Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness

by Judith Curry

Among the best indirect indicators available to nonexperts is the overwhelming numbers of scientists testifying to anthropogenic climate change. Yet the evidential significance of such clear numbers turns substantially on our nonexpert assessment of these scientists’ trustworthiness. Absent trust, even without active distrust, the numbers’ evidential weight drops considerably. – Ben Almassi

One of the most insightful articles I’ve come across on the topic of consensus is a paper by Ben Almassi entitled Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness [link to abstract; unfortunately behind paywall].  Excerpts:

The evidence most of us have for our beliefs on global climate change, the extent of human contribution to it, and appropriate anticipatory and mitigating actions turns crucially on epistemic trust. We extend trust or distrust (or refrain from extending either) to many varied others: scientists performing original research, intergovernmental agencies and those reviewing research, think tanks offering critique and advocating skepticism, journalists transmitting and interpreting claims, even social systems of modern science such as peer reviewed publication and grant allocation.

This broad epistemic dependency need not thereby make our knowledge of climate change somehow intellectually or ethically suspect; nor does it make our relationship to climate science so different than other domains of knowledge toward which many of us (including those with expertise in other domains) stand as nonexperts relying on others. Yet attending to trust (and lack thereof) in contemporary public understanding of climate change may help illuminate moral issues overshadowed by the rightly urgent matters of international and intergenerational justice in responsibility for and response to climate change.

Epistemic dependence and scientific consensus

Even if I have a working appreciation for the greenhouse effect, were I to pursue epistemic autonomy on climatological phenomena, this working grasp combined with my scant firsthand observations of weather patterns and temperatures would fall well short of justifying particular beliefs on global climate patterns, let alone the extent of our human contribution. Indeed, even the notion that my basic understanding of greenhouse effects is sufficiently similar to contemporary atmospheric processes, as to be an edifying rather than misleading comparison, itself depends crucially on expert validation of the analogy. Whether my personal apprehension of hotter summers and unusual weather phenomena ought to be seen as confirmation of anthropogenic climate change, or instead as irrelevantly anecdotal, is itself something I myself cannot determine, something for which I must rely on expert corroboration. While I may be informed that the last years of the twentieth century are among the hottest in centuries, and I may then on reflection take this to be strong evidence of anthropogenic global climate change, nevertheless that inference is epistemically dependent on others. Just as I cannot collect annual global temperatures myself, without relying on experts I also cannot justifiably regard these temperatures as decisive evidence for anthropogenic global climate change over other candidate hypotheses. I may not even know which (if any) competing hypotheses are also capable of accommodating this temperature data, let alone judge for myself which hypothesis does so best.

It should be no surprise, then, if public understanding of and beliefs about global climate are parasitic on public understanding of and beliefs about climate science as an area of expert knowledge. Following Hardwig, we may even recognize this epistemic dependency as rational and responsible. What’s striking about public understanding of climate change is not the dependency, but rather the nonexpert assessment of climate scientific expert opinion.

The public presence of dissenting voices presents a substantial social-epistemic problem for nonexpert appreciation of the state of contemporary climate scientific knowledge. While experts may confidently and justifiably dismiss a few dissenters by appeal to their own first-hand understanding of climatologically significant empirical evidence, we nonexperts cannot easily make such assessments ourselves from our nonexpert perspectives.

Nonexpert assessment of conflicting claims

Consider the situation of a third-party nonexpert who is not part of the relevant scientific community yet trying to assess whose allegedly expert testimony to trust, and to what degree. Should she clearly put greater epistemic trust in the testimony of loyalist rather than dissident experts? How do speakers‘ credibility within a scientific community translate into trustworthiness (or lack thereof) for epistemically dependent outsiders?

Dialectical Superiority. Goldman observes that non-experts often are provided only with experts‘ conflicting conclusions, sometimes only with partial sketches of experts‘ argument for these conclusions. Furthermore, even when arguments are provided in detail, much of their content remains opaque to non-expert listeners. What sort of dialectical superiority does he have in mind as an indirect indicator of expert trustworthiness? It is in part a measure of smoothness and quickness in responding to rival experts‘ claims and objections, and here precautions about demeanor must be noted.

We should also be cautious about non-expert ability to weigh the genuine social-evidential relevance of apparent failures to rebut or respond to competing criticisms. In some cases lack of rebuttal is due to an inability to successfully defend one‘s case against critique, and in some cases lack of critique is due to an inability to offer cogent critique.  In some cases duplicitous speakers may sometimes say that their criticisms have not been rebutted though they have; in other cases one side may sincerely regard their criticism as remaining unrebutted, and assert as much, while the other side takes themselves to have offered a rebuttal. Alternatively, further criticism or defense against criticism may have been made in another venue or environment of which non-expert listeners may be unaware, their lack of awareness owing precisely to their lack of expertise. Further still, what appears on non-expert analysis to be an unaddressed criticism may be something the other side has simply ignored, perhaps for good reason, as sufficiently irrelevant or repetitive as not to warrant response. On reflection, then, apparent dialectical superiority may result from a variety of factors, including but not limited to superior access to truth.

Expert Agreement. Ward Jones offers a pro-loyalist stance according to which non-expert third parties should side with the dominant position in expert disputes. He identifies loyalists as community members who endorse the dominant position in a scientific community and dissidents as other community members who dispute the dominant position. Is the position endorsed by a supermajority, majority, or plurality of the community? Do all members get equal voice in the measure; is the dominant position a product of power and influence in the community (who publishes most, is cited most, has the most students, edits the journals, controls grant funding, etc.)? Without a clear idea of how much different experts‘ assessments counts in favor of one side or other, non-experts can only guess whether a dominant position is also one with better testimonial evidential support.

As a paradigm case of an evidentially meaningless concurrence of opinions Goldman cites a guru with many slavish followers who believe and say whatever he believes and says. If the listener is justified in believing that these followers never break from blind allegiance to their guru, Goldman reasons, then it does not matter how many such followers there are; the followers‘ testimonies give the listener no more reason to believe the testified claim than was provided by the guru‘s testimony.

More broadly, two members of a scientific community may agree about a hypothesis because their endorsement or rejection of that hypothesis may follow from a set of shared theoretical, interpretive and methodological commitments. We may reasonably ask why these scientists agree on their assessments of evidence or their theoretical, interpretive, or methodological commitments, of course. Perhaps Y is just uncritically following X‘s lead on these matters, or vice versa, or perhaps both experts are mindlessly following a third expert Z or have uncritically accepted the typical standards of their epistemic community. Or it may be that they have come to their evidential assessments and commitments through an amalgam of independence reflection, warranted trusted in peers, deference to tradition, career considerations, social circumstances, luck, and other factors.

Trust and the Numbers. Yet the social-evidential significance of a supermajority of expert testimony in favor of anthropogenic climate change varies for different members of the nonexpert public, depending in significant part on our differing assessments of the scientists in and out of agreement. Here public trust and distrust of scientific expert opinion matters a great deal, I suggest, in our varying interpretations of the evidential significance of expert agreement. Those of us who trust will thus have reason to put greater evidential significance in the numbers of agreeing climate scientists because we trust that these scientists have come to a common commitment not through deceit, conspiracy, or lazy deference, but rather through considered assessment of the empirical evidence and their fellow scientists‘ rational credibility. Those who actively distrust, by contrast, will have reason to put far less evidential significance in an occasion of lopsided expert opinion in favor of anthropogenic climate change; for them, unsavory and epistemically irrelevant explanations of concurrence such as deceit, conspiracy, or groupthink are far more plausible.

Among the best indirect indicators available to nonexperts is the overwhelming numbers of scientists testifying to anthropogenic climate change. Yet (perhaps more surprisingly) the evidential significance of such clear numbers turns substantially on our nonexpert assessment of these scientists‘ trustworthiness. Absent trust, even without active distrust, the numbers‘ evidential weight drops considerably.

JC reflections

While the author comes across as supporting the consensus, the paper presents some insightful perspective on the ‘consensus enforcement’ by the establishment and  why a substantial portion of the public is not buying the expert consensus on climate change. It boils down to a lack of trust, and concerns about deceit, conspiracy and groupthink.

Where do these concerns come from?  Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists are two obvious sources.  Disagreement portrayed in the media and distrust of the government’s politicization of the issue are others.

How can trust be rebuilt?  This brings to mind my post Climategate essay On the Credibility of Climate Research: Towards Rebuilding Trust – transparency and uncertainty were two major themes.  Also:

The openness and democratization of knowledge enabled by the internet can be a tremendous tool for building public understanding of climate science and also trust in climate research.

The internet makes establishment consensus enforcement very difficult.   Since I wrote that essay in 2009, I now understand the climate problem to be a wicked mess, and the idea of a consensus among experts to be misguided.  As discussed on a previous post, consensus messaging doesn’t seem to work with the public in any even.

On this five year anniversary of Climate Etc., has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?

 

602 responses to “Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness

  1. Pingback: Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. It really does not matter how much transparency, virtue, learning, consensus, application, sincerity, conferencing, dialogue or communication you bring to the party. Those are all good things, but when you dunno…you dunno!

    That’s the one big problem about not knowing. You just dunno!

    • Curious George

      You can still hide behind an epistemic paradigm.

      • I’ve tried hiding, but some part of reality always sticks out. Facts and events tend to protrude when you are huddled behind an epistemic para…that thing you said.

      • I dunno, but I no I don’t trust no ineffectual that uses the word “epistemic”. It used to be using the word “paradigm” was the new paradigm, but now the new paradigm is to use the word “epistemic” epistemically.

  3. There’s no question it all comes down to who you trust. There’s an awful lot of character assassination going on these days to undermine that trust. Case in point here: http://bit.ly/1MI7osr

    • Actually, it all comes down to understanding what’s going on. What you are describing is more like faith in evangelists.

    • Steven Mosher

      “And, as a gifted writer and speaker, he’s adept at covering up his rather brutish, unsophisticated worldview and fallacious reasoning with elaborate rhetorical tricks and techniques meant to distract his audience from the fact that his ideas are, for the most part, nonsensical. And the real truth of the matter is that Steyn doesn’t actually care if you think he’s right or smart. The illusion Steyn is truly after is that you believe what he says matters, that he is influential. The more successful Steyn is at projecting his illusion as an important cultural figure, the more people he’ll have lined up out the door buying his product.”

      tonyb and others should take note. Like I said he is a gifted writer.
      The biggest mistake your can make ( ala brandon ) is to try to get at what he really thinks.

      At this point I stopped reading tonyhellerexposed’s article. Why?
      because he is not gifted. Not funny or clever or sharp and entirely pedestrian. not buying his product.

      which is why Steyn is Steyn and heller is.. well.. nobody

      • “… as a gifted writer and speaker, he’s adept at covering up his rather brutish, unsophisticated worldview and fallacious reasoning with elaborate rhetorical tricks and techniques meant to distract his audience from the fact that his ideas are, for the most part, nonsensical.”

        Mosher, Worse than pedestrian. Utterly vapid is more like it. I have no idea who this fellow is, but be entertaining if he’d give some examples of Steyn’s “elaborate rhetorical tricks.”

        (aka pokerguy)

      • Steven Mosher

        Poker perhaps we can help, minor tweaks, but its still vapid and lacks the bite of Steyn.

        ““And, as a gifted writer and speaker, he’s adept at covering up his brutish, unsophisticated worldview and specious reasoning with cheap rhetorical tricks meant to distract his audience from the obvious: his ideas are nonsensical. Steyn doesn’t care if they think he’s right or smart. The illusion he is after is that they believe what he says matters; that he is influential. The more successfully Steyn projects this illusion, the more suckers he’ll have lined up out the door buying his product.”

      • Can we not have discussions of Mark Steyn in every thread? There was an entire post for his book not two weeks ago, plus a fair amount of discussion about him and what he’s written in a post shortly after that. I get there’s nothing to be done when someone comes in and drops a link to a post about him (hence why I’m not responding to his post), but can’t we just ignore the troll and move on?

        I know this is only one time, but I’m expecting him to keep writing posts and dropping links here in whatever posts are new, no matter how tangentially related they may be. It’d be nice if we could head it off before it becomes a thing.

      • Hey Mosher, he’s not nobody, he’s the guy pretending to be the other guy pretending to be a scientist.

        Wow, when I say that out loud it sounds kinda… recursive.

        Gleick pretends to be a Hartland Insider, Cook pretends to be Motl, and then there’s all the WUWT clones over the years. Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ^¿^

      • Mosh said

        ‘The biggest mistake your can make ( ala brandon ) is to try to get at what he really thinks.’

        So we have a popular writer who can’t communicate clearly with his audience, who I doubt are all English Majors prepared to parse his every word.

        .You don’t think it might be useful if he wrote with wit AND clarity at the level of his audience?

        tonyb

      • climatereason:

        ‘The biggest mistake your can make ( ala brandon ) is to try to get at what he really thinks.’

        So we have a popular writer who can’t communicate clearly with his audience, who I doubt are all English Majors prepared to parse his every word.

        .You don’t think it might be useful if he wrote with wit AND clarity at the level of his audience?

        Leaving aside the fact I’ve never really tried to get at what Mark Steyn actually thinks, only at what he says (I wouldn’t recommend taking Mosher’s characterizations of things on faith), Mark Steyn doesn’t ask people to parse his words carefully. You won’t find him writing articles in which he writes things like, “Oh, but I didn’t actually say that” followed by lengthy semantic parsings. That’s all Mosher.

        I suspect Steyn wouldn’t be willing to put pen to such semantic parsings. He’s created an image of being a bold warrior unafraid of anyone. Quibbling over exactly how he phrased a sentence to imply something without explicitly saying it would undermine that image. It’s the sort of thing someone like Michael Mann, who has a reputation for underhanded tricks, would do.

        In that vein, I’ll note when Steyn responded to me about what he said about the “Aunt Judy” issue, he didn’t once resort to semantic parsings like Mosher did. He didn’t challenge my framing at all. I suspect that’s because Steyn isn’t like Mosher suggests and won’t hide behind semantic parsings to defend himself.

        And oh god, I just realized I did what I said we shouldn’t do. Somebody shoot me.

      • Wow, when I say that out loud it sounds kinda… recursive.

        Seems the stack isn’t deep.

      • Steven Mosher

        tony

        “So we have a popular writer who can’t communicate clearly with his audience, who I doubt are all English Majors prepared to parse his every word.”

        .You don’t think it might be useful if he wrote with wit AND clarity at the level of his audience?

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

        Absolutely NOT.

        The level of his audience? Look, that is the aphelia approach to style.

        I suggest you read everything by Richard Lanham
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Lanham

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon

        “Leaving aside the fact I’ve never really tried to get at what Mark Steyn actually thinks, only at what he says (I wouldn’t recommend taking Mosher’s characterizations of things on faith), ”

        Your argument went from

        1. Steyn actually SAID THAT
        to
        2. I never said he said that,
        to
        3. Steyn Suggested that.

        I have to laugh when you now argue that you didnt try to get at what
        he thinks.

        IF you are only interested in what he SAID, then you would merely quote him.. properly you know, with every letter capitialized or not capitalized..

        The only way to avoid the fall into getting at “meaning” or what people
        ‘think” or “suggest” is to stay at the level of style.. the surface of the text.

      • Steven Mosher, I’m trying really hard to ignore you, but you make it difficult when you say things which are demonstrably false. If you’re going to misrepresent me, you should at least stick to things where you have some degree of semantic parsing to fall back on rather than just making things up.

        I believe I’ve told you this before, so it probably won’t do any good to tell you it again. You’ve never been shy about saying obviously untrue things about me and my remarks in the past, and you’ve never seemed inclined to correct yourself either.

        Maybe it’d be best for both of us if I just added you to my RSS reader’s blacklist?

      • Brandon:

        What do you use for an RSS reader?

        I use Feedly and it doesn’t have the ability to block posts by username (or post name or handle).

      • Richard Arrett, I used to use FeedDemon, and I still sometimes do when my current one breaks. It doesn’t have any real filtering options though. I once toyed around with the idea of building my own because there were a number of features I wanted, but it was too large a project. I eventually settled on downloading one called RSS Guard. It doesn’t have all the features I’d like, but it does allow for search filtering off the back (with regular expressions, which is nice), and its source code is available so it can be modified. I’ve since added a few features for my own purposes, obviously including a blacklist. The reader still downloads the comments, but if I have the blacklist turned on, comments by the listed users won’t be displayed.

        I’ve actually got it setup to where I can block comments by more than just username. I’ve been trying to get it to where I can filter out comments that respond to users who are on the blacklist, but I haven’t quite figured out how to do it, and I keep breaking things when I try. Sometimes I just break things in general because I’m terrible at C++. It’s not really a priority though, so I’m okay with what I’ve got.

      • Brandon, I wonder if you yourself see the radical changes in your blog persona as honed by Moshe’rs mentoring?

      • Horst Graben:

        Brandon, I wonder if you yourself see the radical changes in your blog persona as honed by Moshe’rs mentoring?

        Given I’m not delusional, no.

      • Brandon:

        Thank you.

        I will check out that reader.

      • No prob. For what it’s worth, even without using a blacklist, the reader makes it pretty easy to skip over comments from people you don’t want to have to deal with. You can choose to have comments displayed as just a single line like:

        Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard

        In a long list. If you do, you then click on the line and the comment will appear in a box below. The result is you can just skip any line which has a name you’re not interested in.

        I don’t like having to select each comment individually (even if you can use arrow keys) though, so I use a different display option which shows the full comments.

    • As we all should trust anonymous commentors that like to expose themselves.

    • Says the guy who walks through the door dripping with slime.

      I guy who claims to be someone else.

      Has anyone noticed that there no longer appear to be ads for the circus coming to town? I wonder if there is a correlation between that in us seeing clowns like fake tony more and more?

    • It’s hard to argue about character assassination with someone who displays as much enthusiasm for that task, as you transparently have.
      Love the way you use faux nom de plumes, e.g StephanTheDenier [sic], in self-penned comments to hilariously highlight the extent to which conspiratorial ideation, funded by shadowy, capitalist multi-national cartels, (a la SL – PBUH) has created an underclass that must be squashed.
      Keep up the good work, tonyhellerexposed; you have no idea of how positive your efforts will prove in resolving the climate dichotomy for Jane and Joe Public!

    • “There’s no question it all comes down to who you trust.”
      Isn’t that “Whom do you trust”?

  4. Where do these concerns come from? Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists are two obvious sources.

    You should also add ideology. Because those are on the right side of the spectrum are opposed to the policy implications. I don’t think Climategate and advocacy are really that important.

    http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/10-31-13-2/

    • oops posted the wrong link:

    • Joseph, the “is warming” part is problematical, given the pause and some of the explanations for it. Also, people interpret “solid” in different ways: for example to some people “solid” entails strong support for government action to speed up divestment from coal and other fossil fuels, not merely strong support for more research.

      • people interpret “solid” in different ways: for example to some people “solid” entails strong support for government action to speed up divestment from coal and other fossil fuels

        That makes absolutely no sense.

    • Joseph,

      I agree with you that ideology plays a role. Most likely a significant one. For example people who ideologically do not accept transnational or intergovernmental bodies who are beholden to no elected citizenry, or people who have issues with top down management of large segments of the economy and energy sector, are going to naturally be sceptic of claims that are used to support policy they are opposed to. They will say, if you are arguing we need to do these things, your evidence better be pretty damn convincing.

      Now, do you think that it is possible that a significant portion of the people who believe in the consensus and who think climate change is one of (if not the) greatest threat to mankind we face might do so primarily out of ideological reasons? Or is simply that they are far more astute at understanding the science?

      • Now, do you think that it is possible that a significant portion of the people who believe in the consensus and who think climate change is one of (if not the) greatest threat to mankind we face might do so primarily out of ideological reasons?

        I can’t speak for other people, but personally I trust the science and don’t believe and have seen no credible evidence that there is some political conspiracy or that scientists are trying to exaggerate the impacts for grant money or whatever. My concern has nothing to do with my ideology.

      • Joseph,
        I would tend to agree with you, except… well, this is climate science!

        When I see people admit mistakes, correct them and re-do their work, engage in open, fair and honest dialogue with their critics, then my trust in them rises.
        Alternately, when I see refusal to admit mistakes, let alone correct them and re-do the work, engage in closed, unfair and dishonest dialogue with anyone who dares to question their wisdom, then my trust in them falls.
        Hence my trust in Schmidt, Mann etc al continues to drop, while my trust in McIntyre, Curry et al continues to rise.

      • Joseph re: conspiracy or not

        Think we’ve all seen enough public examples of where the Science in Climate Science hasn’t been done as it should be. So it’s less a grand conspiracy and it’s more of a coalition of incentivised well meaning idiots. A sweeping generalisation, that obviously does not apply to all, but I am sadly starting to believe that it’s unfortunately true of most.

        The worst thing about it all, is that they kinda turn you into them, there’s only so many ad homs you can take before you begin to respond in kind (see my own idiots comment above). So what should be a fairly dull academic conversation about climate sensitivity, suddenly becomes a great crusade where disbelievers and heretics need to be marginalised and vilified rather than sensibly debated with…

        Our Hostess, has been a exemplar in this regard. Continually taking it on the chin from all sources and responding only in a very limited way – my hat’s off to you. Grande Dame, Aunt Judy or not.

        By the way – Should really be called “Climate Studies” rather than “Climate Science” as many of it’s proponents appear neither to understand nor practice any actual Science – Sorry, just couldn’t help myself….

  5. First, congratulations on the anniversary of this blog. Your dedication and productivity in the face of opposition and time challenges is admirable.

    I don’t think trust can be rebuilt. There are too many ancillary factors to ever return the debate solely to the science of climate. The politics, economics, and psychology of the players, large and small, have made this more than a bio-geo-physics investigation. Ultimately, nature will determine who was more right about the science during this period of time, but the partisans will argue until they run out of energy. Although I don’t think CE has rebuilt trust, it has gone a long way toward expanding the conversation and forcing gaps into the circle of wagons that tried so hard to regulate thought and practice in climate science. A noteworthy accomplishment.

    • What Gary Boden said.
      Well done Judy, your courage is as admirable as it is unusual.
      You are one tough cookie:)

    • I disagree about not being able to rebuild trust, though it will take a lot of work.

      What Climate Etc has done to rebuild trust is to provide a forum to discuss climate science and be to state that the science is NOT settled. Nothing has destroyed my trust in “climate science” than the statement “the science is settled.

      Climate Etc is also a forum where people outside of the “climate science” community can have a say. I’ve gotten tired of on-line discussions where a common put-down was “you are not a climate scientist”, especially where the person writing that is not a “climate scientist” either. Seems tthat the same people were more than willing to talk about the pros and cons of nuclear energy without being a Nuclear Engineer.

      One thing I’d like to see more of is the discussion of the science involved in the areas of uncertainty, specifically the role of tropical thunderstorms in regulating climate.

    • Congratulations to Climate Etc from me too.

      I think CE has helped build trust – largely because for whatever reason the moderation policy here as stopped any really nasty exchanges. It is perhaps the only climate blog where diverse individuals such as Willis, Tony B, ATTP, Mosher, Pointman etc can disagree (or agree!) on a regular basis without fear of being censored, edited or banned.

      This shows that you are viewed as an honest broker by all sides, Judith. Well done.

      • Jonathan

        Thanks for the name check. The others you mentioned are actually my best friends and we meet up regularly for tea and cake….

        There are some interesting characters here and it is good to have a forum where we can agree to disagree. Judith deserves credit for persevering in her own personal journey for scientific truth, of which I suspect, this blog has become an important part in helping to clarify her thought processes.

        tonyb

    • I also think Judith has done an incredible job of exposing the causes of loss of trust in climate science.

  6. Judith –

    There a ton o’ evidence that helps inform our understanding of public trust in experts. Why don’t you reference any of that material when you write posts on the topic?

    • “Why don’t you…”

      Not sure what you mean here J. What evidence informs our understanding of public trust in experts?

      • Despite (often made) assertions of causality, (made without empirical evidence in support of the assertions, btw only anecdotal evidence), the evidence I’ve seen shows that “Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists” has relatively little impact on views about climate change in the general public.

        First, only a relatively small % indicate those factors as being influential on their views. For most people, those factors just don’t register.

        Second, among that relatively small sector of the public, the influence expressed is highly correlated with ideology-related identities: Those clustered in one ideologically aligned-group indicate those factors as being causal for increased “skepticism” and those ideologically clustered in another group say that those two factors have increased their concerns about climate change.

        So then it becomes relevant, if you’re going to make assertions of causality as is a popular sport among “skeptics,” to assess whether in reality other explanations are more explanatory. Specifically, whether ideology is causal (something I don’t think is the case), or whether there is a common causal mechanism that drives ideological orientation and views on climate change , and whether or to what degree ideology might be a mediator/moderator between a causal relationship that links group identification to views on climate change.

        Finally, it is important to consider other factors that may well be much more explanatory, such as short-term weather patterns, the economy, and fairly well-established patterns in how people assess potentially significant but low probability risk over long time-horizons. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence, IMO, that suggests those other factors as playing a significant casual role.

      • Ok,

        Next thing you know the Rapture will occur.

        I just read a Josh post that was worth the time spent reading it.

      • ==> “Krosnick’s surveys revealed that 9% of the 32% of subjects who were aware of this controversy believed that it indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted. ”

        Hmmm. 9% of the 32%. So should we draw conclusions about the general public?

        Further, what was the control for understanding causality and potential association with ideology? Were those who said that their trust was diminished primarily ideologically aligned along a particular axis?

        Seems to me that people who were inclined to be “skeptical” about climate change would likely report an influence of Climategate on their views even though their views were largely formed prior to Climategate. We know that people tend to filter information so as to reinforce preexisting views (e.g., confirmation bias), particularly with issues that are highly polarized like climate change.

        Our results demonstrate that climate change continues to be a sharply partisan issue and that much of the decline in public trust in scientists has come from drops among political conservatives and Americans with a strongly individualistic worldview. Interestingly, however, a few liberals and egalitarians who followed the news story said they became more convinced that climate change is happening and more trusting of climate scientists as a result.

        http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climategate_Opinion_and_Loss_of_Trust_1.pdf

    • Is the 97 % paper supposed to inspire confidence? What about Mann’s original “False Hope” Sciam Article? Or that canned lecture he uses to “show” how climate models are so good at predicting temperatures? Do you think I should have confidence in “scientists” who use global warming to peddle their brand of political ideas?

      • fernando –

        I would never presume to have an opinion as to whom you should have confidence in.

        How is that question relevant to assessing the causality behind the general public’s opinion on climate change?

    • Steven Mosher

      http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/08/12/trust-in-science/
      http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/08/14/advocacy-and-trust/

      “For a cohort of 548 respondents who either had a household income under $50,000 or no more than a high school diploma, the results were stunning and statistically significant. Across the board, the move into politics undermined the science.

      The viewers’ trust in the scientist dropped 16 percentage points, from 48 to 32 percent. Their belief in the scientist’s accuracy fell from 47 to 36 percent. Their overall trust in all scientists went from 60 to 52 percent. Their belief that government should “do a lot” to stop warming fell from 62 to 49 percent. And their belief that humans have caused climate change fell 14 percentage points, from 81 to 67 percent.”

      http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059966968

      ‘Krosnick, who has run polls on public attitudes towards global warming since 2006, conducted a 2010 survey among 1000 Americans with the same questions as previous years in addition to new inquiries about recent and relevant controversies.[38] One of which was a controversy in which the email archive of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked in 2009. The emails retrieved from the hacking supposedly revealed extensive data manipulation in studies on climate research.[39] Krosnick’s surveys revealed that 9% of the 32% of subjects who were aware of this controversy believed that it indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted. There was a subsequent controversy with the fourth report on Climate Change from the IPCC. 54% of the 13% of subjects who knew about this controversy believed it indicated that climate scientists were untrustworthy.[38]”

      In 2012, Krosnick conducted another study based on a recent small dip in public belief in climate change. A national survey revealed that low-income and low education students were more willing to trust a scientist who presented evidence for global warming, until that same scientist began to urge their listeners to pressure their government into greener policies. At that point, viewers immediately became suspicious of that scientist’s motives and the science they’d presented by extension.[42]
      To come to this conclusion, Krosnick recruited a national sample of 793 Americans and split them into three groups to view three videos: a video of a scientist talking about the science of climate change, that same video with an added appeal to demand action from political representatives, and a video about making meatloaf as a control.[42][43] After each group viewed their respective video, they filled out a survey on their attitudes toward global warming.[43]
      Krosnick discovered that subjects who’d watched the scientist discuss climate change gave them the same results as the group that had watched the video on meatloaf.[43] But the group that had seen the scientist make a political appeal after his discussion trusted the scientist 16% less (from 48% to 32%). Their belief in the scientist’s accuracy fell from 47 to 36 percent. Overall trust in all scientists went from 60 to 52 percent. Their belief that government should “do a lot” to stop climate change fell from 62 to 49 percent. Finally, their belief that humans caused climate change fell from 81 to 67 percent.[42]
      However, it should be noted that these changes only occurred in a cohort of 548 respondents who either had an income below $50,000 or no more than a high school diploma. Educated or wealthy respondents had no significant reaction.[42]

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

      Its an interesting question.not settled of course

  7. I find these investigations inutile. An ordinary person reading the summary sentence of the AR5 (“…most of the observed warming in the last …. ” etc) who compares that to the hyperbolic statements made with an air of complete certainty about what the future holds would conclude that things are not very clear. That’s enough! The wily war criminal, Hank Kissinger, said it very well: “Trust, but verify”. It doesn’t take much work, just a desire to understand.

    These sociological/philosophical investigations start from the point of view that society comprises a sort of inert intellectual mass. Perhaps that’s how things are, but I don’t think it’s any sort of arcane academic problem for science. It’s a political problem, starting with the fact that our society pays great lip service to education, but actually values it minimally.

    Everyone spends too much time analyzing The Media, the legacy of McLuhan. There is mundo video, and there is the real world of science and ideas.

  8.  

    The overwhelming numbers of scientists testifying to anthropogenic climate change is only further evidence of the Fall of Western Civilization. When outside the Western government-education establishment, climatology is compared to the ancient science of astrology, you begin to understand that global warming is a political problem that has nothing to do with reality.

    AGW is nothing more than additional evidence of a government grown too big to fail and the consensus of opinion about it is the product of socio-economic forces and political correctness, not science. Global warming is what Mark Twain called, “three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

     

  9. For me, the biggest source of confusion is just what it is that scientists agree on. I gather there is broad agreement that the earth is warming and man’s activity contributes to the warming. However, a belief transmitted to the public is that the earth is warming catastrophically, primarily due to man’s activity. Also, that various proposed remedies will save us from catastrophe, even though no current realistic proposals will stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from continuing to increase.

    I would like to see more scientists step forward to clarify to the public what beliefs science does and does not actually support.

    • David Skurnik: For me, the biggest source of confusion is just what it is that scientists agree on.

      There is a lot of evidence to support that proposition!

    • +100 David

    • David,

      “… a belief transmitted to the public is that the earth is warming catastrophically, primarily due to man’s activity. Also, that various proposed remedies will save us from catastrophe, even though no current realistic proposals will stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from continuing to increase.”

      Exactly. I would add, those remedies are very expensive, even for the shrinking middle class in the USA, and even catastrophic for the poor.
      The biggest emitters ( nations) of CO2 have massive socioeconomic problems and are not going to reduce emissions significantly anytime soon. Has anyone seen the news lately? We are in a race to the bottom.

    • The main points of ostensible scientific agreement among the Western orthodoxy that passes for the bureaucratic consensus of opinion among global warming alarmists is that all warming during the last half of the 20th century is like no warming ever experienced on Earth — eliminating nature as the cause — and, that the warming has nothing to do with changes in solar activity because humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere is the sole cause of global warming, so… kill the coal industry and raise taxes on oil, tra la!

  10. I believe there is a factor that should be considered in this discussion. That is the effect of media representations of scientific and medical information. In our daily news and advertising exposure we are continuously bombarded with statements claiming absolute accuracy about required action on our parts that we discover months or years later are not just false, but harmful.

    The lag time between these pronouncements and their counter pronouncements is often short enough that they are easily recognized. As an example, are any of us sure today whether even common food items such as eggs, milk, or bread are good or bad for us. Think about it. Would you put money on your choice after all the flip/flopping about them over recent years?

    Viewed from the perspective of continuous flip/flopping statements from various supposed experts on most any subject you can think of, skepticism certainly a valid approach to evaluating what we are told. In the case of climate, informal observation by the average person informs us that nothing really major is going wrong yet in contrast to what we have been told for decades now.

    Sure we have droughts, floods, storms, and other bad events but, after some thought, we realize bad stuff has always happened and will likely continue to happen. And us average people hear daily about ISIS, Iran nukes, terrorists, and that our automobile air bags might actually kill us. It is hard to accept a couple degrees warming over the course of a century or so is the most serious problem the planet needs to deal with.

  11. Hi Judy

    As one item, we need to educate that “climate” always has changed on multiple space and time scales naturally. The term “change” in “climate change” is redundant.

    Moreover,, it is widely assumed that “climate change” is that part of climate due to human activity, and that we are “destabilizing” a system that was close to equilibrium. .

    This is not a correct perspective. When the term “climate change” is used by the IPCC and others, it is meant to mean changes dominated by the global average radiative forcing from the addition of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. It is used as synonym for “global warming”.

    Yet, human caused changes in climate is much more complex than that. This complexity has been discussed in many papers and even in assessment reports [mostly ignored]; e.g.

    Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier, Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change – The IGBP Series, 566 pp.http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/meteorology/book/978-3-540-42400-0

    National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

    That this broader view is ignored illustrates the dysfunction in the climate science community.

    We need precise definitions of the term “climate change” in order to try to advance the discussion of the climate system. This includes what I feel to an under appreciated issue. What are the changes, if any, in the regional climate statistics of weather patterns that cause major socetially disruptive events, such as droughts, floods, tropical cyclone tracks, etc. This is a mire important concern, in my view, that a change in the global average surface temperature.

    Roger Sr.

    • rpielke
      the global average surface temperature can be any number organizations like NOAA and HadCru choose. Given the large unmeasured global earth in the Arctic, Antarctic, Pacific Ocean, Africa, Indian Ocean plus homogenization and adjustments to the observations they have, only the satellite data can stand and that too can be adjusted.

      Are you still working on the temperature measurements analysis group from GWPF? Any update on progress?
      Scott

      • Scott – Thank you for your interest.

        The approach of our work on the GWPF is to develop peer reviewed papers to assess the surface temperature issue. We are focusing on details for specific regions. Thus papers will appear at intervals.

        Best Regards Roger Sr.

    • Dr. Pielke – the first link for Springer.com gives a “page not found” message. Thanks for posting the link to the Openbook as well – that will take a bit more time to read!

    • Nobody says “climate stasis”, but many are happy to imply it. They point out that we are not living in our grandparents’ climate…and omit that our grandparents were not living in their grandparents’ climate. (Anyway, my grandparents dragged their bones through half a century of rainfall deficit in Eastern Australia post 1895. They can keep their bloody climate.)

    • Dr Pielke,

      Unfortunately it is going the other direction.

      Now we have people regularly spouting off about “carbon pollution”. I’d love to see a scientific definition for that term.

      Personally, I think the real beauty (or horror) in the term is that it has no definition and therefore can be expanded to include anything you want that has carbon in it. Like people.

      Ever notice how many of the people who think global warming is a serious problem are often the same people who talk about carrying capacity, resource depletion and over population?

      • I’d like to see a scientific or legal definition of “climate justice,” an equally specious expression used by manmade climate-change activists. I always come back to Humpty Dumpty and Alice:

        ““When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”

      • I’d like to see a scientific or legal definition of “climate justice,” […]

        Like “social justice” it’s a code word for socialist perversion of every source of “authority” they can infest and subvert.

      • tmg:

        YOU are carbon pollution. Stop breathing immediately!

        ;)

    • @Prof. Pielke Sr. :
      Your weblog “Climate Science” started operation on 11 July 2005. The first sentence reads:
      “The title of this weblog is “Climate Science,” so the first thing we need to do is define “climate.” For many, the term refers to long-term weather statistics.“
      A reasonable definition is still missing. The problem is that “climate” is a layman’s term, and completely insufficient for scientific use, as weather statistics remain statistics. As long as climate is not defined in appropriate academic terms, it makes little sense to try to define “climate change”, because one needs to know what climate is in the first place: http://www.whatisclimate.com/index.html The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change neither offers a definition on climate nor on weather, and what UNFCCC say on ‘climate change’ is insufficient accordingly. That has heavily contributed to the very unproductive discussion about climate change matters during the last two decades.

      • smamarver

        Yours is an interesting comment, as although climate is theoretically the compilation of 30 years of weather and any trends that can be derived therein, it is actually the characteristics that matter more on a human scale.

        It is quite noticeable how looking back on 800 years of weather observations that characteristics can be discerned that, for example, means that one decade is cold and wet whilst the following one is warm and dry.

        Which is not to say that EVERY year in those decades had those characteristics, but sufficient to mean something to the average person.

        I devised this graphic for Central England Temperatures based on my own experiences of what constituted the average temperatures in any one year, ranging from very warm to rather cold. In other words it could be surmised as ‘did my tomatoes grow well in that year?’

        To this can be added in rain, drought, sun hours etc as any truly useful set of measurements really needs to include those as well as temperatures, This latter data point however tends to be the only criteria commonly used to define climate.

        Looking at my graphic we can see periods of warmth and cold. Although the data hasn’t been put into a graphic yet the 1530 decade looks to be shaping up to be a little warmer than the years around 2000 with the year 1540 being the warmest in the record probably.

        So cold winters are on the whole becoming less common, but with the 1930/40 decade being probably the ‘least cold’ overall.

        tonyb

      • @climatereason
        Nicely said „ climate is actually the characteristics that matter more on a human scale“.
        Correct; mankind lives with weather and climate since the stone age and much longer. That does not mean science is well served when using the terms in the same manner. The last IPCC proves that they talk nonsense when saying:

        “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”

        What is it worth to talk about “relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”, and about which items, as weather can be recognised in many dozen if not hundred occurrences?

  12. “Yet the social-evidential significance of a supermajority of expert testimony in favor of anthropogenic climate change varies for different members of the nonexpert public.”

    Wow, a “super” majority.

    This article would be a lot more interesting if its author showed the slightest curiosity about the difference between “anthropogenic climate change” and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change that justifies massive transfers of wealth and power to progressive governments.

    That conflation is intentional, and it is the fault of the obscurantist scientists on the warmist side, and their supporters like Mosher, who constantly blur the distinction between the two to score PR points. There is no reason to trust “experts” who aren’t even honest in describing their own “science”.

    Virtually all of my skepticism about CAGW comes from reading the output of consensus scientists. It is from them I learned how little they know about water vapor, clouds, the various oscillations. It is from them I learned that they don’t even know how ice ages begin and end. It is from them I learned the sparcity of coverage for even surface temps, and the subjective Bayesian statistics they use to get their results. It is from them I learned how badly their computer model predictions are diverging from their own massaged, adjusted, interpolated surface temp measurements.

    (OK, I learned that Mann and many others are statistical illiterates from Steve McIntyre, but he’s a luke warmer so that doesn’t count.)

    I know I can’t trust the PR releases of the consensus scientists, because their own published science tells me not to.

    Just yesterday I posted this comment on the divergence between the science and the PR evident in Trenberth’s latest pronouncements on the hiatus/pause.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/21/week-in-review-science-edition-18/#comment-726690

    This article’s homage to the “supermajority” consensus is just more of the same. Even their own “science” isn’t what they say it is.

    Trust?

    Please.

    • > I learned that [Mike] and many others are statistical illiterates from [the Auditor], but he’s a luke warmer so that doesn’t count.

      A lukewarm quote indicating the Auditor’s stance regarding sensivity issues might be nice.

      • If it were in any way relevant to my comment, that might well be.

        But it’s not, so it’s…not.

      • If attributing to the Auditor lukewarm views regarding sensitivity matters wasn’t relevant to your comment, GaryM, then mentioning it in your comment might not be relevant to your comment.

        INTEGRITY ™ – Have It Both Ways

      • Here you go, willy:

        “I am a lukewarmer.”—–Steve McIntyre

      • The least you could have is the INTEGRITY ™ to provide a fake citation with that fake quote, Don Don.

      • Steven Mosher

        mcintyre has posted Lewis.
        according to some logic posting something or merely linking to it or
        favoriting it on twitter is an endorsement.

        but for the record mc hasnt taken a stand. I think He would accept the IPCC if he were a policy maker, which is the only question that matters.

      • “If attributing to the Auditor lukewarm views regarding sensitivity matters….”

        Lukewarmer is a political position, not a scientific one. I made no reference to sensitivity.

        But just for you, Willard:

        “She also correctly characterizes me as someone who is not ideologically opposed to government. As to ‘lukewarmness’, I wouldn’t say that I hold this view nearly as strongly as (say) Dick Lindzen, the prototype lukewarmer, and do not exclude the possibility of a conventional estimate of climate sensitivity, even if the position is not presented to the professional standard that the situation clearly calls for.”

        http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/23/comments-on-mother-jones/

        So McIntyre is (or was) a lukewarmer, open to the consensus view on sensitivity, if anyone ever does some science to actually justify it. Now that is still irrelevant to my comment, but it took about a minute to find with google, so I thought I’d humor you.

        (Funny thing is, I am open to CAGW, if anyone ever does science with sufficient rigor to show it is a real risk, that we can do anything about it, and the benefits outweigh the costs. Guess that makes me a skeptic/lukewarmer/warmist, right?)

      • Are you happy with your quote and citation, wee willy? Anything else you need?

      • I’m more than happy with the quote, Don Don. In that quote, the Auditor clearly states that he’s not “ideologically opposed to government,” which goes against what GaryM refers to as the “political version” of the lukewarm branding, i.e. libertarianism. In fact, as the Mosphit tried to hint at him, the Auditor is quite mainstream in the “political version” of his auditing stance, e.g.:

        [I]f I had a big policy job, in my capacity as an office holder, I would be guided by the reports of institutions such as IPCC rather than any personal views (a point I’ve made on a number of occasions); and that I believed that policy decisions could be made without requiring “statistical significance” (such decisions are made in business all the time, and, in all my years in business, I never heard the words “statistical significance” pass anyone’s lips as a preamble to a business decision.

        The political flavor of the lukewarm brand taste a bit more purple, if you get my drift. As to the scientific flavor of the lukewarm brand, the Auditor clearly indicates his unwillingness to trespass his expertise. Cue to the topic of this very post.

        He also published a critique on Lindzen and Choi, BTW. Do you recall which one it was?

        ***

        Little matters like these goes a long way in characterizing the epistemic trust readers ought to put into the Denizens’ input.

        Go team!

      • More obscurantism from the mini-Mosher of Climate Etc.

        “In that quote, the Auditor clearly states that he’s not ‘ideologically opposed to government,’ which goes against what GaryM refers to as the ‘political version’ of the lukewarm branding, i.e. libertarianism.”

        I never said lukewarmerism is the same as libertarianism, nor is that the case. Dr. Curry is a lukewarmer, and she is not “opposed to government” either. McIntyre, Dr. Curry and most lukewarmers, are political default progressives. Mosher claims to be both a lukewarmer and a libertarian, but all his arguments are simply defending the consensus to the last pacific atoll. So he is in reality neither. He is just another default progressive who thinks claiming to be a lukewarmer/libertarian gives his defense of the consensus added weight..

        But notice that Willard keeps moving the pea, as McIntyre would say, away from the content of my original comment – the fact that my skepticism is a result of the actual science conducted by the “consensus”, as opposed to their press releases disguised as science.

        Willard can’t dispute that because everything I said the consensus has claimed in its published research regarding the uncertainty of their data, is accurate.

        So let’s change the topic to Steve McIntyre’s standing in the political climate community. Anything but the science.

      • Nice work, willy. Gary ran right over you. You are performing like a 162 lb NFL middle linebacker.

      • > I never said lukewarmerism is the same as libertarianism, nor is that the case.

        You were not talking about “lukewarmerism,” but about the “political version” of the lukewarm brand, GaryM, a version you take as the whole gamut. The brand itself has no definite polity: it just so happens that many libertarians feel the lukewarm call. So it’s more a correlation than an equivalence.

        As far as your claim that the brand is “political,” my quote clearly shows that if the Auditor was lukewarm in that sense, there would be little difference between that brand and the IPCC’s position. This is incidentally one of the mystery of the overall branding effort: by raising contrarian concerns that only appear to contradict the mainstream position, it tries to have it both ways. Which means you just got suckered in by its rhetorical Dutch book, GaryM.

        That’s no big deal for now, but please don’t push it.

      • Don,

        “You are performing like a 162 lb NFL middle linebacker.”

        Come on now. It’s fairly obvious that Willard plays more like the All-Star middle linebacker of St Mary of the Valley’s 80 lb touch league team.

      • There is still time to remove your cheerleader outfit, Don Don.

      • Willard,

        Yer a funny guy.

        “which goes against what GaryM refers to as the ‘political version’ of the lukewarm branding, i.e. libertarianism.”
        (something I never said)

        becomes

        “You were not talking about ‘lukewarmerism,’ but about the ‘political version’ of the lukewarm brand, GaryM, a version you take as the whole gamut.”
        (Something else I never said.)

        I wasn’t referring to branding, or isms. I was referring to Steve McIntyre. All the faux semantic dissembling is in your own imagination.
        Note the fact that I said nothing about “the whole gamut” of anything.

        I will just point out again your complete fail in responding to the actual comment, and your obsession with diverting the discussion.

        Obscurantism at its most banal.

        Mosher is just more entertaining when he does it, which is why you will always be his mini-me. Although he is frequently, and comically, just as self-contradictory.

        As someone who styles himself as an expert on rhetoric, you should be better at this.

        The point again is – published consensus science itself disproves the exaggerated claims of certainty in consensus PR releases disguised as science. And Willard can’t dispute this with anything other than diversion.

      • > I said nothing about “the whole gamut” of anything.

        This might work in oral pleadings, GaryM, but it does not look well when you leave a written trace. Here’s what you wrote:

        Lukewarmer is a political position, not a scientific one. I made no reference to sensitivity.

        Now, watch the pea:

        So let’s change the topic to [the Auditor]’s standing in the political climate community. Anything but the science.

        Lukewarmer is a political position. Anything but the science. That’s just great, GaryM.

        ***

        The beauty of all this is that the lukewarm gambit started as a bet on climate sensitivity only, i.e. under 3C. Even to this date, its lowballing on sensitivity matters is the only unifying point of the whole doctrine. The political amplication (witness the Ridley-esque or Bishop-esque megaphones) is independent from it.

        I therefore duly submit that your conception of the lukewarm brand is incorrect.

      • Steven Mosher

        I beg to differ.
        I find Willard more entertaining than I am.
        His humor is far more arcane and erudite than mine
        and he has me beat on being cryptic.

        weirdly we both like rhetoric and chess playing programs.

      • Steven Mosher

        GaryM

        “Lukewarmer is a political position, not a scientific one. I made no reference to sensitivity.”

        Luke warmer from its inception, was strictly scientific.
        As a founding father I am said to say that its been hijacked.

        On the science it means this:

        A person who believes:
        1. C02 is a ghg
        2. Man has caused an increase in this
        3. All things equal c02 will raise temps
        4. Lukewarmers will take the UNDER bet at 3C

        on Policy we are all over the map.. BECAUSE science doesnt determine policy science informs policy.

      • ” Mosher claims to be both a lukewarmer and a libertarian, but all his arguments are simply defending the consensus to the last pacific atoll. So he is in reality neither. He is just another default progressive who thinks claiming to be a lukewarmer/libertarian gives his defense of the consensus added weight..”
        “I will just point out again your complete fail in responding to the actual comment, and your obsession with diverting the discussion.
        Obscurantism at its most banal.
        Mosher is just more entertaining when he does it,”
        “he is frequently, and comically, just as self-contradictory.”
        “Luke warmer from its inception, was strictly scientific.
        As a founding father I am said to say that its been hijacked.
        On the science it means this:A person who believes:
        1. C02 is a ghg 2. Man has caused an increase in this
        3. All things equal c02 will raise temps
        4. Lukewarmers will take the UNDER bet at 3C”

        All very funny [humorous] comments.
        Being a founding father does not imply belief
        The main tenet of Lukewarmerism has been omitted
        5. There will be no temperature rise capable of causing overall harm.
        Mosher does not believe this. He believes the increase in temperatures is inevitable, will cause harm and must be stopped. He would take the bet at 2.99 C and say this “could” be catastrophic and must be stopped.
        Not all things are equal, Mosher

      • Yes, but then you find the massaged, adjusted, interpolated temperature records convincing too. Soooo…your judgment is questionable.

      • Steven Mosher

        angech

        “All very funny [humorous] comments.
        Being a founding father does not imply belief
        The main tenet of Lukewarmerism has been omitted
        5. There will be no temperature rise capable of causing overall harm.

        @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@]

        wrong. from the very outset, from the writing of our constitution
        the main point was this. ECS has a 50% chance of lying between 1.5
        and 3C

        SOME people disgard thus UNCERTAINTY and claim that the science
        is settled at low numbers. but this is wrong. There is room for the people
        who tend to think toward the 1.5C end and room for the people at the 3C end. That is why there is no set position on policy.

        At the very begining Tom Fuller and I said we would take 2.5C as a planning number. What policy follows from that? hard to say.

        As we started to talk about policies certain things could be agreed to between the leftist fuller and the libertarian mosher

        1. Ending subsidies.
        2. Pushing Nuclear
        3. Focusing on adaptation (locally)
        4. Transitioning away from Coal
        5. Investment in innovation.

      • Mosher,

        Here is the evidence Willard is more boring than you.

        “Lukewarmer is a political position. Anything but the science. That’s just great, GaryM.”

        My comment wasn’t about lukewarmers, or lukewarmerism, or the politics of lukewarmers. It was about “scientists” like Trenberth who take vague, and uncertain results, and trumpet them as settled science.

        My comment was thus about the faux certainty of climate science. Willard took a parenthetical, throw away comment, and pretended that that was somehow my point. I only bothered to point out his errors in logic because I like pricking the ego balloons of pedants.

        But there is no there there in his diversionary tactics. No wit. No humor. Just the petulance of the academic whose shallowness has been put on display. Willard just keeps pouring on the same tired diversion he started with. You at least vary your diversions.

        Here endeth the lesson on preferential obscurantist obfuscation.

      • ” the libertarian mosher”

        See? I told you you had a sense of humor.

      • Steven Mosher

        GaryM

        ‘Yes, but then you find the massaged, adjusted, interpolated temperature records convincing too. Soooo…your judgment is questionable.”

        Fine.

        I will stipulate that we should only use raw data for land and ocean.
        no adjustments.

        OPPS, you just made global warming worse!

      • Mosher,

        Your list describes the beliefs of many skeptics as well, myself included. The real difference between skeptics and lukewarmers, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, has always been political.

        There is no more vociferous defender of computer models and the temperature records than yourself. Those two are the primary supports for the entire CAGW policy argument. Paleo-climate was always the ugly step-child, particularly after Mann got done with it.

        You make claims to being libertarian, and sometimes even conservative, but your defense of the consensus foundation is never tempered by caveats. You, Dr. Curry, Steve McIntyre are all much more comfortable with government intrusion into the economy than skeptics.

        1. C02 is a ghg
        Yep.

        2. Man has caused an increase in this
        Yessiree.

        3. All things equal c02 will raise temps
        Yep again. (It’s the “all things equal” you and your fellow warmists/lukewarmers always leave out in your press releases.)

        4. Lukewarmers will take the UNDER bet at 3C
        OK with me. I suspect warming over the next 100 years will be less than 3C, but I wouldn’t care to bet either way.

        I am not a skeptic because I know with any certainty that temps will rise less than that amount. I am a skeptic because I know with fair certainty that man cannot model the climate sufficiently to make predictions of catastrophic warming with anywhere near the certainty necessary to justify all your policy prescriptions.

      • NO IDEA why this kept landing in spam

      • > My comment wasn’t about lukewarmers, or lukewarmerism, or the politics of lukewarmers.

        Then why coatrack the Auditor’s name into this when it’s obvious that he keeps his own personal beliefs to himself regarding what lies beyond his own area of expertise or auditing objectives? In fact, why mention the L word at all?

        It’s quite obvious that your comment about the CAGW meme, GaryM. It’s your pet theme. As if I could not tell: we exchange with one another since we clashed at Keith’s, which predates Judy’s!

      • “…the “political version” of the lukewarm branding, i.e. libertarianism.”
        Being in the middle is both true and not true of most libertarians. We are extreme on capitalism and civil liberties while agreeing with both sides on different issues. We are in the middle when not dismissed as being Loony Toons by being more in agreement with each of the two bigger sides more than they are in agreement with each other. I agree that Lukewarmers are in the middle, but why?

        Maybe we see danger and benefits. Are uncertain. Believe it’s CO2 and natural. I agree with the word ‘branding’. Each of us sells their brand as I do with my diagram. I’ve suggested both skeptics and warmists exhibit certainty on CO2 or natural variability. How can one change their position on that and bypass doubt? It’s probably easier to pass through the Lukewarm position.

      • “I will stipulate that we should only use raw data for land and ocean.
        no adjustments.

        OPPS, you just made global warming worse!”

        Yeah, if you ignore the whole “you don’t have measurements for vast swaths of the land surface and ocean surface temps, let alone the entire global climate system” thing.

      • Willard,

        I know you can’t conceive of humor, but I am more than willing to contribute to purchasing you a sense of one. Maybe we could start a kickstarter campaign for you.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Yeah, if you ignore the whole “you don’t have measurements for vast swaths of the land surface and ocean surface temps, let alone the entire global climate system” thing.”

        You dont need measurements everywhere. For the same reason that polling works.

        its actually pretty simple and proven by a skeptic.

        Take a sample of locations and you can predict the temperature anywhere using elevation and latitude.

      • Gary, would the kick-starting involve Willard bending over, or do you have something else in mind?

        (No offence, Wills, this was the first comment I’ve looked at.)

      • Steven Mosher | August 24, 2015 at 11:05 pm |
        “You don”t need measurements everywhere. For the same reason that polling works.”
        Except polling does not work. Nice try.
        case in point recent British elections with polls showing a Labor victory, oops indeed.
        Not to mention the statistics underlying polls and poll samples which show surprise, surprise that most poll samples like most of your observation measurements are extremely weak in in value. Of course the polls get it right more often than your algorithms which have up to half the stations being artificial model stations generated by other stations supposedly nearby which have any cool data upgraded to warmer temps by your model which deliberately and intuitively calls all old temp data as too hot. So you adjust the current real stations up, correct?.Yes. Then you use these adjusted stations to make up an equal number of imaginary stations where they should be in a grid and these are all also raised up temps so you double your bias.
        Then to compound your way out of the problem caused, past temps could not be so low, you chuck in a sea adjustment and say the ocean temps were warmer in the past? based on what two thermometers in a bucket ?
        No, one thermometer in 50 buckets in 50 ships if recorded at all.
        Integrity rating for this comment ?
        I’ll let you award yourself, same as you do with temperatures

        “Take a sample of locations and you can predict the temperature anywhere using elevation and latitude.”
        Guess equals predict in this case. You could predict if you knew the air pressure at those elevations and latitudes but they vary markedly making your comment schoolboy wrong or adult devious.

        GaryM “you and your fellow warmists/lukewarmers”
        You know Mosher’s attitudes and actions are warmist. Deny him the cloak of respectability. Call him out for a warmist pure , simple and “unadjusted” please. ” the libertarian mosher”

      • angech,

        I call Mosher out on his wamrism/progressivism all the time. (Or I used to when I commented more.) I just didn’t want to give him and his mini-me Willard another side track to take on a sub-thread that is already much longer that it should have been. With no substantive response to my original comment from either of the obscurantists.

        At least until Mosher posted this:

        “You dont need measurements everywhere. For the same reason that polling works.”

        The issue of course is not “measurements everywhere.” The issue is measurements over so little of the area they claim to “know” temps for. And I will not bother to point out that political polling in the west uniformly over predicts progressive positive results. In the US, England, Europe generally, Israel, you name it. (Opps, I guess I just did.)

        And how does Mosher know they can “predict” temps in places they have never measured? Because they have compared their statistically generated faux data to other statistically generated faux data. One of my favorite Mosherisms was his claiming such computer generated data was “ground truth” against which their massaged data was “validated.” A few days later he denied there was any such thing as ground truth in science.

        Again, Mosher has always been funnier than Willard. Sometimes it’s even intentional.

      • Wilard,

        I didn’t recall engaging with you at Kloor’s site. I think I would remember such uniformly repetitive, humorless pedantry. But I looked and was amused to see this comment to you.

        “Shub
        August 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm

        willard, if someone made a joke about you and you sued and won at court, you think the judge would award you with a sense of humor, as punitive damages? 😉”

        The more things change, the more they stay the same.

        There is nothing new in the climate debate.

        Including Willard’s lack of a sense of humor.

      • One would expect a lawyer to have something better than a cheap appeal to humor, GaryM, more so when it’s to turn it into an ad hom. Adjust your misconception of the lukewarm doctrine and be done with it.

        ***

        Must I now presume you don’t recall that I’m the one who welcomed you here?

        Here would be a more fitting flashback:

        GaryM and the CAGW meme, vintage 2010. Fancy that.

      • willard,

        Thanks for the blast from the past. I did not remember you from Kloor’s site, because back then you were interested more in discussion, however wrong you might have been. Read your comments, and you won’t see the constant repetition of faux cryptic comments that are your metier now..

        Perhaps I can see why in that comment thread.

        A comment I made in response to you then:

        “”I have no idea if there really is a warming, if the warming is really global, if this global warming really has some anthropogenic causes and if this will lead to catastrophe.”

        but

        “What these scientists I know are saying makes sense to me. So when we try to portray what they say as not making sense, my “crit-think” gut feeling tells me that something is wrong at the rhetorical level.” (who exactly is we?)

        In other words, don&#39t label me, but I support the consensus? What a courageous position.”

        You were much more coherent then in expressing what you thought. The problem is that your thoughts themselves were demonstrably incoherent when you disclosed them. So I can see why you prefer short, impenetrable attempts at crypticism now.

        It is better to remain cryptic, and be thought a fool, then to express yourself clearly and remove all doubt.

      • You have to choose between “demonstrably incoherent” and “how courageous,” GaryM.

        Ad hom racehorses look better in front of a jury.

      • Wow. You not only have no sense of humor, but as a rhetorician you are clueless as to the concept of irony too.

        Good grief.

      • Both irony and humor belong to pathos, GaryM. More precisely, one is part of the other. Arguing by assertion about “demonstrable incoherence” goes beyond these pathetic appeals.

        Your argument by assertion is also irrelevant to what I came here to tell you. As such it’s just one of your many rhetorical devices to make it about me.

        Please tell me more about the courage it take to racehorse ad homs after mishandling the lukewarm brand, barrister.

    • Curious George

      I like the supermajority consideration. Science has been promoted to politics,

    • ‘ ‘All Nature faithfully’ – But by what feint
      Can Nature be subdued by art’s constraint?
      Her smallest fragment is still infinite !
      And so he paints but what he likes in it.
      What does he like? He likes what he can paint ! ‘
      H/t Nietzche.

      The Modellers’ Dilemma.

    • Gary M.
      “Virtually all of my skepticism about CAGW comes from reading the output of consensus scientists.”

      Exactly so! I have maintained that the one thing most responsible for skepticism is the behavior of the alarmists. They (the alarmists) are arrogant in the extreme, treating anyone who doesn’t agree with them as anti-science morons. They lie, distort, play games, fudge data, and in every way imaginable, behave abominably. They crow about expert opinions while they are walking out of their own area of expertise to recommend what ought to be done. What makes Mann or Hansen experts on cost/benefit analysis? And why do they think their knowledge of bristle cone pines allows them to Lord it over everyone else. The hubris these guys display is not just unseemly but vomit inducing. Can you imagine Richard Feynman ever behaving like this? Or scientists like Steven Weinberg, Ed Witten or Brian Greene?
      I watched Gavin Schmidt, who is one of the smarmiest, nastiest little weasels I’ve ever watched, debate with Richard Sommerville and Brenda Ekwurzel against Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Phillip Stott. Schmidt was rude and arrogant throughout the whole debate and his team lost in the eyes of the non expert audience. The most that they could point out about the dangers they were touting was that people in Battery Park, NY would be flooded or that the wealthy would lose their coastal properties and all this said as though it were going to happen over a time period of five years. The basic, fundamental, gut wrenching dishonesty is what earns all of them the skepticism the rest of us have. It seems to me that skepticism is the only sane and rational state one can adopt in the face of such massive….I don’t know what to call it. Incompetence? Ineptness? Group think?

      Then there is the overwhelming attitude from these ‘scientists’ that comes out when they are pushed to the edge of what they know and they mumble that, ‘Well, yes, the error bars are bigger than our measurements BUT you should still believe that it’s a catastrophic situation and we need to completely redo our energy economy based on…..the Precautionary Principle.’ The ace in the hole for charlatans. The get out of jail free card for people pulling a fast one.

      And some people wonder why any of these scientists should be believed?

      • You got it right. Arrogance, rudeness, hubris, abusive behavior, and cob condescencion will not win over a jury. Their ineffectiveness is testimony to their incompetence outside their specialties. It’s the hubris…

      • Thank you, Daniel, for reminding me (not that I had reallyforgotten this video!) of that which was instrumental – and very influential – in sending me off on my own personal journey of discovery.

        I had inadvertently stumbled onto this particular battlefield approximately 10 days BC [Before Climategate]. Yes, I had heard of “global warming” – and thanks to the MSM, who hadn’t, at that point?! But it certainly wasn’t one of my interests or concerns. Notwithstanding the fact that, at that point, I was a resident of BC, home of a range of oh-so-keenie greenie alarmists, of many political stripes.

        When I subsequently learned that the “primary” pusher was the self-proclaimed “gold standard” IPCC, a “child” of the (to this day, still “unchartered”) UNEP and the UN’s WMO … well, that kind of set off my personal alarm bells.

        At that point in my life, anything emanating (either directly or indirectly) from the decreasingly credible arms, elbows, hands, fingers etc. of the UN was reason enough to cast doubt on that which they were advocating.

        And, in the interim, nothing emanating from those many fronts (and/or their every increasing “army” of chosen NGOs) has given me any rational cause to doubt the lack of validity in their endorsements and/or pronouncements.

      • Gavin plays games fetishizing objectivity, begins his speech with it and then continues to slide the scale to whatever position seems advantageous at the moment. Once you appreciate this you can see through all his arguments.

    • Dragging the sub-thread vaguely back on topic:

      Gary M wrote –
      “Virtually all of my skepticism about CAGW comes from reading the output of consensus scientists. It is from them I learned how little they know about water vapor, clouds, the various oscillations. It is from them I learned that they don’t even know how ice ages begin and end. It is from them I learned the sparcity of coverage for even surface temps, and the subjective Bayesian statistics they use to get their results. It is from them I learned how badly their computer model predictions are diverging from their own massaged, adjusted, interpolated surface temp measurements.”

      Bingo! And yet so few acceptors of the consensus are willing to believe this of any of us.

    • It is interesting that the “Consensus” surveys don’t ask the question outright:
      Do you believe CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming?

      The IPCC doesn’t seem to believe there will be net harm until 3°C.

      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ex-ipcc-head-prepare-for-5c-warmer-world-15610
      Watson said there is a 50-50 chance of preventing global average temperatures rising more than 3°C above their level at the start of the industrial age, but a 5°C rise is possible.

      Catastrophe means more than a little net harm so let’s define “Catastrophe” as 5°C. An outright global warmer only believes “catastrophic global warming ” is “possible”.

      http://archive.is/9gXOX
      https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/dodgy-survey/

      “CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming?”
      The Scottish engineering survey was interesting for several reasons.
      1. Global Warmers are dishonest and lack integrity (see global warmer response from uknowispeaknonsense.)

      2. The “2%” catastrophic response wouldn’t be possible even on a skeptic forum if the “consensus” claims were correct.

      3. The 2% is a little low but not as far off as the consensus claim.

      Now there is a lot of confusion about what temperatures are used as a baseline and global warmers like to make historic temperatures a moving target because they are not honest and lack integrity. So lets eliminate that and define “catastrophe” as 4°C over current temperatures and “negative” warming as over 2°C above current temperatures.

      If someone actually believes the consensus they should survey atmospheric scientists and ask yes/no responses to 4 statements:
      1. CO2 will cause 2100 to be 4°C or more warmer than today (2015).
      2. CO2 will cause 2100 to be 2°C or more warmer than today (2015).
      3. CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming by 2100.
      4. CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.

      I don’t expect an honest survey asking the actual questions to ever be made by global warmers. The results would be interesting.

  13. Dr. Curry,

    We ask juries to do this every day. Simply do what good lawyers do in cross-examining the respective experts. More on this when I have time.

    • You mean don’t challenge their evidence make personal challenges on the person giving the evidence?

    • Simply do what good lawyers do in cross-examining the respective experts.

      That might work if the respective experts could be compelled to answer under penalty of perjury.

    • Anybody who has been in a civil court trial knows it’s the arena of “anything but the truth.” I was in one where a dead man was allowed to testify, but a living person was not.

    • Obviously, some folks have no freaking clue what good lawyers do when they cross-examine an expert. The SINGLE GREATEST PROBLEM in climate science today is that there is NO cross-examination of the supposed experts on the work that forms the basis for their opinions.

      Remember, in science (and the academy in general), no one checks anyone else’s work. That’s the problem. This is why the consensus is untrustworthy. And this is why a good lawyer, in cross-examining alarmist experts, would leave the consensus in a pile of wreckage in one afternoon’s work.

      Dr. Curry herself has said that she bought into the ‘consensus’ without doing any checking herself on the studies and assessments that supposedly supported it. Other scientists said so and that was good enough for her. In this attitude, she was merely behaving the way scientists do. It’s wrong. It’s not sound. But it’s what scientists do. It’s the profession’s fatal flaw. They read an abstract of a study and treat the claimed findings as if they are established science.

      However, most studies are flawed. Just look at the hockey stick, Rahmstorf’s mess, Briffa’s magic 6 sigma tree, Jones’ UHI study relying on fraudulent China data, Steig’s Antarctic smear, etc. Scientist’s abuse statistics knowingly and unknowingly. They fall victim to confirmation bias, flawed assumptions, poor reasoning, and a gross misunderstanding of p values. But their biggest failure is their failure to question published findings. The idea that a study is accurate simply because it is published is simply insane. But that’s where science is today.

      Mann’s mess became the poster child of Global Warming. The reason that alarmist scientists have no credibility is not that the stupid hockey stick was badly flawed. Rather it is because the world’s alarmists embraced it without anyone checking it. Such reckless irresponsibility is why they aren’t trustworthy.

      Once a lawyer shows a jury that modern science has no conception of quality control and that a consensus of scientists lobbies for policies costing trillions without anyone bothering to check the work, the only thing protecting scientists from the jury’s wrath is that witnesses aren’t subject to the death penalty.

      A jury doesn’t have to understand that details of the science. They are fully capable of understanding sloppy, negligent methodology and reckless quality control.

      • Like I said, the arena of anything but the truth.

      • And this is why a good lawyer, in cross-examining alarmist experts, would leave the consensus in a pile of wreckage in one afternoon’s work.

        You’re apparently assuming that what a good wordsmith could appear to do would leave us with a better representation of “truth” (“truth” being a poor word when applied to science, but you probably? get my point). There’s a very good reason why scientists don’t often directly cross examine other scientists. The ability to sound convincing is no guarantee that what you’re presenting is credible. That’s why science is typically a positive enterprise. If you think someone else’s work is faulty, you do it again properly.

      • Damn, either I can’t write or someone can’t or won’t read.

        Showing that someone is grossly negligent goes right to the quality of their work. That isn’t a function of fancy words. In fact, I would seriously advise anyone doing cross-exams to be as simple and basic in word choice as possible. The IPCC’s work is crap because the IPCC has no quality control. The consensus is destroyed simply by showing the details of what the consensus has failed to do. Science has no credibility because scientists fail to do what ordinary, reasonable people routinely do in the real world and have every reasonable expectation of the so-called experts to whom they give tens of billions of dollars.

      • And that Ken Rice is the problem with your understanding of science, or pollyanna understanding of science, that is. One of the problems generally acknowledged in science today is that negative results are not published very often. That’s called “positive results bias” and its a very real problem. If there is a problem, such as the tropospheric tropical temperature profile, you simply don’t bother to publish or call attention to it. In fact, you search for ways to massage the data so that it can be forced to confess to the truth of the theory. Thus we have attempts to use wind speed to calculate temperature as if wind speed isn’t a very noisy quantity. Those who are really awake and thinking about it generally acknowledge that perhaps half of what is published in the medical literature for example is simply wrong and that positive results and selection bias are very prevalent.

      • To show how just how grossly irresponsible climate science is think about this — Mann’s co-authors probably didn’t even check his work (if they had, they’d have caught his blatant errors).

        And they put their names on it. Talk about reckless. If they care so little about their own professional reputations, why should society place any trust in their opinions?

      • ==> “That’s called “positive results bias” and its a very real problem. If there is a problem, such as the tropospheric tropical temperature profile, you simply don’t bother to publish or call attention to it. In fact, you search for ways to massage the data so that it can be forced to confess to the truth of the theory. ”

        Yes, positive results bias is an important problem with the predominating research paradigm, but your analysis (IMO) looks like standing positive results bias on it’s head.

        One result of a positive results bias (not the only one) is that if you get results differ materially from previous findings, your findings are more likely to get published than if your results merely reproduce existing findings.

        That aspect of positive results bias would mean that if anything, positive results bias would create a tendency whereby analyses that support a “skeptical” perspective on climate change would be more likely to get published than results that support a “realist” perspective.

        Of course, there may be competing biases of other sorts that might mitigate, neutralize, or overwhelm that outcome of a positive results bias and create a net result of a bias towards maintaining the status quo.

        It’s always interesting to me just how many problems many “skeptics,” as a group, have with peer review and the current paradigm for research publication, only until such time as there are results that support their perspective. At that point, the criticisms go out the window and a given analysis is given greater credibility by virtue of being the product of peer review. .

      • dpy6629,

        One of the problems generally acknowledged in science today is that negative results are not published very often. That’s called “positive results bias” and its a very real problem.

        Wow, I didn’t think that what I’d said could be quite that badly mis-interpreted, but I should probably not be surprised. I didn’t mean “positive” as in “a positive result” rather than “a negative result”. I meant “positive” as in “not attacking what others are doing, but doing something positive and forward thinking”. I’ll repeat what I said and try and make it clearer. If you think that someone else’s work is flawed and worth addressing, you typically don’t simply attack and criticise what they’ve done, you do it again properly. In other words, you redo the work in the way you think is correct and illustrate what you think the correct result is. That way, you both illustrate why the other person’s work is wrong and what the correct result should be (or, what you regard as the correct result); you don’t simply claim – and try to convince others – that it is wrong. Is this any clearer this time, or do you plan to continue misrepresenting what I was trying to say?

        Also, since you’re choosing not to respect my choice to be pseudonymous, are you planning do de-anonimise yourself? Would seem like the decent thing to do. Of course, I’m not expecting you to do so and I certainly don’t expect people to behave in a reasonable manner. That would be naive. Pointing it out though (especially given that I’m dealing with people who like pontificating about poor behaviour in others) seems approriate.

      • Stop whining, kenny. Everybody knows who you are and your history of stalking Anthony Watts from behind a pseudonym that you ripped off from other stalker:

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2015/01/who-is-and-then-theres-physics.html

      • Attp, or whatever you want to be called. You are the one who doesn’t know how science works and are just ignoring recent evidence of systematic biases and errors. A negative result can be just as important as a positive one. It is not necessary to “show what the right result is” to show something very important by disproving a hypothesis or conjecture. I am a little surprised that you are so naive and unfamiliar with the self correcting nature of science and mathematics. Showing that a model is wrong is very important and does not require that one show what a better or right model might be. In some cases, it may be impossible to construct an adequate model for a given purpose. That is the import of many of the deep and important results of mathematical logic for example.

        What you meant or said is not really the point here except in so far as it reveals your limitations.

      • dpy6629,

        What you meant or said is not really the point here except in so far as it reveals your limitations.

        Wow, you really are failing to get a rather trivial point. My point is not that there isn’t bias in science, my point is that what I said has got nothing to do with whether or not there is bias in science. That isn’t what was being discussed. Of course, I presume your goal is to simply attack someone who you disagree with, so you simply choose a topic, claim that’s what they were talking about, and call them an idiot. I’ll leave you to it, though, since I have much better things to do that deal with your strawmen. Of course, I might suggest that if you are trying to portray yourself as some kind of intellect, you could try saying things that aren’t quite so obviously stupid.

      • Rice, now you are just name calling and not thinking, but perhaps that’s your normal modus operandi. What you said about science is itself an example of bias and just wrong. Do you even understand the point? When you are wrong, the thing to do is to admit it and leave name calling for the playground.

  14. “On this five year anniversary of Climate Etc., has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?”

    Climate Etc is respectable. Climate Science still isn’t. And Climate Etc can’t fix that, no matter what it does.

    Andrew

    • So my question is thus: “Is Climate Etc trying to make Climate Science more respectable in some way and why?”

      Please explain, Dr. Curry.

      Andrew

    • Curious George

      C.. Northcote Parkinson, “The Law Complete”, chapter 14 on Palsied Paralysis:
      If the head of the organization is second-rate, he will see to it that his immediate staff all all third-rate; and they will, in turn, see to it that their subordinates are fourth-rate. … The institution is for all practical purposes dead. It can be founded afresh, but only with a change of name, a change of site, and an entirely different staff.

  15. Judy:
    I find the essay long-winded, unpersuasive and somewhat vacuous largely because it focuses on generalizations that are not based on concrete examples or counter-examples. You focused immediately on an empirical event, Climategate, that was instrumental in your own reassessment of the “consensus”. This type of grounded skepticism is largely ignored or dismissed in the article. Similarly, by simplifying the categories into essentially all-knowing and all un-knowing, Ben Almassi has constructed an over-simplistic view of those who participate in the debate. This hardly fits the denizens of this site. Moreover, it offers no empirically grounded insights into how people actually come to their summative views on climate change.
    Trust is an important element, as you suggest, but it is not the only important element. Moreover, if one assumes that we start from an assumption of trust then the manifest distrust of skeptics is based on “stuff”.
    For example, I do not distrust Michael Mann because he has an abrasive and unpleasant character. I distrust him for his lack of transparency, unwillingness to discuss well-founded criticisms of his work, his naïve use of problematic statistical tools and his selective use of data. Moreover, I distrust others who seem to deny that the latter are indeed reflective of the way Michael Mann operates. The contents of the Climategate emails are critical not simply because they shed light on the under-handed and ethically questionable behaviors of many members of the Team but because they provide contextual support for critical analytic issues like “hiding the decline” and selective use of data.

    • My grounded skepticism relates ter the missing hotspot
      and cloud feedback uncertainties, my grounded distrust
      relates ter gate keeping and lack of transparency. bts

      • Yep, that sort sums me up too. Clouds and just for Added emphasis CLOUDS, we shouldn’t really need to mention anything else to the Team of indeed the IPCC… Well we could tease them a little with particulates, but clouds are catchier and nicer to look at. Then, as you say there the gate keeping, poor methods, splicing of data sets etc etc. Sadly, the list is almost endless :-(

  16. Interesting, The Washington Times has an article posted yesterday questioning NOAA/NASA temperature data:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

    • Ordvic, there it is right there. When your measurements are smaller than the error bars, in what universe is that not noise and in what universe do you then make claims that ignore the error bars and still maintain any semblance of ‘science’ or intellectual integrity? This just seems to be blatantly dishonest and why every scientist with a PhD isn’t down their throats is a mystery to me. Can anyone tell me that I’m wrong about NOISE or why no one seems to call them (NASA/NOOA) on it?

      • “…why every scientist with a PhD isn’t down their throats is a mystery to me.”

        Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Consider the case of Lennert B..

    • Even the error-bars are not to be trusted – they’re just output from a stats tool that is being used without any understanding of how to apply stats and what to avoid. Firstly, the time-dependence of climate temps make any stats unreliable.

  17. I think one needs to look at the different classes of opinion among the US public on climate change. Most believe that humans are causing damage to the climate and steps should be taken to stop it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html

    The Republican Party has taken a position opposite to this and many Republican politicians who used to say that AGW theory is a hoax, now have switched to the non-committal statement, “I am not a scientist.”, probably to avoid seeming ridiculous.

    However there are still quite a few people who believe climate change is a political hoax. They are most vocal on the internet. I don’t see the internet as force in building trust.

    Anyone with half a brain can look at the history of this subject, to see that the theory that humans are hurting the Earth’s climate by GHG emissions, is not a hoax, but a respectable scientific theory. The fact that such a large number of people in the US accept this conspiracy theory, and most of the politicians in the Republican party subscribe to it is very disturbing.

    There is a lot of blogging by people who dispute the validity of the theory that greenhouse gases warm the earth significantly. It is surprising how much thought global warming denier bloggers put into the scientific arguments that they make and yet how easy it is to demonstrate that they are nonsense, when someone is not a climate scientist but has had scientific training and knows some physics.

    • Anthropomorphizing the Earth’s climate, i.e., “humans are hurting the Earth’s climate”, is hardly a sound basis for constructing a logical argument. Nor is calling those who question your assumption as having “half a brain” the way to engage in a constructive discussion.
      Your position in your final paragraph suggests that you have or know of a compelling explanation for the last few decades of the temperature record, especially the absence of any meaningful increase in the global temperature over the last two decades. If you have such an explanation, I would welcome a citation.

      • The explanation has been available for about 4 years and perhaps longer. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with it. Natural variations are a huge noise source, whose annual influence dwarfs the annual rate of change due to human caused GHG emissions. These factors can be eliminated from the global average temperature variation by regression analysis. Check out the following link:
        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

      • eadler2:
        Tamino aka Foster and Rahmsdorf (2012) analyzed the temperature record from 1979 to 2010. The issue at hand is the absence of any temperature increase since 1998. Even if you eliminate the el Nino of 1998 there is still no warming for almost two decades as I indicated and is visible in their plots.
        The ball is still in your court.

      • @Bernie1815
        ” Even if you eliminate the el Nino of 1998 there is still no warming for almost two decades as I indicated and is visible in their plots.
        The ball is still in your court.”
        .You need to look at the link more carefully. Foster shows a series of extracted warming rates after the removal of the aforementioned natural variations extracted by regression are removed from the data. The results show that as of 2010, the trend of increase is positivie for every year begginning at or before 2005 whether it is the 3 surface temperature data sets or the 2 satellite data sets.
        Beginning at 1998, the rates range from +0.11 to 0.20C per decade, and all the error bars are in positive territory, i.e. all the warming is significant after the removal of natural factors.

      • eadler2, “These factors can be eliminated from the global average temperature variation by regression analysis.”

        I love your linked post’s “after natural variability is removed” step. Every forcing has some associated amplification or feedback. When you “remove” an estimated “forcing” without also removing the estimated “feedback” of that forcing you would be transferring that amplification/feedback attribution to your “selected” forcing.

        btw since that post was published the impact of AOD and the distribution of natural and anthropogenic have been revised. Also many of the temperature data sets used have been revised. Since you have your phd and I don’t, perhaps you would replicate the work for us using current state of the art data sets?

    • eadler2, “Anyone with half a brain can look at the history of this subject, to see that the theory that humans are hurting the Earth’s climate by GHG emissions, is not a hoax, but a respectable scientific theory.”

      I don’t think that is true. The “real” theory is that CO2 is having an impact on climate and that is directly related to the activities of mankind. It is the “hurting” part that is getting the hoax accusations. To a very large group, any impact that mankind has on “nature” has to be harmful to the “environment”. Draining swamps to eliminate malaria was indeed harmful to the mosquito environment and lots other innocent critters but beneficial to the portion of mankind that lived without malaria because of it. What level of human suffering would not be “hurting” climate/the environment?

      • I like your “draining swamps” counter to the non-existent ideal of pristine and benign mother earth.
        The discussion in the original article conflates the various issues that surround the “climate change” movement. eadler2 does the same. This conflation is why I would prefer the argument to be far more specific and concrete. Let us talk specific scientists. Let’s compare the trustworthiness of our Hostess and Michael Mann, for example. What is the basis for trust or distrust? Does the basis for the assessment stand up to scrutiny using the tenets of scientific discourse?

    • Curious George

      I find the fact that Mother Nature herself does not behave as she should according to this respectable scientific theory most disturbing.

    • Eadler2, you blew it with the statement “Anyone with half a brain can look at the history of this subject, to see that the theory that humans are hurting the Earth’s climate by GHG emissions, is not a hoax, but a respectable scientific theory.”

      While I agree with a version like: Anyone can look at the science and history of this subject, to see that the theory that humans are affecting the Earth’s climate to some extent by GHG emissions, deforestation, and building dams, is a respectable scientific hypothesis. However the extent of the effect is not able to be separated from natural variation at the present, and does not seem to be a problem in the present result or trend.

      • @Leodard Weinstein
        ” However the extent of the effect is not able to be separated from natural variation at the present, and does not seem to be a problem in the present result or trend.”

        In fact regression analysis has successfully eliminated solar intensity variations, ENSO variations and volcanoes as factors in causing the trend of increase in global average temperature since 1970. they are simply making the trend noisy.

        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

    • eadler2 | August 24, 2015 at 12:51 pm | Reply
      I think one needs to look at the different classes of opinion among the US public on climate change. Most believe that humans are causing damage to the climate and steps should be taken to stop it.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html

      The Republican Party has taken a position opposite to this and many Republican politicians who used to say that AGW theory is a hoax, now have switched to the non-committal statement, “I am not a scientist.”, probably to avoid seeming ridiculous.

      Huh? “Most believe that humans are causing damage to the climate”? Really? Humans might be changing the climate. They aren’t damaging it. Humans cannot “damage” climate. They can’t “hurt” the climate or Gaia for that matter, either.

      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
      AGW theory is looking pretty good – 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 or TCR = 2.4 W/m2.

      However CAGW (the catastrophic version of AGW) is a hoax.

      • “Really? Humans might be changing the climate. They aren’t damaging it”
        I think you are quibbling about wording. It should be clear that what I meant is that the changes in climate caused by humanity’s GHG emissions are will probably be damaging to the a lot of the human population and existing plant and animal life.

      • Well…

        How much of the worlds food for people and the cute little bunnies and other wild animals has to come from CO2 before it is deemed beneficial?

        Sometime between now and 2020 we will hit the point that the post 1900 CO2 increase is producing more food than mankind produced, period, in 1960.

        Do we really have to hit the point where 1/2 the food produced is due to more CO2 before “global warmers” will concede CO2 is beneficial? Or won’t even that be enough? Sometime around 2035 at current rates 1/2 the food produced will be due to more CO2.

    • eadler2
      What does ‘hurting the earth’s climate’ mean? Exactly! You seem to think that trillions should be spent to avoid hurting the earths climate but I’m not sure you an even specify what that means.
      And can you explain why NASA/NOOA would use statistics that are NOISE to make statements about the hottest year evuh?

    • eadler2 Because this blog is about trust, can you tell me why regression analysis is the best tool for doing what Foster & Rahmstorf are attempting to do? Can you tell me if anyone has offered any critique of his meta-anlysis?
      Can you tell me on what basis you have accepted their work as being definitive in ruling out natural variation?
      I can’t answer any of the questions that I’ve asked you but I can tell you that when organizations use noise to make statements that are give as certain, when scientists change data that is more reliable to be in consort with data that is less reliable, which has the effect of neutering the hiatus, then I am skeptical right out of the chute about the work of Foster & Rahmstorf. I don’t trust them because there have been far too many incidents of alarmists behaving in ways that violate trust.
      And you engage in a behavior that Feynman warned science against…that is presenting only one half of the picture. Are you aware that those papers that you present as the absolute truth, you can take it to the bank that we KNOW all about the various things that contribute to warming due to a multiple regression analysis have been critiqued?
      For example: ” F&H adjusted measured changes in Earth’s surface temperature based on the results of their regression model, and claimed that the apparent slowdown in warming over the past 10+ years is entirely the result of natural variation, and that there has been absolutely no change in the underlying (secular) rate of warming since 1979. Oh yes, they also concluded that it is critical for people [to] stop burning fossil fuels immediately…. though it is not immediately obvious how a multiple regression model on global temperatures leads to that conclusion.”

      How robust was their analysis? Is multiple regression analysis powerful enough and the best tool for doing what they are attempting to do? It wouldn’t be the first time that statistical incompetence was passed through.
      Are you a statistician? What are you basing your certitude on other than that it resonates with your own biases? Or, are you are a statistician and know that their methodology was sound based on your own training?

      • I have a PhD in physics and worked in the semiconductor industry. I have a solid scientific background. We used regression analysis to analyze the factors involved in chip yields.
        Climate change skeptics have claimed among other things, that the warming trend that has been observed since about 1975 is due to natural causes (exogenous factors), including the sun (total solar index), and ocean oscillations like ENSO MEI index) and volcanoes (AOD). It is easy to see a correlation between these factors and global average temperature, and also volcanoes. Using regression analysis to determine the relative inportance of these factors is certainly worth a try, and linear regression seemed to work quite well.
        The actual paper is here:
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/article
        They seem to have done a thorough job in looking for spurious effects. They looked for correlation between independent variables, tested for time lags and found the best fit time lags. The paper also plots the effects of the exogenous factors on the temperature, and it looks similar for the different temperature records. The time lags are consistent with those found by other researchers.
        An analysis of this and other work on regression, which shows essentially the same thing can be found here:
        http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2012/10/26/is-the-amo-the-explanation-for-the-1940-1970-temperature-standstill/

      • That’s nice.

        Pretty picture.

        It is pretty clear that the analysis is the result of the interval chosen. It is also obvious that there is no trend in the UAH data in the 21st century. In fact given 2015 is a Super El Nino year we might be in a serious cooling trend.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150319
        The 2000-2010 interval only had 0.2 W/m2 of GHG induced warming. We know that because it was measured in a consistent way at two sites.

        This is 0.054°C of warming from CO2 in the period 2000-2010.

        Your chart shows an average of 0.25°C warming (surface) and 0.30°C (space). We know the GHG warming was 0.054°C because it was measured.

        So between 2000 and 2010 there was 0.20°C to 0.25°C of non-GHG warming. Why aren’t scientists trying to find the cause of 75-80% of the warming?

        The satellite data trend (0.30°C) is an artifact of the interval. Since the start of 1999 (the transition from El Nino to La Nina) there is no trend. The surface measurement is primarily some combination of ALW , CGAGW, and natural influence – since only 0.054°C is due to GHG.

        1979 to 2010 there was a 337 to 390 PPM change in CO2. This is 0.505 W/m2 change in forcing or 0.137°C which over 31 years is a 0.0044 K yr−1 trend.

        “All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. “. This should be corrected to “All five series show consistent non-GHG global warming trends ranging from 0.0096 to 0.0136 K yr−1. ” It is a little distressing that scientists aren’t trying harder to identify the cause of 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the warming and are over-focused on an insignificant fraction – the GHG component.

      • PA wrote:
        “The satellite data trend (0.30°C) is an artifact of the interval. Since the start of 1999 (the transition from El Nino to La Nina) there is no trend. The surface measurement is primarily some combination of ALW , CGAGW, and natural influence – since only 0.054°C is due to GHG.”

        I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that only 0.054C/decade is due to GHG’s. Foster and Rhamsdorf analyzed the linear trend of the residual data after the removal of the effect of the exogenous variables, using a full range of starting years between 1979, when the satellite era started and 2005. The trends were all positive. Check out this graph.

        Beginning the trend analysis at the year 2000 yielded positive values between 0.13 and 0.21 DegC/decade. The lowest value is for CRU, because they do not include parts of the Arctic without surface stations in their data. The Arctic is where the surface temperature increase is the largest at about 2X the global average.

      • eadler2 | August 29, 2015 at 12:13 am |

        I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that only 0.054C/decade is due to GHG’s.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150319

        Let’s go through this one more time.

        22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010. Empirical measurement.

        0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade. For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade. The 0.2 W/m2 is for clear sky flux.

        The earth is cloudy 52% of the time. So it might be as low as 0.027°C.

        Global Warmers always confabulate ALW (UHI, burned rainforest, tilled fields, etc.) with AGW (the greenhousey thing) because AGW is so tiny. ALW and AGW are completely different, ALW is larger than AGW and reducing CO2 will have no effect on ALW. Surface temperatures have to be scrubbed of all ALW effects before they have any value. Instead GISS , etc seem to enhance ALW for some reason.

      • PA wrote:
        “22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010.
        0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade.
        Empirical measurement. For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade. ”
        I belive there is a basic flaw in your calculation. You didn’t really specify how you got these equations. It would help to know where you got them.
        I will respond to the understanding that I have of what you are claiming based on your incomplete explanation
        1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2/M2. This assumes that the increase in CO2 up to the year 2000 is no longer an effective forcing. That assumption is false. The forcing from past increases doesn’t disappear until the global average surface temperature reaches equilibrium with increased CO2 concentration. This did not happen in the year 2000. In fact in the year 2007, the forcing due to CO2 was estimated by the IPCC at about 1.8W/M2, with other GHG’s adding an additional 1W/M2.
        2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2. There are 2 things wrong with this. First of all the equation governing the change in equilibrium temperature does not tell what the rate of change of temperature will be at any given time. You are confusing equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate sensitivity.
        Second the driving force for change in temperature is not the change in forcing, which you have calculated at 0.2W/M2 in a decade, but rather the total forcing, which increased during that decade. The value of forcing due to CO2 in 2007 was about 1.8W/M2.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

        A person who makes mistakes of this nature has no business making judgements about the validity of work by Climate Scientists. It seems that you are unaware that you don’t understand the first thing about the atmospheric GHE. It is appalling to consider that you are instructing people on the internet about this subject.

      • “What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.”

        1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2/M2.

        No. I am not implying anything. A change in clear skying forcing was MEASURED.

        2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2.

        No again. 3.7 W/m2 is the common figure for the forcing to cause a 1°C temperature change at common atmospheric temperatures. If you plug the numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law you will understand why.

      • Eadler, PA mentioned earlier that he didn’t play climate scientist. He may have mentioned something about having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express though, I can’t remember. But anyway, I always take what PA posts with a healthy dose of salt..

      • PA wrote, in reply to my post:

        “”1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2W/M2.”

        No. I am not implying anything. A change in clear skying forcing was MEASURED.”
        However you are attributing the change in forcing to a temperature change, as if it were the total forcing in the next equation.

        In addition, your use of the equals symbol in that first equation is incorrect. 0.2W/M^2 does not equal 22PPM

        .” ” 2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2.”

        No again. 3.7 W/m2 is the common figure for the forcing to cause a 1°C temperature change at common atmospheric temperatures. If you plug the numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law you will understand why.”

        There is no way this number arises simply from the Stefan Boltzmann equation. It is a complicated equation involving the CO2 absorption spectrum, concentration of CO2 and temperature versus height. I didn’t deny that the 3.7W/M2 is the forcing associated with doubling of CO2 concentration. My dispute was about how you used this number in your calculation.

        You haven’t answered the points that I made about the lack of validity of your calculation. You are fooling yourself if you think you have . You are simply ignoring most of what I wrote. It is pathetic. If you were a student in a climate science course you would fail miserably.

      • blueice2hotsea

        eadler2

        PA’s source for measured CO2 forcing is:
        Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

        22ppm CO2 change is from 369.5 to 391.5 over 2000 – 2010, iirc

      • blueice2hotsea wrote:

        “22ppm CO2 change is from 369.5 to 391.5 over 2000 – 2010, iirc”

        Did you read my post? I didn’t deny that, and don’t need it explained. . What is wrong is the way PA used that number to draw conclusions about the rate of temperature increases in the decade 2000-2010..

      • PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.

      • Jim D wrote,
        “PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.”
        I agree . Another place where PA fails to understand the science. He refuses to learn, yet he posts a lot, spreading misinformation. There are many posters like him on this web site.

      • PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.

        1. I assume there is zero effect above about 3 km. UAH/RSS TLT is flat for the 21st century. Therefore there is no net effect about 3km up in the atmosphere and the effect may disappear at a lower altitude.

        An effect that isn’t measurable is the same as no effect.

        2. There was a 0.2 W/m2 downwelling change during clear skies in the first decade of the 21st century. The overall effect will be less because there is cloud cover 52% of the time and so forth.

        Less than 0.2 W/m2 isn’t a big change. It doesn’t seem to have made it to the TLT altitude. Given that latent heat loss is over 50% of heat loss, and cloudy conditions occur 52% of the time, it isn’t going to cause a big temperature change. The period wasn’t 20 years of the TSR, only ten – but in about 5 years or so they will rerelease the study and the results won’t be a lot different.

        Unless there is some empirically measured proof that CO2 warming is more than a weak surface effect that is pretty much it.

      • PA, at the surface, the change depends on where you are, and is smaller than the downward looking one from above because CO2 is more prominent in the emission to space which is what matters for the energy budget. It is more like 0.3 W/m2 for 22 ppm there using the usual 3.7 W/m2 per doubling which is a global value for the outgoing effect.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’ve always found it interesting that the same people arguing for a small transient/equilibrium sensitivity ratio have no problem at all with one strong solar cycle mid century causing all solar after that to be a negative forcing.

      • blueice2hotsea

        eadler2

        PA’a calculation:
        0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade.
        needs further explanation because as-is, it appears to be nonsense. And Pa follows that calculation with “For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade., conflating forcing with temp trend.

        But importantly, PA draws attention to a paper which may impact TCR estimates. Why don’t you do the sensitivity calculations and show us what you get?

      • Blueic2hotsea,
        “But importantly, PA draws attention to a paper which may impact TCR estimates. Why don’t you do the sensitivity calculations and show us what you get?”
        Calculation of transient climate sensitivity requires a lot of work, and many peer reviewed papers have been written about it. I did not study Climate Science in graduate school, and have written no papers on the subject. I do not suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome, so I don’t have the delusion that I can do this easily in a comment on Judy Curry’s blog.

        In addition, the information in the paper referenced by PA is insufficient to determine transient climate sensitifity (TCR). There are many other parameters whose values are needed which are not given.

      • eadler2, “I did not study Climate Science in graduate school, and have written no papers on the subject. I do not suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome, so I don’t have the delusion that I can do this easily in a comment on Judy Curry’s blog.”

        I guess this is an example of Kruger Dunning Syndrome.

      • eadler2, btw, no feedback sensitivity was initially estimated to be about 4Wm-2/1.5C or 2.67 Wm-2/K, it has trended lower to a current value of about 3.7W-2/1.1C or 3.36 Wm-2/K. The more interesting thing is the trend to lower sensitivity. If you use the last glacial maximum as your initial condition you would estimate a higher sensitivity than if you use current conditions.

        I believe PA has roughly 5 years of Climate Etc. online study and could write a paper on the subject.

      • Captdallas wrote:
        “I believe PA has roughly 5 years of Climate Etc. online study and could write a paper on the subject.”
        It is clear from the misconceptions in his posts that he couldn’t pass a basic course in Physics, much less a basic course in Climate Science.

      • eadler2, “It is clear from the misconceptions in his posts that he couldn’t pass a basic course in Physics, much less a basic course in Climate Science.”

        Actually, “sensitivity” doesn’t have a very firm Physics base and PA is by and large using the not so physical concepts that are part of climate science. Lewis and Curry used similar approaches to produce a lower TCR estimate ala “IPCC” methodology. Kinda ironic isn’t it?

      • CaptDallas wrote:
        “Actually, “sensitivity” doesn’t have a very firm Physics base and PA is by and large using the not so physical concepts that are part of climate science. Lewis and Curry used similar approaches to produce a lower TCR estimate ala “IPCC” methodology. Kinda ironic isn’t it?”
        PA isn’t using any Physics as I understand it. He just took a bunch of numbers from different papers and multiplied them. His method didn’t make sense. He used the change in surface forcing for CO2 at the land surface at 2 locations, and a constant extracted for top of the atmosphere forcing to incorrectly calculate a temperature change due to CO2 in a given decade.

        I don’t see “irony”. I see naivite.
        From what I have read about Lewis and Curry Transient Climate Sensitivity paper, it seems they get a number at the low end of the IPCC’s estimated range, which the IPCC got from considering a number of different papers on the subject.

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/lewis-and-curry/

        Their method was similar to Otto et. al. 2013.
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

        They just used some different data bases which gave them a number on the low side- a lower number for heat uptake than Otto et. al. and the HADCRUT temperture data base, which has a lower rate of global temperature increase with time, because it omits a lot of the Arctic region without weather stations. Temperatures in the Arcic are increasing at twice the global average rate. I would have expected them to low ball the estimate, because they are AGW skeptics.

      • eadler2, Nic Lewis was one of the co-authors of Otto et al and Otto et al was a bit of a 12th hour paper for AR5. So Lewis would be a bit of an authority on the subject.

        Your questioning PA on just throwing some numbers together is the irony. You are basically questioning the validity of IPCC methodology. Try following his line of reasoning since you have admitted not being much of an authority on the subject.

        Start here, dF=5.35ln(C/co), that 5.35 is based on what? An assumption of linear forcing over a “small” range. It is not an accepted, as in written in stone physical constant and “small” has never been defined. The ramification of using “small” and an arbitrary constant is that it defines an initial condition. What happens if now isn’t equal to that initial condition?

        http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/11/29/natural-variability-and-chaos-four-the-thirty-year-myth/

        Welcome to nonlinear, non-equilibrium thermodynamics

      • blunderbunny | August 29, 2015 at 10:26 am |
        “Plus floods a generally good for plant life. You only need look at the nice valley. Seriously. Just think about what you’re saying.”

        Severe flooding often leads to destruction of crops.

        http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/18/midwest-floods-ruin-crops

        “The United States was fortunate to be an observer, not a victim, when natural disasters ravaged global crops in the first part of this year. Spared from the turmoil, U.S. farmers planted near-record crops this spring and expected to enjoy record prices.

        Now, however, there is devastation here, too. Weeks of heavy rain in the Midwest have caused rivers to swell and levees to break. Millions of acres of farmland are now underwater, their plantings most likely destroyed. In Iowa, the country’s top corn-growing state, more than 1.3 million acres of corn and 2 million acres of soybeans have been flooded; in total, about 16 percent of the state’s farmland is submerged. The full extent of the damage is not yet known. In parts of the upper Midwest, where floodwaters are receding, farmers are assessing their losses, but farther south, along the Mississippi River in Missouri, the waters are still cresting. Comparisons to the catastrophic 1993 floods, which cut corn production by nearly 30 percent in the Midwest and caused $15 billion to $20 billion in damage, are already being made.”

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | September 3, 2015 at 3:14 pm |
        “eadler2, Nic Lewis was one of the co-authors of Otto et al and Otto et al was a bit of a 12th hour paper for AR5. So Lewis would be a bit of an authority on the subject.”
        SoLewis wrote 2 papers which contradict one anolther. Which one is right? How do you know? Both results are in the range proposed by the IPCC for Transient Climate Sensitivity.

        “Your questioning PA on just throwing some numbers together is the irony. You are basically questioning the validity of IPCC methodology. Try following his line of reasoning since you have admitted not being much of an authority on the subject.”
        Your claim that PA used IPCC methodology is false. First of all PA didn’t state a line of reasoning clearly or justify any of the equations he wrote. There is nothing to follow. I had to infer a line of reasoning from the equations he wrote. The only thing I could come up with didn’t make any sense as I pointed out. The formula he used to calculate the CO2 induced temperature change was wrong. You haven’t shown that it is correct, or made any specific argument justifying the numbers that were used. All you have posted is empty BS.

      • eadler2 | September 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm |

        Your claim that PA used IPCC methodology is false. First of all PA didn’t state a line of reasoning clearly or justify any of the equations he wrote. There is nothing to follow. I had to infer a line of reasoning from the equations he wrote. The only thing I could come up with didn’t make any sense as I pointed out. The formula he used to calculate the CO2 induced temperature change was wrong.

        Well, gee.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/new-paper-shows-transient-climate-response-less-than-2c/
        1. The IPCC TCR is roughly 2°C, CMIP5 multimodel mean is around 1.8C, the Otto paper put the TCR at 1.3°C. I am unaware of anyone arguing that the effect isn’t logarithmic. Newer TCR estimates are trending downward. TCR < 1°C anyone?

        2. The 5.35 ln (C/C0) is an approximation used by the IPCC to approximate the actual curve. Since the approximation to IPCC curve error is much less than the error between the IPCC forcing curve and reality using the logarithmic approximation is close enough.

        3. The forcing change measured in the paper should be easily extractable from CMIP5 model runs. We shouldn't be guessing about these comparisons. There should be a paper comparing the CMIP5 model results to the observed behavior.

      • ,PA | September 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm |
        “eadler2 | August 29, 2015 at 12:13 am |

        I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that only 0.054C/decade is due to GHG’s.”
        In reply PA wrote this set of equations:
        “22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010. Empirical measurement.

        0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade. For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade. The 0.2 W/m2 is for clear sky flux.”

        The basis for this is a paper on clear sky measurements of CO2 downwelling radiation versus CO2 concentration,, where the downwelling radiation increase was .2W/M2 in a decade while the CO2 concentration increased by 22ppM.

        PA has still not explained this set of equations.
        One should note that the 0.2WM2 is a change in SURFACE FORCING, according to the paper which PA quoted as a refernce, which is different from the TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE FORCING that equals 3.7W/M2 when CO2 is doubled. The constant that is quoted doesn’t have the units that PA claims.

        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

        “Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 ”

        There is no 1/DegC in this expression, in any of the references that I have read. This brings up a problem with units. It is true that 0.2/3.7= 0.054, but the Wattsi/M2 units cancel and you get a pure number. To claim that you get 0.054Degrees C from this calculation is false.

        So PA has misinterpreted the a surface forcing change in a paper as top of the atmosphere radiative forcing, and put it into an equation with a constant that has the wrong units, and claims to get a temperature change during the first decade that is due to CO2.

        Until he admits his mistakes I am not going to deal with his other claims. He doesn’t seem to be interested in understanding real science. He prefers to spread his ignorance over the internet, and not admit his mistakes even to himself.

      • eadler2, “SoLewis wrote 2 papers which contradict one anolther. Which one is right?”

        You do realize I follow your comments for the humor right?

      • blueice2hotsea

        eadler2 – I would have expected [Lewis and Curry] to low ball the estimate, because they are AGW skeptics.

        Curry self-identifies as a lukewarmer, not not as a “skeptic”. She caught hell from “skeptics” for the Webster, Curry typhoon paper. And she suffers from the likes of you for the “low” sensitivity paper.

        (I put low in quotes because until a full exploration of sensitivity parameter space is faithfully pursued, real CS could be lower and/or higher.)

      • Blueicehotsea wrote:
        “Curry self-identifies as a lukewarmer, not not as a “skeptic”.”
        I guess I look at the spectrum as AGW acceptors, AGW skeptics and AGW deniers. In the spectrum I am used to, I would classify her as a “skeptic”.

      • blueice2hotsea

        eadler2-

        You left alarmist off your so-called spectrum.

        Curry is an AGW science accepter who rejects the aggressive, anti-science positions of both alarmists and deniers. She is a political centrist who voted for Pres. Obama, yet is capable of criticizing his sometimes anti-science statements. To make those criticisms goes to the heart of what it means to be a scientist and decent human being citizen living in a free society,

        Can you claim as much for yourself? If so, let’s hear from you on anti-science alarmism, also.Thanks.

      • Blueice2hotsea:
        “If so, let’s hear from you on anti-science alarmism, also.Thanks.”
        I haven’t read any alarmist comment or posting on this web site, Here is a debunking of an alarmist speech by British Actress Emma Thompson by an AGW acceptor that I agree with

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/emma-thompson/

      • eadler2 | September 6, 2015 at 9:58 am |

        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

        “Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 ”

        There is no 1/DegC in this expression, in any of the references that I have read. This brings up a problem with units. It is true that 0.2/3.7= 0.054, but the Wattsi/M2 units cancel and you get a pure number. To claim that you get 0.054Degrees C from this calculation is false.

        http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
        Well, the 3.7 conversion is from the IPCC (it used to be 4) so take it up with them.

        243.5406749306 W m-2= 5.67E-008 (W m−2 K−4) * 256 ** 4 (K4)
        239.7575906917 W m-2= 5.67E-008 (W m−2 K−4) * 255 ** 4 (K4)
        3.783084239 W/m2 = 1°C at the TOA.
        395.551481129 W m-2= 5.67E-008 (W m−2 K−4) * 289 ** 4 (K4)
        390.1050703662 W m-2= 5.67E-008 (W m−2 K−4) * 288 ** 4 (K4)
        5.4464107628 W/m2 = 1°C at the BOA.

        Yup, you are right to some extent. Since the study conducted its measurement at the BOA:

        22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010.
        0.2 W/m2 / 5.45 Wm-2/°C = 0.0377 °C/decade.

      • ,PA | September 7, 2015 at 1:43 pm |

        Once again there is no justification for any of the equations you write. Your link
        http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
        doesn’t contain anything resembling the equations you have written in your link.

        The origin of your numbers is a total mystery. I am not going to try to guess where you got them from except that I recognize that you seem to be looking at a difference between temperatures implied by two different fluxes assuming the Stefan Bolltzman law for black body radiation at the surface and at the average emission temperature of the earth.

        The atompshere which is emitting the downward radiation is not a black body. The 0.2W/M2 downward radiaton is coming from a narrow band of wavelengths emitted by CO2. You are just shuffling numbers around without proper justification once again.

    • Sorry, really don’t know who you are. But if it was really that simple for science to put all of us sadly misguided bloggers in our place – It would have done so by now.

      Show us some decent science, should be your first step.

      Just a thought.

      Stop using the word Denier…. Just another thought

      Take these two simple things on board and you never know you might just get somewhere

      • Sorry that was to eadler2, who I’ve now seen has a PhD…. Well I’m not going to comment on that… but you’ve just made the statement that CO2 is not beneficial to plant life ???

        Would you care, upon careful consideration, to retract that remark?

      • Look, but why pay when your work is better than theirs?

        http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

        No connections just patterns. They want to help you live your life the way they see, fit. They even hang their sheep skins where we can read therm. What more could you ask for? It’s a beautiful world without the people who screw it all up for us.

      • Blunderbunny wrote:
        “you’ve just made the statement that CO2 is not beneficial to plant life ???
        Would you care, upon careful consideration, to retract that remark?”

        When CO2 levels are so high that they cause increased incidence of severe drought and floods the net result would not be favorable to plant life.

      • Sorry but you’re deluded. Whilst droughts will always occur they are not a consequence of global warming. I’m be asking for my PhD back had I awarded it to you.

      • Plus floods a generally good for plant life. You only need look at the nice valley. Seriously. Just think about what you’re saying.

      • eadler2

        How high would the concentrations need to be to cause the catastrophic events you cite?

        TONYB

      • Starting to Hate Spellcheckers…. Obviously, I’m referring to the Nile valley and whilst I’m sure that this is also a nice valley. That wasn’t my point… Floods are good for plants.

      • blunderbunny | August 29, 2015 at 4:59 am |
        Sorry but you’re deluded. Whilst droughts will always occur they are not a consequence of global warming. I’m be asking for my PhD back had I awarded it to you.

        Yup,

        Just, Yup.

      • Eadler2

        The agricultural losses that you cite are merely temporary. The flooded ground will in general be more productive. Why do you think there are so many farms on flood plains?

        You really are not very bright at all, I’d suggest trying a little harder, but I really don’t think it would help very much.

      • “The agricultural losses that you cite are merely temporary. The flooded ground will in general be more productive. Why do you think there are so many farms on flood plains?”
        The temporary losses will become more frequent in flood prone areas. It is not going to improve flood plain land already used to plant crops.
        What actually is occurring is an increase in the amount of arid land as desert zones move northward.
        .
        . http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487#f2
        “About 5.7% of the global total land area has shifted toward warmer and drier climate types from 1950–2010, and significant changes include expansion of arid and high-latitude continental climate zones, shrinkage in polar and midlatitude continental climates, poleward shifts in temperate, continental and polar climates, and increasing average elevation of tropical and polar climates. Using CMIP5 multi-model averaged historical simulations forced by observed anthropogenic and natural, or natural only, forcing components, we find that these changes of climate types since 1950 cannot be explained as natural variations but are driven by anthropogenic factors.”

      • Eadler2

        Have you read the paper in nature that you cite. First things first. It talks about likely effects not actual ones. Next it uses models. Next if we just consider the Sahara as an example this is in the process of shrinking. The Sahel is doing very nicely thank you. It busy going green rather than more arid. Please at least try slightly harder. You’re barely scraping a C- at the moment and I’m erring slightly on the generous side. Please feel free to concede any of the previous points at your earliest convenience.

      • Blunderbunny said,
        “Have you read the paper in nature that you cite. First things first. It talks about likely effects not actual ones. ”

        The observations I quoted in the abstract are actual effects based on weather records.

        “Next if we just consider the Sahara as an example this is in the process of shrinking. The Sahel is doing very nicely thank you. It busy going green rather than more arid.”

        Tropic areas, type A are increasing slightly moving northward. The largest increase in area of a climate type is the arid type B. The arid areas are moving northward and growing according to the statistics in the article. Pointing at southern areas of the Sahara and Sahel that are greening doesn’t contradict the overall statistics. You are like one of the six blind guys trying to figure out what an elephant looks like.

  18. Scientific truth is not, will never be, and indeed cannot be, the result of a democratic process.
    On the contrary, most significant scientific breakthroughs are coming from “diverging” innovative views, supported by an individual or a small group of persons, and contradicting the “consensus” defended by the establishment.
    Eg. Theory of paleo-climate and of Milankovic cycles, that is now widely accepted, but only many decades after having been expressed by Milutin Milankovic, in the beginning of 20th century.

  19. “What’s striking about public understanding of climate change is not the dependency, but rather the nonexpert assessment of climate scientific expert opinion.”

    The expert/non-expert duality is false. The spectrum of experts, that is, their expertise in a specific niche should not be lumped together with another’s expertise in yet another specific niche. How their niche fits within a nebulous whole does not render this nebulous whole as being either complete nor even valid.

    The non-experts remain by definition varied as they come from fields of science and philosophy that has even broader ranges than the expert groups. The experts and non-experts comprise a cloud of niche experts and opinionated contributors within a loose confederation of an area of science.

    As climate science is relatively new in the science industry, contributions from some areas have taken a leadership role just by being first and not necessarily being correct. Paradigms rise and fall with vigorous young scientists charging hell-bent investigating their own niche. However, given a social agenda to be fulfilled, climate science investigation vigor has been truncated by mimicry science as leadership holds onto pet paradigms, drawing out the timeline for meaningful changes to become apparent.

    It seems to me that this drag on climate research has resulted in the accumulating observational data to become publicized that contradicts, or at least calls into question the tottering paradigm currently in use. Hence the legitimate rise in non-expert opinion reflects climate science’s leadership holding onto the past because embracing the present means they are left out of the future.

  20. stuff like this is amusing
    as most assuredly a ‘non expert’
    I felt I was invited by the alleged experts to educate myself about climate
    did that as best I could (quite a cast of characters in this subject)
    now I no longer have faith in the experts
    guess I did it wrong
    I am a denier and unworthy
    I look forward to when the bonobos get the messaging right so that this troglodyte can start thinking properly
    for now I will return to my specimen jar

    Climate Etc. is just the best
    thanks Judith

    • It is disappointing that Ben Almassi appears to regard himself as incapable of educating himself about the topic.

      If he concentrates on the inadequate and failed predictions he may be surprised at just how easy it is. Most people wouldn’t take the same from an insurance salesman once they are able to see past any techno-babble.

  21. There is also growing evidence that NASA GISS and Hadley CRU, being unable to validate climate models so as to faithfully reproduce 20th century’s temperature variations, are now significantly manipulating / falsifying / corrupting climate data, in order to “hide the decline” (as written by Ph. Jones in a famous Climategate 1.0 email), and to make those data more consistent, even if only roughly, with climate models’ outputs….

    This is the “climate science way” of validating models.
    But this definitely not the scientific way, and this is nothing but junk science, as also well illustrated by the MHB Hockey Stick fraud.
    This obvious data corruption is a major source of distrust into climate science.

    • There is no valid evidence of this at all. Nobody has made a compelling case, and I don’t think they ever will as what they think is taking place is pure fantasy.

      • Curious George

        Sure. To quote Steven, “The algorithm is the proof.” Nobody should argue with THE algorithm.

      • J, “There is no valid evidence of this at all. Nobody has made a compelling case,…”

        Do you know how many revisions to observational data sets where inspired by observations not agreeing with modeled “reality”? What “inspired” Karl et al. to recalibrate state of the art data?

      • Steven Mosher

        “Sure. To quote Steven, “The algorithm is the proof.” Nobody should argue with THE algorithm.”

        On the contrary that is Where the argument should take place.

        Look: Anytime you build a statistical model to detect and correct data errors you WILL INDUCE errors into the data.

        with 40K stations if the algorithm gets 90% right, thats 4000 times series where it will get things wrong. Antartica is a great example.
        Iceland is another one.

        The approach is pretty simple. You take your algorithm. you test it bllindly on synthetic data. you see if it moves the answer closer to truth.
        That bolsters your confidence that it does the same thing with untested data.

        Then you find obvious mistakes.. and improve.

        There are a bunch of things I would like to improve in the current methods. however they are not scientifically interesting

      • Accuracy inspired them, and that physically, the hiatus made no sense.

        As for innuendo angle, once again all I see is dandruff. Where is the beef?

      • J, “Accuracy inspired them, and that physically, the hiatus made no sense.”

        Based on models that didn’t include much internal variability. Dessler didn’t believe the radiosonde data, because there was a modeled tropical troposphere hot spot, and used the variation in velocity of the radiosonde balloons for temperature instead of the on board temperature sensors.

      • Exactly, there is no conspiracy, just marginal competence of government employees coupled with honoring the Millikan oil drop confirmation bias. In any event, the results are always within the quite generous error bars, so it’s hard to be wrong. If you auditorians want to continue to pick fly poop out of pepper, have at it.

        Watching the polar vortex dodge the Luche Libre bout between Los Blob Caliente con El Nino this winter will be muy mucho mas interesting.

      • Curious George

        Steven – I find the whole “adjustment” approach very suspect. A standard statistical approach should be to assign a lower weight to suspect data, not to manufacture artificial data.

      • JCH’s response

        “Accuracy inspired them, and that physically, the hiatus made no sense.”

        Nice way to disqualify you from any serious discussion.

        I have stayed away from all of the data revision arguments, except the one involving the Karl paper. I am still in shock that Karl’s paper has not been laughed into oblivion. They only reason I can come up with is that it may still be in the review process.

        Imagine the IRS claiming that “We have 50 years of varying quality of income data that shows you average ___ dollars a year in revenue, though for the last 10 years our new system has proven to be far more accurate in documenting your income. But because it only shows you earning _____ dollars a year, which is less than the average for the previous 40 years, we are going to raise the number to match the older data.

        Oh, and btw, since the new system is so much more accurate, we are giving it more weight, just in case you try to challenge us.

      • Evidence of data manipulation :

        1/ With HADCRUT4 data series, the Hadley Centre has introduced new adjustments compared to previous HADCRUT3 data series :
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/mean:60/offset:0.025/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:60

        Curiously corrections are always in the warming direction… But where are the justifications ?
        Has anyone assessed the validity of HACRUT4 adjustments compared to HADCRUT3 ones ?
        I guess the answer is the unfortunately that nobody knows except those who have defined the adjustments.
        I also guess that growing divergence between HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP data was becoming too obvious and too inconvenient,

        2/ Data adjustments appears to be obviously “fluctuating” over time and indeed corrupted.
        When looking at US Temperature record as published in Hansen et al 1999 (graph fig. 6) :
        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
        ● Warmest year is 1934
        ● In this graph,1998 only ranked 5th after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953…

        Original data were also available at the following address but NASA has deleted the file beginning 2015…
        Guess why…
        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

        In Hansen et al 2001, pretexting a “time of observation debiasing” (reaching up to +0.15°C), new adjustments made 1998 tight to 1934
        This situation has been maintained up to 2007

        http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NEW_RANKINGS.pdf

        In 2007, NASA GISS made a fruitless attempt to make 1998 ousting 1934 as Hottest U.S. Year
        In [Link]
        The “trick” has been discovered by McIntyre and NASA had to step back.

        But the record published in 2012 finally reached the objective of ousting 1934 as warmest year in the US :
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v2/Fig.D.txt
        Compared to the 2000 publication :
        – 1998 average temperature anomaly has been adjusted by +0.35°C
        – 1934 average temperature anomaly has been adjusted by -0.21°C
        NASA also deleted those inconvenient data, but the resulting curve can be seen in Hansen et al 2010.

        3/ looking at individual weather stations, one can also observe significant and questionable adjustment evolutions :
        Few examples or how to hide the inconvenient truth that temperature have been warmer in the past, despite limited anthropogenic signature :
        Station Data: Reykjavik (64.1 N,21.9 W)
        – Old adjustments : the 30’s are clearly warmer than current period.
        – New adjustments : Current period becomes much warmer. But why ?

        Conclusion :
        Temperature data sets are manipulated and corrupted by questionable adjustments and nice “tricks” whose aim is “to hide the decline”.
        When observational records do not support CAGW consensus then modify the data to make them fit models outputs,…and then you can claim that models are duly validated and right…
        That’s climate junk science, but indeed that’s not science.

        See also :
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

      • Steven Mosher | August 24, 2015 at 4:24 pm |
        “Sceptics are their own worst enemies with constant accusations of fraud, hoax and conspiracy. Some Sceptics are not exploring the best arguments as some are too busy talking about frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies .
        Meanwhile the best arguments go unexplored.”

        No all AGWists like yourself are too busy talking about frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies .
        No AGWist puts up any convincing arguments. They concentrate on explaining why their algorithms always put the temperature up.
        If you have any decent arguments Steven for your AGW point of view please put them up in print. Otherwise do not lecture.
        Skeptics do put up arguments , lots of them, you just do not listen.
        If you toss a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time you might be in a fair game , The odds are slightly less than 1 in
        1000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. and thats the firmament your beliefs are scientifically built on?

      • Too funny…

        +.80C and rising. PDO is positive. August hot as hades so far. SLR rate spiking.

        All you have to do to laugh Karl into oblivion is write a freaking scientific paper. Crickets. Tough talking blog posts don’t cut it.

    • While I’m a frequent and harsh critic of Michael Mann and his work, this comment is just terrible. It’s terrible both in the general sense of claiming there’s some massive fraud to manipulate the modern instrumental temperature record, which is complete nonsense, and it is terrible in that it shows a complete disregard for basic factual details. Namely, it equates Phil Jones’s e-mail about hiding the decline in temperature reconstructions, caused primarily by tree ring proxies, with a supposed decline in temperatures that simply doesn’t exist.

      I have no idea why people continue to believe things like this, no matter how long after the myths should have been put to rest. I suspect there’s nothing which could stop these accusations from being made. I’m not sure you could even reduce their frequency. It probably doesn’t help even big name skeptics, like Anthony Watts, apparently feel comfortable accusing groups like the NOAA of fraud.

      • Brandon

        Sceptics are their own worst enemies with constant accusations of fraud, hoax and conspiracy. If it is any or all of those it is the best orchestrated one in all of history involving tens of thousands of people

        Which is not to say that the scientists always have access to credible data or utilise it in a logical fashion or that the general run of models have the accuracy necessary to change society. We have it in our heads that we have already drastically changed the climate to unprecedented levels and will change it even more drastically in the future.

        Our understanding is not helped by activists and politicians and the odd scientist not averse to displaying both those traits and who seem unaware of history

        But wholesale and deliberate fraud practised by a cast of thousands? Come on.

        Tonyb

      • It’s wholesale and deliberate confirmation bias, Tony. The cause is more important to them than the science.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Sceptics are their own worst enemies with constant accusations of fraud, hoax and conspiracy.”

        Meanwhile the best arguments go unexplored.

      • John Carpenter

        That’s just a fly over comment Brandon.

      • Mosh

        Some Sceptics are not exploring the best arguments as some are too busy talking about frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies .

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        Do you think that Al Gore’s movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and related PP presentation was/is an attempt to perpetrate a hoax?

      • Steven Mosher

        tonyb

        “Some Sceptics are not exploring the best arguments as some are too busy talking about frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies .”

        in general once people learn the fraud argument even when its been falsified then cannot give up their ‘it must be fraud” theory.

        Here is the thing. people always have theories. its hard to operate in the world without a theory of how things work or why things happen.
        Its hard to suspend judgment and say “I dont know” and if you are engaged in commenting on the internet its very hard to suspend judgment because so much of the entertainment is “proving people wrong” Once someone learns the fraud argument they have no reason to give it up. The theory works for them.

      • climatereason:

        Sceptics are their own worst enemies with constant accusations of fraud, hoax and conspiracy. If it is any or all of those it is the best orchestrated one in all of history involving tens of thousands of people

        Aye. I don’t hesitate to accuse a select few people of fraud, most prominently Michael Mann, but that’s hardly a remarkable criticism. It doesn’t take a shocking conspiracy for one man to commit fraud. It doesn’t take a shocking conspiracy for other people who are smitten with his results to not look too closely at how he got them.

        But I’d say the bigger problem for the skeptic side isn’t that people make these accusations; it’s that skeptics are hesitant to criticize one another. For instance, there is little pushback against the “fraud” argument, even though there are many skeptics who think it is foolish. Some will even readily say so in private, but won’t say so publicly. Just look at how little negative reaction there was to Anthony Watts accusing people at the NOAA of having committed fraud (and then turning around and denying having done it).

        This isn’t just with the “fraud” argument though. The problem is far more systematic. When people like Richard Tol and Mark Steyn screw up, you won’t see skeptics speak up much because those are “big names” to skeptics. They can do things skeptics would never tolerate from a person on the other “side,” and skeptics won’t bat an eye. I think my favorite example recently is Tol replaced one version of a paper with another to cover up the existence of an error after it was pointed out. Apparently that’s how skeptics operate?

      • Steven: It’s not about saying “I don’t Know”, that’s a given in all human endeavor, e.g. we know no one knows. It’s another way of admitting all models wrong, yet some are useful.

        The issue is that for most people commentating on granola worming multiverse, *they* cannot leave their ego in the dumpster and therefore be free to really truly operate in a multiple working hypothesis environment.

        Oscar Wilde said it best. The core malfunction is pride, vanity is the event horizon.

      • Brandon S?: It’s nice to see you finally getting glimpses of the light from beneath your blanky. However, you need to understand that you don’t actually need the pacifier anymore. It’s nice to see you growing up… are you thirty yet?

        FWIW, I agree with your crit of Steyn the unreconstructed chickenhawk: Mosher’s parsing is another verbal facade as one of his bent knows that only cowards hide behind posh, smug and/or clever slander.

      • Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst):

        Brandon S?: It’s nice to see you finally getting glimpses of the light from beneath your blanky. However, you need to understand that you don’t actually need the pacifier anymore. It’s nice to see you growing up… are you thirty yet?

        I honestly have no idea what this is about. I sometimes wish I were clearly rooted in one “side” of the debate, joined with my brother-in-arms to fight the other tribe, just so I could tell which derisive remarks were in reference to what. Half the time I can’t tell whether I’m being insulted for being an alarmist sheeple or a frothing at the mouth denier. It’s confusing.

      • Mark

        I was referring to climate scientists. Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a showman. He wrote a very good book ‘earth in the balance’ some years ago. In it he documented numerous examples of climate change. He has equated Mans activities as of being capable of effecting similar changes.

        I think he now believes his own publicity so I think ‘delusional’ rather than deliberately fraudulent, but there must e people out there who have heard his message directly that might have a different opinion. It would be interesting to hear what they think.

        tonyb

      • Can you explain Gavin Schmidt of NASA claiming 2014 the warmest year evuh from data that is NOISE?

      • Can you explain Gavin Schmidt of NASA claiming 2014 the warmest year evuh from data that is NOISE? …

        Skeptics who want to criticize skeptics, here is your opening.

        My inclination is to lol now, but I’ll wait until later to lol.

      • JCH:

        Skeptics who want to criticize skeptics, here is your opening.

        My inclination is to lol now, but I’ll wait until later to lol.

        I don’t know what we’re supposed to criticize. That comment’s wording is poor, so I’m not entirely certain what the person was trying to say, but it sounds to me like he was making a rather reasonable point. Namely, that Gavin Schmidt talked about 2014 being the hottest year on record even though you the uncertainty in the data meant you couldn’t reasonably say that.

      • Here’s a question that I don’t think anyone has ever answered. According to the information presented by NASA during their press briefing about 2014 being the hottest year on record, which single other year was more likely than 2014 to have been the hottest year on record. This question has an answer, and there is no obvious reason not to provide it. Avoiding pedantry would also be appreciated, but I’m probably being naive if I expect it not to be a fair description of the responses I might get.

      • …and Then There’s Physics:

        I am 38% sure the answer is none.

        All the other years had lower probabilities, with 2010 being closest behind 2014.

      • Indeed, and I now feel somewhat guilty about my snark at the end of that comment (although, past history might suggest it was warrented :-) ). According to the NASA analysis, no other single year was more likely than 2014 to have been the hottest year on record. I can’t remember which one was second, but you could be right about it being 2010 (could have been 1998, though).

      • …and Then There’s Physics:

        Not to worry. I thought it was funny, which is why I answered the way I did.

        Still – on a serious note – a big part of the problem is scientist advocates.

        In an effort to convince, they (the advocate scientist) make a big deal of things with a lot of uncertainty (highest probability being 38% is kind of weak).

        Rather than convince – they get ridiculed, and more people are unconvinced than convinced. Depending on the survey or poll – in the USA, the number of people who think climate change is a serious problem has dropped, not risen. The scientist advocacy has backfired.

        Scientist advocates who engage in propaganda are the biggest problem in climate science (in my opinion).

        The hockey stick was propaganda.

        Just think where we would be if no one had tried to argue that the current warming spell was unprecedented in the last 600, 1000 or 2000 years.

        We sure have moved backwards based on that propaganda advocate type argument. Advocate scientists have diminished trust in science – and that is a very bad thing (in my opinion).

        Now we simply argue about ECS and the hockeystick, rather than a solution (like switching to nuclear – which is the best response in my opinion).

      • Not to worry. I thought it was funny, which is why I answered the way I did.

        Why is it funny? Unless I misread your response, it was the answer.

        Still – on a serious note – a big part of the problem is scientist advocates.

        And I disagree very strongly. Firstly, I suspect you’re defining advocacy in an extremely broad way. With some exceptions, I’m also unaware of many scientists who advocate for anything specific. Also, I’d rather people were open about their views than pretended they didn’t have any. Do you really think that people who pretend they don’t have views, when they do, can be trusted more than those who are open about what their views actually are?

        In an effort to convince, they (the advocate scientist) make a big deal of things with a lot of uncertainty (highest probability being 38% is kind of weak).

        Or, it really was probably the warmest single year on record. At best, these dastardly scientists are trying to convince you of something that is true. Would you really rather they didn’t? You’d prefer it if they said things you liked to hear, but were wrong?

        Just think where we would be if no one had tried to argue that the current warming spell was unprecedented in the last 600, 1000 or 2000 years.

        I can imagine. We’d be less informed about our millenial temperature history. I can’t see why that would be a good thing.

        Now we simply argue about ECS and the hockeystick, rather than a solution (like switching to nuclear – which is the best response in my opinion).

        And you think that’s the fault of scientists who keep trying to point out that there is a problem to solve, or the fault of those who either deny this or keep going on about things like “the hockeystick”, or “Michael Mann”?

      • Attp

        My best estimate would be 1540 with the surrounding years forming the warmest three year period on record and likely the 1530’s being the warmest decade.

        In that Phil jones and c Pfister would likely agree. The European 11 month drought and the summer heat of that year comfortably exceeded 2003

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb,
        Maybe you’re just trying to be funny, but you do realise that in this context “on record” means the instrumental temperature record starting – typically – in around 1880. Unless I’m mistaken, we don’t have instrumental temperatures for the 1500s.

      • Attp

        Records do exist outside of pixels on computer models. We have tens of thousands of records in all forms and they point to 1540

        If you want to use the instrumental record from 1880 or so! the met office say there is far too much uncertainty and noise to promote 2014 as the hottest in the very short instrumental record from 1880 .

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb,
        So what? The discussion was about the NASA press release which referred only to their instrumental temperature record. You do get that, don’t you?

      • Tonyb,
        I also think you’re misrepresenting the Met Office release. They say nothing of a “short record”. Also, the reason they didn’t say anything was because

        Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.

        That their dataset doesn’t let them distinguish between several recent years does not mean that this is true for all datasets. Also, not being able to say something definitively does not mean one cannot say which year would probably have been the warmest. That the Met Office could not say this, or chose not to say this, does not mean others were wrong to do so.

      • ATTP:

        My joke was in the “I am 38% sure . . .”. That was the same level of sureness that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880.

        Maybe not a great joke – but I thought it was funny.

        Your said “And you think that’s the fault of scientists who keep trying to point out that there is a problem to solve, or the fault of those who either deny this or keep going on about things like “the hockeystick”, or “Michael Mann”?”

        Not that they point out the problem – but the manner in which they point it out – yes I have a problem with that.

        Creating papers for propaganda or editing the IPCC reports for propaganda or issuing press releases for propaganda – that is the problem.

        Publish the paper and report the facts is fine with me.

        Don’t try to tell the politicians what they should do – let them decide how to balance all the competing interests and do the cost/benefit analysis – that is what the deciders get paid for.

      • Don’t try to tell the politicians what they should do – let them decide how to balance all the competing interests and do the cost/benefit analysis – that is what the deciders get paid for.

        Can you find an actual example of a climate scientist telling politicians what they should do? One example I can think of is James Hansen, who strongly promotes nuclear. I’m not sure I can think of any other specific examples. Also, as far as I’m aware, I’m more than entitled to tell politicians what I think they should do, as is anyone who lives in a modern democracy. Politicians are more than entitled to ignore what others think should be done, and decide to do what they think is best. Until such time as expressing such views is deemed illegal, I’ll defend anyone’s right to do so, climate scientist or not.

      • ATTP:

        Yes – of course you or any scientist is allowed to offer their opinion to a politician (or as a citizen).

        But as a scientist you should offer the policy maker the facts – not spin, trying to advocate what you would like to see happen.

        As soon as you start to slant the facts to spin and advocate for a particular desired outcome – you have left your science role far behind and are nothing more than a lobbyist.

        That is what climategate showed – that many climate scientists had lowered themselves to being mere lobbyists (science advocates) – but trying to cloak their naked partisan position with the imprimatur of science.

  22. Pingback: A Consensus Of Experts | Transterrestrial Musings

  23. While I think CE is one of the best, if not the best, blog re: climate change, it’s influence is relegated to those few who know about it and read it. My reason for it being the one blog I read regularly is that it is lightly moderated (except apparently for one particular participant) so that views on both sides of the argument can be considered by a layman like me. Unfortunately, it seems of late that fewer alarmists are posting here and the blog is becoming more one sided. It happens to the the side I agree with, but I like reading intelligent debate, snark and all.

    As for the state of the science, my personal prediction is that it will take 2 or more generations before the lie of CAGW is fully laid to rest – and it may take longer given how invested the proponents are and who they are – MSM, teachers, gollywood personalitiespolitical leaders of too many countries looking to make an easy buck off of those evil western countries who have so spoiled the world, etc. We now have K-12 curriculum being promoted by the Feds that expressly blames human Co2 contribution as the primary driver of climate change – as if all we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels and suddenly, the climate will stop changing.

    Just from my small anecdotal research – that is, talking about climate change with friends and relatives – few think about it much and virtually all think that CAGW is real because of what they hear on the news.

    As far as trust goes, there is none. How can any rational person trust what the consensus “scientists” say give the level of deceit and their attempt to stifle debate. That along with the alarmist blogs that are heavily moderated and do not allow for any skeptical views – Sks likely being the worst in that regard. Problem is, there are too many non-thinking blind idealogues – just look at how many continue to support Hillary, even now. It’s pathetic.

    • Barnes, my own opinion about why fewer CAGW types may post here than in the past–if true, dunno–is that they got tired of having their heads handed back to them on a platter by commenters who have done enough of their own work to know what they were talking about. So the repeat talking points approach was not working. One of the several beauties of this blog, IMO.

      • Logic only a “skeptic” could love.

        “Realists” think that they’re right and you’re wrong. Even if it were true by some objective measure that your arguments are right an theirs are wrong, they don’t agree with that assessment. Thus, they don’t think that they’re having their heads back to them. Thus, your reasoning behind why they may post here less now than in the past fails (and doesn’t stand up to basic skeptical scrutiny). Just more confirmation bias.

      • Here’s a question to ponder (or refute, I guess). I can find quite a few examples of self-professed “skeptics” complaining about being censored on warmist/alarmist blogs (their words, not mine). Why is it that you don’t see “warmists” complaining about being censored on “skeptic” blogs? You can find them pointing out that “skeptic” blogs aren’t quite as open as they sometimes claim to be, but I don’t see many complaining about not being able to comment. My personal view is that they don’t particularly care. Not being able to directly communicate with those that they regard as wrong isn’t something that bothers them particularly. Of course, Joshua will probably find something “wrong” with the view I’ve just expressed, but I’m willing to take that chance :-)

      • ATTP – I regard censoring opposing views as a form of concession that those doing the censoring are unable to provide a convincing counter argument. Every alarmist blog I have visited actively censors skeptic comments, usually just deleting them, and some if not all have specific stated policies that prohibit skeptical postings. I’ve read commenters here say they have been censored or moderated at WUWT for posting opposing views, and if so, WUWT would be guilty of the same thing.

        The only censorship I have witnessed on this blog is Dr. Curry attempting to maintain some sort of civility given the level of snark at times, or, to cut short threads that blather on endlessly on off-topic issues that distract from the real discussion. She does not censor simply because she disagrees with a POV, she in fact welcomes all POVs, but just wants people to be civil in their commentary. Personally, I think a little snark adds some entertainment value.

      • One other point about skeptics complaining about censorship – it is not the skeptics making the claim that the debate is over. In fact, the point many skeptics make is that the debate never happened in the first place. Alarmists have made who knows how many unsubstantiated claims of pending catastrophe and all kinds of predictions that have yet to pan out, so they just keep pushing out the dates of the pending doom to a point well past when any of us will still be around to find out if they were right. When skeptics point out this absurdity, they are called deniers and vilified in other ways (like having their pictures posted on a web site sponsored by our charlatan in chief) in an attempt to silence any debate. As has been said many times here, that is not how science works, nor is it the way politics “work” – it is the way politics and science is made dysfunctional.

      • I regard censoring opposing views as a form of concession that those doing the censoring are unable to provide a convincing counter argument.

        I realise that this is the typical view. However, there are plenty of other possible reasons. It seems rather convenient to think that the problems “skeptics” have commenting on certain blogs is because they’re saying things that can’t be easily refuted or countered, rather than because they’re simply saying things that are silly, ill-informed and that the blog owners are tired of trying to explain to such people that they’re getting things wrong. That may not be the reason, but I would like to think a genuine skeptic would consider alternative possibilities.

      • Anders –

        ==> “Of course, Joshua will probably find something “wrong” with the view I’ve just expressed, but I’m willing to take that chance :-) ”

        Yah. ‘Prolly.

        My default is that some kind of categorical difference, or some determination of disproportion in behaviors, that is associated with different views on climate change needs to be proven with evidence.

        here’s my reasoning:

        I think that there is abundant evidence that the identity-defensive and identity-aggressive behaviors we see in the climate wars are explained by attributes of human cognition and psychology that cross ideological boundaries.

        On the other hand, trying to distill behavioral patterns from anecdotal observations about what takes place in the blogosphere is fraught with potential biases – sampling biases, observer biases, confirmation biases, etc.

        Let’s say we observe that “realists” don’t whine as much as “skeptics” about being “censored” when their comments are moderated. What does that tell us given that: (1) We haven’t in any way controlled for confounding variables, and (2) Even if we had, we’re looking at an outlier group, so some result of statistical significant would not necessarily have any significant real-world implications.

      • ATTP

        If you consider unScientific American you will note that they cut comments that are science based but differ from the view that AGW must lead to disaster. They promote total propaganda

      • If you consider unScientific American you will note that they cut comments that are science based but differ from the view that AGW must lead to disaster.

        Can you demonstrate/document this? Question, not argument.

      • mwgrant

        Yes- I have been banned from unScientific American after posting

        “Here are additional links to analysis of climate model performance. If a model does not reasonably closely match observed conditions it is unfit for use in evaluating potential future conditions. Why is this so difficult for you and others to follow???
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/

        Peer reviewed paper
        http://projects.upei.ca/climate/files/2012/07/2012-10-13-Fenech-et-al-Validating-GCMs.pdf

      • Thanks Rob. I’ve been vaguely uncomfortable with bias in SciAm based on what does appear there and was curious to see what they omit. Do you remember the article or approximate date when you posted? (Not urgent.) Thanks again.

    • Steven Mosher

      Lets hear your theories about why things become one sided at CE.

      To be a good theory it has to explain why other blogs become one sided as well.

      • Thanks rud, fully agree. IMO, this blog is the perfect illustration of why the alarmists want to stifle debate. When real debate occurs, the cagw’rs lose every time.

      • Simple, as my post meant to reply to rud explains, alarmist blogs are heavily moderated, even RC, which is probably the most respectable among them. They simply do not allow skeptic posts to stand, so, by design, they are one-sided. CE, on the other hand, is lightly moderated. The moderation that occurs is not always deliberate, but when it is deliberate, is intended to stop lengthy , off-topic posts that distract from the discussion.

        As for why CE has become more one sided, see rud’s reply.

      • Mosher:
        “Lets hear your theories about why things become one sided at CE.”

        Heavily moderated blogs become one sided.
        Lightly moderated blogs become one sided.
        If all blogs become one sided, owner moderation is irrelevant to one sidedness.

        However, people left to their own devices as most of us are here, do moderate each other. Willard, Joshua, and Jim D and others have seen commenter moderation attempts (let’s call it passionate persuasion) and haven’t backed away. Let’s say a stubborn minority here prevents the slide into a boring one sidedness. So, lacking heavy owner moderation, a stubborn minority can prevent one sidedness.

      • richardswarthout

        Mosh

        I don’t agree with your premise that CE is one sided; it is not a one-side-fits-all blog. Wouldn’t a one sided blog result in only one side providing coments? Perhaps “sidedness” is not a two sided parameter.

        Richard

      • This blog is not one-sided. Skeptics, deniers, lukes are are the majority of commenters, but we got plenty of alarmist characters who make a prodigious effort to debunk the majority viewpoint, or just to obstruct and annoy. Judith bends over backwards to accommodate them. You want to see one-sided? Look to the alarmist echo chambers, where orthodoxy is strictly enforced.

      • One-sided blog theory: people are prideful prigs whom require an echo chamber to unsustainably prop up their self esteem above the x-y plane.

      • ” When real debate occurs, the cagw’rs lose every time.”
        How did you come to this conclusion? Can you claim to be an objective scorer? I find that a lot of so called “skeptics” are deluding themselves about their scientific knowledge.

    • ==> ” it seems of late that fewer alarmists are posting here and the blog is becoming more one sided.”

      Who are the “alarmists” who aren’t posting here anymore? How do you determine that they are “alarmists.” Do you think that simply if someone is alarmed about the potential risks of ACO2, they are an “alarmist?”

      “Skeptics” say quite frequently hat most “skeptics” don’t doubt that ACO2 affects (warms) the climate, they just don’t know the magnitude of the warming. If you don’t know the magnitude, then certainly you think there is potential risk. Can we then argue, therefore, that most “skeptics” are “alarmists?” Or should we only say that someone who shares your level of concern is rational, cool-headed, (not to mention handsome), and that anyone who evaluates the potential risk a being greater than your evaluation, is therefore a “Chicken Little?”

      Here’s what I think: I think that if you’re interested in good faith exchange of views about climate change, you should avoid polemics like “alarmist.”

      • The list includes Bartr, lolwot, WHUT, Fan, and a few others that my feeble memory can not recall at this point.

        I use the term alarmist, partly in response to being called a denier, but also because alarmists take an irrational position that all we need to do to save the planet from certain ruin is to stop burning fossil fuels, as if we can control and stabilize the climate by contolling co2.

        As to equating support of hillary to support of trump, if you are unable to discern the difference between the two, you truly belong to the group I referenced.

      • Joshua, I seldom engage you, as is singularly unrewarding. Talking to you reminds me of catching an eel. You can get the slippery ananolgy.
        But, I will engage in your dred polemics. Why? Because Hansen just PR’d a garbage paper predicting Xx meter sea rise. i have approprately responded to that open journals review process. As of now, you have not.
        Because Schmidt PR’d hottest ever– with a 38% chance of being true.
        Now, I could give many more examples.
        Cut your crappy stuff. Warmunists think they have a free pass. You aid and abet them via your nonsense above. I call BS on you and yours. BTW, it would be helpful if you said what you thought on the subject matter here, rather than continually trying to make style debating points. Once upon a time I made those style points also….and then grew up.

    • Barnes –

      ==> ” just look at how many continue to support Hillary, even now. It’s pathetic….”

      Yes. Good point.

      But on the other hand, to balance things out, at least we have smart, cool-headed (not to mention handsome) folks who support Trump.

      • Josh&a

        I just don’t get the appeal of Trump. He seems to me to be a bully who stamps his feet if he doesn’t get his own way .Mind you, Hillary Clinton does not seem an appealing candidate either.

        tonyb

      • Tony – the thing that separates all other candidates from hillery is that, simply put, she is a criminal who has largely been protected, even adored, by the media. While trump may be a bully as you, imo, correctly state, he is saying things that need to be said and does not cower in the face of media criticism like too many other republican candidates. My guess is that people here support him because they are sick of mealy mouthed republicans as well as an MSM that gives cover to any lie that dems come up with, and they are enjoying trump effectively giving the msm the finger.

      • richardswarthout

        Tony

        “I just don’t get the appeal of Trump. He seems to me to be a bully who stamps his feet if he doesn’t get his own way.” I agree. More importantly, American voters do not know what he truly believes, what his policies will be if elected president. In that way he reminds me of Obama, who we also did not know. Reagan reduced all tax rates for the purpose of growing the economy and, IMO, any new tax plan should have that same Reagan goal. Trump does not get it with his support of a wealth tax and I will definitely not vote for him, for the same reason I did not vote for Obama; I don’t trust what he says.

        Richard

      • Barnes and Richard

        I do get the fact that politicians are often mealy mouthed and refuse to address the real concerns of the voters, for example immigration and the loss of power and influence by America which seems to them to have accelerated in the Obama Years. I can’t see how trump is any sort of
        Long term solution but perhaps he will at least put such subjects on the agenda of things it is possible to debate.

        As for Hillary Clinton, I am astonished that someone who has such a murky past with regards to her servers and withholding information should still be considered the front runner for the POTUS

        Tonyb

      • Tony, a major factor in Trump’s appeal is that he stamps his feet and doesn’t back down, when the PC crowd and the Democrat-stooge mainstream media howl. He doesn’t have much in the way of conventional political skills, but that’s another thing a lot of people like. And they think that he won’t be on the make to feather his own nest by sucking up to big money interests. He is big money. He can finance his own campaign. His net worth is seen as an indication that he is a real world operator amongst a bunch of nondescript career politicians. If the choice boils down to Trump vs Hillary, or Biden, or Commie Bernie, I going with the Donald.

    • Barnes “As for the state of the science, my personal prediction is that it will take 2 or more generations before the lie of CAGW is fully laid to rest – and it may take longer given how invested the proponents are and who they are …… ”
      Yep. One funeral at a time one must presume. I’ll bet that in another hundred year’s time, historians will look at this debate and wonder what all the fuss was about.

      • And I bet that in a hundred years time the countries that took alleged CAGW seriously will have fallen far behind those which don’t. Western Civilisation, on yer bike.

      • It wont take 100 years!

        BTW, its great to have the real Michael Cunningham back! :)

      • Michael Cunningham is back, hooray! but where’s Faustino?

      • Looks like Faustino needs to get a facebook page! ;)

      • Michael Cunningham | August 25, 2015 at 5:03 am |
        “And I bet that in a hundred years time the countries that took alleged CAGW seriously will have fallen far behind those which don’t. ”

        A man of conviction…..and an alarmist to boot!

      • Nothing alarmist about facing the reality that a thriving economy requires access to abundent, affordable, and reliable energy, which in today’s world means fossil fuel, and in tommorrow’s world, if we wake up soon enough, means nuclear. I doubt any intermittent energy source will ever supply sufficient energy to become the backbone energy source needed to maintain a fraction of the standard of living we have today.

      • ==> “And I bet that in a hundred years time the countries that took alleged CAGW seriously will have fallen far behind those which don’t. ”

        Well, from the evidence we have so far, that’s certainly likely to prove true. Look how far behind the U.S., Germany, etc., have fallen behind countries like Somalia. Of course, attributing causality there could be difficult. It could be Somalia’s tax policy and tyranny-free government that have made the difference.

    • If you consider unScientific American you will note that they cut comments that are science based but differ from the view that AGW must lead to disaster.

      I’m pretty sure that isn’t the reason that they gave. Can you provide some kind of link that confirms that their motivation was to only allow comments from those who’s view is that AGW must lead to disaster?

  24. richardswarthout

    I tend to trust those who present what is not known, in addition to what is known; don’t see this enough from many climate scientists. Dr Curry is an exception and a reason I read her blog.

    Richard

  25. What probably 99% of the most vocal people here at CE refuse to acknowledge:

    Dr. Curry on numerous occasions and venues has stated that her guess is that ~50% of GW has come from humans.

    Dr. Schmidt has given an opinion that humans are responsible for ~100%.

    So Dr. Curry and Schmidt agree on a at least ~50% number.

    What does the Curry and Schmidt “common ground” mean? We never talk about this. We just argue about Dr. Schmidt’s (and others) ~100% number.

    That’s the problem in this “Debate” — We never/rarely try and find common ground and talk constructively about it. Everything is always “framed” in extremes (on both sides) of who can yell the loudest.

    • Very silly, Stephen. The difference between Judith and Schmidt amounts to GAZILLION$, in terms of CO2 mitigation policy.

      • Angech: Would you consider that 2 billion years of life existing on earth with all it’s potential temperature modifiers implies a rather narrow band of temperature range which in turn might/must be a credible science based argument for an effect very close to, if not equivalent to zero.

        Sure. The lower of my estimates was 0.16C increase. Is that “very close to” 0 for you?

        There is a sort of fanciful semi-argument that an increase in CO2 could produce an increase in the magnitude of the oscillations above and below the mean without changing the mean.

    • David Wojick

      But then others, including me, say it is roughly 0%. Curry and Schmidt are not the only voices here. What is the common ground between 100% and 0%? There is none.

      • David Wojick — You’re not a leading climate scientist and a nobody like me in the science debate.

      • Curious George

        I proved that only 17 angels can dance on a tip of a needle, not 23 as my ill-informed and unscientific opponents say.

      • curious, “I proved that only 17 angels can dance on a tip of a needle, not 23 as my ill-informed and unscientific opponents say.”

        Angelic obesity caused by supersizing no doubt.

      • David Wojick

        Stephen, I am not a leading climate scientist but I am a leading analyst of the scientific debate. In fact I know a great deal more about it than the climate scientists, because this is my field, not theirs. I have no idea what your role is. In any case the debate is not just among “leading climate scientists,” whatever that may mean, which is not much. That is what makes it so interesting.

      • “But then others, including me, say it is roughly 0%.”

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
        which reduces Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR).

        Ways which possibly restore balance to Incoming Solar Radiation (ISR) could be:

        1. rising temperatures, which mean greater outgoing IR
        2. increase of clouds in some way that increases the reflected solar amount
        3. change in the average height of cloud tops which would increase OLR
        4. lapse rate change which only increased upper temperatures
        5. reduction in upper humidity

        Natural variability does change all aspects of the atmosphere and we can’t know the counterfactual.

        However, of the factors above, 1., warming, has a direct causal mechanism ( energy budget surplus ) and is observed.

        The other factors could happen, but there’s not a good causal description of why they would be likely and they are not observed.

        Warming would seem most likely response to GHG.

        That doesn’t mean natural variation won’t continue to occur.

        But why would you believe there is no effect of GHG forcing?

      • Turbulent Eddie: But why would you believe there is no effect of GHG forcing?

        Indeed.

        My calculations (what I hope to call “informed speculation”) showed that starting now, a doubling of CO2 concentration could produce somewhere between 0.16C and 0.86C, on average, at the surface. I have never read a credible science based argument that the effect must be 0, either in the past or in the future.

      • matthewrmarler | August 24, 2015 at 4:50 pm |
        I have never read a credible science based argument that the effect must be 0, either in the past or in the future.
        How strange, a black swan then?
        Would you consider that 2 billion years of life existing on earth with all it’s potential temperature modifiers implies a rather narrow band of temperature range which in turn might/must be a credible science based argument for an effect very close to, if not equivalent to zero.
        Lucia stated that by definition a positive force on its own in a system cannot have a zero or negative feedback but I can easily think of systems which have a setup which would neutralize positive forces in the system while the system lasts.
        Photosynthesis is an example of perpetual motion.energy on earth though it is not really perpetual in that the sun will run out of energy in the long run. Where we are we will only see unlimited [during the day ] energy.

      • Forget 0%, what if it’s -20%.

        The Climate is a complex system, and we’re not talking about adding additional energy to it, no matter how many nuclear bomb equivalents the Alarmists want to equal it to. The Greenhouse effect involves altering the flow of energy through that system, and we still don’t understand MOST of the components in it. It is very possible that changing the flow of infrared through the troposphere could cause changes in the Climate that divert energy in other part (evaporation, storms, ocean currents, ect.) and there by alter the flow of energy that escapes into space.

        Possibly even greater then by the amount ‘back radiated’ by the increased CO2, thus a negative percentage. Or possibly it could REDUCE energy escaping in other parts, ie the ‘positive feedbacks’ that would be necessary to even reach the 2C limit pushed by the Alarmist.

        This is but one of the fangs that the Uncertainty Monster gnaws us with, and the only way to dull it’s bite is by collecting more and more data. REAL data, made by taking observations of all the climates many peramaters.

    • Stephen:
      The differences between Drs. Curry and Schmidt are significantly more than their estimates of the role of mankind in GW. Indeed, one could argue that it is the tone of the debate between the two them about the relative contributions of climate forcings that helps frame the issues of trust and distrust.

      • bernie — Do you know what the Curry and Schmidt agreement of at least 50% means? I sure don’t.

      • Stephen Segrest
        50% … 100%
        besides the fact that this number is eternally speculative and unverifiable
        so what?
        I have no interest in imaging with you this perfect non-human world and attempting to return to it
        apologies, but I think climate alarmists are the new Puritans
        I have tried really hard and can see nothing outside of natural variation
        the same that created polar bears, created us
        at some point no doubt, the status of human existence on this planet will change dramatically
        and will come from something we can’t predict and never saw coming
        the reason large segments of the public pay little attention to this subject is simple
        wisdom

    • Schmidt and Curry had a very interesting dialogue some time ago on Keith Kloor’s old blog.

      http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3314

      See “Gavin’s Perspective” and “The Curry Agonistes”

      I don’t suspect their positions have changed appreciably in the intervening 5 years.

      • I participated in the Keith Kloor discussion. Gavin’s treatment of the Pielkes’ and McIntyre at RC still strike me as highly problematic. He handled the immediate aftermath of Climategate in a measured manner, but that did not last very long.
        The best thing, IMHO, to come out of the interaction (I choose my words deliberately) was the emergence of Judith’s blog soon thereafter. Gavin’s approach seems to have backfired.

  26. If science is done correctly, “trust” isn’t needed (or an issue). If “trust” is needed, you aren’t doing science.

  27. David Wojick

    That which is not trustworthy cannot be trusted. There is no way to “rebuild” trust in climate science before the game is over. This is a science-intensive political struggle of vast proportions.

  28. The greatest single thing that Dr. Curry can do to improve the trustworthiness and “safe place” of CE is to permanently ban Don Monfort. He never adds anything technically and is just toxic.

    • Can’t stand the heat, stephie? You are habitually trying to position yourself as the voice of reason, but you are just silly and trivial. And your leanings are obvious.

      There is a huge difference between Judith’s and Schmidt’s positions on climate sensitivity, with huge implications. Why don’t you go over to realclimate and tell those goons that Schmidt et al have a lot in common with Judith and they should stop persecuting her. See how you like the borehole.

      • OK Monfort, here’s your chance to show your science chops. Since your so good at always explaining what Dr. Curry means, what is the science meaning of Curry and Schmidt both agreeing on the at least ~50% level? Since you are the clear proxy for Dr. Curry — many of us can’t wait for your “science” response.

      • Silly again, stephie. They do not agree on the 50% level. One says 50%, the other says 100%. Anybody who knows 2+2 can see that is not agreement. I will try to help you, stephie:

        Let’s say you loan me $1000. OK, I take it. When it comes time to settle up, I will pay you back $500. We agree on the $500, so it’s good if I only pay you the $500. Nice doing business with you, stephie.

      • Monfort — As expected, you are an empty suit. But I’ll give you this — You clearly are a legend in your own mind.

      • Very clever comeback, stephie. Is that original? You could say that Schmidt is in agreement with someone who thinks it’s 4%. Watch this, stephie:

        Dr. X on numerous occasions and venues has stated that her guess is that ~4% of GW has come from humans.

        Dr. Schmidt has given an opinion that humans are responsible for ~100%.

        So Dr. X and Schmidt agree on at least the ~4% number.

        You are making a fool of yourself, stephie.

      • Stephen, “Since your so good at always explaining what Dr. Curry means, what is the science meaning of Curry and Schmidt both agreeing on the at least ~50% level.”

        False and misleading statement alert. Gavin’s 110% estimate virtually excludes 50% or less and Curry’s 50% was challenging the confidence of “most” or greater than 50%. There is no agreement on “at least ~ 50% level.” Dr. Curry wasn’t even providing an estimate of what she thinks is likely with respect to “global” warming.

        She did provide a 50/50 +/- 30% anthro versus natural for Arctic sea ice which is a different subject.

    • The blog has precisely the commentators it deserves

      • Are you still mad at me, verytrollguy? We can’t just stand by and let warmist misogynist trolls come in here and harass Judith with impunity. Get real.

      • Not mad in the least Don.

        Your purpose is clear and useful.

      • Keep your nose clean and we will get along. I generally like Australians. Good soldiers.

    • “The greatest single thing that Dr. Curry can do to improve the trustworthiness and “safe place” of CE is to permanently ban Don Monfort. He never adds anything technically and is just toxic.”

      Wholeheartedly agreed!

      • Tell us some more about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Where did you leave off with Curt? Are you still mad?

      • I left off with Curt proving that his steel greenhouse perpetual motion machine violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. As to your silly theory Don that the quantum theory of photons is analogous to steel balls- that’s even more pathetic than Curt’s perpetual motion machine. Thus, “He never adds anything technically and is just toxic” is putting it lightly since your understanding of the difference between classical physics and quantum physics is nil.

        Please Dr. Curry remove this nuisance from your site, as he drags the quality of the commentary down to his level of a childish, name-calling bully who can’t stop himself from spouting his ill-informed & toxic comments on every thread & polluting your otherwise excellent site.

      • Stop the whining, hockeypuck. Stamping your feet and stubbornly repeating skydragon nonsense is not going to impress anybody here. You make yimmy look sensible.

      • Don, just like you don’t have a clue about the differences between photons & steel balls, you also have no clue that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect perfectly replicates the surface temperatures of 6 planets including Earth, and the temperature profiles of all planets with thick atmospheres in our solar system, whereas the failed Arrhenius theory is unable to determine the temperatures on any of those planets.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-paper-confirms-gravito-thermal.html

      • That grabitol-theremal thing is going to catch on some day, hockeypuck. Keep up the good work. Send me some money and I will visit your blog.

      • I have been looking for a place to comment on the “HockeySchtick” theory of “gravity forcing” which replaces the conventional “greenhouse gas forcing” theory of the 33C difference between the earth’s average temperature and the temperature expected from the outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-effective-radiating.html
        “Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases”

        The first probllem with this paper is it claims that the radiation from gases is not a factor in the surface temperature of the earth. It is clear from measurements that this assumption is false. See the earth’s energy budget diagram on the web. The downward radiation is real and measures about 352W/M2, much larger than the solar radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface.

        The second problem is that it arbitrarily assigns a temperature of 255K to the height in the atmosphere associated with a pressure of 0.5bar. There is no justification for using that height. It is arbitrary.

        The third problem is that the actual outgoing spectrum of the earth’s thermal radiation at the top of the atmosphere is not a black body like the HockeySchtick calculation assumes when it uses the Stefan Boltzmann and equation for the outgoing radiation . The measurements show that the radiation has big dips in intensity at the wave lengths absorbed by greenhouse gases, and peaks in the ” IR window’, where no GHG absorption takes place and the radiation from the surface goes directly into the atmosphere. You can see an example of an actual spectrum at the following link:

        http://www.acs.org/content/acs

        A fourth problem is that the calculation assumes that the outgoing radiation is black body radiation coming from the altitude at which the pressure is 0.5bar, i.e. 5 Km above the surface. There is no black body there only gases, and only GHG’s can emit significant radiation. So the claim that tthe explanation does not involve radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is clearly not correct.

        So the Hockeyschtick theory implicitly relies on radiation from gases in the atmosphere in addition to the lapse rate to explain this temperature differences of 33, wC. This is in a way similar the the traditional GHG theory, except that the assumptions in the calculation are in conflict with the experimental observations of the radiational properties of gases.

        This is clearly pseudoscience. It shows that there is often a huge gap in understanding of science between trained scientists and bloggers who pose as scientists.

      • Thanks, eadler. Very nice explanation. But it won’t make a dent in ole hockeypuck. He has seen all that before and it just makes him angrier and more determined to remain stubbornly ignorant.

      • Eadler2, you have completely misstated the gravito-thermal GHE of Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman/ US Std Atmosphere/International Standard Atmosphere and put up four completely false straw man arguments which you then attack.

        The Arrhenius theory confuses the cause (gravito-thermal) with the effect (IR radiation from GHGs):

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-man-made-global-warming-theory.html

        The energy budgets are based upon false assumptions of the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law of blackbodies to gases, and a mathematical error in calculation of the Planck parameter:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html

        You falsely claim “HockeySchtick calculation assumes when it uses the Stefan Boltzmann and equation for the outgoing radiation” The HS greenhouse equation and NONE of the works I cited DO NOT use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation whatsoever, including Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, The US and International Standard Atmospheres, Kimoto, Chilingar, et al.

        You falsely claim “The second problem is that it arbitrarily assigns a temperature of 255K to the height in the atmosphere associated with a pressure of 0.5bar. There is no justification for using that height. It is arbitrary.”

        FALSE again. 255K is the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun, and therefore must also equal the 255K temperature of the “effective radiating level.” The HS GH eqn determines the height of the ERL (~5.5km) by calculating the center of mass of particles of the entire atmosphere, necessary for Newton’s 2nd law F=mg that is also incorporated in the equation.

        Eadler2 you have clearly failed to grasp the physics of the giants Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman/Newton/ and 100’s of atmospheric physicists who worked on the 1976 US Std Atmosphere and the International Standard Atmosphere, NONE of whom did ONE single radiative transfer calculation whatsoever to perfectly describe the temperature profile of our atmosphere. NOT ONE!

        Thus, clearly it is you and not the giants above who is practicing pseudoscience and denying gravity.

        Oh, and a new paper published last week also demonstrates the surface T of 6 planets incl Earth can be determined only from PRESSURE & solar insolation, without ANY consideration of GHG concentrations or radiative forcing calculations WHATSOEVER. Why not? Because gravity/mass/pressure CAUSE the GHE, not passive IR absorbers/emitters (the EFFECT).

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-paper-confirms-gravito-thermal.html

      • Hockeyschtick wrote:
        “The energy budgets are based upon false assumptions of the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law of blackbodies to gases, and a mathematical error in calculation of the Planck parameter:”
        No. The radiation numbers in the energy budget are based on radiometer measurements. No equations were used. Are you claiming that the radiometers are in error?

        “You falsely claim “HockeySchtick calculation assumes when it uses the Stefan Boltzmann and equation for the outgoing radiation” The HS greenhouse equation and NONE of the works I cited DO NOT use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation whatsoever”

        You clearly say the 255K effective temperature is based on using the Stefan Boltzmann equation on the measured outgoing radiation. Here is your statement.
        :
        “Energy incoming from the Sun (Ein) = Energy out (Eout) from Earth to space
        Observations indeed show Ein = Eout = 240 W/m2 (2)
        which by the Stefan-Boltzmann law equates to a blackbody radiating at 255 K or -18C, which we will call the effective or equilibrium temperature (Te) between the Sun and Earth. As seen by satellites, the Earth radiates at the equilibrium temperature 255K from an average height referred to as the “effective radiating level” or ERL or “effective radiating height.”

        So you are indeed saying there is effecitively a black body in the atmosphere radiating energy into outer space at a certain height. A sample of the measurements doesn’t show anthing that looks like a black body spectrum,
        http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

      • “The energy budgets are based upon false assumptions of the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law of blackbodies to gases, and a mathematical error in calculation of the Planck parameter:”

        Please read the Kimoto reference which explains the incorrect calculation of the Planck parameter and the false assumption of constant atmospheric emissivity:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html

        “You falsely claim “HockeySchtick calculation assumes when it uses the Stefan Boltzmann and equation for the outgoing radiation” The HS greenhouse equation and NONE of the works I cited DO NOT use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation whatsoever”

        eadler2 says “You clearly say the 255K effective temperature is based on using the Stefan Boltzmann equation on the measured outgoing radiation.”

        No, the HS greenhouse equation only uses the S-B law to calculate the equilibrium temperature of the Earth with the Sun, NOT the outgoing radiation. Per the 1st LoT, Ein from the Sun = Eout, thus I don’t need to calculate OLR.
        :
        “Energy incoming from the Sun (Ein) = Energy out (Eout) from Earth to space
        Observations indeed show Ein = Eout = 240 W/m2 (2)
        which by the Stefan-Boltzmann law equates to a blackbody radiating at 255 K or -18C, which we will call the effective or equilibrium temperature (Te) between the Sun and Earth. As seen by satellites, the Earth radiates at the equilibrium temperature 255K from an average height referred to as the “effective radiating level” or ERL or “effective radiating height.”

        eadler says “So you are indeed saying there is effecitively a black body in the atmosphere radiating energy into outer space at a certain height. A sample of the measurements doesn’t show anthing that looks like a black body spectrum,
        http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

        The atmosphere as a whole is effectively a 255K blackbody, whereas the GHG “partial blackbody” from CO2 (+ H2O overlap) is only “equivalent” to a partial blackbody Planck curve at ~217K as shown in these OLR spectra:

        Planck’s law of blackbody radiation says a 217K blackbody cannot warm a warmer blackbody at 255K by 33K up to 288 K. The gravito-thermal GHE instead explains both the -35C ANTI-greenhouse effect from the ERL to 220K tropopause as well as the 33C greenhouse effect from ERL to surface.

      • sorry the bolding was not closed properly on the last comment, was only bolding the word “outgoing” only. The point was that the HS GH eqn only uses SB law for the incoming solar insolation, not for the outgoing longwave radiation.

      • “Planck’s law of blackbody radiation says a 217K blackbody cannot warm a warmer blackbody at 255K by 33K up to 288 K. The gravito-thermal GHE instead explains both the -35C ANTI-greenhouse effect from the ERL to 220K tropopause as well as the 33C greenhouse effect from ERL to surface.”
        Planck’s law gives an equation for radiation flux dependent on temperature. It doesn’t say that the radiation flux will stop if there is a warmer body radiating somewhere else, in this case, in the layers of atmosphere below the region. In fact what is happening is that the CO2 is thinner at elevations above 220K and the upward directed radiation is going from that elevation into outer space, while the radiation from the surface that is not absorbed and re-emitted by GHG’s goes directly from the ground at 320K, into outer space. All this is clear to people with a correct understanding of the science, when they look at the upward radiation graph.
        If I were running a science blog, I wouldn’t allow such nonsense to be posted on my blog, if the blogger repeatedly misunderstood the science. I can understand why RealClimate and Scientific American would not allow such posts to continue.

      • Eadler2 you obviously don’t understand Planck’s Law of blackbody radiation. There are cutoffs for thermaliation of photons as shown in fig 4.8 in this post.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-law-proves-why-radiation-from.html

        Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation proves why low frequency/energy photons (eg 15um photons from CO2) cannot transfer any quantum energy to a higher frequency/energy/temperature blackbody because all of those lower frequency/energy microstates & orbitals are already completely filled or saturated in the hotter body. This fact alone from quantum mechanics falsifies CAGW.

        As shown on these calculated Planck blackbody curves from 220K to 320K, CO2 (+H2O overlap) absorbs and emits in the LWIR [LongWave InfraRed] the same as a true blackbody would at an emitting temperature of ~217K over the LWIR band from ~12um to ~17um:

        eadler2, you don’t understand that the reason why the CO2 (+H2O overlap) “partial blackbody” “equivalent” Planck curve at ~217K has NOTHING to do with the surrounding temperature or density of the atmosphere as you claim and ONLY to do with the fact that CO2 is a mere molecular line emitter with a FIXED emitting/absorbing wavelength of 15 microns due to bending transitions of it’s molecular structure. By Wein’s Law, which is derived from PLANCK’s Law, a blackbody emitting temperature of 193K has a peak emission at 15 microns. The H2O overlap makes the CO2+H2O overlap “partial blackbody” emitting temperature ~217K as shown in the above spectra, 13.35 microns by Wein’s/Planck’s law.

        A “partial blackbody” peak emitting temperature of 217K CANNOT warm any other blackbody with a temperature higher than itself. To do otherwise would require an impossible decrease of entropy, absolutely forbidden by the 2nd LoT.

        I allow comments such as yours eadler on my blog to show the fallacies of your claims such that CO2 only emits 15 micron photons to space when the surrounding atmospheric temperature is down to 220K. FALSE! CO2 emits 15 micron photons at any surrounding temperature exceeding 193K to essentially unlimited temperature. It is you eadler who have “repeatedly misunderstood the science”

        Eadler, how did the US Standard Atmosphere & International Standard Atmospheres calculate the temperature profile from the surface to edge of space without ONE single radiative transfer equation whatsoever, and completely threw CO2 out of their mathematical model of the atmosphere?

      • “Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation proves why low frequency/energy photons (eg 15um photons from CO2) cannot transfer any quantum energy to a higher frequency/energy/temperature blackbody because all of those lower frequency/energy microstates & orbitals are already completely filled or saturated in the hotter body. This fact alone from quantum mechanics falsifies CAGW.”

        You claim that it is impossible for a body at a lower temperature to warm a higher temperature body by means of a photon that is lower in energy than the temperature of the higher temperature body, because all of the lower states are occupied. This is not correct. The probability of occupation of a given state is never 1 except for a ground state at absolute zero. The probability of occupation is exp(-E/kT) and the probability it is unoccupied is 1-exp(-E/kT).. This is a fundamental equation of statistical mechanics. So the probability that a state at energy E+kT is unoccupied is 0.63. Your claim of saturation is nonsense.

      • Sorry for the typo in my previous comment. I wanted to type E=kT, and I accidentally typed E+kT.

      • HockeySchtick wrote,
        “Eadler, how did the US Standard Atmosphere & International Standard Atmospheres calculate the temperature profile from the surface to edge of space without ONE single radiative transfer equation whatsoever, and completely threw CO2 out of their mathematical model of the atmosphere?”
        The lapse rate is mostly established by a combination of gravitational potential and an adiabatic equation of state. If you solve those equations for the lapse rate as a first approximation, neglecting the effect of radiation, and then calculate the effect of radiation, you will find that radiation makes a small correction to the temperature .

        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050276y

        The fact that IR radiation has little effect on the steadyy state atmospheric lapse rate does not imply that downward radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface of the earth. That is an assumption on your part which requires proof. The claim that radiation from a cooler parcel of air cannot be absorbed by a warmer parcel of air, which causes you to make that assumption is false as I have shown.

      • Nice work, eadler. You have exploded little hockeypucks fundamental misconceptions. However, I predict with great confidence that he will prefer to remain willfully ignorant and keep up his spamming. Expect him to reply with some BS about you not knowing photons from steel balls and you are proposing a perpetual motion machine.

      • “You claim that it is impossible for a body at a lower temperature to warm a higher temperature body by means of a photon that is lower in energy than the temperature of the higher temperature body”

        Yes I do, and it is astonishing that you think otherwise. This is the basis of the Planck blackbody theory of radiation, and as I’ve already shown you in fig 4.8, if your theory that photons of any wavelength can be thermalized (thermalized= increase the temperature/frequency/energy) by a blackbody at a given temperature was true, the red and blue dashed lines would be observed in nature. They are not, and that is the reason why Planck had to devise quantum theory to explain why the solid blue and red Planck curves in fig 4.8 are found in nature instead and which have frequency cutoffs for thermalization of incoming photons.

        Yes or No: Do you seriously believe that a blackbody at 217K can warm a warmer blackbody at 255K by 33K up to 288K?

        Yes or No: Heat transfer from cold to hot requires an impossible continuous decrease of entropy.

        HockeySchtick wrote,
        “Eadler, how did the US Standard Atmosphere & International Standard Atmospheres calculate the temperature profile from the surface to edge of space without ONE single radiative transfer equation whatsoever, and completely threw CO2 out of their mathematical model of the atmosphere?”

        eadler2 says “The lapse rate is mostly established by a combination of gravitational potential and an adiabatic equation of state. If you solve those equations for the lapse rate as a first approximation, neglecting the effect of radiation, and then calculate the effect of radiation, you will find that radiation makes a small correction to the temperature.”

        No the lapse rate is dT/dh = -g/Cp

        and has NOTHING to do with radiation. GHGs increase Cp, which is INVERSELY related to dT. That is why the wet adiabatic lapse rate is one-half the dry, and thus why H2O decreases the surface temperature by up to 25C.

        eadler says “The fact that IR radiation has little effect on the steadyy state atmospheric lapse rate does not imply that downward radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface of the earth. That is an assumption on your part which requires proof. The claim that radiation from a cooler parcel of air cannot be absorbed by a warmer parcel of air, which causes you to make that assumption is false as I have shown.”

        You’re again misquoting. Low frequency/energy 15 micron radiation from the CO2 “partial blackbody” at an effective emitting temperature of 193K CANNOT warm the 288K surface that is 95K warmer! Just like the blackbodies above, radiation between cold and hot is bidirectional, but heat transfer is one way only hot to cold.

        I’m done with your gross violations of the principle of maximum entropy production/2nd Law, Planck’s Law of BB radiation, etc., thinking that a BB radiating at an effective temperature of 193K can make a 288K BB warm even more. Ridiculous.

      • Eadler has answered your ridiculous questions, hockeypuck. This would send you running, if you had any sense:

        “Planck’s law gives an equation for radiation flux dependent on temperature. It doesn’t say that the radiation flux will stop if there is a warmer body radiating somewhere else, in this case, in the layers of atmosphere below the region. In fact what is happening is that the CO2 is thinner at elevations above 220K and the upward directed radiation is going from that elevation into outer space, while the radiation from the surface that is not absorbed and re-emitted by GHG’s goes directly from the ground at 320K, into outer space. All this is clear to people with a correct understanding of the science, when they look at the upward radiation graph.”

        He even does the math for you:

        “You claim that it is impossible for a body at a lower temperature to warm a higher temperature body by means of a photon that is lower in energy than the temperature of the higher temperature body, because all of the lower states are occupied. This is not correct. The probability of occupation of a given state is never 1 except for a ground state at absolute zero. The probability of occupation is exp(-E/kT) and the probability it is unoccupied is 1-exp(-E/kT).. This is a fundamental equation of statistical mechanics. So the probability that a state at energy E+kT is unoccupied is 0.63. Your claim of saturation is nonsense.”

        You just ignore what he says. You are just a mindless spammer.

      • Donny boy, obviously you didn’t bother to read my comments above where I completely destroyed eadler’s arguments, so I’m not going to bother to repeat them again. How’s your photons-are-steel-balls ludicrous theory coming along Donny boy? Built your perpetual motion machine yet? Still think a steel ball at 217K can warm another steel ball at 255K by 33K up to 288K? Still think CO2 is a magical entropy-reducing gas? Your fizzikx is hilarious, albiet pathetic.

      • You are just making crap up, spamclown:

        “How’s your photons-are-steel-balls ludicrous theory coming along Donny boy?”

        That is typical of the irrational BS that comes out of your little pointy head. I am going to be charitable and assume it’s due to loose wires, rather than shameless dishonesty. You appear to be afflicted with some bad form of dyslexia that affects your reading comprehension and your ability to think logically. You need to get checked out. You do not lack intelligence. Get the wiring fixed and you could make yourself useful.

        That’s all I have for you. Carry on with your foolishness.

      • Hockeyschtick – try to look at the real world.

        It doesn’t matter how many physicists names you attach to your theory claiming to explain the 33C gap between the surface temperature of the earth and the average radiation temperature associated with the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The theory is still nonsense.

        You claim that bodies at a higher temperature cannot absorb photons from a body at lower temperature fails because all the lower energy states are completely occupied is clearly shown to be false when you do the math, as I pointed out. You haven’t addressed that argument at all.
        It isn’t clear whether this is because you don’t understand the calculation, which is really quite elementary physics, or you are too proud to admit that you are wrong. It seems that you have put in a lot of work creating elaborate web pages which are based on a false premise, and are too heavily invested in it to back down. The unfortunate part of this is that you have fooled a lot of people, because they don’t understand the physics to begin with, and are willing to believe anything that contradicts the standard theory, supported by 97% of climate scientists, that CO2 iincreases in the atmosphere, caused by human activity, is warming the earth.

      • Eadler, the hockeypuck has another novel/crank theory
        that he is working over on wuwt:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/where-is-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-toa/#comment-2017144

        “An additional false assumption in the models is that solar insolation is TSI/4, but this fails to consider Earth’s precession angle of 23.44 degrees, which reduces the divisor down to TSI/3.5. TSI/4 is only true for a planet with a precession angle of zero degrees.”

        He, he.

      • Poor hockeypuck doesn’t get the part about the sun shining on half of the earth all the time. Which reminds me of a story told to me by a friend from country X (I don’t want to offend anybody’s sensibilities). A guy from X was a subject of a man-in-the-street interview. The question of the day was: What is your greatest ambition?

        Man from X replied that he wanted to be an astronaut and be the first man to land on the moon. He was politely informed that man had already landed on the moon. He thought that over for a couple of minutes and said, “OK, I want to be the first astronaut to land on the sun.” But you will burn up! He thought that over for a few minutes and eureka, “I will go at night!”

      • LOL to you it doesn’t matter that Feynman, Boltzmann, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, US Std Atmosphere 100’s of physicists all proved the gravito-thermal GHE, but you cite as your appeal to authority the bogus “97% consensus.”

        “You claim that bodies at a higher temperature cannot absorb photons from a body at lower temperature fails because all the lower energy states are completely occupied is clearly shown to be false when you do the math, as I pointed out.”

        You haven’t “done the math.” PLANCK has done the math and clearly shows that there are frequency cutoffs for thermalization of blackbody radiation. PLEASE Google ‘frequency cutoff for thermalization’ for 463,000 results which will explain this to you and your side-kick Donny boy.

        If a low-energy/frequency photon hits a higher frequency/energy BB, that BB will simultaneously eject a photon of that exact same lower energy/frequency. Some instead refer to this as “reflection” of the lower E photon, either way, the warmer BB does NOT increase it’s temperature/frequency/energy.

        This is the whole basis of Planck’s quantum theory of blackbody radiation, and it is astonishing that you and Donny boy were clearly not paying attention in high-school physics.

        I am now done tutoring you both on this and now turn you over to Google ‘frequency cutoff for thermalization’ for 463,000 results which will explain this to you and your side-kick Donny boy.

      • HS, you are making physics up. Black bodies have no reflection by definition. That’s why they are called “black”. They absorb all photons that hit them and emit in a pure spectrum according to only their own temperature. Planck and anyone with any physics knowledge would laugh at your sentence about BBs.

      • Jim D please read again: “If a low-energy/frequency photon hits a higher frequency/energy BB, that BB will simultaneously eject a photon of that exact same lower energy/frequency.”

        Again, Google frequency cutoff for thermalization to let 463,000 other references explain why a lower frequency/energy photon absolutely CANNOT increase the frequency/temperature/energy of a higher frequency/temperature/energy blackbody.

        Obviously in answer to my questions above, Jim D, Donny boy, and eadler all wish to believe that 217K blackbody radiation can increase the temperature of a 255K BB by 33K to 288K, impossibly REDUCING entropy in the process.

        You are free to bask in your ignorance, I’m done explaining to you folks why that is IMPOSSIBLE.

      • HS, you explicitly referred to, and even rely on, reflection from a black body. Impossible by its definition. See physics text book.

      • Jim D You conveniently forget that blackbodies are perfect absorbers AND EMITTERS.

        Read again: “If a low-energy/frequency photon hits a higher frequency/energy BB, that BB will simultaneously eject [i.e. EMIT] a photon of that exact same lower energy/frequency. Some instead refer to this as “reflection” of the lower E photon, either way, the warmer BB does NOT increase it’s temperature/frequency/energy.

        Read a physics textbook and for the 3rd time Google frequency cutoff for thermalization.

      • “Jim D You conveniently forget that blackbodies are perfect absorbers AND EMITTERS.”
        So you admit that black bodies absorb radiation. That is a start. That means the density of states per unit volume, per unit of energy is non zero at all energies. If there exists a state of energy E , the probablility that it is unoccupied is (1 – E/kT). If it is reachable by a transition involving a photon, and a charged particle in an lower energy state, there is a non zero probability that an incident photon will cause such a transition, and be absorbed in the process. This process will add energy to the black body. Conservation of energy is inviolable. Basic physics says that such a process is not impossible, no matter what the energy of the photon and the temperature. You made the false claim that this is impossible.
        If you claim that the NET energy change in a black body that is at a higher temperature than its surroundings in negative, that is a different claim. I think you are confusing the two things. Your lack of understanding of the difference is making a reasoned discussion impossible.

      • hockeypuck: TSI/3.5

        The little fella doesn’t understand that the sun shines on half of the earth, all of the time. He will never get the Planck thingy.

      • HS, yes, you seem to have got that they absorb, and maybe just need to learn that they emit with a specific temperature-dependent spectrum whatever photons they absorb. There is no correlation between the incoming wavelengths and outgoing ones. Their emission spectrum defines what they are. See Planck Black Body spectrum.

      • For the fourth time, Google “frequency cutoff for thermalization” and 463,000 references will prove that I am correct. Eadler you simply don’t understand statistical mechanics, where the probability of a low energy photon warming a high energy BB is so insignificantly tiny that it can be assumed to be zero.

        Same for Maxwell’s Demon – the probability is so low it would take much longer than the age of the universe to even happen ONE single time!

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/maxwells-demon-proves-why-cold-gases.html

        Same for conduction. Nobody ever talks about “back-conduction” because the statistical probability is so low it can be assumed to be zero.

        So of course you continue to refuse to answer my simple questions:

        Yes or No: Do you seriously believe that a blackbody at 217K can warm a warmer blackbody at 255K by 33K up to 288K?

        Yes or No: Heat transfer from cold to hot requires an impossible continuous decrease of entropy.

        Because your silly fizzickx says the answer to the first question is Yes and to the second question No.

        Pathetic. Learn some high school physics please.

      • HS, it’s the sun that warms the surface, and the atmosphere that restricts the heat escape like an insulator. A roof doesn’t have to be warmer than the house to keep it warm, but it sure gets colder without it. Just stop and think, will you.

      • “the atmosphere that restricts the heat escape like an insulator. A roof doesn’t have to be warmer than the house to keep it warm, but it sure gets colder without it.”

        Please, gases free to convect and transfer latent heat are not an insulator. Solid objects like insulation in the attic, blankets, greenhouses, glass panes, steel greenhouses, etc and all the other false analogies to IR-active gases ALL work by limiting CONVECTION NOT “radiative forcing.” Limiting convection has absolutely NOTHING to do with “radiative forcing.”

        Please learn some elementary school physics.

      • HS, you can have your attic with more insulation or no insulation, both attics have no heating, but they affect your house temperature. It’s a controlled experiment without convection to the outside that you can try for yourself. Your fireplace warms your house, not the attic, but the attic insulation makes a difference to the house temperature.

      • HS, to summarize the physics. The sun heats the earth’s surface. The earth’s surface warms the atmosphere. With GHGs this warming is more effective because of its IR absorption. The smaller temperature gradient between the surface and the atmosphere keeps the surface from cooling as much as if the atmosphere remained colder as it would without GHG absorption. See, it can all be explained with downgradient heat transfers. With GHGs the atmosphere radiates some of the energy to space instead of the surface.

      • Jim D
        Your fireplace warms your house, not the attic, but the attic insulation makes a difference to the house temperature.

        And you think this is due to the radiative changes this makes ?

      • @Punksta
        “Jim D
        “Your fireplace warms your house, not the attic, but the attic insulation makes a difference to the house temperature.”

        And you think this is due to the radiative changes this makes ?”

        Definitely. The inside walls of the house radiate thermal energy back into the house keeping the interior warm, including the bodies in it The insulation in the walls keeps the temperature up. If the interior walls were cooler, less radiation would be arriving at your body from the walls.

        Another example of how radiation will warm your body is an space blanket. It is plastic coated with Aluminum, which reflects thermal radiation emitted from the body, back to the body. This stops the body from losing heat by radiation.

      • eadler2, “Another example of how radiation will warm your body is an space blanket. It is plastic coated with Aluminum, which reflects thermal radiation emitted from the body, back to the body. This stops the body from losing heat by radiation.”

        That’s why the space blanket clothing line is so successful. ASHREA has actual research into such things as insulation. If you add a radiant barrier to a 1″ air space you increase the insulation efficiency by 33%. That would be a clean, dry and close to 100% effective radiant barrier.

        Now the interesting thing about some who use the space blanket analogy is that they seem to neglect mentioning that the blanket also provides a vapor barrier and reduces convection.

      • @Capt.Dallas
        “Now the interesting thing about some who use the space blanket analogy is that they seem to neglect mentioning that the blanket also provides a vapor barrier and reduces convection.”
        True, but beside the point. It doesn’t show that radiation is non-existent or neglible, when you point out that the other energy loss mechanisms exist.
        In the case of energy loss from the earth atmosphere system, radiation is all that there is. In the case of the earth’s surface, most of the energy arriving at the surface is IR radiaiton from the atmosphere. That is what measurements show.

      • eadler2, “In the case of energy loss from the earth atmosphere system, radiation is all that there is. In the case of the earth’s surface, most of the energy arriving at the surface is IR radiaiton from the atmosphere. That is what measurements show.”

        If you own property near the effective radiant layer(ERL) it would be wise to invest in radiant barriers. However, near the surface the boring old fashion thermodynamics still rule the roost. The probability that back radiation transfers significant energy is reduced by much higher collision frequency, latent and convective transfer. The efficiency of the surface level radiant barrier is reduced. You are better off keeping your argument in the ERL region.

      • eadler2 | August 31, 2015 at 11:23 am |
        @Punksta
        “Jim D
        “Your fireplace warms your house, not the attic, but the attic insulation makes a difference to the house temperature.”

        And you think this is due to the radiative changes this makes ?”

        eadler2: “Definitely.”

        LOL. Here we go again.

        Insulation in the attic, greenhouses, space blankets, steel greenhouses, coffee mugs with top, glass panes, blankets, space blankets, tin foil hats, etc. are ALL SOLID OBJECTS AND NOT GASES free to convect and transfer latent heat in our atmosphere. ALL of these FALSE analogies to GHHs work by LIMITING CONVECTION BY SOLID OBJECTS -NOT GASES, AND NOT “radiative forcing.”

        What happens when you open the window on the top of a greenhouse or punch holes in your space blanket?

        The temperature equalizes with the outside. Duh.

        On the contrary, GHGs ACCELERATE CONVECTION by decreasing the lapse rate/increasing Cp, preferentially transferring heat to N2/O2 rather than emitting photons to ACCELERATE CONVECTIVE COOLING. GHGs also increase radiative LOSS to space by INCREASING RADIATIVE SURFACE AREA.

      • The hockeypuck somewhat relents in his silly argument for TSI/3.5 at wuwt, but he admits not to his ignorance and launches into another spamming of the famous
        grab-it-all thermos bottle hockeypuck greenhouse effect:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/where-is-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-toa/#comment-2017963

      • Thanks donnie boy for advertising my comments. Much appreciated, but you left off my latest one on that thread, for obvious reasons:

        The prior paper by Volokin et al is very interesting and available open access here:

        http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723

        Excerpt: “If such an ASCO orbited the Sun at Earth’s distance, had a regolith of zero thermal conductivity, and were only heated by solar radiation, then the equilibrium temperature of the illuminated point would be

        T1 = [So (1 – αo)cosθ/εσ]^0.25 = 349.6 K

        assuming αo = 0.12 (a typical value for rocky surfaces), a solar incident angle θ = 45°, and ε = 1.0. The temperature of the shaded point would be T2 = 0, because it receives no radiation since cos θ < 0 and there is no heat release from the regolith at night due to zero heat storage.

        Thus, their spherically integrated SB law does appear to depend upon the precession angle or obliquity and perhaps is a simplified version to the Chilingar equation.

        More here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/where-is-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-toa/#comment-2018159

        donny boy, I know you have no clue what the above even means, but TIA for advertising any of my comments at WUWT! I will be sure to return the favor for your photons act like steel balls, CO2 is a solid insulator, perpetual motion machines, cold heats hot, etc. etc. fizzikx comments.

      • I didn’t notice the backsliding comment, hockeypuck. So you have found another obscure paper that you can misuse to support your crank psuedoscience fantasies. You are getting nowhere with all that crap.

      • According to donnie boy, peer-reviewed articles published in top astrophysics journals are “crank pseudoscience,” but his crank pseudoscience fizzikx like photons act like steel balls, CO2 is a solid insulator, perpetual motion machines, cold heats hot, etc etc is golden.

        LOL

      • This is just more evidence that you either don’t understand what you read, or you deliberately misrepresent. I didn’t say that the paper is crank science. I said you misuse what you read. Like you misuse Planck and all the other famous scientists that you misrepresent to support your crank pseudoscience fantasies. You are not getting anywhere with your foolishness. Keep up the spamming, but in five years from now you will still be a crackpot hockeypuck. You could do better. You are really not as unintelligent as you make yourself out to be. Get yourself checked out. You got some bad wiring.

      • donnie boy: “I said you misuse what you read.”

        And donnie boy, I said YOU misuse what you DON’T read.

        A few prime examples of many of donnie boy’s crank pseudoscience fizzikx:

        photons act like steel balls,
        all photons are created equal & their frequency/energy doesn’t matter
        CO2 is a solid insulator,
        perpetual motion machines exist,
        cold heats hot,
        etc etc

        The list continues to expand, hard to keep up, I’m sure I’ve missed many others.

      • That’s the misrepresentation that I am talking about. I don’t have any more time to spend on lying cranks. You are dismissed.

    • Captain You make it sound like Dr. Curry made the ~50% reference only one time or in only one clear context responding to Schmidt. She’s made this statement numerous times and in contexts where Schmidt is never mentioned.

      Of course, I have no idea what Dr. Curry really means.

      But the Curry/Schmidt point is this: Tremendous energy is spent arguing about differences. Very little effort is made trying to understand/listen/explore if there is common ground. Everything is set up (it seems) for confrontation.

      • Stephen, “But the Curry/Schmidt point is this: Tremendous energy is spent arguing about differences. Very little effort is made trying to understand/listen/explore if there is common ground. Everything is set up (it seems) for confrontation.”

        Your example though is more of the divide than the common ground. Curry’s main point has been the de-emphasis of uncertainty, i.e. the over confidence of the warmists.

        Curry has tried to point out common ground, no or limited regret policy choices for example. If you take a middle of the pack stance, lukewarmer or whatever, then you don’t really need nonsense, you need outlines of strategies to move towards actually accomplishing something.

        CARBON TAX exactly what are you going to do with the money? What exactly do you expect that to accomplish? You never hear that just rahrah crap that a carbon tax or carbon trading will “fix” it.

        REDUCE EMISSIONS to what? If the US completely reduces coal power plant emissions it will do virtually squat “globally”. The US health benefits will probably be about 25% of what is projected. That’s nice but are we taking actions for that real reduction or just over selling the health impact for political purposes? As far as man made FF emissions causing “asthma” problems that appears to be mainly transportation related.

        http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2011/1008a-toxic-tour-of-la that is long beach/LA but pick a port, any port.

        The common ground should be honestly trying to solve at least parts of the problems not blowing smoke up gullible butts.

      • The 110% alarmists aren’t interested in finding common ground with the 50% deniers, stephie. But you could go over to realclimate and try out your silly story on Gavin et al. They’ll enjoy it.

      • Captain — I really don’t see anything you wrote that I disagree with.

        Here’s my conundrum. Dr. Curry has historically spoken very favorably about “Fast Mitigation” (methane, smog, HFCs, black soot). Thus at least in concept, Dr. Curry believes that the climate science is established enough to warrant what she refers to as a low regrets action.

        But if Dr. Curry came out in strong support of “Fast Mitigation” (like Dr.’s Molina and Ramanathan have done to Pope Francis) people like CATO, Heritage, and most Republicans would turn on her in a New York minute.

        How do we link the science to policy?

        I have a long track record here at CE of opposing a carbon tax, cap & trade schemes, & Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. But when I advocate that Utilities must follow sound methods of system planning and engineering economics on Renewables — I’m a Marxist

      • stephen, when you advocate the utilities must follow sound methods of system planning and engineering economics on Renewables, you slip into what your opinion is. You are entitled to your opinion but you don’t really have the power planning nuts to be listened to.

        Grid connected solar pv isn’t ready for prime time in the US. Hawaii which is pretty much micro grids, has already reach peak solar with the combination of factors they have to deal with. South Carolina has taken a pretty reasonable approach of allowing the utilities and home owners/customers work it out among themselves. Florida has some PV, but really has to wait and see how well it stands up in hurricane country. Solar pv has some penetration but now has to prove its worth.

        Wind power has a little hiccup with the bearing issue. If bearings have to be replaced/maintained, the design will have to allow that to be done cost effectively. With that issue taken care of some locations might find wind attractive without subsidies other than the normal cost of doing business “subsidies”. If wind power can maintain 25% production with roughly 8 year payoff and 20 plus year life expectancy, more power to it. If it can’t, it can’t.

        You have complained about the Clearwater reactor faux pas, but pooh pooh occurs. It is possible that Duke can come up with a design revision that will allow for repair of the concrete containment building, That faux pas was part of an industry wide efficiency upgrade/uprating which added more real power nationwide than all of the wind mills to that point.

        Florida is also planning to build a natgas pipeline to just below Orlando with all the typical mud slinging. That should provide plenty of back up options until some “renewable” starts standing out on its own.

        Basically, business as usual is doing a better job than federal government intervention which is not really news to “most” folks. With retail electric at less than 12 cents per kwh, Florida is doing a surprisingly good job, despite a good ol’ boy, crazy, tea party governor.

        In comparison California is at almost 17 cents per kwh, has a lot of wind turbines not spinning, has a CSP that is burning close to its rated capacity in natgas and has a growing transportation electric sector at about 8 cents per kwh being subsidized by your average retail customer. Not your typical “cracker’s” vision of success doncha know.

      • In developing and using system planning models for over 25 years for two of the largest electric utilities in the U.S., testifying before State PUCs, and before Congressional sub-committees — I have plenty of power planning nuts.

      • Captain — Have you ever run an system planning model for a major integrated utility system?

      • Stephen, “I have plenty of power planning nuts.”

        Then you must totally disagree with my “cracker” assessment or was that the kind of information you provided?

      • Stephen, “Captain — Have you ever run an system planning model for a major integrated utility system? ”

        Nope, not my calling. I also never designed or built a nuclear power plant, built or ran a climate model, genetically modified a crop or used Germany as a “model” for power planning.

      • Captian — I not familiar at all with the planning process in CA. I do know that CA has been leading the U.S. in ordering, building, installing natural gas combined cycle units. I am very familiar with how system planning is done in AL, GA, FL, MS, LA, AR.

      • Stephen, “Captian — I not familiar at all with the planning process in CA.”

        CA is a good example of how not to do things in my opinion. FL is trying CSP in creating the first hybrid combined cycle gas power plant. Not going to have the problems CA is having. Of course FL has a dozen or so regional electric companies/coops while CA has it state controlled monster.

        Right now FL is about 64% natgas and trying to build the Sable Trail Transmission natgas pipeline. That will allow some natgas expansion but backups up an existing under water pipeline built for Gulf natgas. Gainesville is experimenting with grid connected rooftop solar and Lakeland is experimenting with rooftop solar hot water. There is also an a somewhat operational cellulose ethanol plan using yard and municipal waste as feedstock, a biodiesel/fuels prototype plant using mainly orange peals and a few other biofuel from waste projects planned. That is a reasonably diverse mixture of renewable energy projects waiting for any or all of them to prove cost effective.

        http://www.lakelandelectric.com/customers/programs-services/solar-water-heater

        Last I checked Lakeland electric had some of the lowest rates in the state. Boring seems to be a sign of success in the electric power biz.

      • Captain — You stated that I “don’t really have the power planning nuts to be listened to.”

        and then you bring up Lakeland Electric

        No one in the U.S. and done more diverse demonstrations (including Lakeland Electric) on biomass co-firing than me — demonstrating in just about every type of coal boiler (cyclones, pulverized coal, IGCC, external gasifiers).

        As the EPA recently said (and the DOE has long said) — using coal in the U.S. is not limited to carbon capture technology (as being used in Mississippi). It could very well include a combination of (1) biomass co-firing in coal units (which also does no regrets NOx and SO2 reductions); (2) growing dedicated energy crops for this co-firing — with a tremendous emphasis on increasing carbon in soils (e.g., agriculture but also biochar).

        No power planning nuts to be listened to? Well Congress asked me to testify on my efforts — where Senator Manchin (West Virginia) is especially interested.

        Google Search on my efforts:
        https://www.google.com/search?q=biomass+co-firing&sa=Search&cof=LW%3A84%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.treepower.org%2Fenviro2.gif%3BLH%3A111%3BAH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.treepower.org%3BAWFID%3Ae043619ad5c42df2%3B&domains=www.treepower.org&sitesearch=www.treepower.org&gws_rd=ssl

      • Stephen, the lakeland link I provided was to the solar hot water program, no electric required other than back up. Instead of converting solar into electric then into hot water, straight shot. Having Lakeland electric provide that as a service is a novel idea. I think the first solar hot water system I reviewed was in 1985 or so. There was also a passive solar ventilation project that ended up being built in south america I think. A number of wet scrubber systems for VOCs, PM and the like for industrial applications. You would be amazed at how many projects that got shot down then are “novel” now.

        I have been a proponent of co-firing for a while and had a friend near Lakeland who fought regulation and bureaucracy for years staring around 1983 to build a waste to electric facility. It was labeled an incinerator not a biomass power generator, and never got off the ground. That is the kind of warm and fuzzy crap that go me into fishing. He talked with me on ways to test the emissions back then and some basic controls, btw.

        Now 35 years later they bring up such ground breaking concepts as biomass energy but most forget you need something to help maintain a stable temperature for efficient operation and emission control, if you want to simplify things. Mention coal and the warm and fuzzies freak. Compare the CA CSP fiasco with the FL hybrid.

        But as far as modeling power grids, I got no clue.

      • Justinwonder — As I’ve said repeatedly here at CE: I am against (1) a carbon tax; (2) CO2 cap and trade; (3) and Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard. I’ve said this over and over.

        Yes, the EPA’s Plan on carbon emissions has the potential to create markets for closed loop biomass crops that I would grow. I look at this different than you where the options are (1) close the coal unit; (2) co-fire closed loop biomass at the coal unit (which also takes credit for carbon increases in soils).

      • Captain — Yes, Lakeland Electric has long been a pioneer in solar.

    • SS,

      Don is funny, you are not. You sound like a pitchman for “renewables”. Boring and tedious.

      • Justinwonder — Again, I believe that successful policies addressing AGW will be: (1) Fast Mitigation; (2) Energy Efficiency (per engineering giant ABB’s view); (3) New Nuclear; (4) Specific programs to increase Energy R&D; (5) Renewable Energy based on sound engineering economics (e.g., ELCC least cost methodology).

      • SS,

        I agree with 1-3, 4 and 5 are bogus.

        (4) Invest in energy R&D…no, big no.

        Apple didn’t need any government help to invent the iPod, iPad, and iPhone. Departments like the DOE are wasteful with an almost immeasurably low ROI and should be folded. Even worse ar institutions like the NREL which owe their existence to a forgone conclusion. The alliance of politics, government agencies, and NGOs creates a vulnerability to political patronage that is an impediment to cost effective solutions to problems. That is a cautious and generous way to characterize what we have today. I don’t believe in conspiracies – it is too difficult for some people to keep their mouth shut. However, people do respond to incentives. You don’t have to be a genius to know sh&t attracts flies, but you do have to be deluded by your own bias not to see it.

        (5) renewable energy is not. There is nothing renewable about vast swaths of intermittent and expensive windfarms and solar ghettoes using expensive materials while destroying huge areas of valuable real estate. Apples farcical solar facility is destroying valuable California real estate. Google’s gaggle of solar bird zappers – they call the birds burning in mid flight streamers – is a tragic waste. All of these atrocities are paid for by taxpayers and poor people that buy overpriced transportation fuels saddled with carbon credit costs built into the price. This is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. It sickens me too see a solo driver tooling along in the commuter lane driving a Tesla – bought by a wealthy person, using tax credits, bought from an unprofitable company supported by government granted and taxpayer funded carbon credits -while poor suckers commuting to work have to waste overpriced gasoline idling in stop and go traffic. The system is deliberately and cynically unfair and should be abolished.

        The only thing I have left for you is to request an answer to my previous and most important question, which you have avoided:

        Does carbon credit trading, environmental policy, indirect support of renewables, etc help you sell your tree-farm trees?

      • justinwonder — Your opinion on my position on Renewable Energy — is that following sound engineering economics (as taught in engineering schools like the University of Chicago) is worthless.

        I’ve tried. I don’t believe you are doing so — making “emotional” and not engineering arguments.

    • SS What is the ‘science’ meaning behind Schmidt and Curry agreeing on 50%?
      Really? You think that is a sensible question? Are you familiar with Alice in Wonderland? Could you explain what YOU mean?

      • Daniel — Sure, but you need to read Dr. Curry’s past favorable comments on “fast mitigation” (methane, smog, HFCs, black soot).

        My layman argument: Dr. Curry believes that the “current” state of climate science knowledge can justify (in concept) “fast mitigation” efforts.

        Now, if the World could agree on this one mitigation action (which Pope Francis emphasizes based on counsel from Nobel prize winning Dr. Molina and Dr. Ramanathan)– this would be huge.

        So, there is some “climate science threshold” that prompted a favorable opinion (at least to talk about it) on mitigation efforts.

        My point: If Dr. Curry and Dr. Schmidt were asked, both would agree that the current knowledge on climate science can justify actions on “fast mitigation”?

        The above argument finds common ground between Dr.’s Curry and Schmidt — instead of fussin and fighting over their differences.

        Clearly, arguments presented by folks like Mr. Wojick (zero AGW) want disagreements by Dr’s Curry and Schmidt emphasized. But Dr. Curry doesn’t share Mr. Wojick’s opinion.

      • well the issue with fast mitigation is that it is relatively robust – there are ancillary benefits (health, economic) that will be realized even if the AGW issue turns out to be a small deal.

        Not sure where Gavin stands on this issue; I recall Ray Pierrehumbert being adamantly against it, since this would take our eyes off the ball of the real culprit – CO2

      • Oh, now we see what you are sayin, stephie. You want to get the 110% alarmists to compromise and settle for the no regrets “fast mitigation” things. I think many of us are behind you on that, stephie. Why didn’t you just say that in the first place, instead of that foolishness about ~50% being the same as ~100%.

      • Dr. Curry — Thanks for your response.

        My main point on the subject of “trust” is that we should look for common ground more. While you, Dr. Molina, and Dr. Ramanathan have your differences — you also probably share “common ground”.

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        Within the arena of fast mitigation, science may not be settled. At what level should soot, etc, be capped? Perhaps it is, or should be, a concern more with countries that have worse pollution than the USA.

        Richard

      • Stephen Segrest:

        Ok – lets say that Schmidt and Curry agree that black soot is bad.

        What do you do with that?

        Does their agreement stop China from emitting a haze of black soot? Or India?

        Nope.

        So scientists agreement doesn’t do squat.

        Of course neither did Kyoto – but we still get together and talk about CO2 emissions.

        Yes – lets all agree that smog is bad.

        We have the clean air act which has remarkably reduced smog in the United States over the last 40 years.

        Now how do you get China to implement its own version of the clean air act?

    • Stephen Segrest wrote:

      “The greatest single thing that Dr. Curry can do to improve the trustworthiness and “safe place” of CE is to permanently ban Don Monfort. He never adds anything technically and is just toxic.”

      Off target. Frankly I enjoy Don Don’s efficient, no rhetorical BS style. He notes elsewhere below,

      <"Keep your nose clean and we will get along."

      and he certainly fits in with the CE forum audience objective:

      Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.

      https://judithcurry.com/about/

      Goes for you too, hockeySchtick

      • Mr. mwgrant is an excellent judge of prose and how it should be used in honest discourse. I knew it from his first comment.

      • One more for poor stephie:

        “Clearly, arguments presented by folks like Mr. Wojick (zero AGW) want disagreements by Dr’s Curry and Schmidt emphasized. But Dr. Curry doesn’t share Mr. Wojick’s opinion.”

        Stephie has not done the math. Wojick and Judith are in agreement. Wojick is just as close to Judith’s ~50%, as is the Schmidt character at~100%. If you take Schmidt’s BS about 110% seriously, Wojick and Judith are snuggled closer together. Sorry, stephie. You need to up your game.

  29. I don’t like the idea that we as individuals have some sort of moral imperative or unquestionable obligation to disregard our own personal “beliefs” in deference to some expert consensus. (I’m not touching here on what the basis of collective action should be. If you want to say joint action must be based on experts – I’m not arguing that here). I am discussion merely what we are “allowed” to believe on our own. (But I am not saying our “beliefs” should not be mindful or expert opinion.)

    People disregard expert consensus all the time. Often times it does not work for them, but sometimes it does. Many people saw that the “expert” recommended low fat diets did not work for them and choose, with good results, for diets that better met their needs. People have looked at medical practices widely recommended by the experts and decided the costs/benefits just don’t seem worthwhile for themselves and based on subsequent studies probably ended up better off. (True – some people get caught up in quack medicine, but some have made good choices opposed to what was then consensus medicine).

    Sometimes we do not defer to the expert sports prognosticators and cheer for an underdog to win. It happens with the effect of great joy at times. People buy and sell stocks, homes and real estate against “expert” advise. Sometimes these are disastrous decisions but sometimes they are undertaken by people who are very savvy.

    On any give issue there are always multiple people who disagree with me who have more knowledge, experience, insight and training. But if I trade views to conform to their views I will find others disagreeing with the their view who also have more knowledge, experience, insight and training than me.

    There are good and bad reasons at times to doubt or trust expert opinions that others have stated far more eloquently than I can. At the end of the day on some issues some of us look at things like how other issues have played out, the potential for group think, institutional biases, personal motivations, how well the evidence and predictions have tracked and after all that regardless of what we want to believe or not – we are stuck with our own personal assessment on issues (issues that are really issues for experts).

    What’s striking about climate is that someone suspecting that the “experts” have underestimated potential disasters is not subject to the same degree of moral reproach as someone who suspects that the “experts” may be exaggerating things a bit. There are a few other issues where you get the reproach and condemnation, “How dare you question the experts”. My personal take is that the stridency and emotional shading of such declarations suggests that doubting the experts is the right response.

    • ==> “What’s striking about climate is that someone suspecting that the “experts” have underestimated potential disasters is not subject to the same degree of moral reproach as someone who suspects that the “experts” may be exaggerating things a bit.”

      If you read Climate Etc., WUWT, Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, The Blackboard, or watch Fox News, or listen to Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or Ingraham or Bennett or O’Reilly, or read the WSJ, etc., you will certainly find plenty of reasons to doubt that assessment.

      • Maybe I went to far and that’s fair enough Joshua.I don’t mean to be complaining about media, particularly “specialty” media. I don’t generally expose myself to Fox News or the pundits you mentioned. I suppose they might be as bad as Bill Mahr on people with divergent views on climate (who I do watch on occasion) but he’s not a part of what I’m complaining about. I may be biased but on his show I do see him treating those who disagree on climate as idiots, dupes or evil and my take is that that dissenting guests try to present their case and take apart the case for climate alarmism, but not attack motives and intelligence ( but I see him only on occasion).. But hey it’s his show and I have a remote.

        I do read the WSJ but again see that as dealing with ideas not attacking motives and intelligence. Similarly I don’t see the green media as generally attacking motives or intelligence of opponents. I don’t mind people or media having different opinions or ideas and presenting theirs while challenging others ideas. I think that is a good thing, On specialty forums I expect such and I expect that it may be exuberant and have particular flavor sand emphasis on those with a particular dominant perspective.

        I mean to be talking about general discourse within our greater society as part of generic public discourse. In general groups not about climate or politics in general, I tend to hear folks going off on “deniers” or science doubters. I don’t see the converse, but my experience may be limited. Maybe there are pockets of such. For example I’ve never seen those overly concerned about the environment or even those providing evidence that they are grossly misinformed of real risks or costs denigrated at a PTO meeting, among band parents, at potlucks, at the gym, or while volunteering at Rivers Alive. But I have heard the converse. In full disclosure I did go once to a luncheon sponsored by the chamber where a speaker was sponsored by Heartland way back, and some of the people at the table did creep me out a bit. So I guess there might be cases on both sides, but the balance to me seems horribly skewed.

      • My long serious grappling with you comment is in moderation. I don’t have much exposure, beyond some blogs and the awSJ to most of the sources you reference. Do you really think these sources (WSJ especially) judge non-expert individuals who are afraid of severe climate threats with moral reproach?

      • PE –

        I don’t accept the distinction that the media outlets I spoke of are “specialty media.” They are powerful arms of mainstream media, IMO. AFAIC, the tendency to distinguish those media from “mainstream media’ is based on arbitrary (in the sense of subjective, not in the sense of random) application of criteria. Those media outlets I describe have large audience, and are extremely influential.

        If you don’t think that the WSJ participates in the motive-impugning pattern that is evident in other media outlets, consider this (IMO infamous) example:

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

        Analogizing to Lysenko is, IMO, a very nice example of the phenomenon you described.

        IMO, in “general discourse,” you don’t typically hear people reverse-engineering from people’s positions issues like climate change to impugn motives. But with discourse taking place between people who are identified one way or the other on issues such as climate change, more often than not we can see that reverse-engineering pattern, and the tendency is not disproportionate in association with any particular side on any particular issue.

        Just read the comments here, where “skeptics” reverse engineer without a second thought to impugn the motives of hundreds of millions of people who are more concerned than they about the risks posed by ACO2 emissions.

        Certainly, the pattern exists on both sides. I see little evidence of the imbalance that you see. I think that there is a lot of evidence that speaks to these patterns as a general phenomenon – one that isn’t at all unique to discussions about climate change, but that puts discussions about climate change into a larger context of how people engage on highly polarized issues (and more specifically, where questions of interpreting empirical evidence and understanding expert take on questions of science overlay onto polarized perspectives).

      • PE –

        tl;dr version of my previous comment.

        I think that there is an evidence-based theory that helps to explain why the behaviors you describe are rooted in the attributes of human psychology and cognition, and not a product of where someone aligns on the issue of climate change (or an artifact of some other ideological orientation).

        I see other theories often promoted by “skeptics,” that identify some disproportion to the behaviors you describe, but I see a lack of accompanying evidence as well as a lack of control for factors such as “observer bias.”

      • J-

        Well let me be clear, when it comes to climate science I do not like emotional attacks on individuals challenging their motivations, intelligence and morality whatever perspective the attackers come from. Perhaps you join me in that position.

        I don’t think experts should be immune from criticism. And there are appropriate forums for such criticism and I don’t mind if that gets lively. And I’m not that worried about the media in general or specialty media. I’m talking about inappropriate reactions from the general public.

        One bone I’ll throw you. Generally people are more obnoxious when they are in the majority and get a little more polite when they want their view heard. That might be the difference I see. But you see it different in that you seem to think that climate skeptics are worse anyway.

        Here’s one experiment we could do. I’ll wear a T-shirt out and about in public parks, malls and such that says “Stop Global Warming Now!” and see how people react to me. You wear one that say’s “Global Warming – It’s been Exaggerated” and see what kind of reception you get. We would could compare notes afterwards. I think we’d need a rule not to disavow what our shirts say. I personally would not be afraid that I would be accosted by self righteous angry “deniers” during this experiment but I could be wrong. I suspect you might get some pushback.

      • PE –

        ==> “But you see it different in that you seem to think that climate skeptics are worse anyway.”

        That is a misinterpretation of what I have written. I have stated, repeatedly, that I see no disproportion.

      • Agreed. I misread/misremembered.

      • PE –

        Cheers.

    • “I don’t like the idea that we as individuals have some sort of moral imperative or unquestionable obligation to disregard our own personal “beliefs” in deference to some expert consensus.” Absolutely. “To thine own self be true” is the basis of moral and spiritual development. Each of us must deal with the world as we perceive it, and develop our own understanding. We can take external offerings and examples as guides and inspiration (where appropriate), but must make our own assessments and act within our own framework and knowledge. Anyone who disputes this is not worth listening to.

  30. “I now predict that I was wrong.”

    Stephen Hawking

  31. When it comes down to it, it is what you do and not what you say that matters. For the people planning for New Orleans, what do they do about sea-level rise in their planning when they have a state governor who is against climate change being mentioned as a real problem? Turns out that they plan for it anyway. When it matters in planning, they trust the experts.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/10-years-after-katrina-louisiana-is-becoming-a-model-for-climate-resilience_55d53afee4b07addcb4586aa?kvcommref=mostpopular

    • David Wojick

      Sea level rise is not climate change. Sea levels have been rising ever since the last ice age ended. Let’s hope they do not stop rising because we are entering a new ice age. That would be truly catastrophic.

      • A few ancient seaports now lie inland for more than one reason. But one of the reasons is higher sea levels in eg Roman and Medieval times. The latest rise tendency is over two hundred years old – and still barely dribbling. As for why there was such a dramatic opening of the Arctic during the chilly early 1800s…I dunno!

    • You have lukewarmers, and in the same way with sea level you have what could be called low-risers. It’s the degree, not whether, that matters in planning.

      • New Orleans is a great city, but it is a particularly poor poster child for SLR, because so many of its problems are not from rising sea level, but self inflicted.
        Those self inflicted problems include:
        1. Choosing the location in the first place. The “crescent” was above sea level, but not by much and they knew the place was vulnerable to floods and storms.
        2. Building the levees. The delta depends on silt to maintain. cutting off the resupply of silt means subsidence, which the folly of the past century overlooked.
        3. Pumping out oil,gas,and water, leading to further subsidence.

        Here is Wiki:
        “Much of the city is located below sea level between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, so the city is surrounded by levees.

        Until the early 20th century, construction was largely limited to the slightly higher ground along old natural river levees and bayous; the largest section of this being near the Mississippi River front. This gave the 19th century city the shape of a crescent along a bend of the Mississippi, the origin of the nickname The Crescent City. … …A. Baldwin Wood enacted his ambitious plan to drain the city, including large pumps of his own design that are still used when heavy rains hit the city. Wood’s pumps and drainage allowed the city to expand greatly in area.

        It only became clear decades later that the problem of subsidence had been underestimated. Much of the land in what had been the old back swamp has continued to slowly sink, and many of the neighborhoods developed after 1900 are now below sea level.

    • richardswarthout

      Jim D

      It appears that New Orleans is following the advice of Dr Curry and many other skeptics: the priority should be adaptation and not mitigation.

      Richard

      • Yes, resilience means knowing what you have to be resilient to as job one. Who do you listen to when the lives and livelihoods of your own people are at stake? Coastal communities are where the rubber hits the road in this kind of decisionmaking that has to account for a background change rate and its projections. When its just talk, it is easy to deny, but when costly things depend on it, you think again.

      • richard — There you folks go making Dr. Curry into what you want her to be. Dr. Curry also speaks very highly of “Fast Mitigation” (e.g., methane, smog, dark soot, HFCs).

      • richardswarthout

        Don

        Right on. The man reads only what is in his head.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        I do not disagree that she speaks highly of fast mitigation; left out of my comment because, AFAIK, there is no fast mitigation v. adaptation dispute.

        Richard

    • Jim D,

      New Orleans is already below sea level. Stop and think about that for a minute. (Or in your case, several minutes.)

      It already has a sea level issue. It also has developed a means to address that issue. On the 10th anniversery of Katrina it might be a good idea for people to refresh themselves with the facts.

      Such as the fact Katrina came ashore many miles to the east. Pass Christian bore the brunt of the storm, at least with regard to wind speeds and storm surge.

      The flooding in New Orleans did not result from sea levels over topping the levee and dike network. The cause of the flooding were levees which failed. Louisianna’s well know politican corruption played a far biggest role than sea level rise.

      The human impact resulting from the flooding was mostly avoidable. The city had plenty of lead time to evacuate citizens. They chose not to until it was too late.

      And all the post katrina stories we heard that this was just the beginning. That superstorms were going to be the norm. How has that one played out?

      • Under climate change, 100-year events become 30-year or even 10-year events, and planning has to take that into account. For 10-year flooding or even 30-year, no one in their right mind would live there unless they wanted to assume the risk themselves and not have insurance. When Sandy destroyed coastal properties, do you just rebuild and repopulate, or assume climate change and not? How many more times before you give up rebuilding each time? These are real questions these days with shifting probabilities playing havoc with planning. Coastal decisions are just the most obvious example, but we can imagine similar things for agriculture and drought frequencies too or urban areas and heatwaves.

      • bedeverethewise

        you have to rebuild 4 times.

      • So, jimd, we should believe all the alarmist claims about all kinds of coming catastrophies despite the fact that all predictions have failed to materialize, yet, the predictions of pending doom continue, just like the pastor who predicts a new date for the apocalypse each time the date of his last prediction passes.

      • All I know is that policies can make the difference between 4 C and 2 C increases, and a lot of people prefer the current climate to either of these alternative climates.

      • A lot of people also prefer going to heaven over burning in the firey pits of hell. Does this mean we should all convert, Jim D? And if so, to which religion? They don’t all agree you know. ^¿^

    • New Orleans would need to plan for flooding even if the planet was cooling.

      On another note, how is that Democratic run from the presidency doing? Looks like choice between a preconvict, a communist, and a buffoon. I can hardly wait.

    • Jim D Where is the contradiction in planning for sea level rise and doubting climate alarmism?

  32. richardswarthout

    Stephen

    “Dr. Curry on numerous occasions and venues has stated that her guess is that ~50% of GW has come from humans.”

    Taking you at your word, you seem to trivialize that she said “guess”. This word is significant; i believe she has also stated that AR5 overstated the science with its declaration that “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010”

    Curious; does your bias emit from obvious and misleading sources such as thinkprogress and vox, or do you use those sources as a result of your bias.

    Richard

    • richard — It wasn’t my intent to trivialize. Can you say with high certainty that Dr. Curry’s use of ~50% is always in the context of refuting the IPCC and/or Schmidt?

      • You are struggling, stephie. Richard did not make the point that Judith’s use of ~50% is always in the context of refuting blah…blah…blah.

    • Richard,

      Stephen has his own skin in the game and he is desperately trying to save it. Current energy policy, driven into a frenzy by oversold claims of CAGW, is a big goose laying golden eggs. There is a big constituency eating those eggs.

      • richardswarthout

        Justin

        Thank you for that information. Appeared to me that he was a shadow progressive, often cycling propaganda from thinkprogress and vox, but perhaps there is more to the story.

        Richard

  33. There’s trust and then again there’s trust.

    If my Doctor tells me I have a cold and I should get some bed rest and drink plenty of liquids, I trust his diagnosis and his suggested treatment makes sense. On the other hand if he tells me I have a life threatening condition that can only be cured/improved by undergoing life threatening surgery and a multi-year regimen of therapy, I’m going to get a second and maybe a third opinion before deciding what to do.

    Similarly I am willing to go with the scientific consensus that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is likely to cause some degree of warming as a result of the greenhouse effect. I am willing to also go along with the need to do further research on climate so that we can better understand this wicked problem.

    When it comes to taking steps to drastically change the world economic order to try to hold off catastrophic consequences of CO2 induced runaway climate change……………..I’m not trusting any freaking scientist, politician, Pope or railroad engineer.

  34. On the GMO front, the distrust of scientists is being led by the ludite green mafia in Scotland and Germany. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/24/berlin-wants-to-ban-safe-gmos/

    It’s hard to come to any conclusion other than science and scientists have lost the confidence of a large part of the public. IMHO this stems from the politicization of the entire system that has resulted from government funding.

  35. RE: has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?

    For me, yes and no.

    Yes in the sense that it has provided greater exposure to some very established and/or very capable people who are not necessarily unquestioning believers in the “consensus”.

    Yes in helping to show that much of the messaging that I find suspect is coming from a very few climate scientists, not the majority as is often projected, or even more likely, from politicians, environmental organizations and journalists who generally have a hard time spelling anthropogenic, let alone understanding what it means.

    No by showing there still exists a dearth of researchers willing to step up and offer criticism where it is appropriate or support when the same is due.

    No in how nearly very study that projects possible negative outcomes almost always has modelled output as its basis.

    No in how so much of the research is still centered on running GCM’s, which appear to pretty much to have topped out – i.e. they are not getting any better.

    • timg56
      Agree with Climate etc rebuild some trust in climate science. Just like some financial advisors can be trusted and some like Madoff cannot. It is an individual situation. I am still stunned by the Karl adjustments to SST based on wooden, canvas and ship intake temperatures on modification of the entire buoy and ARGO temperature records. Just finished Steyn’s et al book Climate Change the Facts and enjoyed it. Some can be trusted and some cannot. Weird how the model crowd insists on using all 120 models and average projections instead of using ones that perform well and discarding or changing the others.
      Scott

      • Scott,

        Same here on the karl paper.

        But lets look at the positive side. Imagine how many young boys one might get excited about math and science when they learn you can actually perform mathematical masturbation and get praised for it.

  36. “Where do these concerns come from? Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists are two obvious sources. Disagreement portrayed in the media and distrust of the government’s politicization of the issue are others.”

    ‘Disbelief’ may be a better descriptor than ‘concerns’, albeit the former spawns the latter. They most likely arise from ‘innate skepticism’, that which Lewandowsky calls ‘the key to accuracy’, and which works for folks who have little or no domain knowledge, i.e. in the case of climate change, most of the public. Innate skepticism is a long-evolved defense mechanism against misinformation, and especially the potential hi-jack of society by a new culture based on misinformation.

    It probably works via the detection of particular narrative form, and in the short to medium term prevents much of the public buying into narratives that are mass presented in too coherent (across many domains), too certain, too forceful (e.g. suppressing other views), too emotive (many fear, anxiety, despair, hope etc memes) and too arrogant (e.g. demeaning the opposition) and too hypocritical (e.g. hiding concerns) a manner. This covers Climategate, obvious advocacy and the government politicization that innate skepticism will distrust, plus various other symptoms. In short, it’s an inbuilt subconscious BS detector. But *constructive* disagreement in the media would overall lower innate skepticism, and assist with trust and engagement.

    Notwithstanding some skeptic bandwidth in the US, so far there is far too little disagreement in the media globally, i.e. it doesn’t reflect the nascent level of understanding within climate science. And it’s conflict disagreement rather than constructive disagreement, which will tend only to speak to the already convinced upon each side, or at least reinforce existing cultural alliances.

    Climate Etc helps because it has constructive disagreement still engaged with folks across the whole belief spectrum regarding climate change. And because it has a lot of focus on two key topics: the true characterization of uncertainties regarding the climate system itself, a lurking monster that innate skepticism in the public suspects, but so far has been prevented from seeing. And penetrating the social phenomena associated with climate change, which phenomena largely explain how the world behaves in this domain independently of whether ACO2 will eventually work out to be good, bad, or indifferent.

  37. I don’t trust either side, as long as the claim of being a science is made (“Climate science”).

    Break up the field into curiosities and you’ll get interest, but not the headlines.

    Otherwise it’s competing bureaucracies.

    Career-track scientists aren’t fun to be around.

  38. Here’s the deal. Climate science does not appear to have an adult peer review system. It can’t work by physics, but only models. So stuff passes though that is handwaving.

    They don’t know what they claim to know.

    Since there’s an infinite number of imaginary disasters, you have to set the false alarm rate to zero.

    The denier position is: get back to us when peer review is working.

  39. “Yet attending to trust (and lack thereof) in contemporary public understanding of climate change may help illuminate moral issues overshadowed by the rightly urgent matters of international and intergenerational justice in responsibility for and response to climate change.”

    In other words (please, give us other words!) if somebody is seen to be dodgy you can back away from them…but the elephantine Climatariat can still go on trumpeting its dodgy message and trampling the economies of the West.

    Good try, warmies.

  40. John Carpenter

    I was listening to TED Radio Hour this weekend on NPR. It was about the universe. One of the TED talks was about how our universe expansion is accelerating. Which up until a few years ago was not at all the way the ‘consensus’ of astrophysicists thought the universe worked. Interestingly, Einstein way back in the day, said not to trust his equations 100%, or something like that, inferring that one good measurement could change the theory. In so many words, that didn’t happen and the theory for the last 40 years became the universe was expanding, but would slow down at some point and stop, like a ball thrown in the air, gravity would overtake the acceleration, make the ball stop and then fall back to the earth. Heh, well two different groups of scientists studying the universe, independently and not knowing what the other was doing, kept finding an ‘error’ in their measurements. It looked like the universe expansion was accelerating, not slowing down, but getting faster. That’s like throwing the ball in the air and it keeps going up faster and faster. Couldn’t be right. Until the two groups collaborated on their results finding they had the same ‘error’. And then more ‘errors’ were found by others. Pretty soon they were not looked at as errors any more. So now the theory changed…again. This is the way science goes.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/08/02/172139216/how-did-a-mistake-unlock-one-of-spaces-mysteries

    So the idea of trust goes hand in hand with the way science goes. There is a theory, observations are made that either agree or disagree with the theory. Or the observations add something new to the theory. The point is the theory evolves and morphs as new information is added. You see people say this a lot here at CE and I agree. As long as this happens in climate science, trust will ensue, it has to. Over a long enough period of time, how sensitive our climate is to higher concentrations of CO2 will become more irrefutable. We aren’t quite there yet, not enough data has been gathered. But at some point, perhaps in this century, enough will be gathered to more definitively agree with which part of the current range of sensitivity the climate is going. At that point, it will be more obvious.

    None of this helps us with the policy decision posed today, I get that. And I don’t think we can just wait for the time the answer becomes more definitive. It makes sense to examine how we generate energy, AGW not withstanding. We will need different sources of energy in the future because Fossil Fuels are finite. Finding ways to generate the power we need today and in the future which don’t create CO2 is a bonus. But we also need to deal with extreme weather of yesterday that we still aren’t prepared for today. So adapting to what we already know can happen needs to be employed better as well. That does not require the need for trust in climate science.

    Here is a thought experiment to ponder at the end of the broadcast I linked above…

    If the universe expansion accelerates, as now measured, at some point in the distant future the expansion will be faster than the speed of light traveling back to us. If at that time people are able to observe the sky, it would be pitch black with no stars. So from an observation POV, there would be nothing to support the theory that there are other galaxies and stars accelerating away from us… even though it were true. However, there would be, perhaps still, a historical record of our ancient scientific observations and theories… would the people and scientists of that time still believe and trust that historic record without any observational evidence of such at their time?

    • There is a difference here that the expansion acceleration was a new measurement that did not contradict previous measurements, just previous ideas. It was within the range of possibility that the measurements up till then allowed. In climate, the sensitivity range is 1.5-4 C, and more likely towards the middle. Refinement won’t take it outside the range.

      • A fact correction. All the new observational estimates have it toward the low end. Middle, schmidle. You are just wrong there. Refinement of the OBSERVATIONAL range HAS moved the range down. My goodness, JimD. You need to do better than that. At least here. Or read essay Unsettling Science for a quicky review of the (what, 12?) post 2012 (IPCC cutoff) papers on sensitivity. Plus do not miss Nic Lewis’ two papers since.
        You are a good example of what this post was supposedly about.

      • Curious George

        I guarantee it.

      • Sensitivity to given forcing is variable and uncertain.
        What’s more certain is the observed warming rate.

        Trends through the last complete year range from
        0.2C/century to 1.7C/century

      • John Carpenter

        Jim D, if you interpreted what I wrote as a comparison between new revelations of our universe due to the measurement of its expansion acceleration and climate sensitivity going outside the current range, then I failed to make the point I wanted. The idea I was getting at had to do with improving trust in climate science. True, the new observation of an accelerating expansion of the universe did not change the theory (I was wrong to put it in those terms), but it changed the way we understood it. The idea I was after was that the observations did change the way we understand how the universe works because of better certainty which leads to better trust in the scientific work. I used the TED Radio Hour segment as an example of how that works.

        CS has a range. There is a scientific debate over likely CS within that range. The more observational data that is collected over time, the better we will understand where the likely sensitivity will be. CS will be refined by additional observations. It has to. I never suggested the range was wrong. What I tried to get across was, as we approach better understanding of CS by observation, our certainty of the theory will improve and trust will ensue. Perhaps including the aspect of better certainty increasing trustworthiness would have helped.

      • CS is more likely to be a vector, not a singular constant, because of the way CO2 molecules respond to other elements working on various weather scenarios.

      • @Ristvan,
        “A fact correction. All the new observational estimates have it toward the low end. Middle, schmidle. You are just wrong there. Refinement of the OBSERVATIONAL range HAS moved the range down.”

        There have been a slew of recent papers using paramers extracted from recent history for the purpose of predicting the future. This approach is going to bias the predicted future temperatures to be on the low side, because of the probability of having positive feedbacks that are delayed, and were not taken into account by looking at data from the recent past..

        A paper has been published on errors made by AGW “skeptics” in the writing of scientific papers. Thirty Eight papers have been examined. I haven’t had the time to read it. It would be interesting if some “skeptics”
        did the same job on papers that predicted a large effect from AGW.

    • John Carpenter –

      == > ” So adapting to what we already know can happen needs to be employed better as well. That does not require the need for trust in climate science.”

      So do you think adapting to what we already know can happen is happening?

      If not, do you think that tell us anything about the plausibility of the argument that a lack of trust in climate science is what explains a lack of climate-change targeted policies?

  41. Beta Blocker

    “On this five year anniversary of Climate Etc., has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?”

    Whether there currently is, or there is not, general trust in climate science is not a question which has much relevancy at this point in time, as least as far as it concerns the attitudes of America’s voters.

    Only when the great majority of America’s voters are asked to make real and very substantial personal sacrifices in pursuit of serious carbon emission reductions will the debate over the validity of today’s climate science reach a critical mass.

    In the meantime, what is being said on this blog is good preparation for the day, if it ever comes, that public debate over the validity of today’s climate science does indeed reach a critical mass and each side must then be well prepared for presenting its arguments to a much larger audience.

  42. “On this five year anniversary of Climate Etc., has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?”
    That struck me as an odd question and completely the opposite of what CE was trying to do. It may have started by trying to see where the consensus was, which was basically no-feedback warming. But since then it has been trying to tear away at the credibility of any of the many scientists who agree with the positive feedback consensus, and the main weapon is to sow mistrust in all of climate science, whether paleoclimate or observations or models and projections. As a result, support has coagulated here from a highly political anti-science faction rather than people who have a particular alternative scientific idea about why there has been so much warming. Mistrust is the bed that was made, and that is what inhabits it. The debate needs to be framed more around the science and evidence if you want rebuilding trust to be a goal.

    • Curious George

      Jim just knows. A search for truth is outside of his scope.

    • Any credibility tearing away is soley climate science’ own fault. Nothing to do with Judith’s blog discussing climate science and resulting energy policy.
      Having spent years researching this starting with the (to me) shocking discovery of deliberate misrepresentations to Congress by NRC–my first guest post– you carry the burden of counter proof. And, cannot prevail.
      The science is shonky. Computational limits to model resolution. So crucial processes parameterized, when the attribution problem cannot yet be resolved. Model Results falsified by the pause per warmunist Santer himself. Missing tropical troposphere hotspot. Recovering polar ice. All that inconvenient observational stuff. Plus all the academic misconduct exposed by my guest posts. Marcott– Blowing the Hockey whistle– being just one of several examples. Three others listed below.
      Yes, the debate should be about the science. And about exposing how much of it is inexcusably BAD. See essays By Land or By Sea, No Bodies, Cause and Effect, Shell Games, Greenhouse Effects, Burning NonScience, and Somerset Levels for some other examples. Get back with explanations, after digesting how bad. If you can. You won’t because cannot. There is NO excuse for this level of ‘scientific’ deception. Pretend Quobba Ridge is all of the West Coast of Australia? Ignore two years massive forest fires that burned all of bothnsides of the Catalina Highway transect? Ignore the spawning habits of Miyagi oysters?
      Jim D, you defend the indefensible. Read the book. Then get back.

      • Rud +100.

        Continuing to defend the indefensible is equivalent to perpetuating a hoax. I wouldn’t suggest that it’s a coordinated effort by thousands, as Tonyb implied that it would need to be in order to be a hoax, maybe it’s extreme confirmation bias.

        I am willing to give up the hoax adjective if we can replace it with something more PC. How about BS?

    • I am just asking: if something else caused the warming (and/or forcing change), what is it, and what is your evidence that it was not CO2? This is where the skeptics have just fallen down, and they won’t get any scientific support until they present some science on rival warming mechanisms. It is no surprise that a lack of a rival theory for the warming does entail a lack of support. Science progresses through rival theories and evidence for them.

      • And what warming would you be referring to? The warming since the little ice age or the non-warming during the past 15-20 years?

        I have a theory that Jim D has his own agenda for trying to convince everyone that CAGW is the worst problem facing mankind. Prove me wrong.

      • Let’s just say the warming referred to as fact by Lewis and Curry, which is also the amount in the IPCC AR5 report, and see how you respond to that. That is not what the scientific debate or doubt is about except in some small corner of the skeptosphere.

      • Jim D, read the book. This time, essay C?agw. The rise from about 1920 to about 1945 is statistically indistinguishable from the rise from about 1975 to 2000. Yet even IPCC AR4 said the first period was natural variation, not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 (there just was not enough). You are not ‘just asking’. You are repeatedly espousing already disporven theories about the observational past.
        Now about the future, espouse at will. Except the climate models on which you base your extrapolations CANNOT be right. Two grounds. logical, resolution/attribution. And, the Santer pause, period.

      • There is a difference from the earlier rise. This one is much longer.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/mean:240/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend

      • The rise to ~1943 was accompanied by an upward trend in the PDO throughout. The moment the PDO index started trending downward, the surface air temperature slavishly followed it.

        The current rise has had to overcome a downtrend in the PDO since ~1985. Big difference. .

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim D.

        “I am just asking: if something else caused the warming (and/or forcing change), what is it, and what is your evidence that it was not CO2? This is where the skeptics have just fallen down, and they won’t get any scientific support until they present some science on rival warming mechanisms.”

        At some point you will realize that you are on a merry go round.

        It goes something like this.

        You show the temperature from 1750 or 1850 to today.
        It has warmed.
        You show how C02 and other forcings can explain or account for this change.

        The skeptics will always and forever have the following responses.

        1. The temperature you show is a fr*aud
        Or
        2. The temperature you show is not reliable
        or
        3. The temperature you show is not as accurate as you think.
        or
        4. The global average doesnt exist.
        or
        5. The methods have these problems, please do more work
        or
        6. you did something I dont like, I dont trust you.

        You get the point. There are probably about 20 other arguments, objections, questions, diversions, all designed to thwart understanding not to advance understanding. What you won’t find is skeptic who actually tries to solve the problem for themselves. or when they do ( see JeffId at airvent ) when they do confirm the science as skeptics, the rest of the community FORGET, collectively forget that the work has been done.
        In the end, you have skeptics who generally argue that the climate is always changing while at the same time denying the evidence ( the temperature record ) we have for this. What you see is not a collection of people who would like to work together to tighten up and improve understanding.. but rather people who have learned a bunch of “moves” in a chess game.

        On the odd chance that the run into one who would accept that it is warming, you then face the difficulty of getting them to understand
        and fairly represent what the theory says.

        1. Changes in external forcing drive the temperature over long time periods.
        2. Unforced changes (natural variability) dominates on short time scales.

        from 100K feet thats the ‘system’ theory. The system, the entire thing we call climate, reacts to changes in external forcing on long time scales
        and exhibits unforced changes on short time scales.

        you couldn’t get many skeptics to agree to that even for the sake of argument. They have zero interest in understanding or advancing understanding.

        Since they dont buy even the most generic form of the theory (which says nothing about warming and cooling or even the causes ) you cant expect them to suggest alternative causes for a warming that they

        A) deny when it suits them.
        B) accept when it suits them.

      • +1, and that’s like back when one was really a one.

      • I am just asking: if something else caused the warming (and/or forcing change), what is it, and what is your evidence that it was not CO2?

        Well, I do think the most likely means of restoring balance to CO2 imposed RF is warming.

        However, you should reflect that the atmosphere varies internally without external forcing at all.

      • Mosh

        I know that you have little time for Hubert Lamb, but when dealing with historic temperature reconstructions -such as BEST-we would do well to remember his observation ‘that we can know the tendency but not the precision.’

        So yes it has been warming, on the whole, since around 1699. GIss and Hadley are shown to be staging posts for increasing warmth and not the starting post. So, what caused the sharp cooling into the late 17th century then the sharp warming up until 1739 then the sharp setback, then the generally upwards trend ever since?

        We can’t measure it accurately to tenths of a degree but we can know the tendency of a generally slowly warming planet.

        It would also be helpful to bear in mind that your numerical data points are -like it or not-every bit as ‘anecdotal’ as my historic written observations-there is no one to confirm that each numerical data point was taken correctly, using an accurate thermometer at the correct time of day, correctly shielded and at the right height.. You can’t take the average of seven readings to arrive at a reliable estimate, as 7 readings weren’t taken.

        Also, not all stations are created equal. Using historical data from the vast majority of stations becomes ever more anecdotal. Albania? Afghanistan and Algeria? Would you bet the house on the accuracy of those stations over prolonged periods and that is still in the ‘A”s

        I don’t think I have ever queried the generality of the correctness of BEST, just the precision that is the end result, and that the overall context is lost, which is that it shows a long warming trend and, stepping back, we can see -by the use of glacier data-how the short instrumental record fits into other periods of warmth and cold as glaciers advanced and receded, which I have traced back 3000 years using data produced by such as Ladurie and Pfister amongst others.

        Also, by smearing all data together to form one global average temperature we lose the considerable nuances. We have had this discussion before, but Muller does believe that one third of the global stations show cooling.

        The picture is far more complex therefore than the bare figures suggest. My estimate for the warmest year is 1540 and the warmest decade possibly the 1530’s. Perhaps te MWP was warmer. I haven’t complied the data for this period yet.. So we therefore know the limits of natural variability as being somewhat warmer than today and a lot colder.

        We need to step well outside those natural limits on a consistent basis before we start to panic in the manner we have been doing over the last few decades. After all the time and money spent we really don’t seem to have the answers yet do we?

        tonyb

      • Steve Mosher: You get the point. There are probably about 20 other arguments, objections, questions, diversions, all designed to thwart understanding not to advance understanding. What you won’t find is skeptic who actually tries to solve the problem for themselves. or when they do ( see JeffId at airvent ) when they do confirm the science as skeptics, the rest of the community FORGET, collectively forget that the work has been done.
        In the end, you have skeptics who generally argue that the climate is always changing while at the same time denying the evidence ( the temperature record ) we have for this. What you see is not a collection of people who would like to work together to tighten up and improve understanding.. but rather people who have learned a bunch of “moves” in a chess game.

        Gracious, but you do post a lot of garbage. You should stick to BEST, where your comments are good.

      • matthewrmarler:

        Gracious, but you do post a lot of garbage. You should stick to BEST, where your comments are good.

        Like those ones where you call people liars for pointing out BEST tells the media and public things about its work which aren’t true! And call them Holocaust deniers! Those are great! :D

        Seriously, I’m not trying to start a foodfight over stupid stuff. I don’t care that much about this stuff. I just think it’s incredible I get to have abuse heaped on me like this for trying to discuss BEST, and not only is it apparently okay, Mosher gets praised for his comments on BEST while I get criticized for mine.

        When it comes down to it, the reality is BEST has terrible spatial resolution. It cannot provide information about temperatures at scales of less than ~2500 kilometers. Even as BEST encourages people to look up temperatures for their local area, it knows it can’t actually provide information for any area smaller than a large country. And this is mostly due to BEST’s “empirical brekapoint” algorithm, as can be seen here.

        Whether or not that introduces any biases in BEST’s global results is uncertain at this point. Smearing information like this certainly could introduce biases into the overall result, but it might not. Even if it doesn’t though, the reduction in information at sub-global levels is a significant issue. People are interested in more than just global results. Things like regional temperature signals are important, and BEST’s near total destruction of spatial information is hugely important for them.

    • [… I]t has been trying to tear away at the credibility of any of the many scientists who agree with the positive feedback consensus, [..]

      Unfortunately, many of those “scientists” weren’t, or aren’t, at least when they are engaged in advocacy. They CHEATED.

      [… T]he main weapon is to sow mistrust in all of climate science, whether paleoclimate or observations or models and projections.

      What you call “mistrust” any real scientists would call proper scientific skepticism. There isn’t a single one of those fields that doesn’t deserve a lot less “certainty” or “settledness” than the main CAGW alarmists have been giving it.

      [… S]upport has coagulated here from a highly political anti-science faction […]

      Can’t argue with that. But their science the science of many of them (except sky-dragons) isn’t any worse than yours.

      […] rather than people who have a particular alternative scientific idea about why there has been so much warming.

      They’re here. You, and most of your fellow pseudo-scientific advocates, ignore them, except for the occasional ad hominem.

      Mistrust is the bed that was made, and that is what inhabits it.

      Mistrust of the IPCC-led “climate science establishment” is fully justified.

      The debate needs to be framed more around the science and evidence if you want rebuilding trust to be a goal.

      No, the debate needs to be framed around the reliability of a paradigm built using dishonest methods, the hiding of circularity, and the widespread use of intellectual hooliganism in support of the paradigm.

      • AK, proper skepticism isn’t calling all of the consensus scientists “cheats”. Proper skepticism allows for the truth of the consensus and the evidence it is based on, just not the certainty. It doesn’t say that the consensus view is impossible, but that is what you have here, and skepticism is not the correct word for it.

      • AK, proper skepticism isn’t calling all of the consensus scientists “cheats”.

        No it isn’t. But I didn’t call ‘all of the consensus scientists “cheats”.’ A (presumably small) cabal actively cheated, and a larger fraction of “climate scientists” stayed silent about it. This results in deprecating the reliability of any scientist who failed to speak out.

        And I’ve got to accuse you of (one of many frequent cases of) rhetorical dishonesty, by taking a statement applying to one item, “the credibility of any of the many scientists who agree with the positive feedback consensus” and applying it to another: “mistrust in all of climate science, whether paleoclimate or observations or models and projections.

        As I said, what you call “mistrust” any real scientist would call “proper scientific skepticism.

      • AK, you say that climate scientists are not calling each other out when Steyn has a whole book of other scientists calling Mann out, and that is his whole point of publishing the quotes. Your implication is that only some of the consensus scientists are “cheats” while the vast majority of them are honestly getting and agreeing with the consensus results, but you still want to discount these ones too. I don’t think many “skeptics” hold that view, which is why I would be surprised if you did. Do you want to clarify if I got it wrong this time? Do you trust the majority of the consensus scientists or not?

      • Jim D:

        AK, you say that climate scientists are not calling each other out when Steyn has a whole book of other scientists calling Mann out, and that is his whole point of publishing the quotes.

        Uh… no. Have you even looked at the book? I don’t think you can fairly describe something as “calling each other out” when it is only said in a private e-mail to a couple other people, but leaving that aside, most of the quotes Mark Steyn uses aren’t from climate scientists. I haven’t done any sort of formal count yet, but I doubt even 20% are.

      • @Jim D…

        First of all, I’m not speaking for myself, I’m trying to analyze what I think I see of how people who don’t trust scientists in a subject they don’t understand are responding. I may be mixing my own interpretations with my analysis of theirs, but I’m trying not to.

        [… Y]ou say that climate scientists are not calling each other out when Steyn has a whole book of other scientists calling Mann out, and that is his whole point of publishing the quotes.

        But as any examination of the recent comments here will show, most of those have been exaggerated in their effect. Moreover, until Climategate, most of them were private.

        And AFAIK only a handful of scientists have really denounced the perversion of the peer-review process that Climategate discovered.

        Your implication is that only some of the consensus scientists are “cheats” while the vast majority of them are honestly getting and agreeing with the consensus results, but you still want to discount these ones too.

        I think quite a few people are prepared to discount the entire field, with only a few isolated exceptions. Mostly because of Climategate. Many CAGW alarmists have engaged in an echo-chamber saying nothing happened, but IMO this just makes most people more suspicious.

        And I’ll go further: I think most Democrats think the same thing, but won’t admit it because of their party identity. They’ll go along on the surface, but they’ll be against anything that seriously hits them in the pocketbook. California may be an exception. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

        Do you trust the majority of the consensus scientists or not?

        Definitely not! The consensus/paradigm is always wrong. This is implicit in the model pioneered by Kuhn, and I agree with it. The problem is the difficulty of knowing in advance how it’s wrong, and which parts have to be revised.

        Most consensus “scientists”, in any paradigm not just “Climate Science”, are wedded to the system of thought they work in, and will not react honestly to challenges to their paradigm. IMO they don’t really qualify as scientists, they just have the credentials, and income from what is really glorified lab-tech work.

        In “Climate Science”, the distinction between the old, obsolete, paradigm represented by, e.g. the “perturbed equilibrium” model, and the one most likely, IMO, to replace it, based on mathematical developments of “chaos theory”, is a “litmus test”, so to speak, for real scientific honesty.

        Any “climate scientist” who rejects the obvious implications of non-linear dynamics (“chaos theory”) with denial, arm-waving, and bureaucratic/intellectual hooliganism is unworthy of trust. The fact that the “climate science establishment” has not, for instance” risen up in outrage over the treatment of Murry Salby is sufficient to demonstrate their general trustworthiness.

        As is the lack of general outrage over Mann’s CHEATING in his dispute with Mark Steyn. As is the general silence on the subject of the “97%” FRAUD. The majority of “scientists” may simply be keeping silent to protect jobs they depend on to feed their families, but that means they are behaving in an untrustworthy manner to protect jobs they depend on to feed their families.

        Which means I don’t see any reason to trust them.

      • The way the scientists check into “cheating” is to see if they can reproduce the results themselves. Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, therefore no cheating, and science moved on. “Skeptics” have been slow on the uptake about these confirmations, however, so Climategate lives.

      • The way the scientists check into “cheating” is to see if they can reproduce the results themselves.

        I’m not just talking about scientific misfeasance. Using bureaucratic hooliganism to block the publication of papers questioning a “consensus” conclusion is a far worse sort of cheating. And it doesn’t make any difference whether the the “consensus” conclusion was correct. Putting it simply, we don’t know because they CHEATED to keep challenges from being published.

        Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, […]

        No, the “hockey stick” has never been independently confirmed (AFAIK). And because of the CHEATING, demonstrations of that fact were only published in a blog. It’s quite possible that, if the cabal hadn’t CHEATED and papers demonstrating their defective “science” had been published they would have shaped up and produced valid independent confirmations. OTOH, perhaps they couldn’t because their conclusions were wrong. Nobody knows because they CHEATED.

      • AK, there are PoS journals willing to publish “skeptical” papers, and from what we have seen of them, we have not missed much. Rest assured, there is no genius out there trying to get a good idea into publications or being suppressed from getting a video posted on the Web. We’ve seen it all here, and that really is all they’ve got.

      • Jim D | August 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm |
        ” Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, therefore no cheating, and science moved on.”

        Correction The hockey stick has never been confirmed independently.
        All so called confirmations were in a very tight circle of Mann supporters and one was a redo by Mann himself.

        Put up the names of any 3 support articles and I will track you through the connections to Mann himself. Only 2 degrees of separation exist in all studies.
        Not up to speed on CRU temps but you are doubtless wrong since you have linked it to a dodgy statement this statement must be dodgy also.

      • Von Storch wasn’t part of the team but ended up on Mann’s side when critiquing MM05. Independent methods also produced the HS.

      • No.
        Jim D
        please name 3, name 2 , name 1 although
        Jim D Independent studies plural is what you said.
        put up some independent studies or retract .

      • @Jim D…

        Rest assured, there is no genius out there trying to get a good idea into publications or being suppressed from getting a video posted on the Web.

        All you ever seem to do is set up straw men.

        I’ve read what McSteve posted on Climate Audit about the papers where the hokey stick was supposedly “confirmed independently”. I may not know as much about statistics as he does, or the experts who comment on his blog, but I know enough to know they made important points.

        Points that, AFAIK, were never really addresses by the “hockey stick” buffs, just dismissed with arm-waving and “because it wasn’t published in a ‘peer reviewed’ journal.

        Nope. The CAGW alarmists CHEATED and everybody knows it. All the weasel-wording (or stoat-wording, or bunny-wording) just isn’t going to hide that fact. Not from anybody on either side who actually looks into it.

        The CAGW sympathizers just don’t talk about it. They may even hide their knowledge from themselves. But they know. Look how they (you) constantly try to divert attention (with, e.g. straw men) from the simple fact that they CHEATED.

      • I would ask the skeptics to find a paleo reconstruction without a hockey stick. They all have the upturn after a downward trend. If they didn’t have the upturn which is now approaching a degree, I think they would be very suspect.

      • Jim D, I have to suspect you’ve never played hockey if you think all it takes to have a hockey stick is an “upturn after a downward trend.” As someone who has only played floor and street hockey, I can still tell you, if your stick isn’t pretty dang straight, you’ll have a hard time playing.

      • Jim D Jim D | August 25, 2015 at 8:07 pm |

        I would ask the skeptics to find a paleo reconstruction without a hockey stick. They all have the upturn after a downward trend.

        In the words of the immortal Fan you are wrong Jim D.
        A paleo reconstruction does exist.
        It is available to everyone and with your extensive knowledge [Quoted above] I am sure you know which study it is.

      • Jim D | August 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm |

        “The way the scientists check into “cheating” is to see if they can reproduce the results themselves. Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, therefore no cheating, and science moved on.
        I would ask the skeptics to find a paleo reconstruction without a hockey stick.”
        Try
        Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series
        These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000]
        now there is your “true” paleo reconstruction unabridged and without a hockey stick.
        Correct?
        Thank you for your confirmatory, unusual silence.

      • angech, you prefer tree rings to thermometers? If you had both which line would you keep and which one would you throw away? Thought so.

      • If you had both which line would you keep and which one would you throw away?

        Yet another straw man.

      • Jim D you asked for Paleo data.
        Paleo data is tree rings.
        They did not have thermometers in the Paleo,
        Only metrics like tree rings which you specifically asked for.
        Now you have Paleo you suddenly do not want Paleo?
        Tough luck Charlie, I mean Jimmy.
        Give up while you’re behind.
        Or as they say in Paleo, when you’re in a hole, stop digging
        More a tar baby than a straw man and your sticky little fingers are stuck all over it.

      • > Paleo data is tree rings.

    • Jim,
      “But since then it has been trying to tear away at the credibility of any of the many scientists who agree with the positive feedback consensus, and the main weapon is to sow mistrust in all of climate science, whether paleoclimate or observations or models and projections. ”
      I agree with your assessment of this blog. I have mainly been a lurker here, but the subject of this blog has impelled me to write a few posts here. Most of the posters here are mistrustful skeptics, plus a number of out and out quacks.

    • CE wants to rebuild trust in climate science. Science being that which emerges from following the scientific method. Seeking the truth no metter where it leads, and acting with integrity. ie virtually the polar opposite of the IPCC and Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something with it?.

      Jim D though wants to rebuild trust in the official climate propaganda. We must forget that that climate science is funded by government, forget that government benefits from a finding of alarmism, forget the dogged lack of repentance over Climategate and other scams … forget the overall blatant inbuilt institutional alarmist bias.

      His pious “The debate needs to be framed more around the science and evidence if you want rebuilding trust to be a goal” neatly skirts that, of course, fundng will in the first place only/preferentially flow to suitable science, scientists and evidence that advacne the funder’s interests. Thereby starving out any potentially inconvenient science. And, Hey Presto, what have we here but a 97% Consensus ?

      Rather than rebuilding climate science to become trustworthy, what Jim D wants is that we rebuild trust in the untrustworthy.

      • Ridiculous.

        trends

        red: 30-years through 1998 = .0175C per year

        Warming increased in the 21st century… after 1998. Got stronger. Indisputable:

        green: 30-years through 2006 = .0181C per year

        After the 2008, 2011, and 2012 La Nina episodes, and the PDO’s brief foray into negative territory, the pause had reduced the trend:

        blue: 30-year trend through 2012 = .0169C per year.

        Since then the lengthy period of mostly negative ENSO neutral and the return of the positive phase of the PDO has bled out the strength of the pause. It has virtually ended the collapse of the 30-year trend:

        purple: 30-year trend through 2015.58 = .0165C per year.

        And the El Nino of 2015-2016 will knock it back above .169C, at which time the great white hope of the great white dopes, will no longer be able to fog a mirror. The “pause” will be unequivocally paws up.

        Do I trust the merchants of the pause? H no. They’re like vampires about to be caught out in the sun. Bye bye pausers.

        You can can even sea this vampire pause killing zone from outer space:

        This:

        Fries this:

        Oh, and the AMO is mostly completely irrelevant. Not going to save you guys.

      • Don’t know what the point is. This is what the sea looked like two years before your second map, during a moderate El Nino.

        Your first chart is a strong El Nino the second is a moderate La Nina,

        Most people know the difference between a cycle and a trend.

        In a year or year and a half it will look like this:

      • @Punksta
        “We must forget that that climate science is funded by government, forget that government benefits from a finding of alarmism, forget the dogged lack of repentance over Climategate and other scams … forget the overall blatant inbuilt institutional alarmist bias.”
        A lot of AGW demiers are fond of saying that “government benefits from the climate alarmism”. This seems to be part of a belief system that has no real evidence behind it. Politicians who run for office are reluctant to take actions which inconvenience their constituencies in ways such as limiting the use of fossil fuels. It creates animosity among voters.

        In addition to incoveniencing the public, taking action agaist AGW, distresses a lot of campaign contributers in the fossil fuel industry. It is clear that many AGW deniers are getting substantial contributions from the fossil fuel industry, which encourages them to make the claim that AGW is a hoax. It would seem that the shoe is on the other foot.

      • JCH –

        On the topic of rebuilding climate science to be trustworthy, you replied as a Pause Denier. Easy to mis-place comments here sometimes, I understand.

        On your pause denial, perhaps you should consider that the IPCC, a political advocacy group utterly dedicated supporing CAGW, has itself recognised it. As have the authors of 50-and-counting papers scrambling to explain it (away).

        If you know something even these dedicated zealots don’t, get in touich and tell them. Fame awaits you.

      • eadler2
        A lot of AGW demiers are fond of saying that “government benefits from the climate alarmism”. This seems to be part of a belief system that has no real evidence behind it.

        Actually it’s blatantly obvious to all but the most politically naive.

        CAGW offers government an apparently watertight excuse for enriching and empowering itself, raising taxes and bureaucracy and regulations, and so tilting society into a more totalirian situation. That is why it is so electorally popular with the Left.

      • “eadler2
        “A lot of AGW demiers are fond of saying that “government benefits from the climate alarmism”. This seems to be part of a belief system that has no real evidence behind it”.

        Actually it’s blatantly obvious to all but the most politically naive.
        CAGW offers government an apparently watertight excuse for enriching and empowering itself, raising taxes and bureaucracy and regulations, and so tilting society into a more totalirian situation. That is why it is so electorally popular with the Left.”

        Sorry, but you are only restating your opinion. There is nothing watertight about AGW. Politicians are responsible to the public, and subject to opposition from powerful interests who oppose regulation. The threat of totalitarianism in the US, comes from the wealthy who are corrupting the political process with the power of money. Look at the rise of superpacs and the Koch Bros..

        Environmental regulation is necessary to protect the planet from pollution by private interests. This is basic economics explained pretty clearly by the “tragedy o fhe commons”.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

      • JCH –

        So you deny the Pause that even politically precommitted alarmists like the IPCC recognise, and are scrambling to explain, yet you’re “not a pause denier”.

        Ok …. got it.

      • CAGW offers government an apparently watertight excuse for enriching and empowering itself

        Right, Punksta, it’s completely clear from the science that the potential severe consequences of climate change are made up. Why would anyone buy what these “scientists” are selling? And since it is obvious that it all made up, the politicians have decided to use the “science” to advance their agenda of ruining the economy by cutting emissions and to implement global socialism.

      • If only the Chef were still around… global warming did not stop. The ACO2 in the sky kept right on working just fine throughout the pause. Warming continued, somewhat abated (some energy went right back to outer space), but continued none the less.

        Ocean cycles can mask global warming, barely, and then the can accentuate it, a whole bunch. That is the new paradigm.

      • @Punksta,
        “So you deny the Pause that even politically precommitted alarmists like the IPCC recognise, and are scrambling to explain,”
        The “scramble” is over. There is no pause. There is evidence of a slight slowdown in the surface temperature record but no break in the global warming trend.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/

        The satellite record has been analysed and regression analysis shows that internal sources of variation, especially ENSO is responsible for the pause in the satellite record.

        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

      • Joseph | August 31, 2015 at 10:55 am |
        CAGW offers government an apparently watertight excuse for enriching and empowering itself

        Right, Punksta, it’s completely clear from the science that the potential severe consequences of climate change are made up. Why would anyone buy what these “scientists” are selling? And since it is obvious that it all made up, the politicians have decided to use the “science” to advance their agenda of ruining the economy by cutting emissions and to implement global socialism.

        That is exactly true.

        Much like cleanliness is next to godliness,
        Warmunism is next to Communism.

        There is a $ 1.5 trillion per year cottage industry in warming/biofuels/renewable energy. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives and progressives are perverse to begin with and don’t need much incentive.

      • CAGW offers government an apparently watertight excuse for enriching and empowering itself

        Joseph
        Right, Punksta, it’s completely clear from the science that the potential severe consequences of climate change are made up.

        ?? Wwhat is made up, is that we know we are headed for actual severe consequences.

        Why would anyone buy what these “scientists” are selling?

        Because they (ab)use the good name of science. And it’s not so much about what scientists are selling, it’s about what kind of science government is choosing to buy.

        And yes, government is buying the kind of climate science that promotes a society saddled with more government. Government acting in its own interest – whoever could have guessed people and institutions would act to further their own interest eh?

      • Because they (ab)use the good name of science. And it’s not so much about what scientists are selling, it’s about what kind of science government is choosing to buy.

        .

        So scientist are intentionally falsifying their results because the government is funding them? Is that what you are saying? The funding is not the most important thing here. What matters are the results and what they tell us about climate change.

      • eadler2 –

        There is nothing watertight about AGW.

        Correct. But to return you to the point, that is not what is claimed for CAGW (you forgot the crucial ‘C’) . “The science is settled” ( meaning : CAGW is true), don’t-you-know. Which does rather present the case as being watertight.

        Totalitarianism is where government has “total” control. The more govenment (taxes etc) there are, the more the system tends to totalitarianism. And vice-versa. Now the Left (“liberals” in American parlance) are are fundamentally economic totalitarians, since they always want more taxes and controls. But which taxes and controls are the Koch bros urging tin ordfer to merit the description of totalitarian?

        The tragedy of the commons is actually about the problem of unowned property. (The livestock being owned, the grazing field not; if the grazing field was owned, an owner would not let it be ruined ). But Yes, the air not being able to be parcelled up for private ownership like gtazing land, if and when CAGW is genuinely established, some government ownership and control of it would be justified.

      • eadler2 –
        As the world’s most dedicated alarmists continue scrambling to explain away the Pause, you just ignore them and carry on regardless. You tell ’em boyo!

        Internal variation; the missing heat hiding out in the ocean? Possible, sure, and what climate scientivists are praying will save the CAGW thesis. Such a pity then we as yet are nowhere near having overall robust OHC data.

      • Joseph –

        I saying govenment gets the science it selects and pays for. Just as tobacco companies funding smoking research did.

        So Yes, funding IS the most important thing here. It’s no good just looking at results. That tells you what scientists DID do and look at. It is silent on what they avoided doing at looking at in case it didn’t support the interests of the funder.

        A young scientist today who does not sign up to CAGW upfront, will have little ot no chance of a career.

      • I don’t really understand what you mean, Punksta. In science I thought the results are supposed to speak for themselves. They either support the hypothesis or they don’t. They are either valid or they are not. The funding doesn’t do anything but allow the hypothesis to be tested.

      • Joseph –

        Yes, but it says nothing about choice of hypothesis in the first place.

        If a crooked scientist is trying to establish some idea, and a certain area of study would seem to threaten that idea, he could simply avoid it in favour of some more convenient area of study.

        On the surface everything could look dandy, but underneath could lurk a devious scam.

      • Another way of putting it, is that the facts certainly do not speak for themselves.
        Because somebody somewhere selects which facts get to speak, and which don’t.
        And funding, in turn, selects who gets to be such a ‘somebody’ who selects the facts, and who does not.
        Which becomes an inherent major problem if the funder has a vested in the science coming to some specific conclusion.

      • the surface everything could look dandy, but underneath could lurk a devious scam.

        So it’s all one big scam and most climate scientists know it is a scam?

      • It’s an inherently biased system, yes.
        Just follow the money. No amount of pretending can change that the funder of climate science has a vested interest in the outcome. And hence that it would take some kind of miraculous conspiracy (of integrity) for this to NOT effect the findings in an alarmist direction.

        Do most climate scientists recognise this? Hard to tell. Most probably don’t think too much about it. The funding process has selected them for suitability, they just get on with it.

      • Punksta is one of those who have fallen into the meme of saying that even though climate science accurately explains the warming and cooling episodes, recent and paleo, in scientifically quantifiable terms, it is not actually to be considered even possibly right. It’s obviously a political mindset, but also obviously not a scientifically informed one.

      • Jim D –

        Oh dear, your obvious political mindset clumsily seeking to cover itself by projecting here. (To be expected form someone who urges building trust in the inherently untrustworthy I guess).

        Climate science making quantified explanations? Yeah, that’s a good one. Here’s my other leg.

        To dissuade you from further desparate strawman deceit, I’ll mention that (almost?) all here, I do not doubt the greenhouse principle. And recognise it may one day turn out that AGW is CAGW – ie imminent and serious. But with the current state of measurements, the CAGW case is clearly nowhere near proven or disproven.

        Only those untrustworthy charlatans you admire pretend otherwise.

      • Jim D | August 31, 2015 at 8:21 pm |
        Punksta is one of those who have fallen into the meme of saying that even though climate science accurately explains the warming and cooling episodes, recent and paleo, in scientifically quantifiable terms, it is not actually to be considered even possibly right. It’s obviously a political mindset, but also obviously not a scientifically informed one.

        There is a difference between real science and global warming “science”.

        Global warmers claim the PETM demonstrates the power of CO2. Real scientists go, “Gee, the CO2 rise happened 5 K years after the temperature rise. The temperature rise can’t be due to CO2, since the temperature rose first, and must have been due to other factors”. Anyone who has taken basic sciences or engineering realizes that causes happen before effects. More atmospheric CO2 is an effect of higher temperature.

        The claim that CO2 had a dominant effect on past temperatures (such as the PETM) is just irrational and illogical. It is a religious belief (“Climate Cult”) that has nothing to do with science.

    • @Jim D

      To a certain extent Climate Science has made a number of rods for it’s own back, by blindly supporting many unsupportable positions. I think a little navel gazing and introspection within the field might be good. If less unsupportable positions were dogmatically taken, if for instance a certain Michael Mann was left to just dangle, if various other blogs didn’t censor or try to bury contrary opinions then a certain amount of respect for the field may be reclaimed. Then Blogs in general, would become a nicer place to be for all and we could all actually talk about sensitivity, natural cycles, uncertainties etc etc. If we could strip the word “Denier” from many vocabularies and quell/stand away from some of the advocacy then we may all get somewhere.

      Ditto journals – Dominate the approval and review process – essentially become gatekeepers and you can continue to sneer at the poor other guy who could only get his paper published in a shoddy journal or indeed is struggling to get published at all.

      Start practicing Science like everyone else would be my advice

      Just a thought….. having far too many of those recently :-)

      It’s not for me to defend this Blog, but it is not in anyway anti-science. If you feel that, then you’ve simply understood the field of scientific endeavour.

      Einstein, went to his grave thinking Neils Bohr was a Loon…. Doesn’t make either of them any less great…. and each of them would have been lessened by the lack of the Other.

      Same goes for Climate Studies. Simply suck it up, do some better science and take a leaf from our hostess. Take criticisms on the chin, resolve to be better, appreciate that opposition to scientific ideas, whatever they are and whatever they refer to is intellectually beneficial/stimulating to all sides.

      A small and very personal bug bear:

      Models not working – examine that and just write some new ones, “simples” to quote a certain meercat.. Personal Advice, pay more attention to clouds this time round

  43. @TonyB,
    “Some Sceptics are not exploring the best arguments as some are too busy talking about frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies ”

    Absolutely, Tony, but I’ll go out on a limb here and push that argument a wee bit further and step out of the bounds that you set.
    While I agree that groupthink is more likely than deliberate fraud, hoaxes and conspiracies, I think that to a significant fraction of those who’ve been exposed (at most levels-I conjecture) to ClimateGate, ClimateVitriol and/or ClimateCatastrophism the taint of misconduct must measure highly in the olfactory consciousness
    Moving the argument forward as I suspect you indicated. Yes, you’re spot on. Consensus questioning has much better arguments to apply than the trading of Ad Homs but, and I may be giving away more than a bit of Puckish self-awareness here, it is not always unpleasurable to wrestle with pigs.

    • +1
      When they’ve swamped you in mud, why not give them a little wrestle?

    • The best argument against the alarmists is the adoption of the hockey stick as the poster child of every major science institution in the world. Note — this would be true even if the hockey stick hadn’t been such a fustercluck.

      Science is broken. Climate science is a complete wreck. Any institution which recklessly advises the world to spend trillions without bothering to do the slightest bit of quality checking is so reckless as to deserve to lose all trust and credibility.

      The cheating and lying got everyone’s attention. What should really concern everyone, though, is the extreme carelessness. I don’t think all alarmist scientists are cheats. I do think, however, that they are so incompetent that all are guilty of negligent and reckless misrepresentation. They are so clueless most of them don’t even realize what they are doing.

    • While I agree that groupthink is more likely than deliberate fraud, hoaxes and conspiracies, I think that to a significant fraction of those who’ve been exposed (at most levels-I conjecture) to ClimateGate, ClimateVitriol and/or ClimateCatastrophism the taint of misconduct must measure highly in the olfactory consciousness

      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/global-warming-a-1-5-trillion-industry.php

      $1.5 trillion per year is the reason. Follow the money.

      Climate Change is $ 1.5 trillion per year industry. That motivates a lot of this. The green sector decrying the few million spent to produce a more balanced and honest picture is utter hypocrisy. $1.5 Trillion buys a lot of lobbyists, consultants, studies, and influence.

      The solution is to look at what it will take to starve the green interests and deprive them of funds. Otherwise the scaremongering will continue since it has worked for them to this point.

      We don’t need renewables yet, and CO2 is a beneficial gas so the only rational reason for a global warming scare is to fatten the coffers of the green interests, their industry allies, and others who want more government and more control. And they will find another target after CO2 plays out because without a scare the money quits rolling in.

      Americans shouldn’t be dying from stress at the rates we are. The environment is clean, America is or at least was a nice place to live before the large government control freaks started trying to scare us to death, and steal our freedom and our money. CO2 isn’t a big or urgent problem. Time has come to quit pretending it is.

      Civil suits against green interests for wrongful death from their scaremongering tactics is the way to stop this. Unless their dishonesty is punished with huge punitive damage rewards the scaremongering will continue.

  44. Green eco-warriors are we,
    though urban dwellers of the inner-city,
    we like to sip on lattes and green tea,
    local of course, with other groovy
    progressives of city-cafe-society,
    discussing clean-slate dreams
    and great-leap-backward schemes
    to turn our cities into rural Edens,
    taking our schemes to conferences of Greens
    in annual, jet-star junkets over-seas.

    It’s political.

    • +1

      Jet junkets, I like it!

      • Heh Justin, U 2 can jet-junket if only yer jump on
        the doomsday-sayer-band-wagon-paper-trail. )

      • I have never been to Paris! Nor have I been to a cool castle to drink old wine and eat new food. Maybe I could throw away ethics and become a pitchman for renewables, carbon credits, and tax credits for my very own nonprofit organized to educate the public of the benefits, to me, of renewables. To heck with the serfs, I want to make money, fly to exotic places, meet exotic women ( like big Al, but unlike Al in a consensual and gentlemanly manner), maybe even write a quasi-autobiographical quasi-fictional account of my escapades and sell it! I could be a contendah! …Nah….

  45. stevefitzpatrick

    Judith,
    “On this five year anniversary of Climate Etc., has, or how has, Climate Etc. helped to rebuild trust about climate science?”

    Good question. I think your blog has shown that not all climate scientists are/have been corrupted by the poisonous behaviors so evident in the UEA emails. You have, of course, suffered professionally for actually addressing common concerns about the dubious actions so painfully on display in the UEA emails. But the principals involved in those messages seem to have learned little or nothing and appear to regret only having been caught, not what was being done. The field, IMHO, remains an awkward and counterproductive mixture of policy advocacy and science, which, when push comes to shove, seems always to let science take a back seat to advocacy. Whether those involved recognize that or not I don’t think matters much…….. practitioners in field appear to think advocacy is far more important than science.

    Until/unless the field can swear off advocacy, they will never overcome public skepticism of “the science”. There is a reason many people do not trust trial lawyers…. the quintessential advocates.

  46. The core problem is the lopsidedness of stories on climate change impact. Every change, big or small, is portrayed as negative; no change is portrayed as positive. That is inconsistent with peoples’ life experiences which teach people that nothing is clearly black and white. Change in the real world change brings winners and losers, positives and negatives. The all-bad portrayal of climate change triggers peoples’ BS alarm.

  47. “… the rightly urgent matters of international and intergenerational justice in responsibility for and response to climate change” are “overshadowing other moral issues,” eh? Stop right there, Mr Almassi.

  48. Mr Almassi might at least construct a sentence so that one remembers the blurry abstraction which started it by the time one reaches the last blur.

    It’s worth remembering, when you consider the vast areas of science which are both critical and underfunded, that mangled word salads like the above are costing and charging. This sort of exercise may be cheaper, easier and more feel-good than hard observation, but non-return on investment is guaranteed. (No, by observation I do not mean “survey”!)

    Yes, a new IGY would be full of political stunts reminiscent of Turney’s non-Mawson expedition, but if scientists could be re-introduced to the physical world they might end up concluding a lot less but knowing a bit more. Anything is better than wading these verbal swamps, especially when you are bound to bump a familiar alarmist message, floating out there amongst the “ethics”.

    • moso, several hours ago I attempted to reply to your opening posts, but was continually blocked whether I attempted to use my WP account or Facebook. I wrote then: “I’ve just started the article but found a couple of show-stoppers very early on, which, together with the pompous, long-winded style, make me wonder whether it’s worth continuing. Your posts suggest not.” Further investigation led to me giving it a miss.

    • moso, my follow-up comment hours ago as i read a little further was: “While I may be informed that the last years of the twentieth century are among the hottest in centuries, and I may then on reflection take this to be strong evidence of anthropogenic global climate change,” So, no scientific method for you, Ben. A total non-sequitur. Some good crits from the denizens.

      • A lot of education is about filling up the required number of pages with argument or verbiage. I wonder if Publish-or-Perish doesn’t have some of its origins in that demand for length and padding. Curiously, this does not lessen the taste for manipulative “surveys” where sensible qualification and elaboration are stifled for the sake of arriving at superficial numbers and percentages.

        If high intelligence is an uncommon ability to simplify, maybe educators should direct students to state their case at necessary length…rather than just make length. And when something is obvious or a platitude, try not to say it at all.

        There seem to be two extremes in education these days: the El Nino of simplistic box-ticking and the La Nina of aimless word-shovelling.

      • Writing letters to the editor is a good discipline. Succinct, clear, pertinent, a worthwhile point, etc. Perhaps Almassi et al should try to present their work as a letter to the ed, then use that as a basis for removing dross and excess verbiage. Or perhaps they should try to find useful employment. On that note, goodnight.

  49. Some quotes above used the term grounded skepticism [beth]
    This ia a good corollary to this post and worth a post in itself.
    Grounded skepticism, enjoy
    beththeserf |
    ” My grounded skepticism relates ter the missing hotspot
    and cloud feedback uncertainties, my grounded distrust
    relates ter gate keeping and lack of transparency.”
    bernie1815
    .” I distrust Michael Mann for his lack of transparency, unwillingness to discuss well-founded criticisms of his work, his naïve use of problematic statistical tools and his selective use of data.”
    Daniel E Hofford
    ” When your measurements are smaller than the error bars, in what universe is that not noise and in what universe do you then make claims that ignore the error bars and still maintain any semblance of ‘science’ or intellectual integrity?”

  50. I draw yr attention to Professor Judith Curry’s blog policy
    pertaining to the values of open society, values of inclusive
    discussion between experts and non-experts and her
    recognition that on all fronts of human enquiry, uncertainty
    prevails.

    Regarding ‘open society,’ Karl Popper wrote a famous book, ‘
    ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ in which he argues, as
    did Socrates in 5th century BC Athens, that our knowledge
    is uncertain. Popper presents a critical methodology that
    presupposes constant activity on our part, a critical
    methodology, a process of provisional theories, of schema
    and correction in the light of experience and obstacles
    they meet.

    P. S: Say, have not many discoveries come from outside
    a particular field of experts?

  51. You can trust that the experts have their global climate model, upside down, back to front, and inside out, and is only fit as an analogue of the human condition.

    1) They have the polar see-saw upside down, increased forcing of the climate cools the Arctic by increasing positive AO/NAO.
    2) They have forcing versus surface temp’s backwards, increased forcing of the climate cools the surface at up to interdecadal scales (AMO).
    3) Natural variability of atmospheric teleconnections is not internal or chaotic, it is largely solar forced at down to daily scales and can be forecast at such scales years in advance. Hence the model is inside out.

    1) is an analogue for sexual polarity, 2) is an analogue for emotional polarity, and 3) is an analogue for intuition polarity, the latter being in the realm of projections and hypocrisy and mirrors of perception.

  52. How many of you have ever heard that its healthy to drink 8 glasses of water per day? What is the scientific stand on this? Why doesn’t the public know for sure the correct answer on a seemingly easy question of everyday experience? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/upshot/no-you-do-not-have-to-drink-8-glasses-of-water-a-day.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

  53. I feel the same about the catastrophic climate warming hypothesis as I do about the Big Bang Theory or the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (that the Universe is built on randomness).

    No one knows. And no one currently alive will ever know.

    I try to weigh the evidence, and look at the major supporters of each side, and come up with a usable possibility. So:-

    (1) I don’t think it matters whether the Universe was created with a Big Bang or keeps expanding and contracting (as Fred Hoyle FRS believed to the day he died) and so won’t bother my head about it

    (2) Humans added probability to QM equations to make them work; so it doesn’t have to be an intrinsic part of the natural world. As physicists explain, QM explains more than humans have ever been able to before, so it’s a very good story. But it does have problems e.g. not fitting in with gravity and relativity. I much prefer Chaotic maths to Probability and Statistics. Chaos applies well to Ecological and other unpredictable problems in the natural world. It’s also likely to be useful in human-made worlds like economics. Chaos is deterministic, not random. So I come down against the Copenhagen Interpretation.

    (3) Climate came to my attention in the aftermath of ClimateGate. Most of the folk at work were dubious (computer engineers). And I’d got books at home from 1975 (“IceBall Earth” and “The Jupiter Effect”) which I had a peruse of. Then I saw Phil Jones on TV (~2010) saying that the recent warming was not statistically different to 2 previous periods in the last 100 or so years and that if the current lack of warming (statistically) continued for 12 years, they’d have to look at their theory again. I only bothered to look into it as our tiny British Island started to get crowded with Windmills and Solar-Panel Farms which aren’t even proven to be carbon-neutral. So I now think that the lack of evidence doesn’t warrant the permanent wrecking of our farmland and countryside that is going on. Also, I know that Greenpeace has always arrogantly ignored the science and facts in order to break the law campaigning – that was a charity set up to provide money for their favourite hobby. FoE and WWF I hadn’t realised had joined them in deceit. Unfortunately, the UN involvement has meant huge numbers of people have to pay lip-service to the AGW in order to get on with their lives. More of a Conspiracy Theory than GroupThink. It’s the sort of rolling-snowball mechanism that started WW2. People slip into it unknowingly.

  54. Highest Trust:
    Papers written before 1970.

    High Trust:
    Climate Etc.,
    Michaels because of his embrace of the obvious,
    some papers written by Trenberth, Lindzen, Judith Lean

    Trust and Skepticism:
    Schmidt,
    Anthony Watts, who has an obvious predisposition, but also exhibits genuine scientific interest and posts many interesting discovery stories I don’t see elsewhere

    Low Trust:
    The Heartland Institute,
    the EPA
    some papers written by Trenberth and the company he keeps:

    Lowest Trust:
    Politicians,
    Hansen because of activism and justification for stories,
    the late Schneider for justification of stories and ethical bind,
    the IPCC because of its political agenda and ulterior motives,
    Mann, becuase of his dedication to ‘the cause’,
    Phil Jones and CRU because of their embrace of ‘hide the decline’.

  55. came across this v short OU Open learn post today
    “Climate change: Think risk not fact”
    I liked the phrase “Shun the shoehorn of consensus”

    http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/climate-change-think-risk-not-fact

  56. Berényi Péter

    Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness

    BS. It has nothing to do with “trust” as such.

    The dichotomy of experts vs. nonexperts (laymen) is a false one in the first place.

    If it were a valid one and in any field of endeavor expert opinion had a decisive weight, we would be unable to tell the difference between genuine science and pseudoscience. However, for some reason, that’s not the case.

    Homeopathy has many attributes of science. It has schools, degrees, peer reviewed journals, conferences, etc. Last but not least, it has its own experts. And there is a fairly unanimous consensus among experts of Homeopathy, that solutions diluted until not a single molecule of agent remains in them, still retain their effectiveness.

    If one is doomed to rely on consensus expert opinion in this particular field, the central paradigm of Homeopathy should be true beyond doubt. Yet, it is not. Because there is also a widespread consensus among experts in neighboring fields that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. They say when air comes out of heads of those experts, making noise resembling language, they actually say nothing. And not only that, but for anyone with a bit of comprehension in science they are able to tell clearly why Homeopathy is crap.

    It is not experts vs. laymen. There is a whole network of fields in science, each with their own experts, but overlapping expertise. It is often the case that some is not an expert enough to do productive work in a particular field, but does have the necessary education to make sound judgements about basic paradigms in said field. Furthermore, he can explain in no uncertain terms how that judgement comes about to anyone, who are able to understand basic reasoning, that is, even to so called laymen.

    That’s why it is about much more than blind “trust” or even “epistemic trust”. It is about comprehension or the lack of it.

    For example, opinion of Freeman Dyson on climate science carries more weight than that of any number of “climate scientists”. See Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015. Not because he has “authority” as an intellectual giant or because he is a mathematical physicist with profound accomplishments behind him, not even because he has spent the last 37 years of his life more or less with “climate science”, but because he can explain his stance in clear, transparent and true propositions.

    It is actually very easy to see, why computational climate models may be excellent tools of understanding, but awfully inadequate in prediction. So much so, that at some point climate scientists stopped talking about “prediction” and introduced the ill defined concept of “projection” instead, an unprecedented move in the history of science. It is somewhat unfortunate as well, because “scientific prediction” has a traditionally well defined meaning, strictly connected to falsifiability, while projection can mean whatever suits the guy’s immediate purpose who is using this concept. The most benign reading of this development is that some residual scientific honesty prevents climate scientists to predict in cases when it is clearly impossible. In a strictly moral sense it is better to be obscure than to be an outright liar. The latter option is still repulsive for some, which is a good sign after all.

    Climate science is not a full fledged pseudoscience yet, but it is right at the edge of that slippery slope. The way computational climate models are used is even beyond that point.

    They have a bunch of mutually inconsistent models, which is not a problem in itself. There are valid scientific questions related to these inconsistencies and in each case it may be a step forward to understand the root cause of them. However, it seldom happens, but the way they are actually used is to take “ensemble average” of an inconsistent set and pretend that somehow it is a more reliable “projection” than those provided by individual members of this ensemble. Now, that’s pseudoscience, raw &. pure.

    However, with no model based projections, all doom and gloom evaporates.

    By the way, one could also compare climate models to observations. That’s a standard procedure in science, but it is hardly done in this particular field.

    There are two sets of observations which are particularly important in this respect.

    1. In the last 36 years satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures show, that surface warming is substantially faster than that of the air above, especially in the tropics and over oceans. All computational climate models do just the opposite. The scientifically valid question is: why?
    2. Annual average reflected shortwave radiation is equal for the two hemispheres (as observed by CERES since March 2000), in spite of the huge difference in their clear sky albedoes. None of the computational climate models behaves this way. Why?

    Both questions concern the distribution of atmospheric humidity, which is not understood at all.

    There is no worse mantra than “the science is settled”, if scientific progress matters. It certainly makes the field unattractive for bright young minds, while bringing in all the activists.

    But clearly, the science is not settled.

    • @Berenyi Peter:
      “For example, opinion of Freeman Dyson on climate science carries more weight than that of any number of “climate scientists”. See Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015. Not because he has “authority” as an intellectual giant or because he is a mathematical physicist with profound accomplishments behind him, not even because he has spent the last 37 years of his life more or less with “climate science”, but because he can explain his stance in clear, transparent and true propositions.”
      Your endorsement led me to watch the interview. Dyson has written a lot of books on my subjects, and is a visionary futurist.

      I wasn’t impressed. The arguments he espoused were the same meme’s that I hear from the so called “skeptics”. :
      *CO2 is plant food.
      *The models are no good.
      *Cutting emissions hurts the poor.”
      His big idea is that someday trees will be made to grow spectacularly by genetic engineering, on higher levels of CO2. A clever idea, but it doesn’t prove that damaging clmate change due to CO2 increases won’t happen.

      He admitted that he basically enjoys being a non conformist heretic, and enjoys being in the minority.
      . .
      Dyson’s wife and son are not impressed either.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all

  57. Berenyi Peter:
    “1. In the last 36 years satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures show, that surface warming is substantially faster than that of the air above, especially in the tropics and over oceans. All computational climate models do just the opposite. The scientifically valid question is: why?”

    The idea that tropical tropospheric warming must exceed surface warming is basic physics, and this would happen regardless of the source of the warming.

    The satellite measurements are flawed. They measure microwave radiation from Oxygen at different angles, and compute the temperature deduced from the spectrum at various ranges of heights. Different equipment on different satellites, incorrect orbits, and modification of radiation by water droplets in clouds make the measurements corrupt, and six revisions have been made to the data.

    Balloon data has had problems, but data correction techniques have been used to show that the tropospheric warming does exceed the surface warming.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
    ” First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. ”

    “2. Annual average reflected shortwave radiation is equal for the two hemispheres (as observed by CERES since March 2000), in spite of the huge difference in their clear sky albedoes. None of the computational climate models behaves this way. Why?”

    There was one paper on this subject that was featured in a post on WUWT. I don’t understand why this is high on your list of paradoxes. The authors of the paper you are referring to say that it is curious even though they cannot rule out the possibility that it is accidental.

    “Climate models generally do not reproduce the observed hemispheric symmetry, which the authors interpret as further evidence that the symmetry is nontrivial. While the authors cannot rule out that the observed hemispheric symmetry in reflected shortwave irradiance is accidental, their results motivate a search for mechanisms that minimize hemispheric differences in reflected shortwave irradiance and planetary albedo.”

    • Curious George

      I like a reference to “data correction techniques”. That way you can prove anything – as we see happening. Statistics can assign a lower weight to supposedly incorrect data, but not to manufacture artificial – pardon, corrected or adjusted – data.

  58. Judith, see the symposium A CHANGING MORAL CLIMATE sponsored by Luiss University (Italy) in 2013. http://fqp.luiss.it/

    One paper similar to the one you discuss in this blog describes the tradeoffs faced by an actor in order to reduce dissonance in positions. But worth a look at all of the papers which are downloadable.

    Climate Scepticism, Epistemic Dissonance, and the Ethics of Uncertainty by Axel Gelfert (2013)

    Abstract. When it comes to the public debate about the challenge of global climate change, moral questions are inextricably intertwined with epistemological ones. This manifests itself in at least two distinct ways. First, for a fixed set of epistemic standards, it may be irresponsible to delay policymaking until everyone agrees that such standards have been met. This has been extensively discussed in the literature on the precautionary principle. Second, key actors in the public debate may—for strategic reasons, or out of simple carelessness—engage in the selective variation of epistemic standards in response to evidence that would threaten to undermine their core beliefs, effectively leading to epistemic double standards that make rational agreement impossible. The latter scenario is aptly described as an instance of what Stephen Gardiner calls “epistemic corruption.” In the present paper, I give an explanation of the cognitive basis of epistemic corruption and discuss its place within the moral landscape of the debate. In particular, I argue that epistemic corruption often reflects an agent’s attempt to reduce dissonance between incoming scientific evidence and the agent’s ideological core commitments. By selectively discounting the former, agents may attempt to preserve the coherence of the latter, yet in doing so they threaten to damage the integrity of evidence-based deliberation.

    Paper link: http://fqp.luiss.it/files/2014/06/9_Gelfert_Climate-Scepticism-Epistemic-Dissonance-and-the-Ethics-of-Uncertainty_PPI_vol3_n1_20131.pdf

    • Thanks for that link.

      Just started reading, but it looks quite interesting so far. In particular, I like the discussion of a lack of parallels, with respect to the moral dimensions, when looking at other issues such as poverty (in that individual actions to address poverty, while they similarly will have no significant impact on the larger-scale problem as it exists, can have a clear and tangible impact at the individual level; e.g., can feed a malnourished child).

      It’s also good to see discussion of the “temporal exten[sion]” of the problem of assessing risk from ACO2 emissions – something that largely gets lost when combatants bicker about the “causes” behind a lack of implementation of climate change targeted policies.

    • Thanks much for these links

    • I’m sorry. That paper is a big glob of pseudo-intellectual goo. To use a technical term.

      It is one long, turgid apologia of all things CAGW. It is just another in a long series of attempts to define as psychological defect skeptic’s refusal to be an intellectual sheep.

      It is of course just a happy coincidence that all of his examples of epistemic corruption and cognitive dissonance are skeptics, conservatives, or anti-communists.

      Yawn.

      • Gary, one of the rarely recognised costs of the CAGW scare is the diversion of intellectual (I use the term loosely) resources into fields such as this rather than those which might actually bring some benefit. Though perhaps not, there seem to be far more academics in many fields than there are potentially useful things for them to deal with. Part of the modern Western decline.

      • If only Gary and Michael weren’t so surrounded by so many so far beneath them.

      • Joshua, we both seek with humility to help others see the light. All at no charge.

      • I think the trained hen in charge of the bloat panel at Luiss University pecked out Epistemic Dissonance when it meant to peck out Epistemic Corruption. Or Dissonant Cognition, maybe. Then it beaked Ethical instead of Evidential and so on. Or maybe not. The usual few glitches on the assembly line, but nobody noticed or cared. Nobody ever does.

        Good try, warmies.

      • Michael –

        Please excuse my inability to recognize your magnanimity.

      • Standard lefty think. Everything we ‘know’ is right. Everything you think you know which disagrees with our dogma is obviously wrong. Let us contemplate what psychological issues you must clearly suffer from which cause you to be so wrong.

    • I agree with Judith that this is an excellent paper, which makes clear the uniqueness of the problem of climate change and how humans are reacting to it. The situation is unprecedented in human history, and the author’s analysis shines a clear light on the debate that is in progress.

    • I think way too much is made of the influence of core values on one’s outlook on global warming. The fact is, the science isn’t solid. It isn’t solid no matter what political stance an individual takes. The argument concerning core values appears to be some sort of logical fallacy.

      • The argument is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy occurs when the laws involving reasoning are broken. I don’t think you can cite any principle of logic that has been violated. Your judgement appears to be that the evidence is not as compelling as it needs to be to make such an argument, because the science is not strong.

        There certainly is a huge statistical difference between acceptance of the existence of an AGW problem by the general public between liberals and conservatives. Is this based on the weakness of the scientific case for AGW and conservatives understand the science better than liberals or is this motivated reasoning based on political beliefs.

        Experience with other scientific theories shows that the solidity of the science may not be that important. Acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolutiion shows a similar gap based on religious beliefs, despite the fact that the science is solid in this case.
        http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
        “There also are sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap.”

        Religious and ideological beliefs appear to have strong influence on beliefs about science in the general public. In both cases there is a big gap in acceptance of a scientific theory between scientists and the publc. One can’t argue that the theory of evolution is on shakey ground. It is the basis of modern biology.

      • 1. Assume core values influence the truth or fiction of a hypothesis.
        2. Deduce the truth of the hypothesis based on the state of core values of a group of people.
        3. Obtain a false result.

        Looks fallacious to me.

  59. A somewhat related point is in regard to the signatories of the UNFCCC at the Rio convention in 1993. 154 nations signed the UNFCCC, many of which do not have science curricula comparable to that of the seventh grade in developed nations. Yet the consensus claims this to be evidence of the near universal “consensus.” Climate change is a very complex subject. Why would those nations sign up when they are completely incapable of making informed judgments on a highly complicated technical / scientific matter ? Answer: because they were put in a position that they had to sign it. Those nations are highly dependent on the United Nations and related bodies for support and aid. That is not a personal level cognitive dissonance but a national level cognitive dissonance, or to put it bluntly a form of coercion. In their minds they “had to sign.”

    • “A somewhat related point is in regard to the signatories of the UNFCCC at the Rio convention in 1993. 154 nations signed the UNFCCC, many of which do not have science curricula comparable to that of the seventh grade in developed nations. … Why would those nations sign up when they are completely incapable of making informed judgments on a highly complicated technical / scientific matter ?”
      In general the leadership of underdeveloped countries would have more than a seventh grade education, and have educated people advising them on the science.

  60. Pingback: BEST Slanders Critics | Izuru

  61. Reference:

    [1] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, ” The stable stationary value of the
    Earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness” Energy and Environment (2010), pp. 243-262

  62. Given the corrupt state of the profession – eg continuing unrepentant attitude over Climategate and the ensuing coverups – rebuilding trust in climate science, requires rebuilding the climate science profession.

    Is this even possible though, given that it is government-funded, and government has has such an obvious and huge vested interest in a finding of CAGW alarmism?

  63. Thanks to Steven Goddard’s keen intellect and bravery in confronting Deceit Disguised as 97% Consensus Science,” the clown impersonating Stalin is going down.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/obama-travels-to-alaska-to-warn-them-about-global-warming/

  64. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #194 | Watts Up With That?

  65. Pingback: Divergence: climate predictions and “warmest year on record” versus observable reality | Atlas Monitor

  66. Now that the 2009 Climategate emails have finally led us to the unmitigated arrogant selfishness (hubris) of world leaders and the scientists they fund,

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812_STALIN'S_SCIENCE

    The $64,000 question is just this: “Can society be returned to sanity (contact with REALITY: Every atom, life and planet in the solar system is sustained by NEUTRON REPULSION in the Sun’s pulsar core – an EMPIRICAL FACT world leaders and government scientists HID FROM THE PUBLIC for 70 years) without undergoing a crash landing of the world’s entire economic and social order?

    • The neutron repulsion is so strong that the neutrons escaped from the sun and headed directly to your brain, where they have created the weirdest radioactive isotopes, which have caused delusions.

  67. PA wrote:

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/24/climate-change-epistemic-trust-and-expert-trustworthiness/#comment-728844

    “There was a 0.2 W/m2 downwelling change during clear skies in the first decade of the 21st century. The overall effect will be less because there is cloud cover 52% of the time and so forth.

    Less than 0.2 W/m2 isn’t a big change. It doesn’t seem to have made it to the TLT altitude. Given that latent heat loss is over 50% of heat loss, and cloudy conditions occur 52% of the time, it isn’t going to cause a big temperature change. The period wasn’t 20 years of the TSR, only ten – but in about 5 years or so they will rerelease the study and the results won’t be a lot different.

    Unless there is some empirically measured proof that CO2 warming is more than a weak surface effect that is pretty much it.”

    This is nonsense. The figure of 0.2W/M2 is a change in downward energy flux due to CO2 over one decade. Past increases in CO2 concentration will continue to heat the surface of the earth until a steady state is reached where outgoing energy flux at the top of the atmosphere equals incoming energy flux.

    You seem to assume that where there is cloud cover, no increase in downwelling radiation occurs. This is untrue. Here is a paper in which the global average increase in downwelling radiation over land between 1973 and 2008 are determined from weather station measurements:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract

    “The decadal variations in global Ld under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”