Week in review

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

Laos, China release dam water as Vietnamese Mekong Delta suffers worst fresh water shortage in century [link]

Facing Prison, Rajendra Pachauri Claims Climate Sceptics Are Behind Sexual Harassment Case [link]

“localized desertification causes significant global changes in temperature” [link]

Why does the Antarctic sea ice trend resist decline? [link]  …

Climate change -> drought -> democracy -> faster economic growth [link] …

“How Do You Decide to Have a Baby When Climate Change Is Remaking Life on Earth?”  [link]

#Drought in India forces #coal gen units in india to shut down due to lack of #cooling #water  [link]

Dominant flood generating mechanisms across the United States. [link]

New paper finds “solar activity…can influence the intensity of the Asian monsoon” [link]

“We shook the data a little until something more newsworthy fell out of it.” [link]

Bad news about permafrost  [link]

Climate activist James Hansen says an abrupt climate shift is coming  [link]

Geothermal energy markets heating up [link]

Growing season longer in the UK as local temperatures increase – pros & cons: [link] …

Trump: CAGW “is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money”  [link]

James Hansen’s bombshell climate warning is now scientific canon. How terrifying. [link]

Yet another review of extreme weather & climate change finds it’s not getting worse [link] …

Fascinating to read the exchanges between James Hansen and reviewers of his latest paper [link] …

WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate 2015:  [link]

NOAA: Did #ElNino play a starring role in this winter climate? Find out in our latest blog: [link]

Glacier melt has in fact slowed considerably, studies show:  [link]

Union of Concerned Scientists seeks to shield scientists from public scrutiny[link]

Intermittent energy has serious drawbacks not often enough discussed or planned for. Wind and Solar’s Fukushima – The Methane Meltdown at Porter Ranch [link]


201 responses to “Week in review

  1. True to form, the perp (Pachauri) attempts to be the victim. The ubiquitous victimization card, a syndrome helping to rationalize and disown ones behavior and not accept accountability. Soon to be entered in the Psychiatrist’s Manual of Mental Disorders.

    • Waiting for paper: “Increased Temperatures Decreasing Women’s Tolerance To Sexual Advances”.

    • That’s the “progressive” way, blame anyone but yourself.

    • Hello Cisco,

      Maybe he’s the victim, maybe not. There is evidence she may have encouraged him.

      Documents filed with the court by Pachauri’s lawyer are said to show that, on 29 September 2013, just weeks after she went to work with him, the woman wrote in an email: “I am learning as I always say and if I may, please allow me to hug you when deem[ed] appropriate if you cannot seem to hug me and rightly so. I hold nothing against you at all and never will.”

      In another, she says: “Remember how I first met you and what followed next? It was all the inside of me telling me that I must pursue it with this particular man. I will be happy with what makes you happy as long as that brings you satisfaction and sense of belonging.”

      And again, she writes: “Yes, I may not have taken a step towards you in the direction you want me to but I think I did take a few so as to always ensure that I am around and there for you even if silently. You have no idea how much I value you and how weird it feels when you are on travel or not in office; the invigoration that you bring, is so missing.”


      • Lol, thanks max. True to form, I knew one of two individuals would show up with this position.
        When one is in a position of authority, especially this hyper politicized kind, you have a choice of thinking with one of two organs. Hint, it is not the one below the belt buckle. You simply develop instincts to keep you out of any marginally precarious position. But some men in the most extreme positions of authority still cannot tune out their Johnson. Most likely a case of arrogance. Or believing they can be the invisible man.
        I note the story mentioned my favorite part of one of my favorite movies. If anyone has not seen it, just watch for a good history lesson.

      • Cisco, I’m sorry to hear things for you south of the belt have gone south. I suppose that happens with age. On the bright side, less time thinking about fornication means more time to think about other things.

      • You have so much that you worry about already I don’t want you to become confused when the light goes out from the Sun.


        Moon light will have to do you for a little while Max. You understand. Save your AGW worries for another day.

    • Did Judith Curry link or comment on the coral bleaching affecting the Great Barrier Reef? Corals are bleaching due to excessive heat. Where did that heat come from?

      • Tripp Funderburk,

        Couple of points –

        “The Great Barrier Reef has lost half its coral cover in the last 27 years. The loss was due to storm damage (48%), crown of thorns starfish (42%), and bleaching (10%) according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today by researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in Townsville and the University of Wollongong.”

        Bleaching – 10%.

        Australia is moving roughly NNE at up to 7 cm per year. I assume the Great Barrier Reef stays attached to Australia while the continent roars along.

        Maybe the reef has been heading towards the Equator – it certainly is at the moment. I thought the sea temperatures were generally higher at the Equator than at the higher latitudes (such as the Antarctic). Do Warmists live in denial of tectonic plate movement, and believe that average sunlight falls on a uniformly reflective Earth day and night?

        So where does the heat that warms the oceans come from? You aren’t really seeking information, so I won’t bother telling you. It’s pretty obvious – just not to Warmists. If you are serious, and really don’t know, just say so. I’ll be glad to help.


      • Marine scientist urine could be the excessive heat source as well as a biological disease vector to the corals. Remember the neighbors cabana cartoon that said ‘We don’t swim in your toilet so please don’t piss in our pool’? Cheap and effective lessons are easily learned even as a child. There should be a correlation to the causation and all people have to do to save the coral is simply stop observing them. Send a lone scientist back to a Great Barrier Reef test location after 100 years, to see if there has been a change to the reef. Think of the money saved and how happy the reef will feel after a long period of time. There must have been at least one study about Human Urine and World Reefs, in the last 100 years but I bet it is hidden behind a pay-wall.

      • Australia is moving roughly NNE at up to 7 cm per year. […] Maybe the reef has been heading towards the Equator – it certainly is at the moment. I thought the sea temperatures were generally higher at the Equator than at the higher latitudes (such as the Antarctic).

        The Great Barrier Reef is around a thousand kilometers from the equator. In the last century, it moved around 7 meters (not directly north, either). That’s about 1/142,857 of the distance to the equator. Assuming a 10°C difference between temps at its current latitude and the equator, that’s about 1/14,286 of a °C.

        Could anybody really be that d00mb? Or could the person who said that really be a warmist false-flagger pretending to a ridiculous caricature of a denier?

      • AK,

        I agree with you, to a degree. Which part of the reef are you considering? It’s around 2300 km long, so parts are 2300 km approx closer to the Equator than others. Or 2300 km closer to Antarctica, if you prefer.

        What tends to intrigue me is sweeping statements claiming that changes in sea temperature (at unspecified depths) is caused by CO2 and is responsible (apparently) for widespread coral bleaching.

        If Tripp Funderburk is the person I assume he is, his MBA and interest in coral reef restoration in the Caribbean and the Florida Keys, may not equip him to understand reef ecology etc. as it applies to the Australian Great Barrier Reef.

        Corals have apparently been growing in the GBR area for 18,000,000 years or so, but the reef itself is only about 500,0000 years old. The current corals are probably 8,000 years recent.

        My point is that the GBR has a lot of uncertainty associated with it. Although 7 cm per year is not much over 100 years, over 500,000 years it’s a fair bit. There is no way of knowing with certainty how fast the reef location moved in the past, or in which direction.

        Up to Jan 2016, 12 GBR monitoring stations recorded yearly average sea temperatures between 30 C and 19.5 C depending on time of year. There is roughly 5 C variation at any individual station. So presently, assuming consistency of coral species over the 2300 kms of the Reef, 19.5 to 30 C seems to be reasonably comfortable for the coral.

        Another consideration is that if sea temperatures rise, the corals will spread into areas previously too cool, of course. Quite apart from these considerations, presumably evolution has been occurring, and will continue to do so.

        Anyone claiming that a one or two degree change in temperature will result in widespread coral bleaching (which does not necessarily indicate dead coral, in any case), is not considering present reality. At worst, the coral will increase at one end as it dies at the other. If it dies off at the rate of 7 cm per annum at the Equator end, would it not increase at the rate of 7 cm per year at the other? I don’t know, and I’m reasonably certain nobody else does, either.

        Damage from the crown-of-thorns starfish is more of a worry. There have been 3 serious outbreaks over the last 40 years or so.

        Using the threat of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef (as a result of partially restoring global CO2 concentrations to their previous levels) seems a bit Warmist, or even Witless. What is it supposed to achieve?

        7 cm a year isn’t a lot, but it may make a considerable unpredictable change to the output of a chaotic system. Laugh if you wish. There don’t seem to be many adverse side effects associated with laughing.


  2. “Climate activist James Hansen says an abrupt climate shift is coming”

    What else is a climate activist supposed to say?

    This is news?


  3. Desertification.

    “On the global scale, cooling dominates the SH desertification effects”

    Phew. For a moment, I thought desertification was going to Ben blamed on warming. On the other hand, maybe CO2 causes global cooling.

    All very confusing.


    • Curious George

      Easy. The climate establishment is dominated by egos, not by science. That’s why they dislike Donald Trump – a formidable competitor.

  4. Since the WIR is not categorized, I’ll leave this here:


    • How do you replicate Climate Science? With the exception of the observed historical record it would seem all you can do is wait and see. Will we all be dead before this happens?

      • …so then, ordvic, you think that the great and wise Feynman is full of snit when he says science is more about figuring out what is more likely and less likely rather than proving things possible or impossible. You have to listen to the the whole thing.

      • Horst Graben, Actually I was just reacting to what Joshua said. I am no scientist although I think I understand the scientific method. As far as more or less likely, well it is what it is.

  5. “How Do You Decide to Have a Baby When Climate Change Is Remaking Life on Earth?”

    You’re joking, of course! Or is this a supremely ignorant question? The writer might be a graduate of an American university. I couldn’t read past the title, being convulsed with laughter.

    Oh well, I’ve had my laugh.


  6. Pardon the typos. The miracle of auto correction, or fat finger syndrome. Take your pick.

    Re Death Trains Hansen. Does anybody still pay attention to the psychotically delusional ramblings of yet another bumbling bearded balding buffoon? From one link –

    “In 1988, Hansen told Congress that global warming had already begun and that temperatures would increase .35 degrees Celsius over the next ten years. He overestimated his findings by 300 percent. A review of previous predictions by Hansen shows a similar pattern of gross exaggerations gobbled up by a gullible media. The former NASA scientist is currently embroiled in various lawsuits targeting the government and fossil fuel companies.”

    The only group more gullible than the media would have to be Warmists!

    Have any Warmists actually managed to warm anything using CO2? Of course not. As likely as alchemists converting lead into gold, using the magical powers of CO2 (or anything else, for that matter!)


    • Mike, I have bad news. Temperature caught up with Hansen’s high scenario last month. Take your foot out of your mouth to make room for crow.

      • max1ok,

        What has temperature got to do with CO2 or H2O? Does your mad Warmist theory lead you to believe that higher temperatures around a fire are due to increased CO2 levels in the vicinity of the fire? After all, the correlation is 100%. You might even notice that higher temperatures are accompanied by increased CO2 levels.

        Consider this. The hottest places on the surface of the Earth are those overlaid by the least amount of alleged GHGs, such as H2O. How can this be? The surface also cools at night. Does warming only occur in strong sunlight? The poles are exposed to continuous sunlight for several months at a time. They don’t seem to get terribly hot, do they? Not enough CO2?

        As I say, you cannot demonstrate how to warm anything at all using CO2. Nothing. If any bumbling, bearded, balding buffoon claims otherwise, maybe you could ask to see this miracle demonstrated. I doubt you will be accommodated.


      • Mike, my comment and your reply are unrelated. If the thought of eating crow has disabled your brain, you might try slapping your head to restore function. It used to work on our old TV.

        BTW, you were right about “were.” Of course I understood what jim2 meant despite his poor grammar, but nitpicking is popular here at ClimateEtc, so I thought I would try it. I found nitpicking is not as much fun as name calling.

        You mangy good-for-nothing polecat.

      • max1ok,

        You wrote –

        “You mangy good-for-nothing polecat.”

        I assume you were attempting to be gratuitously insulting. It’s a pretty lame attempt, really!

        If you need some help, please let me know. I’m always willing to help those less gifted than myself.


      • There’s no way you can be as offensive as me, you stinking, wormy, whey-faced clotpole.

      • catweazle666

        max1ok: “There’s no way you can be as offensive as me, you stinking, wormy, whey-faced clotpole.

        Grow up you pathetic little fool.

      • What a pathetic attempt at being offensive. You will have to do better than that if you want me to inspire me.

      • max1ok

        You wrote –

        “There’s no way you can be as offensive as me, you stinking, wormy, whey-faced clotpole.”

        And yet, I find myself singularly unoffended. Once again, in typical odd Warmist fashion, you make unsubstantiated assertions, presumably believing that repetition will create fact.

        I don’t believe fact can be created through force of will alone, but maybe if you concentrate really, really, hard, and repeat the Sacred Manntra in ever more strident and whining tones I might indeed turn into a stinking, wormy, whey-faced clotpole. Or maybe I already am, and you will wasting your time and effort, as usual.

        I mean no offense, of course.


  7. Bad news about permafrost [link]

    In these regions, winter freezing cracks open the ground, which then fills with water in the summer from melting snow. When refreezing occurs in the winter, that causes large wedges of ice to form amid the icy ground. These ice wedges can extend ten or fifteen meters deep, and can in some cases be thousands of years old.

    To say this a different way, this is nothing new, except this time we are watching and they are using it to try to scare us so they can tax and control us.

  8. From one of my WUWT comments
    Question is how that ‘magnetic potential between two poles’ could be associated with the global temperature change?
    One of possible answers could be associated with the Svensmark effect, while an alternative could be based on the oceans’ conveyor belt.
    science has no answer, at least not yet, what might be the true driver of the global temperature variability science has ‘data’ but no valid mechanism

    • David L. Hagen

      A conductor moving through a magnetic field will have a transverse force. Has anyone done the calculations? e.g. shifting of the ocean conveyor belt with consequent changes to ENSO and/or clouds/albedo?

      • Not that I know of, but there is high probability of a relationship according to spectral composition
        Delay in the above Crutemp graph would suggest that magnetic field change is the cause rather than a consequence. However, interaction between Earth’s magnetic field and huge ocean currents, by the nature of things is bi-directional, the question is which one might prevail.

      • Vuk

        Think I saw you on the towpath cheering on the losing team. Better luck next decade. Very interesting rowing conditions!


      • It is still Oxford 15:5 Cambridge in the last 20 years, have to let them win sometime, else they might give up, tradition has to be kept alive, even if occasional sacrifice has to be made. My daughter is very pleased by Oxford ladies win.
        Ah, English weather
        Lightning strikes the Thames ahead of the Oxford-Cambridge boat race

      • So that’s 82 to 79 in the mens race and. 41 to 30 in the women’s race, both in favour of Cambridge so it was good of Cambridge to let Oxford catch up a little in the last few years.

        Yes, that lightning strike was interesting and the women’s Cambridge crew very nearly sank.


  9. Yet another review of extreme weather & climate change finds it’s not getting worse

    This ties in with both the AMS survey and J Hansen’s Paper of Doom.

    • opluso – Did you read that paper? Do you take it seriously?

    • I mean the “review” paper by Kelly.

    • Kelly’s paper was from the nothing has changed nor can change perspective. Being an engineer he was concerned about any resilience planning being done when nothing has changed so far according to his limited view. It wasn’t clear what planning he was concerned about, however. Flood mitigation?

      • I disagree, if mildly, with his assessment of temp trends since 1950. I think it’s too soon to dismiss (the potential for) increased rates of warming. That also means it’s too soon to conclude that an increased rate is permanent.

        He points out (per NOAA) that single precipitation events have increased but overall averages have not. Seems to me increased rainfall in individual events would be of concern to designers/engineers but perhaps he finds the 7% range insufficent for concern thus far. He does launch into a list of idiosyncratic examples to illustrate (lack of) trends but that seems no different from other climate related articles that point to this reef or that forest to prove some point about global changes.

        Some of the data he cites is simply unassailable. Fewer hurricanes making landfall in the US, for example. An engineer would want to know if the frequency or strength of catastrophic storms was increasing. Clearly, he doesn’t work for an insurance company since they are happy to increase your premiums, regardless.

  10. The Conley / Maloney article is excellent. As I’ve said many times, you don’t need a degree in physics to understand that most of the actions called for by those alarmed over climate change don’t work. Arithmetic tells us they don’t.

    • Wind and Solar’s Fukushima. I found it very interesting and thought provoking. It will take a while for me to digest it all. It would seem we have the methane problem with or without renewables as gas is pushing out coal based on economics. Could policy realistically be a source of change to tip that balance? I’m not sure.

      All this is impacted by how optimistic we are about technology. Control of methane links could probably be thrown into that hopper as well. No easy answers.

  11. Problem with Hansen’s latest extreme weather meme-> wind blown dust indicates much greater kinetic energy during the glacials and much lesser during the Eemian and Holocene:

    • TE, Nice chart, I wonder why eccentricity is so smooth as in comparison to a much shorter time period shown here (green line):


    • Dust is a proxy for Dry conditions, not kinetic energy. I am sure you have noticed that order-of-magnitude increases in ice sheet dust concentrations immediately precede DO events and interglacials.

      • There is a lot of surface dust available now but it only gets airborne by strong winds. It takes really strong winds to blow dust all the way to Antarctica and up 2 kilometers to the top of the ice sheets.

      • TE: The dust bowl occurred in a drought, the weight of water in soil moisture is the biggest factor in the equation. It’s pretty simple, more water in ice sheets=less water in soil=more dust transport.

      • Dust is a proxy for Dry conditions, not kinetic energy.

        Well, assume that’s true.
        It certainly would contradict the global warming -> drought meme.

      • It’s pretty simple, more water in ice sheets=less water in soil=more dust transport.

        If things were simple, they could also be simply:
        increased thermal gradient -> increased wind = less water in soil=more dust transport, both because of reduced soil moisture and because of increased kinetic energy

        Things are probably not simple.
        Katabatic winds certainly increased wind events. Did that relate to storminess? Speculative without observation.

        There probably were some increased sources of dust ( surface land area was 5% of total larger due to sea level fall ). Some areas Radiative forcing There were some areas that were desert. On the other hand, there were ‘pluvial lakes’ in the Western US were deserts lie today.

        As for the Dust Bowl, it does not appear that the Dust Bowl even made it to Greenland, much less to Antarctica. So, even with the massive Dust Bowl ( and the strong wind events that accompanied it ), it would appear to take a great increase in energy to explain dust in the Antarctic ice cores.

      • TE: Thanks for fighting back. I definitely had a blind spot here and appreciate the kick in the head.

        I found a paper that speculates that increasing winds were responsible for the large diameter dust at the LGM. This is supposed to be due to highly positive southern annular mode that bends the westerlies coming off Pategonia south to the EAIS. I haven’t found papers that offer other lines of evidence for this, but it would possibly explain why the LGM failure started in Antarctica.


        The extension of the Vostok dust record confirms that continental
        aridity, dust mobilization and transport are more prevalent during
        glacial climates, as also reflected globally in many dust records (see
        ref. 10 and references therein). The presence of larger particles in the
        Vostok record, at least during the Last Glacial Maximum 10, indicates that the atmospheric circulation at high southern latitudes was more turbulent at that time. Lower atmospheric moisture content
        and reduced hydrological fluxes may also have contributed sig-
        nificantly (that is, one order of magnitude 32) to the very large
        increases of dust fallout during full glacial periods because of a lower
        aerosol-removal efficiency.

      • All this being said, I’m reminded of the complexity of the glacial signals.

        I knew that Northern winters actually received significantly less sunshine during the HCO, but I’d forgotten that was also true during the Eemian.

        The metlseasonsolar forcing did still correspond with glaciation & deglaciation, but the winter time solar forcing was often just the opposite phase.

  12. The Mekong Delta is suffering from a drought but the intrusion of salt water is due partly to subsidence from over exploitation of groundwater. Erban et al (2014) found subsidence at a greater rate than SLR. Minderhoud et al (2015) also identified subsidence problems in the Delta.
    Jakarta is sinking up to 10cm/yr. Tokyo had the same problems decades ago but took measures to reduce dependency on gw resources, as has Bangkok.

    The coasts have problems. The problems and solutions don’t start and end with CO2.

  13. Maybe farmers here can chime in. The article says a longer UK growing season means earlier maturing, and presumably earlier harvest, and smaller crops for a given variety? So a longer growing season is not necessarily beneficial unless you also change your crops.

    • David Wojick

      The smaller crops makes no sense but yes we can change crops if it actually warms a lot (don’t bet on it). Corn for wheat, for example.

    • David Wojick

      The article quotes a “professor of climate impacts.” How droll. But then I imagine there is much more money in “climate impacts” than in farming, on a per capita basis. “Climate impacts” is a cash crop.

    • Jimd

      We have numerous instances of changes in the length of the growing season as seasons fluctuate in length and severity over the centuries

      “The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary)


      • “The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 ”

        Appeal to consensus. he doesnt know anybody who objects, therefore….
        How much warmer?
        What does he mean by “ancient times” dates?
        How did they measure it in “ancient times”
        Who was alive in ancient times that is also alive today?
        How accurate and how precise were those measurements?
        Did Webster have a Phd in Climate? any science?
        Was his observation peer reviewed? auditing?
        Where is his data?

        Funny what happens when you use the same skeptical tools on every claim.

      • The article refers to CET and recent decades are unprecedented in season length. Farmers will have to adjust, because the change now is only a fraction of the change expected.

      • Jimd

        A farmer from Buchan in North East Scotland, one of the snowiest parts of lowland Britain, wrote in the agricultural section of the local newspaper during the exceptionally mild winter of 1933/34.

        “1934 has opened true to the modern tradition of open, snowless winters. The long ago winters are no precedent for our modern samples. During the last decade, during several Januarys the lark has heralded spring up in the lift from the middle to the end of the month. Not full fledged songs but preliminary bars in an effort to adapt to our climatic change.”

        It then goes on to say;
        “It is unwise to assume that the modern winters have displaced the old indefinitely”
        and also; “Our modern winters have induced an altered agricultural regime”

        Jim, we have lots of camples f induced agricultural regimes


      • Mosh

        I am sure you look at every temperature reading from around the world that you use with equal scepticism


      • For example, they say the UK growing season in the last decade is a month longer than it was in the late 19th century, and a week longer than it was in the late 20th century. This is a sharp trend.

      • Jimd

        CET Temperatures in the 21st century have declined since the late 20 th century so doubt the growing season is longer now than then. My garden plants certainly don’t think so. Nice warm winter though



      • I think you can see how 2006-2015 could have a longer growing season than 1961-1990 from that quite easily.

      • jimd

        So 1961 is the late 20th century?

        The growing season peaked during the 1990’s. which is not to say that we haven’t had warm years since, but generally its a little cooler now than it was 15 years ago. It certainly hasn’t been a weeks growing season warmer



      • 61-90 is. Remember also that the growing season is defined by the first and last 5 C periods, not the annual mean temperature. It’s a shift in spring and fall timing.

      • Actually it is worse than I said. The quote I mangled was this.
        “For the most recent 10 years between 2006 and 2015, the average growing season has been 29 days longer – at 280 days – when compared with the period between 1961 and 1990.”
        That period in turn was a week longer than the late 19th century.

      • Jimd

        It’s self evidently cooler than it was but you do realise I am just trying to save you from a further mauling on the other thread by keeping you occupied?


      • Jimd

        This is England. We do not have a 280 day growing season. Thinatenolol not growing in November, December, January or February and this year at least, not in march.

        Also you are comparing periods of different lengths.


      • Maybe you should read the article and take it up with the Met Office.

      • They should have known that the warm AMO would reduce frosts more in November than in March.

      • Climate is changing. The winners will be the ones who can keep up. The losers will be the ones who think the old climate will return and don’t adjust so fast.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “Climate is changing. The winners will be the ones who can keep up. The losers will be the ones who think the old climate will return and don’t adjust so fast.”

        Surely, if you stop or reverse climate change, you will return to a previous climate.

        Does this mean that reducing CO2 won’t bring back an old climate? I thought this was the point of the Warmist preoccupation with their so called greenhouse effect.

        I agree that the climate will keep changing. I’m not sure if being drowned in a flood, starved due to drought, frozen to death in a cold snap are necessarily a sign of having won, but if you say so, it must be true.

        Unless you are saying that reducing CO2 will magically banish floods, droughts, cold snaps and so on. This ever changing Warmist philosophy is getting hard to follow.


      • If you can think of a way to cool it down again, great.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “If you can think of a way to cool it down again, great.”

        It will cool down all by itself.

        When it does, you won’t like it.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “If you can think of a way to cool it down again, great.”

        A Warmist told me that CO2 was the control knob of Earthly temperature. In a peer reviewed journal and all!

        Do you mean to say some of the world’s foremost self proclaimed climatologists were lying or mistaken? They wrote “Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”

        There you go Jim D. Maybe you can stop by playing with your knob just a little bit.

        Or do you think the authors were merely playing with each others’ control knobs?


      • Not answering the question, Mike. Try again.

    • Jim D,

      farmers have been adjusting to weather since pretty much the beginning of agriculture. Adjusting to climate is a piece of cake compared to that.

      So quit clowning yourself with lame attempts to manufacture some sort of harm or problem.

  14. May Easter 2016 ressurect:

    1. The scientific revolution, &
    2. Constitutional government


  15. Growing season longer in the UK as local temperatures increase – pros & cons:
    “Between 2006 and 2015, the average number of days of frost per year was 17% lower than during 1961-90.”

    But frosts have increased again since the start of this weaker solar cycle.

  16. David L. Hagen

    Nonlinearities in patterns of long term ocean warming
    Maria Rugenstein, Jan Sedláček, Reto Knutti, Geophysical Research Letters, 12 March 2016 DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068041

    Abstract: The ocean dominates the planetary heat budget and takes thousands of years to equilibrate to perturbed surface conditions, yet those long time scales are poorly understood. Here we analyze the ocean response over a range of forcing levels and time scales in a climate model of intermediate complexity and in the CMIP5 model suite. We show that on century to millennia time scales the response time scales, regions of anomalous ocean heat storage, and global thermal expansion depend non-linearly on the forcing level and surface warming. As a consequence, it is problematic to deduce long term from short term heat uptake or scale the heat uptake patterns between scenarios. These results also question simple methods to estimate long term sea level rise from surface temperatures, and the use of deep sea proxies to represent surface temperature changes in past climate.

    Oh my! Who’d a thunk.

  17. David L. Hagen

    Bjorn Lomborg – Ted Talk: How fix global warming Smartly

    Global warming is real and it is a problem but we are not fixing it. Look at CO2, it keeps going up and up, that is because renewables are not ready and we need to find a better way. Watch my Ted Talk to find out what the smartest way to address global warming.

    In 7 minutes! $101 billion/year in current policies are killing the poor. Can we do it smarter?

    • David Wojick

      Global warming is a blessing, not a problem. Human induced global warming is not real. When you ask a false question you get a false answer.

      • Human induced global warming is not real.

        I don’t think even Dr Curry would go there. Are you denying the greenhouse effect?

      • David Wojick

        I find no evidence of GHG warming in the observed warming. The existence of the GH effect is not the issue.

      • So you think climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around zero?

      • Don’t waste your time Joseph, he’s an 8-ball per day Koch-head.

      • catweazle666

        Joseph: “So you think climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around zero?”

        Three words for you Joseph – Logarithmic, asymptotic and saturated.

      • Joseph,

        You wrote –

        “So you think climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around zero?”

        Apart from the usual blundering and arrogant Warmist attempt to put words in someone’s mouth, have you considered the logical inconsistency and foolishness of your statement?

        First, the climate is defined as average weather. The climate is a derived numerical figure – an average. Only silly Warmist would imbue an average of something with power to affect the thing from which it is derived.

        Climate sensitivity to anything at all is a Warmist fantasy.

        Maybe you are implying that that CO2 somehow provides magical heat which results in higher temperatures than would otherwise be the case. This is likewise complete nonsense. The more CO2 you place between a radiation source and its target, the less radiation reaches the target, and the lower the temperature attained.

        This is basic physics, readily demonstrated in the lab, in most, if not all, university physics courses. Of course, those claiming to be climatologists are a ragtag mob of anything but competent physicists. They deny basic physics at every turn, furiously inventing jargon, and redefining the meaning of science as they go.

        You’ve asked a nonsense question, to which there is no coherent answer. If you are somehow trying to claim that the Earth, having cooled by losing energy for four and a half billion years, is now deciding to raise its surface temperature by some magical process involving heat storage, accumulation, or similar, then don’t be surprised if you hear the odd snigger or chortle in your vicinity.

        Denying reality won’t make it go away. Keep trying if it makes you happy.


      • Mike does his Inferno impersonation – very good.

      • David Wojick

        To begin with, CO2 is a small factor in the GHE, perhaps 10%. Then too its effect diminishes exponentially with concentration. The GW scare is based entirely on speculative positive feedbacks, not on the GHE.

      • David Wojick

        I think climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is a nonsensical abstraction. CO2 does not control climate. It is as simple as that.

      • David Wojick

        To put it as simply as possible. CO2 does not control climate so there is no such thing as climate sensitivity. The value of CS is not zero. It is nonexistent. There is a big difference.

      • David Wojick –
        perhaps 10%……effect diminishes exponentially with concentration…based entirely on speculative…

        Wrong on all three.

      • Joseph,

        You wrote –

        “I don’t think even Dr Curry would go there. Are you denying the greenhouse effect?”

        The vast majority of the world’s population doesn’t give a rat’s backside about what you think, so I’ll go with the majority.

        As regards the greenhouse effect, you can’t provide a rigorous scientific definition of the term (neither can anybody else), so your bullying turn of phrase merely exposes an intellectually deficient attempt at passing off the non existent greenhouse effect as fact.

        There is no greenhouse effect. There is no luminiferous ether. The atom is not indivisible. People according climatologists scientific credence, are, quite simply, deluded or mentally deficient.

        Which are you?


      • Pat Cassen,

        You wrote –

        “David Wojick –
        perhaps 10%……effect diminishes exponentially with concentration…based entirely on speculative…

        Wrong on all three.”

        Maybe you are channelling some other Warmist who still hasn’t got a clue. Merely repeating some unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t turn it into a fact. Not in the real world, anyway.

        If you ever manage to warm anything using a supposed GHG, your fame, fortune, and Nobel Prize will be assured. Not a pretend Michael Mann Nobel Peace Prize, (at least he didn’t claim his nonexistent Nobel Prize had anything to do with actual science), but a real one. For physics, even!

        But I suppose I’m likely to be wrong on all three. What do you think?


      • Oh, splendid a selection of “slayers”

        “Denying reality won’t make it go away. Keep trying if it makes you happy.”


        “Maybe you are channelling some other Warmist who still hasn’t got a clue. Merely repeating some unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t turn it into a fact. Not in the real world, anyway.”

        I love the way common-sense is inverted in the logic of their argument.

        My friends it is you that hasn’t got a clue and denying reality.
        I suppose you’d say it also goes against the 2nd LoT?

        Now why would your world-view trump 150 years of empirical science?
        Err, just because you say so.
        That either:
        1) the world’s experts are/have been incompetent.
        2) the world’s experts are/have been in on a conspiracy,
        3) they know more than you.

        If you think (you must) that 3) is not blindingly obvious – then I’d suggest that says more about you than the scientists you deny.
        Lab experiments do not replicate path-length, but maybe you could read up Beer-Lambert for starters. Also see Spencer’s (sceptic) experiments….


        The is a good explanation of the science…


        So where is your evidence/”science” to the contrary?

      • At least MF has proven more is less. Does anyone actually read his posts? Lets have a show of hands

      • Horst Graben

        You wrote –

        “At least MF has proven more is less. Does anyone actually read his posts? Lets have a show of hands.”

        Thank you for your support. Obviously, you read my posts, so you would seem to have at least partially answered the question you posed.

        As to having a show of hands, it would seem to be about as pointless as asking Warmists whether the CO2 has miraculous warming powers.

        I wish you well with your survey. I hope that at least 97% agree with you that I have proved that more is less (whatever that is supposed to mean – it sounds like the usual Warmist cryptic nonsense, obscure to say the least).

        Anyway, I’ll show a few hands, to start you off.


      • Tony Banton,

        A couple of points.

        First re Beer-Lambert.

        “This law is also applied to describe the attenuation of solar or stellar radiation as it travels through the atmosphere.” Look up the meaning of attenuation and get back to me.

        Second, re experts and so on.

        Climate is defined as the average of weather. No secret knowledge required. The expertise required these days is ably demonstrated by people like the self styled climate scientist Steven Mosher. When you are tired of averaging the same old figures, just create some new ones.

        You will notice Roy Spencer reluctantly changed his view to one of more realism, due to his work with satellite remote sensing of temperature, as any realist scientist would. His attempts to rebut the work of R W Wood failed, as he noted.

        So, no. Self proclaimed climatological experts have no more expertise in calculating averages than any reasonably intelligent twelve year old student of mathematics.

        If you wish to believe the gabbling gibberish emanating from the usual capering crowd of wannabe Nobel Laureates, do so. As I’ve mentioned once or twice before, I you wish to live in denial, it won’t change things any more than if you don’t. Does it matter?


    • If you stay tuned after the ho-hum Lomborg TED Talk, you get a February 2016 one by Al Gore. In contrast to the pessimistic An Inconvenient Truth, this one sees the progress we have made on the path to reduce emissions and is highly optimistic. It is up to date, great graphics, and worth seeing.

  18. johnvonderlin

    “How Do You Decide to Have a Baby When Climate Change Is Remaking Life on Earth?”
    Please don’t is my response. Angst-filled weaklings will probably just give us neurotic, self-absorbed children anyway.
    When I was young we practiced “Duck and Cover,” at school after watching a film about it. We were trying to increase our chances of surviving during the seemingly inevitable all-out nuclear war that Khrushchev’s, U.N. shoe-pounding, while yelling “We will bury you,” episode portended. But, it never happened. Every passing year makes it seem less likely to happen.
    Then in my teen years the Ehrlich’s ilk’s proclamations of doom, through population explosion and resource extinction became fashionable. Forty years later the population problem is well on the way to being solved and Julian Simon’s predictions about resource availability have proved to be correct, not Ehrlich’s. Many aspects of smart environmentalism, not the panicky, exaggerated alarmist greenness, have made our planet a healthier place for all species in the ensuing decades, Even brighter days lie ahead as we learn more about how to be good stewards of our planetary home.
    Those two apocalyptic visions, conceivable in their own time, but falsified with the passage of time, have now been replaced by a fevered-imagination and model-fueled CO2 dystopia that’s predicted to happen somewhere in the future, or even far future (2100.) Reality is an Eephus pitch, already on its way, and the alarmists are as good as struck out.
    We Cornucopians (me, myself and I) believe as part of the process of “nearly everything getting better in nearly every way, nearly every day,” that the world would be better-served if the members of the human race that are overwhelmed by this type of destructive negative brain chemistry would forego reproduction. No More Neg-heads Needed!
    If because of this it turns out that our future mimics the movie “Idiocracy,” at least I can start enjoying Starbucks again.

    • This is why The State, plans to issue selected teams progeny licenses.

    • It’s quite convenient for this author to apparently be ignorant, as regards to that Superstorm Sandy claim, of this paper, whose abstract concludes:

      Using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, phase 5 multimodel ensemble, we demonstrate that climate models consistently project a decrease in the frequency and persistence of the westward flow that led to Sandy’s unprecedented track, implying that future atmospheric conditions are less likely than at present to propel storms westward into the coast.

  19. I listened to Donald Trumps interview with the Washington Post editors. These are people who are a bit antagonistic towards him and not a crowd of his supporters. He sounded very reasonable, even diplomatic. Of course I don’t know how he’ll be in the oval office.

  20. Climate activist James Hansen says an abrupt climate shift is coming

    Didn’t he already say that?

    • The sun shines… and people forget…

      My apololgies to The Who.


    • matthewrmarler,

      Poor old Jim. He just can’t say when, where, how much, which direction, who will be affected, and why. He figures if he keeps predicting doom, he’ll be right one day.

      As prognosticators go, he’s pretty awful. At least Nostradamus and Mother Shipton were sufficiently cunning to frame their predictions in such a way that nobody really had the faintest idea what they were talking about!

      Wait a moment – the similarities between the incomprehensible vagueness of the average climate scientist and Nostradamus are scary. Maybe I really should reexamine the predictions of Nostradamus!


    • Yes, but with global temperatures moving in the other direction!

  21. Intermittent energy has serious drawbacks not often enough discussed or planned for. Wind and Solar’s Fukushima – The Methane Meltdown at Porter Ranch

    That was pretty interesting. How do the total human-caused natural gas leaks compare to all natural sources? To methane from agriculture?

    The power and economics of the “Harriett” CCGT units impressed me. Anyone know how accurate the authors’ figures are?

  22. What are they smoking?:
    “Given the importance of the much larger southern ocean to the global climate and the Southern Hemisphere (SH) climate changes in phase with those in the north, the biogeophysical effects of the SH desertification on climate are assessed using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity, MPM-2. This analysis focuses on differences in climate among the averages of simulations with desert expansion in different latitude bands by year 2000. The localized desertification causes significant global changes in temperature and precipitation as well as surface albedo. On the global scale, cooling dominates the SH desertification effects. However, the biogeophysical effects are most significant in regions with desertification, and the cooling is also prominent in northern mid-latitudes. Desert expansion in 15°-30°S reveals statistically most significant cooling and increased precipitation over the forcing regions during spring. The global and regional scale responses from desertification imply the climate teleconnection and address the importance of the effects from the SH which are contingent on the location of the forcing. Our study indicates that biogeophysical mechanisms of land cover changes in the SH need to be accounted for in the assessment of land management options especially for latitude band over 15°-30°S.”

    Ref: “localized desertification causes significant global changes in temperature”

  23. And what have these guys been smoking?:

    Rain and the Democratic Window of Opportunity

    “Abstract. According to the economic approach to political transitions, negative transitory economic shocks can give rise to a window of opportunity for democratic change. We examine this hypothesis using yearly rainfall variation over the 1980-2004 period in 41 Sub-Saharan African countries. We find that a 25% drop in rainfall increases the probability of a transition to democracy during the following two years by around 3 percentage points. A 5% fall in income due to low rainfall raises the probability of democratization by around 7 percentage points. We also find that rainfall does not affect transitions from democracy to autocracy.”

    I think it is pretty safe to assume that this is crap.

    But if it´s true – dire conditions may seem to increase the probability for transition to government in accordance to the Human Rights promoted by United Nations.

    • Kiddie console science. The world and its politics are reduced to the facile level of a computer game.

      Take their joysticks from them. Better still, close the university faculties that crank out this sort of tripe because it’s easy and because the “findings” are so airy and speculative that nothing can be disproved.

  24. Union of Concerned Scientists ask how public must
    science be? Advoate to limit disclosures, especially
    in cli-sci.lol, oh RICO!

    • Well, they caught Wei-Hock Soon failing to disclose $1.2 million he collected from the fossil fuel industry.

      • Unworthy response. Dr Willie Soon declared sources
        of funding for all his published papers that were not
        funded by the Smithsonian. Dr Willie Soon acted in
        compliance with the confidentiality terms of the
        Smithsonian contractual agreement with Southern
        Company which he was forbidden to disclose.

      • I’m not surprised you would take up for Soon.

      • I’m not surprised that you would fail to read the
        details on record.

      • Here’s some details on Soon quoted from the NYTimes, Feb. 15, 2015 as I recall.

        “He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.”

        Beth, I will give you the benefit of doubt on ethics. As far as
        I know, you aren’t dishonest. But I think you are gullible enough to readily fall for any bs that reinforces your wacky paranoia about losing your freedoms, whatever those are.

      • Oh thx fer giving me the benefit of the doubt, max -who
        -claims-he’-okay .
        beth-the-serf who was once beth-the -cow-girl-and-more.:)

      • “But I think you are gullible enough to readily fall for any bs that reinforces your wacky paranoia about losing your freedoms, whatever those are.”

        I’m not sure I’ve seen anything quite so rude from you Max.

      • Jeff, is that the thanks I get for thinking Beth could be honest?

      • ==> But I think you are gullible enough to readily fall for any bs that reinforces your wacky paranoia about losing your freedoms, whatever those are.

        If I’m not mistaken, Beth thinks that she’s living at the level of a serf, and that our society is on the “road to serfdom.”

      • Well, that’s her fault. She should try to make something of her self, instead of complaining. Beth should consider the problem is Beth, not what’s external to Beth. Psychiatrists charge lots go money to say what I’m saying for free.

      • ‘How desperately have I acted;’ she cried; ‘I who prided
        myself on my discernment! …How humiliating is this
        discovery! Yet how just a humiliation! …Till this moment
        I never knew myself!’

    • Wish I had the energy to list all the leftoids and greenoids who’ve taken from FF or given to FF. It’s too long a list. We’d have to start with the Clinton Foundation, Soros, Bill and Melinda and that old freighter Buffett (Toot! Toot! Don’t let some pipeline stop Warren’s diesel-puffing, oil-toting choo-choos! Toot!).

      And further down that endless list, it’s quite surprising who takes a check from FF. Or maybe not so surprising.


    • ‘We appreciate that you are making aggressive and
      imaginative use of the limited tools available to you
      in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional
      tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
      – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
      Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and
      other organizations that have knowingly deceived the
      American people about the risks of climate change,
      as a means to forestall America’s response to climate
      change. The actions of these organizations have been
      extensively documented in peer reviewed academic
      research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including:
      Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-
      Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt
      (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley,
      2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union
      of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse
      Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.’

      Extract from letter to President Obama, Attorney
      General Lynch, (Lynch, heh,) and OSTP Director
      Holdren, September 1, 2015, from Shukla, and
      20 Climate Scientists.

  25. So Hanson now thinks that CO2 will cause a new ice age! Talk about having a bet each way on the likely effects of increased CO2 levels means that CO2ers will not loose the debate.

    • Physics means ACO2ers cannot lose the debate. That is correct.

      • I hope that they are able to find their old sense of humor, sooner rather than later.

      • I don’t live in Europe. Abrupt climate change is their problem. Without the AMOC, they’re NE Canada.

      • JCH

        Following the centuries ling MWP we then had the LIA. I wonder if the former precipitated the latter via a slowdown of the AMOC. Not sure I have seen any recent studies on this.


      • Tony

        Given the Hagen link about non-linearity above, I’m not sure anything on very long time scales can be absolutely ruled out. Every once in awhile papers come along that give credence to just sitting back and doing some long reflection.

    • Hi Tony
      That is an interesting question, Mann &co says yes, NASA looking at volume transport saying no. So who is correct? Hmm…
      I looked into some data that may be related, what I think may be happening is that as the ocean warms the ‘overturning’ area is drifting further north. It would be logical to assume the reverse is during cooling periods.
      Most of the AMO data is related to subtropical Atlantic (annual NA SST average above 20.5C).
      If you look at two time scales in the graph you can see that after about 1890 AMO appears to ‘slow down’ in relation to the atmospheric pressure, however that is more likely to be result of the NA drift current takes more time to reach the overturning area, and equally the downwelling cold current takes longer to reach the west coast of Africa where portion of it upwells to the surface (birthplace of the NA hurricanes), closing the loop for the part of the NA circulation.
      Currently that delay is of order of decade.
      Is this feedback one of the causes or a consequence of NA oscillation not possible to say.
      Some discussion here , there was another one a month or two earlier.

      • vuk

        It seems logical that IF the AMOC is slowing down that t would also have happened during similar periods of extended warming in the past. We can identify these from the glacial retreats and advances I identified here


        I also carried this through to beyond the Roman warm period so logically if the AMOC slowdown is a result of the warming we should be able to trace it back through the MWP, Roman and Minoan warm periods

        All we need is a couple of million pounds grant to study this and we will be able to publish our paper.


      • AMOC reconstruction

        In the context of the YD, the Water chef boiled this pot several times a month.

      • Tony, is there a delay with your funds? I got my grant money nearly three years ago, spent some of it on relocation of my research centre at easy reach (often required on short notice) of the Glaciology Laboratory in Grenoble, will be going down there in about a week or so; see today’s Observer
        Scientists fly glacial ice to south pole to unlock secrets of global warming

      • JCH

        Thanks for this, but it seems to be missing the last 1000 years?

        The changes during the transition from the last ice age to the Holocene are huge. Since then changes have been relatively modest as would be expected from a relatively stable climate regime (compared to the Ice age/Holocene transition) .

        Consequently we can’t put the MWP and LIA into context against the Ice age or the first periods of the Holocene.

        Got anything else?


  26. “But open government advocates note that public records requests have helped expose conflicts of interests involving scientists, such as Wei-Hock Soon, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has argued that global warming can be explained by variations in the sun’s energy, rather than increased carbon emissions from pollution.

    Through the Freedom of Information Act, environmental groups obtained documents showing that Soon had failed to disclose he had accepted more than $1.2 million from the fossil-fuel industry.”


    • At the Smithsonian the rule is that all grant applications
      for proposed scientific research be approved in advance
      both by the director and by his department, the Center’s
      Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division.Dr Willie
      Soon has no power to accept any grant unless so
      approved.From each grant the Centre deducts 30-40%
      to cover its overheads.


    • In February 2015 a press release from the Smithsonian announced:

      “The Smithsonian is conducting inquiries to address the allegations that Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon failed to disclose to journals the funding sources for his climate change research.”


      In June 2016 a press release from the Smithsonian announced:

      “Two reviews of the Smithsonian’s policies governing conflicts of interest surrounding sponsored research and publication have been completed. Distinguished scientist Dr. Rita Colwell conducted an external review of the policies to ensure they meet the highest standards. A Smithsonian task force also reviewed the policies. These reviews were initiated following recent allegations that Smithsonian scientist Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon failed to disclose to journals the funding sources for his climate change research. The reviews, however, focused on overall Smithsonian policies, not the conduct of one researcher.”

      I would bet that if they had found any fault with Dr. Soon they would have mentioned it.

      Everything else is BS. The allegations linked by max1ok and just about anything from Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

      • Jeff Norman | March 28, 2016 at 9:22 am

        “The reviews, however, focused on overall Smithsonian policies, not the conduct of one researcher.”

        I would bet that if they had found any fault with Dr. Soon they would have mentioned it.

        Would you bet Soon didn’t receive funding from fossil fuel interests?

        Would you bet Soon revealed funding he received from fossil fuel interests?

      • Why would I bet the Sun came up this morning? It did.

        The Smithsonian received funding from fossil fuel companies and some of it was used to fund some of Dr. Soon’s work. Why would I bet whether something happened if it did happen? It appears Dr. Soon followed the Smithsonian’s rules for this sort of thing. You have nothing to rationally complain about.

    • Curious George

      Max, I have a nice bridge to sell. I’ll give you a special price.

  27. Re: Drought in India forces coal gen units in india to shut down due to lack of cooling water

    Does this mean the 97% Global Warming Scientific response has failed?
    They should ride bicycles 24/7:

    Now, Tuesdays are car-free days in Gurgaon

    This is 97% Doomsday Global Warming Science, where one ‘believes’:

    “A year after floods devastated Kedarnath, Union water resources minister Uma Bharti has revealed the “underlying” cause of the disaster — defecation near the shrine by non-believers.”


    Who denies the science?

  28. David Wojick

    Here’s an interesting announcement from NCAR: Pacific patterns predict Eastern US heat waves weeks later.

  29. This is an excellent post, IMO.

    From the last paragraph of the first excerpt says:

    The Paris Agreement and, more generally, climate change policy, almost perfectly illustrate the contradictions of the post-modern industrialized world risk society, characterized by perceived threats confirmed by politicized science and governed by sub-politics beyond democratic control. Climate change is the ultimate precautionary, distributive justice issue. There is a tendency to subsume all policy issues in the climate change movement, so climate justice can be pursued as holistic, global, social justice. Indeed, climate change is deemed to penetrate all areas of social policy- making, from energy to agriculture, and from immigration to personal choices, such as how to travel and what to eat. After Paris, climate change will remain ‘hot’. It is where the money is and will be; pursuant to the COP-21 Decision, developed nations should collectively contribute at least USD 100 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer nations deal with climate change.

    Why can’t the true deniers (i.e. the deniers of relevant facts) accept and acknowledge all this?

    Consequently, rather than the policy being science-based, the science has become policy-based. …

    Given climate policy’s objectives, funding agencies, scientists, and scientific advisors, in turn, are encouraged to provide ‘policy-relevant’ science supporting the policies pursued by the politicians.

    Indeed. Science became policy-based before the 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’.

    None of this will matter, if innovative science comes up with new sources of energy-conversion technologies that will render the issue of human induced climate change moot. Thus, despite the debacle in Paris, there is hope.

    “new sources of energy-conversion technologies” will emerge faster if we stop the command and control interference in the energy markets, stop trying to pick winner, stop selecting certain technologies to encourage and incentivize and others to discourage all based on the ideological beliefs of climate activists.

  30. JC reflections

    As for energy policy, one can only hope for technological breakthroughs in energy generation, storage and transmission that make all this a moot issue.

    Technological progress will continue. However, it could proceed much faster if those who call themselves “Progressive” stop blocking progress. It is their irrational and illogical belief that they know best and they should decide which technologies to encourage and incentivize and which to discourage and impede that is slowing progress and has been for the past 50 years. Command and control policies are the opposite of what is needed if we want faster progress.

  31. “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”. He provided a link to the web archive of this paper https://web.archive.org/web/20160301170721/http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2015_consensus_synthesis.pdf; the authors on the archived manuscript John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R. L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W. Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G.
    Skuce, Sarah A. Green, Dana Nuccitelli, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Ken Rice. [ATTP]
    This paper has now disappeared from the wayback machine and Judy probably does not want “unpublished” material to be discussed.
    I feel a post on a consensus on consensus would be a good topic however given that there is so much disagreement on consensus actually out there in the published material.
    Brandon Gates does a wonderful discussion of what a good consensus paper should really look like at his blog site. Perhaps Judith could ask him to put his summary up for discussion?

  32. Union of Concerned Scientists shoud be Union of Consenting Scientists

  33. Oh look! Someone figured out you have to engage in bribes in order to do business internationally! Who knew?? (Everyone) Now, will the other businesses that do this get slimed? (No). From the article:

    In the list of the world’s great companies, Unaoil is nowhere to be seen. But for the best part of the past two decades, the family business from Monaco has systematically corrupted the global oil industry, distributing many millions of dollars worth of bribes on behalf of corporate behemoths including Samsung, Rolls-Royce, Halliburton and Australia’s own Leighton Holdings. A massive leak of confidential documents has for the first time exposed the true extent of corruption within the oil industry, implicating dozens of leading companies, bureaucrats and politicians in a sophisticated global web of bribery and graft.


  34. Lamar Smith needs to get better advice before he comments on published work. Keeps getting it wrong.

  35. Jim D,

    According to one Michael “Gee. I almost nearly got a share in a Nobel Prize that had bugger-all to do with science” Mann –

    “We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug.”

    Maybe we should hide it with the missing heat, or Phil Jones missing data.

    I think I understand. CO2 levels went up, while warming slowed down. Natural variation that nobody, including Michael “Gee. I almost . . .” Mann, seems to understand, seems to have stopped, for now.

    Maybe the natural variation, having cooled the planet for four and a half billion years (that’s quite a long time), stopped cooling so much in the early 2000s, and is now heating up again, no doubt until the surface melts again.

    And all in spite of CO2 levels, eh?


    • The “skeptics” said it wasn’t natural variation this time. That was their whole argument.

      • They have said it can’t be as simple as solar dimming or volcanoes or the ocean or a list of 75 other things that they have dismissed. Maybe you correctly have identified WUWT as being pseudo-skeptics when they make lists like that.
        What is happening is a lot of warming that the “skeptics” have no clue about as to the reason. They have wracked their brains and come up short. In fact their cluelessness is a sincerely held and unshakable position as we see here.

      • Just Google it. OK it was 52, not 75. They dismissed all of these reasons for their “pause”, and left themselves with no known reason, just the usual cluelessness about any swings up or down. It’s the modus operandi to dismiss all of science to leave no known explanation (to them). Smith follows suit because he is chair of the science committee,
        Ignorance is not a scientific position, but they embrace it.

      • Their reason was the theory was wrong, and it actually was them that was wrong. Meanwhile, the science and the high temperature anomalies and the high seas just keep rolling in. Their only hope now is to make science illegal/fired. They call it fixing it. They’re a despicable bunch of losers.

    • Jim D,

      Here’s 10 cents worth of free advice. Start a cult. All you need is to point out a couple of things to suggestible passers by –

      1. Fires generate heat. CO2 is always present when you burn evil hydrocarbons. Heat creates warmth, therefore so does CO2.

      2. Summer is generally warmer than Winter.

      So because Summer is warmer than Winter, and CO2 is associated with warmth, then global warming caused by CO2 makes Summer warmer than Winter.

      Only kidding. Nobody would believe you could heat anything at all using CO! I best stop before I inadvertently spill some of my current refreshing beverage.

      If you’re too warm, either move or wait for nightfall – or Winter!


      • You don’t even believe the greenhouse effect exists? Crikey, mate!

      • Jim D,

        If that’s a question, it’s not well framed. But you are correct. I believe in the greenhouse effect precisely as much as I believe in the luminiferous ether or N rays. Which is to say not at all, because none of them exist.

        And you?


  36. From the article:

    March 29, 2016 – By Steven B. Krivit –

    A quiet chill has come over the relationship between Industrial Heat, LLC, a North Carolina company, and Andrea Rossi, an Italian businessman and white-collar criminal who has been convicted of fraud and appears to be running a scam.


  37. @jim2 | March 31, 2016 at 10:26 pm in moderation. It’s about cold fusion.

  38. Another Oboondoggle bites the dust. Oh wait, the Fascist Obummer government will probably bail it out. From the article:

    U.S. solar company SunEdison, whose aggressive acquisition strategy has saddled it with more than $11 billion of debt, is at “substantial risk” of bankruptcy, one of its two publicly listed units warned on Tuesday.

    SunEdison’s shares—already reeling from a Wall Street Journal report that the company was being investigated for overstating its cash position—fell more than 40 percent.

    TerraForm Global, one of two SunEdison “yieldcos”, said it would join its parent and fellow yieldco TerraForm Power in delaying its annual report for the year ended Dec. 31.


  39. Union of Concerned Scientists, a Cambridge-based advocacy group that represents thousands of scientists around the country, has campaigned to limit the scrutiny of scientists who work for public universities and agencies through public records requests.

    These scientists, the group says, are increasingly being harassed by ideological foes who seek to unearth documents that would derail or sully their work with evidence of bias.

    Yes, when you are hard at work making propaganda for your ideological bias, and presenting it under the guise of as science, there really is nothing worse than people coming along and exposing you for the frawd that you are.