Raw politics of climate change in the U.S.

by Judith Curry

President Obama’s State of the Union address, and the reactions from opposing politicians and the media, illustrate the raw politics of climate change in the U.S.

Last night, President Obama’s State of the Union address included some fairly substantial words on climate change.  The Carbon Brief provides a good summary, including a video link.  Here are the relevant text excerpts:

2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

For emphasis, this morning President Obama tweets:

Slide1

 Senator Inhofe’s response

Senator Inhofe, the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, responds directly to President Obama’s statements about energy and climate.  Excerpts:

Tonight we heard the President praise America’s recent economic gains. Our nation’s energy industry deserves the credit for the growth we see today. We are experiencing an energy revolution in spite of the President’s policies that are intended to stifle the development of our domestic resources.

The President’s War on Fossil Fuels and nuclear energy is most evident in his unbridled mandates being issued by the EPA. While he markets these regulations as a means to save us from global warming, a recent NERA study predicts the President’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; it would only reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and it would only reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch – or the thickness of three sheets of paper.

In the meantime, the President’s agenda will cost our economy $479-billion dollars; we will experience a double-digit electricity price increase; and tens of thousands of Americans will lose access to well-paying jobs over the course of the next decade.

Why the pain for no gain? As the Wall Street Journal put it when reporting on just one of the President’s many climate regulations – this is a wealth redistribution scheme being imposed by the President thru the EPA. This is the real climate agenda the President chose not to address tonight. It is no wonder because it would impose the largest tax increase in the history of America.

Tonight, the President once again failed to address our national security crisis. Under President Obama’s leadership, roughly $1 trillion has been taken out of our military and transferred to his extreme global warming agenda. This has resulted in our military being downsized to levels not seen since before World War II. 

Media response

An early sampling of the media response:

The Guardian:  Obama attacks Republican climate denial in State of the Union.

Chris Mooney:  How far Obama’s message on climate change has come

WSJ:  On energy and climate, Obama’s action makes up for lack of rhetoric

Politics of ‘warmest year’

Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night  that a narrative the NASA/NOAA press releaseof ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.  A scientifically sound press release like that issued by Berkeley Earth just wouldn’t fit the bill. (JC note:  I am deleting the following text ‘the timing of  the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address’)

The Wall Street Journal summarizes the problem with Climate Reporting’s Hot Mess.  The article blames the journalists; well its a little difficult to place all of the blame on journalists given the press release that was issued by  scientist/administrators Gavin Schmidt and Tom Karl.

An interesting take on ‘warmest year’ by the Federalist:  Ignore climate change, Mr. President.  For the children.  Subtitle:  Last year was the warmest year in recorded history. It was also the greatest for mankind.  The punchline:

The good news? No one is serious about it.

This is underscored by an article in the Guardian: How concerned are CEO’s about climate change?  Not at all.   Subtitle: In an annual PwC survey of chief executives, global warming didn’t even make the list of key concerns or priorities, falling far below regulation and taxation.  This survey from PWC was timed to be released for the Davos summit.

Is climate change making us stupid?

Last nite, Roger Pielke Jr tweeted:

Pres Obama SOTU climate comments perfectly illustrate Sarewitz’s piece on how climate change is making us stupid: [link]

Excerpts:

Of course, even if the climate change apocalypse that Kingsnorth accepts as inevitable magically failed to materialize, every one of my dire predictions would still be likely to come true. Climate change, added on top of all the other causes of these problems, will often make things worse. But for the most part there will be no way to tell which ones are worse than they would have been anyway, or how much worse they have become. So it’s not that apocalyptic fears about climate change are utterly fantastic—climate change may well exacerbate a range of serious and potentially even disastrous problems—it’s that the monomaniacal, apocalyptic version of climate change gives us a picture of the world that is so incomplete that it’s much worse than simply wrong. Worse because, just like religious and political orthodoxy, it cannot be falsified. On the contrary, everything that goes wrong simply reinforces the conviction that there is just one explanation for all our problems—climate change—and that there is only one thing we can do to keep the world from collapsing—stop burning fossil fuels. And thus, worse because the climate-change-as-apocalypse orthodoxy thereby radically narrows the range of viewpoints we are willing to tolerate and the range of options we are willing to consider for dealing with complex challenges to our well-being like natural disasters and infectious disease and poverty and civil strife.

It’s actually hard not to sympathize with Kingsnorth. He’s sad about how things are changing; he likes nature the way it is now, not the way it was before humans settled in Ireland, or not the way it will be after another 100 years of human’s muddling through from one crisis to the next, desperately clinging to technology as the eternal antidote to our follies. The real problem is the hysterics  who insist, often in the name of science, that all the suffering to come will have only one true cause, and that redemption can be achieved only by following one true path. No matter that long and sad human experience teaches us where such absolute orthodoxies lead. Indeed, with climate change being blamed for almost everything these days, the one phenomenon that seems to have escaped the notice of scientists, environmentalists and the media alike is that, perhaps above all, climate change is making us stupid.

JC comments

I would like to address this statement made by the President:

Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

And also his tweet:

97% of climate scientists agree: Climate change is real. Denial from Congress is dangerous.

The problem is that President Obama is listening to scientists that are either playing politics with their expertise, or responding to a political mandate from the administration (probably a combination of both).   Not just administrators in govt labs (e.g. Schmidt, Karl), but think of the scientist networks of John Holdren and John Podesta:  to me the scariest one one is Mann to Romm to Podesta.

So what is wrong with President Obama’s statements as cited above?

  • His statement about humans having exacerbated extreme weather events is not supported by the IPCC
  • The Pentagon is confusing climate change with extreme weather (see above)
  • ‘Climate change is real’ is almost a tautology; climate has always changed and always will, independently of anything humans do.
  • His tweet about ‘97%’ is based on an erroneous and discredited paper [link]
  • As for ‘Denial from Congress is dangerous’, I doubt that anyone in Congress denies that climate changes.  The issue of ‘dangerous’ is a hypothetical, and relates to values (not science).

And speaking of the ‘deniers’ in Congress, did anyone spot any errors in the actual  science from Senator Inhofe’s rebuttal?

The apparent ‘contract’ between Obama and his administrators to play politics with climate science seems to be a recipe for anti science and premature policies with negative economic consequences that have little to no impact on the climate.

Maybe some day, in a future administration, we can have a grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses.

 

613 responses to “Raw politics of climate change in the U.S.

  1. As a scientist who is not a climatologist or remotely close to that specialization, the politicized discussion, often lacking in nuance, drives me batty. I just want to turn off the discussion. But as a non-specialist in the field, my response so far as been more along the lines of “not so fast—If we can’t predict the future as some would want, or conversely, neither is it OK to ignore the potential hazards of unbridled and unconsidered fossil fuel use”. Aside from the obvious problem that we don’t have an infinite supply of fossil fuels and those we do have come with strings attached, we do need to worry that without good technological answers to problems we may create, we will be hostages to the conditions we leave behind.

    George Will recently wrote an essay on the subject that was published in the Washington Post, Albuquerque Journal, and probably a few other places. He notes how sensitive civilizations are to even small changes in climate (i.e. the Norse colonization of Greenland is an example). I just responded with a note that since our ability to change atmospheric chemistry adds humans to the list of things that modify climate, we really ought to pay more attention to all of the issues that impact its change. Not as alarmists, but as prudent stewards of the future. My rant is here:

    http://northmesamutts.blogspot.com/2015/01/half-degree-and-harvest-failure-why-we.html

    • The chemical makeup of the atmosphere controls how it retains or loses heat to space, acting as a giant radiator.

      That is a large part of the story, but that part does not have a thermostat and regulation to a set point. Real temperature does have regulation around a set point. That is accomplished with the Polar Ice Cycles using Albedo, clouds and ice.

      we need to understand how the Earth works and how we impact it if we are to manage rather than react to change,

      If you want to understand what happens next, study what happened in the past ten thousand years. If CO2 did not cause all the temperature changes of the past, and it clearly did not, it cannot be used to control the temperature changes of the future.

      Natural variability has not stopped and the future temperature cycles will be inside the same bounds as the cycles of the past ten thousand years.

      • One doesn’t get everything into 600 words and the limit was 650, so I admittedly didn’t say everything I could about feedbacks, other processes, nuance, etc. Secondly, your assumptions that past natural variability entirely constrains the future, and only going back 10k years, worries me. We have paleoclimate records going farther back than 10k and should use them to test models. Nowhere did I say that CO2 was the knob controlling climate, just that it is a known influence on climate.

      • Secondly, your assumptions that past natural variability entirely constrains the future, and only going back 10k years, worries me.

        The ten thousand years covers the most recent natural variability. Before that the oceans levels and ocean currents were different and a different natural variability cycle was in place. “If something major changes”, the cycle will change. CO2 is not the major change that caused or that will change this modern, well regulated cycle. Ocean levels and ocean currents that put warm water in Polar Regions is what changed the past climate cycles and variability. Changes to Ocean levels and ocean currents may change future normal variability, changes to CO2 will not.

      • PCT,

        Finding discomfort with this: “If CO2 did not cause all the temperature changes of the past, and it clearly did not, it cannot be used to control the temperature changes of the future.”

        Based on my admittedly limited but growing knowledge, just because CO2 didn’t (necessarily) cause ALL the previous changes doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t cause some our couldn’t does it? Not intending to indicate it is now, but isn’t the above quote ripe with an assumption? What did I miss?
        Thanks,

      • http://popesclimatetheory.com/page38.html
        CO2 may have changed the heat input some, or not. It was not enough to measure and identify. It does not matter. When the oceans are warm, it will always snow as much as necessary to stop the warming and turn it into cooling. Every warm period is always followed by a cold period.

    • –But as a non-specialist in the field, my response so far as been more along the lines of “not so fast—If we can’t predict the future as some would want, or conversely, neither is it OK to ignore the potential hazards of unbridled and unconsidered fossil fuel use”.–

      Fossil fuel use has been and is currently excessively brindled, and despite what you idiotically claim, is being used in considered manner.

      What kind of crazy Lefty are you?
      Do you admire the repressive States which ration what is needed by it’s citizens?

      • Come on, gbaikie, that was uncalled for, Khal posted a reasonable post which deserves an intelligent response, not unjustified name-calling.

      • –Faustino | January 21, 2015 at 9:25 pm |

        Come on, gbaikie, that was uncalled for, Khal posted a reasonable post which deserves an intelligent response, not unjustified name-calling.–

        It appear that you, Faustino are still free to provide Khal with what you consider a deserving intelligent response.

        I wished point out what seemed most obvious, which is, if you if exclude all climate delegate frivolities and Obama’s many jaunts with Air Force One, that one can sanely reach a conclusion that huge majority of the remaining free citizens are using fossil fuels in a reasonable fashion.

        And also, the numerous regimes with taxation and the reams of inane governmental regulations regarding fossil fuels, indicates there does exists a degree of bridling.
        Though naturally, of course, it might not be quite enough to satisfy the fevered impulses of a certain group of religious believers [[aka, the lefty totalitarians]].

      • If ad hominem is the best you can do….

      • “…without good technological answers to problems we may create, we will be hostages to the conditions we leave behind.”

        Good technology is what got us into this relatively comfortable state where so many can spend time wringing their hands about the climate and what may happen in 100 years.

        It is technology based on fossil fuels. There has been another technology to hand for more than 50 years now. Its development has been hindered by many of the same mindsets and same people who are now bleating about CO2.

        If they want to improve the world, perhaps they should go back and take science/engineering degrees. Then they will also discover that some politics really is built on sand.

    • The study which generated the “97%” claim found that of the entire body of climate research paper abstracts, only 33.6% expressed any position on AGW aka: Human caused [Anthropogenic] Global Warming and 66.4% DID NOT

      Of the 33.6% of abstracts which DID express some opinion on AGW, 97.1% (of the 33.6%) endorsed the “consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.

      In other words, 97% of the 33.6% of abstracts which mentioned AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

      That is NOT 97% in total, it is 97% of one-third of the total.
      to wit:

      IOP Science
      May 15, 2013
      “the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    • Like all professional scientists and engineers I did a sniff test and an energy balance when looking at IPCC ‘Science’.

      Sniff test: if the Earth’s surface were to heat local air at the claimed mean 157.5 W/m^2, its temperature must be ~ 0 deg C** – averaged OVER THE WHOLE PLANET; colder than at any time in the past 444 million years.

      It’s near surface temperature, kept there by the convection that maintains ‘lapse rate’. Houghton showed why in 1977***. He then apparently gave up Science to co-found the IPCC. In 2005, Hansen bemoaned the fact they had no measurements of local air temperature, apparently realising vulnerability to clear thinking opposition asking ‘Where’s the Beef?’. There is no Beef.

      Conclusion: Climate Alchemy Stinks; unfit for UN consumption.

      Energy Balance: Hansen et al in 1981 claimed an imaginary -18 deg C IR emission zone, emitting over 360 degrees, in the upper atmosphere, radiating 238.5 W/m^2 Up[ and Down, This was in effect a ‘bait and switch’, exchanging real 238.5 W/m^2 with imaginary 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’; 40% increase. They did another numerical trick in hindcasting to purport extra evaporation from oceans. His claims to Congress in 1988 were all based on ‘modelling artefacts’.

      Conclusion: the modelling has been fraudulent for 34 years.

      **Assumes 0.75 atmospheric Emissivity for 238.5 W/m^2 Emittance.

      ***Figure 2.5 of the 1977 edition of ‘Physics of Atmospheres’.

  2. JC comments
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  3. Natural Variability has regulated the temperature of the past ten thousand years in very tight bounds with some means that has been extremely robust.

    If Consensus Climate Scientists cannot understand and explain how the temperature regulation of the past ten thousand years was accomplished and what stopped working such that now we need to regulate temperature with a man-made fraction of a trace gas, then they have NO credibility.

    The efforts of the future must be, first and most important, to understand the natural variability of the past. If it has not stopped, temperature will stay regulated inside the same bounds. The Consensus people do not know what it was and they cannot prove it stopped. They don’t even suspect.

    • “Natural Variability has regulated the temperature of the past ten thousand years in very tight bounds”

      Natural variability is not a cause or a regulator. It is just the full range of what Mother Nature is. It is found in the lower and higher ranges of our data.

      Your beloved is not caused by beloved’s moods. The moods are just what beloved is. Watch out for the highs, the lows, and the reversals.

      • Natural Variability is what you get when you have natural causes and natural regulation. Watch out for the highs, the lows, and the reversals. When the “the highs, the lows, and the reversals”, repeat in the same cycle for ten thousand years, watch for that same cycle to carry into the future for thousands more years. If you have proof that what has happened in the past cannot happen in the future, please bring fourth your data and help the Extreme Alarmists because they have no real earth data that supports their Alarmism. They only have models that spit out numbers that do not match real data. Model Output with no skill is worse than useless.

  4. Fair weather champion of lower gas prices while still peddling CAGW with increasing electricity costs as promised. No politics here…

    • Can’t expect good policy from a failed community organizer.

      We aren’t getting good policy from a failed community organizer.

      This should be the last one we elect.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/23/journolist__the_liberal_mother_ship.html
      “…David Weigel, a young Washington Post blogger hired to report on conservative politics, ostensibly from a sympathetic perspective, left the Post thanks to his damning statements on JournoList (conservatives are racists, Rush Limbaugh should die, etc.).

      One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.”

      The press deliberately failed to vet the president in his first campaign, was supporting his campaign, and actually coordinating with it (the Journolist scandal).

      Sadly, the Journolist scandal showed that expecting ethical behavior, honesty, fairness or balance from the MSM is unrealistic.

      • And the press is certainly not going to point out his desire to have it both ways. If Gas prices are low “See what I did?”, if high “I told you so”.
        But if NASA is engaging in climate research, who’s been assigned to to take over the Muslim science outreach initiative? Seems to not be working too well…

      • Curious George

        Ah, just look how ingeniously he is organizing the international community. Syria, Libya, Crimea, Ukraine, a reset with Russia. Expect a plenty of surprises.

  5. As soon as governments began to turn speculative science in to policy, the politics began. And spending. To the tune of billions, soon to be trillions if the speculators get their way.

  6. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.
    rising oceans – perhaps, but slowly and would be rising due to ground water use anyway.
    longer hotter heat waves – perhaps but not all that significant
    floods – not significant
    massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe – nonsense
    The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security – nonsense.

  7. “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”

    Yes it does seem to be largely politics.
    1. Who are these “best scientists” and what was the means of measurement? LOL

    “if we do not act forcefully”

    1. What is forcefully? Is it only what the writer/speaker agrees with? Is implementing CO2 mitigation actions that can’t be shown to have any benefit a forceful action???

    “we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”

    1. Will we not see rising oceans, etc. if CO2 mitigation actions are implemented??? LOL

    If someone is actually worried about damage resulting from adverse weather the best means to minimize this is to advocate for the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure in the nations around the world. Nobody can tell us with a reasonable expectation of accuracy what the TCR will be over the next 50 years. Plan for the adverse weather of the past and account for changes in the demographics of the local population. You will actually accomplish something meaningful.

    • Rob,

      And further to this:”The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. ”

      If any “scientist” does not conform to this, they are therefore NOT the best! That came across as a bit insulting.

      • Danny

        They fail to communicate honestly that the climate will change regardless of human actions.

        The entire premise of the cAGW CO2 mitigation movement is that they are sure that the higher CO2 will result in a worstening of conditions for humanity. The evidence to support this belief is weak at best and largely invalid.

      • Rob, maybe we can control the climate using giant plastic sheets in orbit at say 500 miles high.

        We are gonna need them after we burn all the fossil fuels and the CO2 falls out of the atmosphere (because we are supposed to enter a new ice age). Or maybe we can burn coal real slow instead of burning it real fast?

        The only thing I’m missing is how to put the plastic sheets up there and how to keep them from wrinkling and falling down.

      • Fernando – all this extra CO2 has greened the land. But that extra vegetation is suppressing dust. Dust supplies nutrients to the ocean, so some plants there are dying. They need iron. A good source of iron is coal fly ash. So … fire up those coal plants and distribute the ash from freighters on the ocean. The companies can be paid to operate the spreaders, kinda like solar companies are paid to make an inferior source of energy.

    • What is forcefully? Taxes and more government control.

    • Steven Mosher

      you cant fight a phone and a pen with a nitpick.

      republicans have squandered their opportunity to turn the climate change issue to their advantage.

      • How do you think the GOP could turn the climate change issue to their advantage?

      • But you can fight them with a drive by tweet.

      • Those GOP bums could try an underhand trick shot like discussing the Kauai solar plant problems

        https://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/20/hawaii-learns-that-going-solar-isnt-as-easy-as-it-sounds/comment-page-1/

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: republicans have squandered their opportunity to turn the climate change issue to their advantage.

        How so? Their intransigence on CO2 restrictions and other things has not hurt them at the polls, has it? Now that they have majorities in both the House and Senate, they might pass legislation exempting CO2 from regulation, which they have not been able to do with a Democratic majority in the Senate. Pres Obama would doubtless veto it, and then we could see whether the Dems in the Senate were more comfortable sustaining or overriding the veto. They’ll likely approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Pres Obama will veto, and again the Dems will have to vote to sustain or override. the Republicans’ opportunity to turn this issue to their advantage has just arrived.

      • Agreed Steve, the repubs just cant help playing the politics themselves.
        All they have to do is ask reasonable questions. How will we know less CO2 output is having an effect? What is the “proper” CO2 concentration and temperature, where will it be measured and who gets to pick? So far there seems absolutely NO evidence that anyone is having to adapt to climate change, whatever that means. Take the Aussies for instance, their entire country contributes about 1.5% of the human generated global CO2, so no matter what they do, they cannot affect global anything. So why should they care? I think the repubs should establish a fund where the true believers can contribute THEIR cash to support those who would be harmed by arbitrarily high energy prices. Those supporters could stop using electricity and fossil fuels to show commitment to the cause. Funny about the lefty causes though, they seem to always need money from other pockets than their own….

    • @ Rob Starkey

      “if we do not act forcefully”

      Thank you Rob. I have been asking the same question for some time now:

      What if we DO act forcefully?

      Let those who are demanding ‘forceful action’ (Therein lies the key: ‘forceful’, with themselves selecting the targets and administering the force.) list the forceful actions that they are demanding, then describe the climate in 10, 25, 50, and 100 years assuming that ALL their demands were met and the policies were enforced rigorously, then compare the climate over the same timeframe presuming that we ignored climate policy and simply obtained our energy from eh most expedient and/or economical sources available, and let them explain in what ways the climate obtained by implementing and enforcing ‘climate change policies’ would be ‘better’ than the climate that would obtain by by ignoring climate in deciding how to meet our energy needs.

      It would also be instructive if they would itemize the ‘downsides’ of their climate change policies, or explain in some detail why EVERY predictable consequence of the implementation and enforcement of climate change policies would be benign.

      • The enviromentalists led by mr Obama have a special set of wiretaps and communication channels to the Chinese Communist Party Secretariate headquarters in Bejing.

      • Hi Bob

        I’ve said it often enough, but I’ll repeat what I think we should do while waiting for clarity regarding sensitivity and other unresolved issues with the science:

        1. Tax CO2 at a starting rate of $12/ton and revisit the rate every 10 years, adjusting the rate to reflect changes in CO2 concentrations and a pre-agreed metric for climate change that has occurred in the interim.
        2. Spend a global total of $100 billion for the transfer of technology to the developing world for the purpose of reducing the impact of development technologies, in hopes that they can leapfrog one or two generations of energy development.
        3. Commit to spending over the course of this century on moving roads inland, removing permission for construction on threatened coasts and flood plains. The EPA found that this would cost about $400 billion for the United States about 20 years ago–adjust for inflation. But that’s a one-time cost.
        4. Continue Steven Chu’s investment strategy for reducing costs in renewable energy, storage and transmission. Continue with ARPA-E at full funding.
        5. Encourage the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from large emitters.
        6. Accelerate permitting for new nuclear power plants to maintain nuclear power’s percentage of electricity at 20% in the U.S.
        7. Uprate existing hydroelectric plants to take advantage of advances in turbine technology.
        8. Mandate uptake of GPS within the air traffic control infrastructure and controlled and one-step descent on landing.
        9. Homogenize permitting and regulation for installation of solar and wind power. Maintain current levels of subsidies and RPS.
        10. Increase utilization of Combined Heat and Power facilities from its current 7% of primary energy production to the world average of 9% and then by steps in northern regions to benchmark levels found in Denmark, Holland and other northern European countries.
        11. Support introduction of charging stations for electric vehicles.
        12. Force existing coal power plants to meet best available technology standards or close.

        What I believe will happen:

        https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-next-60-years-of-lukewarming/

        https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/lukewarming-2075-2100/

        https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/lukewarming-after-2100/

      • “Tax CO2 at a starting rate of $12/ton and revisit the rate every 10 years, adjusting the rate to reflect changes in CO2 concentrations and a pre-agreed metric for climate change that has occurred in the interim.”

        What is the goal for the CO2 tax of the amount indicated and how specifically would it be applied? What would be the administrative methods of applying such a tax to different segments of the economy? As an example, would you tax cement?

        “Spend a global total of $100 billion for the transfer of technology to the developing world for the purpose of reducing the impact of development technologies, in hopes that they can leapfrog one or two generations of energy development.”

        What is special about $100B? What specific tech? What will happen as a result of the transfer? Is $100B the amount the owners of the technology would want for their tech?
        Sorry, I got bored with your ideas as they do not seem well thought out.

      • @ thomasfuller2

        Kudos.

        For the first time someone attempted to address part of my questions.

        Your answer seems to be a three part solution:

        1. Do a small subset of rational energy policies: pursue whatever energy sources make the most economic and technical sense (not phrased in those terms, but that is what your suggestion amounts to) while

        2. Punishing the use of fossil fuels, without which our civilization would collapse, by increasing their cost artificially and transferring the extra cost to the government bureaucracy so that they can

        3. Purchase more Solyndras and their moral equivalents.

        What your answer doesn’t provide is an efficacy prediction or a cost/benefit evaluation.

        If your recommendations are followed, exactly per your post, how do you estimate that they would impact the Temperature of the Earth in 10, 25, 50, and 100 years compared to the Temperature of the Earth over the same time frame if we simply ignored ‘climate change’ and obtained our energy from the most efficient and economical sources available?

        Why would the temperature experienced after a century of regulation, taxing, and spending in the quest to control the planetary climate be enough ‘better’ than the temperature resulting from ignoring the climate effects of satisfying our energy needs to justify the enormous expenditures and regulatory burden (and yes, taxes, regulations and the collection and enforcement thereof DO impose burdens) that would be incurred by implementing them?

        And there is no hint in your list of ‘solutions’ that ANY of them may have negative effects that may override their putative benefits.

      • Tom,

        Are you aware that most charging stations are utilized infrequently or not at all. (At least according to Oregon statistics.)

        Your item #2 ignores the practical problems associated with corruption and political instability in the under developed world. How much of that $100 billion will get spent on technological development and improvement? (I wouldn’t put it higher than 10%.)

        Utilities have only so much cap ex, meaning you usually have to make choices. Which do you choose – backfitting coal plants to meet the new EPA limits on CO2 or back fit hydro plants with new turbines?

      • Rob, I believe any carbon tax should be revenue neutral. In the U.S. I have advocated for five years that the proceeds should be used to reduce Social Security taxes for both employers and employees. The amount is calculated to not have a dramatic impact on revenue flows for the U.S. government and still influence fuel portfolio choices by large emitters.

      • Bob, yes, I wish to ‘punish’ fossil fuel producers. Well, I don’t care about punishing them, really. I want coal production to be reduced, coal burning to be cleaner and an increase in the use of renewable energy.

        Changes in policy almost always have winners and losers. The number of whaling ships has dropped dramatically since we began supporting the consumption of oil with considerable subsidy.

      • thomaswfuller2 ,

        Renewable energy cannot make a significant contribution to reducing global emissions. You are barking up the wrong tree.

        And if you are seriously arguing to reduce fossil fuel use without first allowing a cheaper alternative you arguing to slow the rate of improvement in human wellbeing.

      • “The number of whaling ships has dropped dramatically since we began supporting the consumption of oil with considerable subsidy.”

        Oh good lord in Heaven. A two minute google search shows that there were only about 40 whaling ships left by 1900. The constitutional amendment permitting congress to impose an income tax was passed in 1913.

        And as for this:

        “The amount [of a carbon tax] is calculated to not have a dramatic impact on revenue flows for the U.S. government and still influence fuel portfolio choices by large emitters.”

        No, the sainted carbon tax is expressly designed to raise the cost of cheap fossil fuel in order to force hundreds of millions of poor and middle class people to pay more for energy, to increase their consumption of the already more expensive ‘alternative” fuels, or even better, simply do without. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just collect them from people, whether as shareholders or customers. Movement progressives know this and don’t care. Default progressives don’t have a clue.

        And it is only the default progressives, the ones Jonathan Gruber and other movement progressives hold in such high esteem, and who have no real power in a progressive government, who believe in the “neutral tax” fairy. Not to mention they give no thought whatsoever to how the economy wide increases in prices that will result from a carbon tax will also be “refunded” by the progressive political lords to the lowly serfs of the electorate.

      • Peter Lang,

        “…if you are seriously arguing to reduce fossil fuel use without first allowing a cheaper alternative you arguing to slow the rate of improvement in human wellbeing.”

        It’s worse than that. The real goal of progressive “climate” policy is to reverse the progress already achieved in the west. I doubt Tom Fuller shares this goal, but then he is not a designer or implementer of the policy. He is just unaware of what those who make the policy really intend. Jonathan Gruber was wrong – default progressives (the Democrat voters he was talking about) aren’t stupid, they’re just gullible.

      • GaryM, “However, two events set the stage for the Age of Oil: The first was in 1846, when Abraham Gesner invented kerosene making coal and petroleum practical raw materials for lighting fuel. The second was in 1859, when Edwin Drake invented the first modern drilling process for deep oil wells.” And… “One hundred and fifty years ago, around the time Herman Melville was completing Moby Dick, whaling was a booming worldwide business and the United States was the global behemoth. In 1846, we owned 640 whaling ships, more than the rest of the world put together and tripled. At its height, the whaling industry contributed $10 million (in 1880 dollars) to GDP, enough to make it the fifth largest sector of the economy. Whales contributed oil for illuminants, ambergris for perfumes, and baleen, a bonelike substance extracted from the jaw, for umbrellas.

        Fifty years later, the industry was dead. Our active whaling fleet had fallen by 90 percent.”

      • Peter Lang, renewable energy already contributes 17% of global energy. I’d like it to be about double that.

      • thomasfuller2,

        errrr…where are the subsidies? Which were I think quite obviously my point.

      • GaryM, the U.S. Federal government began subsidizing coal in the late 1700s. Federal land grants in the 1800s were in many cases specifically directed at construction of railroad lines to serve coal mines.

        Expensing of intangible drilling costs for oil began in 1916. Cost depletion began in 1926. Oil subsidies in the first 5 years of the industry’s existence amounted to $14 billion in current dollars.

        http://i.bnet.com/blogs/dbl_energy_subsidies_paper.pdf

      • thomasfuller2,

        My comments were with respect to your prior comment as follows:

        “The number of whaling ships has dropped dramatically since we began supporting the consumption of oil with considerable subsidy.”

        Funny, I don’t see railroads or cola mines anywhere in that statement. Nor is there any obvious connection between land grants for coal mines in the 1700s and oil consumption in the late 19th and early 20th century.

        But if that is your logic, I think you are being too narrow minded. Some of the US’s greatest coal mines and oil reserves are found in what was once French territory, bought cheap, not to mention all the natural resources in Alaska, purchased from Russia, before they were enlightened enough to become the Soviet union.

        So I think it is presumptuous of you to claim credit for the US government in destroying the whaling industry and building the oil, automobile, rail road and power plant industries.

        We didn’t build that, Napolean and Czar Alexander II did.

        And don’t get me started on who is responsible for Manhattan.

      • A number of commentators refer to Federal taxation of energy, particularly fossil fuels.

        The Soviet Union operated for years under a policy of taxing things the Politburo did not like. That policy raised prices and limited demand to what the planners allowed. It was called the “Turnover Tax”. It stifled their economy.

        Our proposed versions of the Turnover Tax were called (variously) Cap And Trade, Carbon Tax, Carbon Credit Card, Tax and Dividend. (Once we establish the principle, all we can do is haggle over Price.)

        Even Wikipedia has forgotten about the “Turnover Tax.”
        Wikipedia contributors. “Turnover Tax.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, January 29, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turnover_tax&oldid=634234755

        But not Goldman:
        Goldman, Marshall I. “Economic Controversy in the Soviet Union.” Foreign Affairs, April 1963. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23505/marshall-i-goldman/economic-controversy-in-the-soviet-union

    • I like the part about how the President knows “a lot of really good scientists …”.

      What do you think the over / under is on the number he could name? I’m going with maybe three. Tops.

    • Funny that in the face of Obama’s policy to drive petroleum prices up so that alternative energy could compete he spawned a private revolution in new petroleum production. Add to this the Saudi desperation to cripple Iran with low oil prices due to Obama’s isolationist middle-east policies and you have $2.00 a gallon gas. The man’s only successes are his unintended boomerang failures to drive in the wrong direction. Being able to take credit and hand blame for weather is a propagandist’s dream.

  8. Regarding the POTUS comments on the Pentagon’s statement on climate change: It’s been a few years since I was at the Pentagon, but I doubt that there is much expertise there to assess the “truthiness” of CAGW. I was on the Air Force side so I’m not sure about the level of expertise on the USN side, but I can’t believe there’s much there either.

    The funny thing is–I brought all this up at a strategic planning meeting a few years ago. Most of the participants (being conservative USAF officers) dismissed the notion that CAGW was real at all. The rep from ACC actually had a fairly cogent take on it: (1) if we need to move war-fighting assets, they’re already mobile, (2) if we need to move bases, we proved we could do that under BRAC, and (3) if they think we will be fighting more, they need to pay for more divisions, fighter wings, and ships.

    When they do plans like the one POTUS referred to, there is an extensive paper trail left in the internal coordination documents. I’d love to get a look at some of those comments. I personally think that the DoD was told what to say. :-)

    • What I’d like to see is whether they are modelling international strife based on climate models, i.e., rising sea level, desertification, water resources, etc, so one could at least see the primary drivers for future national security risks. If there was a good reason to throw money at better predictive capability, it is precisely because the Pentagon costs so much and all those ships, planes, and divisions come with prices attached. I suppose insurance actuaries are likewise wondering what their long term shoreline risks will be, and trying to minimize them.

      • The fact that additional assets are not in the budget is a strong indicator that they aren’t very serious about these so-called threats.

        If any DoD modeling was actually done on this, I’d be shocked. That wasn’t even being considered when I was involved. The models they use tend to be very specific and focused on current problems (and classified).

      • khal, there are plenty of conflicts and conflict triggers, “rising sea level, desertification, water resources, etc” are not going to add anything significant to that mix for at least several decades, perhaps never, the Pentagon should not waste resources on them.

      • Good point: ask insurance actuaries about projected costs. Here are impartial experts who have to put odds on actual wagers.

    • Super

      “I personally think that the DoD was told what to say. :-)”

      I think we can both bet our last dollar on that one.

      • ceresco,

        I doubt they were told what to say. The more likely scenario is that they were given some very specific parameters and told to provide assessment based on those parameters. If you are told to assume there will be 50 million climate refugees in the next 5, 10, 20 years, your assessment has to reflect that as if it were a fact. They are not being asked to assess the probability of any of these things happening, just what impacts they might have if they do happen. There is a huge difference.

    • superchill,

      What doesn’t get said in references to what the Pentagon believes, is the context they are asked to provide assessment. The starting point is almost always “Using current model projections for temperature and sea level rise, evaluate the impacts to …”. If you are the Navy and told to evaulate the impact to naval operations and infrastructure from 10 feet of SLR by 2100, you say “Yes Sir” to your civilian leadership and go about the evaluation. At no point are you suppossed to note that expected SLR by 2100 at current rates is on the order of 8 inches.

  9. POTUS
    “ I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods.”

    Senator Inhofe
    “a recent NERA study predicts the President’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; it would only reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and it would only reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch – or the thickness of three sheets of paper.”

    So while the President is talking to the leading scientists at the leading research centers who tell him he must act forcefully… the Senator is consulting, who?

    http://www.nera.com/about.html

    Who are telling him that the president’s present actions are insufficient to make a big difference.
    NERA apparently favor a very high climate sensitivity which would require much harsher attempts at mitigation to reduce the temperature rise and sea level.
    More forceful action is the logical deduction from the NERA advice.

  10. Prof Judith Curry; I assume that you have read Habibullo Abdussamatov, Phd and Solar Physicist, papers on the decline of the Total Solar Irradiance and the Next Little Ice Age into which we are already falling. He says that the TSI is decreasing at an increasing rate. Even at the small TSI decrease so far, some 0.25 W/sq meter at 1 AU, the Earth average temperature has essentially stopped increasing, even though CO2 continues to increase apace, ~400 ppm. The Sun has already overwhelmed the GHG’s. Next comes T decreases along with the TSI as it decreases some 6.3 W/ m squared down to that of the Maunder Minimum [1645 to 1715] the coldest part of the previous LIA. Your discussion of this would be appreciated. JFC

  11. I was disappointed that Inhofe made no reference to any data such as the amount of warming since (pick the year) which is in the hundredths of a degree. Or one could use the sea level rise rate that has not accelerated in 20 years per CU.
    This criticism applies to everyone in the media who have an opportunity to use some actual data that can make a more persuasive case than simply being on the defensive. There are plenty of arguments based on good data but the skeptics side don’t take advantage of it.

  12. Gavin tweets:

    Just to be clear, your insinuation is absolutely wrong. Inventing conspiracies does not aid grown-up climate conversations.

    • +very many to Gavin

    • Leaving the table when Spencer shows up doesn’t aid grown-up climate conversations.

    • It’s been very convenient for Obama to have the 97% come out a few days before he used it for the climate summit and now this. He seems to have incredible luck having main spinners coming from the climate community so close to important speeches. He must have good biorhythms.

    • Which insinuation?

      • I’m guessing the one about a conspiracy related to the timing?

        Perhaps you could provide your view of the evidence for Judith’s asserted conspiracy, if you know of any?

      • Joshua, ‘conspiracy’ was Gavin and your insinuation. She merely said it was convenient timing and the motivation was to have ‘warmest year’ as the narrative in the speech. You’d have to be a complete bafoon not to wonder about the timing.

      • Same old “conspiracy theory” drop line, AGW is a leftist agenda in a sciency wrapper. There is nothing about leftist agenda that need be conspiratorial to harm the longer term prospects of the worlds citizenry. It’s simply part of the broader social decline that corresponds directly with acceptance and radicalization of leftist ideology found clearly in academia and media operatives. To name only two enclaves.

        How often is the stupidity of Joshua or Gavin Schmidt to attempt to label dissent connecting the rather obvious left wing culture of the green AGW agenda as “conspiracy theorists” to pass by as even semi-rational???

        As is standard Dr. Curry makes minor linkages of green political culture and the collective left, which she is part of by the way, go through the usual false flag operation of defining Dr. Curry’s wimpy dissent as extreme. It’s a joke of course.

      • Josh, come on man. Be honest for once. Your act gets so tired.

      • Judith,

        Again? More ill-conceived thought bubbles.

        First we had the Michael Mann-terrorist idiocy.

        Now it’s Gavin Schmidt/NASA – President conspiracy.

        WTF?

        Your own comment just a few days ago might have suggested that your conspiracy ideation was far wide of the mark;
        curryja | January 15, 2015 at 5:46 pm | Reply
        .”Some apparent nasa drama, Gavin postponed his press announcement til tomorrow.”

        Clever bastards! – tried to throw Judith off the conspiracy trial by *delaying* their announcement, but which would make it more likely that the President would take the ‘sound bite’ bait……or something…..

        Is this some bizarre New Year’s resolution, or the lingering after effects of too much Xmas cheer??

      • ordvic,

        You have to keep in mind Josh’s skill set. Reaching is among his strongest skills, therefore his jumping to conspiracy is an expected outcome.

    • You should ask him if he was a tool for the administration whether he intended it or not.

    • Possible that Schmidt was manipulated by higher-ups setting deadlines for press releases without his conscious knowledge. Not possible that the White House did not have standard vetting of the State of the Union address coordinating its content with what comes from each agency. Perhaps Schmidt should stop spitting in our faces and telling us it’s raining.

      • ==> “Possible that Schmidt was manipulated by higher-ups setting deadlines for press releases without his conscious knowledge.”

        So far on this thread…Lewandowsky 3, “skeptics” 0.

      • “Hey Gavin. We need to make sure to get our press release on the annual climate by Monday. Thanks.” Not exactly a conspiracy.

      • Right…certain arguments about the motivations and causality of interactions between people when you have no actual evidence.

        Conspiracy ideation? What conspiracy ideation?

      • There is no need for for a hidden agenda. They would have already known that an announcement was coming from Nasa about the warm year. It’s straight forward propaganda, timed or not, there is no need to hide anything.

      • Ordvic –

        Tbey also could have forged an agreement not to say they’ve stopped beating their wives. Wouldn’t have had to be secret. Maybe there are memos? In fact, their boses could have instructed then not to say that they’ve stopped batting their wives.

      • Joshua, They would have had ti hide the bat ;-)

      • Using tired, and not very apt analogies – another Josh skill.

    • Wasn’t there a delay in the NASA announcement? I wonder if Gavin’s prepared to offer recordings or email transcripts of the discussions that took place during that delay.

      • Lol. Maybe you can email Issa and have him hold a hearing.

      • Why should I bother? Only a left-wing d00p would believe the timing was coincidental. People can believe what they want, and say what they want. Gavin, and anybody here who agrees with him, are lying in their teeth (IMO) in denying any link in timing or content of the NASA announcement.

        Also lying in their teeth about “conspiracy ideation”. Everybody who isn’t “naive” knows how government bureaucracies work. If Gavin wants sensible people to believe his claims, he needs to provide “proof”: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

      • Well, Gavin, by not passing the corrected 38% up the line, laid his President open to making a fool of himself. That wouldn’t be prudent in Chicago.
        =========================

      • Yes, the delay was while they undertook a secret meeting of the brotherhood to plot their overthrow of the planet.

      • JMO, but I believe they delayed because they want to start doing the release on the same day. Gavin Schmidt is the new director of GISS, and my sense is he wants to do the annual release in January, as they have always done, but now on the same day.

        We’ll find out next year.

        The monthly data has been listed every month. You can follow the temperature data daily. A couple of weeks before the end of December it was becoming apparent that on GISS 2014 would be a record by a small amount; that NOAA would be a record by a wider margin; that HadCrut4 is too close to call.

    • Okay, this:”your insinuation is absolutely wrong” may be accurate, but what about the 38% chance of being the hottest year ever. Pot, meet kettle?

      Is it fair to not correct oneself while pointing out a (possible) error of another? Dr. Schimdt, should not one’s own house be in order prior to talking of “grown-up” climate conversation?

      In order to expect better of others, one should hold oneself to at least the same standard.

    • It’s sad that the levels of political have to reach these points before corrective logic takes hold. Of course any observation of the partisan hackery that makes up the core body of tool “Climate scientists” immediately generates the Schmidt perjoritves.

      As for Dr. Curry it’s shameful she still panders and minimizes an agenda that spans her entire career. She should be embarrassed, these aren’t just her professional peers but fellow Obama voters and believers. Her comments are no where near coming clean on the travesty of setting near Soviet distortion levels of “science” that embodies her field.

    • Accusing sceptics of inventing conspiracy theories. Again. The record that needs breaking this year is Gav’s stuck record.

    • Steven Mosher

      the mystery man should talk

    • I saw gavin’s sound byte and he was relatively reasonable – with the exception of repeating the CAGW meme: ‘global temperatures were 0.xx’ warmer than averaage. That may not sound like a lot….’

      “May not sound like a lot, because it’s not”

    • Judith,
      I’m just as naïve. I’m a little embarrassed how clueless I was. The sad thing is I continue to find myself amazed over and over again by the dishonest games they play… including the media. One would suppose a prestigious paper like the NYT’s will… now that they’ve been informed of the truth concerning the supposed warmest year claim… hurry to correct themselves. One would suppose wrongly.

      I used to laugh …back in my more naïve days..when someone would call the NYT’s a propaganda rag… but now I see it’s true. The climate debate has woken me up, and altered the way I see the world.

    • Corrigendum:

      I’m not apologizing to anyone or for anything. I removed an ancillary statement that I didn’t want to defend. My main point remains.

      https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/19/most-versus-more-than-half-versus-50/#comment-667004

      The ancilary statement was “the timing of the NOAA/NASA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address.”

      Which main point remains to be clarified.

  13. David L. Hagen

    First Do No Harm – than recognize reality.
    Roy Spencer observes: . . .Forcing higher energy prices on the poor is immoral

    (Energy is) needed for everything humans do, and when you make it much more expensive, life becomes harder for everyone. Call it trickle-down poverty. . . .Expensive energy kills people. UNICEF estimates 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. In contrast, no one is known to have ever died due to human-induced climate change. I predict that modest warming (whatever its cause) and more CO2 will turn out to be better for life on Earth.

    The IPCC’s projected harm from global warming depends on high climate sensitivity to estimate economic harm after 2070. Monckton et al. find very low climate sensitivity – and consequently global warming is likely to be beneficial for the next century. See:
    NEW PAPER: Why Models Run Hot: Results From An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model

    • Monckton didn’t find low sensitivity. He asserted it on the basis that there were only small temperature changes during the Ice Ages(!!!?).

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D
        Reality Check. Try reading Monckton’s paper. e.g.
        “7. Calibration against observed temperature change since 1850”

        Taking forcing from 1750 to 1850 as approximately 0.1 W m-2, forcing from 1850 to 2011 was about 2.19 W m-2, so that qt -1 = 2.19 / 1.72 = 1.27. Using these inputs, warming since 1850 is determined by the model and compared with observation in Table 4. Assuming that all global warming since 1850 was anthropogenic, the model fairly reproduces the change in global temperature since then, suggesting that the 0.6 K committed but unrealized warming mentioned in AR4, AR5 is non-existent.

      • That is just one of many curiosities in his paper. He says unrealized warming is nonexistent using the AR5 numbers while also using a transient factor of 0.6 which assumes it is existent, otherwise the factor would have been 1. Odd stuff.

      • David,

        Jim D tried reality. I think he found it didn’t fit his belief system.

  14. Seriously, Judith? –

    Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address, and that a narrative of ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.

    Gotta say, I don’t see any particular reason to believe that conspiracy ideation is any more prevalent among “skeptics” than among “realists,” but at times like these I do have to wonder if Lewandowsky has a point.

    Oh, and I love the self-assigned purity of the “naive scientist that I am” part. Methinks it will go down quite smoothly with the white knight crowd.

    • Oh, and Judith –

      Speaking of white knights.

      Do be careful

      Mosher always pretends to be offended when people judge “motivations” like that (to the point of repeatedly misinterpreting “motivated reasoning” to be a critique of motivations)

      You don’t want to upset him, do you? He’s sharpening his lance and knitting his mail as I type. Don’t break his concentration.

      • Steven Mosher

        motivated reasoning informs your interpretation of motives.

        I think it’s unfortunate that Judith stoops to the kind of motive hunting you engage in.

        we wont know what possessed NOAA and NASA to lie, much less gavin.

      • “we wont know what possessed NOAA and NASA to lie, much less gavin.”

        Is it unknowable or we allowed to make reasonable hypotheses? Here’s mine: they all pirouette as the court astrologers…

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: we wont know what possessed NOAA and NASA to lie, much less gavin.

        What was the lie and how do you know it was a lie?

    • Uh, it’s not a conspiracy when you do what your boss tells you to do. That’s called doing your job. If you think that the timing of agency press releases and the State of the Union address are not coordinated from the top, then you need to read up on how these things are put together.

    • Joshua,

      I own no allegiance to either Dr. Curry nor Dr. Schmidt with the exception that Dr. Curry has shown me nothing but human respect (and my short interaction with Dr. Schmidt was brusk bordering on rude). Your chastisement might be better received had you called Dr. Schmidt on his “error of omission” regarding the 38% chance of 2014 being the hottest year ever. Only asking for fairness in all directions. If you’ve called out Dr. Schmidt equally, then I apologize in advance.

      Respectfully,

      • Danny,

        Hope you get over your near death experiences with “brusk”.

        Just awful…

      • Michael,

        I cannot possibly express my appreciation for your concern! :)
        My foray in to this fray began naively, but you all have taught me well. I fear the anonymity of the internet allowed Dr. Schmidt to brusquely brush me off, but the same anonymity allowed me to survive.

      • Gavin was trying to help you. He’s the director of the Goddard Space Institute. He has very limited time. He spent some of that very limited time trying to help you. Your posts were way too long, and you repeated things unnecessarily. At one point you were saying your questions were not being answered when they had been answered.

        It used to be that Gavin was very active on RC. That is no longer the case.

      • JCH,

        I am verbose. I’m learning the shorthand. I stated clearly as being new to the forum format and the CC topic. I was told to go away and come back after I’d been indoctrinated to the RC way of thinking. Yes, Dr. Schmidt is busy. But is Dr. Curry not also busy? The tone is set by those in leadership and the “denizens” were no better. Frankly, with one exception (maybe two), I have been treated better at Watts and the tolerance level is low there. Dr. Schmidt was borderline rude and condescending. There is no excuse when one comes seeking help and education, to be treated like that. I expressed that specifically.

        I’ve had a 7 day a week, 18 hour a day career in sales where my mannerism influenced directly my income. Dr. Schmidt has something to sell. Someone should offer to him the story of “a jawbone of an a__” unless Dr. Schmidt is too “educated” to learn. And if he thinks that………….. There is nothing wrong with saying, I do not have time for this right now but having that tone is unacceptable coming from a professional in any walk of life. You and I have both worked (I assume) with busy Doctors in other settings. Would you tolerate a medical Doctor of similar standing responding in that fashion? It was unacceptable. How you can defend it is bothersome.

      • JCH,

        And people like Danny are probably part of the reason why.

        What our social geniuses tend to forget, is that while they can clutch their pearls over the Director of NASA not deigning to spend every spare minute of his time answering every quibble they have and being (oh noes!) “brusk”, Gavin might well form an opinion about people like Danny based on their on-line behaviour.

        They’d be lucky if it was anything like “brusk”.

      • Michael,

        So the almighty, great and powerful (and totally unknown to me at the time) Dr. Schmidt deigned to stoop to speak AT me? If he (or anyone) is not fit for the position he should either withdraw or delegate. That is good leadership.

        His interaction with me is therefore good reason to not qualify the statement of “the hottest year ever” as likely being almost 2/3’s inaccurate (62%)? That, sir, is a stretch by any standards and a poor excuse for a so called “professional”. I’m sorry if your standards are so low. It is unacceptable to me, and frankly I’d expect you to call for the resignation of any Republican of equal standing to him to resign under such an error (or dishonesty) of omission. Others have been discharged for similar. There is NO EXCUSE for one whom I as a taxpayer am paying to not be held to a higher standard. NO EXCUSE. Should Dr. Schmidt deign to “cast pearls” at this (or any other) swine, he should consider not being the “face” of NASA.

        Belittle me all you wish over a trivial misspelling. I’m certain you’ve never made a mistake. Nice cast of the first stone, sir.

      • I wonder what would have happened if you had wandered instead into Open Mind? Lol.

      • JCH,

        My mind is open. Is yours? I see warming. What I (and apparently many others) lack is specific cause and attribution. Other than correlation to CO2/GHG’s, specifically, what is the cause? IPCC doesn’t appear to know to a higher than “likely” standard. National Academy of Science states the same. American Physical Society is in the process of modifying (presumably) their statement but “likely” is the current standard. Dr. Curry, et al, from what I understand has difficulty with the level of attribution. Do I trust her, a climate scientist much like the renowned 97% or some anonymous blog poster (just like me)?

        So instead of a weak obtuse shot at my level of “open mindedness”, please stoop to sharing your overwhelming wisdom. LOL.

      • Danny,

        Is it just remotely possible that your approach is part of the reason why you encounter “brusk” ??

        Just asking.

      • Michael,

        You might find this interesting (or not). I am an admitted warmer. By whom, am I treated “bruskly”. Michael, JCH, Dr. Schmidt. All warmers. Those who need my vote.

        By whom am I treated with respect? Dr. Curry (a skeptical warmer with questions regarding attribution and questions regarding models), Capt. Dallas, a skeptic. Tonyb, a skeptic. Jim 2, a skeptic with whom I disagree politically, Don Momfort, just a bit of a skeptic. Ragnaar, a skeptic. Rud Istavan, a skeptic. R. Gates, a warmer. Etc.

        For whom, might there be a lesson to be learned? Try looking in a mirror sir. What might you see?

        What about my approach is of concern? I think I’m fairly clear as to where I stand. My mind is open both directions as I do not “know” the answers to the climate questions and I throw myself to the mercy of the forum. I have no preconceptions other than I see warming and am lacking cause. You?

      • I doubt they will ever replace Gavin Schmidt at RC. He can’t delegate it. It’s not a NASA/GISS job. It’s entirely volunteer.

      • JCH,

        Wonder if Dr. Schmidt is familiar with the Peter Principle when it comes to positioning even in a volunteer capacity? Some folks and some jobs are not a good fit no matter the compensation. One exception might be “preaching to the choir”. All others need not apply.

      • Danny,

        Scammers and snake-oil salesman are generally very polite, respectful and obliging. There’s a reason fro that.

        This is just my crazy personal position – I prefer the “brusk” truth over smiling lies.

      • Michael,

        Is that an Ad hom against those with whom you disagree? Or would a strawman be a better description. I notice you’ve not addressed any specifics. Who is lying? About what?

        I don’t accept anonymous blog posters provided information as fact, but indeed I seek out substantiation for or against their arguments. What I posted at RC is no different than that which I’ve posted here. I’m a warmer, but cause has not be proven to me. So please take a shot. Prove cause (not correlation as that won’t do). I, and I’d venture to guess others, would be most appreciative. Waiting with baited (and likely bad) breath. Documentation provides bonus points!

      • Danny – Open Mind is a blog run by Tamino. He is exceedingly nasty toward skeptics.

      • JCH,

        Thank you for that. I will seek it out. How, as a newcomer lacking those specifics, I was supposed to know that based on your phrasing I just don’t know.

        Why you chose to set out to press me when I’ve been no less than respectful and open with you, puzzles me. As I’ve expressed about Dr. Schmidt’s mannerisms, there is no reason for your approach in this matter. And defending his approach not considering content lacks good manners.

        Is the “herd mentality” combining you and Michael really necessary? Please reflect on that. Not everyone has the “experience” level on these formats that I presume you do. So is there really a problem with me? I am only here to learn. I sought out RC as suggested by a friend and a similar dynamic occurred much like the laws of the jungle. Being perceived as “weak” (openly expressed on my part, led to a much less than respectful tone. I perceive that it might be your approach and not mine that might be in question here.

        I expressed disappointment today with Dr. Curry no differently than that I expressed about Dr. Schmidt. The difference being that Dr. Curry has in no way belittled me or been condescending. Your choice to defend only Dr. Schmidt indicates a substantial bias.

      • And where have I been brusk? I think you misunderstood my comment about Open Mind. To put it bluntly, Tamino, his climate/statistic bog is called Open Mind, is brusk to around the 10th power. He fried Pratt once.

        I don’t think Gavin was brusk.

      • JCH,

        How about the “herding” with Michael as well as the continued rubbing my nose in the misspelling of brusque? I am human and make mistakes. I can move on, but feeling “ganged up on” led to my (inappropriate?) response. If I am out of line, please forgive.

        Respectfully,

      • JCH,

        I fear I may have overreacted as I’ve been absorbed excessively in this topic and other research on this cold and rainy house bound day today. For that, I apologize. After re-reading the thread and I think I misinterpreted your commentary and associating yours with Michael Fatigue may have gotten the best of me. Please realize I’m still a rookie. I look forward to positive interaction in the future.

        Best regards,

      • –Danny,
        Scammers and snake-oil salesman are generally very polite, respectful and obliging. There’s a reason fro that.–

        Yes, they don’t have the power of the State.

      • Gbaike,

        And I’ve found none of those here. Some certainly have differing opinions and they are entitled. Some evidence is substandard. Those who substantiate with evidence deserve to be researched. It’s up to the reader to seek out the best evidence and shame on them (me) for not doing due diligence. Acceptance because “it’s on the internet”? Buyer beware.

        Apologies to the forum for the expression of my irritation.

      • Stay furious, my friend.
        =========

      • Danny,

        I’ve seen your interactions at RC and I’m not surprised people got annoyed with you.

        You asked for help and people kindly pointed you in the direction of lots of online resources….which you mostly ignored in favour of repeating the points that people had tried to help you out with, only for you to say you didn’t have time to look at them….while spending lots of time telling them all how horible they were for not being nicer to you.

        I see a very familiar approach here – your main interest appears to be in saying how terribly nice all the ‘skeptics’ are and how awful the ‘w@rmists’ are.

      • Good morning (here) Michael,

        Rested and refreshed. Out of respect, instead of deflecting, I will address your perspective. When I introduced myself at RC I explained my lack of scientific background. Most, from my view, of my questions were not answered. I was referred to a CO2 lab experiment (not even a close representation of a climate system) and an RC sanctioned (apparently) publication to “indoctrinate” me to the AGW world. Then, from my view, I was discarded (specifically by Dr. Schmidt) as I wasn’t towing the “party line”. Some, Ragnaar being the best example, sought me out elsewhere to provide sources and evidence for me to make my own determinations. Most were not nice at all. There was one “skeptic” who’s turn it was in the barrel where every single bit of his discussion was pooh-poohed as invalid. So the behavior was if one doesn’t fully sanction the AGW tome they were “bruskly” treated.

        One must learn how a format functions. I was (more) naive` then.

        Here, mostly, one can offer opposing views and those views are addressed with resources but w/o reference to some “skeptical” playbook. This is why I find my time here more valuable. Though some may wish to tell me to “shut up and go away” that has not occurred yet (and I invite that should others find my value to be lacking). I try to only ask questions on more technical topics unless I’ve run across documentaion that I think others might find handy. On topics such as politics I allow myself free reign as evidenced by the (excessive?) number of posts put forth here.

        I provided a couple of specific names last evening. If you’ll look the “naughty” list was only AGW as after all we’re discussion RC (skeptics need not apply). The “nice” list held both skeptics and warmers. The list behind the ETC. is substantial and equally valuable. If you’ll take off your “bias” hat and put on your “scientific” hat you’ll see that.

        Could my behavior been better? You bet. Could those at RC? How many are no longer allowed at RC (banned)? There’s a “bore” hole (who decides what’s important and based on what?). Here? None of which I’m aware. Even at WATT’s, a bit less tolerant forum, with a couple of notable exceptions the interaction is reasonable. Here and at WATT’s, show your work or get called down. At RC, it came across as go away until you fully buy in. And keep in mind, that I’m a warmer lurking here on a “skeptical” blog. I remain due to the respect given and (hopefully) reciprocated. I’m learning, concerned, and subject to change my mind. You?

      • A witness, Michael, a witness. By the way, Danny’s nicer than you.
        ================

      • Danny,

        Regarding the CAGW dogma, mikey is a dyed-in-the-wool hook-line-and-sinker kinda guy.

      • Hi Don,

        Still learning the players and I thank you for that impression. My polyanna side insists that “everyone” has at least a bit of an open mind and I’ll see how Micheal modifies that. It seems to me that if one lacks an open mind they’re less of a scientist than I. And that’s saying something. At least here, there’s respect until it’s unearned and I’ve experienced a different approach elsewhere.

      • Dannyu

        Climate science is sometimes called ‘post normal science’ in as much it doesn’t always seem to follow the tried and tested null hypothesis and the standards of proof appear much lower than might be expected. I accused Judith of this some five years ago when she wrote a paper on the Southern Ocean using, I believed, data that was simply too sketchy too have any real merit.

        Do scientists have an open mind on climate science?

        The Royal Society was founded in 1660, the same year as the first full year of temperature records that form the Central England temperature series that I often quote and that I have extended back to 1538. Pepys had one of the first thermometers and wrote about it in his diary.

        The motto of the Royal Society was coined in 1663 and basically
        translates as ‘On the word of no one’ or ‘nobody’s word is final.’

        That is to say that scientists must always strive to be open minded and disprove what they believe. That’s a good motto, but one that does not always seem to be adhered to by some scientists who have become advocates for their beliefs.

        In the last few years The Royal Society has adapted their motto. Google ‘Royal society motto’ and you will see that ‘spiked online’ has an interesting article on that metamorphosis.

        I fear that as advocacy grows, so open minded science is being side-lined, by some scientists.

        tonyb

      • Danny

        Sorry for the extra u that crept into your name

        I had meant to post a link to the Royal society that explains their foundation and how their original motto came about

        https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

        hopefully that will give you the incentive to see if it has changed as per spiked online. ‘Take nobody’s word’-not even mine :)

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        Thank you for the suggested readings. I respect your approach to no end.
        I’m at such a disadvantage lacking the scientific background. At my age, I could learn the physics but likely not to an extent to make any difference in the scheme of things. So much of my orientation now is to ask questions, absorb as much of the more generic (elementary?) science as I can to build a foundation. Discuss that which I feel I can add at least modest value (politics?). Do my best to evaluate credibility, and I find yours being of the highest standard. Much respect.

      • Danny. Imagine that gavin had some one like
        Joshua and Michael infecting his blog.
        Or take tamino who blocked a reader from showing an obvious math error that tamino had.

        It’s a pretty intolerant group. Sorry. Same with attp.

        But they get to be intolerant.

        Judith?? I think she is too tolerant. Too tolerant
        Of some skeptics and too tolerant of people who don’t want her bridge building to succeed.

        Bottom line. If you ask your questions some of us here will try to help you. Or point you in a good direction.

      • Steven,

        I thank you for that an only hope I’m not an anchor of any kind on a ship which is moving forward. Michael, to his credit, has caused me to step back to evaluate my participation. Until asked by Dr. Curry and/or the denizens to stop, I will attempt to add value. If nothing else, I hope to ask questions which lurkers may have wished been asked as the blog has a long history but there is new blood either jumping in or lurking that lack that history so elementary questions may provide that value. In the blogging world one risks making a complete fool of themselves and documenting same for posterity. But I’m not shy or thin skin (except maybe when fatigued). I appreciate that which you share and speaking out of turn for others, they do also. The approach of others towards me in this forum makes me want to up my game and to paraphrase a movie “be a better man”. That did not occur in my experience elsewhere which is the point I attempted to share with Michael regarding RC and Dr. Schmidt. This is a tribute to Dr. Curry in my view.

        I stated that I wish Dr. Curry might have chosen different words, I feel certain that some (if not all) of which I’ve offered up she might say the same about me. Hers, to date, remains unwritten.

      • ==> “Joshua and Michael infecting his blog.”

        The very thought is too much to bear.

        Oh, the humanity!!!

        ==> “Of some skeptics and too tolerant of people who don’t want her bridge building to succeed.”

        Right. Mr. “I can see through a window into your soul” rides again.

        ‘Cause being critical of her Tacoma Narrows engineering means that I “don’t want her bridge-building to succeed.”

        Drama-queen anyone?

      • We have plenty of germicide for you and your tiny friends, joshie.

      • Danny Thomas | January 22, 2015 at 11:01 am |
        “At RC, it came across as go away until you fully buy in…”

        People directed you towards information that would answer your questions, but you preferred to spend you time on multiple long-winded rambling comments (a penchant you appear not to have curtailed).

        People there wanted to talk science, you wanted to play ‘tone-monitor’.

        They got sick of it.

        Stuff happens.

      • Michael,

        Short and sweet. I fear for a reading comprehension problem for you.

        “They got sick of it”. As I said, I could have behaved better (or bent to their will). But as your words indicated once their tolerance level was reached demeanor deteriorated. Dr. Schmidt was likely most “brusk”.

        If you feel you’ve “won”, have a great day!

      • gbaikie | January 22, 2015 at 2:12 am |

        ‘Scammers and snake-oil salesman are generally very polite, respectful and obliging. There’s a reason fro that.’ – Michael

        Yes, they don’t have the power of the State.”

        No, deception and fraud need to be disguised, and a big dose of charm is just the thing.

        People who base the truth of an argument based on the style of delivery, deserve to be taken for fools.

      • Steven Mosher

        Joshua your attempts to help Judith with the bridge building you so desperately want have all failed.
        Yet you keep acting the same way.
        Do you expect different results?
        Do you want different results?
        If you wanted her to succeed why would you persist in
        Behavior that has changed nothing?

        Typically when people engage in repeated futile behavior it’s because they derive some subterranean benefit

        If you want Judith to succeed open your mind to other ways of helping.

      • Mosher – (re: your 8:16 pm)

        Not much I disagree with there, actually.

        But I see no realistic way that I might make any significant contribution to Judith’s bridge-building, and nor do I think I can do it any harm. Judith sets her own course. I have no influence.

      • Joshua,

        Not sure if you followed the Michael and I bicker (Re: RC), but the best way I could say it is “be the bridge”. If you do it, I do it, and others do eventually we create a span. Pardon the interruption.

      • Danny –

        This issue operates on a scale that is orders of magnitude greater than our little world here. Even the enlarged context of the climate wars is just a flea on the back of the elephant.

        It reaches all the way down human cognition and psychology. It’s about the phenomenon of polarization and identity politics all across our society.

        This here is just a juvenile high school lunchroom food fight. It’s about Jello-O mold throwing. Anyone who thinks of themselves in some grandiose fashion – such thinking that this is about fighting against terrorism, for “integrity” and “truth” and justice and the American way – is just pumping themselves up and kidding themselves.

        The solution, IMO, requires a systemic approach and changing the context for the discussion.

      • Joshua,

        Gotta start somewhere. If not you (and me) then where? Have you tried? (rhetorical, but I like to think I do—most of the time).
        Signed,
        Admittedly Polyanna and not afraid of windmills.

      • Joshua,

        Where you and I differ 180 degrees. I narrow and you seem to prefer larger, more complicated, and uncertainty.

        Signed,
        Admittedly Polyanna

      • Well, Danny –

        Because of uncertainty, I gotta say you could well be right. :-)

        And if you are, more power to you in your efforts.

      • Joshua,

        If one believes they have sufficient evidence that > 50% of 400 ppm (.04%) of something can have earth shattering consequences then it follows that one must under the most uncertain of evidence then modify out of an abundance of caution in an effort to perform the most appropriate risk management. Can we agree? :)

      • Danny Thomas:
        “Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So (Solar) or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth’s surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space.” – Hansen et al 1984 What does this mean? From above, 3 X 1.3 C = 4 C more or less. Where 3 is the forcing from a doubling of CO2. At least I think that’s what they did. I had asked here earlier if this was the moment Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain? I assume it was. I don’t have a problem with some math in the form of a model was used. I have a small problem with the simplicity of it. It looks a lot like plotting two points and drawing a straight line between them and noting the slope or sensitivity. If there is a back drop to the argument, it may go all the way to 1984. What supports the above case is, CO2 levels has risen and temperatures have risen. As long as that keeps happening, we can say the math works. If we have to keep lowering the value of f, 3.0 to 2.0 to 1.5, the math will still work. Which using the above would tell us f seems variable, which is certainly the more interesting possibility.

      • Ragnaar,

        You’re aware my math skills are dated so I read this over a few times.. But one thing that has bothered me re: Hanson relates to this:”If there is a back drop to the argument, it may go all the way to 1984.”
        In my mind, his investigations seem to coincide with the approx. time effectiveness of the Clean Air Act might have kicked in. I’ve searched G. Scholar, but had no luck finding an evaluation but my wording may have been of issue.

      • Danny –

        Re: your 10:08. I couldn’t follow you there. You have to dumb stuff down for me.

      • I’m looking. Teaching moment. Is there a way to search by time?

      • Joshua,

        Got it! The poor attempt was re: Bridge building. I was left with the impression that you thought you wouldn’t matter in the vast expanse. I (poorly) was trying to relate to the how that CO2 (a very small volume wise cog) has so much impact on climate then why wouldn’t one person make a difference when trying to build that bridge. Sorry, and hope this is more clear.

      • Danny –

        Ok. Now I understand the analogy – but I don’t think it holds up.

        ==> “I (poorly) was trying to relate to the how that CO2 (a very small volume wise cog) has so much impact on climate then why wouldn’t one person make a difference when trying to build that bridge.”

        According to some smart and knowledgeable people, the laws of physics dictate that increases in atmospheric CO2 will affect our climate. There is empirical evidence to support that mechanistic interaction/causality.

        There are no such laws of physics that dictate that anything I might say or do will influence Judith’s bridge-building. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that her trajectory is influenced by my blog comments – one way or the other.

        The only cause-and-effect that I’ve seen as the result of my blog comments are phenomena like Don and mosher and Peter Lang and jim2 and Chief and Doc and Cap’n and kim and tim and GaryM, and Wags and CWON and AK and Hilary and Mosomo and Andrew and Tom Fuller and Tom C. and Tallbloke and Latimer and Willis, etc., calling me names and insulting me, and occasionally an interesting convo with someone like you or John Carpenter.

      • Joshua,

        Interesting. But I see it a bit differently by leaving Dr. Curry out of the equation and taking the responsibility for bridge building on our own shoulders. (Didn’t work out so well for me at RC, but naivete` probably played a role there).

        When I began my quest (about 4 months now), I perceived a range:
        CAGW–cAGW–AGW–GW–Skeptical–Denier
        It’s evolved just a bit as the skeptical is a subset of each of these. I’m a skeptical skeptic (it’s warming, don’t know why and neither side has disproven the other).I come in w/o a base in science. Here, I have discovered that while I disagree with some on political issues, all (and I cannot think of an exception) have responded when asked questions. Other than politics, I’m not putting forth a side. So, from my view, there are already building blocks for a bridge lacking only giving on the policy w/o giving on the science (as it should stand independently). If/when that “smoking gun” is discovered be it CO2, nature or whatever then all who are rational will head to that point. I’m in discovery, but many are at the end of their journey (until proven otherwise). So I perceive two sides and a middle. And in the end, presuming open mindedness, all it takes is a bit of negotiation in between. Heck, a Republican Senate just voted to accept that climate changes. It’s a start, eh?

        But remember, I’m an admitted polyanna. And I’m equally with you, as I am with everyone else on this planet. In the end, we’re all in this together.

      • Danny Thomas:
        Here’s what I was looking for from 26 years later:
        “For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2° and 1.3°C, respectively, the ~4°C surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5).” – Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy 15 OCTOBER 2010 VOL 330 SCIENCE Pretty much the same answer as 26 years before where 3.3 X 1.2 = 3.0 X 1.3 = 4.0, more or less. Our Clean Air Act was probably local and had limited global affects. Are you suggesting the science research was following the politics?

      • Ragnaar,

        “Are you suggesting the science research was following the politics?” Not at all. It was more the timing coincidence. Clean air goes in to effect, and Dr. Hanson picks up on a warming trend. Presumed the reduction of aerosols might have pulled back the curtain on warming that was there all along. So it’s apparent that you’ve not seen evidence that the Clean Air Act had much more than localized impact?

    • I guess lil Joshie missed the bit about opportunistic spin on top of opportunistic spin.

      He certainly misses the bit again and again about a ‘grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses’.

      • He She certainly misses the bit again and again about a ‘grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses’.

        There, fixed it for ya.

      • Yep, contrast the two on science and on policy. John, you’ve just had a terrific insight.
        ==============

    • nottawa rafter

      Work at the top of a government agency for a few years and get back to me if you think it is a conspiracy. It is routinely done at all levels of government. Nothing wrong with it. You need to wise up on what the real world is all about.

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      NASA is cold war creation
      asserting that it is purely a benevolent science organization
      and does not play political and propaganda roles when asked
      is just plain wrong
      history ain’t conspiracy ideation

  15. “The best scientists in the world…”
    Are busy in the lab testing their hypothesis, writing code, or maintaining blogs that question CAGW.
    I think Mr. Obama meant
    “The biggest egos in science…..”

    • Here is the temperature data from Phil Jones at CRU. As far as I can see it goes up to November 2014. I have poor internet connection at present so maybe the full 2014 data and analysis from both CRU and the Met Office is out there but to date I have not seen it.

      When graphed in this manner the prime take home points are that the temperature has been remarkably stable this century despite the escalating co2 levels.

      What graphs is President Obama working from?

      tonyb

  16. “Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address, and that a narrative of ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.”

    Judith Curry

    You now know the agenda, and now you have the methods to be used.

    Wealth transfer schemes are not new nor very elaborate. President Obama is sticking to the script prevalent at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century: demonization of a few by high profile government officials; appear to be acting in the interests of the “masses”; and control the press.
    We have in this Hemisphere a recent example of wealth transfer taking place in Venezuela. Eventually running out of other people’s money.

    Your chosen field of climate science, is and will be used to enact this wealth transfer because the President already has the levers of control. The President is acting in the best image of Saul Alinsky founder of modern community organizing.

    The current outpouring from NASA, NOAA, and academia is nothing more or less than what has been ascribed to Lenin’s referenced: “useful idiots.”
    It’s hard to believe one is being led down the “garden path” by one’s whose hand, holding yours with a velvet glove.

    Going back a number of years here at Climate Etc was the discussion on trust. Trust is the most important ingredient in all relationships including trusting what other scientists are doing and saying. The trust in science is currently waning for cause.

    I don’t trust Michael Mann, nor Gavin Schmidt, nor a host of other visible and invisible warmists. The Gavin Schmidt, who has taken over for James Hansen at GISS, is to be feared as he, to me at least, lacks scientific integrity. In his position, he can, and I might say with 97% certainty, cook the books.

    Wealth transfer here in the USA, has many unseen and un-noticed people and organizations, many with popular faces and names. I would not trust the utterances of most any of these names, groups, organizations.

    I am not pessimistic. I believe there are some people in the seats of power who will articulate again and again the danger. In the mean time, the climate will change, I will go sail on my 13 foot yacht, and the voices in my head will occasionally to say: “liar, liar your pants are on fire!”

    • If I use a quote first rather than addressing you as in: Judith Curry, does that generate moderation hole all by itself?

      Inquiring minds want to know why I am in moderation a lot of the time. Something I am doing that I can change? Or, is this some way to “toughin” me up because beththeserf says climate skeptics shouldn’t cry?

      • RiHoo8 –

        The algorithm for the moderation filter is rather capricious. Don’t take it personally.

      • Absolutely true. Askimet works in strange ways on all WP blogs.

        Artificial intelligence isn’t.

      • Askimet also has an attitude. I make a comment criticizing it, and … sure enough … in moderation.

      • You used the word “idi0t”. I usually replace the “o” with a zero “0”, which usually works (but not always).

  17. I’m in moderation. Is length an issue?

  18. Steven Mosher

    Judith

    “A scientifically sound press release like that issued by Berkeley Earth just wouldn’t fit the bill.”

    Thanks.

    Muller asked me a question I was stumped about on tuesday.

    ‘Who are the republicans listening to?”

    Basically all I could say is that they talk like they are reading bad blog posts and comments by sky dragons and really bad skeptics.

    • Muller should be more concerned about who the Democrats are listening to. They are the ones following the yellow brick road, and you know who’s at the end of that road.

    • As Dr. Curry asked:
      “And speaking of the ‘deniers’ in Congress, did anyone spot any errors in the actual science from Senator Inhofe’s rebuttal?”

      Steven, what was wrong with Inhofe’s statement?

      • Steven Mosher

        you want me to play skeptic for you?

        he misidentifies what the presidents agenda is.

        Imhoff has squandered his power.

      • Inhofe characterized Obama’s EPA rules as a war on fossil fuels. I’m sure there are a good number of coal miners who feel that way.

        Electricity prices are rising in the US.

        The ban on coal isn’t going to do much in the way of stopping “climate change.”

        Some of his regulations do transfer money from one set of people to another, he has issued a lot of regulations, and he has torn down the military to a significant and dangerous degree.

        I’m not seeing anything wrong with what he said.

        He must be listening to the right people.

      • Steven Mosher

        read harder jim

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: he misidentifies what the presidents agenda is.

        Was that an error in the science cited by Inhofe?

      • You are dodging the question, Steven. I suspect it’s because you have no bullets.

      • Heh, Inhofe has figured out that climate always changes. Think of the power that knowledge gives him.

        The next step is attribution. Care to walk along with him, moshe?
        ==============

      • In this instance I think the correct response is “explain better Mosher”.

    • ‘Who are the republicans listening to?”

      This one’s easy. They are listening to their constituency. My guess is that this is a purely reactionary response without much sophistication. They know progressives lie and distort. They see specifics in Climate Science where they can clearly see either lies and distortion or the acceptance of lies and distortion. After that, they determine they really don’t need to know much more about it and reflexively oppose anything that the progressives support. Their constituency doesn’t know much about Climate Science, but they recognize Progressivism where they see it.

      • ‘Who are the republicans listening to?”

        Even an easier one word answer. Money. Applies to both sides!

      • Even an easier one word answer. Money. Applies to both sides!

        I don’t think I believe this. Money is the simple answer given by the zealots when trying to brand their opponents, but it seems this is fundamentally a battle of ideologies.

      • Artifex,

        Fair point, were the ideologies solidly based and not for sale. But with all the big money that flows on all sides it has to be a factor in the profession of ideologies. So many take the campaign contributions, the lobbyists “influences” (future jobs?), etc. I wish they were in place for altruistic reasons but fear this to not be the case (for many). I’m painting them all on all sides with the same brush so this is not directed towards necessarily an individual, but intended towards the entirety. We’ve all witnessed the “morphing” of too many politicians. If strictly ideologically based why the transition. I’m this in debates, then that, in elections, then the other in office. Sorry, but this is based on way too many years making me a bit cynical.

    • ‘Who are the republicans listening to?”

      Basically all I could say is that they talk like they are reading bad blog posts and comments by sky dragons and really bad skeptics.
      ——-
      The assumption is they are actually listening at all. Usually the policy comes first then they go in search of the “science” to back it up. This is equally true for the Dems.

    • Who is Muller listening to? Nobody. Both good and bad. At some point he is going to have to get outside his own head and wonder why a mountain of data that basically confirms a molehill really changes anything.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Steven Mosher, quoting Muller: Who are the republicans listening to?

      Probably their constituents, perhaps including me.

    • ‘Who are the republicans listening to?”

      Basically all I could say is that they talk like they are reading bad blog posts and comments by sky dragons and really bad skeptics.

      Seriously? Were you stumped knowing the answer, or trying to communicate it?

      My answer would be this: science isn’t real to the vast majority of politicians (either side). For them, it’s nothing but an institution that can lend “authority” to pronouncements of various utility to various people. Sort of like creationists, and “global warming” advocates.

      So who do they listen to? Mostly (IMO) “analysts” who purport to tell them what to say to get votes. Or to get money to publicize what they say to get votes. Politics is about power, and in our current “democracy”, power is about votes.

      And anybody with much experience with “analysts” knows that if you really want to hear the truth, listen when what you’re told is different from your preconceptions, and keep track of how what you were told relates to what happened (from an after-the-fact POV), you’ll occasionally actually get the “truth” from the occasional analyst. (“Truth” being as they see it.)

      Otherwise all you’ll ever get is what they think you want to hear. Think Bush and the CIA.

  19. @-“Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address…”

    It is something other than naive to imply that a correlation of timing that is inevitable and inherent in the two events is evidence of political expediency.

    NOAA reports on the past year, including reporting if it was a record have been released 10 to 17 days after the new year. That has been the case since the 90s. 1998 was reported as the warmest year on Jan 11th, the State of the Union address was on the 19th

    The State of the Union address since FDR has been by convention delivered in the second half of January, unless delayed by special events.

    Therefore it would require some exceptional set of circumstances for the SotU address NOT to be preceded by about a week by the NOAA report of the climate of the previous year.
    For it to occur to you that this timing that has been repeated every year for unexceptional reasons is this year motivated by a need to include the NOAA information in the SotU speech is detecting a correlation, and implying a causation without supporting evidence.

  20. Judith,

    Sounds like this stuff has got you pissed off. Good for you!

    Some day I hope to see you as Science Advisor to a rational President (an oxymoron maybe) so that you can bring some light into the discussion.

    • An oxymoron President would be better than the present carbon-dioxidemoron one!

      • Nice, ‘Carbondioxymoron’ is even better.

        Iapogus has a nice one over at the Bish’s. ‘Branch Carbonians’. It’s funny, but the metaphor fails because skeptics are the branch being chopped off in this case.
        ======================

  21. CATO scientist Pat Michaels recently criticized my paper, The Acquittal of CO2, citing as counter evidence IPCC’s alleged δ13C fingerprint. AR4 Fig. 2.3b, p. 138. It didn’t realized that that analysis was an example instead of IPCC’s reliance on manufactured evidence, as also shown in my paper Solar Global Warming. My answer included the following little summary for IPCC writers and other laymen:

    The δ13C story only exposes IPCC’s malfeasance. AGW, the temperature/CO2 model, is invalid for other reasons:

    (A) Temperature
    • Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) follows the Sun (excellent fit with lags of 1.5 and 0.5 centuries)
    • Cloud cover amplifies the Sun (the burnoff effect, a fast positive feedback to radiation), while mitigating warming (Cloud Albedo, a slow negative feedback to temperature)
    • Because solar radiation can exhibit no human fingerprints, neither can GAST
    • The ocean is the primary absorber (low albedo, high heat capacity) and distributor of solar radiation energy
    • GAST is high enough to keep the oceans liquid and much of the surface ice free because of the so-called Greenhouse Effect, which is dominated by water vapor from the oceans (the Claussius-Clapeyron relation)

    (B) CO2
    • Contributes about 25% to the Greenhouse Effect, never enough to keep the ocean surface liquid
    • MLO data are regional, not global, lying in the plume of the intense, Eastern Equatorial Pacific outgassing
    • Atmospheric CO2 is not long-lived, centuries to millennia (IPCC), but has a mean life less than 4 years, less than 2 years with leaf water (270 GtC/yr) using IPCC’s neglected formula
    • The surface of the ocean is not a bottleneck to the uptake of CO2, which is instantaneous on climate scales
    • Atmospheric CO2, dominantly lags, not leads, GAST, so CO2 cannot be the cause and GAST the effect
    • Atmospheric CO2 bears the fingerprint of Henry’s Coefficient for CO2 in water, indicating that its source is the ocean, which dominates man’s emissions
    • The uptakes of natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 in water are the same, proportional to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the water. If the CO2 were modeled according to its isotopes, 12CO2:13CO2:14CO2, natural and anthropogenic CO2 would have different rates of uptake if Henry’s Coefficients differed for the three isotopes. However, the carbon cycle model would have to be converted to the three isotopes, obliterating the desired distinction between natural and anthropogenic sources.
    • CO2 circulation is
    (1) up to the sea surface in saturated sea water via the Ekman Transport,
    (2) outgassed into the atmosphere by solar heating to about 35C at the Equator (Henry’s Law),
    (3) carried up in Hadley Cells to descend in the Tropics, including MLO,
    (4) reabsorbed everywhere over the surface ocean as, in the mean, it cools as it traverses back to the poles (Henry’s Law), to form headwaters for the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC, aka THC (ThermoHaline Circulation), a misnomer), dense from temperature at about 0C to -2C and salinity (the brine effect around ice), plus saturated with dissolved CO2.
    (5) carried in the deep ocean to return to the surface, dominantly in about one millennium.

    • ” It didn’t realized that that analysis was an example instead of IPCC’s reliance on manufactured evidence, as also shown in my paper Solar Global Warming. ”

      What?

  22. Judith,

    Sounds like this stuff has got you ticked off. Good for you!

    Some day I hope to see you as Science Advisor to a rational President (an oxymoron maybe) so that you can bring some light into the discussion.

  23. Nice move by Obama and friends. It’s a “look, a squirrel” moment to divert attention from all the important issues. At the same time, this supposedly dire climate emergency is the perfect moment to move some of the public treasury to Obama’s political supporters. Green energy is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and deft move to use a faux crisis to award political friends, buy votes, and secure political power.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/011615-735189-renewable-energy-a-wealth-redistribution-scheme.htm

    • @-JustinWonder
      ” Green energy is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and deft move to use a faux crisis to award political friends, buy votes, and secure political power. ”

      Ah, so THATS what has been going on since the 1970s, the large shift in wealth to the top 1% was done by Green energy for friends of politicians for political power.
      Which is why the wealthiest 1% are mostly liberals pursuing a Green agenda? (src/off)

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15923.htm

      • Iren

        Here is an English test for you:

        What is the difference between ” a transfer” and “the transfer”?

      • @-JustinWonder
        “Here is an English test for you: What is the difference between ” a transfer” and “the transfer”?”

        Ah, I know this one,

        A (green) transfer of wealth from poor to rich is a very tiny percentage of THE (total) transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

      • I don’t like any transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, even for “green” energy projects.

    • That’s the net outcome of all socialist agendas in fact.

  24. Pingback: That federal warmest evah claim | THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER

  25. OK, let’s get serious here. If Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, or Climate Disruption are real problems, they are engineering problems that should be handled by engineers. Scientists and Politicians are not qualified to work through engineering problems!

    Scientists -> blue sky with arrogance
    Politician -> chase the votes
    Engineers -> apply practical solutions to actual problems

  26. Pingback: JUDITH CURRY: The Raw politics of climate change in the U.S…. | CRAGIN MEDIA

  27. The entire conversation is very frustrating to me because it bogs down in near irrelevancies without ever dealing with the most important point, what is the global climate optimum.

    I think we can all agree that there is a temperature at which point civilization breaks down because it’s too cold and a long list of bad things happen. I think that we can all agree that there is also a temperature at which point civilization breaks down because we’re too warm. Since civilization isn’t obviously breaking down due to climate, we are currently between these two points. Crop failures aren’t causing mass starvation, etc.

    Between those two points are one or more points of optimum climate. What are they? Are we below or above optimum at present? If we are below optimum but headed higher, great! If we are above optimum and headed higher, curses!

    When was the last time you’ve seen the discussion on climate change put in these terms based either on the skeptic or the warmist narrative? I have never seen it. It’s not my field so I might have missed it but this line certainly isn’t the dominant conversation.

    In terms of public policy, the question shouldn’t be whether we’re warming or cooling. The question should be are we at optimum and are we moving towards it or away from it? If we ever have that conversation, the current logjam on climate policy will break as the logical follow up is around the prospect of creating a planetary thermostat that is relatively fast acting and effective at keeping us close to optimum. The power groupings for and against that project are completely different than the current alliances.

    • I’ve wondered the same thing. There is a tendency to oscillate between two argumentative extremes. One, there is no problem. The other, that any change is a problem. It seems that on the short term, human activities are built on the implicit assumption, at least in the short term, of relative climate stasis. Change is scary, but it happens with or without our consent.

      In something I wrote for one of the local fish wrappers, I suggested that a future path is to study geo-engineering, which could include carbon sequestration or some outlandish designs such as nanoparticle space louvers to try to keep the Earth at a consensus climate optimum. We might as well think outside the box.

      • Paleontology shows that so far there’s been no upper limit to the benefit of warming. It’s always better for the biome.

        Testing the lower limit is done every time it cools. It’s always worse for the biome when it cools.
        ============================

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        “what is the global climate optimum”?
        good question IMHO
        Tonyb has has raised it often
        with no response from the alarmist
        ’cause they don’t have one
        ’cause they’re alarmist

      • John Smith,

        My AGW buddy has an answer of sorts. It’s along the lines of: that in which we are accustomed. Then he leads in to: yes, we humans can migrate in the near term, but a tree cannot. Seems reasonable.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Danny
        don’t know about you
        but some of my ancestors were “accustomed” to hunting fury elephants across ice sheets
        I prefer BBQ
        by the beach
        with an artisan beer
        not to mention, air conditioning is a way cool species adaptation

      • John Smith,

        Yeah brother! I like the beer cold and the beach accoutrements “hot”! Me, comfortably in between. :)

        My buddy’s suggestion I found to be reasonable if broad. Haven’t seen much better in definition.

    • TMLutas, the planet is 4.5 billion years old, it’s temperature has varied greatly, the concept of an optimum temperature is absurd. But, as Alexander pope often reminds, the Earth does seem over many millennia to have self-regulating mechanisms which have maintained a temperature range suitable for humans and many other creatures; with a different rangf, other species might have thrived. The last Ice Age almost wiped out humans – global population when it ended has nee estimated at about 15,000, in a few locations – but a repeat wouldn’t wipe out our high-tech civilisation. Those that survived last time did so in many cases by ingenuity and adaptation –sleeping inside dead mammoths, using their bones and skins to make shelters. We have the same traits and many more options.

      If you are thinking “optimum from the point of view of humans,” again, I don’t think that that makes sense, humans live today in a vast range of climates. We deal with what is, that’s why we are so successful. Obama et al deny or devalue this trait.

    • If we are below optimum but headed higher, great! If we are above optimum and headed higher, curses!

      I’d suggest:

      1. The planet’s temperature is below optimum for life and we don’t know which direction the next abrupt change will be

      2. The planet is in a long term cooling trend and has been for the past 50 My, 10 My, 1 My, 100ky, 8 ky. So, we are in a long term cooling trend

      3. Human caused GHG emissions may be delaying the next abrupt cooling, reducing its magnitude, rate of change or severity. That is good.

      4. Any warming that does occur this century is likely to be more beneficial than damaging.

      There are many studies showing that warming has been good for life, life thrives when warmer than now, and that the current warming trend is more benefical than damaging. the trend is likely to continue. There is no good reason to suggest it will suddenly direction change right now. Here’s one link that makes it pretty clear (see Figure 3 “Figure 3. The global average sectoral economic impact of climate change in the 20th and 21st
      century as a function of time (top panel) and temperature (bottom panel).
      “):
      http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0613-3

      • According to those references, things kinda keel over after about 2050

      • Khal Spencer.

        No. Not if you leave out the one major negative – i.e. high cost energy. We don’t have to move to high cost energy. There is suffieniet nuclear energy available to provide all the world’s energy demand effectively indefinitely. And the real costs can come down by orders of magnitude over time. We just have to get over the hurdle of people believing (against all evidence) that renewable energy will be a significant part of the solution.

      • –khal spencer | January 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm |

        According to those references, things kinda keel over after about 2050
        Peter Lang | January 22, 2015 at 6:16 pm |

        Khal Spencer.

        No. Not if you leave out the one major negative – i.e. high cost energy. We don’t have to move to high cost energy. There is sufficient nuclear energy available to provide all the world’s energy demand effectively indefinitely. And the real costs can come down by orders of magnitude over time. We just have to get over the hurdle of people believing (against all evidence) that renewable energy will be a significant part of the solution.–

        Oil is currently less than $50 per barrel- that is cheap energy in 2015 dollars. Or about $25 in 1990 dollars.
        And one could still call $100 per barrel in 2015 as fairly cheap. Or not a high cost of energy.
        What is causing higher prices of oil has little to do with availability and is related to global oil markets dominated by government owned oil production. So the price of oil in 2065 will still have little to do with the availability of oil- or in 2015 dollars it could still be around $50 per barrel.
        But by 2065 it seems likely that China will have a problem with the availability of Coal. And reasonable to associate cheap energy with coal- so China may have a high cost of energy.
        But an aspect of coal use being cheap and the speed at which one use coal to generated electrical power. Or long term a hydro dam is far cheaper than coal- if for no other reason, than because a hydro dam does more than merely provide electrical power. Preventing floods and abundant amount of usable water is as valuable.
        And it’s reasonable to assume that within a decade or two, China will have
        more time to develop other source of electrical power than having about 80% of it’s electrical power coming from coal.
        Or China does not need to have a high cost of energy in the year 2065-
        though part of not having a high cost of energy, probably will be related to the number of nuclear reactors that China has planned to make.

      • In terms of global future energy, what seems most relevant worldwide will mining for natural gas- fracking.
        And in terms global poverty it seems the best action to take is also developing mining technology to extract natural gas from the ocean.
        So fracking is already to be used, and a vast majority of countries can use it, and if the do this, we could the cheapest energy the world has ever seen in coming decades. And getting natural gas from the ocean if
        follow fracking, could lead to even lower energy prices- and basically end
        the current crisis of the global poor.
        So cheap energy for the next 100 years or so.
        But if one were concerned about CO2 emission [though use of natural gas does significantly lower CO2 emissions] then one would focus on dramatically increasing the use of nuclear energy- doubling current nuclear energy use worldwide is what I mean by dramatically increasing the use of nuclear energy. And in terms of who leading the way towards
        such dramatic increase, appears to be India and China.

        So in world with less CO2 emission would be getting about 40% or more of electrical energy coming from nuclear energy and transportation largely using natural gas. And that could be very low cost of energy
        beyond the foreseeable future.

        And at the edge of foreseeable future would such things as utilizing space resources. And if start using space resources, one has even cheaper and far more abundant sources of resources which can support human population of over trillion people. Or hundred of billions living on or near Earth and millions of other people living at lunar distance and beyond.

  28. “Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address, and that a narrative of ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.”

    “Naive scientist that I am.” How very coy. And how very unconvincing.

    The dates of the last 11 GISS global surface temperature year end news releases/conferences and Presidential State of the Union addresses suggest evidence of the Curry Climate Conspiracy is somewhat less than overwhelming.

    Year GISS SOTU
    2015 Jan 16 Jan 20
    2014 Jan 21 Jan 28
    2013 Jan 15 Feb 12
    2012 Jan 19 Jan 24
    2011 Jan 12 Jan 25
    2010 Jan 21 Jan 27
    2009 Feb 23 Feb 24
    2008 Jan 16 Jan 28
    2007 Feb 08 Jan 23
    2006 Jan 24 Jan 31
    2005 Feb 08 Feb 02

    • Indeed. Curry touts BEST, with no taint of conspiracy. But NASA and NOAA have to be involved in conspiracy because they announce their result a couple days later than BEST. (huh?)

      But Curry rather likes a quote she can mine from BEST, and doesn’t like the minable quotes from NOAA and NASA.

      There’s raw politics involved, but it isn’t from NASA and NOAA.

      • Thanks for your input, bobbie grumbles.

      • Robert Grumbine,

        Who is the face of BEST? NASA has Gavin Schmidt, a highly public figure in the climate world, and from the perspective of this climate agnostic Dr. Schmidt bungled things by not including the probability that there is a 62% chance that the words he professed (hottest year ever) as the face of NASA were inaccurate. Then, when asked about his error of omission, he chose not to respond. If intending to umpire this dispute, it seems one should call it evenly for both teams.

        Not intending to defend or speak for Dr. Curry as her words stand for themselves right or wrong.

      • Richard A. Muller

      • JCH,

        Okay. Still learning the players. So did Dr. Muller bungle the pronouncement in the same fashion as did Dr. Schmidt?

        It seems when it comes to “mining” BEST’s proclamation Dr. Curry provided the entire mountain by providing the link to BEST’s entire excerpt, and not just the “gold nuggets” as Dr. Schmidt did while leaving out the dirt.

      • JCH,

        Thanks for that video. Correct, please, if I misinterpret. This interview seems to indicate Dr. Muller sees excellent correlation between temps and CO2 (as has been seen here since I’ve been lurking). Are you aware of his link towards causation, and theory regarding the pause?

      • @montfort:
        Thanks for the reminder that 3rd grade playground insults is typical of the intellectual level of this site. Unlike you, I’ve outgrown such. If you ever do, you’re welcome to ask science questions at the ‘question place’ notes I hang out at my blog.

        @Thomas:
        You might have a point wrt Curry’s intent, except that’s not to what she said. Look again. The conspiracy was purely a matter of the timing of the NASA/NOAA announcement, not its content, or its speaker (not that Judy is a fan of Gavin or vice versa). Gavin Schmidt being involved (and he certainly doesn’t represent NOAA) is moot. NASA and NOAA announced their result on, what, Friday (the day you announce things you want to be ignored or lost in the media), vs. BEST announcing it early in the week (when you announce things for maximum media attention).

        As it happens, I find the horse-race aspect of ‘hottest year ever’ to be more than a little annoying, poor science communication, and some other negative things. But, before you get too gleeful, I also think it is nonsense for Judy (and others) to go on about ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ in climate change when they cherry-pick spans rather than using the usual 30 years. I explained why 30 years, years ago, at http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html The 30 year trend now is upwards. 10 years ago, it was upwards. 20 years ago, it was upwards. 30 years ago, it was upwards. Almost all decades since 1890s have been warmer than the previous decade.

        Irrespective of why, that points to the observation being that there’s warming, in general, and has been for quite a while. ‘record year’ or not, the long term trend is what matters. And that’s up. Not that political partisans will allow this to be true. But if you’re interested in the science, that’s true and the question is really — why?

        The answer there isn’t as obvious, and probably changes through the time being considered.

      • Robert,

        Thank you for that expanded perspective. I assure you that I find no “glee” in any of this discussion. The entire conversation about the politicization and especially the polarization I in fact place the blame for squarely on the shoulders of us and not our elected officials whether it be Obama or Inhofe as I see them as a mirrored reflection of “We the people”. Now, it seems it’s “them vs. us” with an ever broadening expanse between.

        There are so many parts of the solutions that do not necessarily have to be so damaging to particular sectors of our country. Naive`? Maybe.

        I’m a bit disappointed with Dr. Curry’s choices here as they are as “Raw Politics”. My disappointment is calling out only one side. Let us all “We the people” call them all on it. I voted for Obama hoping for the “change” that was promised after having voted for Bush. Bush messed us over (I’m a uniter? Hah) in many ways and Obama has just taken that swinging pendulum and given it an equal and opposite reaction.

        I’m admittedly polyanna. I have no doubt we can take on pretty much anything (except maybe mother nature) and turn it to the good. But as that seemingly cannot be initiated anywhere in the mid north east coast (D.C.) of this country then it is up to US to do so. For us to do the same as they and expect different results is well…………you know.

        Regarding the pause:”In a presentation to the American Physical Society, William (Bill) Collins of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and lead author of the modeling Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR5 said “Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 20 years are vanishingly small.”

        I’m a warmer, seeking cause. I see lots of correlation. I hope it is man, because if so we can stop doing what’s causing the change. If it’s natural variability I’d say we’re pretty much S.O.L.

      • Bob, regarding the pause, you seem not to have been paying attention to the arguments. See my invited APS presentation: Causes and implications of the pause
        https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause/

      • JCH,

        See that was Dr. Muller.
        What I’d really like to know is not what the pause is not, but instead what it is?

      • Steven Mosher

        “Are you aware of his link towards causation, and theory regarding the pause?”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html

        “If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”

      • @judy:
        I have, alas, been paying attention. What you haven’t been doing is making a case that someone who doesn’t agree with you a priori can get any substance from. Your special pleading for N years being ‘mostly flat’, without ever justifying why N years is significant, but N+5 and N-5 are not, nor defining what ‘mostly flat’ is, just doesn’t fly outside your cocoon. Or at least not with me.

        I’ll remind you that, ages ago at least (though as recent as last 5-6 years), you thought I wasn’t a particularly stupid person. Why it is you don’t make a case that a non-stupid person who doesn’t happen to agree with you already could see the merit of is something for you to reflect on. That, and, of course, why you have comments that a 3rd grader would find stupid — and that those are your supporters.

        I dunno. My commenters disagree with me fairly routinely. Sometimes, I see their point and they’re correct. Sometime I don’t see it, which I (unlike you wrt the rest of the scientific community) take as a sign I didn’t express myself very well.

        And don’t think I didn’t notice you didn’t respond with substance as to how you know BEST wasn’t timing their announcement with conspiratorial intent, but you know that NOAA and NASA were. Even though they announced in the same week and it was BEST that took the preferred slot.

        @thomas:
        I’ll also suggest to you my most recent (regardless of its posting date) ‘question place’ post (comments are always open). Questions are welcome. Some, I can’t help much with. But if I can, I will. And if I can’t, maybe some of my readers can (minus 3rd grade playground insults).

        As for correlations, which I don’t place all that much interest in. But, well, better than a kick in the posterior; the correlation between CO2 levels and global mean surface air temperature is exceptionally high — http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html If you look carefully, you’ll see that this article is almost 6 years old. I’m going to update it ‘soon’, but I invite you (and everyone else) to do the math yourself (yourselves). It’s still exceptionally high (as far as climate variables go — I’m used to seeing correlations like 0.1 in climate variables, and that being statistically significant).

        Does this prove causation? Of course not. But it does mean that all those who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature change have something to explain.

      • Robert,

        Thank you for that and the link. I’m sufficiently comfortable (as a non scientist) with the strength of the correlation. But that “pause” thingy sure gets in the way. I cannot bring myself to make trillion dollar decisions based on model that based on observation have proven ineffective. So I’m all about renewables (alternatives?) as fossil fuels will eventually go away. I’m not sure about doing away with FF based on those models and “only” correlation of
        CO2. I’m good with improved land uses, and Steven Mosher’s “prepare for yesterday’s weather (which we’re not ready for on the day after tomorrow). Land use can be substantially improved. The rest can wait a bit.
        Math, for me, is pretty much a checkbook. Thank goodness for calculators (if only they had a spell check equivalent).

      • ” If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”

        Certainly a step in the right direction, but the human increment of atmospheric IR resonating gasses has an outside limit of 3% and the human contribution to the Carbon cycle is 5%. The null hypothesis would be that human influence is very small and “natural” variations (whatever completely unknown influences may cause them) are very large. Why should we reject the null?

      • Maybe you start with the null hypothesis that GHGs have little effect on climate. Then, only after eliminating that in your mind, go on to whether the amount CO2 has any effect, then finally you can address man’s influence. You need to do it in stages, otherwise you find yourself not knowing what you are assuming to be true.

      • I can’t see “conspiracy” in the timing, except for the 1-day delay in the NASA/NOAA announcement. Which, AFAIK, had been scheduled for 1 day earlier for quite a while. Obviously, either way, it could have been and probably was timed to allow the results to be included in the the speech.

        But the timing of both announcements about 2014 and the “State of the Union” speech are both driven by the end of the year, and the need to include statistics right up to that end in whatever analyses are made of them.

        It’s the delay that strikes me, makes me question to what extent the NASA/NOAA announcement was “politically tuned” the way the IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers” was “politically tuned”.

      • Steven Mosher

        “BEST announcing it early in the week (when you announce things for maximum media attention).”

        We released our results first on thursday as I recall.

        After witnessing what NOAA and NASA were saying, we decided to do a press release after the weekend.

        Hmm. bottom line we were not paying a whole lot of attention to SOTU. I didnt even know it was on tuesday.

        In the week or two after the first of the year we were struggling to put out site back on line cause somebody took it down.

      • Mosh

        Its noticeable that the Met Office/Hadley haven’t yet made an announcement on 2014. Does that just mean they are slow off the mark or that Gavin was quick off the mark or that is just how they do things in the respective organisations?

        I would be surprised if the Met Office weren’t as circumspect as you and merely point out that due to error bars that 2014 was ONE of the warmest years but not THE warmest year globally

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        Tony

        I really havent followed the timing with any care other than to note in a general way that CRU tends to lag.

        One of the things I hoped to do is to move to a process were we just report the numbers and some standard boiler plate stuff.

        The monthly and annual tracking of highest lowest whatever is really in my mind a distraction at best and an opportunity to spin at its worst.

        I suspect you are right about CRU. dunno. I suspect they will be attacked no matter what they do

    • Gavin Schmidt? Hi. This is Barak Obama, yes, the President of the United State, yah, for real.

      Look Gavin, may I call you Gavin? I am giving a State of the Union Address in a couple of weeks and I was wondering if you could give me something, you as being the current head of GISS, you know the appointed head, you could give me something that I could use as a zinger in my SOTU address; I mean a whopper of a fact, or maybe a speculation, or maybe…well something that I can use.

      Say what? 2014 being the hottest year ever? Well…ah, just leave statistics out of it, just say hottest ever and then go through your usual media sources and have “hottest year ever” in front of the Nation’s eyes, yah, before it snows in DC.

      Well, Thanks Gavin, 2014 the hottest year ever. Wow! This is great. I’ll be sure to remember this when appointment time comes around.

      Bye

  29. Is there one single item of wacko boilerplate progressive dogma which Obama does not believe?

    No…he is what one would call a “true believing” dolt at even the most nutty leftist websites….

    It is embarrassing.

  30. What’s the difference between Sasquatch and “climate change”?

    You can actually make a pretty good scientific case that Sasquatch is real.

  31. OMG! Near unanimous agreement in vote of Republican and Democrat Senators that Climate change is real. How they gonna call them deniers now?

    • 97% of republican Senators, including Sen. Inhofe agree that climate change is real. WTF is that Obama talking about? Where are all of the deniers?

  32. In a surprise, one of the Senate’s staunchest climate change skeptics, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), voted in favor of the amendment. But he made clear he doesn’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. …

    • Yeah, and Obama says that CO2 traps heat. Did the NOAA tell him that?

    • David L. Hagen

      Jim Inhofe flips the script on Democratic climate-change-is-a-hoax vote

      Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) co-sponsored the amendment with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who introduced it. Inhofe can claim credit as a primary inspiration for the amendment, having literally written a book called, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” But Inhofe joined Whitehouse and urged its passage.
      He was up to something. On Twitter, beforehand:
      Senators – join me in voting YES on Whitehouse’s amdmnt saying climate change is a hoax, bc it is. I’ll address my vote in floor speech soon
      — Jim Inhofe (@jiminhofe) January 21, 2015
      When offered the chance to speak on the amendment, Inhofe — did we detect a twinkle in his eye? — explained his unexpected argument. The climate changes all the time, he said, citing both b>scientific and “Biblical evidence.” There was a hoax: the idea that man was responsible. Such a position was “arrogant,” in his formulation, the idea that people could affect the mechanisms that controlled the globe. With that distinction drawn — the climate changes, and that change isn’t a hoax, even if the role of humans is — the vote was held. Only Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) voted ‘no.’

      Classic!

  33. “The real problem is…,” according to Daniel Sarewitz (It’s the End of the World… Stupid), “that all the suffering to come [e.g., famine, fires, water shortages, civil strife, etc.] will have only one true cause, and that redemption can be achieved only by following one true path. No matter that long and sad human experience teaches us where such absolute orthodoxies lead. Indeed, with climate change being blamed for almost everything these days, the one phenomenon that seems to have escaped the notice of scientists, environmentalists and the media alike is that, perhaps above all, climate change is making us stupid.”

  34. Proposals define raw politics.
    Nowhere in that speech excerpt is “act forcefully” defined, even vaguely. The fact of the matter is that the “raw politics” of climate change are that Obama and the Democrats will beat the drum but never march. The minute there is an actual proposal on the table – we’re going to jack up the cost of carbon use X amount – is the minute that people will start looking closely at why we’re doing those things. That’s when everyone will discover (or care) that 2014 wasn’t really the warmest year evah! And that moment won’t come.
    So Obama touts a pledge with China as forceful action in the SOTU (five minutes after taking credit for pumping an unprecedented amount of fossil fuels) and nobody really cares because, like the first six years of his presidency, he doesn’t really intend to do anything about AGW.
    And, contra Mosher, the GOP did not “squander” it’s position on AGW. Back in the day, Newt Gingrich was making TV commercials with Al Gore about it and the New York Times ran Andy Revkin on page 1. Once AGW got turned into really, genuinely stupid “alternatives” and policies (ideas that even James Hansen likens to believing in the Easter Bunny) the GOP and the bulk of the Democratic Party walked away from it. And Revkin became a blogger handwringing about how Gavin’s press release really isn’t true, but is good never-the-less.
    Inhofe strikes exactly the right note- pointing out that if you take climate campaigners precisely at their word, they’re going to blow a giant wad of money for no measurable purpose. It’s too bad climate campaigners squandered their position on AGW.

  35. As a footnote to the ‘climate change is real’ tautology, By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax
    http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/01/98-1-u-s-senate-passes-amendment-saying-climate-change-real-not-hoax

    • 98% ?

    • They forgot include that all climate change has happened in just 6,000 years.

    • Wow. Same margin as the Senate’s vote against Kyoto.

    • I’m relieved that the Senate recognizes climate is changing. I wonder what mountain of an issue they will take on next? Maybe yo-yos have a tendency to move up and down? The sky is sometimes blue? Most birds frequently fly? There are a number of issues out there.

      • The Senate vote was on an amendment that will be attached to a Keystone Pipeline bill. Is Obama going to veto near unanimous Senate agreement that climate change is real? Obama stooge Dingy Harry is not in charge any more. Whole new ballgame.

      • Yeah. Whole new ballgame.

        Things are going to be so different now.

        Hilarious.

      • I’m happy the Dimowits no longer completely control the Senate. But I need to read the amendment. If they did actually say it’s caused by humans and is urgent – then they screwed up.

      • You talk so much but know so little, joshie. At least bills will come up for a vote in the Senate, now. And a lot of them will pass. We are about to find out how lame our lame duck really is. Obstructionist in Chief. Do you have any idea who poked Dingy Harry’s eye out? My sources in D.C. are pretty sure it was a gang of recently defeated former Senators. Even you can figure out who are the prime suspects, joshie. Who said elections have consequences? Same guy who said that CO2 traps heat.

      • Democrats are not in control of the agenda in the Senate anymore, jim. You don’t have to read the amendment. There’s a new sheriff in town. Dingy Harry is in the hospital with his eye poked out.

      • Don, unfortunately, the pubs don’t have enough to override a veto. So, not completely in charge.

      • Jim, I said they are in charge of the agenda in the Senate.

    • nottawa rafter

      Safe vote. Change by what? What are the allocations? Next vote- Apple Pie and Motherhood. These politicians are so courageous.

    • From the text of the congressional record (in part) : ” It is the sense of the Senate that climate change–
      (1) is real;
      (2) is caused by humans;
      (3) is urgent; and
      (4) is solvable.

      Later, in SA 7, sec. 3 (paraphrase mine) in part caused by burning fossil fuels.
      Meat on them bones?:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r114:1:./temp/~r114mnnQU7:e0:

      • Climate change:
        (1) Has happened since the Earth was formed;
        (2) Is real;
        (3) may have been influenced by humans;
        (4) hasn’t caused any issues thus far;
        (5) isn’t as urgent as a lot of other problems;
        (6) isn’t really urgent at all;
        (7) isn’t a problem that needs to be solved, given the uncertainties and other more pressing problems.

      • Jim2,

        1) agree
        2) agree
        3) agree (sure wanna nail this down) as to quantity and cause
        4) TBD
        5) TBD
        6) TBD re: 5 & 6. We can no more, from what I’m finding, state that what’s done today and looking backwards ain’t gonna prove to be a net negative than it won’t.
        7) agree and disagree and TBD
        *8) (added by me) Setting policy based on current knowledge is troublesome.

        It would good news if it is man as we can “fix” it if it turns out to really be a serious problem. If it’s nature, we’re gonna spend a lot of money to move. Instead of picking nits (hottest year ever… who cares {other than keeping science’s good name} as it’s still a trend indicator and lacks reasonable certainty of cause——so much energy spent beating the heck outta that to not positive end other than winning the nit) it would be entertaining to no end for a proclaimed “skeptic” (any good scientist?) to be the source of that data. But so much of the skeptical side of the conversation is reactive and not proactive and maybe even counter productive. And so much energy on the AGW side to put forth policy to the detriment of others is equally counter productive (under current knowledge).

        Signed,
        an agnostic

    • Think win-win for the bankers who are investors in both oil sands/ pipelines and green energy. They’re all banker fed animals. John Boehner & company invested in stock of seven oil sands companies before pushing the Keystone Pipeline. Obama is plenty green invested & banker fed, so this deal might actually meet his approval. Investment security.

      But low oil prices could last a long time, because after the Saudi have had enough then Iran, Iraq and other oil producers could very well put the squeezes on the House of Saud by upping production. Building this ridiculous tube and not having any affordable enough to buy oil to send down, I could see that. The convoluted process of oil sands requires about $90/bl price to be profitable.
      Oh wait, they can just false flag start up a war and whack some supply, drive the price up.

    • David L. Hagen

      Context: Senate Debate on Keystone XL Pipeline & Climate
      Louisiana Senator Cassidy, First Speech, Senate Jan 13 p S194

      First, the President’s own State Department says that building the pipeline will decrease carbon emissions, there will be less oil spilled. . . .
      on page 34 of President Obama’s State Department report, it says that the pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. It will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 to 42 percent relative to not building the pipeline at all. . . .
      I think it is also safe to say–we read about how in China people can’t see the blue sky. Their environmental standards are far more lax than ours. If it goes to the gulf coast, I can tell my colleagues I just came from Louisiana yesterday and I saw blue skies. . . .
      again referencing President Obama’s State Department, they have said that if we pipe that oil to the gulf coast, our gulf coast refineries are uniquely equipped to process that oil in an environmentally safe way, and so it is unlikely that it will be exported. . . .
      It is clear that it will diversify our energy security. Instead of buying our oil from the Middle East or from countries like Venezuela who don’t care for us–in fact, use the money we pay them in some cases to finance terrorism–it will come from a trusted neighbor who will spend that money that we pay Canada for this commodity back into the North American economy creating jobs indirectly in the United States that otherwise would not be, which leads us to the question, are these jobs worth having? In a word, the answer is absolutely

      Senator Inhofe on climate/pipeline, Senate Jan. 13, Page S195
      Inhofe Senate Jan. 13, Page S196

    • That’s 99 per cent, I’ll give the amendment a +2 compared to the alleged consensus.

  36. I would want my own country to follow the example of China and a make a commitment to reduce emissions from old coal plants and replace them with emissions from new coal plants…till more nukes come online. Because even Three Gorges hydro isn’t enough when you have to do so much of the world’s manufacturing.

    Of course, if you are Germany you just build new coal power plants and talk about how you are phasing out nuclear. If you have some sort of green pitch – be it anti-coal or anti-nuke – the luminaries of Big Smug, the NYT and Guardian, will look the other way at what you actually do. They’re more into self-loathing than worrying about what foreigners do. Europe needs Germany to buy the drinks and the world needs China to make everything. No sense in rattling those cages.

    And while you won’t catch Big Smug using terms like “kids” and “folks”, they understand the need for such simple forms of communication when one has an entire Anglosphere to patronise.

    That’s all, “folks”.

  37. “Maybe some day, in a future administration, we can have a grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses”

    Good summing up.

  38. On Climate Change Propaganda
    Jenkins, Jr., Holman W. “Climate Reporting’s Hot Mess.” Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2015, sec. Opinion.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468?tesla=y&autologin=y

    Intro: “Holman Jenkins says the Associated Press takes the cake in the relentless campaign by global-warming journalists to discredit their own profession.”

    Pickings“News reporting of the latest climate alarm was not uniformly bad. Among hundreds of publications in the Factiva database, exactly one—the Mail on Sunday, one of those derided London tabloids—injected the phrase “statistically significant”> into consideration of whether 2014 was in any meaningful sense the “hottest year on record.”

    “A nonjournalistic source and not exactly an outfit of climate-change deniers, Berkeley Earth, also noted that, when it comes to 2014 and the other “hottest year” candidates, 2005 and 2010, the observed temperature difference was smaller than the margin of error by a factor of five, adding: “Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”

  39. Capitalism works. It works best if soundly managed. This involves managing interest rates to keep inflation within a target range. It helps to have fair and transparent laws around a plethora of issues that emerge in modern democracies. Monopolies, consumer and worker protection, pollution, etc. Optimum growth occurs with government at about 22% of GDP. Steady growth happens with balanced budgets and a money supply modestly growing.

    In a very real way economies across the globe have failed the test of prudent economic management. Nonetheless – we know how to do it and continued growth is the sin qua non of the development of a global civilisation worthy of the name this century.

    Within the objectives of social and economic development much can be done on the emissions front. Changes to the Earth system from emissions have been minor thus far – they are within the limits of natural variability. Anthropogenic effects are not discernible against background variability with any certainty anywhere in the Earth system. It is clear that a cool decadal regime is constraining surface temperature – for some 20 to 30 years from 2002. Beyond that yet cooler conditions seem more likely than not as we return to cooler Pacific conditions from a 1000 year high in El Nino activity. Regardless – it remains prudent to limit anthropogenic changes to the in a complex, dynamical system.

    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is part of the problem – and one best addressed in the short term with building carbon in agricultural soils and conserving and restoring ecosystems. In the mid term – the development of cheap and abundant low carbon energy is the only real solution. But there are other gases on which substantial progress can be made within the constraints of optimum social and economic development.

    If we add black carbon to the mix – carbon dioxide is the smaller part of the problem.

    ‘The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W/m 2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W/m 2. Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W/m 2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing…’ Bond, T. C. et al, 2013, Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: ATMOSPHERES, VOL. 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171

    Progress on black carbon is technically simple – and happens as a matter of course with economic development.

    I have pulled some of the black carbon issues together here – http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/

    Climate change has come to dominate the public space for environmental discourse – with attendant and unfortunate demands on social and economic policy. Complexity science adds unexpected dimensions to the problem – but we would still be much better off – and much more environmentally friendly – pursuing a broad social and economic development agenda than one focused narrowly on climate change.

    • Rob – how about an example of a government that has “managed it?” It doesn’t work in the real world, sorry.

    • Right now the governments around the world are “managing” a currency war. Each is rushing to devalue their own currency. Managing, right.

    • It is the only thing that does work in the real world. Although Australian government spending has accelerated in recent years fueled by the delusions of the sustainability of deficit spending which is then redeemed by printing money. Sound familiar? How not to manage economies in the real world.

      http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/inflation-target.html

      http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/australia-gdp-growth-annual.png?s=aunagdpy&d1=19930101&d2=20151231

      A few hundreds of billions of losses in the collapse of a housing bubble fueled by low interest rates – cascades into many trillions of losses in the world economy. A ‘dragon-king’ in the global market.

      How to prevent it? Effective management of interest rates and effective prudential management. Grown up economics from politicians.

      • Check out Japan. It’s been in the dumper for decades and now QE isn’t working for them due to the swoon in oil prices.

    • Rob Ellison

      I wonder where you got the pie graph. When I look at the OCO2 satellite distribution of CO2, it would appear to me that the smoke stack/tail pipe emissions are substantially less for the total of CO2. South Africa stands out as a major CO2 source. The only thing that has that vast an area are grass lands. Hence, I would suggest, that forest and decay and grass lands are much more important that the pie graph representation.

    • Puleeese, “black” Carbon, as if Carbon were not actually black. Thinking you are unaware of the massive fires that left multi cm soot layers in sediments around the world after enormous forests boosted planetary Oxygen to the flashover level. Humans are fires, humans are volcanoes, but we are NOTHING compared to what has preceded us.

  40. Here’s the thing….

    A while back there was a reasonable exchange between Gavin and Judith. Not great, mind you; there was some partisanship and juvenility. But there also some slivers of reasonable exchange of views between people who disagree.

    I’d say that with this post, complete with its conspiratorial ideation, the possibility of moving forward in a positive direction from that limited exchange are pretty much shot.

    Not to say that Judith is solely to blame But it’s clear that for whatever reasons, because of what she perceives to be bad faith on the part of others or because of her own inability to raise her game, this particular opportunity for ‘bridge-building” is pretty much the Tacoma Narrows.of blog science interaction.

  41. I don’t recall Obama discussing any of this during his re-election campaign. Maybe I missed something?

    • I think it was one of those ‘Americans are saving too much money and would be better off sending it to power companies’ type of things.

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      you didn’t miss anything
      nor did he mention it in the entire first 6 years of his presidency
      he only found the new religion out of desperation to hold the base (high dollar liberal donors) together
      pitiful really

    • There were two opposing amendments: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/21/keystone-debate-senate-to-vote-on-dueling-climate-change-amendments/

      So I must suspend my post above linking to content until it’s confirmed which is which. I apologize to the blog for premature posting if inaccurate.

    • @- “climate change is real and human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” – 50 senators voted in favor of the amendment, including five Republicans: Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mark Kirk of Illinois
      49 senators voted to reject the amendment, which failed when it fell one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to pass.”
      ———————–

      Now is ‘significantly’ more than half, >50% or just ‘most’ of the warming ?

      But this is a scientific question that… most scientists think is strongly determined by the evidence. 95% confidence that it is >50% human activity, with the peak of the PDF at 100%.

      What on earth were politicians doing voting on a scientific question?
      Did the 5 Republicans that broke away from the solid phalanx of R nays think that their vote makes the evidence for the mainstream scientific evidence any stronger ?!

    • Pretty much a party line. Well, moshe, waddya tink o’ dat?

      You missed a chance to tell Muller that the Republicans are listening to people like Steve McIntyre, Judy Curry, Nic Lewis, Matt Ridley, Andrew Montford, Richard Lindzen, and so many, many more. And you missed a chance to ask him who the Democrats are listening to, too.

      Heh, and you could have done him a favor by dropping a little bird in his ear about the absurd attribution. How cold would we now be, naturally, if his attribution is correct?
      ==================

    • Time to get to work, Judith. Or then again, you may not listen to anyone who doubts that ACO2 affects the climate even as you listen to folks who doubt that it affects the climate “significantly”

      What is significantly, eh?

      • see lewis and curry for good numerical approximation.
        oh wait thats science. forget it.
        ask an expert you’re not qualified to select to explain it to you

    • ‘Climate change is real. Denial from Congress is dangerous.’
      Kinda’ like Charles1 of England, believer in His Own Divine
      Right, losing his campaign to control Parliament. Heed the
      chastening records of history President O.

    • Once again –

      http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/no_warming.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1408717503344

      (can someone tell me how to get that to post as a graph rather than as a URL?)

  42. Arrived late, as usual theae days.
    Judith dispairs the politics. I went to HLS with Romney ( and heck, afterwards worked two years with him before he betrayed firm loyalty by absconding to Bain…), and just before OBummer. So this post gets real personal. As in been there and done that, with them personally.
    Citizens, you have been mainly lied to by your elected representatives on climate. And especially by their bureaucratic minions, like at the EPA under OBama’s directives. See guest post Clean Coal for an example.
    Judith is a true keeper of the truth (including uncertainty) flame.
    Sorry if seems preachy, since dealing with unanticipated family issues tonight of greater import. Said much more in ebook Blowing Smoke, foreward by Judith. All typos therein are my ultimate responsibility. And there are many.

  43. Senator Inhofe, the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

    Right right you the man who said something to the effect that global warming is the greatest “hoax” ever perpetrated in the history of mankind responds. Yes a great spokesman indeed. I bet the WUWTERs are excited about that..

  44. Oh and I forgot to add another relevant fact about Inhofe. Guess which industry is his biggest contributer? Well let’s see…

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

    Oil & Gas $434,950 $186,300 $248,650
    Retired $240,875 $240,875 $0
    Leadership PACs $217,427 $2,000 $215,427
    Electric Utilities $148,750 $5,250 $143,500
    Lobbyists $127,656 $117,156 $10,500

    • Inhofe’s basket of bread turned to roses.
      =========

      • Yep he could buy a lot of roses alright, I don’t know that would help his campaign too much though..

    • Joseph, who and what industries contributed to OBumbles, Reid, and Pelosi? Bet you won’t bother to put those up, eh?

      • Go to that site, look for it. and post it Jim2 I am willing to bet though (a lot) that the renewable industry gave a lot less to Obama than the fossil fuel industry gave to Romney.

    • I prefer energy companies to lawyers! Movies??? Unclassified lobbyists? What’s all the secrecy about?

      H. Reid.

      Lawyers/Law Firms $3,979,846 $3,535,601 $444,245
      Securities & Investment $1,434,168 $1,143,568 $290,600
      Lobbyists $1,340,544 $1,302,981 $37,563
      Health Professionals $1,218,456 $537,156 $681,300
      TV/Movies/Music $978,350 $634,850 $343,500

    • Pelosi – more lawyers, healthcare (wonder why??), public sector unions – good socialists there.

      Health Professionals $263,800 $19,800 $244,000
      Lawyers/Law Firms $182,150 $115,150 $67,000
      Real Estate $170,750 $103,250 $67,500
      Public Sector Unions $167,000 $0 $167,000
      Computers/Internet $160,100 $83,100 $77,000

    • Looks like Reid and Pelosi cleaned up compared to Inhofe.

      • Jim2,

        Is that a statement of influence, effectiveness, or what? Neither looks that good to me, and supports my contention to others about “to whom are they listening”. And it ain’t us.

      • Amount of money — look at the quantity!

      • Jim2,

        The ‘quantity’ of money I receive has no bearing on the influence that those who contribute to you have on you (and vice versa). Influence is influence. Those particular dems receiving more funds is representative of effectiveness of their generation of contributions but has no bearing on the influence of those who contributed to another.

      • So, Danny, if I give $25 to my representative; he will listen to me over the “health care professionals” who gave him $500,000? I think you are being a bit naive or maybe just obtuse.

      • Jim2,

        I would fully agree if we were comparing $25 to $500,000. But we are not. We’re comparing hundreds of thousands for this person vs. hundreds of thousands for that one. If we’re talking “oil and gas” to Ihnofe contributing $186,300 (individuals) plus $248,650 (PAC’s) = $434,950 {from Joseph’s link at 7:10pm} to Inhofe vs. your numbers regarding Pelosi (Health Professionals $263,800 total $19,800 (Individuals) $244,000 (PAC’s) {sources assumed as no link provided but it’s what YOU posted and I’ll trust them} does that mean Health care then has less influence on Pelosi as the dollars are less than what “oil and gas” provided to Inhofe based on your logic? I think not. Volume matters not at those levels. I’d bet both will answer the phone if called. Agreed?

        So, who might be being obtuse (a bit harsh, eh) or at the very least unrealistic?

      • One might expect that of majority/minority leaders of their respective caucuses.

  45. Stephen Segrest

    Dr. Curry — How would you have written this Amendment? The actual wording (where 50 Senators agreed and 49 disagreed) was:

    “It is the sense of Congress that 1) climate change is real, and 2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change,”

    • well the problem is that ‘climate change’ has ceased to have a clear meaning; in political circles it is assumed to be equivalent to anthropogenic global warming, whereas scientifically climate (whatever its cause, be it natural or anthropogenic) has always changed and always will be.

      I would have left off ‘climate change is real’ and just kept the ‘human activity significantly contributes to climate change’. But then ‘significantly is rather ambiguous, which leads us back to ‘most’ and all that. The word ‘predominantly’ or ‘preponderance of’ is probably a better way to put it

    • David L. Hagen

      Stgephen Segrest
      The problem began with the UNFCCC treaty which politically redefined “climate change” to mean anthropogenic warming:

      Term definition:
      1. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods
      2. Refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes

      • Thanks for this link

      • David,
        That’s very good info. I’d never seen that definition and it clears up quite a bit of confusion over it’s usage (or, rather, mis-usage). It’s amazing the lengths institutions and people will go in order to further their agenda.
        Reminds me of a phychology prof I once had. He fully convinced the class that black was actually white and vice versa.
        Amazing, the power of words can have. Either spoken or in print.

        Thanks,
        GeoffW

      • Geoff – well, they WERE psych students after all.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere”

        to me this definition adds little
        separating human “attribution” from non-human “attribution” I doubt will ever be achieved
        the failure of the models to predict the temp plateau is proof
        “directly and indirectly” covers a whole lot of ground
        divining the human free composition of the atmosphere will be eternally speculative
        ” ‘climate variability’ attributable to natural causes”
        I will wait patiently for a coherent definition of “natural”

        fine example of bureaucratic committee speak

  46. The Republicans seem to lack …self-confidence, nerve, …call it what you will. They seem to think they made a mistake appealing to their own base of support. They think they’ll be beaten by unforeseen demographic transitions – lack of appeal with the younger crowd, Hispanics, and the sizeable and influential academic contingent. They don’t know how to fight back the ‘anti-science’ tag.

    My own read of the situation is that there will be some form of agreement in Paris later this year. The Republicans don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of history. The US historically has been portrayed as an obstacle to a favourable outcome in COP meetings. Among several undoings, reversals and course corrections the Obama presidency has attempted, the US stance on the international climate stage is one. It is a chance to display ‘leadership’.

    This administration has made masterly moves – it never fought elections on the green/climate platform but pursues it via regulations and at inter-national venues. Voter backlash is thereby limited as the consequences of policy decisions of the Democrats cannot be traced back to the Democratic party. Opposition to climate policies is branded immediately ‘anti-science’.

  47. It has been said by some number of scientists who are assessing the potential impacts of rapidly rising global temperatures that the risk to humans and to the environment flow from a combination of two major factors. One is the raw temperature increase in and of itself — melting ice, heat waves, sea level rise, floods, extreme weather events, impacts on the earth’s biodiversity, etc. — and the second is the rate at which temperatures are increasing; i.e., the faster the rate of increase, the greater is the the potential risk to humans and to the environment because of the shorter time available for human and biosphere adaptation.

    What follows is a graph which illustrates: a) possible future rates of temperature rise which lie within IPCC AR5’s expanded modeling envelope 2001-2035; b) historical rates of temperature change in central England as documented by the Hadley Center’s ‘Central England Temperature (CET) Record. 1772- 2013’; and c) a comparison of CET historical temperatures 1772-2013 with the Hadley Center’s Global Mean Temperature record 1850-2008. Indicated rates of temperature change as shown on the graphic are set to one significant figure.

    As illustrated on the above graphic, Central England is one of those localities known to be warming at roughly twice the rate of the current rise in global mean temperature. Moreover, rates of change in the CET’s temperature record between 1850 and 2008 are roughly double the world average, either up or down.

    It is quite reasonable to speculate that changes in global mean temperature between 1772 and 1850 were about half the rate of change recorded in the CET record, more or less. If that assumption can be made with some reasonable level of confidence, then within the last 250 years, the earth has seen extended periods where global mean rates of temperature change have approached +0.2C per decade, doing so at pre-industrial levels of CO2.

    The IPCC AR5 expanded modeling envelope includes the possibility for a rate of change in GMT occurring between 2001 and 2035 which is essentially flat. That is to say, even if the rise in global mean temperature remains flat for a period of three decades or more, the IPCC prediction of serious future climate change still remains valid for purposes of public policy decision making.

    The possibility of a three-decade flat trend in GMT which also verifies the warming predictions of the climate models presents an obvious conundrum, one which the climate science community must deal with somehow, some way. Their solution is to substitute the trend in peak hottest years which occur every four or five years for the central trend of global mean temperature as the primary basis for evaluating the reliability of the climate models. From one of my earlier Climate Etc. comments on another thread:

    Gavin Schmidt: “With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern.” Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records.

    With Gavin Schmidt’s latest remarks, we can rightly observe that the climate science community has in fact moved the goal posts for assessing the validity of the climate models; that is to say, the trend of peak hottest years which occur every four or five years has — in fact, and for all practical purposes — effectively replaced the central trend of global mean temperature as the basis for evaluating the reliability of the climate models. See this January 2015 update to a previous graphic posted earlier on Climate Etc. in the fall of 2014:

    Suppose these obvious contradictions were to be successfully publicized, and the contradictions fully exposed to public scrutiny with the result that the value of the climate models for making public policy decisions came into serious question. What could climate scientists then use in place of the general circulation models for justifying their predictions of very serious future global warming?

    The answer is to be found in Michael Mann’s hockey stick:

    If Mann’s hockey stick is scientifically correct to some reasonable level of confidence, then it does not matter one whit if the climate models are verifiable and accurate, or if there are ongoing issues and questions concerning how global mean temperature is currently being measured and reported.

    If the hockey stick is reasonably correct in demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate — i.e., that there was no worldwide Medievel Warm Period, and that there has been a strong recent uptick in GMT of some good magnitude — then that evidence by itself supplies a very powerful justification for taking strong anti-carbon measures just as quickly as possible.

    • Beta, “If the hockey stick is reasonably correct in demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate — i.e., that there was no worldwide Medievel Warm Period, and that there has been a strong recent uptick in GMT of some good magnitude — then that evidence by itself supplies a very powerful justification for taking strong anti-carbon measures just as quickly as possible.”

      If Mann’s hockey stick is correct then appropriate action is to bend over and kiss our butts goodbye. Of course Mann’s hockey stick that you posted is paleo to 1902 and instrumental to about 1995. Notice the slight difference in color.

      • Captdallas, the hockey stick illustrated in my post is Michael Mann’s very latest 2015 version, as it was published recently in an article Dr. Mann wrote for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

        As you say, it consists of two spliced sections, his pre-1902 paleoclimate reconstruction plus the post-1902 instrumental temperature record.

        Whether it is specifically Mann’s version of The Hockey Stick; or whether it is some other similar version which comprises a long shaft with no MWP attached to a short blade representing a strong GMT uptick in recent times, the climate science community views the hockey stick as the validated quasi-official temperature record for the last one-thousand years.

        As a practical matter, the provenances of the pre-1902 and the post-1902 sections of the hockey stick are not an issue of any real importance to most climate scientists. The climate science community treats both sections of the stick as if they were part of a single continuous temperature record.

        In the world of climate science, the hockey stick remains as important today as it was fifteen years ago when it was first published. If it is scientifically valid for the most part, then there is a strong finger being being pointed at CO2 as the cause of recent warming, regardless of how well or how poorly the general circulation models currently describe the earth’s climate system.

      • “the climate science community views the hockey stick as the validated quasi-official temperature record for the last one-thousand years.”

        The entire climate science community? How did you come to that conclusion? Have something to bring as evidence that this comment is accurate?

      • Steven, if you read the various climate science blogs for any length of time, you will recognize that the great majority of scientists who comprise ‘the climate science community’ as it exists today in government and in academia view the hockey stick as settled, validated science.

        Whether they do so based on sound scientific reasoning is an entirely separate question.

        As with any relatively small group of people with a commonly-shared scientific interest, there are probably dissenters here and there among their ranks. But as things stand today, such people are outside the mainstream and have little or no credibility within the broader climate science community as a whole.

        Those who have followed the issues for some length of time on this blog and on others, and who take one position or the other on the question of climate change, don’t need the results of a formal survey to know that the hockey stick still plays an absolutely essential role in justifying further funding for climate science research.

      • I agree with Beta Blocker. This helps explain why the hockey stick is still defended with such furor.

        But this is a measure of the madness. We(some of us) know that the hockey stick does not represent the last thousand years of climate. It is not a representation of reality, and those depending upon it will inevitably suffer for their illusion.

        Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
        =============

      • Beta, getting a gut feeling from reading blogs is a very weak way to support a statement presented as fact.

      • Steven, see my response to “PA” below. If there are large numbers of climate scientists who reject the fundamental premise of the hockey stick — i.e., that there was no pronounced worldwide Medievel Warm Period, and that the earth’s climate was relatively stable in the 850 year timeframe prior to the onset of the industrial revolution — they aren’t saying so publicly in places where non-scientists might hear them.

      • They keep writing papers on temperature reconstructions. What they say about the MWP is this sort of thing:

        this record reveals an
        extended cold period (1594–1677) in both hemispheres but
        no globally coherent warm phase during the pre-industrial
        (1000–1850) era. The current (post-1974) warm phase is the
        only period of the past millennium where both hemispheres are
        likely to have experienced contemporaneous warm extremes

        http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~raible/nclimate2174.pdf

        Settled science? No way.

      • In my opinion that statement is likely true, Beta. The problem with generalizing to the climate science population in general is that you have to assume that those who blog are representative of the population in general and not over represented by those with the most radical opinions, and you also have to assume that there is no reason not to voice a dissenting opinion among the blogging population. Neither of which is a self-evident assumption to make.

      • Beta, “In the world of climate science, the hockey stick remains as important today as it was fifteen years ago when it was first published. If it is scientifically valid for the most part, then there is a strong finger being being pointed at CO2 as the cause of recent warming, regardless of how well or how poorly the general circulation models currently describe the earth’s climate system.”

        Yes it does remain important, it is a template. Rob Wilson published a tropical SST reconstruction in 2006 that used HADSST for it “calibration period.

        Corals are a high frequency reconstruction meant to show all the variability. Corals though are living creatures that tend to be biased to survival. Because of that the high frequency corals have less variability than their climate. So just because Rob used the current state of the art temperature reconstruction you can’t fault him for not anticipating the newer revision of SST that disagree with his original coral findings.

        Then you “tune” models to lower than reasonably expected variability in the past you get a nice neat smooth hockey stick fit that just happens to diverge at inconvenient times like say 2000.

        The you can look at the Marcott et al reconstruction. Redo it with his data and his methods and just like Mann you get about the same reconstruction. However, if you include missing data, like the Oppo et al IPWP, Wilson’s tropical Corals, and other “cap” reconstruction that bring his chosen recons up to data, you get different results.

        That still has an average 120 year smoothing that isn’t something you just splice 150 years of instrumental to and call good.

    • Well, gee.

      We have proxies to the current date.

      Why is there any instrumental data at all in Mann’s graph?

      Strip every piece of instrumental data – including padding for series out of Mann’s graph and reconstruct temperatures to the current date with proxies only.

      Show me that and then we can discuss MWP temperature. Mann’s chart is invalid because he mixes proxy and instrument data when proxy data was available for the entire period.

      • PA, as I said in response to captdallas, the provenances of the pre-1902 and the post-1902 sections of Mann’s latest hockey stick are not an issue of any real importance to most climate scientists.

        The climate science community treats both sections of Mann’s hockey stick as if they were part of a single continuous temperature record, one which is also the scientifically-validated quasi-official temperature record for the last one-thousand years.

        If you don’t particularly like what the climate science community is doing with the hockey stick, well, you will just have to take it up with them.

      • And you dodged my point.

        It is a proxy reconstruction. Why did he not use all proxy data?

        He should have showed all the proxies to the current date. If he wanted to show the instrument record above/below or on a different chart that would have been fine.

        You aren’t contending that instrument data is as inaccurate and lacking in variability and is processed the same as proxy data are you?

      • Yup, PA, but Beta Blocker understands all that.

        BB, we are taking it up with the climate scientists, particularly one party is. Watch climate science scream as science is applied to them.
        ==========================

      • PA, in my personal opinion, the scientific validity of the hockey stick is highly suspect, especially for purposes of making public policy decisions. So I am not going to defend it. That task belongs to the climate science community. It is their hockey stick and it is their responsibility to defend it from reasonably-argued criticisms.

        That said, I merely point out that as far as I can determine from observing what a number of climate scientists say about the hockey stick on the Internet, in media interviews, in professional meetings, and in places where I have direct contact with them, the great majority of them regard the 1000-year millennial hockey stick as settled science.

        There are different versions of the 1000-year hockey stick, with different squiggles in different places, but the differences among them don’t make any real difference, for all practical purposes. The various incarnations of the stick all say that the earth’s climate was relatively stable over the 850 year timeframe prior to the onset of the industrial revolution, and that recent warming is unprecedented in the millennial temperature record.

        As far as I can observe casually, most all scientists with standing in the climate science field don’t believe there was a worldwide Medievel Warm Period; and that recent warming is unprecedented in the millennial temperature record.

        If there are large numbers of climate scientists with recognized credentials in the climate science community who do believe there was in fact a pronounced worldwide MWP, they certainly aren’t saying so publicly where non-scientists might hear their voices.

    • Beta Blocker,

      “…………If the hockey stick is reasonably correct in demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate — i.e., that there was no worldwide Medievel Warm Period, and that there has been a strong recent uptick in GMT of some good magnitude — then that evidence by itself supplies a very powerful justification for taking strong anti-carbon measures just as quickly as possible………….”

      I think you are making some good arguments, but I not really sure I understand how they stand up against past data. That is, simplistically speaking, it seems to me that there have been a rather large number of “hockey sticks” throughout time. Many (perhaps all?) with no relationship to human produced CO2 (I mean the type from burning fossil fuels : ) Although I would not know (off hand) if there may have been some influence from CO2 that was not directly/indirectly due to humans. I need to look into that.

      As a crude example of past “hockey sticks”, please check the graphs at this link. https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/interglacial-comparison/ at “Climate Concerns.” Note that my interpretation of a “hockey stick” is a substantial rise in temperatures compared to some number of years just prior. Mmmmmm. I can see that the interpretation of such could create such things as “hockey stick wars.” Which is not my intention.

      Be that as it may, the graph seems rather well done. Can you tell me that this graph is incorrect? Or, perhaps that the rather large number of steep transitions to higher temperatures do not, for some reason, correlate to the infamous “Hockey Stick?” I “think” I’ve heard arguments that the current hockey stick is “much steeper” (or, perhaps, the rate of increase is unprecedented, etc.) than past hockey sticks, so would that be your argument to support your closing paragraph? So, your point would be that during the last half million years of sharp increases (we will ignore the sharp decreases and save those for another time), very few (if any?) match the “current” hockey stick in it’s aggressive climb?

      Obviously, it seems to me (as just an interested bystander) that the ability to fully (or mostly) blame the current “sharp” rise in temperatures (and even the “sharp rise” seems to be under some disagreement) on humans cannot be made unless one can also demonstrate (hmmm, I suppose “explain” would be better as the ability of any of us to fully “demonstrate” what is going to take a few thousand years to prove one way or another is not really achievable) that the reason(s) (or, the “drivers”) for all those other “climate changes” for the past … well, a large number of years, are no longer an influence (or, for some reason severely constrained). My, that sentence was a bit longish. Sorry for that. I hope it remained understandable. I’ve been told that I have a bit of a tendency to “run on.”

      Anyway, I am very interested in your reply. Even just pointers to other explanations would be extremely appreciated. And I sincerely mean that. I believe the truth is out there (heh, sorry, couldn’t resist) and I’m just looking for it. I scanned the president’s message and couldn’t see much truth there (not to pick on him personally as he is just a politician, so he is just doing his job, and I suppose doing quite well at it) so I have to keep looking.

      Thanks,

      GeoffW

      • Geoff Weatherford, I’ll preface my response to your questions by saying that my initial comment with its three graphics is the distillation of a decade’s worth of observations concerning the ebb and flow of debate over the following major topics:

        Topic 1: The scientific validity of the hockey stick’s 1000-year millennial temperature record;
        Topic 2: The reliability of current global temperature analysis & reporting methods;
        Topic 3: The validity of the IPCC’s climate models;
        and
        Topic 4: The many and varied scientific interpretations, formal and informal alike, of how the latter three topics relate to each other as elements of either climate science theory and practice, or else as elements of public policy decision making.

        The Hadley Center’s Central England Temperature Record (CET) is interesting to me in this way: If we make a very simple and straightforward assumption that variation in the pre-industrial CET record roughly reflects variation in the world GMT record — but with greater amplitudes as would reflect CET being a local record versus a global record — then we can reasonably infer that GMT was, at various times in the pre-industrial past, rising at rates approaching at least +0.2 C per decade for periods lasting two decades or longer.

        If we make this very simple assumption concerning the Central England Temperature record, and its likely relationship to pre-industrial GMT, what the CET record says to us is that high rates of change in Global Mean Temperature approaching +0.2C per decade are not unprecedented in the millennial temperature record.

        Sometimes GMT goes up, sometimes it goes down. Sometimes it changes faster; sometimes it changes slower. As far as how fast GMT is currently rising, the rate of change we see today isn’t something which hasn’t been seen before within the historical timeframes that matter most to us.

        Specifically:

        Topic 1: The scientific validity of the hockey stick’s 1000-year millennial temperature reconstruction:

        The basic premise of the hockey stick is that there was no pronounced worldwide Medievel Warm Period; that the earth’s climate was relatively stable in the 850 year timeframe prior to the onset of the industrial revolution; and that recent warming is unprecedented in the millennial temperature record.

        There are different versions of the 1000-year hockey stick, with different squiggles in different places, but the differences among them don’t make any real difference, for all practical purposes. The most recent and most powerfully iconic version of the hockey stick, Mann 2015, directly and unambiguously splices Mann’s proxy-based pre-1902 temperature reconstruction with the post-1902 instrumental temperature record.

        There is no question but that the Mann 2015 version of the hockey stick is consciously designed to push the message that Mann’s pre-1902 proxy-based temperature reconstruction is just as scientifically accurate and reliable as is the modern instrumental record. However, to demonstrate this claim, one must also demonstrate that various types of proxy data from tree rings, from ice cores, from sedimentary depositional layers — etc. etc. etc. — can be reliably analyzed using appropriate statistical methods so as to accurately reveal the earth’s pre-instrumental temperature history.

        Have climate scientists done so?

        Steve McIntrye, Ross McKitrick, and some number of others have found a variety of serious statistical issues, data provenance issues, data interpretation issues, and analytical process issues with the hockey stick — issues which would, if accepted as having a valid basis — make the hockey stick’s scientific legitimacy highly questionable.

        Nevertheless, the climate science community firmly rejects all reasonable criticisms of the hockey stick. The hockey stick remains the justification of last resort when legitimate questions concerning the accuracy of climate model predictions arise. As both an iconic symbol of a particular scientific viewpoint, and as an essential element of climate science theory in pointing the finger at CO2, the hockey stick has no peer in the world of AGW public policy decision making.

        Topic 2: The reliability of current global temperature data analysis & reporting methods:

        Is one approach to GMT data collection and reporting more accurate than some other approach to GMT data collection and reporting? Has there actually been a true seventeen-year pause in the rise of GMT? If we start at about 1902, what is the true historical pattern in rates of change of GMT over the last 112 years?

        My view here is that even with the best of modern techniques in collecting and analyzing data, the best we can do is to get within roughly 0.1C of true Global Mean Temperature; in other words, to one significant figure.

        So maybe there’s been a recent pause, or maybe there hasn’t been a recent pause. But so what if it’s one way or the other? What does it really matter if there’s been a pause, or else there hasn’t been a pause?

        As it concerns rates of change in temperature — up, down, or flat — if we happen to believe that we have seen all of this before, as the CET record would seem to imply, then just what does it matter where GMT is actually going?

        Topic 3: The validity of the IPCC’s climate models:

        Referring to my graphic in the original comment which compares the expanded IPCC AR5 modeling envelope to past rates of change in GMT, as inferred from examining trends in the Hadley Center CET record, three points are to be made.

        a) The AR5 model validation envelope is so wide that virtually any trend in GMT which occurs between 2001 and 2035 will likely fall within the AR5 validation range, even a trend that is essentially flat for a period of thirty or more years;

        b) If CET is a reasonably valid stand-in for GMT, and if we assume that in general, Historical GMT Rate of Change = 1/2 Historical CET Rate of Change, then rates of change that fall within the AR5 validation envelope are nothing which haven’t been seen before;

        c) If current methods for measuring GMT are only accurate to only one significant figure, then we really don’t know in any particular year just where precisely we stand relative to the IPCC AR5 model predictions. Much longer timeframes are necessary to reach any supportable conclusion as to where GMT has actually gone, and as to where it is actually headed.

        As I said above in my original comment, a three-decade trend in GMT which is essentially flat — but which also is said to fall within the IPCC AR5 validation envelope and thus verifies the warming predictions of the climate models — presents an obvious conundrum, one which the climate science community must deal with somehow, some way.

        How can the rate of GMT increase be that low, and for such a long time, if the world’s carbon emissions are growing continuously at the higher RCP8.5 scenario?

        Their solution to this obvious conundrum is to discard the central trend of current GMT observations as their primary basis for evaluating the validity of the climate models, and to use instead the upward trend in peak hottest years which occur every four or five years.

        The graphic included in my original comment demonstrates visually what will be said as the years progress — “2014 was the hottest year on record” …. “2019 was the hottest year on record …. “2024 was the hottest year on record” … and so on.

        Topic 4: The many and varied scientific interpretations, formal and informal alike, of how the latter three topics relate to each other as elements of either climate science theory and practice, or as elements of public policy decision making.

        This thread includes a number of examples of various opinions and interpretations as to what is, or is not, now happening within the earth’s climate system. These opinions reflect the kinds of arguments which have been made for years here on this blog and elsewhere on other climate science blogs.

        My personal opinion is that the trend in five-year peak temperatures which is now running at roughly +0.1 C per decade will continue for the next several decades, doing so within the context of the higher RCP8.5 carbon emission scenario.

        All the while over the next twenty years, the climate science community will continue to claim that their climate models are both useful and reliable as tools for supporting public policy decision making.

        But if serious questions arise concerning the validity of the climate models, questions which have serious impacts on the course of the ongoing public policy debate over anthropogenic global warming, the climate science community will then fall back upon the hockey stick as their ultimate weapon against their critics.

        The recent publication of the Mann 2015 version of the hockey stick is a clear indication of how that ultimate weapon might be employed if questions about the climate models ever reach critical mass.

      • betablocker

        I don’t know if you are aware that I reconstructed CET to 1538 from its instrumental limit of 1659?

        There were certainly decadal changes much greater than today as can be seen in these various graphics

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/

        tonyb

      • Tony Brown, I have been aware of your previous essay concerning CET from 2013, and I have used its most basic conclusions as the basis for saying that yes, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to use CET as an approximate stand-in for GMT, as long as reasonable and appropriate caveats are made.

        Here In January of 2015, it is most interesting to reread not only your Climate Etc. essay from 2013, but also the responses which were made to it at that time.

        What I did with my own AR5-CET-GMT combined graphic was to visually illustrate a very simple but reasonably defensible assessment of what CET is telling us about the earth’s likely GMT history, while using only what has already been illustrated on the Hadley Center’s own CET and GMT graphical material as the contextual background for supporting my own particular viewpoints.

        My combined AR5-CET-GMT graph doesn’t have the nearly same kind of marketability that the Mann 2015 hockey stick has — nothing could be in its league as a tool for promoting a particular public policy agenda — but I like to think my own visual illustrations have value for those who understand what it is they are looking at.

    • Although they don’t admit to it, the CET exhibits HS-like qualities too.

      • jimd

        yes I have referenced the giant hockey stick that startled Phil Jones so much he wrote a paper on it. It is the one from 1690 to 1739 with an interesting reverse one from 1640 or so to 1690.

        There is also an emerging one from around 1550 but the data is not yet complete to see how big it is.
        tonyb

    • Beta, I am kind of surprised Mosher hasn’t waded in a bit more on Mann’s latest.

      Both Hadcrut4.C&W and BEST go back well before 1902, an odd starting point. Even with 27mo smoothing to knock the edges off, instrumental has a lot more variability than the paleo. Does anyone have a link to the actual data Mann used for his new and improved icon of thermal doom?

      • Captdallas, I think It is a measure of Mann’s apparent hubricity that he has dispensed with confidence intervals altogether in his latest hockey stick graph.

        The Mann 2015 hockey stick is contained within an article he recently wrote for the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled: “The Serengeti strategy: How special interests try to intimidate scientists, and how best to fight back” which is located here:

        http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/1/33.full.pdf

        Steve McIntyre covers Mann 2015 in some depth in a post entitled “More Mann Grafting” here:

        http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/08/more-mann-grafting/

        Quoting Steve McIntyre, it turns out that the iconography of the figure in Mann 2015 goes back to the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), “Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change” – Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000, page 17. McIntyre discusses the original provenance of the Mann 2015 graph in some detail here:

        http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/08/more-mann-grafting/#comment-748481

        The NAST 2000 report is here:

        http://data.globalchange.gov/assets/9a/aa/ec5b4bb3b895bc8369be2ddac377/nca-2000-report-overview.pdf

        McIntyre notes that the hockey stick figure from the NAST 2000 report had been excerpted and criticized by John Daly in 2001 here:

        http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

        If you take some time to skim through the NAST 2000 report, you will discover that it might just as well have been written in January 2015 as opposed to June 2000.

        The NAST 2000 report has it all — Mann’s hockey stick, droughts, floods, heat waves, the potential for extreme weather events, the role of the GCMs in developing climate forecasts, the potential for adverse climate-related impacts on the oceans and on the biosphere, and calls for more money to be spent on climate science research. Concerning the relationship of Mann 2015 to the NAST 2000 report, it is almost like McIntyre & McKitrick, the Wegman Report, Climategate, Yamal, Upside-down Tiljander, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, the Proxy Provenance Wars, and The Pause never happened.

        As it concerns public policy decision making, if Mann 2015 was all there was to rely upon, and if it was considered to be factually accurate, there would be every reasonable justification for taking very strong anti-carbon measures as quickly as possible.

        In any case, as it might be perceived by an uninformed viewer, the latest Mann hockey stick succeeds in conveying a basic message above and beyond its assertion of no worldwide Medievel Warm Period and the existence of a stable climate system in the 850 years prior to the onset of the industrial revolution.

        The basic message being conveyed in Mann 2015 is that paleoclimate temperature reconstructions are as reliable as the 20th Century instrumental record in measuring the earth’s past temperature, and that the hockey stick is — for all practical purposes.– the quasi-official Global Mean Temperature Record for the Past 1000 Years.

      • Beta, right, Mann is providing political disinformation and the Union of Concerned Scientists aren’t concerned with the quality of Mann’s science because they are more concerned with the politics.

        Now if the Union of Concerned Scientists were concerned with science instead of politics they might do some due diligence aka peer review before publishing questionable graphics. Point that out though and your are just another denier of something.

        “4. Is there legitimate scientific debate about the accuracy of the hockey stick graph?
        Yes, but mainly about the details, not the essential point. Temperature fluctuations that predate written records are preserved in natural archives (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, boreholes) with various time periods (e.g., seasonal, annual, decadal). The scientific discussion has focused on the best statistical method for combining these various records to accurately capture temperature fluctuations for the Northern Hemisphere. As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the “hockey stick” by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html#.VMJuSv6jP0s

      • Beta

        The above series of comments were of interest to me. Your statement about the climate establishment accepting the Mann hockey stick with apparently no reservations surprised me. While I knew there had been a controversy about the MWP, my assumption was that it involved varying levels of acceptance and uncertainty, while still recognizing some form of MWP. But it appears there is complete rejection of the paleo reconstruction by the climate establishment. If that is the case, then I am starting to understand the bullheadedness of many in the consensus camp.

        You have given me a new way to look at their orthodoxy. I still don’t agree with their views, but at least I understand them better.

      • It’s easy to understand, but I thank Beta Blocker for showing me. If Milankovitch fails and the GCMs fail, all they’ve got is the Crook’t Stick, and it is an illusion.

        Ah, the peril, as men lose their madness.
        ===========

      • Ceresco kid, I have been in a position to directly observe the opinions and attitudes of professional scientists who make their living from government-funded climate research. I haven’t as yet run across even one of them who entertains serious doubts concerning the main premise of the hockey stick.

        To a man or a gal, they hold to the dogma that there was no pronounced worldwide Medievel Warm Period; that the earth’s climate system was relatively stable in the 850 years prior to the onset of the industrial revolution; and that recent warming is unprecedented in the 1000-year global temperature record.

        Talk to these climate scientists about the wealth of physical evidence that indicates there was in fact a worldwide MWP; or talk to them about the implications of the Central England Temperature (CET) record for understanding past climate variability, and what you get basically is a stone wall.

        Sometimes their response comes in the form of a polite ‘let’s pat this unschooled person on the head and send him on his way’ type of answer, and sometimes it comes in the form of a challenge to ‘go write and publish your own peer-reviewed climate science paper which demonstrates we are wrong’ type of answer.

        There is no question in my own mind but that the climate science community as a whole, acting in its role as the custodian of climate science theory and practice, views the hockey stick as completely settled science. As far as they are concerned, the hockey stick is no less than the quasi-official Global Mean Temperature Record for the Past 1000 Years.

        The attitude of the climate scientists in aggressively defending the hockey stick is perfectly understandable. They can do no other without being forced to confront the most difficult of legitimately-asked questions concerning the validity and reliability of their climate change predictions.

  48. Judith,
    The timing may be something but the fact remains, and this is more important, they made something out of nothing and stood by while headlines were generated. They were so happy the New York Times printed a climate story ‘above the fold’ (whatever the crap that means – who cares, it’s a newspaper, but no they care).

  49. @- “And speaking of the ‘deniers’ in Congress, did anyone spot any errors in the actual science from Senator Inhofe’s rebuttal?”

    I think so, this bit –
    “…a recent NERA study predicts the President’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; it would only reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree;…”

    Now if <0.5% CO2 reduction causes a 2/100th degree change then a 1% reduction would reduce temperatures by 4/100th of a degree and a 100% reduction would reduce temperatures by 4 degrees. (or more given the log absorption effect)

    Even if this is in Fahrenheit rather than degC it seems a rather high value of temperature change for possible emissions and concentrations of CO2 that would occur WITHOUT the President's climate agenda.

    If a reduction in CO2 concentrations of less than one-half of a percent can alter the final temperature of the CO2 rise by 2/100th of a degree, even an F, then climate sensitivity must be well over 2degC for a doubling of CO2.

    Do you think this bit of science the Senator quoted is correct?

    • IMPACTS OF EPA’S CARBON PROPOSAL ON VIRGINIA
      ”Analysis based on another EPA rulemaking shows that the climate effects of the EPA proposal are meaningless. For example, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be reduced by less than 0.5%; global average temperature increase would be reduced by less than 2/100ths of a degree Fahrenheit; and sea level rise would be reduced by 1/100th of an inch (the thickness of three sheets of paper).” xxiv
      xxiv ACCCE, Climate Effects of EPA’s Proposed Carbon Regulations, June 2014. If the above part is in error, it’s pretty widely distributed. Let’s say 0.5% is 0.01 C. 50% would be 1.0 C. 100% would be 2.0 C. I am assuming it’s linear but we know it’s not.

    • This is about right for 2.8 C per doubling. However, 0.5% is what is added globally each year, so I don’t think the policies would be so weak as to remove the equivalent of only one year of global emission. Conversely, adding 0.5% which is 2/100 degree per year is significant, and shows the scale of the problem at current emission rates.

  50. “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” What’s vague is how closely tied are the best scientists to, us having to act forcefully? Is he dragging them in? Another problem with using the word forcefully is that if we do that, we are likely to see an almost impossible to measure benefit. So we are left with acting forcefully without changing things much. A token gesture. “Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). ”Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”” – BEST 2015 The President could have used the words, may have been, rather than was. It wouldn’t have taken much away from his message and would’ve sounded more scientific I think. We also have this: http://www.newsweek.com/meet-latina-climate-scientist-michelle-obama-invited-state-union-address-300877 Where she says, “Whatever we can do to make our communities resilient we need to be doing…” Since Florida will have hurricanes and is kind of lacking in elevation, we can go along with that.

  51. One thing for certain in the “raw politics” of climate change– the chance for there to be a neutral broker or bridge between the two sides has once come and gone. When there is political spin on both sides, the neutral broker recognizes each for what it is. Suggesting somehow that Inhofe was any less full of puffery and spin than Obama destroys any chance for creating a bridge to entice actual dialog, in other words, it moves the conversation in the opposite direction of a “grown up” conversation– if by grown up you mean recognizing that everyone is slinging mud or covering up their own warts and all.

    • R. Gates

      “if by grown up you mean recognizing that everyone is slinging mud or covering up their own warts and all.”

      I have no “political” dog in this fight and quite frankly I find your attempt to assign an inevitable political slant to science quite childish.

      Whilst I understand that they are few, but rest assured there are people, who can actually work to the scientific method and report their findings irrespective of politics.

      History dictates that they are few, simply because they actually do work to the scientific method rather than the politics of the day.

      Stop pontificating young man and study history whilst you still have time to.

      • “I have no “political” dog in this fight and quite frankly I find your attempt to assign an inevitable political slant to science quite childish.”

        You’ve got it backwards…it is policy with a “science” slant to make it seem credible. You seem to think that scientists seek out politicians. Most scientists are quite honorable, but rather, it is politicians who seek out scientists and/or their “findings” to justify a forgone policy they favor. No matter if they twist those findings a tad here and there. Scientists thus become useful tools to the policymakers, and even if the scientist eventually realizes what is happening…too late. Dems and Repubs both do it, and thus you get Judith vs. Andy in D.C., with neither side actually listening, but just hoping their scientist-tool can score a few more points than the other scientist-tool to justify a foregone policy position.

      • “Science” is intended as a debate stopper. If you can produce a person in a white lab coat to say “GMO is dangerous” or “this ultrasound shows a fetus is a person” or “nuclear power kills people” the discussion is supposed to be over, your demand wins by default.
        Any good trial lawyer will tell you that there is no difficulty in producing a person in a white lab coat to say anything you need them to say. Politicians are no different.
        The problem with AGW is that the politicians found themselves people in white lab coats willing to spin the numbers to support bad policy. Nobody was willing to do the bad policy, so people started noticing and attacking the spinning. Remember when Joe Romm was “the essential” source on AGW for New York Times thinkers? Those days are over.

    • Steven Mosher

      +1

    • R. Gates | January 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm | “Most scientists are quite honorable…”

      What do you base this on and not sure what you mean by honorable. Science has become a business and business people do have to cater to their customers or they go out of business.

  52. A lame-duck US President, with extremist CAGW beliefs, straight out of the Al Gore camp.

    Fancy still swallowing the 97% of scientists BS. Who’s advising the US President?

    Oh, I know. John Holdren. Obama appointed an extremist RE advocate and anti-nuclear campaigner to be his adviser on US energy policy.

    Obama is highly likely he’s highly gullible.

  53. Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University, Melbourne, while not responding to Obama, refutes his nonsensical intro in today’s Australian at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/angry-summer-alarmists-all-choked-up-without-reading-fine-print/story-e6frg6zo-1227192538765

    Asten charts NASA’s global mean surafce temperature from 1880-2014, using an annual mean and a 5-year running mean. He says that four of the most important conclusions are that:

    • The slope of the rise from 1980 to 2000 is about 0.19 degC per decade (the rate consistent with current warming models for “business as usual” CO2 emissions)
    • A closely similar rate of rise in global temperature occurred from 1910 to 1940, pre-dating current high CO2 emissions
    • Pauses in the rate of rise occurred from 1880 to 1910, from 1940 to 1970, and from 2000 to present.
    • The model trend as computed by the IPCC continues upwards from 2000, but the pause is a clear break of observed earth behaviour away from the models.

    The pauses are regarded by the majority of scientists (both within and outside the conventional anthropogenic global warming camps) as being attributable to natural cycles in global climate, although the two groups favour different causative mechanisms.

    What is surprising is that, instead of reading the multiple patterns in such a graph, enormous global publicity has followed on that single point of 2014 — even though we won’t know for a decade whether it represents a break from the current “pause” trend.

    – Judith, I’ll e-mail the article, including the chart.

    • Great Cunn, a short climate is like test match declared over at the toss (which can only happen in Adelaide, and even then you still have to spend five days going through the motions).

      I recall talking to one activist type who was very pleased when I commented that sixteen or seventeen years was no gauge of anything to do with climate. When I added that thirty years was also no gauge of anything I was roundly upbraided for being unscientific. I was told there was all this “data” whereby I could see that everything was getting worse – even though no comparison points for the “worse” were of any importance. I always thought one needed points of comparison to compare…but in these post-everything times you just need the “data”. Their “data”.

      I could have sworn there was a distinct and very troublesome climate before 1980. Perhaps it’s like a quaint old sepia photo, best forgotten in its drawer. Just not “data”.

  54. His statements about climate are just as honest as his statements about Obamacare, the stimulus, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, ISIS, the gender pay gap, the min. wage, voter ID, Keystone and rape on campus. Total BS, all the time, about everything.

    • Stan,

      Overbroad and just a continuation of the problem and no part of the solution. Benghazi, for example, was found by a bipartisan committee to not have been as portrayed by those on the right: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/. The stimulus is not “falsifiable” and only Politiball! Where would we have been without it? Who voted for it? Has this president made mistakes? Sure. Have all the others? No side is infalible.

      How fair is it for us to stand here talking of the negativity relating to the politicization of the climate discussion then throwing gasoline on the partisan fire by tossing out others? At least bring up that which this administration has done right. Can we proudly stand up and state what our House has done “in service” to this country after objective review? Please.

      • This is the precarious position Obumbles has put us in by NOT using military tribunals for terrorist trials.

        From the article:

        Prosecutors recently turned over to the defense 2,500 pages of documents, composed mostly of FBI materials including witness statements, and Abu Khattala’s lawyers now have received over 90 percent of his FBI case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael C. DiLorenzo told the court.

        The government last week handed over another 11,000 pages of documents released by another unnamed government agency, much of it “presumptively classified,” Assistant Federal Public Defender Michelle Peterson said.

        However, DiLorenzo said the team of three federal prosecutors and others is still receiving information from other federal agencies, including another batch of 10,000 pages, to determine if they should be released to meet Khattala’s constitutional rights to a fair trial, and, if so, how to do so without undermining national security.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-extends-review-of-classified-documents-in-benghazi-attack-case-to-april/2015/01/14/47d6ba92-9c0d-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html

      • Jim2,

        I don’t know, but can only presume the congressional review committee was privy to the confidential documentation prior to their report. If not, they’re certainly subject to having egg on their face.

        While I can respect your opinions, and your seeming bent against anything and everything with the word “democrat” associated doesn’t necessarily make it all true. I’m a firmly rooted independent as I can find equal fault with the orientations on both sides and not just one. If it’s painted red it seems to lack even the possibility of fault in your eyes, and if it’s painted blue it has to be wrong. Me? Color me lavender (red and blue mixed). When I review the ideologies, I find this pair of handy rose colored glasses to be valuable. Let me know if you care to borrow them. :) Neither party is perfect IMO and a case can be made for/against them both.

      • And. the investigation isn’t over.

        Members of the House Select Committee tasked with investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has met recently behind closed doors with the State and Justice departments but still plans to hold public hearings, the committee’s chairman said Wednesday.

        “The Department of State provided new information to the committee and answered questions raised by committee members,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and the committee’s chairman, said in a statement. “The committee is continuing its probe into all aspects of Benghazi and is currently focused on ensuring access to all first-hand accounts from those on the ground that night. This process will be ongoing and in some respects must remain classified.”

        Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/benghazi-committee-meets-with-state-doj-behind-clo/#ixzz3PVzFYyGS
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • Stan is correct. All those scandals are so bad it’s hard to pick one as the worst, but the Benghazi bungle resulted infour deaths, including a US ambassador. Then the lying about it..Of course using the IRS as a political machine is pretty bad. Running guns to drug lords to discredit gun owners is not so good…hmmmm…then “you can keep your doctor” …

        Man, this list is getting long, and ugly…

      • Justin,

        I agree there is ugly, but the impression is it’s all negative. Is there no ugly on the other side of the aisle? The topic is politics and there are no clean hands. I’m not apologist for either side, only tilting at the windmill of seeking a bit of balance. We can choose (to continue) to broaden the chasm or try to work together to narrow. I think that’s the point of this thread.

  55. Raw politics of climate change? What raw politics of climate change?

    The official website for House Republicans has posted on YouTube a version of President Obama’s State of the Union address which cuts out comments where the President was critical of Republican rhetoric on climate change, ThinkProgress has learned.

    […]

    A spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner’s office did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment on whether the missing information was intentional or not, but we’ll update if we hear back.

    • Steven Mosher

      crap, now republicans are hiding the decline.
      but nice drama queening think progress is doing about censorship

  56. Obama’s climate change history http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629 Looks to me like it’s all about money.

  57. Just before the 2014 quote Obama also said “And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” He was quite emphatic about his view.

  58. I do have a problem with the mantra “Climate is changing as it has always changed and always will change.”

    My problem was posed in an essay by S. J. Gould when he discussed: Time’s Cycle and Time’s Arrow.

    Economists put this in the context of business cycles and long term growth which they refer to as “secular change” because it goes in one direction.

    So my problem with “climate change” is that I believe the evidence strongly supports cyclical change up to and including the present, but only weakly supports secular change that will continue “for ever and ever” (saecula saeculorum) at least on the scale of a century or a millennium.

    And if climate simply cycles can these fluctuations really be termed “climate change”? Do Mediterranean climates cease alternating seasonally between dry and wet? Do Continental climates cease alternating between hot and cold? Climates do not change; they fluctuate.

    Climates of the Earth will change when the Holocene ends, when glaciers advance again to bury a large part of the Earth in a kilometer or more in ice. That in my view is climate change.

    The Younger Dryas was climate change and the Hypsithermal too perhaps, but maybe just more extreme than later cycles..

    In my view, the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and the Current Warm Periods and the intervening cold periods are merely climate fluctuations rather than climate change. These fluctuations will continue until the next advance of the continental glaciers. And we can hope that the activities of mankind may have some warming effect, so that the hardships of future cold periods will not be so cruel as in those of the past.

    I am grateful to live in this warm period, which I regard as responsible in large part for the improvement in living standards, health and general welfare of most of the Earth’s people, including those in less developed countries. Most of the rest I attribute to human ingenuity in making productive use of fossil fuels.

    • Interesting. From what I read, the current inter-glacial should be ending soon, if not for AGW. A mile of ice seems more intimidating than sea rise and warm weather.

    • In my view, the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and the Current Warm Periods and the intervening cold periods are merely climate fluctuations rather than climate change. These fluctuations will continue until the next advance of the continental glaciers. And we can hope that the activities of mankind may have some warming effect, so that the hardships of future cold periods will not be so cruel as in those of the past.

      I am grateful to live in this warm period, which I regard as responsible in large part for the improvement in living standards, health and general welfare of most of the Earth’s people, including those in less developed countries. Most of the rest I attribute to human ingenuity in making productive use of fossil fuels.<blockquote?

      That's my view too.

    • nottawa rafter

      I keep track each day of the record low temperatures going back to 1850. The preponderance of cold winter records are in the nineteenth century and they are in the -25 to -35 F range which is 35 to 45 F below the long term average winter lows for this area. It must have been brutal then. Given a choice, I know the one I would choose.

  59. Dr. Curry,

    As always, thanks for being the catalyst of another great thread. And for being willing to put yourself into the line of fire (so to speak : ).

    I saw that you retracted your timing conspiracy (I think I stated that correctly). Well, as others have stated, it would appear that “timing” was fairly normal, so probably no conspiracy in that area. Obviously, much of the other areas of the speech, and certain scientific and political entities, are definitely in conspiracy. That is, they are “conspiring” to act together to achieve (supposedly in secret) their agenda (whether that agenda is good or bad would be open to various interpretations).

    I used to find such things repugnant and really could not understand how a “great nation” could support such …. posturing. However, at my age, and after witnessing much more horrific “conspiracies” (Vietnam comes to mind as one small example), I am no longer surprised by such antics.

    But I am surprised, and saddened, that so many people continue to listen to such and, even worse : ), believe in them. However, such is human nature. I suppose we (humans as a whole) never learn. Scary thought.

    Thanks,

    GeoffW

    • Frankly, it may not be a “conspiracy” in an active, backroom sense, but ever since FDR (and probably even before) pretty much everything coming out of Washington has been politicized. Politicized In the sense that nothing gets released until the political impact of the a statement is carefully weighed, and the message attenuated or amplified as required to serve the purpose of the current administration. It’s the same reason bad news gets released late on a Friday afternoon. Of course the timing of the NASA statements was arranged with the SOTU speech considered. It is just how DC works, the control every level and branch of government administration feels it must exert to maintain its power, prestige and influence.

      The only (partial) exception of this are monthly reports on aspects of economic activity that come out on a set schedule, i.e. unemployment numbers. Such numbers, if released randomly, could have a negative impact on markets.

  60. Obama’s ignorance on climate science leaves me wondering how about the other issues like financial? Most likely he’s just as informed and it shows in his actions, or rdather inactions.

    • I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the POTUS. He is an exceptional and brilliant man, but he does have a particular world view and he is schooled in bare-knuckled Chicago politics. He has also proven he knows how to use social media and data mining to good effect. He has no more elections in the future and I don’t think he cares as much about the democratic party as he does his own legacy. He is thinking big – he is thinking about his place in history.

      • He’s already demonstrated to me that he is the worst US President in my lifetime.

      • Peter,

        I agree , but it is not because he is not smart.

      • I agree. But he’s smart in an unwittingly damaging way. He’s inculcated with Left ideology and doesn’t realise the damage he’s done to the USA, and by largely vacating world leadership, he’s damaged the world too.

      • Peter,

        What if he cared less about the USA than his legacy in world history?

        Maybe then things make more sense.

      • Have to agree with Peter Lang Justin. Obama has not made and it seems likely he will not be making much of an impression anywhere, least of all on the world stage. From day 1 he has been been IMO the most over-rated POTUS in recent history.

  61. Reblogged this on Spin, strangeness, and charm and commented:
    Maverick climate scientist Judith Curry (who unlike most, is interested in actually finding out what is going on, rather than fattening up the funding gravy train) is getting exasperated by the politicization of CAGW by the New Class soft-dictator wannabes.

    • @-New Class Traitor
      “Judith Curry (who unlike most, is interested in actually finding out what is going on, rather than fattening up the funding gravy train)”

      There are a number of ‘gravy trains’ trundling around the political system, one of the largest, perhaps it could be called a significant contribution, or ‘most’ of that gravy comes from the fossil fuel industry.
      https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
      “Companies with interests in oil and gas contributed more than $70 million to federal candidates in the 2012 cycle, more than double the total from 2010. Political donations from the industry – – have taken on an increasingly conservative tint over the past two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 90 percent of its contributions went to the GOP.”

      @-” is getting exasperated by the politicization of CAGW by the New Class soft-dictator wannabes. ”

      49 senators, all Republican, vote AGAINST an amendment that simply stated that a significant amount of the observed warming is caused by human actions. A scientific position that even our host here agrees with.
      But I suspect that is not the politicization that exasperates you.

  62. Judith: You have no basis to complain — you’re as political as anyone.

    Every blog post you make anymore proves this, with the ridiculous positions you now take, as well as your paper with Lewis, which failed to use, and failed to even acknowledge, the latest data available. There’s simply no excuse for any scientist to do that.

    I really cannot understand why you insist on dragging yourself down into the odoriferous pits of Anthony Watts. What do you gain from this? Is it the invitations to Congressional hearings? The opportunity to publish in the WSJ? I can understand how these would be attractive…but I can’t understand how a student of science could dive into denialism while ignoring the thoughts in the back of one’s head.

    • Er, she used the AR5 data and IPCC method. David, I said earlier that the naive have to be told that she used the IPCC’s own stuff, and that those who still don’t get it aren’t naive.

      So, David, ignorant or disingenuous? It’s always the same question, the same question.
      ==================

    • Well, ~3 years ago I thought she was angling for a job in the Romney administration.

      But I’ve changed my mind. Now I think she’s angling for a job in the Romney administration.

    • Oh Appel, let it rest. Why on Earth shouldn’t Judith associate with whomever she pleases? Do you think Anthony Watts gives Judith directions? Isn’t it the teensiest bit possible that he may learn something from her?

      Why do you characterize Watts blog as an odoriferous pit? It’s a blog. (If you want something stinky, try Deltoid. It’s getting hilarious over there.) Why are you even trying to associate Curry with Watts? Have you seen them holding hands in a diner somewhere? They don’t link to each other that often… You wouldn’t be trying the old guilt by association routine, would you? Of course you would have to establish the guilt part first. Oh, no, this is alarmist politics you’re playing–all you need is the accusation. I forgot for a minute because you didn’t misspell any words.

  63. sigh, only two more years….

  64. CAGW must be a psychosis that aflicts people who fly on private jets. 1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos, Switzerland to Discuss Global Warming:

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

  65. Politics is a horizontal occupation. Much older than fracking.

  66. Why have scientists gotten into this?

    It was that Einstein-Szilárd letter what started all this, wasn’t it.

  67. China is run by scientists.

  68. Robert Wagner

    Man made climate change is and always has been about politics. This fact was well documented in the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming years ago, and almost every point has come true.

    The Changing Climate of Global Warming

    Facts are climate change is the norm, not the exception, just look at Al Gore’s chart. Simply apply the scientific method to the ice core data and you will see that there is absolutely noting abnormal about the past 50 to 150 years of data, and the claims that this year is the hottest is only true if you ignore the ice core data that shows many warmer periods just in the past 15,000 years. Satellite data also contradicts the ground measurements, an no real science I know chooses to rely on antiquated and inaccurate measurements over highly accurate measurements.Climate Science is so corrupting that we have NASA arguing AGAINST using their satellites, and instead are relying of ground measurements. That is how insane this “science” has become.

  69. Robert Wagner

    Clearly climate “scientists” have failed to study their own data:

    • Hi Robert

      Do you by chance have a source for that chart?

      Thanks

      • That chart came from “Earth Times” but I’ve found countless similar charts of the Holocene. One of them being used in a Columbia University Ecology class. Why, do these charts not accurately reflect the Holocene?

      • Yep, we are in a cooling phase. We should thank CO2 for temporary relief.

      • If climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, then we’ve bounced naturally off the lows of the Holocene. If climate sensitivity to CO2 is high, then we’ve bounced artificially off the lows of the Holocene.

        We only have so much artifice to work with. Which scenario would you prefer?
        ==================

    • It’s a good point about how crazy AGW temperature hysteria is.

      Here is the paleo study by CESM models for the HCO ( Holocene Climatic Optimum )

      NH winter:

      NH summer:

      Get it? Colder winters, hotter summers.

      But this was the period of the rise of modern civilization.
      Somehow, even with this more ‘extreme climate’, humans thrived, and ecosystems evidently did OK too.

    • Here’s a less cartoonish Holocene temperature chart. Very likely within our children’s lifetimes temoertures will exceed anything seen in the Holocene:

      • and because some “BELIEVE” it to be “very likely” all others should change their behaviors????

      • If you believe climate models, then both temperature charts are incorrect, at least as far as a Land/Ocean index would go. The model above indicates great cooling in winter and NO CHANGE in temperature for summers ( due to cooler oceans ) during the HCO. At the same time, most land mass in the NH experienced much warmer summers.

        This points out two things – 1. the emptiness of GAT in describing climate and 2. the relative insignificance ( meaning lack of relative impact ) of recent changes.

      • Gates

        lol there is no limit to one’s imagination

      • Our children won’t have to drive to Florida for spring break, but hey will never see snow, except when we have those massive blizzards like we’ve seen in the last few years. The polar bears will be no more, to be seen only in beer commercials and environmental ngos’s pledge drive junk mail. It’s the end of the world as we know it.

      • R. Gates,

        Tropical oceans Holocene, still a work in progress.

      • Gates, In case you are wondering why it looks different.

        That is the kind of issues you can run into with paleo. Same area totally different results. I am thinking there needs to be a paleo re-constructor certification program. You really should avoid those unlicensed paleo contractors :)

      • Does anyone really believe that chart? If that was anywhere near true we wouldn’t have so many images of retreating glaciers exposing land covered within the past 2,000 years. Combine the Ice Core data with the modern thermometer and satellite data and you have a testable data set. Apply the scientific method to that data set and you will find that there is absolutely nothing abnormal about the past 50 and 150 years. BTW, Satellite data totally debunks that sharp rise in temperatures at the tail end there.

      • Where is the Skeptical Warmist, and what have you done with him?
        ==========

    • The last part of the Holocene:

      So, as stated elsewhere, we are currently about 0.8C warmer due to the sum total of anthropogenic activities, but the party is just getting started. A new Holocene Maximum in your children’s lifetime a real possibility. 3C ECS for 560 ppm quite reasonable.

      • I can’t believe anyone actually believes those charts. Here is what the THERMOMETER data shows.
        http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/jones1992a.pdf

        Only in the field of climate “science” would they rely on things other than thermometer data when thermometer data exists, and they ignore the most accurate measurements, satellites. GIGO, if all you hare are nonsensical data sets I guess you can manufacture any case you want. I could just as easily create “proxies” that show temperatures are falling, in fact that is what “hide the decline” and Mike’s “nature trick” pretty much shows already is happening.

        Just look at the THERMOMETER data, it clearly shows that 1) many of the ground data sets are influenced by urbanization, ie not CO2 2) there is wide variations due to local factors, ie, not CO2 and 3) the longest thermometer track records show little difference between the past 150 and 300+ years, ie Central England -0.19 vs .49 (note the little ice age), and Berlin 0.01 and 0.10. Central England has 0.51 and 0.49 if you start in 1751, so that 50 years in the early 1700s represents 100% of the temperature gain over the past 300. Funny how those Inconvenient Facts don’t get highlighted. Facts are only the phoney proxies show any global warming of any concern. Also, CO2 only traps outgoing radiation, it has nothing to do with day time temperatures which are the ones warming. Daytime temperatures are dependent upon incoming radiation, and that means the sun, clean air and lack of clouds is the cause.

      • I can’t you believe foolishness you believe.

        Apply for a job at NOAA. You can teach them fools. I used to know a guy who thought he could win Wimbledon. He knew exactly what was wrong with the game of every professional tennis player. He was going to cream John McEnroe.Then one day some high school kid finally got him on the court and absolutely creamed him. That’s you. Completely off kilter. But kim is excited.

      • Robert

        I have the book by jones that you have extracted the thermometer data from. very good it is too. He is a very good researcher in the mould of Hubert lamb, his mentor.

        It’s a shame jones sullied his name to some extent with his machinations during climate gate.

        Tonyb

  70. “Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that a narrative the NASA/NOAA press release of ‘warmest year’ was needed…”

    In the widest sense, it’s all about the narrative. But this by no means implies conspiracy as a driving force. After 30 years of CAGW narrative growth, is the President in charge of the narrative, or the narrative in charge of the president?

  71. Obama: ‘I know a lot of good scientists in NASA/NOAA and they are the best in the world, so Thermageddon is happening and will happen because they say so, and it will endanger the health of our children unless we all pay a lot more for our energy, impoverish the working and middle classes (UK derived terminology) and wreck the economic competitiveness of the USA. Oh, and just in case you don’t believe me, 2014 was the hottest year ever – probably, or maybe not so probably.’
    BS

  72. Pingback: Judith Curry: | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  73. Rogueelement451

    Nothing is going to change until someone like the APS comes out and says “hold on a mo , this does,nt look quite sound,maybe we need to examine this a bit more fully” Then the consensus junk will be out of the window.
    Not holding my breath for any of that to happen.

  74. David Harrington

    The cynicism in all this is truly shocking. They release a demonstrably inaccurate press release that declares 2014 the warmest year and only days later acknowledge that they were on 38% sure of that , but no matter the president got the soundbite to hang his speech on. No way can you convince me that this was not coordinated. Just how stupid odo they think people are?

    Shocking

  75. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Some things haven’t changed.

  76. Conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?

    Matt Ridley:

    Second example: last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures….
    […]

    In any case, the year is not over, so why the announcement now? Oh yes, there’s a political climate summit in Lima this week.

    Different organization? Check.

    Announcement at a completely different time? Check.

    Same conspiratorial ideation? Check.

    I’m beginning to think there might be a pattern, here.

  77. Raw Politics:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/nyregion/speaker-of-new-york-assembly-sheldon-silver-is-arrested-in-corruption-case.html?emc=edit_na_20150122&nlid=66104773&_r=0

    You create the need via policy (in this case real estate tax hikes), then you reap the rewards by charging for doling out indulgences (tax reductions in the case of the link). Think of the opportunities for running a big ol’ selective slush fund for politically-connected “renewable” subsidies, “tweaks” to the carbon tax law, purchase of offsets! The opportunity is limitless!

  78. Timely post from Roger Pielke Sr. regarding Eija-Riitta Korhola’s recently “completed […] academic dissertation for a PhD in a policy field that she specializes in – climate policy.” Some excerpts (following Pielke):

    I focus on the problem of climate change, because in this field,I hold, besides the status of a researcher,the position of an expert who has also gained some legislative experience. […] At its different stages, I have been serving in various key positions, and therefore, I am able to offer an insider’s view from a legislator’s point of view.

    […]

    In my study I agree with those who regard the UN’s strategy – and the EU’s follow-up strategy – not only as ineffective but also harmful. The reason can be found in both the wickedness of the problem–i.e.the fact that it is hard to intervene in it in the first place – and that the selected problem-solving model has failed, as the problem’s wicked nature has not been recognised. The attempt to resolve it has been based on an assumption that it is a one-dimensional,tame problem. However, as the saying goes, a wicked problem requires wicked solutions. The matter has been worsened by a lack of knowledge and expertise.

    […]

    Another conclusion of mine is as scathing as my previous reference to the 20-year delusion [of UN climate policy]. It concerns the environmental movement. I suggest that the movement has, above all, failed in its strategy to combat climate change, but also quite often in its other environmental policies. Again, good intentions do not guarantee a wise strategy. The environmental movement regards economic growth as an enemy of the environment although practice has proven that in precisely those quarters of the world where economic well-being prevails and basic needs are satisfied, people are more interested in taking care of their environment. Poverty, in its turn, is the biggest environmental threat,although it has been romanticised in environmentalist rhetoric.

    Good reading.

    • More excerpts directly from the summary of the “key message” starting on page 291:

      During climate actions global emissions have increased forcefully, especially in developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol has not been able to intervene in this development. In the case of industrialised countries, no significant differences can be traced between countries that have taken up Kyoto obligations and those that have not.

      […]

      [… T]his scientific field does not give as frightening a picture of the situation as the catastrophe discourse that has been born out of it. […] Many scientists were seduced to act as committed advocators rather than objective scientists. It is important that despite the pressure posed by political discussions the scientific community retains its cognitivistic ideal also in climate science, in order to preserve the credibility of science.

      […]

      Climate change became the next grand narrative after the Cold War dominating the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century. […] Environmental thinking took some steps backwards while climate change was cannibalising other problems. Still, the main environmental problems are caused by overpopulation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources. [my bold]

      […]

      The Kyoto Protocol is not suitable for the solution to a wicked problem, because it is a copy of other agreements for tame and clearly definable problems.

      […]

      Poverty will not save the planet, unlike the environmental movement often seems to assume. There is no evidence of such. Poverty forces people to think shortsightedly and destroy their environment, the same way as limitless and irresponsible greed. Secondly, poverty makes us more vulnerable to extreme weather conditions and weakens our ability to be prepared for all kinds of catastrophes.

      […]

      All this talk about climate change has misled us collectively. It has made us search for a mega solution to a mega problem: it has created the impression that if we solve the problem of climate change, all other problems would also be solved. This is not the case.

      […]

      What are we going to lose, if the climate changes, as Hulme asked? Perhaps nothing dramatic. The climate does not have the same value as biodiversity or the ozone layer; the depletion of both is clearly a threat to nature and humankind. When the climate changes, certain climatic conditions will just become rearranged; we do not lose the clouds, cast off rains or deny the sun. Certain climatic conditions will change, but not in such a way that we would have either a good or a bad climate as a result – somewhere else, other than in our imagination.

      • That’s a really good read and important to see coming from someone who was a green in Europe.
        “In principle, it does not matter, what conclusion science comes to: if the legislation we make is good enough, one does not have to take sides; except the side of consideration and quality. ”
        Bingo. The climate concerned squandered their opportunity to support good legislation. It’s nice to see that 25 years of that is having a real impact on climate concerned politicians.

      • Hurrah for Korhola!

        2nd excerpt above: The (Consensus) scientific community has long since been sucked into the culture of climate catastrophe, and so has lost its ideal to major cognitive bias, especially of the emotive flavor.

        3rd excerpt above: Indeed! Grand narratives are the orthodox heart of a culture, it’s ‘DNA’ if you will.

        6th excerpt above: Strong cultures vie to dominate the intellectual space, potentially becoming ‘the solution to everything’ in people’s minds.

        These characteristics of cultures are well-known. Yet everyone in the fields that deal with these things appears to think CAGW is flat fact, simply settled science. Hence it doesn’t occur to them to view the associated social phenomena through the (obvious!) lens of culture. The ‘settled’ in ‘settled science’ is a culturally enforced consensus.

      • ==> “3rd excerpt above: Indeed! Grand narratives are the orthodox heart of a culture, it’s ‘DNA’ if you will.”

        Well, except for “conservatives” and “skeptics,” that is!

      • ==> “6th excerpt above: Strong cultures vie to dominate the intellectual space, potentially becoming ‘the solution to everything’ in people’s minds.”

        Well, except with “conservatives” and “skeptics,” that is!

      • ==> ” Hence it doesn’t occur to them to view the associated social phenomena through the (obvious!) lens of culture. ”

        Fortunately, “conservatives” and “skeptics” view their own social phenomenon through the (obvious!) lens of culture.

      • Joshua,

        Conservatives do indeed have all of those things; the difference is that folks know this and take account. So do left wingers, and likewise folks take account. Folks do *not* take account for climate change, because it is not viewed as a culture. It should be. Skeptics do not represent a culture, they are minor and scattered and only exist in opposition to a culture. One day, maybe they will, but not today. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their own negative memes (e.g. its all a liberal hoax, or whatever), but it is the coherent development of many memes, typically of the highly emotive flavor, that makes a strong culture.

      • Joshua,

        I fail to see where you come up with this only one side has cultural bias. If that has been claimed can you cite an example? You come off as being unglued when you do this broken record, repetition.

    • Sorry! I meant Roger Pielke Jr.

    • Fascinating; i’ll do a post on it next week

      • Heh, Republicans are listening to people like her.
        =============

      • ” I suggest that the movement has, above all, failed in its strategy to combat climate change, but also quite often in its other environmental policies. ”

        Have “climate change” and “environmental” policies in fact failed at all? It all depends on what the real goals of the policies/strategies are. If the goal is to reduce admissions, climate policy, like almost all progressive policies, is an abject failure.

        But I would suggest that climate policy has been a resounding success, if you properly identify the goals of its progenitors: Increase in the power of western progressive political parties; increase in the size of government; increase in the career security and power of the bureaucratic policy makers; increase in the grants to ‘scientists.”, etc.

    • “I suggest that the movement has, above all, failed in its strategy to combat climate change, but also quite often in its other environmental policies.”

      The comment seems to imply that there is a unified environmental movement when that is really not true. The “environmental movement” has helped improve the quality of life of Americans since the 1960’s. Imo, there are much more important issues that can be addressed than CO2 emissions.

      • Rob,

        +1
        “Imo, there are much more important issues that can be addressed than CO2 emissions.” Until proven other wise, deal with the knowns.

    • Well, that is fascinating. Another conservative politician saying the same things we’ve heard so many times before.

      Anyway, I would like to take what Korhla says seriously….

      Except that her former husband seems to be a scientist who actively engages in political discussions about policy.

      As such, his views should be rejected out of hand.* No scientists who mix activism with their science should be trusted. They have no expertise** in policy development and implementation, and thus should just stay out of it.

      * Of course, if I agreed with his views on the politics, then his views should be taken seriously

      ** Of course, if I agreed with him, his lack of specific expertise would not be relevant. You see, it is only when I disagree with experts, that referring to their expertise comprises a fallacious appeal to authority.

      Now the untrusthworthy activism of her former husband certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that her views should be dismissed. But if one was inclined to conspiracy thinking, one might think that she and he were conspiring as advocates to dismiss activism with science. Maybe she is relying on the technical expertise of, horror of all horrors, ACTIVIST SCIENTISTS !!!1!!!11

      And we all know frightfully scary that prospect is, right Judith?

    • Matthew R Marler

      AK: regarding Eija-Riitta Korhola’s recently “completed […] academic dissertation for a PhD in a policy field that she specializes in – climate policy.

      That looks like a really good document that will take a long time to absorb. Thank you for the link. Any information on whether she passed her oral exam?

  79. Korhola makes a key point here that resonates with my personal, admittedly anecdotal, experience. In my travels in brazil over the last twenty years, I have noticed, as the middle class grows and gets their survival needs met, an increasing level of interest in protecting and preserving the environment. When people are worried about getting enough to eat for the day, or are worried about a home invasion or mugging, they aren’t likely to worry to much about sewage treatment or preservation of the mangroves. The environmental movement, if not birthed by the middle class, has certainly been embraced by the middle class – those who have been able to get their basic needs of food, shelter, and medical care met. Closer to home, an unemployed factory worker in the rust belt of the USA is not likely to get too excited about new water pollution requirements for factories when he or she can’t afford to pay the utility bills in the winter. Hierarchy of needs. Conversely, the elite, highly educated class white collar professionals like just about every regulation hey see, because all their basic needs , and more, often much more, are met. That group would include, of course, the wealthy, academia ( not rich but comfortable – a good gig if you can get it), most government employees at all levels, and the professional class ( doctors, lawyers, teachers, high tech engineers and managers). The point being, economic growth, though it causes environmental degradation, paradoxically leads to environmental preservation and restoration. This is why I love fossil fuels, they allow us to grow more forests, preserve free-flowing clean waterways, create marine preserves, and save the beauty of the natural world for our children and their children. Drill, baby drill.

  80. Jimmy must be so relieved. Barack lifts his crown …

    Pointman

  81. “(JC note: I am deleting the following text ‘the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address’)”

    Sigh.

    The sentence should probably have included the word ‘probably’, but is otherwise unobjectionable.

    The sentence does not imply a conspiracy at all. I have always believed that you progressive drones don’t know one tenth as much about the climate as you think you do, but when it comes to law, and even simple dictionary definitions, you are frankly oblivious.

    A conspiracy requires two or more parties; communication between those parties; and cooperation toward a common goal. A decision to delay release of a PR statement requires none of these things. Newsflash, the date of the SOTU in recent history is always toward the end of January, shortly after the new congress is sworn in. The date of the SOTU is announced well in advance. I bet a hundred dollars to a penny that the rocket scientists at NASA could figure out all on their own the date of the 2015 SOTU.

    The comment by Dr. Curry was self evidently about the motivation of whoever timed the release. (I know it is asking a lot, but you might notice the words “motivated by” in the sentence – they’re a dead give-a-way.) I will make a similar bet that whoever made that decision shares the identical political (a/k/a scientific) views of Gavin Schmidt, and has the same pseudo-messianic motivation.of saving the world from capitalism…sorry… globalclimatewarmingchange.

    Let me see, could the timing of a press release by a progressive government drone, be timed to provide support for the coming SOTU speech by the progressive-drone-in-chief? Well golly, that can’t be! That would suggest that the press release was political, rather than the pure, unadulterated, motive free science we all know it to be. After all, isn’t that how all good science is done nowadays – by press release?

    You people crack me up. Seriously.

    • Right.

      Certainty about the “motivations” behind a supposed collusion (among officials of a government organization to orchestrate the timing of their press release) to achieve an outcome ( deceiving the public) with no actual evidence isn’t conspiracy ideation.

      I love GaryM.

      • Joshua, conspiracy ideation is your take and yours alone. Dr Curry never even suggested a conspiracy. You and Gavin implied that, it doesn’t mean it is true. The question of timing has to do with the revelation by Gavin that there is only a 38% possibility, at this time, to confirm it was the warmest year. He failed to mention this at the press release. The honest thing to do would be to say that they can’t confirm the result at this point and defer until later when they are 100% certain. To suggest a motivation for an early release is confirmed by the use of this unconfirmed information for propoganda purposes by the president. He said he wasn’t a scientist so he had to rely on the scientists for the conjecture he made. That the scientists couldn’t confirm the information at this point meant the information was not scientifically reliable.

    • Also amusing is how Gary talks about the history of the timing of the SOTU, but neglects to mention the history of the timing of the press releases.(and the history of the relationship of the timing between the two – including years when temps were relatively low) .

      Must be coincidence!

    • Gary,

      That’s all very plausible and maybe correct, but what useful purpose could making that unprovable accusation serve? If it was OK, why did she delete it? It’s not like the SOTU was moved for a change to May, and the NASA announcement just happened to move, also. If one is going to make accusations, when one’s detractors are waiting for any opportunity to pounce on one and make one look like a partisan hack, one should have something to back up one’s accusations. Another unforced error. I hate it when my team does that.

      • “…but what useful purpose could making that unprovable accusation serve?”

        Uhhh…it’s a blog, not to mention it’s Dr. Curry’s blog… not to mention the last I saw here (including today), stating her opinion as to the motivation of a press release doesn’t strike me as particularly out of the ordinary, let alone objectionable.

        How dare she question whether someone’s actions migfht be the result of motivated reasoning. No one else ever states opinions like that around here?

        Harrumph! Harrumph!

        It never ceases to amaze me how frequently the progressives here take advantage of Dr. Curry’s courtesy, and loose moderation, to suggest that she has no right to voice her own opinions, on her own blog.

        Here’s another clue – she doesn’t need to justify her opinions, or her posting her opinions, to anyone. If someone wants to disagree, and she wants to respond, great, that would make this a blog. What a shock. But y’all get really tiresome trying to set limits on what she, or anyone else for that matter, posts ON A FREAKIN’ BLOG!

        But hey, a bunch of wannabe geniuses who purport to reject the very notion of objective morality got to get on their high moral horses by crying “CONSPIRACY!” while demonstrating they are absolutely clueless as to what the word actually means.

        Like I said, you folks crack me up.

      • ==> ” to suggest that she has no right to voice her own opinions, on her own blog.”

        Right.

        ‘Cause those drone progressives (did I mention that they’re incapable of critical thinking) have been all up and down this thread “suggesting” that she has “no right” to voice her opinions, on her own blog.

        Conspiracy ideation? What conspiracy ideation?

      • And to think that I thought the “Judith champions against terrorists” thread was the best Climate Etc. thread ever.

        I like this new tack that Judith is on. Definitely on an upward trajectory (on the unintentional irony scale, at least, if not exactly on the “bridge-building” scale).

      • I scanned your tirade quickly Gary, and I didn’t spot your lawyerly answer to the money question:

        “If it was OK, why did she delete it?”

        I saw the words “progressive” and “you folks” in there. You have me confused with someone else. I am just the guy who doesn’t reflexively jump to conjure up a defense for mistakes, missteps, blunders, stubborn silliness etc., just because it’s someone on my side of the argument. I am not Judith’s lawyer. Not obligated to defend her. I know how to play politics and she obviously doesn’t. Case closed.

      • Don Monfort,

        Here’s my lawyerly answer:

        Because she’s too polite to tell you all to shut the hell up and because she (foolishly) thought that by deleting it she might get you all to do just that.

      • well yes that was my motive, esp over on twitter

      • May I ask about the conclusions of the theory based on the observable evidence? :) (Sorry, shouldn’t have but I just had to)

      • Well, it was very naive (Gary being less charitable says foolish) to think that people would shut up, esp over on twitter. What on earth caused you to think that deleting something on your blog would make people on twitter shut up? There are a lot of people watching you like little twitter vultures, in hopes that you will make a fool of yourself. What I am saying is, disappoint them.

      • Judith –

        ==> “well yes that was my motive, esp over on twitter.”

        Perhaps the best way to avoid people talking about your conspiracy ideation is to avoid voicing conspiracy theories?

        Just a suggestion. :-)

      • I think the end result of all this is that you shouldn’t attempt to say anything meaningful on twitter. With so few characters available to form an argument its very difficult to get a point across on this complex, messy, political and ideological hot potato that is climate science.

        tonyb

      • tonyb,

        My suggestion for a lesson to be learned from this tempest in a tea spoon is that nothing you do will stop ankle biters from biting your ankles, so just do what you want to do, and ignore them.

        The only reason it is worth any effort at all to respond, rather than ignore, the buzzing of these gnats is that it is sometimes fun to make fun of pompous progressive poseurs.

      • tempest in a teaspoon – i’ll remember that line :)

      • Gary

        That’s strange, I very nearly used the phrase ‘ankle biters’ in my own post.

        You say about teasing ‘pompous progressive poseurs’. I bet you are glad that we have none at all on this site that could possibly fit that description…

        tonyb

      • tonyb,

        The antidote to ankle biters?

        Big boy socks.

      • Gary

        Wellington boots would be even more effective

        tonyb

      • You could combine the political acumen of one climate scientist, one lawyer and the other guy up there and they wouldn’t equal the savvy of my 11 year old son. Little joshie the anklebiter is right on this one.

      • Ouch! My ankle!

      • What you felt was a swift kick. And it wasn’t your ankle.

        However, it is refreshing to see you depart from your usual humorless bombast. Try it again sometime.

      • “…this complex, messy, political and ideological hot potato that is climate science.”

        Climate Change Hot Potato:

      • > If it was OK, why did she delete it?

        I thought Judy made pretty clear she did not want to defend her theory without having to apologize for having voiced it, Don Don.

        Somehow, you seem not to believe her, and consequently your personal protection is getting a little too expensive for her.

        OK. Scratch that last one. I don’t wish to defend it.

      • Rgates

        Love the climate change hot potato! I might order one during our meal but am not sure it would complement the extremely expensive wine I will be ordering…

        Tonyb

    • Steven Mosher

      pretty simple.

      FOIA NASA and NOAA for communications during the period running up to the SOTU.

      people preparing the “positioning” in the release were not blissfully unaware of the opportunity the timing presented .

      when you get requests from the press ( will you have a release in time for SOTU???) you wise up pretty quickly about the possible impact you can have.

      • FOIA NASA and NOAA for communications during the period running up to the SOTU.

        Including their personal cell texts? After Climategate…

      • ==> “FOIA NASA and NOAA for communications during the period running up to the SOTU.”

        Well now there would be a worthwhile expenditure of effort.

        Because, you know, it would change the science.

      • LOL @ Joshua—as if you tend to discuss either the science or the economics

      • Because, you know, it would change the science.

        You mean the science that says there’s less than a 50% chance 2014 was the warmest year?

      • ==> “You mean the science that says there’s less than a 50% chance 2014 was the warmest year?”

        It is entirely legitimate, IMO, to say that uncertainty should be foregrounded.

        Now about the “economic suicide” and “starving millions” as the result of supporting renewables!!!

      • Steven Mosher

        AK.

        Cell texts? sure why not.

        rather than speculate folks who are interested in this crap (I’m not ) should do some work rather than comment.

        In short, FIOA more, comment less.

        That is just advice for folks who care about this crap.

      • Steven Mosher

        Joshua

        “==> “FOIA NASA and NOAA for communications during the period running up to the SOTU.”

        Well now there would be a worthwhile expenditure of effort.

        Because, you know, it would change the science.

        1. If people are going to speculate, I’d suggest they go get evidence.
        2. It would be a better use of their time than spinning stupid conspiracy
        tales. So yes, worthwhile.
        3. When they find nothing they will face a moment of truth. Once I was
        suspicious of NOAA. I FOIA them. I got a wonderful professional
        response that changed my view of them. So, it was worthwhile.
        Don’t be so sure that you know the best thing to do in every circumstance.
        4. It wouldnt change the science any more than climategate changed science. The main point is to get people doing something other than
        making stupid comments. You should try it. No wait, I order you to make more stupid comments.

      • Wondering if Dr. Schmidt is doing a reasonable job at NASA or if folks just dig the whole space thingy: http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/22/most-view-the-cdc-favorably-vas-image-slips/

      • Steven,

        Much like when Dr. Curry was given advanced notice “they” would be contacting her for comment on the BEST report itself, all the while not giving advanced notice of the content of same. It’s interesting how business is conducted. Figure she had to generate thoughts for 1) warming 2) maintaining 3) cooling.

      • ==> “No wait, I order you to make more stupid comments.”

        Well, now, that does put me in a quandary, doesn’t it?

        1) To do the opposite of what you “order” (and stop making stupid comments) I would have to stop commenting all-together.

        2) To do what you order would be to keep commenting.

        So I either do as you order or stop commenting. Either way, you win/I lose.

        Nice one! You got me!

      • Steven Mosher

        Danny

        ‘Much like when Dr. Curry was given advanced notice “they” would be contacting her for comment on the BEST report itself, all the while not giving advanced notice of the content of same. It’s interesting how business is conducted. Figure she had to generate thoughts for 1) warming 2) maintaining 3) cooling.”

        It’s been pretty clear for a while that this year would be close. We figured long ago that it would be close but within the margins.

        We maybe had 15 minutes of discussion a while back about what to say and then the writing task was assigned to the most level headed person I have ever met.

    • And I just want to comment on the beauty of reading Steven Postrel argue that it’s not a conspiracy because it was only a discussion between an employee and his boss, and then reading GaryM argue that it’s not a conspiracy because no conversation took place (when, of course, neither has any actual evidence about what actually occurred).

  82. Notice how the 2014 temperature map has a big blue spot over the USA? Global warming is like Obama’s economic recovery: It’s always happening everywhere except where you happen to be.

    Too bad, really. Global warming would be awesome for Russia, Canada, and the northern USA. Longer growing seasons and faster plant growth, both from higher temperatures and extra CO2.

  83. Matthew R Marler

    In case no one has linked to this yet, Tom Fuller has expressed his respect for Climate Etc and Prof Judith Curry:

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/

  84. David L. Hagen

    Raw politics continued: Republicans outfox Democrats on climate votes
    The GOP accepts the notion of climate change – but not the way Democrats wanted them to.

    The first Republican answer to Democrats’ proposal that “human activity significantly contributes to climate change” omitted mentioning the phrase “climate change,” and instead called for senators to oppose any efforts that raise energy costs or “destroy jobs.” That was almost identical to Democrats’ measure — except for the removal of the word “significantly” next to “human activity.” That measure fell a single vote short of the 60-vote threshold it needed. . . .
    The environment committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), said she had asked Hoeven about opposing his own amendment. ”He said, ‘Because I was threatened that this [Keystone] bill would fail if this was on it.’ So that’s what happened,” she told reporters.

  85. Matthew R Marler

    Prof Curry: Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that a narrative the NASA/NOAA press releaseof ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.

    With more time to reflect, what do you think now? To me, it’s one of those coincidences that looks ominous or meaningful for a short time, but wasn’t planned or “plotted” or “conspired”.

    • –Prof Curry: Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that a narrative the NASA/NOAA press releaseof ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda.

      With more time to reflect, what do you think now? To me, it’s one of those coincidences that looks ominous or meaningful for a short time, but wasn’t planned or “plotted” or “conspired”.–

      What do you think Obama and all his advisers spend most their time doing?
      It’s certainly not focused on mundane of executive duties- unless you imagine they are utter idiotics.
      What Obama appears to spend his time with [other than golf] is community organizing- which revolves around crafting the message.

      And NASA is not about space exploration [obviously] it’s only value to Obama is assisting Obama with spinning whatever narrative he wants. Same goes for the all branches of government and also includes the media {MSM] which stopped being the fifth estate years ago.
      One has simply look at all the hours spent confabbing
      How else could you explain the months and hundreds of millions spend
      on Obamacare website, yet have it fail so miserably- obviously there must have been zero executive oversight on something which would define his presidency. Instead the time spent was regarding it was related how it should be spun [rather any time spend on making sure it worked].

      So in terms of messaging they working years into future. So revising the past, working in near term, long terms, and war room planning- and picking some women who takes a cereal milk bath on Y-tube, to talk to president at oval office is example it this.

  86. Pingback: Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change | Climate Etc.

  87. “…to me the scariest one one is Mann to Romm to Podesta.”

    …to secret tweets fired off under the cover of darkness from the Grassy Knoll. Was there more than one twitterer present that day?

  88. It struck me that if I were to formulate a conspiracy on timing of a pronouncement regarding “Hottest year ever”, and based on the impression the most of the communication originates in the “western world” (N.H.) then I would change to “fiscal year” reporting and do so in August instead of the middle of winter.

  89. Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    A very nice review by Professor Curry, a bit long, but at least skim this if you’re interested in climate change politics.

  90. Woof, the Senate is entangling itself in the Climate Baby. Let’s get some clarity here.
    ========

  91. “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate”

    Q1: From whence did this statement emerge?
    A: Government.

    Q2: Who is paying these scientists?
    A : Government.

    Q3: Who stands to massively benefit from this view being taken on board?
    A: Government.

    Anyone detect a whiff of rancid rodent ?

  92. Climate Change is far from clear.
    Credulousness from Congress is Dangerous.

  93. Pingback: Propagandamaskinen lägger in en ny växel - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

  94. The more I look into this “science” the more nonsensical it becomes. This is some research done on the longest thermometer data that is exists and it become real obvious real fast why thermometer data isn’t used, and instead the climate “scientists” rely on proxies. Thermometer data totally destroys the climate “scientist’s” argument.
    1) CO2 is uniformly distributed, ie a CONSTANT. Y=mX+b, you can’t cause a change with a constant. If CO2 is uniformly distributed around the globe, which it is, one would expect that CO2 impacts the global temperatures by an upward shift in temperatures, much like insulation increases the average temperature of a house in all rooms. In other words there are no holes in the CO2 blanket to create variations in temperature.
    2) There are huge regional variation in temperature variations. CO2 can’t cause variations in the temperatures, it can only shift them upward, and there is no case/explanation for CO2 causing region cooling. How could insulation result in a house cooling?
    3) The correlations between different regions is very very low. If CO2 were the cause you would have all areas increasing in temperature, and a much higher correlation.
    4) The oceans are warming. There is no mechanism by which the atmosphere trapping IR can warm the oceans. There simply isn’t enough energy in the atmosphere to warm the oceans. The oceans are warmed by the sun and geothermal events, and the oceans in turn warm the atmosphere above them. Discover what is warming the oceans and you discover the cause of the warming, and it isn’t CO2.

    • It’s a common error. An insulator doesn’t have to be warmer to work. It is the added amount of insulation that keeps the ocean warmer. The ocean gains heat by the sun and loses a large fraction of it through radiation. Insulation reduces the surface radiative loss. Since the sun stays the same, the ocean gets warmer.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Robert Wagner: If CO2 is uniformly distributed around the globe, which it is, one would expect that CO2 impacts the global temperatures by an upward shift in temperatures, much like insulation increases the average temperature of a house in all rooms. In other words there are no holes in the CO2 blanket to create variations in temperature.

      Look into the behaviors of nonlinear dynamical systems: with nonlinear feedbacks in high dimensions, even constant inputs produce bizarre and shifting patterns.

      There is no mechanism by which the atmosphere trapping IR can warm the oceans.

      the radiant energy from the sun heats the oceans. At minimum, raising the temperature of the air can slow the rate of cooling of the surface, leading to a higher net surface temperature.

  95. I forgot to add the link to the thermometer data research:
    http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/jones1992a.pdf

    Also, this documentary is worth watching and is applicable to this blogpost:

  96. steve mcdonald

    We must say anything no matter how absurd it is.
    We must convince the people who dare to question even one word our megalomania causes us to say that they are as stupid as we need them to be.
    Any power that the poor may have must be given to the state.
    And the trillions of dollars they have must be given to us.
    They are too stupid to control either one.
    The Obamacare revelations told everyone how moronic we know they are.

  97. Robert Wagner

    “Here is a visual for you:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia
    Click on the cloud video.”

    Imagine that, where there are no clouds there are deserts, where there are clouds you have vegetation. Who would have thunk it? Clearly not the climate “scientists,” that is too obvious of a cause, it must me CO2. BTW, how does CO2 cause changes in cloud patterns and formation? It doesn’t. Also this nonsense that CO2 traps enough heat to slow the cooling of the oceans in pure nonsense. H2O over the oceans is much much much more important than CO2. Warmer oceans hold more H20. If there was some destructive cycle that a GHG can create, H2O would have already done it. If CO2 were the cause you would see equal warming over the poles and over the equator, but you don’t find that. The dry air over the poles doesn’t show the warming.

    Funny, imagine that, dry air with higher CO2 concentration doesn’t show warming, but air with H2O in it does. Image that. Funny the climate scientists don’t write about that. The dry arctic air is a control sample for CO2 driven temperature change, and it shows no warming with an increase in CO2. But if the sun warms the oceans, causing more evaporation, more heat does get trapped, and temperature does increase, regardless of CO2 levels.

  98. Dr Curry said,

    “Maybe some day, in a future administration, we can have a grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses.”

    Wow, a grown-up conversation about climate change among Washington politicians. I think it more likely we will one day be flying Unicorns to work instead of driving cars (unless we can telecommute, of course).

    I wonder what kind of pollution Unicorns emit from their tailpipes.

  99. While I am here – it is Australia’s day to member that 200 odd years ago some white guys – many of them in chains – landed on a beach in the antipodes. We’re keeping the tradition alive – although chains have been relegated to Mardi Gras.

  100. So did this US recovery come about from the oil & gas industry that he & his team despise and thwart at every turn, or from the so-called hottest year on record despite the doom-mongers belief that excess heat is always economically bad? Just how much of a hypocrite is it possible for a politician to be?

  101. Steven Goddard suggested the UN’s IPCC is incompetent:

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/smoking-gun-of-incompetence-at-the-ipcc/

    Could it be misinformation-by-design to fit UN Agenda 21, rather than random incompetence?

  102. Pingback: Climate change as a political process | Climate Etc.

  103. As for ‘Denial from Congress is dangerous’, I doubt that anyone in Congress denies that climate changes.

    The Senate voted, almost all, that Climate Change is Real.
    Then, the Senate voted a majority, that humans did not cause a substantial amount of the warming.

  104. “this is a wealth redistribution scheme being imposed by the President thru the EPA.”

    Would that it were. We need wealth redistribution. We do not need climate change hysteria.