

        as the mighty Spanish Armada hove into view up the Channel. He was right. With help from the weather he and his companions saved England from invasion by a hostile foreign power. A real, tangible threat of national extinction was overcome.

        A bit of sang-froid and stiff upper lip goes down well in those parts. The whining introspection of obsessive Yanks worrying about a minor temperature change hundreds of years away maybe not so much.

        I would strongly advise her to avoid the Royal Navy’s Devonport Dockyard when the fleet is in.

      • Latimer, it’s my understanding that Drake’s insistence on finishing his game of bowls was attributable, not to the coolness of his blood, but to the time of day when the Spanish were spotted. However hot his blood, and despite having more weatherly ships than his adversaries, he knew he would have to wait for tidal assistance before he could get at them. Might as well finish his game….

      • Yes, Latimer, to your story above, but it was an unfounded fear that first panicked the Spanish. There is a moderately apt analogue to the present panic about climate. It was at Calais, but Giambelli was not there.
        ———————————-

        H/t Garrett Mattingly’s ‘The Armada’.
        ================

      • Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) | October 30, 2014 at 9:18 am |

        I wonder how the US style psycho angst will go down among those more used to welding and 21″ guns?

        She’ll get joined at the hip, then shot down?

      • The history and traditions of England are fascinating. And love the pubs. One of the few yanks in my crowd that drank bitter.

      • Peter Lang, u mean sorta’
        as in the old riddle?
        ‘Sisters and brothers have I not,
        but that daughter’s mother
        is my mother’s daughter.’

        Hmm … lacks the right rhythm and
        in this case doesn’t compute. )
        Try niece.

      • @rls

        Yep,. We have a lot of history in these parts. We’ve been around here a long time. And plenty of it has left tangible traces.

        All history lovers should try to get to UK at least once. Not only for the pubs but for the sheer amount of stuff to see. London is a great global city (no longer covered in fog nor populated by cheery Dick van Dyke type chimneysweeps*), but there’s a lot more around.

        *We do still have red buses though.

  10. Curious George

    Given the quality of Prof. Parmesan’s research, no wonder she is professionally depressed. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/

    • Great pick up CG, worth areas by anyone interested in Camille’s work. No wonder she is so depressed.

    • Only one subspecies, bayensis, is in trouble, due to habitat loss, not climate change. As a whole, the Edith Checkerspot is ok. The Wikipedia article on this still mentions climate change as the cause.

    • Seems
      that’s all
      it takes,
      Camille,
      one flap
      of a
      butterfly’s
      wing,
      leading
      on
      ter
      Arma_
      geddon.
      Tsk!
      Talk
      about
      looney
      tunes,
      So no
      point
      worryin’
      Camille,
      let’s all
      try’n
      enjoy All
      Hallow’s
      Eve.

      Duhduhduhduhduhduhduhduh
      duh duh duh duh
      duh duh duh duh duh
      duhhh – duh – duh. (That’s all, folks!)

  11. Way to early/late for April Fools Day. Proof positive that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

  12. Svend Ferdinandsen

    I just fear the climate change politics more than the climate change.
    And it is a real fear for something happening now, not for a disaster in 100 years.

    • Hank Zentgraf

      Svend, I agree the politics of climate science hurt far more than elevated warming (with high uncertainty). Governments and scientific associations taking hard positions and discouraging dissent are already hurting society.

  13. Some amusing responses on twitter:

    at last some climate change victims!

    you could make that ‘refugee’ as the poor dear has had to leave USA for UK

    • One down, 1,999,999 to go to get to the millions of climate refugees.

      Though some may count better than me.

      How many climate change refugees have there been?

      No one has published an accurate count, now have they?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Parmesan hid the data. She caused her own stress:

      “Fabricating Climate Doom”

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/

    • Before we just had climate change refugees we had people moving about desperately because of weather which wouldn’t go away.

      These movements were due to “impacts of the first order” to use Hubert Lamb’s expression. Among them were movements inland due to recent sea level rise (10,000 years being pretty recent in geo terms); mega-drought causing the migrations of the Greek dark age and throttling the early civilisations starting around 1200 BC; drought changing populations in Asia around 300 AD; drought and the naughty Nino creeping in on the the Mayans around 800 AD; Mongols etc in the extreme and nasty 14th century weather; cold and drought driving the Manchus and ending the Ming in the latter 1600s. And so on.

      Lucky they didn’t have climate change on top of all that, er, stuff! (Sorry, don’t have any figures on depression for those eras).

  14. Curious George

    This post is full of gems. I like “What’s even more deflating for a climate scientist is when sounding the alarm on climatic catastrophes seems to fall on deaf ears.” Again, and again … really depressing. To top it, “In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding system.”

    • Well… follow the money.

      If creating panic creating fear mongering causes government funding, people whose livelihoods depend on government funding will cause panic creating fear mongering.

    • She must not have figured out how to get a piece of the $2 billion or so a year in federal funding devoted to the subject.

      However I suspect the psychologists have figured out how to do it. Create a new syndrome and convince people they suffer fromit.

    • If creating panic creating fear mongering causes government funding, people whose livelihoods depend on government funding will cause panic creating fear mongering.

      I am trying to follow your logic here.. Are you saying they get depressed because they get a lot of money to spout propaganda and no one is buying. it? Is it an ego thing because no one is buying their BS?

      • I think you are assuming that the thinking is that she is really depressed? I think the bulk of the conversation says otherwise. Without that assumption the logic may flow a bit better. Not sure why you would assume that depression would be logical, either. Do you have clinical trials that support that assumption?

      • Not sure why you would assume that depression would be logical, either.

        First we aren’t talking about clinical depression. I think it is reasonable to have emotional feelings about the implications of one’s research and then be depressed and or burned out when you are ignored by the public. You see in professions like psychiatry where having to deal the issues associated with your work increases the risk of suicide, So your work can affect your emotional state. Finally, most of this was about what about the future, not the current situation,

      • I was responding to the:
        “In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding system.”

        http://capitalresearch.org/2013/07/sue-and-settle-secret-backroom-deals-by-bureaucrats-and-environmentalists-hurt-the-american-economy/
        I can’t get a good number for the amount of profit activist groups get by suing the government and the amount of twisted regulation that results from it.

        The actual amount of budgeted for climate change was 0 in 1988.

        Since then about $221 billion has been spent, $99 billion pre-obama, the rest during the current administration.

        This doesn’t include regulatory cost.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

        There is almost a billion in “International Assistance” alone in fiscal 2014.

        This kind of money creates a feeding frenzy. What we have is a environmental-government complex where lobbying and politicial donations buy government funded studies, handouts, and regulations. The studies fuel the climate concerns. The grant machinery has been hijacked (reading the climate RPFs is entertaining) so that few “skeptical” studies will be funded.

        That was my point – sorry for any confusion.

        The $22.4 in the 2014 includes if memory

  15. The poor dear. How I weep for her angst. How my heart yearns to help her!

    Let me listen to my inner soul a moment and tune into the message it is asking me to convey to Prof. Parmesan. Faintly, but growing by the second, its meaning becomes clear :-)

    Here it is;

    ‘Grow The Fuck Up, Prof. You Are A Self Obsessed Cretin’!

    I hope this simple and yet profound philosophy will sustain her through her trauma.

  16. Judith, I will have some material soon, 2 or 3 weeks if I can find the time to finish it off, which covers cognitive bias in the Consesnus AND ranges over Climate depression too: ‘The psychology of climate psychologization’.

  17. We should pity Prof Parmesan. But our sympathy should not overwrite our memory that despair has been a chronic condition for activists on the Left since at least the early 1970s.

    Atomic war, overpopulation and famine, resource exhaustion, and pollution were unavoidable dooms — unless we made massive changes to our free market and democratic systems. Activists suffered agonies of despair about each of these futures u til time brought relief through falsification of their confident forecasts — and new scenarios of doom.

    More broadly Prof Parmesan demonstrates our society’s FAILure to learn from experience, as we repeat these cycles. Remember that it was not a Einstein who said “insanity is repeating actions but expecting different results.” It’s an adage of AA, who know all about personal dysfunctionality.

    • Curious George

      It is all Ronald Reagan’s fault. He closed lunatic asylums, and their patients found a new asylum at universities.

    • “that despair has been a chronic condition for activists on the Left since at least the early 1970s.”

      Indeed.

      I well remember it when I was at University in the early/mid 1960s.

      The Cuban Missile Crisis got them going a treat, amazing that there is a section of the population that actually welcomes bad sh1t happening, and would happily see humanity wiped out to extirpate their pathetic middle class guilt trip.

      They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

      • LSE students had an intense and passionate debate about the Cuba missile crisis at a point when it appeared Armageddon might be imminent. Why we thought that debate would have any significance to anyone, I can no longer imagine. But the threat of nuclear war was certainly part of my life growing up on Tyneside in the ’50s. Famously, we were at best to get “Four minutes warning” of an attack. But we worried about it far less than the warmists worry about distant and possibly beneficial changes to our climate. A sense of proportion is very important, commonsense even more so. Hopefully in England Prof Parmesan will learn the merits of pausing for a nice cup of tea before responding to potentially unpleasant news.

  18. A fan of @MORE@ discourse

    It’s amazing that so many Climate Etc skeptics choose to remain resolutely ignorant of the surging public impact of climate-change eco-narratives

    Hypothesis  By combining science-skepticism with market-fundamentalism, denialists immerse themselves in “a soothing ignorance that feels like knowledge.”

    What does it feel like, to leave the womb of denialism?

    A Chronicler of Warnings Denied
    Naomi Oreskes Imagines
    the Future History of Climate Change

    Q  Will the force of climate-denial prevail?

    A  I get from the scientific community a feeling that things are going from bad to worse. I hear people in private saying gloomy things they never used to say. You now get the sense that many scientists feel we’re approaching a point of no return. It’s depressing.

    On the slightly more hopeful side, my daughter recently noticed that my TED Talk about climate was getting a lot of attention. “Mom, my friends are telling me what an inspiration you are,” she said. That’s empowering.

    Good on `yah, all who create empowering science-respecting narratives!

    \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}

    • Curious George

      May the Force be with you.

    • A fan of @MORE@ discourse

      A 21st century classic  Randall Munroe’s already-famous (among STEAM professionals) xkcd rising-seas epic Time is acclaimed by many (including FOMD).

      Good on `yah for an outstandingly hope-sustaining science-respecting climate-change narrative, Randall Munroe/xkcd!

      \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}

      • A fan of @MORE@ discourse

        UPDATE  Here’s A much better Time

        Well-suited to share with your kids/grandkids!

        Five stars from FOMD!

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

      • You’re joking right fan? That cartoon is unbearable, awful.
        Here try this one

      • A fan of @MORE@ discourse

        Dick Hertz complains “That [2014 Hugo Award-winning cartoon is unbearable, awful.

        That’s not what Randall Munroe’s creative peers think, eh Climate Etc readers?

        Your special brand of intimate pain is shared, nowadays, by very many denialists, Richard.

        Why oh why, do the world’s artists, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, business leaders, military leaders, and religious leaders … and nowadays, young people especially … overwhelmingly reject denialism?

        The world wonders!

        \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}

      • FOMD: I not only know of this, but voted for it in the Hugo’s.

        Note that it’s set about 12000 years in the future. It’s not obviously hotter there than it is now. Sure, the Mediterranean has dried up (the story line is that the Straits of Gib. are opening), but this is something which has happened before, probably multiple times. It says nothing about CliSci.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Reply below, Simon!

        Thank you for encouraging Climate Etc readers to compare and contrast the artistic works of Randall Munroe/xkcd with the scientific works of James Hansen and the historical works of Naomi Oreskes!

        \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}

    • The Ward Churchill view of the Amerindians

    • Fan: “Hypothesis  By combining science-skepticism with market-fundamentalism, denialists immerse themselves in “a soothing ignorance that feels like knowledge.”

      Perhaps there is a human state of soothing ignorance that feels like knowledge. It would logically require a perception that one has that knowledge; a frailty of groupthink and consensus.

      • It always makes me laugh when people start talking about market fundamentialism. As if, first of all, it has any meaning. And second of all, as if it’s some sort of mental illness. Lewandowsky did this, too. I get the impression it’s much more common outside the USA. I honestly laughed the first time I realized there are people out there who use that term in a serious, non-farcical way.

    • Fan gives a excellent example of Leftist thinking. When challenged he cites fiction — disaster porn — by a history professor. After 50 years of these visions of doom, I not only doubt these stories change any minds — I doubt they’re intended to. Rather, perhaps, they serve to build group cohesion by giving an explicit shared vision of the future. Much like medieval art depictions of Heaven and Hell.

      Perhaps it’s my age showing, but I find the earlier versions more vivid exciting. Steven Spielberg got his first big break producing a classic of disaster porn: “LA 2017”, a 1971 episode of the TV show “The Name of the Game” (see Wikipedia), where the people of Los Angeles live underground to escape the pollution, ruled by a fascist government.

      Only 26 months to go before Doom!

      • FotFMW, I think many of FOMD’s ilk latched onto cAGW when their God died with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      • Or perhaps, if only slightly more sublte, the “Two Minute Hate” of “1984”.

        OT: I thought “Duel” with the facelesss harrasing truck driver was Spielberg’s big break. Guess you can’t have too many big breaks….

      • Petebonk,

        You might be right! I got that from Wikipedia quoting Spielberg: “it opened a lot of doors for me”.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        DocMartyn condemns “FOMD’s ilk”

        LoL  yep, we market-skeptical ilk-brethren even have our own song!

        We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity!

        Resistance is futile, DocMartyn!

        \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}

      • It’s eco-disaster-porn (hope that gets through the filter). Some people like to imagine how the whole of Western civ is going to go up in steam, or something. There are also survivalist types who like this kind of thing, too, only not from a green perspective. It’s human nature to seek emotional relief from quotidian reality and its all-too-real pressures by imagining the thrill of release from all those obligations. Screw the mortgage and my status anxiety, here comes the asteroid/EMP/megastorm/revolution/plague to make all that blissfully irrelevant.

      • Steve,

        That’s a great description of disasyer porn. It’s a genre popular on both Left and Right. For example, Larry Burkett wrote a Christian version: Solar Flare (1996). The Sun destroys civilization leaving the righteous remnant to rebuild.

      • @ Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

        “……….. where the people of Los Angeles live underground to escape the pollution, ruled by a fascist government.”

        Well, you gotta give Spielberg credit: he is batting .500.

      • Bob gets the plus-one award for wild over-the-top craziness when commenting! I doubt anyone on this thread can top that.

      • The Party is just starting.
        ========

      • Kim,

        If the “pause” lasts for years or decades — as some climate scientists (e.g., Prof Curry) believe — the hang-over for science has just begun. It might be long and painful.

        If it ends soon with a warming bang (like the loudly & confidently predicted “super monster El Nino”, still MIA), then the party will be almost beyond imagining.

      • @ Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

        “Bob gets the plus-one award for wild over-the-top craziness when commenting! I doubt anyone on this thread can top that.”

        Thank you!

        Should I start the ‘Fifteen Minute Fame Clock’ now, or shoot for even higher accolades before launching?

      • Bob,

        These threads tend to get dour, or even acrimonious. Injecting humor is a public service. Thanks!

      • Steve postrel,

        You left out zombies.

        Speaking of which, what do you think the odds are of zombies recognizing fan as one of their own?

      • Timg56–I also left out killer bees, killer AI, killer nukes, and sharknados. Megaquakes. Supervolcanos. ET invasions. Gray goo. Giant insects. Homicidal birds. Dragons. Helldemons. Galactus.

    • Science is antiholistic. Suck it up

    • Pay no attention to that man or woeman behind the curtain.

    • We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place

      “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622794/Weve-lost-our-fear-of-hellfire-but-put-climate-change-in-its-place.html

      James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

      One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

      Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change” Lovelock

      Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.
      Take the statement “humans are too stupid to take care of themselves.” This implies that Lovelock has somehow discovered a way to become non-human. By which I mean, he has found a way to circumvent his humanity, to rise above it. He has found Enlightenment! He is Earth’s Prophet!
      There is no avoiding this simple conclusion. Lovelock must not be one of us. How else can he know that we “[h]umans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm.” Gaia must have told him. He could not have figured it out as a human because, as a human, he would be part of the organism.
      http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2156

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Randall Munroe’s/xkcd’s views on climate-change science are no secret …

       

      …  and these views are entirely consonant with James Hansen’s views.

      Isn’t that correct, Simon?

      Good on `yah, Randall Munroe and James Hansen, for sustained, patient, rational, responsible, respectful teachings in regard to climate-science!

      \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}

      • Matthew R Marler

        You are forecasting a 4.5C increase in global mean temp between now and 2100? Conditional on the fact that the forecast (forecasted?) temp increase for the first decade of 2100 did not occur?

        I enjoyed your comments on St Louis. You are aware that the area suffers $$$ in damage and even more in lost lives due to snow, ice and ice storms every winter, right? Average winters kill more people and cause more property damage than hot summers.

        One of the dubious claims of CO2 alarmists is that warming since 1850 was caused partly or entirely by anthropogenic CO2. (along with this is the dubious claim that the temperature record of the Earth surface is representative and accurate, when the oceans have hardly been measured at all until recently.)

        A second dubious claim of the CO2 alarmists is that warming since 1850 has been bad on the whole: bad for agriculture, plant growth, biota generally.

        A third dubious claim of the CO2 alarmists is that CO2 in the future will cause large increases in the global mean surface temperature. You posit 4.5C in 86 years, about half a degree per decade, following 1 1/2 decades of 0 warming.

        A fourth dubious claim of the CO2 alarmists is that all of the consequences of future CO2 increases will be bad: increased drought and flooding, greater crop failures and other biota loss, drowned cities.

        On this blog, you personally specialize in 2 more dubious claims: (a) that you know what James Hansen predicted (I call this dubious because when I read the papers of James Hansen that you cite, you don’t seem to have gotten his predictions correct, as I have shown by quoting them); (b) that mean global temperature has increased as he predicted, whereas the data and his predictions are clearly discrepant (as I and others have shown by quoting him and relating to the evidence.)

        I think it must be clear to readers that you and I view each other pretty much as ignorant dunces.

    • Is this the where the zombies come and then the black babe with the samurai sword kicks some serious butt? I love the fiction of Naomi Oreskes.

    • FOMBS…ever your oily self serving up a dish of unpalatable parables and nostrums, but I take cheer that all we need to do to combat the eco-terrorism of CAGW is ignore all of you and your delusions, your scientism, and you’ll all commit seppuku. I grant you self-righteousness as the one simple act eliminates an eco-terrorist and lowers the population.

      Good on yah, all who follow your principles to their logical conclusion.

  19. You’ve heard of the term “first world problems?”

    Pre-traumatic climate stress syndrome is a vain, spoiled, feeding at the government trough, oblivious to the real uncertainties, first world problem.

  20. Many years ago there was a study that categorized people into, as I recall, five groups. The most liberal group was also the most pessimistic group.

  21. The Grist article also claims that Parmeson was shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for her IPCC work in 2007.

    • delete “was”

    • Don’t forget Mann’s claim to a piece of the Nobel Peace Prize as well. The pieces just keep getting smaller and smaller.

      • As an (ignored) expert reviewer I got a small piece too. It is around here somewhere. Oh crap the cat ate it.

      • The 2014 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to European Union, and since I am an EU citizen, I am a recipient.
        I, like Mann, have a Nobel Prize.

      • I have visited the EU on a number of occasions. Does that mean that I, too, qualify for a small share of the NPP?

    • Delete shared too…

      The Nobel committee official position is it was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore – not the individual scientists.

      Claiming the individual participants won the award would give some IPCC members a Nobel for bad proofreading.

      If you don’t have a little gold medal thingy in your closet you didn’t win a Nobel Prize.

  22. The guy on the corner with the end of the world sign finally has someone that can feel his pain.

  23. More people died from stress after the Japanese Tsunami than died during it.

    The solution to the flurry of activist false claims that induce stress is to allow civil class action lawsuit against them and their benefactors.

  24. We need a new Psych term. Being Alive Stress Disorder
    BASD

  25. Prof Parmesan? She’s a really big cheese at Plymouth University.

    Somewhat frighteningly she is now living only some 30 miles from me. So when the local weather forecasters say there’s a depression over Plymouth now I know why.

    Ps Exeter and the met office is only 15 miles away in the opposite direction. I am encircled!

    Tonyb

    • Tony: Is that the same Plymouth whence the Pilgrims came to America? So they sent many and we returned one?

      • Rls

        Yes, the same. Here are the mayflower steps from which the pilgrims departed.
        http://www.mayflowersteps.co.uk/

        The football team (proper football) is also called the Pilgrims. Just up from the mayflower steps is the barbican and Plymouth hoe from where sir Francis drake is supposed to have finished his game of bowls before engaging with the Spanish armada. This was destroyed not only by drake, but also by a hurricane during a spell of extremely bad weather over several years as the warm decades of the first part of the 16 th century gave way to the bitter cold decades of the last half.
        Tonyb

      • Tony: Thanks for the information. There is so much to learn in England. I do remember proper football, and the vigor with which it was followed. As far as barbican and bowls, I had to look them up; guessing that bowls refers to lawn bowling – not common in the US, but there are clubs in Canada. And the Plymouth hoe? We do use the term (should I say it?), here in Detroit. The Plymouth hoe, however, would be a much more advised tourist attraction.

      • Thought it was down river hoes.

    • If she were worried about rising sea levels and extreme weather you really think this woman would move to Plymouth!

      • Doc

        This is prof Parmesans official job at the Uni

        https://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/150/highlights/lectures/Pages/Camille-Parmesan.aspx

        Also on the staff is prof Iain Stewart who presented ‘climate Wars’ on the tv a few years ago.

        Tonyb

      • WOW! Plymouth gets another Nobel Prize winner :)

      • Uh oh! A Noble (Cause) winning scientist and the newly
        appointed National Marine Aquarium* Chair in PUBLIC
        UNDERSTANDING OF OCEANS and HUMAN HEALTH*
        within the University Marine Institute. :(

        * Er isn’t her expertise in butterfly migration?
        i ;
        * To a serf this sounds so Orwellian … ‘Oceana?’

      • To confound skeptics, all Professor Parmesan need do is point to the period when species were stable. It’s a bit like the period when temps and sea levels stayed much the same. Find that period and you shame us. We’ll be looking such sillies.

        Just pointing to behavioural and geographic variation is, of course, meaningless. When you live around plants and animals you notice them changing locations, strategies, habits, behaviours, patterns and numbers constantly. That’s such a big, big fact I’m sure a professor – who is a Nobel winner (okay, so it was one of those Swedish Emmies you don’t get for science) and of the Atlantic’s 27 brave thinkers of our time – couldn’t miss it. Anymore than she could miss the fact that sea level rise is a dribble which began, this time around, in the 1700s.

        But once she finds that elusive era of static climate, us dopey skeptics will be left looking like Elmer Fudd or the Coyote at the end of a Warner Bros cartoon.

        Wascally wabbit.

    • Dunno, Tony, I found her style somewhat grating.

  26. Dr Curry,

    My advice would be considerably shorter. I’d tell them to “Get a grip”. As in getting a grip on reality. In a world full of real mental health problems, I consider people who apparently can’t handle life because of imaginary fears and the professionals who aid in this behavior (like making up terminology for non-existent conditions) as contemptible.

    • Is it an imaginary fear when the government tells you it is real? I would call it an induced fear. I suspect the condition is very real, even if what is feared is not. Some children are really scared. How can they not be with all this fear mongering going on?

      • David,

        Since when did people start believing in what the government tells them again? For that matter, anyone who takes on faith what someone tells them – at least someone having no track record with them – is a fool. That they then allow themselves to be come fearful makes them the fool twice over.

  27. I have no doubt that believing in CAGW is stressful. So are most extreme beliefs. However the claim that “In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding system…” is laughable. The USGCRP budget is now up to $2.4 BILLION a year. But then most of that just goes to buy scares, of (it’s worse than we thought) catastrophes, so no wonder people are depressed. The depression is funding induced!

    Mind you, paying to be scared is fine, especially at Halloween. But paying to be depressed, not so much.

  28. Climate scientists’ laid bare: ♪ Feeelings…nothing more than feelings

  29. Help is at hand :: ))

    Group therapy tackles climate change anxiety
    Psychotherapist Rosemary Randall counsels people on their feelings of powerlessness and anxiety around climate change issues. In this interview with DW, she explains how this can contribute to a neccesary transformation.
    http://www.dw.de/group-therapy-tackles-climate-change-anxiety/a-17853991

  30. Dietrich Hoecht

    Darn, Tonyb just took my posting point away – Professor Parmesan’s comments being a bit cheesy. Sorry, but this is just too tempting to be politically correct.
    Yes, there are such depressed folks. In Nature magazine a lady wondered if she should go visit the Grand Canyon or just be content with a DVD, on account of the carbon footprint she would leave… I am getting a pre-depression for her. Another one: In a comment on why we should bury our power lines underground a lady affirmed her worry about climate changed violent storms and floods. With burying the lines we will be safer in view of those threats. Never mind that frequency and intensity of storms has significantly decreased.
    The problem is not with intellectuals like Professor Parmesan, but those in the general populace who readily believe the ‘sky-is-falling’ religion or just don’t have the time to do some homework on their own. For those I can only pray.

  31. I’ve long said we’ll feel sorry for the true believers someday. It’s a madness of the crowd, a sad and sorry crowd.
    ==========================

    • madness of the crowd,

      Mad scientists? Really?

    • Just for you Kim and to wrap it up ;-). Although sometimes true..

      “Mad World”

      All around me are familiar faces
      Worn out places, worn out faces
      Bright and early for their daily races
      Going nowhere, going nowhere

      Their tears are filling up their glasses
      No expression, no expression
      Hide my head, I wanna drown my sorrow
      No tomorrow, no tomorrow

      And I find it kinda funny
      I find it kinda sad
      The dreams in which I’m dying
      Are the best I’ve ever had
      I find it hard to tell you
      I find it hard to take
      When people run in circles
      It’s a very, very mad world, mad world

  32. Soma… Soma !!!
    Soma in Aldous Huxley’s
    Brave New World
    http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

    Crispin Tickell is one of the Principal Godfathers of the CAGW scam.
    He pays homage to cousin Aldous as one of his principal influences:

    Crispin Tickell (Belief)

    Now you come from an Anglo-Irish family. Your great, great grandfather was T H Huxley – Aldous Huxley was in your background too. Now this is a legacy of seriously thoughtful, intellectual address, isn’t it?

    Well T H Huxley was in many respects one of my heroes. Aldous was as well. In fact I think if anybody had any influence on me during my adolescence, it was Aldous Huxley. And I remember going to lunch with him and he asked me what essay I was writing that day for my history teacher. And I replied it was about the relations between the Pope and the Emperor. And he sort of took a deep breath, and for about 15 minutes he spoke about the secular versus the spiritual power. And I really sat back, staggered by what I heard, because he illuminated every aspect of this immensely complicated and still continuing problem, and I found it fascinating. When I sat down afterwards to try and write my essay, I was hardly able to write a word
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/11/climate-science-sociology/#comment-364124

    I wonder why Brave New Climate comes to mind !!

    Nigel Lawson: Global warming has turned into religion

    Lawson was Chancellor when Crispin Tickell, then British Ambassador to the UN, convinced Prime Minister Thatcher that man-made global warming was a problem. Despite Tickell lacking any scientific background (he read history at university) Mrs Thatcher took the population campaigner’s views seriously enough to make a landmark speech on global warming. This led to the foundation of a branch of the Met Office, the Hadley Centre at Exeter, to study the issue. It remains one of the three leading climate institutes.

    • How dusty they seem now, those early twentieth century gurus with their rehearsed profundities, mixing science and mysticism. And more than a little creepy.

      A disappointment, but also relief, as one ages is the realisation that there are no deep people. You just get people.

      • Agree Mosomoso, we just have people.
        However I personally realised to my intense chagrin in 97/98 timeframe that there was only the remotest chance that the GCMs would be validated, and therefore the IPCC was blowing smoke.
        One of the tricks I’ve found quite useful to cut through the BS, is to identify the elite opinion formers, and carefully scrutinize what they say and do.
        Arguably, the elite opinion formers act as (and seek to act as) Pied Pipers, with the sheeple following. The elite opinion formers can do immense damage before their misdirection is realised and identified by the sheeple. I think there is plenty of historical precedent to argue for such a view.
        all the best
        brent

    • I do think that, later, Mrs Thatcher did decide man-made global warming was not so much of a problem.

    • Brent, back in the ’60s, Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary used to take LSD in a circular, windowless room at the Hollywood (top of Creston Drive, overlooking the lake and the sign) home of someone I later became a friend of; I was there in 1978. (My friend’s husband was the link, I don’t know that she ever took acid. He designed the room for meditation et al.) I was told that Huxley said he could only have a religious experience under the influence of acid. My reaction at the time was that that meant he had no religious experiences, though I wouldn’t be so dogmatic now.

    • Richard Lindzen
      How Science can be Politically Useful

      Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics
      Richard S. Lindzen
      Sloan Professor of Meteorology
      M.I.T.
      August 31, 1995

      There are also issues of vanity. It has been claimed that Crispen
      Tickell(a British diplomat who published a small book on the need for an international response to global cooling) convinced Margaret Thatcher to take up the cause of global warming because with her background in chemistry she could assume leadership among her fellow world leaders.
      Similarly,there is little doubt that Vice President Gore’s enthusiasm for environmental causes is part of his self-image as a new age futurist.
      http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf

    • Forgot to post this link to full Lindzen lecture at meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 2012
      Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
      http://tinyurl.com/mnnq4l3

  33. Depression relieved by jet trails and more (ugh) publishing?

    Comedy and high slapstick are at their fingertips! They don’t have to burden themselves with huge and obvious facts like this:

    “There is something a little fantastic in the persistent ability of a 4,000-year-old tree to shut up shop almost everywhere throughout its stem in a very dry year, and faithfully to reawaken to add many new cells in a favorable year.” – Edmund Schulman, March 1958 National Geographic.

    When you are working in a field where bristlecones are treated as an effective temperature proxy, life should be a giggle a minute. You can expect some daffy character to put a rain gauge on his pizza oven next. Thanks to Michael Mann’s MBH98 paper, there’s Looney Tunes, Merry Melodies…and Climate Science!

    That’s all, folks.

  34. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

    I guess finding out YOU WERE WRONG could be pretty stressful.

  35. If instead of CAGW dogma, the politicians had for the past 25 some odd years insisted it was urgent that we have a political position on a Biblical apocalypse ; and lavished bazillions of dollars on the “experts” to study the issue ; then people would have readily identified what was going on.
    However because the politicians were promoting the religion of “Scientism” (under the guise of science), and a purported Eco-Apocalypse ,the agenda was not readily diagnosed

    E.O Wilson Quotes
    Science and religion are the two most powerful forces in the world. Having them at odds… is not productive.
    People need a sacred narrative. They must have a sense of larger purpose, in one form or another, however intellectualized. They will find a way to keep ancestral spirits alive
    The New Divinity
    By Julian Huxley
    http://tinyurl.com/oolb3of

    Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975)

    He saw Humanism as a replacement ‘religion’, and as such represented an important strand in post-war humanist thought. In a speech given to a conference in 1965 he spoke of the need for “a religiously and socially effective system of humanism.” And in his book Religion Without Revelation, he wrote:

    “What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.” The book ends with the concept of “transhumanism”– “man remaining man, but transcending himself by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature”.
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005

    To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:

    “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent… It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”

    From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and our western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?

    But there’s more. Mr. Huxley goes on to state that perhaps eugenics, the so-called science of creating better people through genetic manipulation, is not so bad after all:

    “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years…politically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
    http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst093002.html

    • J Huxley: “What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.”

      Huxley starts out on the right track: I’ve often expressed here my understanding that the spiritual development of each individual depends on a deep understanding of reality as it is, as it manifests within each one of us from moment to moment. Saints and sages have long given variations on “Know thyself,” “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” etc, and that is good advice (I don’t believe in Heaven, but the sentiment is correct). But this is individual knowledge, it will naturally be applied to helping others, but there is no reason or merit in it being the basis of a religion. Religions are social group activities which, whatever their origins or the wisdom of those whom religions claim to follow, are rarely dedicated (in practice) to the development of wisdom and understanding by each individual. On the contrary, religions often demand obedience, adherence to particular doctrines or rites and rituals, which have nothing to do with spiritual development. Huxley’s third sentence can be the basis for the “religion” of climate alarmism.

    • Huxley, as quoted above, says: “What the sciences discover about the natural world …” That is also what we discover from self-observation, except that in the latter case, we have direct experience of it. Cf Paul Fleischman:

      “Meditation is a form of self-observation. In Vipassana meditation, the unique feature is to observe oneself at the level of sensation. Or more specifically, it is to cultivate the capacity for relatively constant, thorough observation of the arising and passing of body sensations. Along with that observation is a concurrent understanding that these body sensations that are arising and passing are sharing the property of all reality. All reality is the aggregation of smaller things into bigger things, followed by their disaggregation. Things are in a constant flux. So in meditation, first, one is cultivating a capacity for self-observation with increasing ability, and as one develops this ability both in body and mind, one begins to observe universal principles in the context of one’s own mind and body. …

      “It seems to me that the forces of creation, the laws of nature, out of which this mind and body arose, must be operative in me, now, continuously, and whenever I make an effort to observe them. The activity of creation must be the original and continuing cause of my life. I would like to know these laws, these forces, and observe, even participate in, the ongoing creation.”

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pay-it-forward/201203/meditation-compass-and-path

    • @Faustino,
      I think it is extremely inconvenient for those such as Tickell to acknowledge Julian Huxley’s (FRS) views because he was so outspoken in his advocacy of Eugenics, both Pre WWII and afterwards, although after WWII there was a lot of disguising and rebranding/wordsmithing:
      This seems pretty clear to me:
      “Eugenics and Society” (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1)
      Eugenics and Society* By Julian S. Huxley, M.A., D.Sc. The Future of Eugenics

      Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range
      https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005

      With the context of the above Quote, the following is an article that closely resembles my own views of the deep ethical morass we are in:

      Evolutionary Psychology
      and Our Mythical Dark Nature
      Philip Yancey

      The Western intellectual community now finds eugenics repul-sive and roundly condemns racism based on Social Darwinism. Yet its allegiance to philosophical naturalism leaves it vulnerable to abuse, especially now that advances in gene research allow for genetic “improvement.”

      Julian Huxley declared in 1963,
      The population explosion is making us ask…What are people for? Whatever the answer…it is clear that the general quality of the world’s population is not very high, is beginning to deteriorate, and should and could be improved. It is deterio-rating thanks to genetic defectives who would otherwise have died being kept alive, and thanks to the crop of new mutations due to fallout. In modern man, the direction of genetic evolution has started to change its sign, from positive to negative, from advance to retreat: we must manage to put it back on its age-old course of positive improvement.
      Any time a leading thinker uses phrases like “general quality of
      the world’s population” and “genetic defectives,” the rest of us should invest in home security systems. An engineered society or engineered individual must conform to some standard of correctness or nor-malcy, and here is where evolutionary psychology and social engi-neering break down. Who decides the standard or norm? Julian Huxley or Martin Heidegger? Bill Clinton or Pol Pot? I am still trying to think of a large-scale attempt to improve human society that has not led to catastrophe
      http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/issues/8-4.pdf

      • Wow think about all the opportunities for discrimination in a “eugenic society”. Wonderfull…

      • brent, some advice for Huxley and others in that Fleischman interview:

        “It is helpful to evaluate oneself and the path itself so that you’re not foolishly or blindly following a pretense that doesn’t lead to where it claims. The West to some degree is defined by a scientific mindset. But there’s a lot of debate about what constitutes science. Robert Merton, a sociologist who was at Harvard, gave an interesting definition: “Science is organized skepticism.” So if you’re not skeptical, you run the risk of being gullible. But science is not random skepticism, it’s organized and systematic. “I don’t believe this. Prove it to me.” That’s science. It’s a systematic skepticism and that should be the goal of all modern people. So we’re not gullible and we’re following truth. This is, of course, different from mere contentiousness.”

    • @Faustino
      Here’s another interesting viewpoint

      In Medieval England the Church was all powerful. The fear of going to Hell was very real and people were told that only the Catholic Church could save your soul so that you could go to Heaven. The head of the Catholic Church was the pope based in Rome. The most important position in the church in Medieval England was the Archbishop of Canterbury and both he and the king usually worked together.
      A king of England could not remove a pope from his position but popes claimed that they could remove a king by excommunicating him – this meant that the king’s soul was condemned to Hell and people then had the right to disobey the king.
      For people in England , there was always the real problem – do you obey the king or the pope ? In fact, this was rarely a problem as both kings and popes tended to act together as both wanted to remain powerful. On two occasions they fell out – one involved the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, and the other Henry VIII.
      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/thomas_becket.htm

      We’ve had a few quite bloody revolutions whereby a primary purpose was to overturn “secular power” supported and buttressed by religious power (divine right)
      In the French one they lopped off a few heads.
      In US war of Independence the Founding Fathers devised the 1st amendment to, prohibit the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
      I might argue what we seem to have today, is a political caste, funding a new “Scientism” religion, which then buttresses the political caste’s goals
      all the best
      brent

    • Crispin Tickell continues in the Huxley family tradition

      Dominic Lawson: A retort to the population control freaks
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/who-will-rid-us-of-this-totalitarian-prince/#comment-1650377

  36. “Circa 2007 I felt the same way you did,”

    I never felt that way. These guys are lying, is what I thought. Nobody’s calling them on it, so apparently nobody knows any science in that bunch.

    She’d have felt better if she’d worked with the Navier Stokes equations (you can’t solve them numerically, so those models are fakes); or if she’d done signal processing (you can’t tell a trend from a long cycle owing to the math).

    I don’t know the field but I know a few points of contact and they’ve always been wrong.

  37. nottawa rafter

    I would like to be cogent and articulate but all I can say is “Wow….just wow”. Warmists, in their efforts to engender some support, just make things worse. You want some advice? Just shut the …. up. I can think of a few mental and personality disorders but their genesis don’t reside in the climate debate. When you come across as a garden variety whack job you should recuse yourself from any further role in pushing the global warming agenda. On the other hand , now that I think of it, just keep babbling on.

    • The more such drama queens emote, the more the rest of us will laugh, and the more J Q Public will take note. Cycle that a few times and the drama queens faux psychosis might even become real.

  38. Climate is still the average of weather which has already occurred.

    Our big molten ball of rock continues to cool.

    Woe! Woe! Thrice woe! Whatever shall we do?

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  39. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  40. I read this headline and first sentence or two elsewhere, successfully suppressed my gag reflex and moved on. I have a comprehensive and well thought out strategy for the climate change pre-traumatic stress refugee: Suck it up buttercup.

  41. Thomas’s work is total codswallop. I’ve had traumatic experiences, I was close to suicide twice in my twenties, I’ve had long periods with severe/extreme depression, and she is writing about trivia. I know something about PTSD, when my son was an army doctor, I discovered that the army psychologists were only just coming to my understanding of it. Those involved should get out in the world and find how much real suffering there is. Pathetic.

  42. multidecadal and longer internal variability

    What exactly are you referring to here? Stadium Waves?

  43. George Orwell envisaged:
    “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
    George Orwell
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159438.html

    Aldous Huxley however envisaged:
    The Ultimate Revolution
    March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269
    “It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude”
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/11/climate-science-sociology/#comment-364124

    Camille Parmesan would do well to recognise the success of the basic program Aldous Huxley envisaged: The sheeple entertained to death with mindless and irrelevant trivia and titillated with Eco-Apocalyptic visions etc.
    All that is required is to recognise one is being conned and shut off TV, Radio (supposed) news etc.
    Do not accept the propaganda from the various official and officious organs of the powers that be. One must be ruthless in gaining ownership of ones own thoughts.
    Don’t trust, verify

  44. Dr. Curry – +1000 Very funny!

  45. Today sees the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest findings on the state of “global warming” and the news isn’t good.

    Here are some of the highlights:

    •Giant malarial mosquitoes the size of crane flies may descend en masse and drain us of our blood so quickly with their powerful razor sharp probosces that we won’t even have time to be infected – we’ll be dead before we hit the floor;
    •Bangladesh, Tuvalu, The Maldives and Florida will all be submerged;
    •Four horsemen with skulls for faces, glowing red eyes and huge scythes will gallop across the blighted land on skeletal horses spreading fire, pestilence, famine, and disease. Men will pray for the quick release of death. Children will clutch their parents and say: “Why didn’t we listen?”;
    •The populations of horrid things like cockroaches and scorpions will quintuple, while all the cute animals – wrens, robins, meerkats, baby polar bears, kittens, sea otters – will vanish as if they had never been;
    •Men will say openly that Christ and His saints slept;
    •There will be war, war and more war.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/31/Global-Warming-Will-Cause-War-Pestilence-Famine-and-Death-Says-New-IPCC-Report-Inevitably

    And the solution is to replace democracy with rule by a progressive committee, the destruction of industrialized society and the overthrow of capitalism – of course.

    It is quite odd. There are many threats from climate variability and destruction of ecosystems – few of them have the remotest connection to CO2. None of them are ameliorated in a deliberate quest for greater global poverty.

    What does seem obvious is that the CO2 issue is best addressed by accelerated commercialization of 4th generation nuclear designs over the net decade. Perfectly safe, burns diverse fuel sources including the conventional waste legacy and produces much less and much shorter lived waste products. Putting waste heat into producing liquid fuels seems a small further step. If someone comes up with a better idea in the meantime – good.

    No one is listening because everyone wants a prosperous and peaceful future for their children and the resources to safeguard the environment.

  46. I’m sure I should sympathise greatly with Madeleine Thomas and all those Climate Scientists that are suffering from “Climate depression”.

    I was a grain farmer in Victoria in SE Australia and I also use to suffer greatly from Climate Depression every time we had a minor or worse, a major drought where we had no crops to harvest and no income for the next year or so until the next crop was sown and hopefully grew to give good yields again.

    And I also, just like all the dangerous climate change we have been predicted to see sometime in the next five / ten / twenty / century years which climate scientists have repeatedly told us that we are responsible for, We know that crop failures from drought are all completely our fault for trying to grow food crops on a large scale instead of just relying on foraging of natural food sources to sustain our human race and consequently our fault that Nature through the imposition of drought failed to support our own ambitious goals of producing food to help feed seven billion humans.

    Just like those poor depressed climate scientists I and my family suffered greatly from being depressed when drought came upon our land but sadly, we unfortunately and unlike those benighted and depressed climate scientists were not an extremely generous government funded payroll including numerous side perks.
    We had to finance ourselves entirely through those regular and terribly depressing year or more long drought periods of which I and my family and my fellow farmers experienced over the years. There are no subsidies worth talking about for food producers in Australia.
    Unfortunately we were also located out where there is dust and heat and cold where we work, unlike those well paid deeply depressed Climate Scientists who well removed from the phenomena they reputedly study are located in the salubrious surrounds of government funded universities.

    In our drought induced depressed state,some Governments and well meaning people helped in small ways but they could not replace the psychological devastation of not harvesting a crop, of not having any income for the next year , of having to find the large amounts of finance to plant the next crop and live through the next year.
    We could only watch as the interest of the public after the initial impact just drifted away from our deeply depressing Natural drought created circumstances.

    Ah! Yes!. I really sympathize with all those poor depressed climate scientists who comfortably established in their publicly funded elitist university surrounds who get very depressed when they can’t get what they demand when they demand it.

    [ / SARC ]

    I wonder how many of them are reliant on the volunteer run food banks which in our part of the world ensure food is on the table for many of our rural poor including drought affected farming families?

    There is something seriously wrong with our society when a so called science discipline, climate science, which has never demonstrated in any observable manner any perceivable benefit at any level to any of mankind even after a few hundred billion publicly funded dollars being spent on it’s behalf over four decades can come up with such a bloated self centred bleating about a self percieved and publicly invisible injustice to itself when the second most important human need, next to that of water, that of food and it’s production is almost totally ignored by the whole scientific establishment outside of Agricultural science.

    • We’ve had lots of climate change depression in Oz starting in 1791, though the aborigines were pretty sure there’d been much worse drought not long before. Of course, those monsoon failures of the 1790s were far more dire for India. Depressing even.

      Oxley tried to explore inland in 1818 and got depressed by endless wet country. Some years later Sturt and Mitchell got depressed by endless dry country – which happened to be the same country as Oxley saw. Mitchell, who shared Michael Mann’s dismal ignorance of drought species (though Mitchell had an excuse), thought inland NSW must be on the verge of becoming treeless, open downs. He thought no plant could withstand the conditions he was witnessing.

      Also depressing was the drought which dried up the Murrumbidgee River (150ft. wide, 60ft. deep) in the late 1830s; and the world’s greatest known inferno in Victoria 1851 (not long before the monumental Murrumbidgee flood of 1852). Depressing.

      Seemed to peak with the horrors of 1902, this widespread climate change depression, but it hasn’t gone away. Heat alone – there were also the mega-fires – gave us our most lethal natural disasters in 1896, 1939 and 2009. Depressing.

      So we know what the poor climate scientists must be going through – on our very superficial level.

      There’s a bit of climate change depression here now. I’d like to fly to Europe to get away from it all…but the whole valley might burn down. I do hope Professor Parmesan got help with her airfare and got to go business class where she was far more likely to encounter a NYT or Guardian reader. In tourist class you “don’t just start talking about unbelievably fast sea-level rise”. No, you just have to “deny the emotional need” to talk about that Early Holocene.

      Ah, guys…what about my adults? Found any yet?

      • Adults are light on the ground, moso, but there are some,
        Christopher Foyle fer instance. Like, ‘Keep yer head when
        all around… ‘ or, ‘Evidence matters,’ or, ‘Yer word is yer bond.’

        An old fashioned serf.

  47. @ Dr. Curry

    I got this far:

    “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared.”

    for stark confirmation of what I have been saying for several years (noting that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is only one of MANY prominent symptoms):

    If western civilization in general, and the US specifically, were an individual, it would be locked up for its own protection.

  48. ” But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus.”

    My initial reaction was a bit different from Judith’s. I just thought that a gas comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere could have such a profound effect on the atmosphere and climate. It just seemed unlikely, but that did spark some research of my own. As a pioneer in mathematical modelling ( first full 3D model of a rocket system, 1959, long before there was a computer capable of running it) I had faith that a model could be developed, but also realised that as a retired scientist I did not have the resources to build one.
    Instead I looked harder at the data (from the Australian BOM) and came to the conclusion that the global average temperature rise between 1910 and 1940 could not be attributed to anything but CO2. But why did it stop in 1940, despite increases in CO2? And not resume again until 1070?

    The relative Specific Heats of other atmospheric gases also made CO2 an unlikely culprit.

    The BOM data also included the absorption graphs of CO2 in the infra-red from some unknown artist or spectrometer, but these clearly showed nearly 100% absorption in the 14-15 micron region, the lowest temperature of vibration in the CO2 molecule. What would happen if the vibration stopped? Heat would flow freely from the earth at that frequency and that would account for the first of my questions above. Global average temperature would fall (it did) and the delay in the oceans delayed the second rise in temperature to 1970.

    Of course, for these solutions you have to believe that gases have two ways of absorbing IR heat, kinetic and vibrational. James Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron at Cambridge in 1930’s helped understand the second.

  49. stevefitzpatrick

    The hilarity of their ’emotional trauma’ has the unfortunate side effect of distracting from other implications: 1) that these folks are incapable of critically evaluating actual data, and 2) with a bit of luck, these folks will become so depressed about ‘lack of progress’ in climate change that they will focus their attentions on other less economically damaging extreme causes…. of which there are many.

    • ==> “1) that these folks are incapable of critically evaluating actual data, ”

      Yes, good point, Steve. I’m quite sure – as apparently are you, that “these folks are incapable of critically evaluating actual data”

      ==> ” with a bit of luck, these folks will become so depressed about ‘lack of progress’ in climate change that they will focus their attentions on other less economically damaging extreme causes”

      So much for uncertainty, huh?*

      I love how so many SWIRLCAREs say that “skeptics” don’t doubt that ACO2 causes warming – but only are saying that don’t know the magnitude of the effect…

      And then turn around and make arguments such as you did – which actually rely on total certainty about the magnitude of the effect.

      It’s one of the reasons why I love me some Climate Etc.

      * Out of respect to Miker – I am avoiding the use of “eh.”

      • stevefitzpatrick

        Sorry Joshua, I will only reply to comments by people who are not hiding their identity. You know, ‘courage of their convictions’, and all that. If you are ashamed to take credit for your comments, then they are not likely worth much.

      • Steve, +1 for your policy.

      • Steve, in case you ever want to respond to me, I’m Michael Cunningham, a pom in Brisbane. We had a big discussion at CE once on real names/pseudonyms in which I explained the Faustino origin and why I stick with it. Depending on the site, I’m Michael Cunningham, Faustino or Genghis Cunn, all three names being fairly well established in different contexts.

  50. daveandrews723

    Words that come to mind after reading about Ms. Parmeson… self-absorbed, narcissist, messiah complex, cultish, brainwashed. That goes for a lot of other warmists also.

  51. Reminds me about worrying what’s going to happen when Yellowsone blows.

    This is ‘Rapture science’

    • Ah. You had to go there. Now I’ve got something else to be pre-anxious about and that calls for more medicine.

    • Harry Turtledove has a series on this. If certain researchers and others are depressed now over their failure to convince the public of their impending doom, they would be in rubber walled rooms if forced to live in a post Yellowstone eruption. (Assumming they survived.)

  52. A holistic approach to global warming looks to manage our understanding of reality using our minds to put all of the pieces together into some kind of meaningful whole. To look at nature objectively, making sense of reality is a scientific endeavor and one of humanity’s greatest challenges and its purest attempt at valuing truth for its own sake; and, the holistic perception of climate change to the modern mind is wholly irrelevant to that endeavor.

  53. I find coming here is pretty therapeutic. However, the angriest ones seem to be the skeptics, and understandably given their interesting self-invented conspiracy theories.

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      Jim D
      as a fan of conspiracy theories, particularly the ones I invent
      could you please articulate one of these inventions of skeptics

      remember
      conspiracies do exist and are true or false on an individual basis
      a general statement on “theories” is impossible
      requires specific substantiated data before a conclusion should be drawn
      kinda like climate science
      glad to contribute to your therapy

      • OK, as a fan, which conspiracy theory is your favorite? World government? I like that one because it is so imaginative while also exhibiting paranoia in a fairly pure form.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Jim D
        don’t take me wrong, I think you represent your POV honestly and I usually stop to read your comments

        I will answer my question and yours
        I think the IPCC “conspired” to misrepresent their own data and exaggerate warming for political reasons – see the “hide the decline” post on this website

        I think many liberal elites, particularly in the west, consider nationalism and nation states to be anachronistic and the main cause of armed conflict. These elites are actively organizing, “conspiring,” to erode nation state identity. (see Global Citizen.com) This is the purpose of the EU, is it not?

        So yes, I think there are be powerful groups of people who believe one world government is good idea are working to make it happen.
        Maybe they are right.
        as an unwashed mass, my opinion means nothing

        Of course, as a “denier” I require therapy and reeducation.
        I am a victim of fossil fuel industry propaganda.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        excise “be” from next to last para
        started to say “may be” but decided to climb down from the fence :)

    • The mindset of noble cause corruption is *not* a conspiracy, Jimmy Dee Doo, nor do I regard it as one

      Other descriptions may be more accurate, though, such as vain-glorious

    • Funny.

      I have yet to hear of a conspiracy theory worth believing in.

  54. Psychological Hardiness = Steve McIntyre

  55. Judith –

    Just wondering if you could manage to be more condescending?

    • yes indeed, you should have seen my first version of this :)

      • Why didn’t you post it? Do you think the ridicule you invited with this one is really sufficient?

      • Turn up those speakers, Josh!

      • Josh,

        Personal growth is interesting to watch. I see you continue to grow into a bigger ass.

        If you can’t see the humor in “pre-tramatic stress syndrome” or Dr Parmesan’s complaint (whine is a more accurate term) or the well desrved condescension it invites, then you are the sad sack here. And since we are on the subject, few here more regularly dish the condescending attitude than you. You are the rat calling the squirrel a rodent.

    • And Judith –

      Perhaps you could have added to this post more whining in despair at being called a “denier” – as you offer up this red meat post will full expectation of the ensuing ridicule offered by your “denizens” for a fellow scientist.

    • I would think, that given that some SWIRLCAREs pay lip service to “uncertainty” – even if they don’t share the level of concern that some scientists have, they would at least recognize that at some level the concern may be borne out by future climate change.

      I would suggest arguing the science. Apparently this is a hard concept to get, but the personalization and ridicule are nothing more than identity politics.

      At least when I ridicule, I don’t play the holier than though game of claiming to be on the side of “scientific integrity.”

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Joshua wonders “Judith, just wondering if you could manage to be more condescending?

      The millions of families that have veterans back from the wars, or care for foster-kids, or have lost family farm sto drought, or to predatory agribusiness, or to strip-mining …

      … are none of them making light of the trauma-related concerns that are the focus of this Climate Etc essay.

      Conclusion  Joshua, your personal criticism is off-base and unwarranted … Judith, your treatment of these trauma-related concerns is inexplicably insubstantial.

      Good on `yah, Barbara Kingsolver and Wendell Berry (and hundreds more) for tackling these topics responsibly, rationally, and respectfully.

      \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}

    • Joshua –

      Just wondering if you could be a bigger putz. Oh, yeah, nearly every time you post, I forgot. Never mind.

    • Dr. Curry showed the mild condescension that is adequate for commenting on people that have an unrealistic, hypersensitive, and out-of-touch world view.

      There are several obvious ways that her comments could have been more condescending.

      Dr. Curry offered a reality-based commentary on an extreme world-view.

  56. Bill Brockman

    As I read the piece, I kept wondering if it might be a parody.

    • nottawa rafter

      As I have had to endure that kind of self pitying mentality for the last 50 years , it never crossed my mind.

    • @ Bill Brockton

      “As I read the piece, I kept wondering if it might be a parody.”

      Maybe under the subcategory of ‘Unintentional Self Parody’?

  57. Parmesan whines that no one listens to her climate signal. Perhaps she’s stressed that there is none. Jim Steele’s take down of Parmesan:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/the-aaass-lost-climate-integrity/

    • THANKS BOB,
      I was going to point Dr. Curry to Jim Steele’s opinion of Camille Parmesan, glad to see someone else has already done it.

      DR. CURRY, I don’t know how much you know about Camille, but Jim Steele clearly has an opinion – AND not a good one. I know that I clearly wouldn’t take ANYTHING she says seriously at this point . . ..

    • One humorous aspect of the piece you linked is that part of the refutation of the Parmesan paper was based on the work of none other than Paul Erlich, this time sticking to his specialty of entomology.

  58. Joshua, Does it worry you that you might miss a post where Judith may be condescending? Do you find yourself spending more and more time on the internet searching for condescending views waiting for your commentary? Then you may be suffering from Pre-Condescension Stress Syndrome.

  59. Calling John Carpenter –

    If you’re reading, I’m curious about your take on Judith’s post.

    • Joshua – shouldn’t you be making better use of your time? Oreskes probably could use some cheering up.

    • John Carpenter

      Well, I am having a hard time coming to grips with any great seriousness of the idea of climate induced pre-truamatic stress syndrome, Joshua.

      “I don’t know of a single scientist that’s not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost,”

      Seriously? She could just be in a very tight circle of scientists for all I know, on the other hand, who is going to step up to the plate and proclaim happiness for lost biodiversity or whatever she meant by ‘what’. But what kind of emotional reaction does she talk about? Well, that is left to the imagination. Should I be picturing sobbing at night in bed or pounding fist anger? Maybe just a little gas pain?

      “I could imagine that if scientists start to talk about how they’re feeling about the issue and how emotional they’re feeling about the issue, those who are critical about climate change would seize that information and use it in any way they could to say that we should reject their science,”

      Seriously? Yep

      “You don’t just start talking about unbelievably fast sea-level rise at a cocktail party at a friend’s house,” – Tidwell

      Seriously? The idea of being worried about an unbelievably fast sea-level rise within our lifetime (if that is what was meant) in the framing of a cocktail party is rife with irony.. don’t you think? Honestly, when I do hear this type of talk at cocktail parties, I tend to lean in to get the full scoop. And I pay attention to all the other stuff they may say (including politics, raising kids, school quality etc..) to help evaluate if they are kooky or not. There is a reason why you might not want to bring this stuff up at a cocktail party and its not because you will bring the party down. But again, what is ‘unbelievably fast sea-level rise’ supposed to mean? Imaginations can run wild.

      “What’s even more deflating for a climate scientist is when sounding the alarm on climatic catastrophes seems to fall on deaf ears.”

      Seriously? Maybe they need to consider why. Asking why on this issue is probably the most important question for them to ask. There is no one reason why, as far as I can tell. Blaming skeptics for fouling the message is probably not the best reason either.

      “Forgive my language here, but if scientists are looking for a clearer language to express the urgency of climate change, there’s no clearer word that expresses that urgency than FUCK,”

      Seriously? The alarmist messaging movement has not worked so far, see the part about the deaf ears. Ringing the bell harder is not going to change that, IMO.

      “Perhaps it’s time for those deeply involved in climate science to come forward about the emotional struggle, or at the very least, for those in mental health research and support to start exploring climate change psychology with more fervor.”

      Seriously? You think that’s going to help? Help people to want to take action? I have my doubts.

      “But Jeff Kiehl is right – whining scientists aren’t going to help either the science or their ’cause.’” – Curry

      Seriously? This is the only real condescending tone I got from JC. That seems to be the itch you want to scratch, or one of them. Maybe ‘whining’ could have better been substituted with ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ in its stead. But I have witnessed plenty of ‘realists’ talk about ‘whining’ skeptics also.

      “Perhaps you could have added to this post more whining in despair at being called a “denier” – Joshua

      Just a convenient example. Frankly, I don’t think it was a good play on JC’s part to use that word. But I could hardly elevate it to an egregious foul either.

      As for JC even posting on this topic. Meh. Definitely red meat for the hard core skeptics. Naturally they are going to pounce on alarmist weakness. It is not very becoming for them either. All people have (emotional angst) problems real or perceived and ridiculing them doesn’t help get people to the middle. Perhaps my comments above could be perceived as being insensitive as well. I have learned not to comment ad hoc over the years…. spend more time reading and considering other points of view. But since you specifically asked my opinion, I am giving you honest answers. I personally try to give a lot of latitude. But I definitely have a side that is more ‘suck it up’ on issues like this. It works with people you have the right relationship with, but not for everyone.

      The world is not going to end in our lifetime from climate change. Probably not in the next generation and I will go out on a ‘uncertainty monster’ limb and predict it will not end on the following generation either. Of all the things that could be world ending or massively world changing, IMO, human induced climate change is not going to be the big one. I wont be around to know anyway. But to be so emotionally despondent and worrisome over it now, IMO, strikes me as someone who has taken a very focused look and not taken a larger step back or to the side for some other angles.

    • John Carpenter

      Joshua, just so you know. I posted a lengthy response and one of the quotes I used had a curse word, so I think it is caught up in moderation. be patient and it should come through.

      • Doncha hate it when that happens?

      • John Carpenter

        Yes, but it’s been awhile now. I hope the internets didn’t eat it!

      • John Carpenter

        Joshua, I am afraid that my comment is lost. I cant reproduce it. But I will summarize.

        – I dont find pre-traumatic stress syndrome wrt climate change to be a very serious issue.

        – Scientists who display such feelings do not help the cause and play into the hands of skeptics.

        – Skeptics dont look good when they ridicule sensitive people

        – I personally didnt find JC’s comments as condescending except for the ‘whining’ part. I disagree with using this language, but would not elevate it to an egregious foul.

        – Posting on this topic does offer red meat for the skeptics to feed on.

        – I personally would tend to take a ‘suck it up’ attitude myself, but maybe its better to use that with people you know as it doesn’t work for everyone.

        – Sometimes its just better to keep certain feelings to yourself… and that goes both ways for this topic.

      • Hey John –

        ==> ” I dont find pre-traumatic stress syndrome wrt climate change to be a very serious issue.”

        I don’t find it to be either – except to the extent that it speaks to the larger issue where people are frustrated and disturbed by the viciousness of how discussion about climate change plays out. In other words, do you find outrage about the term to “denier” to be a serious issue? If not, why do you suppose that Judith goes back to that issue time after time – even as she employs the term “denier” herself?

        ==> “Scientists who display such feelings do not help the cause and play into the hands of skeptics.”

        Play into the hands? I don’t know. “Skeptics'” derision of climate scientists that disagree with them about climate change will continue regardless. Some folks, such as Judith, might be able to have some impact in moving into a different direction – but apparently she thinks that continuing the ridicule is more desirable.

        ==> “Skeptics dont look good when they ridicule sensitive people”

        Nor do “realists” for that matter.

        ==> “I personally didnt find JC’s comments as condescending except for the ‘whining’ part. I disagree with using this language, but would not elevate it to an egregious foul.”

        I think the post is clearly condescending – such as where she offers her “advice.” Egregious foul? Of course not. None of this really matters much. It’s just same ol’ same ol’ – and perhaps counterproductive – mostly in the sense of opportunity cost.

        ==> “Posting on this topic does offer red meat for the skeptics to feed on.”

        And obviously, Judith is not ignorant of that.

        ==> “I personally would tend to take a ‘suck it up’ attitude myself, but maybe its better to use that with people you know as it doesn’t work for everyone.

        Sure. Drama-queening and self-victimization are key components of the identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors associated with cultural cognition. That said, if someone expresses emotional distress – I would think there would be more productive ways to respond than ridicule.

        ==> “Sometimes its just better to keep certain feelings to yourself… and that goes both ways for this topic.”

        Sure. If someone expresses their emotions in such a manner, they should well-expect the kind of red meat ridicule that we see in this thread. If they expected otherwise, they weren’t paying attention. My guess is that they are counting on a larger counter-balancing effect in the other direction. More likely what we’ll get is same ol’ same ol’.

      • John Carpenter

        Joshua,

        “In other words, do you find outrage about the term to “denier” to be a serious issue? If not, why do you suppose that Judith goes back to that issue time after time – even as she employs the term “denier” herself?”

        I dont find outrage in the use of that term. However, its use is done to stifle discussion about differences which is the point I see JC going back to. The term ‘whiner’ similarly acts the same way, so go figure. Pejorative terms used to belittle or cast a side of an argument in a certain negative light can’t promote meaningful dialogue. Having said that, I know of very few people who can consciously hold back such comments in every conversation they have or in every post they write. Human nature. She could just as easily say everyone needs to be wearing their big boy pants when having discussions. Too many people take every comment made too sensitively, IMO. Lighten up a little and dont take yourself or others overly seriously… at least in this discussion (I’m not speaking specifically to you BTW). You know, thicken up your hide a little.

        So why does she employ the term herself? Depends on the context of the usage. Anything I say about what JC thinks is purely speculative, so I wont go there. But more generally, I would say… sometimes you want to throw a term used on one side back at that side to even the score. Maybe you consider it a term of endearment between like thinking people. Maybe you want to point out that its usage is not helping the larger issue. I dunno, but double standards can likely be pointed at in any case. I guess I don’t see the same level of concern about this particular term with JC that you see. Whatever (said in a friendly tone).

        “but apparently she thinks that continuing the ridicule is more desirable.”

        See, here we see this post very differently. You see her advice as pure ridicule… She is poking her finger into the emotionally wrought wounds of pre-traumatic climate stress inflicted individuals… You find her advice condescending. While I see her giving some pretty good advice on how climate distressed individuals can take a step back and re-examine what they really know. Is the distress really warranted and all that type thinking. And to boot, she speaks from her own personal experience. How can that be considered ridicule? Are you suggesting that she would find her previous positions worthy of ridicule? Is she really ridiculing her former self? Based on what she wrote, I think she would not consider her former position anything less than just less informed. So, if she is advising folks to get more informed to see if that changes their emotional outlook, then its not ridicule to me. Only the part at the very end where she agree they are whiners.

      • John –

        ==> “I dont find outrage in the use of that term. ”

        Well, my use of outrage was hyperbolic. But certainly we see many a comment here, from Judith and from others, that display a kind of emotional distress over the use of the term. Hurumphing about how it is insulting and demeaning.

        ==> “However, its use is done to stifle discussion about differences which is the point I see JC going back to”

        I don’t see it as used to “stifle” discussion so much as to solidify identification among “teams.” It’s an “other” kind of term. It’s a label. I think it isn’t productive, but then neither are the many labels we see here. – which I also don’t see as an attempt to “stifle” discussion so much as to solidify group identification.

        ==> “The term ‘whiner’ similarly acts the same way, so go figure.”

        Heh.

        ==> “Pejorative terms used to belittle or cast a side of an argument in a certain negative light can’t promote meaningful dialogue.”

        Well, yeah – that’s my point

        ==> “Having said that, I know of very few people who can consciously hold back such comments in every conversation they have or in every post they write. Human nature.”

        Weak justification, IMO. The failure to live up to our best intentions does not excuse accountability when we fail.
        ;
        ==> ” She could just as easily say everyone needs to be wearing their big boy pants when having discussions. Too many people take every comment made too sensitively, IMO.”

        Agreed. But that, again, doesn’t excuse the lack of accountability – particularly if someone makes an issue of the pejoratives – as Judith does very often.

        ==> “But more generally, I would say… sometimes you want to throw a term used on one side back at that side to even the score.”

        Again, there’s the question of accountability.

        ==> “Maybe you consider it a term of endearment between like thinking people.”

        Please.’

        ==> “Maybe you want to point out that its usage is not helping the larger issue.”

        Doesn’t seem a plausible explanation here.

        ==> “I dunno, but double standards can likely be pointed at in any case. I guess I don’t see the same level of concern about this particular term with JC that you see. Whatever (said in a friendly tone).”

        My point is a larger one – not specific to Judith’s use of that term. My point is that if Judith wants to take the high road then she should be accountable for participating in the very same behaviors that she (correctly) identifies as the low road. And this isn’t because of personal hypocrisy That isn’t the point. We’re all hypocritical – it’s the nature of tribalism. Displaying hypocritical behavior does not earn someone a general label of hypocrite, IMO. It’s about accountability. It’s about acknowledging the partisan nature of us all so that we can get about the business of accounting or that partisanship – which can’t be done by pointing the finger at the “other” while not being accountable for our own, similarly tribal behavior. I came here in the beginning because I thought that Judith’s discussion of tribalism was useful. But over time, I have instead seen, what seems to me, is her continued entrenchment into tribalism herself.

        ==> “See, here we see this post very differently. You see her advice as pure ridicule… She is poking her finger into the emotionally wrought wounds of pre-traumatic climate stress inflicted individuals…”

        I don’t know about “pure ridicule” but I think it is pretty clearly meant as ridicule in balanced. Look at her comment in response to my question about whether she could have been more condescending.

        ==> “You find her advice condescending. While I see her giving some pretty good advice on how climate distressed individuals can take a step back and re-examine what they really know. Is the distress really warranted and all that type thinking.”

        Please, John. There are myriad ways that she could have delivered such a message that would have been more productive if that was her intent. Do you really, honestly, think that this post was offered as good faith advice for how to deal with the emotional strains some scientists feel related to the question of climate change? Really, John? Really?

        And in particular, for her to offer her putative good faith advice in this forum, which would obviously invite comment after comment with clear hostility and ridicule?

        ==> “And to boot, she speaks from her own personal experience. How can that be considered ridicule?”

        Dude – look at what she’s suggesting here about her advisee:

        In terms of tips, try reading some literature on history, philosophy and sociology of science – you will become more humble as a scientist and less likely to believe your own hype

        So if someone is giving advise to someone, they should base in it an expressed view of that person as not having read literature on history philosophy, and sociology of science? As someone who is not “humble” and as someone who “believe[s their] own hype.”

        ==> “Are you suggesting that she would find her previous positions worthy of ridicule? Is she really ridiculing her former self?”

        So are we to believe that Judith is self-describing herself as someone who lacked humility prior to 2007? Someone who had never read any literature on history philosophy and sociology of science. As someone who “believe[d her] own hype.”

        ==> ” Based on what she wrote, I think she would not consider her former position anything less than just less informed.”

        Not sure how you get that. She seems to me to be playing rhetorical games here for effect – the effect being to ridicule and throw out the red meat. I find it hard to believe that you would really see this kind of effort on her part as having any kind of constructive outcome – particularly from the angle of “advice” being offered.

        ==> “So, if she is advising folks to get more informed to see if that changes their emotional outlook, then its not ridicule to me. Only the part at the very end where she agree they are whiners.”

        Read your comment again and then go back and read the post, and then come back and tell me again that you really, actually, honestly, in truth believe that she was trying to provide some kind of emotional support – as opposed to playing a rhetorical game that exploits ridicule.

        I won’t agree with you, but at least I’ll believe you. As of right now, I think that you are mostly being a bit of a white night..

      • Oh, and John –

        More heartfelt advice?

        If these strategies don’t work, trylearning about aberrant psychologies, such as the God complex and paranoia and look in the mirror

        Is this Judith’s advice coming from her own experience also, as a paranoid with a god complex who figured it out from looking in the mirror in 2007?

  60. The depression they feel may be due to guilt over having to make things up all the time in order to scare everyone. Or, maybe they are depressed that Oreskes doesn’t want to play with them anymore.
    From the article:


    Oreskes argues that scientists failed us, and in a very particular way: They failed us by being too conservative. Scientists today know full well that the “95 percent confidence limit” is merely a convention, not a law of the universe. Nonetheless, this convention, the historian suggests, leads scientists to be far too cautious, far too easily disrupted by the doubt-mongering of denialists, and far too unwilling to shout from the rooftops what they all knew was happening. “Western scientists built an intellectual culture based on the premise that it was worse to fool oneself into believing in something that did not exist than not to believe in something that did.”

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/29/2159228/imagining-the-future-history-of-climate-change

  61. “So having to deny the emotional need to talk about what’s on your mind all the time … those are some of the burdens that climate aware scientists and activists have to endure.”

    When one talks about an emotional state, including depression, on any subject, the next question is: how much does this issue, and the stress from this issue interfere with your daily activities? Does the stress come from talking climate change with your brother-in-law whom you consider a jerk and wonder why your sister married him in the first place? Or is the climate change issue so stressful that your husband has to take the kids to school as you always have a meltdown when you see the science teacher who is filling your children’s heads with lies and denial and you are considering withdrawing your children from school and home schooling only if you had time?

    For the obligatory Thanksgiving Dinner do you say: “Look John, you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on climate change. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? Or, do you take the unscabbard turkey carving knife and plunge it into the stuffed bird saying: “this is what I think of you and your denialism!”

    Interference with daily activities provides a launch point to ask further questions about daily activity disruption; is this a behavioral issue on your part? needing some tips to steer you through the usual family social mine fields? Or, is this a time when you should run, not walk to the nearest mental health facility and consider a Selective Serotonin ReUptake Inhibitor.

    Usually the weight of the world is not on our shoulders. Maybe, at times, it feels like it; but, in reality, it isn’t. The sensation of being overwhelmed and depressed usually reflects other issues within yourself that you struggle with more or less on an ongoing basis. Climate change is not necessarily a topic infused with more or less moral or ethical certainty or value, it’s just what floats one’s boat.

    I hope Carmille Parmesan has more than a good cry, and repurposes herself with the aids available to her.

    • There is also the phenomenon of “existential depression.” I could well be that the scientist in question is simply depressed for no apparent reason. But a reason like that isn’t very satisfying, so the victim begins to cast about for a cause. Hey, I work with “climate change” every day – yeah, that’s it! I’m depressed because of “climate change.”

      From the article:
      Existential depression is not a condition of chemical imbalance in our brains. Existential depression is not caused by any specific situation in our lives. Rather, we just discover that we are depressed in the depths of our beings. And the use of anti-depressant drugs only masks this condition. (Of course this might be a very useful effect,
      if we are inclined toward irrational suicide whenever we notice our existential depression.

      http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-DEP-K.html

  62. Hang out at Climate Etc. Listen seriously to a serious skeptic.

    After ridiculing her here, I don’t think Climate Etc. is going to be her first stop,

    but I don’t know that much psychology myself

    That seems to be abundantly clear,

    • Climate etc seems to be your first stop, Josh,
      Wonder why?
      Obviously not the ridiculing you get here, is it?
      If she develops some hardiness like you she may well join you in hanging out here.
      That line on not knowing much psychology yourself,
      Pure schadenfreude.

  63. “You don’t just start talking about unbelievably fast sea-level rise at a cocktail party at a friend’s house,” Tidwell says

    Whaaaaaat? Sea levels have been rising at a fairly constant rate of 2.5 mm per year for the last fifty years. Where does this “unbelievably fast sea-level rise” idea come from? It’s pure baloney.

    I presume this is Mike Tidwell the climate activist. That’s reassuring, as there’s no way a climate scientist should be saying such things.

  64. I thought Obola’s “Hope and Change” would cheer up even the most forlorn scientist.

  65. Matthew R Marler

    Jim D: However, the angriest ones seem to be the skeptics, and understandably given their interesting self-invented conspiracy theories.

    Scorn. And derision. Directed toward self-pity.

    I don’t know where you find the anger and conspiracy theories.

    • Is Jim D talking about the conspiracy theory that skeptical scientists are paid by oil companies? Is that it? No? Oh.

  66. When the evidence of climate change resembles a dental handpiece with an extra long drill bit … Pre-TSD is surely an understandable condition:

    • RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

    • @ordvic

      What’s relevant is the rate of change at the end there, not that the straight line up at the end is practically invisible in a fuzzed up graph.

      But ambient global air temperatures are closer to the least relevant thing, than the only relevant thing.

      To think that they are heavily relevant is to presume that earth simply warms along with changes in the heat re radiation capacity of the atmosphere.

      That incorrectly presumes there are no oceans, no ice sheets, no massive permafrost regions, no such thing as albedo, no buried carbon, in essence no stable systems, conditions, and processes that have an enormous impact upon, and ultimately shape, our climate. And what almost all of the energy – about 93% according to the world meteorological organization into the oceans alone – is going into.

      • Actually the rate of change at the end of that graph is the least significant thing about it.

      • John Carter,

        Thanks for the link. I have read similar material but I had not seen this actual data before. I thought it was mostly hypothesis. It is also interesting as the article says that there is not much attention being paid to this happening. I would have thought the NYTs would be talking about it a lot.

  67. Speaking of depression, I hope Tony B. is OK.
    From the article:

    Europe could be plunged into an energy crisis this winter if last-ditch talks on Wednesday fail to see Russia resume gas flows to Ukraine.

    Russia severed gas supplies to Ukraine in June in a payment dispute that was aggravated by Moscow’s incursions into the east Ukraine this year. Months of Europe-mediated negotiations between the two countries have failed to break the deadlock, piquing concerns of energy shortages if flows through Ukraine to the rest of Europe do not resume.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132134

    • Without the European gas price of $304 per thousand cubic meter, Gazprom would have no choice but to remove the subsidies from domestic sales gas (at $107) and on sales to former Soviet republics (at $224). Restive Russian consumers would have to pay closer to world prices for their heating bills, and Putin would lose his hold over its “satellites” who no longer rely on Russia for cheap energy.
      Russia would be hard pressed to survive the loss of the European gas market. Gazprom’s European revenues have already fallen from $60 billion to $55 billion, and European sales account for one third of Gazprom’s revenue. If deprived of this revenue, Gazprom would run a loss of $25 billion and not a profit of $33 billion. Rather than contributing profits to a federal budget, 55 percent reliant on energy taxes, Gazprom would require subsidies. Its once-proud share price would collapse, and it would be hard pressed to obtain funding from any sources including China, with or without sanctions.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/10/22/stress-tests-conclude-that-europe-can-call-putins-energy-bluff-and-win/

      Hmmm.. Cannot say I have much confidence in European Stress Tests… In the Banking Sector or otherwise.
      Do they really have enough storage capacity and interconnect ability to withstand loss of 30% of NG supply?

      Underground storage sites for natural gas in Europe
      The total working gas capacity in Europe today totals around 110 billion m3, including 87 billion m3 in the UE-28. Global storage capacity is currently estimated at over 300 billion m3. France, Germany and Italy hold approximately 22% of their annual requirement in stock. These countries store natural gas in a unique logistics chain to maintain a balance between supply and demand.
      http://www.gasinfocus.com/en/indicator/underground-storage-sites-for-natural-gas-in-europe/

      Gazprom supplied Europe with 161.5 billion cubic meters of gas in 2013.
      http://www.gazprom.com/about/marketing/europe/

      Russia is a Major Supplier of Gas to Europe, But For How Long? By Marvin Alfaro and E. Katharine Foshag
      May 7, 2014

      In 2013, Europe consumed421 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas, of whichalmost 32 percent, or 130 bcms, came from Russia. Conversely, 10 percent of Russia’s GDP comes from its natural gas sales to Europe
      http://cgamoscow2014.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/russia-is-a-major-supplier-of-gas-to-europe-but-for-how-long-by-marvin-alfaro-and-e-katharine-foshag/

      Iran seeks to skewer Russia over EU gas sales
      May 16-2014
      Hardly a day passes that someone in the Oil Ministry doesn’t eagerly offer to sell natural gas to Europe, where officials want to cut their dependence on Russian gas, especially in the wake of the Ukraine confrontation.
      But Iran’s very public eagerness cannot have gone unnoticed in Moscow, where some officials might just conclude it would be better for Moscow if the nuclear crunch with Iran were not settled and sanctions were not lifted from Iran’s back.
      A number of analysts in Europe have been openly saying that the EU should start getting gas from the United States and Iran so Russia can no longer use its huge gas sales to the EU as a Damoclean sword hanging over Europe.
      Some in Iran see a possible backlash from the Oil Ministry’s eagerness to sell to Europe. Hossain Shariatmadari, the editor of the hardline daily Kayhan, wrote last week that he was horrified by the Oil Ministry’s talk.
      He said the proposal was “naive” and a betrayal of Iran’s ally, Russia.
      http://iran-times.com/iran-seeks-to-skewer-russia-over-eu-gas-sales/

      Iran Hardliner Attacks Oil Minister for Europe Gas Plan
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/iran-hardliner-attacks-oil-minister-for-europe-gas-plan.html

      Iran ‘Not Ready’ to Replace Russian Gas Supplies to EU: Rouhani
      October 05, 2014 – 12:15
      TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran is not ready to satisfy EU’s gas demand and replace Russia as a key supplier if sanctions against Tehran are lifted, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said.
      http://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/519380

      Oh what a tangled web of competing interests : )

  68. The WMO making fantasy forecasts. Scientists warning about the anxiety of an imagined but uncertain future. Real Rapture science has arrived.

  69. Mental health issues are hard to understand, I unfortunately have personal experience with one that seems to have parallels here.

    Young women today (mostly young and women, but others too) are bombarded with unrealistic images of what they think they should look like. Our entertainment media is full of images and messages that reinforce this unreal perfect body image. Our government sends mixed messages aimed at one group but devastating another group. Normal, healthy young women look at BMI charts and see that they are overweight. The Government pushes often incorrect dietary information, such as the war on fat.

    The victims look in the mirror and can’t see reality, they begin to exercise obsessively, develop unhealthy eating habits and begin to starve themselves. They look in the mirror and see the opposite of reality, the mirror shows too thin and they see too fat. Worse, they look at BMI charts and see they are still in the “normal”, and then they set a goal to be at the low end of normal, even though their body is reacting in ways that are not normal or healthy….and so on, you all know this story.

    My wife is a dietitian and she says that the nutrition and dietary field is full of people who have of had problems with eating disorders and it makes sense, many had to deal with it and now want to help others, others use it as a means to add another layer of control to their obsession.

    And so I think it goes in climate, the media messages can be overwhelming, the government messages are not always helpful, and the information seems to be often wrong. An obsessed person can easily find a group that supports their obsession. And worse, they can begin to see what they want to see, they can come up with their own reality to reinforce their views.

    I know that body image problems can be dealt with, and if anyone here is dealing with this, I can tell you there is hope and there can be light at the end of the tunnel with family support, and therapy and maybe even some happy pills.

    Maybe the cure for climate obsessive disorder is a good dose therapy at CE. And Prozac.

  70. Judith writes: “…I realized that the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998.”

    You forgot one, Judith. During the satellite-era of SST data, the modelers have to double the warming rate of the ocean surfaces…

    …in order to have the warming rate of the modeled land surface air temperatures come into line with observations:

  71. We should pity the good expatriate professor. Parmesan’s dreams of being the big cheese in climate change collapsed when she failed to get even a sprinkling of the bucks being dumped into her field here in Vespucciland, so she’s run off to make a new start with her in-laws in the old country, a burg named Plymouth in the southwest of England, and a position at the university which, by the way, recently received £1M to develop innovative dementia diagnostic technique, so some may suspect her explanation for her move to Plymouth is a dodge.

    We should all hope for her success and good health. One good omen for her is that her new employer founded its School of Navigation in 1862, so she may soon find her way toward whatever it is that will be her life’s work if she survives this next winter. That Plymouth’s climate is gentler than most of the rest of the UK means that she’ll probably not notice the power brownouts during the upcoming cold season that most of the rest of the country will suffer thanks to the nation’s leadership’s belief in what she believes in. If all goes well this year, perhaps fewer than 200 elderly will die from the cold per day in Jolly Old England!

  72. From her uni page:

    “​Professor Parmesan is renowned for her research on the impact of climate change on wildlife, being the first to demonstrate that species are shifting their natural ranges in response to changes in temperature.”

    I would think that this behaviour has been observed over many millennia, from hunter-gatherer days onwards. To claim this as a first is more worrying than her emotional fragility.

    • No, Faustino – her discovery was the most unprecedented evah …

      Oh, and no-one is mentioning the angst caused by the persistent movement to destroy the reliability and affordability of the power grids all of us depend on for survival. The UK is an interesting experiment here for the coming NH winter – surely the angst of the populace needs a good psychotherapeutic airing ?

    • Exactly.

  73. Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. — and co-author of the National Wildlife Federation’s report — calls this emotional reaction “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” a term she coined to describe the mental anguish that results from preparing for the worst, before it actually happens.

    Used to be called “Chicken Little Syndrome”.

    Of course, the actual source of the stress these twits are feeling is called “cognitive dissonance”.

    • So true and we were warned it was coming. We don’t know what happens next. All we can do now is get out of the way, let the cards fall, and hope those in positions of power don’t drag the country down with them (we can only thank God and George Bush that Al Gore was not elected president — that’s what gave us the time to see the truth, that global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic)…

      “Throughout history,” Dr. Philip Stott observed back in August 2008 (“More on Cognitive Dissonance — The End of the World Is/Is Not Nigh!”), “many competing cults have attempted to predict dire catastrophes for the Earth.” Stott asks, “What happens when the predictions fail?”

  74. You take this information to someone and they say that you do not have real data to support your alarmism.

    We really don’t believe the alarmism with no data that supports it.

  75. The most frustrating thing for the left and the CAGW crowd is that they just can’t make other people do what they want. That leads to anxiety, depression, anger …

    • Oddly, Parents feel the same way when their child begins to use drugs or drink.

      • The implication being what?

      • Intentions and perspective. When my son started smoking I spoke to him about it not in an attempt to make him “do what I want”, but out of concern. Many many scientists (and other “greenies”) speak out of concern, not out of an attempt to control. Even more to the point– a changing climate affects us all, whereas smoking will mainly just kill the smoker, though of course there is second hand smoke and via health care costs we all pay a price for that addiction as well.

      • Gates, my approach was rather different. I never allowed cigarettes, alcohol or other social drugs in the house, but I never said anything to my kids about them. We encouraged them to take as much responsibility as they could, to be self-reliant and think for themselves. We as parents had high moral standards, but never preached or sought to impose them on the children. We didn’t have a tight leash – e.g., my younger daughter travelled alone in Europe when 17. They are now (almost) 27 -32, are professionally successful and fine up-standing citizens. None smoke, none drink regularly and I’m pretty sure that (unlike their parents in younger days), none have used drugs.

        The leaving-home talk I gave to each of the three sums up our philosophy of giving them an environment in which they could develop their own values: “Never buy cheap sheets. The rest you can work out for yourselves.” As they have done and are doing.

  76. When I saw it was Camille Parmesan who was the “depressed scientist” i thought it was because I had exposed the bad science in all here climate catastrophe papers.

    read

    1. Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan’s Butterfly Effect
    http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html

    2. Fabricating Climate Doom: Hijacking Conservation Success in the UK to Build Consensus!
    http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html

    3. Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom—part-3–extreme-weather.html

    4. Or my attempt to have her deceptive publication retracted.
    http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

    • @jimsteele

      “Fabricating Climate Doom”

      I don’t support the word “doom”

      But <a href="http://climatesolutionsandanalysis.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/major-methane-spikes-from-warming-sea-beds-are-compounding-an-underestimated-climate-change-challenge/"this paints a pretty strong picture of a very high risk of massive shifts, based upon pretty fundamental science and accepted data.

      @justinwonder

      “”The most frustrating thing for the left and the CAGW crowd is that they just can’t make other people do what they want. That leads to anxiety, depression, anger …””

      Fair enough in one sense. But it could also in part be something entirely different. they can’t get other people to look at this issue objectively and without the inherent strong biases that a deep fealty to fossil fuels, a belief in a basic entitlement to them, and an overwrought fear of economic transformation based upon enormous assumptions of how our macroeconomy works long term, is bringing, causing the promulgation of an absolutely massive amount of basic misinformation on this issue.

      The processes that don’t continue to radically alter the atmosphere , and hence have an enormous long term benefit to us relative to the processes (both energy and agricultural) that do, are at a phenomenal disadvantage.

      This is not only wildly against our interests, based upon the zealous belief in contravention of basic science that we of course “can’t” much affect long term climate, but it is also extraordinarily inefficient.

      <a href="http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.htmlWhat's wrong with this idea?

      It doesn’t tell anybody to do anything, which I don’t think is a great approach to solving this problem. But I also don’t think putting our heads in the sand and convincing ourselves otherwise with rhetoric and misinformation, while likely radically changing the longer term nature of the climate against what we evolved under and our own interests, is at all fair to our kids and their kids, and particularly, even now, and increasing, to the world’s poor, and in the future in particular.

      Just for the record, I don’t support the chicken little syndrome, and think it is counter productive, but, also, while sometimes warranted with respect to some who are very nervous about this issue and how the the climate will change, and proclaim about it without putting enough attention into explicating the basics as to why (presuming instead everyone “already knows” or sees it the same way), also think is is often manufactured as another way to simply dismiss and disparage concern.

      And concern is warranted. A radical change that stands a good chance of melting Greenland (and there is no reason for it not to) isn’t a minor issue, since it will put many people’s homes and entire coastlines and even in many places far inland, completely underwater.

      Call that chicken littlism, if you like, since it can’t be proven until after the fact. I call that in response, extremely limited and presumptous thinking, that the earth, despite a massive influx of net energy, will essentially “stay the same” just because it is our interests. Or because we confuse relevant geologic time, with or own very limited notion of what time is and even what our broader world, really is.

      And that’s just a small part of the issuue.

      None of it is fabricated.

      • This is all fine and good…But methane has about a 9 year lifetime (wiki says 9.6).

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

        Anthropogenic and natural sources are about 55 times the current rate of hydrate release.

        http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
        “Depending on the mathematical model employed, present calculations of their abundance range between 100 and 530,000 gigatons of carbon. ”

        That range of abundance is just guessing.

        Further – the methane in non-arctic regions will mostly be depleted before it reaches the surface, hence the emphasis on the arctic.

        http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/arctic-methane-hydrate-catastrophe

        When even Gavin pooh-poohs an idea it is somewhat dubious.

      • stevefitzpatrick

        Humm…
        Yes, rising temperatures will cause sea level rise. Yes, sea level rise, especially if more than a meter or two long term, would be disruptive in many coastal areas, and is a matter of concern. Further, in the very long term, humanity must replace fossil fuels as an energy source, independent of any effects from CO2, since fossil fuels are a finite resource.

        But the details matter, a lot. Fossil fuels have enabled an enormous increase in quality of life, health, longevity, and material wealth. At current trend, extreme poverty (and the terrible human suffering that brings) will be almost eliminated within three decades. Restricting access to fossil fuels will delay, or even reverse, that process. That matters.

        The idea humanity must accept a decline in material wealth to immediately cut fossil fuel use is both preposterous and counterproductive. It is not going to happen, no matter how depressed some green advocates may become, because quality of life matters to people. Reductions in fossil fuel use are not going to happen until they are too scarce to be economical, or until suitable alternatives are available at reasonable costs. People who are truly concerned should be pushing hard for an immediate transition to nuclear power, but instead they resist nuclear and insist on wind and solar, neither of which are practical alternatives to fossil fuels. Reasonable people recognize this as nonsensical rubbish, and ignore the chicken littles who cluck endlessly about warming while ignoring the importance to humanity of abundant energy.

        The sensitivity of the climate to GHG forcing matters as well, if only because it helps to define the scale and timing of future warming and sea level rise. 30 years of publicly funded climate science and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, with no progress on defining the Earth’s true sensitivity to forcing, beggars belief. The public is not getting value for their money. Instead we end up supporting the ‘depressed’ drama queens that Judith describes in this post. You know, if I made no scientific progress over 30 years, that would be depressing. But the drama queens seem blissfully unaware that the field is a morass of wasted money and blatant green advocacy (they usually ARE the blatant green advocates!); advocacy which is inhibiting technical progress on the key issues that really do matter for public policy.

        You seem to think that skeptics are the problem. You are mistaken. Skeptics have nothing to do with it. Reductions in fossil fuel use depend more on climate science kicking out the green advocates and drama queens, doing good science, and accepting the reality that fossil fuel reductions are not going to happen without economical substitutes being available. That means lots of nuclear power, ASAP.

      • Ok, look at the first one.

        ” the increasingly warming ocean – also again, at a startlingly fast rate”

        A quote from near the bottom of the article. It is likely that the statement is more hype than real given that what we know of warming of the ocean comes from sea level rise. The instrument record is not there yet on ocean temperature especially deep ocean. Sea level rise has a near constant rate. Startlingly fast seems a bit over the top to me. Where is the data that shows that either ocean warming or sea level rise is proceeding at an abnormal rate or that the current value is unprecedented?

      • The second article. Basically to tax energy at the rate of pollution. Sounds like a good idea until you contemplate who will set those rates and the information that they will use and ignore in doing so.

        Look at the current proposal that the EPA has for regulating CO2 under Obama. Some states get very high CO2 per energy produced and therefore can burn coal. Others get numbers where that is not possible. The EPA was supposed to use economic information to come up with these rates, but did not.

        The article’s proposal suffers from the same problem. Just take coal versus solar for example. None of the pollution to make the solar cells will be taken into account. Nor will the production or disposal of batteries or other high pollution effects be taken into account like physical footprint.

        A similar example would be fluorescent bulbs versus incandescent. Only the cost of using the bulbs was considered. The cost of disposing of mercury or the cost of producing the bulbs was not.

        Some pollution is worse and has a higher cost than others. What is the cost to society of CO2 versus the chemicals like lead in batteries or like mercury in bulbs? Is the government going to take that into account? If the past is any indication, no.

        The government does not have a good track record of setting taxes that take into account the total costs of pollution. Every indication is that they are not going to do any better here.

  77. I hope they all move to the UK. But they’ll be back when winter comes.

  78. I don’t know why Camille Parmesan should feel depressed, after all, she is a “a Nobel prize-winning scientist”. See http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/150/highlights/lectures/Pages/Camille-Parmesan.aspx

  79. Claude Harvey

    The worm turns. When “true believers” find it uncomfortable to raise their flags at social gatherings and one can no longer capture the attention of a dinner party by holding forth on one’s important work studying the effects of global warming on squirrels in the park, I call that “progress”.

    • Oh the worm has only started turning. The effects of anthropogenic climate change are only really starting to be felt broadly and while those denying the reailty of these effects have taken great comfort from the so-called “hiatus” for reasons unknown as the past 10 years of this “hiatus” period has been the warmest on record both in the troposphere, hydrosphere, and punctuated by the past 12 month period which has been the warmest of all. So as they say, this party is just getting started.

      • For some, the problem starts when they look at the Human Carbon Cornucopia and see a Human Carbon Volcano.
        ===================

      • Matthew R Marler

        R. Gates: The effects of anthropogenic climate change are only really starting to be felt broadly and while those denying the reailty of these effects have taken great comfort from the so-called “hiatus” for reasons unknown as the past 10 years of this “hiatus” period has been the warmest on record both in the troposphere, hydrosphere, and punctuated by the past 12 month period which has been the warmest of all.

        What detrimental effects of CO2 increase have yet been felt? The increase in warmth since the end of the LIA has on the whole been neutral or beneficial for agriculture, and there is no reliable evidence that negative effects such as extreme droughts, floods, storms have increased in frequency or intensity. Every claim that something (the fires East of Moscow, for example; Hurricane Katrina) was due to CO2-induced warming has been followed by disclaimers from serious scientists that the departure from the mean is not unprecedented. Even the claim that the last 12 months has been the hottest year on record depends on a selection of the data, and it does not seem to have produced any crop or other disasters related to warmth.

      • RG,

        In that case perhaps you will finally come up with some examples of those effects which I’ve kept asking for.

      • A few examples (hardly exhaustive) of the negative effects of a rapidly warming world.

        1. Warmer is wetter for some:

        2. Warmer is drier for others:

        3. Warmer means more extremes in winter:

        4. More Coastal flooding and intense storm surges:

        5. Risks to infrastructure:

        6. General extreme events brought about by more energy in the climate system:

        7. And the biggest risk probably comes from the unknowns that come from forcing the climate system so rapidly in a way not seen for millions of years:

        When it comes to providing food, housing, and livelihoods to support 7+ Billion people, the uncertainty monster is not our friend, and increasing GH gases increases the odds the uncertainty monster might have some very sharp teeth.

      • “For some, the problem starts when they look at the Human Carbon Cornucopia and see a Human Carbon Volcano.”
        _______
        The best days in the life of a Turkey (the days of plenty, a virtual Cornucopia of food) is just before Thanksgiving. The Dragon King bites.

      • Gates, please tie any one of the events you listed to “global warming”. Show you work. I’ll wait

      • Floods, droughts, tornadoes, local heat waves. If only we had listened to the scientists in the 1970s and diverted rivers and spread soot over the Arctic we could have avoided all this.

        http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

      • I’ve figured it out – Gates is really FOMD!

      • Rgates

        Whilst your series of photos on extreme events was interesting there is absolutely nothing that looks extraordinary through my resarch of British climate bck to the 11 th century.

        Our forefathers suffered Years of flooding or drought which caused great famines.

        Mind you, the sheer number of people these days, many of whom live in unsuitable locations, certainly doesn’t help

        Tonyb

  80. @jcurry
    “”But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus.”””

    I don’t know about the original article, and all the stress of “storms” and so forth, which on first glance seems a bit overwrought.

    But to Curry’s point about “second order from the IPCC consensus,” this fits in with my assessment that Curry, regardless of what critics say about Curry’s motivation (which I think is genuine), as with many people, simply has the issue wrong.

    The statement above helps to greatly support this, since anyone who is a scientist or has that kind of background or scientific understanding can of course defer to the IPCC (which, ironically, and contrary to how portrayed here, is kind of an overly conservative consensus that leaves out many risk factors) in the absence of specific knowledge; but they might also want to have a more direct feel themselves for what the issue is.

    From the statement above – which fits in PERFECTLY with this blog’s constant miscontructions of the issue- it is clear that Curry did not have that feel or understanding. And then, in terms of questioning it, helped by a massive amount of passionately promulgated misinformation, came to have a very skewed assessment presently of just what the issue is.

    Many are going to hold this view no matter what. It is the self sealing nature of fervent belief – all that seemingly fits in is adhered to, or shaped,to fit in, and all that does not, is discarded.

    A great example is the fact that there is almost no legitimate anti climate change article or article that reasonably refutes or substantially undermines the basic climate change theory, in what matters most – carefully vetted science journals.

    This fact doesn’t wake anybody up to the fact that maybe the basic theory makes sense, or that massive confusion and desire to not change from our “addiction” – George W Bush’s specific word – to oil is self reinforcing a mountain of misinformation on the topic.

    As with any addiction, believed and heavily promulgated rationalization to support its continuation ensues; which is what has been happening when it comes to climate change, and takes the form of finding ways to “believe” in “skepticism” on it -which, although a bit more muted than most, is exactly what this blog, under the guise of “examination” is all about.

    If you don’t believe this, and you have any kind of interest in REALLY understanding this issue better not just in finding ways to further convince of the issue’s triviality, read this piece, which examines a broad key part of this issue almost never covered, links to over a dozen leading scientific publications and organizations, and aptly illustrates a large portion of why Climate Change represents a significant challenge that is greatly in our interests to try and intelligently assess and deal with, sensibly and proactively.

    • Insofar as the often self sealing – or at least heavily self reinforcing – nature of climate change “skepticism,” goes, when the fact that vetted journal articles repeatedly do not support, and repeatedly DO refute the “skeptic” position, the response is “well, that is because journals are vetted by scientists, and they’re ‘all in on it’ together.” Thus, > the self sealing, or least self reinforcing, nature is exhibited. And a way found to simply eliminate the otherwise startling relevance of this very key fact:

      That is, the actual scientifically vetted published material on this critical global topic that has been under such scrutiny, and that would welcome any kind of mitigation or the significance of the issue (which is essentially good news for everyone), simply flat out contradicts the basic skeptic position on this issue.

      And there is almost nothing to the contrary in terms of the fundamentals of the issue, when it comes to serious, vetted, scientific journals.

      It doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of uncertainty or disagreement, but uncertainty over precise risk ranges and the exact time path of change, does not mean – as skeptics have nevertheless turned it into – that there is uncertainty over the basic “theory” itself – let alone that the basic theory is not correct.

      This reality is just, simply, ignored.

      As is anything, really, that gets in the way.

      And uncertainty over what we do know, and even mistakes along the way, are erroneously conflated with, and heavily promulgated as, uncertainty over the basic issue itself, or, even refutation of it.

      So what about this piece?

      Same approach?>> Dig, dig, dig with a goal to convincing one’s mind that it has to be so fundamentally flawed, as with all analyses – no matter how leading or expert the scientist – that illustrate the basic ongoing and crescendoing problem of anthropogenic “climate change,” so that it too, and all of the pertinent facts therein, can be similarly discarded or dismissed?

      Or read it with an open mind, and REALLY consider it. As if one really was just trying to figure out the issue – removed from the biases of our political or macroeconomic expectations and assumptions, and fear of transforming our way forward in the world in response to what we, openly, learn. When, that is, that transformation hits up straight against what is an addiction – and what many believe to be an inherent entitlement:

      Namely, our addiction to fossil fuels, which is wildly coloring our analyses, and yet has to not be in order to properly and objectively analyze the science and risk assessment of this issue in a truly logical fashion. ( A good example of just how lacking this often is with some “skepticism” is the often promoted argument, among many others equally flawed, that “the earth has changed before, ” as a means of “climate change refutation,” when the fact that the earth “changes” is about as relevant to the issue of whether OUR now multi million year long term concentration level changes to the atmosphere are affecting a major energy shift that is slowly changing the basic processes and ecological structures that shape our long term climate, as is the price of tea in China.)

      Thanks for considering.

    • Oh–a methane bomber. Never mind.

  81. This is entirely typical of the confessional and personal approach to Global Warming. We have Oreskes with her fantasies about the life enhancing wonders of Chinese authoritarianism, conveniently overlooking a genocidal episode which dwarfs the Holocaust, while thinking about the perils of Global Warming. We have Klein writing weird stuff about staring at swamps in Florida or was it Tenesse or Alabama while musing on her ectopic pregnancy and Global Warming. To prove this is not just women, read Hanson’s personal flights of fantasy about coal.

    It is completely weird. Its as if New Age confessional group therapy has suddenly erupted into politics, and people are saying, do these huge changes and spend these huge sums because of how I felt one day last week when I was on my vacation. Or my study trip. Or I looked out of the window and saw a train and felt this or that.

    Barking mad.

  82. David Schofield

    Shes an actual Nobel prize winner according to the university. Not even ‘shared in…. ‘. See bio in box.
    http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/150/highlights/lectures/Pages/Camille-Parmesan.aspx

    • Err, Not quite David. See this extract from your link: “Her pioneering research papers have produced clear evidence that plants and animals across the world are being impacted on by our changing climate, resulting in her receiving a range of international awards such as the ‘Outstanding woman working in climate change’ and a share in the Nobel Peace Prize as a lead author of the International Panel on Climate Change report.”

    • Sorry David. I was looking at the wrong part of the article. Seems that the lead para was a beat up for sure! “Plymouth University and the National Marine Aquarium held a unique event to celebrate the arrival in Plymouth of Professor Camille Parmesan, a Nobel prize-winning scientist and the newly-appointed National Marine Aquarium Chair in Public Understanding of Oceans and Human Health within the University’s Marine Institute.”

  83. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen :-)
    Actually the problem maybe that she was/is delusional.

  84. We see all the old arguments from the same people. Unprecedented changes that seemingly are not – scenarios of catastrophe that are inherently unlikely in the extreme and massively irrelevant at best – attributions of extremes to anthropogenic climate change that are well within the limits of natural variability.

    It has a basis in a cult that is millenarianist in character – a psychopathology seen time and again and that no doubt contributes to the feelings of disquiet and despair – and has all the hallmarks of groupthink. Among which is the inability to review assumptions. It has as a core anti-democratic and authoritarian impulses and espouses philosophies of limits that are profoundly antagonistic to economic growth in free markets. Capitalism is openly framed as a system that is inherently inimical to nature. Their failure to provide a compelling narrative for the embrace of greater global poverty is blamed on the evil and ignorant denier.

    The rational policy responses are in fact utterly obvious – but rational is not what these people are about.

  85. My trust in climate research was also shaken by the Climate Emails.

    I watched one of Dr. Parmesan’s lectures (Here).

    So I skip the first part of Dr. Parmesan’s lecture about global temperature and the last part about human survival in Alaska. I will write what I understood about the research that she is involved in. She does emphasize, in this video, that she is NOT talking about California and Mexico, but talks about remote areas in Nevada. (Note that the essay of Jim Steele, which I also read, talks about California and Mexico. ) She emphasizes that there is no migration of these butterflies but very local populations that live and die in the same spot. She sees changes and believes that temperature change is the cause. She uses the growth of plants (temperature, CO2), upon which the butterflies live, as becoming out of sinc with life cycle of the butterfly. This is a real phenomenon and worthy of study, in my opinion. In fact, insect and bird migration are one of the few reasons I believe that the climate is changing.

    In Europe, where I am part of the insect observation network (ok, ok I help count dragonflies 4 times a year at a local golf course), the appearance of southern species is quite common. What we don’t know is whether this is a cyclical thing or not, just that it is happening and affects humans.

    I empathise with Dr. Parmesan’s sadness but not because of the results of global warming. No one likes change.

  86. I have always thought that in the Climate Change/Warming camp there were particular underlying issues of psychology. I have suspected depression (and have witnessed it) is motivation for thoughts and Climate Change stance (because it is all-encompassing) is the outlet to express this, rather than vice-versa. The victim angle, as is demonstrated in Thomas’ article, is a natural and convenient turn/twist from the control angle that is commonly used in the Climate Change camp. The observation of psychology then becomes more apparent than the science, however interesting, curious, sad, or humorous.

  87. I found one of her lectures. I haven’t listened to it all yet but probably will later.

    • I can see why she is upset. The top climate scientists haven’t been completely honest with her. First they say we have to get rid of the term global warming but fail to inform her that was because they were assured by G Bush and F Luntz that it would reduce alarmism. The second thing they failed to tell her is when she asked what a polar excursion was they told her it was what they expected with global warming but forgot to tell her they also expected it in the 70s with global cooling. After that she talks a lot about how there is biological evidence the climate is changing which I have no reason to doubt. At about 50 minutes in, where I am listening right now, she starts talking about deniers. Could get interesting.

  88. Plymouth University seems pleased to have signed up what they refer to as ‘a Nobel-prize-winning scientist’,
    https://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/150/highlights/lectures/Pages/Camille-Parmesan.aspx

  89. JC said: “…they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998.”
    —–
    Really? None at all? Or is it that the many papers written on all these topics do propose explanations but there is uncertainty in those explanations. Yes, the uncertainty monster exists, but that does not equate in any way to “no” explanations.

    • Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

      It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

      The explanation is emergent behaviour in global systems involving changes in cloud and ocean and atmospheric circulation.

      There is a difference between getting the core mode of operation correct conceptually and ad hoc rationalisations.

    • Reference to “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” reminds me of an exchange between two Royal Navy captains. Many years ago, when the Sea Wolf anti-missile missile was in its final prototype stage, it was decided to test it by firing a dummy round from a 5 inch gun from one vessel, and having another, Sea Wolf-equipped vessel attempt to intercept it in mid-trajectory. The test was a success, producing a satisfying bang. The captain of the ship that had fired the “target” round, not wishing his colleague and his crew to get all the glory, signalled to him “We appear to have shot down your missile”. Makes me proud of my British heritage…

  90. It’s more important to dig into why these folks are depressed, and it has nothing to do with TCR. Paul Ehrlich and his acolytes (like Webby) are fascinating for this reason. They were consumed with issuing dire warnings of the serious problems of imminent famine in New York City and total oil production collapse that was due to happen in the 1980s and ’90s. Yet, when we solved those “problems”, they weren’t ecstatic. In fact they’re angrier and more depressed about them than ever before.
    Did they want collapse? Do they just feel silly having a windmill and basement full of non-perishable food while the local grocer has a sale on grapes from Peru and the corner gas station is lowering prices again? Or is it because the political “solutions” they wanted never happened?
    On other threads we noted Lockheed’s fusion advances, the work on other next gen nuclear, the Navy’s advances in making jet fuel from seawater, bio-fuels and, yes, even the work showing when and where renewables can play a part.
    Twenty years from now, when the “problem” of CAGW will be as much of a concern as today’s worry about where to bury all our famine victims in the US, it’s likely that Parmesan will be even more depressed and bitter than ever before that we just never listened to her. And Joshua will be posting about the next big scare and all the idiots who are skeptical of it.

  91. Pingback: Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips | The WordPress C(h)ronicle

    • More to the point, is the close association between rising temperatures and rising CO2:

      • close association between rising temperatures and rising CO2

        What close association between rising temperatures and rising CO2? There is no evidence of it in that graph, certainly.

        In any case, even if it were so – which it isn’t – correlation does NOT imply causation, never has and never will.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/normalise

      • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

        Gates, aka “the skeptical warmist” needs a course in logic. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” would be a good place to start.

        “Close association” are the weasel words of someone who believes things, “just cuz.” Come back when you can prove it.

      • There’s also a very close association between rising CO2 over the last few decades and my rising age – now I know the cause.

      • The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been-and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather. [Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, ‘In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,’ WSJ, May 8, 2013]

      • What’s with Gates’ Global Temperature and CO2 graph? The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces, according to the NOAA, for the 20th century was… an average of 15.0°C or 59.0°F.

      • Hmmm. Yep, the “hiatus” is there, but not really looking so hiatus-like:

      • “There’s also a very close association between rising CO2 over the last few decades and my rising age – now I know the cause.”
        _____
        Correlation is not necessarily causation of course, and in fact, there is a very close association between your age and rising CO2. You are very likely a child of the HCV. That is, without the HCV, most of us would not exist. In as much as your continued existence, and hopefully slow and graceful aging is made possible by the HCV, then if fact, there is a very close association between rising CO2 and your age. You are a product of the Fossil Fuel Age and every year that you exist and grow older is made possible by the transfer of carbon from lithosphere to atmosphere.

      • Here’s a graph of world population and CO2:

        As most of us reading this would be part of that “world population” and our aging means we remain part of it as we don’t get counted in the population when we are dead, then is seems there is a correlation between our age and the HCV. The CO2 in the graph about represents the output of the HCV. Compare that to this chart with the added solar output, and of course, the human fingerprint on global temperature starts to come a bit more into focus:

        Ain’t really the sun wot dun it– it’s us and our happy little HCV.

      • Bizarre.
        Now CO2 has caused the population explosion.
        Are you sure it’s not the other way around?

      • In 70 years CO2 and temperature have been going in the same direction for 23. The total rise in the period is 0.4K – the rate is 0.07K/decade.

        It is quite unlikely to warm for decades and the next shift is quite likely to be to yet cooler as the Sun cools and this is amplified through global systems.

        The rational response is accelerated commercialization of Gen 4 nuclear reactors – along with a multi-gas strategy (including especially black carbon), restoring ahricultural soils and conservation and restoration of ecosystems.

        The questions are into what depths of insanity have these people descended, just what is it they think they are demonstrating and wtf do they think they want on a socio-political level?

      • “Bizarre.
        Now CO2 has caused the population explosion.
        Are you sure it’s not the other way around?”
        _______
        Need to read harder. No simple cause and effect here. Pumping more carbon from the lithosphere to atmosphere as part of energy extraction (the HCV) has allowed the population to explode. More energy available=more babies. But more babies in turn mean more energy extraction is needed, so there is a correlation that feeds upon itself– more energy available=more babies=more energy needed, and so forth. Too complex for you?

      • “In 70 years CO2 and temperature have been going in the same direction for 23.”
        ______.
        This ridiculous statement would try to parse down long-term forcing versus shorter-term natural variability. CO2 forcing is of course a long-term signal that is best seen over multi-decadal data sets. Shorter-term climate signals, such as from ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc. will all act as noise riding on top of the longer-term forcing. This is Climate 101. When looking at the multi-decadal signal, we clearly see the close century-long parallel between rising CO2 and global temperatures.

      • Is there anything that CO2, the wonder gas, cannot do?

      • “Is there anything that CO2, the wonder gas, cannot do?”
        ___________
        Please, as amazing as CO2 is, we must not forget her friends:

        They are rising stars as well!

      • You don’t even realise when you’re being sent up, do you?

      • phatboy,

        Really? You provide me endless entertainment.

      • …and, you are a Malthusian. For sure start with limiting the population of the US.

      • …and then, make sure to leave the borders open!

      • Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like you are some kind of exotically rare flower. You’re the mainstream. Enjoy– everything you believe is shared by millions. We hoped for more in America but alas…

    • “In 70 years CO2 and temperature have been going in the same direction for 23.”
      ______.
      This ridiculous statement would try to parse down long-term forcing versus shorter-term natural variability. CO2 forcing is of course a long-term signal that is best seen over multi-decadal data sets. Shorter-term climate signals, such as from ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc. will all act as noise riding on top of the longer-term forcing. This is Climate 101. When looking at the multi-decadal signal, we clearly see the close century-long parallel between rising CO2 and global temperatures.

      Nonetheless – it is literally true that the only warming in the last 70 years is 1976 to 1998. The total warming between 1944 to 1998 was 0.4K – the centennial climate signal suggests that this was not all anthropogenic CO2. The rate was 0.07K/decade.

      This is not space cadet ‘climate science 101’ – but it is nonetheless objectively true.

      • “Nonetheless – it is literally true that the only warming in the last 70 years is 1976 to 1998.”
        ——
        Uh, except the warmest year was 2010 (and now very possibly 2014) and the warmest decade (a better way to gauge as it filters out ENSO) was 2005-2014, and the oceans (the best gauge) are at their warmest on record and have been warming continually for at least 60 years, and hence the metric to even measure if an El Niño is occuring has had to be constantly adjusted upward.

  92.  
    Antidote to global warming hysteria: get out of the way of America’s productive. Send the Leftist politicians, bureaucrats and school teachers back to the farm and let the country get back to work.

    For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years.

    [McNider and Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change — It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the ‘consensus’ and said the Earth was round, WSJ]

  93. Because Parmesan’s initial studies in California and suggesting climate change had caused plants and butterflies to become out of sync were so horribly bad she and her husband Dr. Singer, have been downplaying the papers that launched her climate mayhem.

    Now they have tried to push her Great Britain studies but those are equally bad. Her IPCC paper hijacked a northward expansion that was due to conservation efforts

    As in her “out of sync” papers in Sequoia National Park (read request for retraction here http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html)
    where she left information of thriving populations “off the books”, she similarly amputated data to create climate horror stories in England. For example in her 1999 paper she featured a graph (linked here http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/89260036.png and on the right) showing global warming had pushed the Speckled Wood Butterfly northward into Scotland for the first time beginning in the 1940s (red dots) and then further after 1967 (blue dots)

    But a 1948 paper written by a Scottish lepidopterist shows the butterfly was populating northern Scotland in the 1800s and undergoes population cycles. In the link to with Parmesan’s graph cherry-picked dates, I compared his graph of the known populations before 1940s. (every dot and number)

    Read: The History of the Speckled Wood Butterfly (Pararge aegeria) in Scotland, with a Discussionof the Recent Changes of Range of Other British Butterflies by J. A. DownesSource: Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Nov., 1948)

    Parmesan should be depressed because she has cherry-picked data, hid data and made false claims to create climate horror stories, and her stories are easily revealed as pure BS. She sits atop of a house of cards.

    • She should worry, being one of the enablers of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Fearing.
      ===========

    • Well, Parmesan doesn’t cherry pick – she dumps fruit on the ground. I’m not sure that is an improvement and may be poor methodology or research misconduct.

      http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/research/ch420/420.010_research_misconduct
      Parmesan’s activities appear to be 3b research misconduct according to the University of Missouri standards. Presumably UT Austin has similar guidelines.

    • Jim Steele
      I will look at the references. This subject interests me. Insects are a good proxy for changing climate but there are many other variables. I’ve just read of a pine beetle that has been slowly migrating (unlike the butterlies) up the northeast coast of the US and has been found in the pine forests of Long Island (I used to live there). It might be due to not enough cold nights in winter. But whether this is urban heat island or changing gulf stream or overall warming due to CO2 is unkown. I doubt that it can be stopped.

      Rose

      • Rose, why stop it? It’s the natural process whereby species move to take advantage of better opportunities in response to environmental changes, of whatever cause.

      • Well, it was about as warm (or warmer) during the MWP so these things have happened before. Just no one recorded them.

        The world is coming out of the LIA cool period and things are going to change. In about 100-150 years things will get cooler again. And the insects etc. will move back south.

  94. NORFOLK, VA—Pre-traumatic stress disorder, a future-combat-related psychological condition previously thought to afflict only young soldiers drafted against their will, is now found in growing numbers among National Guard members, Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force reservists, semi-retired officers, and the newly recruited, according to a government study released Monday.
    [ … ]
    Researchers have recently identified new segments of the population also considered to be at risk for Pre-TSD, including parents of children approaching military age, Iraqi citizens, and any person who watches more than three hours of television news per day.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-more-us-soldiers-suffering-from-pretraumati,2088/

  95. Having grown up with the Pre-traumatic stress disorder of the coming nuclear war, and with that not happening, there is a clear need to substitute. Climate doom is a good substitute I guess, but with that failing as well…. there’s always the EMP thingy… one blast puts every delievery truck out of commission, food stocks dry up…. there will always be some substitute, thank goodness!

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      me too
      my town was set to be vaporized if the Cuban missile crisis had gone south
      there used to be squadrons of B52s in the air 24/7 365 ready to turn towards the USSR at moments notice
      20 minutes from the end of the world
      I’ll take higher sea levels and a green Greenland any day
      (which isn’t really happening anyway, my bet is that it’s gonna get colder)
      would not be the end of the world

      • I missed the Cuban missle crisis by some years; must have been pretty wild.

      • Andrew Russell

        I was 15 years old and watched on our family’s Admiral television when John Kennedy gave his speech kicking off the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember it vividly, and it still give me chills.

  96. “…the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998.”

    QFT

  97. David Schofield

    Just had a reply from her University. Won’t print it all but in summary, as a lead author on a paper used by the IPCC she got a certificate which says she is co recipient of the Nobel prize and they’ll amend the bios to show that.
    So, if you publish a paper which gets used by the IPCC you can be a Nobel Prize winner. Stunning. That must be thousands of people.

  98. Camille Parmesan’s research on the Bay Checkerspot butterfly was bogus. The butterfly is endemic to the rare San Francisco Bay Area serpentine grasslands threatened by development, nitrogen enrichment, and invasive non-native Italian ryegrass.

    http://www.epa.gov/espp/factsheets/bay-checkerspot-butterfly.pdf

    http://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/fremontia/fremontia_36-1.pdf

     http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-26/pdf/E8-19195.pdf#page=1

    • There are many varieties of this butterfly and she talks about the ones in Nevada during her talk cited by Steven above. I will have a look at the papers you site.
      Rose

  99. David Schofield

    Had a look at the Mann IPCC certificate and it says nothing about co recipient. I smell a rat.

  100. Matthew R Marler

    But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus. That is, I believed in the consensus without having done a real detailed assessment of my own.

    My experience was similar. About 6 years ago I read an article in Science that showed how changes in solar output produced changes in the upper atmosphere, and it suggested to me that the CO2 theory of post LIA warming might be incomplete. I decided to take a more active interest, and so I began collecting and reading some of the standard texts and newer works such as Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate (as soon as I read of it), and I started collecting and reading new published papers. I also began reading ClimateAudit, RealClimate, and WUWT, and probing some propositions via debating and questioning. I began to read ClimateEtc when I learned of it, and reading IsaacHeld’sBlog. I have been impressed by how poor the evidence implicating CO2 actually is (full of “holes”, “liabilities”, “lacunae”, “known unknowns”, “cavities”), and how imprecise much of the public dialogue advocating rapid reduction of fossil fuels is. I have also been impressed by how many rather extreme claims have been made by climate scientists despite a complete absence of a scientific argument (“snow will disappear from England”, it will never again rain in certain flood-prone regions, every year will produce multiple Katrina-like disasters, etc.). Examples of such claims have been debated here at ClimateEtc, and Steven Goddard maintains a daily running tally of such unscientific alarmism. And I have been impressed by how frequently purveyors of CO2 alarmism respond with invective and worse when they are confronted with questions that they do not have the answers to.

    I am encouraged by how much more modest the IPCC AR5 is in its conclusions and recommendations than its predecessors. I am also encouraged that, among the voting public, averting CO2-linked disasters is not as prominent as it was, and I am encouraged by the thorough skeptical reviews of the science maintained by the famous Republican skeptics in Congress (those reviews have problems of their own, but they have proved to be effective in the public debates.)

    “I felt like here was this huge signal I was finding and no one was paying attention to it,” Parmesan says.

    I have friends and associates who find a signal in the Revelation of St. John; I think everyone has heard of the “Left Behind” series, written by some rather famous authors who have found the signal. How exactly the neuropsychological mechanism turns scraps of ideas and knowledge of evidence into strong beliefs is something I do not know, but it seems to be at work among the CO2 alarmists. (There is work that might be informative: some people suffer, after brain damage, from in condition in which they profoundly believe that look-alike strangers have substituted for their parents; they can’t unlearn the belief. ) Some of them have the same approach as missionaries: that testifying to their beliefs is the same as presenting a scientific case.

    There is a solid prima facie case that, other things being equal, extra CO2 might produce warmer weather at the surface and lower troposphere. But there is clearly no reason to believe that other things will remain equal; actual effects of future CO2 increases on future weather are shrouded in ignorance and partial knowledge.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Quick clarification: the diverse claims that changes in solar output are producing changes in the Earth climate also remain full of holes. There just isn’t a coherent, well-tested theory of climate change over the last 11,500 years.

    • Matt, thanks again for your lucid, excellent and frequent contributions to CE.

  101. A month ago ecologists from South Africa notified me that she was speaking there and to their utter disbelief she was being billed as a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist. Such propaganda was giving them climate depression.

  102. Thomas Sowell 2001
    Green Bigots Versus Human Beings

    How many people have ever seen a red-legged frog? Or even want to see a red-legged frog? The green bigots may be horrified that there are people who don’t have the slightest interest in red-legged frogs. But those people are just as much American citizens as any life-long member of the Sierra Club and are entitled to equal rights under the Constitution. There is neither a legal nor a moral reason to over-ride what they want because the green bigots want something else.
    snip
    Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2001/05/24/green_bigots_versus_human_beings/page/full

    • I’m sure I’m clear on the meaning of this post. Via the link provided I found:
      “The green bigots may be horrified that there are people who don’t have the slightest interest in red-legged frogs. But those people are just as much American citizens as any life-long member of the Sierra Club and are entitled to equal rights under the Constitution. There is neither a legal nor a moral reason to over-ride what they want because the green bigots want something else.”

      and

      “What could be more exalting than to take on the God-like role of adjudicating between animals and people? You cannot be a judge handing down edicts for others unless you are placing yourself above those others. We know how judges are appointed or elected. But who elected the green bigots to play G-d?”

      So I have to wonder if the author meant this as a parody due to the last paragraph:”Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers.”

      I’m a bit of a tree hugger but have to admit my selfish reasoning. As this author so wonderfully points out:” But who elected the green bigots to play G-d?” I wonder the same about the author.

      My selfish reasoning is this. We, although we think we may, do not know all about all. I have to wonder if the author were to learn that the “red-legged frog” happened to hold the key that unlocks the cure to cancer from which his beloved mother suffers, would the author not feel differently?

      I don’t agree that “green bigots” should be considered “G-d”, but neither do I agree that the author should be either. Based on the reasoning I glean from this author they apparently believe anyone should be allowed to do anything no matter what or whom they impact? We’re supposed to be the creature on this planet with the capability for the highest order of reasoning, and this author seems to fall a bit short.

      Did I miss something here? Are ‘green bigots’ not human too?

      • Danny, we’ll never know all about all. But we can know a lot about ourselves, and we are a microcosm of the universe. Knowing yourself, you better know the universe. Learning about yourself at the experiential level, that this “I” is not a solid, continuing entity but a flow of minute particles arising and passing away with great rapidity, helps in developing humility and in developing the volition and wisdom to help others rather than to impose on them. People are people, whether bigots or not. Some seek to impose their views on others, some would rather help them to develop their own understanding.

      • Faustino,

        I appreciate your philosophy as I hope you can appreciate mine.

        I truly do not understand the post, but find the details to be bothersome in that I find that neither the author of the story nor the so called “green bigots” should be considered as one to be of more value, or higher moral position than the other. Should not both be equal (or at a minimum, considerate)? Should one be able to “eliminate” one over the other? Red legged frogs could be proxy for (insert item of choice here).

        This is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. As you know, I suffer from scientific inadequacy but I “believe” myself (and you and others) to be no lesser than another on a philosophical level. My reading of the authors offering (separated from the poster) is that if one wishes to do something they should be able to do it no matter the harm (or benefit) to others.

        Does this not mean that I could do the same as could you? And would that be morally acceptable? I think not. This is my offering in developing my “own understanding”. I do not comprehend the post which is why I chose to respond.

        I thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to why this offering was presented.

      • Danny, I can’t answer your question as to “why this offering is presented.” And I don’t have a philosophy as such, I draw on my experience and insight.

        As for bigots, they surely have a lesser moral standing than non-bigots. But they are suffering and ignorant human beings like the rest of us, better treated with compassion than derision (though I admit to the occasional snarky comment here). I’ve never interpreted anyone here as taking the attitude that “if one wishes to do something they should be able to do it no matter the harm (or benefit) to others.” The basis of any sound morality is surely not to harm other beings. Occasionally, you might need to take strong action. For example, in my younger days I often intervened when a group was beating someone up. People often warned me that I’d get beaten up myself; I never was, because I intervened without animosity, without seeking to harm anyone. Several times, people turned on me, but picked up on my non-aggressive vibe, and left me and the victim alone. I’ve said here before, that the critical thing is good volition, backed by understanding. With that combination, you’re unlikely to do harm. And if you firmly believe that we are engaged in highly dangerous warming, you wouldn’t abuse sceptics as “deniers” whose thoughts are not to be tolerated, rather than treat them as fellow human beings with different understanding and views from yourself.

      • Faustino,

        I truly appreciate your commentary. I separated the author from the poster. Without an understanding of the reasoning behind the post it was never my assumption to superimpose the authors beliefs on the poster.

        In the story, the author came across to me as no less bigoted than the “green bigot” if directed differently. My impression is that you might agree based on “The basis of any sound morality is surely not to harm other beings.”

        Bringing this back more topically to Climate, (etc.). You further stated:”And if you firmly believe that we are engaged in highly dangerous warming, you wouldn’t abuse sceptics as “deniers” whose thoughts are not to be tolerated, rather than treat them as fellow human beings with different understanding and views from yourself.”

        Thinking of that comment, (and as you may recall I’m still in search of “my truth” in the matter), I agree with you fully. I’ll even go further. Even if one doesn’t believe as you suggest there is no reason to not treat others, well, as one would wish to be treated themselves.

        My models (this is a joke here) indicate that the truth of CC discussion likely lies somewhere in the middle.

    • Well, it seems the mankind is doing more damage distributing exotic invasive species than this whole warming thing that he is only partially responsible for.

      I’m actually fine with some restrictions that protect species as long as they don’t cost a lot and don’t have an undue impact on people’s freedom.

      Stopping people from shooting polar bears worked out pretty well, the population seems to be stable (even though we are still killing over a 1000 a year).
      http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/
      Site does a good job of documenting the hanky panky done with polar bears population numbers.

      And she tells a good story workshop she attended:
      http://polarbearscience.com/2014/09/24/in-2009-i-asked-a-polar-bear-biologist-a-challenging-question-at-a-global-warming-workshop/

      The frustrating thing about the public presentation of science related to global warming is that there is abundant data that doesn’t mesh well with the CAGW hypothesis that is either minimized or not presented.

  103. Tho it doesn’t depress me, I do worry about weather during bitter-cold temperatures & what to do if the power goes out. A power outage in the summer, OTOH, is little more than a nuisance.

  104. Just an engineer

    valium girl?

  105. Madeleine Thomas sounds young…like someone who went through secondary education when promoting ‘self-esteem’ was the thing.
    My second thought is, ‘Really.’ Consider scientists who were burned at the stake for what they announced, to give it some perspective. Or consider the scientist as String Theorist with beautiful mathematics but no real idea if he is dealing with anything real and what that might mean for a career spent chasing a possible chimera, or the scientist who has a theory or notion that no one would understand so he works alone, in isolation.
    Think of the novelist who spends years crafting a work of art only to have it rejected by the first ten publishers. Or the artist who dies having never achieved and worldly success.
    It makes Miss Thomas seem somewhat whiny and one wants to say, ‘Man up.’

  106. Don’t hurt yourself laughing but, you’ve got to love the jump-article about ‘FOX News seeds climate doubts.’ The writer who proves by overwhelming evidence to be a total Lefty actually proves my point that, global warming is nothing but a Left vs. right issue –i.e., it’s all political — and, in contrast, has absolutely nada to do with any legitimate scientific endeavor (which by definition must be skeptical by now because all of the climate models have proven to be bogus), as follows:

    For conservatives turning to Fox News, studies conducted by Rutgers University’s Lauren Feldman and colleagues conclude that the cable network serves an influential political function in the climate debate, sustaining its viewers’ doubts about climate science even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

    These doubts, Feldman told me via email, have become a key means by which Fox News viewing conservatives distinguish their political identity from liberals. In turn, the need to sustain core identity beliefs about climate change drives conservative viewers back to Fox in a reinforcing cycle.

    In contrast, given the strong proportion of arguments at MSNBC emphasizing the urgency of climate change, Feldman’s studies conclude that heavier viewers of the network, along with other left-leaning and mainstream news sources, are more likely to be concerned about climate change and to support policy action.

    • Some of my right-wing friends pretty much parrot the climate skeptical views they’ve heard on Faux News. None of them have actually read any of the research directly or actually understand the science. So kudos to those Faux News viewers here on CE that have actually gone beyond the anti-science talking points on Faux News.

      • Heat due to UHI is only a local not a global phenomenon, despite a faintly irrational impulse to see examples of UHI and then label every inconvenient weather-related event an act of man, not God (especially for those who believe men are oil-driven evil doers whereas God is nothing more than a Judeo-Christian illusion).

      • nottawa rafter

        Gates
        And the more I read the research and the observational data, the worse it looks for the warmists. I give you 5 more years of current trends and even you will start to see the light.

      • Andrew Russell

        Of course the reason you despise Fox News is because it has intellectual diversity and intellectual honesty. Unlike any of the other main news organizations where only liberals are employed and only liberal dogma is allowed. As Bernard Goldberg, who worked over 20 years at CBS News, documented so comphrensively in his books, “Bias” and “Arrogance”. Titles that not surprisingly fit warmists so well…

      • R. Gates said “..parrot the climate skeptical views they’ve heard on Faux News. None of them have actually read any of the research directly or actually understand the science”

        Please. As if that is a problem only with Fox New viewers. It is a problem with all sides as well as laypeople and scientists alike. After Parmesan wrote her paper bogus paper Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom—part-3–extreme-weather.html

        She immediately was asked to co-author a paper Easterling, D.R., et al. (2000) Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts. Science, 289 in which she retold her deceptively cherry picked tale of climate change causing extreme weather and extirpating butterflies, and nearly 2000 consensus scientists blindly cite those papers.

      • “I give you 5 more years of current trends and even you will start to see the light.”
        _____
        Reminds me of the hopes of the Chicago cubs fans! Just wait until next year! Meanwhile, each decadal average (the minimum period in which you can even possibly see long-term CO2 forcing) is warmer than the next, and the end of those decade periods tend to be warmer than the beginning. The past 12 months possibly the warmest 12 month period in 900 years.

        But hope springs eternal for the much dreamed of “cooling” by faux-skeptics.

      • “Please. As if that is a problem only with Fox New viewers. It is a problem with all sides as well as laypeople and scientists alike.”
        _____
        Oh I agree. Ignorance runs rampant. I do not even discuss climate issues with someone who gets their science from the MSM – be it right or left leaning. What’s the point. Even more entertaining is watching a Faux News view argue with an MSNBC viewer when that’s their only source for “science”. Quite comical (and a bit painful, really) to watch ignorance argue against ignorance. But of course, that sort of thing never happens here at CE, eh?

      • “Of course the reason you despise Fox News is because it has intellectual diversity and intellectual honesty”
        _____
        I do not despise Faux News at all. I watch it regularly. I find it very entertaining. It simply is not my source for actual news. I also find it useful for getting a better perspective of where my right-leaning friend are coming from and what might be on their “minds” (really, on Rupert’s mind). Faux News represents the single best source to get an inside look at the right-wing group memes, and some great laughs as well!

      • Curious George

        “None of them have actually read any of the research directly or actually understand the science.” Are you implying you read the research and/or understand the science?

        Please read about my personal encounter with the “science” -https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257

      • Obviously, the Left prefers systemic bias and if it didn’t exist they’d make it up.

      • “Are you implying you read the research and/or understand the science?”
        ______
        Let’s just say that I’ve spent more time reading research papers than listening to Faux News faux-science reporters tell us how growing sea ice in Antarctica disproves AGW. This is the kind of mush that my right-leaning friends spew out, and is my first clue to keep my mouth shut around them rather than getting into the real science. I just smile at them and let them continue their Murdock-programmed ranting.

      • Randy presumes that he is capable of reading past the Borg collective groupthink filter. There is not a lot of evidence of that.

      • Curious George

        Thank you very much for a swift reply. The very speed of your reply did not give you much time to read my reference. So I’ll recap here, the CAM5 model has a 2.5% error in the specific heat of water vaporization. Impacts of this approximation are not known. For a perspective, for an average surface temperature of the Earth 290 degrees K, a 2.5% error is 7.25K, or 13 degrees F. Label this left or right as you prefer.

      • Anyone who refers to Fox as Faux News is generally so far left they think CBS/NBC/ABC are fair and balanced.

        CBS/NBC/ABC run the churnolistic stories that claim animals such as the polar bear are threatened and unusual weather in 2013 was due to global warming.

        However there is some good news:
        http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/feds-reverse-course-on-wolverines/
        “That’s similar to what happened to the bearded seal. It received protections from the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2012 only to lose them last month, when a federal judge sided with Alaska officials who said 100-year projections of sea ice losses were based on speculation.”

        At least one judge out there has common sense.

  107. It is amazing how much these Lefty global warming drones hate FOX news. Is it because any blonde there would make a better father to their children?

    • Faux News is great source of entertainment and way to keep tabs on what the wacko-right is thinking. Though strongly influenced by Murdock’s far-right views and big money political influencing, I am glad Faux News is around for the times I get bored with real news.

      • If not for the systemic that the UHI effect has on the land-based record, the Left would then have to make up myths to explain a quarter of a century of no global warming–e.g., Earth’s surface temperature has not changed for the past 19 years, and 16-26 years for the lower atmosphere. ~Daniel Botkin

  108. UHI = systemic bias!

  109. Breaking News: Ebola caused by global warming.

  110. Am I wrong, or is pre-traumatic stress syndrome a convoluted way of saying worry?

    Some people worry more than others. Some people even worry about the possibility that they may indeed be worrying without real cause, or worrying at someone else’s behest.

    If you can manage to worry a little less, you may even find you are happier. It might be worth trying – who knows?

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • It is born of a psychological need for consistency and then being confronted with the challenge of a reality that is in direct conflict with internalized beliefs that that have been given credibility and value over a lifetime of self-delusion. The only way to avoid a mental breakdown is to keep normal people away from the house of cards.

    • “Mike Flynn | October 30, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Reply
      Am I wrong, or is pre-traumatic stress syndrome a convoluted way of saying worry?”

      No it is a way for someone to show that they are morally superior to the herd as they care so much about the biosphere that it makes them, as individuals, ill.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        DocMartyn smears “[Environmentalists who] care so much about the biosphere that it makes them, as individuals, ill.”

        Many readers find that authors like Edward Abbey help relieve “the soothing ignorance that feels like knowledge” — and relieve too the angry outbursts that so commonly are associated to ignorance — David Dunning explains how this works!

        Aside  Heck, Ed Abbey’s a hat-wearer too? What’s with the hats?

        Good on `yah, Edward Abbey, for dozens of well-loved works that have helped so greatly to erase “the soothing ignorance that feels like knowledge”!

        \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}

  111. There is science behind this concept. My aunt was depressed in the cold, rainy climate she lived in on the East Coast. She moved to the sunny area on the West Coast and has been happy for years.

  112. Judith takes another step towards victim-bully hood.

    • Changes, changes … I used to think that Vonnegut was terrific, now my son does and I find him unreadable. That’s life, the only constant is change, within us and without us.

    • I liked this book.

      I think once you’ve read one or two, you’ve read them all.

      I could barely get started, and gave up quick, with slaughterhouse 5. Gets old fast.

  113. If Californians or SE Australians, for example, of past generations reacted to extreme drought by seeing sinister trends/causations, they had an excuse. Records, information and access to such things were very limited. Young people had an even better excuse.

    Right now, I am experiencing a parched and windy spring which has already messed with plans and might even “depress” me if I were relying on rain for my economic survival. Drought and fire-risk are looming, hungry horses are eating bamboo. The sunsets are lush, the rest of the daytime sucks and I can hardly bear to step outside.

    Because I am quite old, I well remember bad springs and bad years here in the past. And because weather records are easily accessed, and rainfall records can even be trusted, it is easy to see, as with sea levels around Australia’s stable coastline, what is actually going on.

    There is no sinister trend or causation, just the semi-permanent reality of my region’s climate.

    We’ve had lower October rain in 1991, 1989, 1948 (driest), 1941, 1931, 1908, 1900, 1897. While September was lousy it was far worse in many other years. It’s no trouble at all to learn how dry the full three months of spring 1897 and 1915 were. Strange to say, our worst year (and Australia’s), 1902, had good rain in spring.

    In many of these seasons the weather just turned right round again in summer. In some they were part of extended drought. In spite of the utterly false description of “unprecedented” spring fires last, 1897 was one of many, many precedents of serious wildfire in NSW in spring. There is no excuse for not knowing about such important and well recorded events.

    I have to use this straightforward, unwelcome knowledge to lessen assumption and improve preparation. Isn’t that what an adult would do and what an adult would expect of me? Or should I retreat into depression and look for reasons why this time around a dry spring is different. This time it’s the apocalypse, before it was just weather. Now the climate’s coming to get me? I think that’s called neurosis, and neurotics are very prone to attributing their unhappy condition to superior insight and understanding.

    While there is a great excuse for not knowing future climate, there is no excuse for ignorance of such basic, easily accessed facts. As to why many modern climate specialists exhibit little interest or curiosity about actual climate…that must remain a mystery for the ages.

    And, yes, this is a medical tip for Parmesan and Van Susteren. Model whatever you like, but live with the real.

    • + 100 (rating inflation)

    • @ mosomoso

      “As to why many modern climate specialists exhibit little interest or curiosity about actual climate…that must remain a mystery for the ages.”

      After observing ‘Climate Science’ writ large, its most prominent spokespersons, and its watermelon sponsors in action for a good number of years, and applying the famous principle of Friar William of Ockham, the answer would appear obvious: The purpose of ‘Climate Science’ has nothing to do with understanding the workings of the actual climate and everything to do with justifying the advance of totalitarian progressivism.

      That is why individual scientists like Dr. Curry, who insist on getting all ‘scientifical’, start examining the actual SCIENTIFIC foundations of ‘Climate Science’ (condensed version: ‘ACO2 is causing every observable aspect of the climate and the environment to change, the impact of the changes vary from undesirable to catastrophic, and the planet and its biosphere are doomed unless immediate action is taken to control every human activity that either produces or consumes energy.’) , notice that there are few to none, and stick their hand up and say ‘Just a cotton pickin’ minute here, y’all!’ find their ‘Climate Scientist Club’ membership terminated instantly. With extreme prejudice.

    • The basic failure here is thinking that the past is a good predictor of the kinds of climate changes we’ll see from the strongest forcing to the climate system in millions of years. There has been no forcing on the climate in the span of human experience as intense as the forcing we are causing, and that forcing is only still increasing year by year:

      • Care to tell us how the ice ages and the MWP came about without ‘strong forcing ‘? The irony is that is often the AGW supporting hardcore that deny climate changes , in the past, not those they attack who are happy to admit climate does , has and will change .

      • That’s a very vivid picture.

        Makes you wonder how we got that Younger Dryas and then the big temp rises and oceanic heaves of the early Holocene without any help from these “forcings”. Not like it was that long ago, any more than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warmings are very remote.

        Really makes you wonder how the climate managed all those droughts and mega-droughts. It was so dry in California during the MWP they would’ve drunk New Coke if they had it.

  114. My great sadness is that even at the most extreme estimate climate change is a minor threat to species diversity. It will be this missed – and last for many species – opportunity that is the real challenge of the 21st century. One for which global warming is nothing but a very unfortunate distraction.

  115. Climategate emails that surfaced five years ago in 2009 awakened us to “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

    Now we realize that AGW is as real as the Big Bang, Black Holes, Oscillating Solar Neutrinos, Higgs Boson, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, etc., ad infinitum.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/timely-pope-no-big-bang-without-god/#comment-151006

  116. moso, 512-3, Yousuf 201, Misbah 100, Australia trying to declare.

  117. And still, Nature dances the mad fandango, albeit with irresistible gentleness.

    The Earth proceeds on its remorseless, relentless, inevitable slow walk to partake in the heat death of the Universe. Complain if you will. Rail if you must. It matters not.

    You can’t escape the future – facts will inevitably triumph, whether you agree or not. Why not just enjoy life? What benefit accrues by seeking misery?

    Oh well. As AFOMD says, everything detrimental continues without pause or limit – we are all doomed. Eventually the continents will sink below the oceans, the oceans will boil, and Gore’s millions of degrees will emerge from the deeps to peel the very flesh from our bones. Or possibly, life will go on.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  118. What warmist depression is really linked to;

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/end-age-obama_817765.html

    Late 60’s riots, late 70’s Carter defeatism it’s the same pop media, academic whining and MO today. Climate depression is only culture code for the left with imploding policy results across the board.

  119. When climate scientists believe as Jeff Kiehl does — “I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about facts” — then there is little possibility of discourse. What “facts” are we talking about? “Facts” that will occur in 2100?

    If it is “facts” that have already occurred, such as a 16 year “hiatus” and dozens of papers about lower climate sensitivity, why are politicians and climate scientists pretending such facts have no meaning for policy or debate? Why be so scared of what is clearly good news, that you can neither acknowledge it, or talk about it, or recognize its implications for climate models? Kiehl’s quotes make it pretty clear that facts such as those in this paragraph have no meaning to his scientific and world view.

    Climate scientists of the Kiehl and Parmesan sort are sort of like tea party people — my way or the highway — except on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Maybe somebody needs to gently and politely tell them that, that they are part of the political intolerance that marks so much of our discourse these days.

    • “If it is “facts” that have already occurred, such as a 16 year “hiatus” and dozens of papers about lower climate sensitivity, why are politicians and climate scientists pretending such facts have no meaning for policy or debate?”
      ______
      The “hiatus” is quite immaterial the the longer-term climate change underway. The basic physics tells us the climate system is seeing the strongest and fastest forcing it has seen in millions of years– and that forcing is continues to grow in strength. The changing being seen in the ice sheets is only starting, and the experts on those never imagined that these large stable sheets could change so fast– but they are. There is an accelerating rate of change which humans are not good at grasping. This poor human skills at grasping non-linear rates of change is being used for political purposes. Sad.

      • R Gates, aren’t your opinions relying on models that have already been discredited, in this and the three closely following comments you have made? It may be hard to accept that 95% (or is it 97%) of climate models have produced statistically significant over-predictions of 2014 temps, but these are the kinds of facts that people like Kiehl and Parmesan just won’t face (or believe, which is perhaps worse).

        The issue isn’t whether humans are causing some warming. It does seem to me that about half of the warming since the average of the years centered on 1950 is due to human emissions. We can agree on that, possibly.

        We can also agree that if human emissions continue to grow at 2 ppm annually for several centuries to a millenium, our planet will change pretty dramatically, and we could end up like the last interglacial, the Eemian, with sea levels about 7 meters higher than today. The Eemian featured 6,000 or more years of temperatures at least 2 degrees C higher than today. Yet 22 feet, 264 inches of sea level rise, divided by 60 centuries, is only 4.4 inches per century.

        Suppose, that CO2 stops rising at around 600 ppm, as solar becomes the cheapest form of electricity, as large parts of the world don’t have a big electricity grid, but rather a local solar grid with batteries to save the power for use at night. That would be parallel to so many countries bypassing copper telephone lines. Solar, unlike wind power, can be put on the roofs and walls of commercial buildings, generating power where it is needed. At today’s lower levels of sensitivity, 600 ppm CO2 is gets us about 2 degrees over pre-industrial temps.

        If temps don’t grow by more than 2 degrees C over pre-industrial by about 2100, a prediction of Judith’s, and doesn’t grow after that, then I think the world will not face catastrophe or anything like it. Using the parallel of sea level rise in the Eemian, we may see no more than another foot of sea level rise from the Anthropocene.

        Perhaps the difference between your seemingly apocalyptic view and my own is that you expect a constant increase of CO2 for many centuries, but I think that when solar and storage get economic, there will be far less growth in emissions from power stations using fossil fuels? Humans do see what is coming, and so much engineering is being devoted to low and zero carbon technologies. When they are cost effective, people will buy them. Also, hopefully at some point we’ll figure out how to use nuclear power both safely and cheaply.

      • You forgot to mention extreme weather events

  120. Another reason that the IPCC process is in need of reform- it is likely underestimating the true long-term impacts of climate change:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/

    The “consensus” process, like the uncertainty monster, cuts both ways. This ties into why it also is very dangerous to use any short-term metric (like the “hiatus” to try and estimate sensitivity. There are non-linear changes being seen in every part of the system, and no “consensus” group or short-term analysis can possibly predict how the rate of change itself is changing under the strongest forcing the climate has seen in millions of years. Humans are very poor at understanding accelerating change.

    • There seems to be a basic failure to understand what a shock this represents to our climate system and how it can only create non-linear rates of change:

    • Meanwhile reality continues to take no notice what so ever of alarmists claims , despite the ‘basic physics’ the claims are supposed to be based on . So I can understand how trying to live in denial of this can lead to so much stress to those whose lives have been fully given over to supporting ‘the cause’ , And its 18 years , while oddly the ‘it has to be 30 years ‘ claim is a number pulled from hat that has little scientific value while much shorter time periods are consider more than enough to ‘prove’ AGW for some reason .

      • “…while much shorter time periods are consider more than enough to ‘prove’ AGW for some reason .”
        ___________
        No time period will ever “prove” AGW, as there is always some degree of uncertainty, but.no credible climate scientist doubts that AGW is very likely occurring to some degree. The issue is about to what degree it is occurring, and whether that degree might accelerate in the future should we take no actions now.

      • No time period will ever “prove” AGW, as there is always some degree of uncertainty, but.no credible climate scientist doubts that AGW is very likely occurring to some degree.

        All credible climate scientists must be skeptic and all must have doubt.

        Those with no doubt are not credible.

    • Little Audrey

      Yes; the more reliance that is made on consensus, the less credibility it has, and the less attention you should give it. True consensus needs no fanfare.

  121. Schrodinger's Cat

    I’m not a climate scientist and I try to approach science with an open mind. I’m old enough to have seen a number of high profile scientific scams/blunders/unfortunate mistakes come and go so I have suspicions when a consensus is being claimed.

    The most serious concern that I have about climate science is that we must have nearly three generations of scientists taught to swallow every alarmist belief about the subject.

    I understand that when Lamb founded CRU he wanted the scientists to fully understand the climate basics such as natural variability and solar effects before trying to measure the effect of human influences. Sadly his advice was ignored and the deficit in basic understanding is a serious problem today.

    I initially felt cynical and almost entertained by the idea of climate trauma but in fact it is rather sad, unnecessary and as man made as the hypothesis that attributes all climate change to man.

    I find interesting that the normal scientific approach provides reassurance that our climate is unlikely to undergo dramatic change. Consider historical temperature extremes, carbon dioxide extremes and the likelihood of catastrophic positive water vapour feedback on a water based planet. Nothing is unprecedented in our history. The leading characteristic of our climate is its stability over long periods of time.

    This suggests to me that those prone to climate stress disorder may have blindly accepted everything they were told and failed to apply scientific objectivity and judgement.

  122. I perceive a scale, and look forward to others commentary.

    The “community” surrounding the topic of CC includes all types. Scientific to social to political.

    My perceived scale is CAGW to AGW to {GW GC(global cooling)} (a scale within a scale). Does anyone else see something similar and is there a “middle ground” that can lead to conversation and discussion without acrimony? I’m posing this question on others sites and am quite interested in others perceptions.

  123. Too often we suffer most sorely
    and thereby feel most poorly
    from dreaded aches and pains.
    Thomas Chatterton

    “Qui craint de souffrir, il souffre déjà de ce qu’il craint”

  124. I am not sure this will be solace for dear Ms. Parmesan, but she should consider this. Whatever the forcings associated with CO2 emmissions into the atmosphere are, they are no match for other forcings which have repeatedly driven the earth into ice ages after periods of high CO2 and warm temperatures.

  125. Little Audrey

    “In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding

    Except for virtually all the tax money for all the climate science in all the universities all the time.

    The cause of her depression is the fanatic idiocy of trying to beleve in make-balieve.

  126. Little Audrey

    “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared.”

    Ok, she has a point there. The Mental Health Care System cannot possibly accomodate virtually the entire government climate science establishment and their self-inflicted depression arising from trying to make science serve a political agenda. I recall the Climategate Crooks complaining of similar depression.

  127. ” ….. no one was paying attention to it,” Parmesan says. “I was really thinking, ‘Why am I doing this?’” She ultimately packed up her life here in the States and moved to her husband’s native United Kingdom.
    ————–
    Smart move. They are much more gullible there.

  128. Here is a quote from above:

    “What’s even more deflating for a climate scientist is when sounding the alarm on climatic catastrophes seems to fall on deaf ears. “How would that make you feel? You take this information to someone and they say they don’t believe you, as if it’s a question of beliefs,” says Jeffrey Kiehl, senior scientist for climate change research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. “I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about facts…
    …I could imagine that if scientists start to talk about how they’re feeling about the issue and how emotional they’re feeling about the issue, those who are critical about climate change would seize that information and use it in any way they could to say that we should reject their science,” Kiehl says.

    Now here is a true believer who is so certain that warming exists that he thinks he is talking about facts. On top of which he has a persecution complex about those who are critical about climate change seizing his information and using it against him.

    In science, it is facts that count, and facts are available to both sides in this confrontation. Unfortunately it does not follow that everyone draws the same conclusion from a given set of facts. That is because it takes a certain amount of intelligence and experience to understand what meaning can be attached to them. Let me take an actual example. It is well known that James Hansen stood in front of the United States Senate in 1988 and said that his observations proved the existence of the greenhouse effect. He found it necessary to assert this because up to that point there were no direct observations of the greenhouse effect. At that time, its existence depended entirely on greenhouse theory that was elaborated by Arrhenius in 1896. Now there is a certain type of mentality that will see Hansen’s statement as proof that the greenhouse effect has been observed, case closed, greenhouse science is a fact. But the observed fact is not the greenhouse effect, however, but Hansen’s claim about the greenhouse effect in front of the Senate. If you are a scientist you should first ask what it is he did that makes him so sure that he observed the greenhouse effect. To find out what he did you have to find the transcript of that Senate session and read it. I did that and discovered the following. First, he showed a temperature curve whose low end was in 1880 and high end in 1988. This high point, he said, was the”…. warmest point within the last 100 years…” So we are dealing with a century’s worth of temperature rise. Furthermore, he said, there was only a one percent chance that this could have happened by accident alone. Since this ruled out chance he had to conclude that “…because the earth is warming by an amount that is too large to be a chance fluctuation…the greenhouse effect has been detected,” For some people, that would become a fact. But why not for others like me? Because I knew something about the global temperature curve. If you are doing climate science you better know because it gets involved in determining the existence of warming. His proof at that point was just a series of personal impressions that have no precise definitions. And where he got that 1 percent is inexplicable. But I went on and checked the actual temperature curve that he submitted to the Senate. I found, first, that his temperature curve incorporated the early century warming from 1910 to 1940. That is definitely not greenhouse warming. It starts without any increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 This rules out the greenhouse effect from the start. Warming then stops abruptly in 1940. You cannot stop greenhouse warming without removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is quite impossible in nature. And on top of that, there was cooling, not warming, from 1940 to 1965. That means that out of Hansen’s century of warming there were a total of 55 years, or more than half, that definitely were not greenhouse years. How can anybody call this curve proof of the greenhouse effect is beyond me. But Hansen asserted this. It is quite impossible to count it as the discovery of the greenhouse effect but he was taken at face value and IPCC dictated that the greenhouse effect was the official cause of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. And so it is in all IPCC climate reports from 1990 to 2014. Here we have a so-called “fact” that those indoctrinated with the IPCC dogma will take as a given. It is rare to find anyone questioning it but should I say something about it to Kiel I would most likely elicit a temper tantrum, not serious scientific argument. His is typical of a number of articles complaining that it is hard to teach the public facts about global warming. That is usually how the complaints are framed but what it actually means is disappointment that their propaganda is not being taken as truth. When I see that I wish more power to this resistance because there really is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. That is so obvious from the existence of the warming pause or hiatus that has now lasted for 18 years. What is more, this absence of warming persists despite constant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide as shown by the Keeling curve. This is an important fact because according to the Arrhenius theory of greenhouse warming it should raise global temperature but it does not. Clearly the theory gives wrong predictions and must be declared invalid. The only greenhouse theory that accurately describes our climate is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It differs from the Arrhenius theory in being able to handle several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorbing in the IR while Arrhenius can handle only one and is incomplete. The two most important GHGs in the earth atmosphere are carbon dioxide and water vapor. According to MGT they form a joint optimum absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is fixed at 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as Arrhenius predicts. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as it happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course continue to absorb but the reduction of water vapor will keep total absorption constant and no warming is possible. And there goes that greenhouse effect, oops! This is hugely important for climate science. First, it brings us back to Hansen’s failed attempt to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. Clearly the enhanced greenhouse effect he sought does not even exist. Since according to IPCC it is the cause of AGW it follows that AGW does not exist either. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, dreamed up by an over-eager climate worker to justify the greenhouse hypothesis. Second, it makes the runaway greenhouse effect also impossuble. This explains why very high atmospheric carbon dioxide in geo;ogic past did not cause runaway warming. And Hansen who thinks burning fossil fuels could cause runaway warming can relax and stop worrying about what his grand-children may experience.

    • Arno,

      Very well presented, and I personally thank you. I will bookmark this for further study.

      I’m am not a scientist, but am diving in to the whole CC topic (much of which is over my head).

      I’ve read where the reasons behind the cooling period of 1940-1965 were caused by effectively air pollution (aerosols?) relating to the war, and prior to the Clean Air act. Can you offer your thinking here?

      I’m not sure why the cooling would have moderated 5 years before (1965) before the Act was enacted in 1970 but have also read about a 30 year lag in CO2 effects and that would then follow.

      Please don’t consider this a challenge to your perceptions, but instead as an opportunity to teach. I am here as I think many are, due to a discomfort with the AGW/CAGW communication and as a non-scientist it’s hard to cut through all the politics to seek “the truth”.

      • There’s a discussion of Miskolczi on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog here. (there’s an apostrophe in the web address that might cause link problems).

      • Danny, I will help you. It is gibberish to say water vapor decreases as you add CO2. This is one of those pseudo-science things that propagate around skeptic blogs.

  129. Pingback: Bertrand Russell’s 10 commandments | REINVENTAM ROATA,roata patrata

  130. Science produces hard facts and results. But it is humans who interpret these results and extrapolate the findings to suit their core beliefs on how things are, or should be.

  131. Pingback: Mark Styen on Climate Depression | the conservative cyclist

  132. Doomsday Preppers – Climate Change Science edition.

  133. Pingback: Wrapped in Lew Papers: The psychology of climate psychologization – Part3 | Watts Up With That?