Twilight of the Climate Change Movement

by Judith Curry

Don’t be fooled by the post-Paris fanfare: The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead.

Mario Loyola has written a lengthy essay for The American Interest, entitled Green Idols: Twilight of the Climate Change Movement.  The American Interest allows one free article per month; if you have already used yours, here are some extensive  excerpts (about 35% of the original article):

The UN’s climate summit in Paris at the end of 2015 concluded with a bang. The world’s governments promised sweeping cuts in carbon emissions. Rich countries promised to help poor ones with $100 billion per year in climate assistance. The consensus quickly jelled that this was a major, historic achievement.

Then came the fizzle: The agreement is non-binding. Secretary of State John Kerry asserted on NBC’s Meet the Press that compliance would be enforced through the “powerful weapon” of public shaming, apparently implying a policy of verbal confrontation toward states that fall short. The Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg called the Paris agreement the “costliest in history” if implemented. According to Lomborg, the agreement would “reduce temperatures by 2100 by just 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)…. This is simply cynical political theater, meant to convince us that our leaders are taking serious action…a phenomenally expensive but almost empty gesture.” NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.”

Hansen’s assessment is probably close to the mark—and he and his fellow alarmists have only themselves to blame. While those who flatly deny the possibility of any global warming can be readily brushed aside, the alarmists have been much too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about precisely what the evidence shows. Indeed, they have frequently treated such questions as heresies to be persecuted, adopting an even more virulently anti-scientific mindset than the one they accuse others of.

Meanwhile, on the policy side, the alarmists’ call for worldwide economic controls, including caps on fossil fuels, are largely recycled from previous scientific doomsday fads, such as the oil scarcity scare of the late 1970s. Despite the enormous costs these policies would impose, especially on poor countries, they would do virtually nothing to stop anthropogenic climate change, let alone protect anyone from relentless natural climate change that is one of our planet’s most prominent and inescapable features. They are also distracting attention both from investments that would make society less vulnerable to climate change.

Don’t be fooled by the fanfare in Paris: The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead. Its principal propositions contain two major fallacies that can only become more glaring with time. First, in stark contrast to popular belief and to the public statements of government officials and many scientists, the science on which the dire predictions of manmade climate change is based is nowhere near the level of understanding or certainty that popular discourse commonly ascribes to it. Second, and relatedly, the movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether.

The right strategy for confronting environmental challenges will have to be based on rational market incentives, rational cost-benefit analysis, and a broad-based consensus about the vital importance of efficient markets. Strategies that distort rational cost-benefit analysis (or the science on which it is based) to suit an anti-market agenda will not work and can only maintain the illusion of legitimacy for so long before they are discredited.

Heretical Questions

In political discourse, it is often necessary to simplify complex policy matters in order to make them accessible for public debate. But too much simplification can have the effect of stifling public discourse, as in this unfortunate State of the Union statement by President Obama: “The debate is over. Climate change is real.” Of course climate change is real. The climate is always changing. Only the most foolish of the President’s critics believe otherwise, and it doesn’t help his cause to demonstrate that he can be just as foolish.

The evidence is overwhelming that the planet has been warming off and on for several centuries. There is also compelling evidence that at least some significant part of this warming is attributable to carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels since the mid-20th century. There is good scientific reason to believe that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases almost certainly constitute a net contribution to global warming. But crucial questions remain about the relative importance of natural factors that influence climate.  The President is therefore wrong in the sense that, for the most crucial scientific questions, the debate is just beginning.

The public debate is dominated by simplistic claims that “climate change is man-made,” which might lead one to think that all of the current warming trend is man-made. But nearly all climate scientists accept that many factors influence temperatures, including major shifts in patterns of ocean circulation, variations in the earth’s orbit, variations in solar activity, and volcanic activity. The “attribution statement” in the IPCC’s latest assessment report is carefully couched: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG [greenhouse gases] and other anthropogenic forces together.”

The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy. If only about half the observed warming is due to human activity, the cost-benefit analysis of currently proposed policies becomes far more dubious, and reveals another problem: As much as half the current warming trend (whatever that is) could be due to natural causes, and current policies will do nothing to address that.

This highlights an important self-correcting feature in the development of climate science. Yes, it’s true that many major journals reject articles that critique the current consensus, and that funding priorities strongly reinforce the consensus. But even the strong bias in favor of more dire findings, which has been introduced into scientific inquiry by the pervasive politicization of the issue, cannot readily invent false data. Every year produces more raw data than the year before, and the discrepancies between the new data and the simple climate models are increasing. Alarmists say that discrepancies are to be expected, and models are meant to be refined. But they have boxed themselves in with misleading claims to certain knowledge where in fact considerable uncertainty remains. Uncertainty about risks is not necessarily fatal to a policy of precaution, and but false claims to certainty usually are, sooner or later. Witness the Iraq War and Saddam’s non-existent WMD.

There is a huge difference between admitting that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a driver of current global warming, and claiming that it responsible for virtually all current global warming. Many climate scientists who agree that humans contribute to global warming are skeptical of prognostications of catastrophic climate change.

This blurring of the lines between inquiry and advocacy confuses the public and leaves scientists open to charges of professional dishonesty. The fact that the apocalyptic vision of impending doom is a matter of obligatory orthodoxy gives the movement a quasi-religious tone, and lends itself to the persecution of “skeptics” as heretics.

Revolutionary Politics

In the United States, where unadulterated socialism usually doesn’t sell well, the climate alarmists put a decidedly capitalist face on their policy prescriptions. Led by prominent social-democratic billionaires, these capitalist-climate-alarmists go for huge clean energy subsidies and come armed with all kinds of theories about how a 50 percent or even 80 percent renewable energy mandate would pay for itself. The Clean Power Plan essentially forces “red” states like Texas (and chiefly Texas, in terms of overall carbon emissions reductions) to adopt the electricity mix of “blue” states like California—precisely because electricity is so much cheaper and more reliable in Texas than in California, conferring a huge advantage in interstate competition.

Americans across the political spectrum might agree that the scientific evidence on climate change justifies certain precautionary measures, and that naturalism is an important value. But with so many alarmists, from Bill McKibben to Naomi Klein, calling for an end to capitalism as we know it, the debate tends to go off the rails from the start.

Do climate alarmists want to eliminate the human impact on climate, regardless what the climate would be doing otherwise? Or are they trying to eliminate climate change itself, regardless of cause? Obama’s loose talk about “saving the planet” seems to elide rather than to clarify whether it’s really the planet that needs saving from mankind, mankind that needs saving from itself.

The question hasn’t gone unnoticed. In Slate, Joseph Romm concedes that the planet will be fine no matter what we do, so we should be more worried about ourselves. We live on a planet where adaptation is a necessary skill.

Imagine something that is entirely possible—that a single such technological breakthrough enables us to control the world’s average temperatures. Could we then agree on what the ideal temperature should be? Is the current global average temperature the ideal one? Many would take that for granted, and climate alarmists appear to presuppose it, but the proposition is hardly self-evident.

To read the IPCC reports, alarmists find the idea of adapting to climate change far less satisfying than the idea of preventing it. But their focus on worldwide economic controls boils down to a kind of climate engineering, because it presupposes that humanity should not learn to live with a changing planet. Hence we are to believe that the most adaptable species that has ever existed, a species so sophisticated that it can survive in outer space, requires an absolutely stable average temperature and sea-level in order to survive. This defies common sense.

Human civilization faces many challenges. We face an ever-present risk of dangerous climate change due to natural causes. We face an immediate crisis in the rapid loss of the world’s most valuable and critical habitat, due chiefly to farming and logging. The future will bring further challenges for which we will find ourselves far less prepared than we could have been. But frightfully little attention is being paid to these risks, for the simple reason that they don’t fit snugly into the environmentalists’ essentially anti-industrial agenda.

The Paris conference achieved agreement on an annual $100-billion Global Climate Fund to help developing countries reduce their carbon footprint. The money would be far better spent on adaptation assistance, to make sure that poor societies preserve critical habitat while reinforcing their access to things they will need in the event of really catastrophic climate change: food, water, and fossil fuels.

JC reflections

I excerpted about a third of Loyola’s essay, highlighting the parts that I find most insightful.  This essay shows a remarkable grasp of the public debate on climate change.

I didn’t excerpt the discussion about the science.  Loyola raised most of the outstanding issues that contribute major uncertainty to understanding of climate change.  He got the bit picture right, if not all of the details.

I bolded the statements I found most insightful, here are my favorites.

Uncertainty about risks is not necessarily fatal to a policy of precaution, and but false claims to certainty usually are, sooner or later.

The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy.

These are both hugely important points, that I have tried to make also, but alas not as concisely or elegantly.

It is very good to see legal scholars such as Mario Loyola providing perspective on the climate change debate.

432 responses to “Twilight of the Climate Change Movement

  1. Great read. Thank you.

    • I agree 100%. A very interesting post. Thank you JC.

      • David Springer

        http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming

        APRIL 8, 2016 4:47 PM EST
        By Megan McArdle

        The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, “a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.”

        My first reaction to this news was “Um, wut?” CEI has long denied humans’ role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It’s a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law’s the law.

        The enemies of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil should hold their applause. In a liberal democracy, every guerrilla tactic your side invents will eventually be used against you. Imagine a coalition of Republican attorneys general announcing an investigation of companies that have threatened state boycotts over gay-rights issues, and you may get a sense of why this is not such a good precedent to set.

        The rule of law, and our norms about free speech, represent a sort of truce between both sides. We all agree to let other people talk, because we don’t want to live in a world where we ourselves are not free to speak. Because we do not want to be silenced by an ambitious prosecutor, we should all be vigilant when ambitious prosecutors try to silence anyone else.

        –more at link

  2. Yet, there seems to be a lot of momentum behind “green” energy initiatives both from government and businesses, some of which have both feet in the green trough. What’s to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse in the “green” energy area?

    • “What’s to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse in the “green” energy area?”

      What’s stopped it in the fossil fuel energy area?

      • Any money wasted on fossil fuels was wasted by private companies, not the government.

      • “What’s stopped it in the fossil fuel energy area?”

        What’s to stop it in the climate science area?

      • As “jim2” said, “Any money wasted on fossil fuels was wasted by private companies, not the government.”

        Considering the endless billions of taxpayer money directly paid to “green” energy corporations — as opposed to routine R&D tax write-offs — this is a pertinent question. Did you realize, David, that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions by 2 percent in 2015. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia increased their CO2 emissions. Why? Fracking for natural gas and use of it at power plants in the US. But to the alarmists — and “green” energy billionaires and cultists — that doesn’t count because NatGas is an evil “fossil fuel.”

    • What’s stopped it in the fossil fuel energy area?

      Competition. It’s stable vs unstable systems.

  3. Yeah.

    The fatal stake has been driven through the heart* of AGW “alarimism”

    Oh, and the final nail has been driven into the coffin** of AGW “alarimism”

    * for about the 10,295th time, by my last count.

    ** for about the 12,304th time, by my last count.

    • David Springer

      You must be counting not on fingers and toes but rather on cilia that serves as the locomotion for all pond scum.

      • Those are geology terms, from German. A graben (from “ditch”) is a depression between two opposing faults; it’s downthrown on both sides. The opposite is a horst; a place on the up-thrown sides of two faults.

    • What Springer doesn’t understand is that alarmism is just a straw dog invented by deniers to discredit 97% of climate science consensus that the Virgin Mary herself would be proud to murder her bastard Son to prevent.

    • John Carpenter

      Heh, I thought you would have commented on something he actually said, like the cost/benefit analysis parts, instead of making up your own data to make an inconsequential point. I bit like me saying, this is the 10,523 time I count you dismissing a topic because of a nit.

      That aside, a genuine (trick) question for you,

      Do you think ‘progressives’ have a conservative side?

      • Hey John –

        Don’t really see much to comment on…as far as I got. Didn’t read much because despite the enthusiastic applause in these here parts, it looks pretty sameosameo to me. For example, the cherry-pick of Lomborg’s estimates (no error bars, no CIs) as if there isn’t a range of estimates with large uncertainties based on unvalidated and unverified economic modeling that fails to account for myriad externalities. That reminds me of Judith’s use of Lomborg’s estimates to ignore economic uncertainties.

        Seen it all before – including the pronouncements of the death of AGW. I do always get a kick out of that, though – because often it comes in the “fatal stake” and “final nail” variety. I just think it’s hilarious that there are so many fatal stakes and final nails. In fact, I think that they now sell “final nails” in 30 lb containers at Home Depot.

        Oh, and btw, you’re waaay off on you count of my nit-picking. I’ve double-checked and I’m quite sure it’s 10,475 at the very outside.

        As for your question…..well, I don’t understand it. Could you elaborate?

      • John Carpenter

        Jo$hua,

        Ok, I just had to get your attention.

        What don’t you get? Maybe if it was phrased like this… In what ways do progressive (liberals) behave like conservatives? And conversely, how do conservatives behave like liberals. They key to the question is not to focus on the political dimensions of conservative and liberal.

        Ya, and my count is likely off… Show me the data

      • Hey John –

        Why do I get the sense that you’re setting me up for something here?

        ==> In what ways do progressive (liberals) behave like conservatives? And conversely, how do conservatives behave like liberals.

        Lately I’ve been thinking that libz and conz behave pretty much the same – the only difference is that they move in diametric directions on specific issues.

        For example if libz are alarmist about ACO2 emissions, conz are alarmist about ACO2 mitigation. Libz and conz alike, IMO, allow their reasoning to be influence in very similar ways by their identity-orientations. Both groups tend to like name-calling and demonizing against people they disagree with. Both are self-aggrandizing, indulge in righteous indignation, etc.

        So what’s your answer?

      • John Carpenter

        Thanks Joshu-a,

        First, no set up… i’m not looking for any gotcha’s

        “Lately I’ve been thinking that libz and conz behave pretty much the same – the only difference is that they move in diametric directions on specific issues.”

        I think you are correct about that, however I was thinking more along the lines of conservatism and liberalism as a way of accepting change without the political connotation. All people have conservative and liberal ways of thinking about change where conservative thinking is less accepting of change and liberal thinking is more accepting of change. So if you think of things like societal traditions, marriage, institutions etc… politically conservative thinking tends to go along with leaving those things unchanged while political liberal thinking accepts and even expects those things to change.

        I’m looking at it like, non political conservative thinking recognizes more risk of harm associated with the change while non political liberal thinking does not see a risk of harm or a low risk of harm associated with the change.

        Maybe you can see where I’m going with this.

        So from a climate change viewpoint, conservative thinking by politically progressive people is where they associate a higher degree of risk and harm to a changing climate while liberal thinking by politically conservative people associate a lower or no risk of harm to a changing climate.

        Of course this is just one example. I understand there a politically liberal folks that have non-political liberal thinking about climate change and the inverse of politically conservative folks having non-political conservative thinking about CC. And whatever is in between.

        My point being, conservatism and liberalism are universal to all people independent of political orientation, it really just depends on the situation one is addressing. I have been thinking about this as a way for people who look at situations differently, to find a common language about how well they accept change by taking politics out of the conversation. This could lower the polarization between folks.

        “Libz and conz alike, IMO, allow their reasoning to be influence in very similar ways by their identity-orientations. Both groups tend to like name-calling and demonizing against people they disagree with. Both are self-aggrandizing, indulge in righteous indignation, etc.”

        Exactly, political orientation promotes identity orientation which results in each side taking on generalizations of the other. This, as you are aware, prevents most people from having discussions to find solutions because they are too busy trying to dismiss the other due to their identity instead of looking at their ideas about change.

        What do you think?

      • Hey John –

        ==> …however I was thinking more along the lines of conservatism and liberalism as a way of accepting change without the political connotation.

        I did get that, and directed my response accordingly but I see now how I didn’t make that clear.

        to wit…

        All people have conservative and liberal ways of thinking about change where conservative thinking is less accepting of change and liberal thinking is more accepting of change.

        Right. But I’m not finding those as distinguishing characteristics of people to any meaningful degree. I mean yeah, at the extreme ends of the spectrum, some people could be categorized as “conservative” and some “liberal,” but IMO, most people are far more alike in that they are selectively conservative and liberal than they are different in being more predominately one or the other.

        And this is where it gets difficult…because often the switches that determine when they are more conservative or liberal, respectively, align with ideological orientation on particular issues.

        ==> So if you think of things like societal traditions, marriage, institutions etc… politically conservative thinking tends to go along with leaving those things unchanged while political liberal thinking accepts and even expects those things to change.

        But I don’t think that people really fall out along personality traits in that regard, so much as adopt those traits selectively in association with a particular issue. In other words, people who say that they’re a “conservative” because they don’t want to change the institution of marriage are very likely to say that we need to change in other context, say w/r/t whether we have an Internal Revenue Service or fund a Department of Education. And even w/r/t marriage, they might say that the don’t want to change the institution of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, but they wouldn’t say that we shouldn’t have changed the institution of marriage to accommodate interracial couples..

        ==> I’m looking at it like, non political conservative thinking recognizes more risk of harm associated with the change while non political liberal thinking does not see a risk of harm or a low risk of harm associated with the change.

        That could be, but I think that there is waaaaay too much political “noise” in the manifestation of orientation on particular subjects to tease out what might be the “signal” that represents the underlying character. Kind of like nature vs. nurture….there’s too much overlap, IMO, to make trying to tease out the strands of the multifactorial causality

        ==> Maybe you can see where I’m going with this.

        Well….duh!

        ==> So from a climate change viewpoint, conservative thinking by politically progressive people is where they associate a higher degree of risk and harm to a changing climate while liberal thinking by politically conservative people associate a lower or no risk of harm to a changing climate.

        Except if you’re saying that the underlying temperament is what explains how people align on whether we should change the climate, then how do you explain the accompanying, astoundingly strong, political association? Do you really think that people are so defined by their conservative or liberal temperament, respectively, that it then carries over to explain how they similarly align along the exact same cleavages on so many other issues? And what about in cultures where there is less of a strong differentiation in views on climate – where a view that we should be mitigating against climate change is more universal. Would you say, then, that those cultures are inherently more “conservative” (temperamentally speaking) than the American culture?

        ==> I have been thinking about this as a way for people who look at situations differently, to find a common language about how well they accept change by taking politics out of the conversation. This could lower the polarization between folks.

        But I’m with you here. Not so much in thinking of the taxonomy you’re describing as a way to distinguish between people, but as a way for describing how they can more easily understand how to separate out “positions” from “interests.” In other words, we all have both of those temperaments in pretty much the same measure, and so we can all understand both sides of the tradeoffs involved.

        ==> Exactly, political orientation promotes identity orientation which results in each side taking on generalizations of the other. This, as you are aware, prevents most people from having discussions to find solutions because they are too busy trying to dismiss the other due to their identity instead of looking at their ideas about change.

        Yup.

        ==> What do you think?

        I think that what you’re describing has a lot of overlap with a “getting to yes,” or “conflict resolution” (stakeholder dialogue) approach to getting people to take ownership over shared solutions rather than doubling-down on exacerbating the obstacles.

        Here’s hoping I didn’t screw up any of the html tags like I usually do, or construct too many indecipherable sentences to make what I wrote completely incoherent.

      • Thanks John Carpenter and Joshu-a for this bit of dialogue. Take the politics out and there’s a good chance that common ground can be found in the ongoing debate. I find myself often debating on the debate because I find it fascinating how otherwise intelligent people can tie themselves into logical knots around the information that has been put up so far.

      • Self-described “progressives” who demand punishment for expressing contrary opinions are not liberal.

      • There is no common ground. Never has been; never will be.

        PDO index for March + 2.40; AMO up as well. Sending Positive Chills for the La Nina cooling fantasies. Hey, there’s always 2017.

      • When people have closed minds there is usually no common ground to be found between them, so for once I find myself agreeing with JCH.

      • John Carpenter

        Thanks Joshu-a,

        Yeah, not easy for the climate ward to get to yes.

      • “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” –
        Illustrated London News (ILN), 4/19/24
        Chesterton

      • mikerestin –

        Yup. Not sure that the nature of progressives and conservatives as described actually applies, but the basic futility alluded to in that quote captures the situation well, IMO.

        plus ça change

      • There are tools and there are people with common sense. These categories cut across religion, politics and intelligence.

  4. The IPCC’s view of very likely more than half is this. Most likely near 100%, and yes stating this correctly is crucial for public policy.

    • No problem… human beings can survive in outer space. it’s like Tang, man.

      • Hmmmm.. Sounds like someone totally lacks perspective.

        You are not going to die from global warming.

        You are going to die because you ate too many pop-tarts.

      • Get inside a paper bag. You might win.

      • The marijuana people put out this chart.

        I think the same thing applies to global warming – down there at zero with the stoners.

        But then worrying about global warming might actually kill you.

        So don’t worry about global warming.

      • I never said AGW was going to kill me. How misses do you get?

      • I never said AGW was going to kill me. How misses do you get?

        Good, welcome back!

        Now, how can we get people to stop exaggerating the effects global warming?

      • Jch

        As regards the NAO, Chris Folland of the MET office gave a very interesting presentation on this and other effects, at the Hubert Lamb Centeneary meeting in 2013

        http://www.rmets.org/events/hubert-lamb-centenary-meeting/developments-uk-and-european-seasonal-forecasting-hubert-lamb’s

        Click on ‘download presentation’

        Tonyb

      • TE – maybe you should worry about your exaggerations.

        Tonyb – not quite certain what I’m supposed to get out of that. Obviously natural variability exists. In terms of a really solid cooling, it simply has failed to cool the GMST in a good old-fashioned sense since Queen Victoria’s time.

      • Jch

        The MWP lasted from around 850ADto 1190AD. Which was followed by a really solid cooling. The Centuries long Roman warm period was followed by a really solid cooling . All periods of prolonged warming are eventually followed by cooling.

        Tonyb

      • tonyb: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. all you guys fall into the weather fetish one-up-man-ship

      • Horst Graben,

        You wrote –

        “tonyb: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. all you guys fall into the weather fetish one-up-man-ship”

        Exactly. Warmists definitely seem to be obsessed with graphs showing past performance, and imagining that trends indicate the future.

        Apart from the fact that the graphs don’t indicate what they purport to, anybody who thinks that the past predicts the future is a gullible fool. There seems to be quite a bit of gullible foolishness in the Warmist camp.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        Fwiw folland is the guy who mistakenly put lamb’s diagram in the ipcc report .

      • Fwiw folland is the guy who mistakenly put lamb’s diagram in the ipcc report .

        Add that to the Hockey Stick and the AR4 forecast to the IPCC blooper reel?

      • That’s wonderful tonyb… and it has nothing to do with the issue. The stadium wave is not coming to save the losers and their bad arguments.

      • JCH

        The stadium wave is not coming to save the losers and their bad arguments.

        That’s because the winners are the activists like you who control all the climate datasets and maintain its fictitious endlessly warming output.

        The ocean SST anomalies are looking somewhat cool of late, especially near the poles. But fret not – any day now all that blue will miraculously turn orange as another change is made to the baseline reference. Like they did in 2014 so that the following two years were magically the warmest evah.

        Have you ever wondered why all the current warming is where the people aren’t? In the middle of the largest ocean basins? At the poles ( e.g. the spectacularly worrisome warming of Antarctica that is causing the above average sea ice). Plus at the bottom of the ocean. Oh yes, and Siberia too. Odd that it’s never where there are people to witness it. But I’m sure the GCM models will reassure us that warming that actual people will actually notice, will happen any day now.

      • <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850.16/every:12&quot;.March 2016 is the warmest March in this SST series.

  5. If the goal of the climate movement is less to ‘save’ the climate as to feel good for a cause (“cheap virtue,” as Lindzen once termed it) and to hassle capitalism, then the climate movement will always moving ahead, substituting new doomsday dates for past falsified ones. Our side needs to stress the ‘opportunity cost’ of mitigation (wasted resources, less ability to adapt) as virtuous and just.

    • I doubt anyone misses the opportunity to see and tastes the air he breathes.
      The “to hassle capitalism” statement attributed to Lindzen is silly. Mitigation is part of the cost of doing business. It is no more a hassle to capitalism than wages or any other costs of doing business.

  6. Nearly all of the ‘bottom up’ analyses of over 100 GCMs which run on super computers exhibit ‘epic failure’ to predict the average global temperature trend.

    A simple ‘top down’ analysis run on a desk top computer calculates average global temperatures that are a 97% match to measured values since before 1900 even when the effect of CO2 is ignored. Accounting for CO2 increases the match by only 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com

  7. Hence we are to believe that the most adaptable species that has ever existed, a species so sophisticated that it can survive in outer space…

    Humans cannot survive in outer space. Perhaps the writer is a tardigrade?

    • So all those pictures of moon shots were taken in Hangar 17? Man cannot survive at the South Pole either, except for the tools he makes to make survival possible. Reducio ad Absurdum is a self-harming tool in the hands of the semi-literate.

    • Astronaut Scott Kelly just returned to Earth recently from living in space for nearly a year (340 days). While it may be a while to completely remineralize his bones, he joked that he’d probably be a little taller than his twin brother now.

    • “Humans cannot survive in outer space. Perhaps the writer is a tardigrade?”

      Of course we can – it requires the assistance of our technology, but it can be survived. Ask any astronaut. The fact that they have been there and acan still answer your question is proof it is survivable (with technological assistance, as noted).

      • ISS is not in space
        it orbits in the high atmosphere enjoying the protection of the magnetosphere
        interplanetary space is a different animal
        we’ve only put our little tippy toes in it for a minute
        back when we weren’t quite smart enough to be scared
        and I still had one chin

    • I think he meant that if the climate gets really bad, we can all just wear spacesuits. Problem solved.

    • Humans must carry shelter with them most places they go. More hermit crab than tardigrade. Our bodies can survive temporary stresses but are not so “adaptable” as to survive extreme exposures without protective technology. It is the environment around us that we alter and adapt to our needs.

      I’m sure that’s what the author meant in the first place. I just like tardigrades.

      • More things Horatio … not jest climate.

        “We had no idea that an animal genome could be composed of so much foreign DNA,” said study co-author Bob Goldstein, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We knew many animals acquire foreign genes, but we had no idea that it happens to this degree.”

        Osos de Agua puede sobrevivir sin comida ni agua durante m s de una d cada3wodo1 400

        So where is the tardigrade getting all its genes from? The foreign DNA comes primarily from bacteria, but also from plants, fungi, and Archaea. And it’s this incredible variety of genes that researchers suggest has allowed the water bear to survive in such extreme conditions.

      • Image didn’t work.

      • Yes, children of the future will find it impossible to believe that human beings once lived on most of the earth without fossil fuels because technology will be keeping all billions of them cozy.

  8. It was interesting to march with Loyola and humanity through the ice and learn that we are still living in an ice age (the Pleistocene Ice Age).

  9. Thanks, Judith. Great article by Mario Loyola.

  10. Outstanding post and article. Thank you

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

  11. Where ever the science is on the issue of anthropogenic warming it has become increasingly irrelevant to the policy debate, and it was, arguably, largely irrelevant from the get go. Of course conservative minded people would be skeptical of any “science” presented to them by their government who is using that “science” to make the argument that government needs more power to regulate the individual in order to save humanity from itself. It is only natural that those conservatives who are inclined to be skeptical of the science of AGW would become even more so after taking time to look at the science and what the so called consensus is actually saying and particularly what they are saying in regards to policy:

    “However, even with this decision focus, scientific knowledge cannot by itself specify or determine any choice. It cannot tell decision makers what they should do; their responsibilities, preferences, and values also influence their decisions. Science can inform decisions by describing the potential consequences of different choices, and it can contribute by improving or expanding available options, but it cannot say what actions are required or preferred.”

    ~Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010) p.24 NAS~

    The more the skeptic looks into the science the more clear science has very little to do with this issue, and in regards to that issue, it becomes increasingly clear that issue is the diminished sovereignty and independence of the individual. It does not surprise the conservative minded soul researching the AGW issue when they stumble upon op/ed pieces in science journals such as Nature, like this one:

    Climate change: Climate justice more vital than democracy

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/full/526323a.html

    And it should not surprise any progressive that once a conservative minded soul hears a progressive one making arguments like Ren’s that this will only entrench the conservative only deeper into their skepticism.

    Extraordinary claims such as those being made by the AGW advocates require extraordinary evidence, instead what both the skeptics and the true believers have is a theory dependent upon abstractions such as global average temperature and “hottest years evah!”, an on again off again correlation between added Co2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global average temperature, and models that cannot be tested.

    I find it harder and harder to buy people’s incredulous stares in response to skepticism – the default fallacious argument of most AGW advocates these days – as genuine.

    • Excellent comment. Thank you.

    • Jean Paul Zodeaux, that was a good post.

      However, about this: I find it harder and harder to buy people’s incredulous stares in response to skepticism – the default fallacious argument of most AGW advocates these days – as genuine. :

      I think it is genuine. Some liberal friends and correspondents of mine are increasingly convinced in favor of reducing fossil fuel use to prevent global warming, and are more extreme as the evidence in favor of small, slow, mostly benign effects of CO2 accumulate.

      • I second that. The alarmists genuinely believe in CAGW. “We are what we read”. They read and accept the propaganda and don’t seriously question it.

        Unfortunately, Australia’s new Prime Minister and the people he’s surrounded himself with believe it too! So, when USA wises up get’s rid of the Democrat Administration and starts progressing again, we’ll still be ‘progressively’ going backwards.

      • Well my experience is a little different. I am finding my liberal minded friends are often more open-minded and willing to consider contrary evidence than my conservative friends (regarding other matters). It may be that since I identify myself as liberal minded they may be more receptive, however, it is also still the case that they are prepared to be more nuanced in their thinking.

        Their default position is one of “do no harm”, so climate alarmism plays to that sentiment. But they will consider other arguments – such as the harm done to poor people by restricting or making energy costly, and to science more generally by exaggerating a theory that extends to dramatic implications for public policy.

        I think the polarisation in the discussion characterised in JeanPaul’s comment is prevalent mostly in the US, and partly in Australia (from what I can see). My friends in Australia are primarily liberal (in the US sense not the Oz sense) and take a much more nuanced view than one might credit from the liberal (US) media in Australia. That’s just a personal perspective however.

      • Agnostic wrote of his “liberal minded friends”:

        “Their default position is one of “do no harm”, so climate alarmism plays to that sentiment.”

        The problem is that for most “liberal minded” folks there is an extreme lack of understanding that powering the world with wind turbines and PV cells is hardly a “do no harm” course of action.

        For example, if Germany expanded its existing 25,000 wind turbines by an additional 100,000 2MW units, and also expanded its connected PV capacity to 5 times its present capacity, then it would still have needed over 16TWh of storage capacity to have met its electrical needs in 2015 (and also in in the first few months of 2016) without resorting to other power sources. Such battery storage alone would presently cost each German citizen about 60,000 $US up front plus the future costs to maintain and replace the capacity as needed. ( see weeks 42-45, 2015 at https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm for just one example).

        There are real costs to build, deliver, install, connect and maintain 100,000 more wind turbines. There are also real costs for neighbors who would deal with the noise and vibration. In particular, Germany covers less than 140,000 square miles, which is little more than one square mile per each of the 125,000 total wind turbines in the example just given!

      • @sciguy54

        I don’t disagree, except perhaps that the lack of understanding of “liberal minded folks” is “extreme”.

        It might be so in the US where the debate is highly polarised, but it is not as severe in the UK, or perhaps Australia, which was my broader point. My liberal minded friends are ‘in general’ a little more open to nuance than my more conservative friends whose opinions tend to be fairly strident and less open to debate. That said, I certainly also have friends of a liberal disposition who refuse to look at contrary evidence.

        But my experience, and especially with climate change, is that they are not as ferociously alarmed, nor unable to grasp the uncertainties and have their own suspicions regarding the promoted consensus science as is often portrayed in the media, or by convinced commentators here.

        My biggest objection in this whole debate/discussion is the automatic correlation with liberalism and progressiveness and alarm over climate. Just like the science itself, it is a lot more nuanced than that. I accept that liberal minded people are more inclined to be concerned/alarmed but that is the nature of the default position; liberal – do no harm versus conservative – protect individual liberty. But it’s not the case that they are not able to grasp the uncertainties and problems with consensus science.

  12. “Imagine something that is entirely possible—that a single such technological breakthrough enables us to control the world’s average temperatures. Could we then agree on what the ideal temperature should be? Is the current global average temperature the ideal one?”

    We have metaphorically returned to the geocentric belief system that preoccupied another religious faith that Galileo Galilei confronted with his telescope. Today’s religion, as espoused by the Greens, that they have the best interests of humankind’s fate in their heart. That those who fail to see the truth in the Green’s vision of climate and our role in its earth’s desecration, can only be reminded of the veracity of this religion’s view by subjecting skeptics to the Rack.

    Yielding control, control over government’s purse strings, will provide control over our earth’s environments by changing the climate into a one world beneficent paradise. We will sit at the right hand of the Environmentalists god. Wouldn’t mother be pleased.

  13. Moderation time is “time out time”, a time to reflect and mull what we have written. Our prose serves no other purpose than to inform albeit at times to cajole. And moderation serves what purpose?

  14. “There is also compelling evidence that at least some significant part of this warming is attributable to carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels since the mid-20th century.”

    Or possibly the observed warming is due to the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels, at least in part. There are, of course, other factors, as has been pointed out by others.

    All man made heat eventually escapes to space. In the interim, because light (including IR) travels in straight lines, it warms anything on the surface which absorbs it.

    Whether this heat (light) comes from the energy you generate clapping your hands, from the local coal fired power station, a nuclear submarine or power station, or when you use electricity from a wind turbine, it’s all heat. It warms stuff.

    In 1850, the world’s poulation was around 1 billion. In 2010, around 7 billion. Although estimates vary, present per capita energy use may be at least 50 times that of 1850. This means that around 350 times as much man made heat is available to raise temperatures of objects on and above the surface than in 1850.

    It beggars belief to propose that this 350 fold increase in heat results in no rise in temperatures over the period 1850 – 2010. Even 7 billion humans radiating body heat at around 10 um, will raise temperatures more than 1 billion humans on a surface with a nominal temperature of say 255K.

    As to measuring this rise in temperature, Warmists attempt to use air temperatures as a proxy for surface temperatures. Of course, this is ridiculous, as anybody standing in front of a roaring fire in a cold room will know. The air temperature may be very low as your condensing breath may indicate, but your body tells you that your front surface may be very hot, while your bum may be literally freezing. Now try to measure the air temperature. Is the thermometer affected by the air, the fire, the walls, your body heat, or something else?

    Not only is it very difficult to measure air temperature, (the thermometers in a Stevenson screen measure the integrated wall temperatures, by and large), but the result so obtained may not accurately reflect environmental conditions moment to moment. Averaging may be of no practical use.

    Logically, warming has occurred as a result of man’s activities since 1850. As Arrhenius said, this is a good thing. CO2 levels have risen as a result of man’s activities. Also a good thing, as observed increased global plant life indicates.

    The lunatic fringe attempting to “stop climate change” can’t even coherently state what is supposed to happen if such a miraculous event were to happen!

    Unfortunately, as in the higher latitudes, the higher levels of the academic ivory towers may experience a lengthy twilight. Pity.

    Cheers.

    • blueice2hotsea

      It beggars belief to propose that this 350 fold increase in heat results in no rise in temperatures over the period 1850 – 2010

      No. It’s a simple matter of arithmetic, definitions, conversion to common units and a couple of sanity checks.

      If after the first sanity check it still beggars your belief then you need to do the second sanity check and have yourself checked out. :)

  15. maybe they will go the way of the ozone depletion movement.
    just declare it solved
    congratulate themselves for a job well done
    and get over it

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757711

  16. I was thinking more in terms of immolation, obliteration, destruction at molecular level even, rather than some sissy twilight. But that’s me: always a bit ahead of the skep game.

    • mosomoso,

      Would you mind including a bit of flagellation and defenestration at the beginning? That always seems to pull a good crowd. It’s beginning to sound a little as though the biter is finally being bit!

      I was going to add something about the Warmists getting bitter about being bit, but even non Warmists might throw things at me for such an awful play on words!

      Cheers.

    • The pause fooled a lot of really smart people. We have Professor Curry waiting for the return of the negative phase of the AMO.

      And then there are you 2 goners.

      • Let me just guess, smart people got their adjusted numbers first. How did the dynamic weather pause, it is moving even when you are not. And it never sleeps or needs a rest. What were the smart people thinking?

      • They were thinking silly things like CS is low, and that natural variability has a fighting chance when it does not. 108%… if we’re lucky.

      • Look at the North Atlantic. The pansy AMO cannot even cool itself, let alone the entire globe:

      • Even luck is dynamic but first you have to believe you can win.

      • I can still get a chuckle when I remember that the planet is 4.5 Billion years old. Satellite weather data goes back fifty plus years. What are the odds that mankind would have the ability to see the end of the world as we know it and from a safe distance too, just lucky I guess.

      • The pause fooled a lot of really smart people.

        I’d say global warming fooled a lot of really smart people.

        There’s warming, but some warming doesn’t mean frying pan planet.
        And it doesn’t mean climate change.

        Smart people not versed in climate lack the ability to distinguish warming from climate change and lack the facts to reject the emotional appeals from professional scaremongers.

      • TE – the pause is still fooling you… probably a chronic condition.

      • David Springer

        You must not have received the climatariat memo to all true believers. There is no pause.

      • For my part, I didn’t put too much stock into the pause.

        It was real, all right, but not significant.

        Above trend: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007
        Below trend: 2008, 2009, 2011 & 2012

        But the overall trend didn’t vary significantly:

        So you’ll have to burn some other strawman for me.

        I’ve probably got some, but they’re hidden away in a closet somewhere.

      • TE
        thanks for jumping in here. So the gentle warming over the 50 years does not present a catastrophic danger to the humans on the planet? Can you estimate what % of the gentle temp increase comes from man made CO2 emissions?
        Scott

      • DS – I have my own opinions. Imho, there was a pause… completely insignificant, though it could have been, and now completely dead, though, in the Generalissimo Franco sense of completely dead, there is still almost no chance at all it could revive and accomplish absolutely nothing once again.

      • what % of the gentle temp increase comes from man made CO2 emissions?

        My silly wild ass guess is probably not worth any more than anyone else’s.

        But if you examine the chart, the trend difference between 1979 and today is about 0.5C. And that is about what natural variability is estimated at.

        So, I’m going with satellite era temperature trend is 100% CO2,
        +/- 100%

      • Love your passion, JCH.

      • TE
        thanks. My silly wild ass guess would be higher because the reduction of forests for agriculture, the UHI impacts and man made temperature adjustments. Not so much CO2 impacts but lots of changes added to natural variation. Keep helping with data and graphs. they are useful.
        Scott

  17. A lot depends on the 2016 presidential election. We will continue to take a purely ideological and rhetorical approach based on hand picked data, or take an approach that takes an unbiased approach considering the science, uncertainties and all possible attributions of cause, not overemphasizing man’s role but placing it in the proper context of natural causes, one of many causes of climate change.
    .
    The approach of the administration is to package tailor made information that fits its agenda and present it to the public as proven fact/ science. The recent report on “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment” is a case in point. It is nearly impossible to read through the entire document (332 pages) and assess the science behind the claims and conclusions. This is a sales package to nudge / push public opinion, nothing else, with cover letter by John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. It would be better titled “A High Level “Precautionary Principle” Approach (or snow job), to Influence Public Opinion, on Climate Change and Human Health in the United States.” It is much more enlightening to read the public comments (550 pages) available (along with the full report) at the home page: http://www.globalchange.gov/health-assessment. These raise questions on the overall objective of the study, failure to attribute cause and justify conclusions. Just one example – on a claim that high school footballers are especially vulnerable to higher temperatures associated with climate change… “why are high school players especially vulnerable to heat illness? Is it because of the intensity of their practices and games, duration, or both? Is proper hydration always provided? Could it be that players overwork themselves in order to not appear “wimpy?” … Why only high school footballers… As written, the text seems rather simplistic given the many factors at play.” In other words, cherry picking and not considering other factors, or even acknowledging that other factors could be at play. You can draw similar conclusions about the entire report.

  18. A good essay and while Judith’s take on it was as I thought it would be, the comments by both sides of the AGW debate will be illuminating, not on the central issues themselves, but more on how information is being processed.

    We are indeed still part of an ice age, with Antarctia, in particular, still in the grip of this. The Arctic ocean, on the other hand, is losing long term ice, but the process seems not driven by human activity but more by ocean current changes.

    In between, there seems little discernable long term trend that can be detected, with some areas warmer and some areas colder. Money that is currently being spent on climate change carbon reduction policies should be diverted to mitigation for vulnerable communities.

    • “Money that is currently being spent on climate change carbon reduction policies should be diverted to mitigation for vulnerable communities.”
      _____

      I believe you are saying we can only spend money on one or the other, but not both. How do you know?

      • Normally I’d wonder if anyone asking this question could possibly be that st00pid. But considering the source, I already know you’ve reset the bar.

        It is standard practice when evaluating a project’s cost to include a review of alternatives the money could be used for. Why? Because there is no such thing as a money tree.

      • That there is not a magic money tree doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not possible, or indeed necessary, to spend more on climate policy than is being spent at the moment. Or that whatever money is ultimately spent can’t be split between different areas.

      • Yes, I know when considering the cost of a new submarine, something of comparable cost, like a new bridge or a fleet of new subway cars would be considered before deciding how to spend the money (NOT).

        It’s either the sub or the bridge. Can’t have both. HA HA !

      • max1ok,

        You wrote –

        “It’s either the sub or the bridge. Can’t have both. HA HA !”

        And here’s silly old me, believing that the US has a national debt of 17 trillion USD, and still can’t afford to even maintain existing bridges, or buy the military everything it wants!

        Maybe you could give the US government your telephone number, if they haven’t already contacted you seeking your financial advice. The U.K. and quite a few other countries would probably be interested in how to have one’s cake, and eat it, too. Or does your financial wizardry only apply to subs and bridges?

        Cheers.

      • mike, no one knows the meaning of “opportunity costs” more than me.

        Here’s the thing. Deniers are saying, for example, if we didn’t give Pakistan X amount of money for climate, we could instead give Pakistan the same amount for flood control. That’s true, but it ignores the obvious. The money for flood control could also come out of money we give Pakistan for arms and other things. I’m sure you know this, but I’m explaining it in case any of the less intelligent deniers are reading.

      • max1ok,

        I’m not sure why you would advocate that the US borrow money to give it to another country for “climate”. Climate is merely the average of weather, so I can’t see the point in going into debt to give money to a country to modify their weather.

        Even if a country could modify the weather, it may run into problems with its neighbours who may have other ideas about what the weather should be like.

        But setting all that aside, why should the US throw away money for unproven and probably fruitless weather modification schemes, when much of its own infrastructure needs maintenance, many of its inhabitants are malnourished, poverty stricken, dying from preventable causes and so on?

        Why not start with, say, California. Just agree what the climate should be, and make it so. How hard can it be?

        Cheers.

      • Mike, like many here at CE, your views on money show a lack of imagination. Try imagining federal tax revenues spent on climate projects and borrowed money spent on programs you like. If government borrowing becomes a problem, we just cut spending on things you like. Problem solved.

        If that idea isn’t appealing, try thinking about all your tax dollars being spent only on programs you like, and all mine only on climate programs.

        I know you aren’t one of those simpletons who believes the federal government should budget like a private household (don’t spend more than you earn, etc), but I sense you may be a bit backward in your thinking about money. You could benefit from a course on finance.

        I will not be squandering a comment in reply to anything you say on this. I must consider opportunity costs. A reply to you could mean not replying to someone else who is more deserving. If I had any idea what you would say in your reply, I would address your comments before hand (right now), but your responses frequently are too bizarre for me to imagine.

      • Ok max, when you argue intelligently, I’ll treat it as such.

        You are correct in pointing out that it is not a binary choice. Mitigation verse Resilience. We could cut Medicaid, Social Security or DoD spending and pay for both mitigation and resilience measures. What we can’t do is pay for all of the above.

        Ignoring that simple fact is a good way to disqualify yourself from the discussion.

      • Now I feel foolish.

        I read a max comment thinking he is acting intelligently and then his very next post reverts to form.

      • andrew adams

        It’s still not the kind of binary choice you claim, ie to spend more money on X we have to spend less on Y or Z. Of course that is one option – maybe you could sort out your absurdly expensive healthcare system and bring health spending down towards the same % of GDP as other developed countries. That would free up many billions of $. But there are other alternatives – you can raise taxes, either introduce a specific carbon tax or just make increases to other more general taxes. Or you can borrow money – perfectly justifiable economically if it is used to fund infrastructure which will improve resilience to extreme weather events and thus reduce future costs.

        Or maybe the numbers are so small in relative terms that you could increase spending without it making much difference to the national finances. I did a quick Google and it appears US Federal spending in 2014 was about $21.4bn

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

        that’s just over 0.1% of GDP, a rounding error in the national finances, so you’re hardly breaking the bank at the moment.

      • andrew adams

        Even if a country could modify the weather, it may run into problems with its neighbours who may have other ideas about what the weather should be like.

        Well it’s certainly true that effective action to address climate change can’t happen without international agreement that it is a problem which requires action. But we have that – virtually every country in the world signed off on AR5 and signed the Paris agreement. Of course that’s a necessary condition but not a sufficient one – there are still real practical and political obstacles to effective international action on climate change. But lack of agreement that there is a problem to be addressed is not one of them, the skeptics have lost that argument.

  19. Thank you for the essay.

    About this: They are also distracting attention both from investments that would make society less vulnerable to climate change.

    Second, and relatedly, the movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether. .

    I note that it is flooding again in Pakistan. With or without global warming, and with or without reductions in human fossil fuel use, Pakistan will suffer repeated droughts and floods. It would be criminal if they used their limited investment capital and labor to replace fossil fuel use instead of upgrading their flood control and irrigation systems.

    • +10. The money should go where the maximum benefit per capita can be achieved – places like Pakistan. At the moment it seems that academia is getting most of the benefit from climate change and this needs to change.

  20. Geoff Sherrington

    At the dawn of the climate change movement, a large mistake was made: Do not try to model the Hand of Man before you understand the part of Nature.

    Please, dear friends, open these 2 links and treat yourself to some beauty in science and engineering.
    Hear the presenter in the second talk note that “The reality is that it is difficult to predict the impact of nascent technology. And for folks like us, the real reward is the journey and the act of creation. It’s a continual reminder of how wonderful and magical the universe we live in is, that it allows creative, clever creatures to sculpt it in such spectacular ways.

    If only climate science had started and proceeded with this beautiful mindset.

    • Unfortunately the browser says ‘no.’

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Beth,
        Sorry, I posted the URLs and more appeared than I expected. How should I do it?

      • GS, yer askin’ me – a serf? )

      • Plus 97.5 %…
        ‘Lagging groups,’ Thomas Sowell gets it. ( ‘Wealth,
        Poverty and Politics’.) Not just geographic –
        mountains and hill-billy isolation, ‘ always go down,
        never go up,’ -but cultural-political also, ‘WE will tell
        you what you need to know,’ divine right of philosopher
        -king and bureaucracy stifling curiosity…

        New bullying, safe-place, laws can mean ‘don’t question
        the consensus.’ Oh RICO.!

    • Just because you would like to take us all on the winding road to Detroit City, that does not mean we will want to live there.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        High on my list of Life’s imponderables is “Why are people too stupid to move for their own good?”.
        They stay domiciled in flood areas and clean out time and again. They stay in known fire areas. Ditto a decaying city like Detroit. Ditto those before major wars who are killed or interned when they should have moved.
        Have you ever seen a chook looking at a snake? There is a weird look of terror and hopelessness. Pity those among us who cannot decide and act, but more kudos to those like the ones in the video clips here, who go the next several levels higher and create.
        If only climate ‘science’ had this beautiful progression meme instead of fear, eternal damnation of infidels and bullying.

      • Certainly you must have studied the words that you so easily condemn? His work for us was finished on the cross. You have had a lifetime to crack the books and follow his instructions. He does the rest.

  21. I think Mario Loyola’s next step is to apply his legal mind on the assumptions within the alarmists mindset, some of which he repeated, specifically that CO2 *must* cause warming, as the evidence is increasingly showing otherwise.

    Also, the point about loss of habitat to farming may be true, but when we have to feed a global population (and that there are so many million still starving should be a far greater concern) the prevention of new agricultural technologies by these same environmentalists is as much a cause, or arguably greater, than any impact on climate humans may have.

    • “CO2 *must* cause warming, as the evidence is increasingly showing otherwise.”

      With something global such as global warming, there’s obviously a global range of processes to consider.

      I looked at some possible processes which would obviate the radiative forcing from CO2 while maintaining a constant surface temperature.

      The primary process, warming aloft not at the surface, is one that’s identified by the climate modeling community. This is the so called lapse rate feedback which provides negative feedback as noted by Soden and Held 2006. One problem – the lapse rate feedback is manifest by the ‘Hot Spot’ and the ‘Hot Spot’ doesn’t appear to be occurring, at least not for the last third century and counting, so if the CO2 forcing is being obviated, it’s not because of the lapse rate feedback.

      There are other variations in humidity or clouds which could obviate CO2 forcing, but I don’t see a physical basis for why they would change in such a way.

      Could the processes be hiding in the sub-grid-scale phenomena or in the parameterizations? Probably no one knows.

      But my subjective sense is not:
      “CO2 *must* cause warming, as the evidence is increasingly showing otherwise.”

      but:
      “Additional CO2 is likely to cause warming as the evidence continues to show.”

      Now, the rate of this warming is somewhere around 1.5 degrees C per century which is lower than the IPCC lets on. And the effects of this for a century or two are exaggerated. And the rates of forcing from CO2 appear to be falling already.

      But the continued warming appears likely to me.

    • Also, the point about loss of habitat to farming may be true,

      Might be just the opposite – increased farming because areas with too short a growing season now have a long enough growing season and are available.

      But the future of agriculture is indoors anyway.

      Indoor farms use both less energy and less water in addition to being more productive and raising crops quicker. So far, leafy crops have demonstrated this. Google gave up on doing rice, but the game’s not over and the direction is clear.

  22. “the movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether”

    This. So much this.

    The mindless, unjustifiable two-degree target, threshold or whatever you call it encapsulates everything that’s wrong with climate policy.

    Not once across hundreds of papers have I read that anything special happens after two degrees – please enlighten me and provide some evidence if I’m mistaken.

    If the objective of the target is to ‘spur action’ there are two problems:
    a) It’s massively dishonest to promote this ‘limit’ as a scientific thing when in fact it’s purely a value made up for political and propaganda reasons
    b) It’s not working to ‘spur action’ anyway. Most people don’t give a rat’s ass about two degrees – surprise!

    Carbon dioxide emissions have an effect on the planet, which means an effect on the society/economy as well. If this effect can be quantified, I’m all for taxing it – externalities are a real thing. But every serious attempt at quantifying it has arrived at a cost of, at most, something like $50 per ton – even when using sensitivity estimates above 3ºC.

    In fact, a new paper plugging in the sensitivity values from Lewis&Curry finds a *negative* cost for CO2 for several dates/discount rates (although under most scenarios the cost is still positive, i.e. it’s a negative externality).
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759505

    Clearly, if there is anything special about two degrees, the economic models (and the literature they depend on) have failed to capture it.

    I could go on and on. For example, the FUND model, which gives a lower social cost of carbon than DICE, assumes ‘species loss varies quadratically with the rate of warming’. Perhaps there is some paper, but extinctions are DECLINING in the real world, so I have no idea how they reached this conclusion. And yet, the ‘cost’ of these ‘increased extinctions’ is counted as another ‘externality’ of CO2.

    The point is: there is no reason for alarm. There is no reason to transform our society and economy. At most, there is reason for taxing CO2 at something like $30 a ton – and for funding more climate research so that we get a better idea of what’s happening in the deep ocean, in Antarctica and so on. Everything else is throwing money down the toilet.

    • The paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick and Kreutzer is an important one. It will be interesting to see the excuses provided for refusing to discuss its findings in the mainstream media.

  23. John Costigane

    Judith,

    Sun Tsu said ‘know your enemy’. Add to that know yourself. Our side is on the side of The Enlightenment, whose flowers include the Scientific Method and the American Constitution. Alarmism requires the neutering of both in the service of a dystopian agenda. Its 4 main defences are science,media, law and politics. They must be opposed on all 4 fronts. A Republican victory, affecting all 4, could be the knock-out blow for climate alarmism.

    I last year forecast a cold UK winter ahead. We have been stuck in the cold north sector of the jetstream’s position, all 2016 so far. Not the coldest, but continually cold for months. La Nina gives us a building milder situation. In its absence (el Nino), that is changed.

  24. But, AZC, throwing money down the toilet is EXACTLY what they want to do! Take the money from the West and throw it to the “Third World” countries. The result they wish is to create such a storm that the present day economy will falter, with the replacement economy being a world-wide effort that will enable the “beautiful” people to dominate the rest of us.

    CAGW was devised to help push the Agenda 21 mantra from Rio. Just one piece of the mosiac they wish we were not able to see.

  25. The deification of nature mentioned in the article is of course a direct parallel with the Garden of Eden and mans ejection from it due to his learning. There is nothing new in environmentalism, it is Christianity refleshed with sacrifice of what is important to us, a feature of many pagan religions.

  26. on the science there are far more compelling reasons to conclude that mans contribution to warming is negligible but alarmists just ignore that by making up ever fanciful and contradictory excuses. The biggest skeptic though remains mother nature!

    On the policy, we accept huge risks daily including having explosive gas pumped into our houses or driving around at speed. We accept them because of the concomitant reward of heat and transport on demand. If the sheeple had this convenience taken away overnight then they’d soon realise who is really on the moral high ground and who is anti-human, regardless of the iffy models.

  27. It is always good to see legal scholars bite into this subject, or any.

  28. I don’t understand why someone doesn’t just survey all climate scientists and ask a simple yes or no question. “Do you believe that CAGW is real and that if we don’t act now regardless of the cost we are all going to die?” The C in CAGW is what is important. There is simply no evidence for it.

    • …you don’t understand why no one asks scientists that question? O.o Really?

      I’m what you might call an “alarmist”, and no, I don’t think we’re “all going to die” if we don’t act now.

      On a day when I’m feeling particularly ‘alarmist’, I might estimate a 5% chance for the end of civilization because of global warming. And even then, not everyone would die.

      • Well both of you are right about one thing it’s a question of degree. to make a yes or no single answer would be hard. Maybe multiple choice would be best:

        How dangerous do you think man made climate change is for life on earth?
        A.) Extremely dangerous
        B.) Very dangerous
        C.) Dangerous
        D.) Somewhat dangerous
        E.) Not at all dangerous

      • Ordvic.

        Can you please define, quantitatively, what you mean by each of the five options?

      • Benjamine Winchester,

        On a day when I’m feeling particularly ‘alarmist’, I might estimate a 5% chance for the end of civilization because of global warming.

        Serious question, what is your basis for your estimate? I am not arguing about the uncertainty of the 5%. I am asking about how did you arrive at 5% or anywhere near it? I don’t know of any persuasive evidence that the central estimate could be anywhere near as high as 1%. I see no persuasive evidence that CO2 emissions are doing more harm than good. Note: temperature change is not a measure of damages or benefits.

      • Peter, Probably not! but I see these types of polls all the time to find out which way the wind blows. I’ll try:

        A.) 100% possibility that life on earth will cease to exist
        B.) Human survival is probably 50% with the population reduced in half at the very least
        C.) Humans will survive but the population will decrease by at least 10% and growth will be negative
        D.) Humans will have to adapt and the population growth will start to be negative.
        E.) Life will remain pretty much as it is and population growth will continue.

      • Too many questions. Just ask the following question.

        Should we experiment with man-made climate change?

        Answer “yes” or “no”, and explain why.

        Yes, because we are too old to worry about a bad outcome.

        No, because a bad outcome would hurt our descendants.

        Yes or No

      • max10k, “Too many questions” max read it again it’s only one question: “How dangerous do you think man made climate change is for life on earth?”. It is a question about the affect of attribution. Yours is a question about experimentation: “Should we experiment with man-made climate change?

      • ordvic, experimenting with man-made warming is what we have been doing and are continuing to do.

      • ordvic, experimenting with man-made warming is what we have been doing and are continuing to do.

        Agree.

        Fortunately, the results look pretty positive.

      • Max, yes but that was not Robert White’s original question on this thread: “Do you believe that CAGW is real”. Your question is fine but it not relevant to the to the discussion.

      • Peter,

        Serious question, what is your basis for your estimate? I am not arguing about the uncertainty of the 5%. I am asking about how did you arrive at 5% or anywhere near it?

        Meh, it’s not a numerically-based estimate.

        Really, how would you even begin to calculate the odds of the end of human civilization from climate change? Can you predict how much carbon we’re going to burn? Can you identify the unknown unknowns which might then blow up in our face? How likely is the Clathrate Gun? Or a global war resulting from climate change?

        It’s not really the kind of thing we can calculate.

        My point was just that even on my most pessimistic days, I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that “everyone will die”. That’s a huge strawman, and completely irrelevant.

        The actual, relevant question is this: “Is anthropogenic climate change going to be more or less expensive than curtailing our emissions?”

      • Ordvic,

        I believe all except D and E are less than 1% probability

        D.) Humans will have to adapt and the population growth will start to be negative.
        E.) Life will remain pretty much as it is and population growth will continue.

        However, there is a problem with your definitions because they include two unrelated measures joined by “and” – e.g. population growth rate and human well-being. Population growth is projected to go negative in the second half of this century for reason that have nothing to do with climate change. I suggest what will happen is part of D and better than E

        “F) Life will continue to improve much as it is AND Humans will adapt”

        Furthermore, once humans know more about the climate and look back at what we’ve been doing for the past 30 years they’ll laugh at the naivety of climate science and thank us for delaying and reducing the severity of the cooling trend that would be progressing, with abrupt changes along the way, if not for our GHG emissions.

        After 30 years of advocacy, the climate alarmists have no persuasive evidence whatsoever that human’s GHG emissions pose a significant risk to humanity or to life on this planet.

      • Benjamine Winchester,

        Thank you for your reply. I understand that your 5% was a pluck – a gut feel – and there is no evidence to support it. However, this is what religion is. I think there is very sound evidence to show that the amount of warming that human’s GHG emissions can cause is not dangerous. However, abrupt cooling would be very damaging for human well-being. GHG emissions are reducing that risk.

        The actual, relevant question is this: “Is anthropogenic climate change going to be more or less expensive than curtailing our emissions?”

        I agree wholeheartedly that is the relevant question. Unfortunately, climate science has hardly touched on this while mucking around with their temperature projections models for the past 30 years.

        Have you read this: “Why carbon pricing will not succeed”. http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

        It shows that the costs of abatement would exceed benefits this century (and beyond). And that is based on inputs that are on the alarmist side of the IPCC central estimates. So the abatement costs are probably significantly understated and the benefits grossly overstated.

    • So far, so good, said the fool immediately after jumping from the top of a skyscraper.

      • Arpil is a few degrees C warmer than March in Oklahoma.
        Are you terrified yet?

      • “So far, so good, said the fool immediately after jumping from the top of a skyscraper” said the Troll in the midst of trolling.

        Andrew

      • TE, I am not alarmed over global warming. Perhaps you are alarmed over measures to combat it.

        Now, I am concerned about global warming. Perhaps you are concerned about measures to prevent it.

      • TE, I am not alarmed over global warming. Perhaps you are alarmed over measures to combat it.

        Now, I am concerned about global warming. Perhaps you are concerned about measures to prevent it.

        I dunno – jumping of skyscrapers sounds pretty alarming.

        Are you sure you’re not alarmed?

        If not, why use such a phrase?

      • “why use such a phrase”

        Hyperbole. He’s broadcasting far and wide that he’s making things up.

        Andrew

  29. I just returned from Haiti. No one mentioned climate change in their list of priorities. Rather they need clean water, food, waste disposal, education, health care, and a shack that won’t flood or blow down during the next hurricane. A paved road in remote areas would be nice too.
    All alarmists should spend a month in the third world, drink the local water, eat the local food, live in the shacks, use the latrines, buy a pig at the market and slaughter it themselves. Then sleep on palm leaves covering the dirt floor. Oh, I forgot one big item. Go job hunting!

  30. They started small about 50 years ago. What i don’t understand is that their science that has not changed! Their Climate sensitivity of 1.5 – 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2; still the same after all those years. One would think they could progress in their estimates….after spending all that money on reasearch.

    What a shame!

    • Right – that’s the irony of Oreske’s title ‘Merchants of Doubt’, it first applies to the IPCC!

      But the IPCC does lots of little things to obscure the truth.

      In AR4, they foolishly made actual rate based predictions, which are largely failing.

      In AR5, these are largely absent and unmentioned in favor of more obscure intimations of future change ( wrt the unmeasured pre-Industrial ).

      Persistence alone is not a good forecast, but it is the best starting forecast to modify with any expectations of future expectations.

      Since radiative forcing rates have already decelerated from peaks some decades ago, a logical forecast is of warming rates at or less than peak observed warming rates, plus or minus some natural variability.

      • TE, you are the same guy who was bashing Hansen’s forecast, until I pointed out you weren’t up to date. Then you just faded away.

        I don’t blame you. No one likes to eat crow.

      • TE, you are the same guy who was bashing Hansen’s forecast, until I pointed out you weren’t up to date. Then you just faded away.

        I don’t blame you. No one likes to eat crow.

        ?

        Through 2015, all observed trends less than Hansen C:

      • I’ll have to start putting dates on the images:

      • Hansen’s forecast were based on the GISS Ts historical temperature series, not those you used in your chart. The February 2016 GISS Ts was warmer than Hansen’s warmest forecast (Scenario A).
        See the chart in Nick Stokes comment on April 3 at 5:28 PM under the “Preparing a new talk” base post.

      • Hansen’s forecast were based on the GISS Ts historical temperature series, not those you used in your chart. The February 2016 GISS Ts was warmer than Hansen’s warmest forecast (Scenario A).
        See the chart in Nick Stokes comment on April 3 at 5:28 PM under the “Preparing a new talk” base post.

        The surface data is one half GISS, one half NCDC.
        All trends are less than Hansen C since 1979.
        You are a data denialist.

      • And you, TE, are a cheater. You are trying to compare an apple to everything but an apple.

        I can understand your reluctance to eat crow, but can’t you just accept being wrong rather than trying to cheat your way out.

      • I appreciate TE charts. I do appreciate his plan to put dates on them. If max10k has an issue put up some data instead of vague accusation.
        Scott

      • scott, as I said, see the chart in Nick Stokes comment on April 3 at 5:28 PM under the “Preparing a new talk” base post. There’s nothing vague about Nick’s chart. It’s plain as day that February 2016 temperature was warmer than Hansen’s warmest forecast. TE knows that’s true, but he doesn’t like to admit it.

      • It’s plain as day that February 2016 temperature was warmer than Hansen’s warmest forecast.

        So when the temperatures anomalies fall below Hansen C ( which they likely will with the predicted La Nina ), you’ll change you perspective and proclaim all the models failed?

        You shouldn’t do that.

        The reason you shouldn’t is because the monthly anomalies fluctuate and it is the longer term trends which are significant.

        And the longer term trends are all less than even the lowest scenario from Hansen. That won’t persist, because the Hansen C indicated that all CO2 emissions stopped in 2000, which they clearly didn’t. And there is warming, in accordance with modeled radiative forcing.

        My point is just that Hansen knows this but when did you ever hear him say, ‘well, global warming hasn’t been as much as we modeled’.

        Global warming is real, but it’s been exaggerated.

      • max,

        no cheating. Just your usual lack of reading comprehension.

        TE specifically used the term “trend”. A single month’s average temp is not a trend. It is one data point.

      • Oh, I know all about trend. I also know Hansen’s forecasts were out to the year 2020, so we will have to wait a few years to see how observed and projected trends compare for the entire forecast horizon. With a La Nina coming, my guess is temperature in 2020 will be closer to Hansen’s middle projection than his high or low projection.

        I would like to point out how quickly deniers and self-identified skeptics switch to emphasizing longer trends rather than or the short-term (i.e. the so-called pause) when it suits their agenda. That’s not what an honest to goodness true skeptic would do.

      • Never mentioned anything about length of trends, nor did TE.

        So this is just more of your changing to topic when you are shown as an idi0t.

      • timg56, my issues with TE regarding Hansen’s global temperature forecasts were (1) TE’s charts showing forecasted and observed trends do not compare apples with apples, and (2) TE initially ignored Nick Stoke’s chart showing that observed temperature in February 2016 exceeded Hansen’s warmest forecast (Scenario A).

        I think TE subsequently acknowledged that temperature in early 2016 had caught up with Hansen’s forecast, and it could be he just overlooked Nick’s chart rather than ignored it.

        Forecast and observed trends should be compared, but the way TE did it is suspect. Hansen’s three forecast were based on the GISS T’s (met stations) historical temperature series for 1958-87. Did TE use observations from the GISS T’s series to compare with Hansen’s forecast, which is what he should have done for an apples to apples comparison? No, it looks like he used observations from just about ever series other than that, but his labels are so faded I’m not sure exactly what he used. His chart also failed to show the 1958-87 data from Hansen (see link), which he should have shown. I may have been harsh on TE when I accused him of cheating. I don’t know his motives. I prefer to think he was just careless.

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

        Nick’s charts are presented under Judith Curry’s base post “Preparing a new talk, April 2, 2016.” Annual Averages are presented in a chart in his post of April 3 at 5:28 PM and monthly data in a chart in his post at 5:35 PM. For annual averages, you can see trends in the observed GISS T’s and GISS land/ocean series compare favorably with Hansen’s middle forecast (Scenario B), particularly the former. In February 2016, you can see the observed T’s temperature is warmer than the warmest forecast (Scenario A) and the observed land/ocean temperature is about the same as the warmest forecast.

        If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

      • No questions max.

        I don’t bother with dueling graphs and charts. One can make them stand up and bark in several languages, all of which “prove” whatever point the person is trying to make.

        About the only graph I’m even vaguely interested in is where observed temps are compared against GCM outputs. So far they show observed is on the low end of the spread. And all that tells me is that the majority of GCM’s being run are most likely a waste of time and money.

      • A 50%+ forecast for La Nina at this point in time is hardly an assurance there is going to be a La Nina this fall. There could be. But… the PDO just shot up to 2.40 in March. That is close to the peak for this cycle.

        If the PDO is genuinely in a the ramp up to a positive phase, then the next record shattering warmest La Nina in the instrument record could easily produce a top-5 warmest year before 2020… that would strengthen the 30-year trend.

        The ramp-up phase of the PDO can take a few years to play out, and the last times it happened it was accompanied by very aggressive increases in the GMST… 1930s and 1970s – 1980s (.445 ℃ per decade).

        What are we seeing right now? A very aggressive increase in the GMST.

        Skeptics ignoring a great big natural cycle… how weird. One can only wonder why.

      • timg56,

        About the only graph I’m even vaguely interested in is where observed temps are compared against GCM outputs. So far they show observed is on the low end of the spread. And all that tells me is that the majority of GCM’s being run are most likely a waste of time and money.

        The chart that I am most interested in is this. It shows mitigation policies are a massive waste of money
        http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/
        .

      • +1 JCH.

        The progression and dissipation of this el Nino is a lot like 97/98, like both of us expected last winter/fall. I think it’s probably better than .5 that we end up with a fairly strong la nina, but it’s definitely not a sure thing. I suggested that a while back. But the graph you linked for me in a recent thread makes me think that it isn’t likely (dissipation of el Nino looks very similar to 97/98). But, the warm blob and wavy jet streams we’ve had in recent years mean that things won’t be as simple as in the past. But I think the causes and implication are very different than what you suggest. There were similar patterns in the northern pacific in the late 50s/early 60s prior to arctic sea ice uptick. I think that energy is likely to end up in the artic troposphere and then out in space in the next decade.

      • Aaron- if you are talking about the accumulated energy venting out, I think that is a physical impossibility as long as there is a positive energy imbalance… which is the situation and it cannot change for a very long time. They PDO index would/could drop into negative territory if there is a La Nina, but if this is a positive phase, it will spring back to positive very quickly. I think we will see warming 2010 to 2020 in the .04 to .06 ℃ per year range.

      • All you need is some wind to move the heat to the atmosphere. In fact, energy balance in the arctic is energy out.

      • JCH, that’s a reasonable prediction. .5c a century.

  31. Debussy wrote of Wagner’s music that it was a beautiful sunset misaken for a beautiful sunrise.

  32. Talking about the need for legal minds:

    <blockquoteJudge Denies Motions by Fossil Fuel Industry and Federal Government in Landmark Climate Change Case
    http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/09/climate-change-case/

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the Federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon, decided in favor of 21 young plaintiffs in their landmark constitutional climate change case against the federal government. Judge Coffin ruled Friday against the motion to dismiss brought by the fossil fuel industry and federal government.

    The court’s ruling is a major victory for the 21 youth plaintiffs, ages 8-19, from across the U.S. in what Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein call the “most important lawsuit on the planet right now.”

    I thought that the Establishment Clause prevented the government from setting up a church.

    But these young people, or their backers, want to make the church of environmentalism the established church of the land.

    It’s shaping up to be like the monkey trial of the century, with Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein playing the role of William Jennings Bryan.

    • Of course that was in 1925, before “global warming”, back when it was so hot that at one point the Judge moved the court outside.
      Hansen’s buddies had to open the windows in 1988 to make the senate hearing hotter. :)

    • In deciding the case will proceed, Judge Coffin wrote:

      The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs’ analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society.

      If you take out the references to “climate change” and “older” segments of society to substitute your own preferences, you will see that this case lacks a justiciable issue (standing, adequate court remedy and discrete harm). It is an emotional appeal rather than a constitutional one. If standing is valid for this class, it is equally valid for every class you can conceive of (minimum wage earners, drug addicts, billionaire taxpayers, etc.) regardless of whether Congress has decided to act.

      As I pointed out elsewhere, if being drafted into a permanent federal military to fight in an undeclared war fails to provide standing for young plaintiffs, this public relations campaign should be discarded before the courts waste any more resources on it. However, lacking any merit whatsoever, it should be successful all the way to the Supreme Court.

    • Twilight of Climate Change in light of this very silly ruling.
      First, it may be the scientific twilight of CAGW, but not yet the political twilight. That is obvious from CPP, Bernie Sander’s proposal to ban fracking, and the energy policy mess in Europe (especially the UK).
      Second, note this ruling is only a California federal magistrate judge deciding on an early motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. His ruling is very poor law by definition. Just read what he wrote, paraphrased as ‘time to bring the gridlocked political debate into the judicial arena’. NOT. Will be overturned on appeal, almost for sure.
      There are two very substantive federal civil procedure legal problems with standing here. 1. These children cannot show that they have actually been harmed. Because they obviously have not been. 2. These children cannot show that they will be harmed in the far future, although that is what they claim that the incompetent magistrate judge latched onto. Injunctive relief (not damages) is available in cases of imminent probable harm. An example is the restraining order against Charlie Sheen concerning stalking his ex fiancee. But here the harm is neither imminent nor probable.

      If this were allowed to stand, all kinds of crazy things could result. Some examples:
      -9th ward New Orleans could sue Feds for past damages and future mitigation, saying the US should have raised New Orleans levees by (pick your number of meters), and now must because some day another hurricane like Katrina might come.
      -These children could sue the US demanding a $100 billion be diverted to ZIKA research, because someday they might be living on the Gulf Coast wanting to have children free of microcephaly risk.
      -These children could also sue demanding say $500 billion per year in cancer research to find a cure, because someday when they get much older it is statistically certain that some of them will get some form of cancer (which may be easily curable, like common basel cell carcinoma)…. since about 1 in 2 Americans do. Unconstitutiional not to spend that money if somebody sues demanding that and ‘wins’? Nope.
      Not in the constitution anywhere. I just checked again. Article 1 section 8 does not grant such powers to Congress. Nor does article 2 sections 2 and 3 grant that to the president. And so on.

  33. Do be sure to come back next year with the 2-year trend report.

    • LMAO. I have no fear of the next warmest evah La Nina. The thirty years has plenty of La Nina. The 10 years has plenty of La Nina. As do the 8, 6, and 4 years. La Nina completely fails to help your vapid religion. Even when La Nina and La Nina leaning ENSO neutral is completely dominant and the PDO negative, ACO2 still kicks your weakling natural variation’s butt.

  34. The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy.

    So what is the reason for the warming since 1950 and where is the evidence for this explanation? If “skeptics” could come up with an agreed upon explanation, I would take this argument more seriously.

    • The AMO, which can’t even warm the North Atlantic, let alone the rest of the globe, did it… somehow… like in: a miracle:

    • Danny Thomas

      Joseph,
      Curious. Why specifically, 1950? Considered alternatives?

      • Well, in terms of the theory of natural variation, 1950 is approximately where natural variation began its wholesale abandonment of its true believers. Professors Tsonis-Wyatt-Curry have tried to breath oxygen into its dying corpse, and the deadenders are having a last ditch moment… in their last trench.

    • David Wojick

      So what is the reason for the warming between 1900 and 1950, and where is the evidence for this explanation?
      So what is the reason for the warming between 1800 and 1900, and where is the evidence for this explanation?
      So what is the reason for the warming between [pick prior warming period], and where is the evidence for this explanation?
      So what is the reason for the warming found in abrupt events, and where is the evidence for this explanation?

      • David I will refer you back to the OP which stated:

        The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy.

        The IPCC statement is for the period beginning in 1950 I believe. “Skeptics” claim it is mostly natural, So I want to see their evidence.

      • David Wojick

        And here is why these vital questions are not being answered. The government denies their existence.
        http://www.cato.org/blog/nsf-climate-denial?utm_content=buffer2695b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

      • David Wojick

        Wrong, Joseph, most skeptics simply say the warming may be natural so the IPCC knowledge claim is unfounded. Beyond that, those skeptics who claim it is natural typically provide explanations to support their claims. These are two very different cases.

      • David Wojick

        Note that the IPCC picks the last 50 years (not 1950, I think anyway) precisely to avoid the issue of all these unexplained prior warming periods. It is actually a scientific deception.

      • Beyond that, those skeptics who claim it is natural typically provide explanations to support their claims.

        That is what I am looking for, David. Saying that it “may” be natural is not a meaningful explanation. The IPCC makes the case that it is not natural. So to convince me it’s natural or mostly natural , skeptics need to make the scientific case that it is.. I haven’t seen an explanaton that is generally accepted among the “skeptics.”

      • Joseph said “Skeptics” claim it is mostly natural, So I want to see their evidence.”

        This is not correct. Skeptics say we don’t KNOW how much of the warming is natural versus how much is caused by humans.

        The burden of proof is on you to show it is all caused by humans.

        Because the null hypothesis still stands that the warming is natural.

  35. If I was President of the USA, I would ask Mario Loyola into the administration. He appears to have grasped salient points of the debate, identified many of the weaknesses in the hypothesis of cAGW, and writes very well.

    8/10

  36. “Twilight of the Climate Change movement”

    To me this means that the movement is about to fizzle out. When I began to read it, I was thinking of the link Peter Lang provided in the last thread and this graph:

    I wasn’t really expecting the essay to talk about the dysfunction of the movement. Now that would be means to an end as would lack of political interest but it still wont be THE END. The end of a political movement will not necessarily end government programs as libertarians point out once you start a government program it lives forever.

    I wish I could sing no regrets
    And no emotional debt
    ‘Cause as we kissed goodbye, the sun sets
    So we are history
    Your shadow covers me
    The sky above ablaze
    That only lovers see

    He walks away
    The sun goes down
    He takes the day, but I’m grown
    And in your way
    In this blue shade
    My tears dry on their own

    • Beta Blocker

      Matthew, repeating my comment posted to that WUWT article, it is impossible for the United States to reach President Obama’s GHG reduction targets of 28% by 2025, 32% by 2030, and 80% by 2050 without using existing environmental law to its maximum possible effectiveness, something which the President and the EPA have so far refused to do.

      The US Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has authority to regulate all sources of US carbon emissions. However, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) targets only coal-fired power plants and achieves less than one-quarter of the President’s 80% by 2050 GHG reduction goal. More to the point, the CPP is in jeopardy of being thrown out because it unfairly targets the US coal industry for major GHG reductions while leaving other major sources of US carbon emissions alone.

      It is impossible for emerging market forces and for emerging technologies to drive fossil fuels from the energy marketplace in the relatively short space of time the President’s schedule calls for. Direct, highly-aggressive government intervention in the energy marketplace is necessary if the President’s GHG reduction targets are to be met.

      So the question must be asked, how can the President and the EPA legally and constitutionally accelerate the process of largely decarbonizing America’s economy without further legislative action on the part of the US Congress?

      The answer is simple in concept but politically very tough to put into place.

      Existing environmental law in the form of the Clean Air Act can be invoked to declare a carbon pollution emergency, then to set a NAAQS for carbon dioxide, and then to develop an EPA-managed, state-enforced regulatory framework for carbon which can limit the supply and availability of all fossil fuels and which can directly or indirectly raise the price of those fossil fuels.

      All the laws that climate activists would need to enforce steep reductions in America’s carbon emissions are already on the books today, waiting to be picked up and used. Why aren’t President Obama, the EPA, and the climate activists making full use of the environmental laws that already exist?

      • I don’t mean that the suit is a good event. Only that I don’t think the climate change movement is facing twilight.

      • Beta,

        I believe the answer to the question you’ve posed is directly related to this:

        ” declare a carbon pollution emergency”

        Doesn’t the EPA have to have some basis for doing so? To date there is no real evidence that any sort of emergency condition exists. It is all model based supposition. Much of which relies on some unexplained “tipping” point, which is nothing more than further supposition.

        Barack Obama isn’t worried about CO2 emissions. He’s worried about having a legacy. Unfortunately for him, he’s going to have one. As one of the biggest clowns to hold the office.

      • Beta Blocker

        matthewrmarler: “I don’t mean that the suit is a good event. Only that I don’t think the climate change movement is facing twilight.”

        Global mean temperature must fall continuously for a period of thirty years or more before the climate change movement faces twilight. Otherwise, it is here to stay as a permanent feature of the political landscape.

        timg56: “I believe the answer to the question you’ve posed is directly related to this:
        ‘declare a carbon pollution emergency’
        Doesn’t the EPA have to have some basis for doing so? To date there is no real evidence that any sort of emergency condition exists. It is all model based supposition. Much of which relies on some unexplained “tipping” point, which is nothing more than further supposition.”

        Declaration of a carbon pollution emergency would be handled by the President in an Executive Order. The President has the power under current national security legislation to make such declarations, and President Obama has said repeatedly that climate change represents a greater threat to America’s national security interests than does terrorism.

        The Executive Order supplies a legal basis for the EPA to publish a Section 108 endangerment finding to complement the Section 202 endangerment finding published in 2009. In turn, the Section 108 finding justifies publication of a NAAQS for carbon which in turn enables the EPA to develop an aggressive, broad scope anti-carbon regulatory framework written under sections 108, 111, and 202.

        Six years ago, after the EPA’s Section 202 finding had been successfully defended in the courts, 350.org began pushing for development of a corresponding Section 108 finding. But inexplicably, they abandoned that effort.

        There were questions at the time as to whether or not Section 108 provisions could be legally invoked. A prior Executive Order signed by the President declaring a carbon pollution emergency solves that problem nicely.

        As long as the EPA’s anti-carbon regulatory framework is applied with equal weight to all of America’s GHG emission sources — not just to one narrow segment of the energy industry as the Clean Power Plan now does — lawsuits brought against it aren’t likely to succeed.

      • Beta,

        Very informative response, but your suggested Executive Order just does not sound that plausible. Theoretically the President could issue an order saying all red heads are fifth columnists from the Planet Ginger, and then use force to have them all rounded up. But there are two other branches of government and unless he has some evidence, one or both are likely to prevent this from happening. That Obama claims climate change is our greatest threat, yet hasn’t done what you suggest is evidence even he thinks there are limits to what he can get away with.

      • Beta Blocker

        timg56: “Very informative response, but your suggested Executive Order just does not sound that plausible.”

        If the Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency were written with the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding as its basis, there is every reason to believe it would survive subsequent court challenges as to its legality as an Executive Order. (Assuming it’s ever written in the first place.)

        timg56: “Theoretically the President could issue an order saying all red heads are fifth columnists from the Planet Ginger, and then use force to have them all rounded up. But there are two other branches of government and unless he has some evidence, one or both are likely to prevent this from happening.”

        Let’s note that the Clean Power Plan fails as a carbon reduction strategy because it doesn’t come close to achieving the President’s targets, and because it will probably be successfully challenged in the courts because it favors once major class of GHG emitter at the expense of another major class of GHG emitter.

        As long as the Clean Air Act is applied with equal force against all of America’s carbon emission sources, with minimal favoritism, the courts would probably let an aggressive GHG regulatory framework stand.

        As long as a Democrat remains in the White House, any legislation the Congress might pass to overturn a truly comprehensive decarbonization plan could be vetoed with little chance of an override.

        timg56: “That Obama claims climate change is our greatest threat, yet hasn’t done what you suggest is evidence even he thinks there are limits to what he can get away with.”

        Yes, there is that possibility. The other possibility is that he doesn’t truly believe what he is preaching and is using the issue of climate change simply as a means of keeping America’s environmentally conscious voters in his camp.

  37. “First, in stark contrast to popular belief and to the public statements of government officials and many scientists, the science on which the dire predictions of manmade climate change is based is nowhere near the level of understanding or certainty that popular discourse commonly ascribes to it.”

    It’s based on an ersatz model of the global climate that arbitrarily assumes multi-decadal variability to be internal. Thereby eliminating any recognition of a solar influence on the major ocean modes and hence longer surface temperature trends, before they have even looked for it.

  38. In their book (‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years”), Fred Singer and Dennis Avery ask, “Is there any Power source the Greens will accept?” They answered, beginning with quoted material from Don Thompson (“Environmentalists Sue over Medicine Lake Geothermal Plans,” Associated Press, 20 May 2004), as follows:

    “Environmental groups have sued the federal government over geothermal projects it has approved in the remote Medicine Lake Highlands region considered sacred by Indian tribes. The suit, filed Tuesday and announced Wednesday, challenges approval of the first two geothermal power plants proposed by Calpine Corp. Both would be built within the Medicine Lake caldera, the remnant of an ancient volcano 30 miles east of Mt. Shasta… in northeastern California. The four environmental coalitions that filed the suit in Sacramento federal court contend the power projects… would turn an otherwise scenic natural area into ‘an ugly, noisy, stinking industrial wasteland.’”

    The proposed geothermal power plants would emit no greenhouse gases nor would they produce radioactive waste. They would even feed into the existing Bonneville power grid without the need to create extensive new transmission lines and rights of way. And even this is unacceptable because it would create a few nine-story power plants on fifteen-acre pads in a remote location where almost no one would have to look at them.

    So, the answer is, No! The radical environmentalists who have found a welcome home on the Left are the new Neanderthals of the 21st century.

  39. “The movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether.”

    The movement only partly embrace the precautionary principle. United Nations seems to have forgotten that the precautionary principle also applies to the ideas pushed by United Nations. This is Wikipedias explanation of the principle:

    «The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.»

    These are the kind of changes United Nations want to bring about:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
    – Christiana Figueres, who heads up the United Nations’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

    “The tools that you design, the financial structures that you develop, the blends that you are able to put together, all of that, in the next five years, will decide the quality of certainly the energy and certainly the quality of the global economy for the next thirty-five years, and hence the quality of life for everyone else for hundreds of years.”
    – Christina Figueres
    http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-climate-summit-of-money&gt; The New Yorker – The Climate Summit of Money

    I can think of a few others who intentionally brought about radical changes to a society or developed financial structures. It didn´t always turn out well.

    An example of failure:
    The congressional committee’s Democratic chairman, Henry Waxman, pressed him: “You found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?” Greenspan agreed: “That’s precisely the reason I was shocked because I’d been going for 40 years or so with considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    United Nations is pushing a policy, and a whole range of actions on the public. A range of actions which is potentially harmful to the public. A range of action which might cause cost push inflation, general price inflation, energy poverty and general poverty. All of which will hit the poor hardest.

  40. I like this: “Imagine something that is entirely possible—that a single such technological breakthrough enables us to control the world’s average temperatures. Could we then agree on what the ideal temperature should be? Is the current global average temperature the ideal one? Many would take that for granted, and climate alarmists appear to presuppose it, but the proposition is hardly self-evident.”
    Could start a lot of conflicts.

  41. The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy.

    I do not understand why this should be true.

    Let’s say the planet were going to roast because of some natural change? Let’s say we could do something about it (say put huge reflectors in space, for instance). Should we then lie down and say “Oh, it’s natural, we need to suffer it?”

    Let’s say all of it is on account of human behavior, but it is not realistically possible to change human behavior? How is the result any less different from whether “all” or “nearly all” is on account of humans?

    It seems to me “all” or “nearly all” is a proxy for “We can do something about it,” and the corollary is “If it is natural there is nothing we can do about it.” It’s not clear to me these conclusions follow.

    On the evil side of things, there is this idea that if it is human caused warming, we can guilt people into “doing the right thing.” My more cynical nature says “No, you can’t.” Action will be driven by what is good for (selfish) people. I think there is an element of selfishness from many of the AGW alarmists, because they want what they view as “good” solutions, not practical ones (to wit, natural gas, perhaps nuclear, are practical solutions).

  42. David Wojick

    The reasoning is good but the conclusion does not follow. Policies driven by social movements are not based on cost benefit analysis. The climate change movement is strong and will remain so for the forseeable future.

  43. The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy.

    These are both hugely important points, that I have tried to make also, but alas not as concisely or elegantly.”

    If it’s a hugely important point, the AR5 should be properly quoted. Neither Loyola nor this post does that, despite claiming the distinction is hugely important. What the AR5 said in full was:

    “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. “

    If he thinks the distinction between “more than half” and “all or nearly all” is so important, it would be at least worth mentioning that the AR5 did say that their best estimate was “all”, not “more than half”. Except that they don’t say “all”, because that is the wrong concept. There was an amount of AGW, and warming or cooling due to other effects. The observed warming could well have been the result of an even larger AGW offset by some transient natural cooling. More than “all”. This is really not hard.

    • More than half includes “all or nearly all.” If “all” or “nearly all” is correct, then “more than half” is also correct, and is at least as likely as “all” or “nearly all.”

      So what does it mean for the IPCC to express all or nearly all is “the best estimate”? It sounds like a value judgement that ought to be left up to policy makers. Instead of “the best estimate,” it should be written “70% likely all or nearly all” or whatever English equivalent they want to use to make their case.

      • This is where a picture is worth a thousand words. Most people understand this more than the various phrasings that say the same thing as this.

    • “So what does it mean for the IPCC to express all or nearly all is “the best estimate”? It sounds like a value judgement that ought to be left up to policy makers”

      I can’t see why this causes any difficulty. Even a legal scholar should be able to figure it out. At least he should report properly (“more than half”) what the IPCC did say, so that others can figure it out. It’s just confidence intervals. The IPCC says that an AGW amount equal to the observed warming is their best estimate, with lower confidence interval (at high level) equal to half. Just like most scientific findings are reported.

      As to the terminology, imagine a mining firm earning $5B from iron, $3B from copper, and losing $3B on coal. Observed profit $5B. So you can say more than half earnings came from iron. But, careful, you can also say that of copper. And you can say, IPCC-like, that the earnings from iron were similar to the observed profit. Does that mean that iron amounted to “all” earnings? What if Cu made only $2B, so observed profit $4B. Did iron make “all” the profit? You can tie yourself in knots if you really want to. Loyola seems to really want to. But it’s not hard.

      • So what I get from your diagram, jim D., is that it is equally likely the amount of warming is less than 110% of the warming seen, and half the time it is more than 110%, according to the beliefs of the IPCC.

        According to your diagram, it’s not “almost all” or “all” as the “best” guess, but 110% of warming is the “best” guess, where here “best” means the point at which less or more anthro warming is equally likely.

        Let the policy makers chew on that assessment.

      • By your accounting, it would be just as valid to say that the increase in carbon uptake is about the same as the increase in atmospheric CO2.

  44. Excellent summation by Loyola. What a pleasure to read!

    It seems to me, however, that the real problem isn’t the Marxist/Collectivists/Authoritarians who have found a cover in the environmental movement in general and CAGW in particular. It’s a problem of everyone else and in particular of skeptics who are too weak kneed to challenge these fascists at every turn and in every way. These people say the most absurd things and get away with it.

    Here is an example given just above. The lawsuit that was allowed to go ahead by a judge that should be fired and engineered by two people guilty of intellectual fraud as well as a despicable world view that should be challenged by any sane person interested in freedom and intellectual integrity. But these people get a free pass. They bring a lawsuit that has no merit, but having merit is irrelevant. They are out to achieve their ends by any means necessary whereas the intellectual forces that would act as a counter to their particularly vile, nasty insanity is…where?

    CEI gets a demand from the AG of the Virgin Islands for documents and whines instead of telling the AG to go pound sand and that they won’t be bullied or intimidated into complying with orders that amount to nothing more than abuse of power.

    These green fascists can call for lying and not get called out on it. They can commit intellectual fraud and not get called out on it. They can abuse power and not get called out on it. The side that would oppose them seems timid, afraid and not willing to engage in a fight.

    We need 100 Mark Steyns to counter this horrendous nonsense and waste that is done in the name of science which is little more than a euphemism for rent seeking and a hatred of Western Civilization. Instead we get 1000’s of Pee Wee Hermans who fold when a warmist says Boo!

    I am enormously grateful for the work Dr. Curry does along with Mckitrck and Lindzen and others but it isn’t sufficient to counter a cultural/political movement. Facts’ and logic are fine things and necessary but when you use them with another you must assume that the ‘other’ is as interested in facts and logic as you are. The jokers who are the vanguard of the Green Fascists have as much interest in facts and logic as does any Marxist/Collectivist/Authoritarian movement. That is, none.

    If someone was making a case for White supremacism and Brown shirts, there would be loud howling and often. But when you have the Green Fascists doing exactly the same thing minus the language triggers, everyone seems to think, ‘Oh, they are silly.’ Or, ‘They are mistaken.’ No. They are evil and it seems that the modern man who has inherited the enlightenment has forgotten what the enlightenment had to fight and fought with blood, sweat and tears. The people who push the CAGW meme are not mistaken…they are evil.

    You cannot engage in shabby intellectual practices when lives are at stake and not be evil.

    Let me quote myself: “No government will long endure limitations to its power if the people are not willing to assert their rights.” The assertion of rights is not a game of Mother May I. And people like McKibben and Klein and Orestes and Gore and Holdren and Obama have free rein to get away with as much as they can and what they want to get away with is a lot and is extraordinarily damaging and there is nothing to stop them except the will to do so in the people who can see them as the intellectual frauds that they are. It’s pretty distressing to see freedom, intellectual integrity, science and the foundational values of Western Civilization trashed on a daily basis by these yahoos and no one willing to take them on.

    • The old ‘challenged’ Book, covers the ways of man in the books of: Judges, Kings, Chronicles. Separate the believer from the state and here we are.

      http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment

      At this stage it is no longer about truth it is about pride.

      • Do climate-change deniers deserve punishment?

        I think just being a climate change denier or skeptic is punishment enough in itself.
        Those I see here at CE don’t seem happy. Misery likes company, and at CE they can find company for their misery.

      • Do climate-change deniers deserve punishment?

        Do photosynthesis deniers deserve punishment?
        Human mortality deniers?
        Economics deniers?

      • max1ok, did you read the comments? Who’s the denier now? You!

      • Beats me what you think I am denying by expressing my opinion that being a climate denier is punishment enough in itself. Perhaps the deniers seem happy to you, and you believe I’m denying they are happy?

      • You are not able to comprehend that you are the one outside the new consensus. AGW is over, you are in denial. Try to have a nice day for once.

      • AGW has apparently caused an increase in predipitation as a biblical torrent of dipchits are raining all over the place.

      • Max

        John Cook needs your help on his next project

        ‘does denialism cause unhappiness, bad breath and mental instability amongst its adherents?’.

        I think there may be a public grant available .

        tonyb

      • max1ok,

        You wrote –

        “Beats me what you think I am denying by expressing my opinion that being a climate denier is punishment enough in itself.”

        Seeing that climate is the average of weather over an arbitrary time period, name one (just one) person who denies this fact. I don’t believe you can, so your opinion is possibly moot.

        You seem to be denying the fact that logical and rational people might accept that climate is the average of weather, no more and no less. There is no mystery here. Denying a fact won’t make it vanish, no matter how much religious fervour you employ. Good luck trying!

        Cheers.

      • Hi tony and mike,

        Tony, mostly what I see here at CS are crumudgeons who complain too much to be happy. I’m not sure why they are unhappy. I could offer some guesses, but I won’t. You are an exception. I don’t think you are unhappy. I hope you are happy.

        Mike, last time I had a conversation with you I ended up in moderation.
        You seem very pleased with yourself, which I take to mean you are happy. Like Tony, you are among the exceptions here. If you have anything to say, I probably won’t reply, because I now budget my comments to avoid moderation.

      • All aboard the Green Wagon Express
        for a fear ‘n guilt trip you’ll never forget,
        destination pessimist Doomsday City,
        – virgins to travel free of cost,
        (up to arrival time where upon
        a trifling price may be exacted)
        sacrifices must be expected
        as you’d likely understand,
        given human trans-gress-ivity,
        traced way back to one called Adam,
        sinful procreator of the human
        scourge that’s creatively spreading
        across the earth and needs be
        seriouslyreduced to a group of worthy
        greencustodians who’ll care for the
        pride of lions, tigers, spiders …
        tse-tse flies, smiling crocodiles,
        more deserving of life on earth than us.
        oh we sinners, (though a few must
        needs be kept alive to do the
        necessary werk.)

        A jolly serf. :)

      • Max I am pleased that you have budgeted yourself. Your posts have always been fun to read, but now, like chocolate, we readers need to be careful not to overindulge!

      • Citizen Max, I too very much enjoy your posts, but perhaps you need some of JCH’s fire and drama. The guy’s a machine. You are probably too young to remember his electrifying address to the UN, when he totally buried us:

      • Wow, reading threads with Jim D is like looking for kernels of corn to eat in pig $#!+, reading threads with Max10K is like looking for pig $#!+ to eat in pig $#!+.

      • Peter Davies and mosomoso,

        You two are either fans of the Three Stooges or must have started drinking early if you think max provides anything of value?

      • Many thanks for the kind comments. As Peter said, my posts are like chocolates.
        Consuming too many can make you ill, as timg56 has found out.

        I know the following will cause fossil fuel luddites to run for Pepto Bismo, but I’ll say it anyway.(timg56 STOP READING NOW).

        Wind power is now cheaper than fossil fuel power in Texas. And you can’t deplete wind. This means thanks to wind power, future generations will not run out of fossil fuel so soon.

        http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/apr/12/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-wind-power-cheaper-texas-power-d/

      • max1ok,

        You wrote –

        “Wind power is now cheaper than fossil fuel power in Texas. And you can’t deplete wind.”

        Maybe you saw this quote –

        “Barack Obama says wind power cheaper in Texas than power from ‘dirty fossil fuels'”.

        Obama being a Nobel a Laureate, is obviously a man to be believed. Or not, as you wish.

        One problem with wind power is that there doesn’t actually seem to be any available when the wind isn’t blowing. “Nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’, but it’s free!” – from Me and Bobby McGee.

        As to your other statement that you can’t deplete wind, of course you can. Wind is air in motion. Motion requires energy. Remove the energy, and motion stops. Just air, no,wind.

        Typical Warmist assertion, based on wishful thinking rather than fact, or even theory. Got any facts, or just more bizarre fantasies?

        Cheers.

      • mike, the facts were there in the link. Apparently, you never read past the Obama quote.

        I can understand why fossil fuel luddites are in a panic over wind power. Nuclear power advocates are alarmed too. But wind power is so good that even an oil-rich state like Texas can’t pass it up. After all the worlds fossil fuels have been used and there aren’t no more, we will still have good old wind. Wind power may become so abundant that we will be paid to use it. You won’t have to go to the trouble of turning your lights and appliances off anymore. OK, I exaggerate a little.

      • max10k,

        There’s truth, truthiness and Warmist propaganda.

        From your link –

        “Availability at all times aside, we wondered, is it also so that wind-fueled power is lately cheaper in Texas than power drawn from fossil fuels? “And dog meat in China is cheaper than Kobe beef in NYC,” Stacy wrote, “but it isn’t the same thing, is it?””

        As it happens, water, sunlight, wind, oil, gas and coal are all free. Not to mention uranium, piezo electric crystals, and slave labour!

        Turning any of them into electricity is not.

        Obama also referred to dirty fossil fuels. What’s wrong with dirt? God loves dirt, that’s why he made so much of it! Ever tried to grow food without dirt? Does Obama realise that his breakfast cereal is probably grown in soil that is laden with bacteria, viruses, strange micro organisms, all sorts of creepy crawlies, bugs, worms, faeces of various sorts, and other dirty stuff? Farmers, unlike most lawyers and politicians, get their hands dirty. So do all the people who build and fix the things that the inhabitants of the ivory towers decry as being dirty and definitely beneath them.

        I suppose these fanatical anti-fossil fuel spruikers fondly imagine that all their wind turbines, solar panels, distribution networks an so on, spring fully formed into existence, like Athena. And then, miraculously, operate to infinity and beyond, requiring no dirty filthy lubricants, or evil carcinogen laden solvents, or even poisons derived from filthy fossil deposits of coal and oil, used in paint, metal refining, plastics and so on.

        Bah! Humbug! What a mess!

        Cheers.

      • Another great link thank you Peter L. People like JCH and VTG need to see this!

      • Gee max,

        Did you read beyond the first couple of paragraphs in the article you linked to? If so you must have missed the part explaining how Obama’s claim is based on an apples to oranges comparison.

        And what does this statement mean? “And you can’t deplete wind. ”

        News flash max, wind has its own self depletion characteristic. As in sometimes it blows and other times it doesn’t. To the tune of it being “depleted” more than 70% of the time.

      • Definitions of two words frequently misunderstood or not understood at ClimateEtc

        deplete: to use most or all of (something important) : to greatly reduce the amount of (something).
        http://www.merriam-webster.com

        mooncalf: a congenitally grossly deformed and mentally defective person. http://www.dictionary.com

        An example of “deplete” and “mooncalf” used in a sentence: mike flynn and timg56 believe we can deplete wind by using most or all of it, leaving us with very little wind or none at all for the future, but their belief is patently absurd, which means they could be mooncalves. However, they may be no more than mentally defective.

      • max1ok,

        You wrote –

        “mike flynn and timg56 believe we can deplete wind by using most or all of it, leaving us with very little wind or none at all for the future, but their belief is patently absurd,”

        Possibly I chose my words poorly. Warmists do not seem to to appreciate that there is wind, wind, and wind, so to speak.

        As I said, wind is air in motion, and the energy providing the motion generally originates from the Sun. In theory, an inexhaustible free power source. In practice, expensive, intermittent and unreliable, and of low overall utility. Generally, not cost effective.

        An example of the depletion of wind can be seen during a sail boat race, when a boat “steals wind”, depleting the wind available wind to another boat, by using it. As far as wind farms go, the following might be of interest –

        “As wind turbines remove energy from the wind, an associated slowdown effect can be substantial for large wind farms; resulting in proportionally less energy generated for each turbine compared to the electricity that would be produced by a single, isolated wind turbine.”

        So the downwind turbines are operating in wind which has had its energy depleted by upwind turbines.

        There are many other relevant papers –

        “New research that was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has similarly attempted to answer the question, “What happens to the wind when a larger number of wind turbines removes more and more of the energy of atmospheric motion?””

        I hope this expresses more clearly what I meant to say. The energy in a given quantity of wind can obviously be depleted. However, hopefully there will be more wind tomorrow – of course, it’s a whole new wind! Miraculously undepleted, if you wish. I agree.

        Apologies if you didn’t comprehend my intent. I should have been clearer.

        Cheers.

      • Thank you, Mike, no apology is necessary. Clearly, we do not agree on the definition of “depleted,” but you are entitled to your opinion of what the word means. I apologize for saying you could be a mooncalf.

        I still think timg56 could be one. He is mentally deficient, and the fact he was in the submarine corps could mean the Navy was trying to keep him out of view.
        I still think timg56

      • You know max I understand it is a lot easier to argue against what you wished a person said – “timg56 believe we can deplete wind by using most or all of it, leaving us with very little wind or none at all for the future, ” – verses what they actually said – “wind has its own self depletion characteristic. As in sometimes it blows and other times it doesn’t. To the tune of it being “depleted” more than 70% of the time.”

        But it does little to improve your credibility.

        Should I bother asking if you understand the difference between present and future tense?

        And have you stopped to consider the effect on your credibility when someone who is apparently mentally defective in your opinion so easily points out the ridiculous claims and comments you drop like pigeon poop?

    • That’s a great comment Daniel.

      A prefect exemplar of climate “scepticism” being about political paranoia rather than physical science.

      What a damning indictment of Judith’s blog that these views are so mainstream here they attract no real notice.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        “A prefect exemplar of climate “scepticism” being about political paranoia rather than physical science.”
        Except for the parts which ARE about the physical science.
        Are you here for the political paranoia, or for the physical science?

      • Danny,

        you’re going to have to quote me some physical science from Daniel’s post. I can see lots of “fascist!” and “evil!” but not an iota of science. However, I may have missed it. Do reveal.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        I was speaking (typing) in the bigger picture other than Daniel’s post. But I think you knew that.

        I ignore the ‘facist’ and ‘evil’ but not the physical science. You?

        Your response belies the best ‘exemplar’ of ‘scepticism’. Would you care to make another attempt? Or do you not see any reasonable ‘prefect exemplars’ based in physical evidence which are contrary to the concerns of ‘catastrophic global warming’? You may have missed it.

      • Danny,

        Daniel’s comment is a perfect condensation of the irrationality and rage. It has it’s own beauty and internal logic, whilst wildly self contradictory and counterfactual. Kind of like listening to Trump.

        The point is, here, it’s just normal, everyday. Anything goes, as long as it’s anti-AGW.

        Lewandowsky hypothesised that this was driven by politics. This blog is living proof of that. Daniel fits in just great.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        While I don’t disagree that elements of this blog are soley political in nature, I do disagree that all elements are. This kind of representation are no better than the elements which are only political which paints you with the same brush.

        While you may be tall, a fall from a high horse may lead to injury.

        “The point is, here, it’s just normal, everyday. Anything goes, as long as it’s anti-AGW.” is a knife which cuts two ways.

        Those more climate concerned are at times equally as unresponsive to the physical evidence. Tell it like it is.

      • Danny

        Those more climate concerned are at times equally as unresponsive to the physical evidence.

        I’d be interested to see your evidence for this. What I see, for instance in recent responses to the big Hansen paper, is considerable scepticism to grandiose claims. Likewise the recent clouds piece by Tan, Storelvmo & Zelinka.

        Whereas, just for instance, Lewis and Curry’s claims of being the one true measure of sensitivity are lapped up uncritically by “sceptics”.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,

        Well, your Hansen reference is reasonable in that there appears to be some skepticism from the more non-skeptic side.

        I’ve not seen the much acceptance of (just a few quick examples):
        Sheffield: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
        Zwally:
        http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
        Tolstoy:
        http://time.com/3698572/science-maya-tolstoy-geophysical-research-letters-volcanoes-climate-change/
        Fyfe vs. Karl (Re: Pause vs. no pause)

        Maybe skepticism is a common thread after all?

        Revisiting my original comment: “Those more climate concerned are at times equally as unresponsive to the physical evidence.”

        Very interesting.

      • At a rcent news conference in Brussels, Christiana
        Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework
        Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the
        goal of environmental activists is not to save the
        world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we
        are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a
        defined period of time, to change the economic
        development model that has been reigning for at least
        150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

        … It was nevah about the science it was evah about
        the politics, Mike’s nature trick and hockey sticks,
        Lewandowsky’s creativity with statistics…

      • Beth,

        It was nevah about the science it was evah about
        the politics

        A great summation of the “sceptic” position

      • Danny,

        sorry, you’ve lost me. Not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. I’ll assume you are :-)

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,

        Agree and disagree.

        From your original: “A prefect exemplar of climate “scepticism” being about political paranoia rather than physical science.”

        Some ‘skeptical’ expressed viewpoints are political (won’t characterize as paranoia), but some are indeed about the physical science.

        Offered were representative papers against which skepticism has occurred from the side of those more climate concerned.

        From your definition above, therefore, those more climate concerned must also suffer the same malady.

        So suggesting again: “Your response belies the best ‘exemplar’ of ‘scepticism’. Would you care to make another attempt?”

        Personally, I’ve never been lost. However, I was powerfully turned around for three weeks one time. :)

      • No, vtg, its a summation of the ‘alarmist’ position
        given those on the record statements by Figueres,
        Orestes et AL and record of nature tricks and survey
        tricks caught in the act, its a logical sceptical
        perception of that alarmist position.

      • I have no idea what Danny thinks Zwally should cause to happen… but since Zwally there has been research that calls his result it into question. You have one paper, Zwally, versus several others. That doesn’t make Zwally wrong, but it’s probably best to wait for additional work. And Zwally basically says he will be wrong with time, and he warned skeptics would abuse his findings.

        And while we’re there, the common characterization that Zwally’s finding was also NASA’s finding tells you what was really going on with Zwally on blogs… the advancement of a political agenda.

        As for Sheffield and drought, a subsequent study stated:

        Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.

        As for Fyfe versus Karl, it is yet another example where a supposed contradiction and refutation is actually they mostly agree about almost everything.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        Much appreciation for reinforcing my point.

        “That doesn’t make Zwally wrong, but it’s probably best to wait for additional work.” Isn’t skepticism a good thing?

        I don’t think Zwally should cause anything to happen other than exactly what you suggest. We agree fully. Zwally is counter to alternative evidence. One of those sets of evidence is more accurate than the other. Waiting for additional work to substantiate what is taking place in Antarctica seems a prudent approach.

        Can’t imagine Zwally would characterize that thought process as being abusive, but if so then both you (more climate concerned) and I (a more skeptical lukewarmer) would face his concern. Framing (which I gather is important nowadays) would lead to those who think like we do being labeled skeptic. Then using VTG’s definition we therefore must be politically paranoid.

        Re: Sheffield. Take it further. Presuming you’re referring to the Trenberth work (please correct if inaccurate), Sheffield and Trenberth collaborated (Dai also among others) and that work did not say that the Sheffield work was wrong. And yes, it does say:”Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.” but this hasn’t happened since your preferred date of 1950 ‘when natural variability began it’s wholesale abandonment’ of being a player. 65 plus years (coincidentally the Sheffield time frame) and ZERO increase in drought. I mean, hell, there’s been 110% more warming during that time frame according to some. Funny that.

        Fyfe vs. Karl. Agree with almost everything EXCEPT if there is/was a ‘pause/hiatus’ or not. Isn’t that kinda the main point of contention?

        VTG’s characterization of ‘skepticism’ is either a misstatement or he too is showcasing political paranoia wouldn’t you say?

        Appreciate the assistance there JCH. Glad you had my back, only wish you weren’t holding that sharp object in your hand presumably looking for a place to put it.

      • Danny,

        I think you’re showing that there is a difference between scepticism and “scepticism”. Which I’d agree with.

        As to political paranoia, go back to Daniel’s comment, count the “fascists ” and count the challenges from denizens. Telling, no?

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        I don’t perceive it as all that telling. BTS provided reasons for skeptical paranoia of decision making based on incomplete, inconclusive, and/or incorrect information. Heck, even JCH and I find areas of agreement calling for additional research.

        Others, I often find, don’t delve in to the political topics due to the never ending cycle. Some, apparently like VTG, prefer to prod it along.

      • VTG,

        It’s well recognized here that much of what is referred to as being about the science is mainly about policy and politics. On both sides of the argument. Only a dishonest jackass tries to claim it’s all skeptics, all the time.

        But then you established that about yourself a long time ago.

      • You’re welcome timg.

        Look forward to your link to any “alarmist” blog tolerating calling opponents “fascists” without anyone even bothering to comment.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        That happens pretty regularly skeptic to skeptic over on the presidential threads. Don’t take offense.
        It doesn’t make it any better to call alternative names in response.

      • Danny,

        I’ve no intention of reading those threads, but you make my point- this behavior is simply normal for “sceptics” at least here.

        You seem to imply that makes it ok; I would disagree.

        As to my name calling, perhaps if you’re going to accuse me of it, you could provide a link to it?

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,
        Political paranoids ring a bell? Irrational? Rage(ing)? If you really need a link, can provide.

        All wrapped up with a Lew bow surrounding the entire blog.

        “this behavior is simply normal for “sceptics” at least here.”

        No different than Daniel’s unspecific “These green fascists”.

        One calling another for doing something then that one doing the same thing with different words, unspecifically of course. I don’t imply that it’s okay at all, from either of you. But you chose to call out Daniel and I figured what the heck, shouldn’t you be called out also?

        I consider myself a lukewarmer skeptic and don’t think I’m paranoid (politically or otherwise), irrational (eh, sometimes maybe), raging (never), or what ever other description you chose to use for skeptics.

        So VTG. There it is.

      • Danny,

        Your continued attempt to compare anything I’ve written to calling folk repeatedly “fascist” and “evil” is, to put it very mildly, a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you’re just embarrassed at being associated with Daniel? I would be.

        As to the wider blog, what I pointed out was that this was an exemplar of the lead role of politics rather than science here; any read of any thread backs that up. Plus Daniel’s views were so normal here they didn’t even raise a response.

        I’d say that’s damning of the typical discourse here.

      • Danny Thomas

        VTG,

        As long as you’re sufficiently proud of your own words leading to your continued defense of them is all that’s important.

        You did not say it was an examplar, you said is was the PERFECT examplar. Pretty certain you understand the difference. Reminder of what you chose: ““A prefect exemplar of climate “scepticism” being about political paranoia rather than physical science.””

        Daniels words belong to him. Mine to me, and YOURS to you. I’m not embarrassed about association as I’m not responsible for his choice. He has the right to speak as freely as the blog owner allows (and be called out for his choice of words).

        Softening your words is one approach when you rewrite them. Or, you could just be up front and say you could have chosen better. Chastise him, behaving the same, then defending that choice provides interesting perspective VTG. We all have bad days.

      • VTG…so you’re one of the walking blind who think a fact is a fact to all and the only game afoot is one of who has the mostest and the bestest facts. Really? Is that level of naivete requisite to do science?

        How many millions of people have died as a result of the idiocy of Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson and the rest of the anti-Western Civilization intellectual frauds?

        How many people were harmed by the run of eugenics? How many lives destroyed by Lysenko-ism?

        All done with the patina of science that apparently is enough to blind some people to what is evil. Unless the lives of millions cut short on the altar of ‘consensus’ and authoritarianism is a big yawn to those of you who pursue the ‘purity’ of science.

        Science is hugely important, it’s critical to sustain the values of the enlightenment but it requires moral courage and intellectual integrity which is sorely lacking in those who push this Green Fascist movement. Ergo, to think that all one needs do is focus on the strictly scientific issues is to go into the world half blind and to allow oneself to be swept up in the next insane ‘movement.’

        Why would anyone want to do that?

      • Hi Daniel, great of you to come back.

        I think it’s probably best all round if I retire at this point and leave your comment to speak for itself.

        It’s quite remarkable.

      • Daniel E Hofford ,

        Well said. VTG is just one of those people who is immune to rational analysis and discussion.

        A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussionhttp://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

      • stevenreincarnated

        VTG, exactly, what a bunch of paranoids. In the meantime that argument that deniers should be investigated under RICO is a really powerful scientific argument. What do you think the feedbacks from that sort of forcing is?

      • Danny Thomas

        SR,
        In this context, this is a fantastic question: “What do you think the feedbacks from that sort of forcing is?”

        + bunches

      • A prefect exemplar of climate “scepticism” being about political paranoia rather than physical science.

        Completely arseaboutface of course. In reality the perfect exemplar of beliefs being rooted in politics rather than physical science, is the CAGW ‘believers’, whose support and credulity comes from CAGW being such a great wheeze for more taxes and political expansionism. No wonder O’Barmy is so committed to it.

      • The only thing remarkable VTG is the extent you’ve gone to making a fool of yourself over a trivial non-issue. But then that’s common with smug bast*ards.

  45. A very important part of this is resilience planning. Downplaying, as “skeptics” do, climate change as small, slow, or temporary detracts from the need to plan for resilience, but thankfully Paris also has led to serious look at how resilience is affected by a rapidly changing climate, which is a necessary calculation. Here is one article about how developing countries need to plan for a transitioning climate because of their vulnerabilities.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-roome/a-plan-to-tackle-a-changi_b_9663740.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change

    • JimD, well, no. Climate activists actively dislike moves towards resilience, as it is expressed locally, often through adaptation. Activists want global mitigation.

      Climate activists have protested funding of power plants if they were powered by fossil fuels, against dams in the developing (and developed world), against extraction of minerals or fuels.

      In each case they are campaigning against resilience of communities and often explicitly express their indifference to it. They do not ever say, ‘Well, if we don’t let you build the coal power plant we’ll give you an equivalent amount of solar panels for the same price.’

      Advocates for resilience are much more likely to be found on the skeptic/lukewarmer side of the playing field.

      • For developing countries, as in the article I linked, resilience is the only thing they can do. For developed countries it is all of the above including mitigation as a key component (see Paris). It doesn’t make sense to say developing countries have to mitigate, but they can make wise choices in how they increase their energy usage.

      • It doesn’t make sense to say developing countries have to mitigate…

        Given that the US has approximately 50 million people in poverty, which is more people than live in all but 26 of the other 195+/- countries on earth — I would argue that America is still a developing nation.

      • For developing countries, as in the article I linked, resilience is the only thing they can do.

        Do for what?

        Other than your imagination, there is no problem to mitigate.

        This is the implied narrative that shows how irrational governments can be.

        People imagine some effect from rising temperature and it sounds plausible. It implies some harm which may be totally false, but because it is plausible and implies harm, people accept it and castigate anyone who raises questions.

        Polar bears: sea ice decline starves the seal hunting bears.
        This is false, but the misguided protest you driving to work because you’re a polar bear killer.

        Well, it’s time to call out the falsehoods and irrational.

    • Jim D
      downplaying, as “skeptics” do …

      A “skeptic” to a precommitted alarmist like yourself, being anyone who doesn’t as you do, swallow whole the”science” produced by the politically-funded scientivists of the climate establishment.

  46. Jim D,

    You wrote –

    “Downplaying, as “skeptics” do, climate change as small, slow, or temporary . . . ”

    You might care to define “climate change”, else you could be seen as indulging in the Waffling Warmist Weasel Word fantasy.

    The weather, and hence the climate, changes continuously. Some events, such as the Younger Dryas event, the Akkadian Collapse, and many others, show the rapidity with which weather patterns can change. Is this climate change?

    At least the denialist Warmist community seems to be moving away from the mad insistence that the wondrous plant food, CO2, is evil, evil, evil!

    Calling for “resilience” is just another attempt by the Witless Warmists to bend others to their will. Resilience didn’t seem to help the residents of Pompeii to survive the wrath of Vesuvius. Or the 35,000 people who died when Krakatoa erupted.

    “Ah,” you might say, “This is not climate change!” Are you claiming that the definition of resilience changes depending on whether the cause of death is a volcano, or a flood? So how about floods, droughts, villages being overwhelmed by glacial advance, cold snaps or heat waves?

    What sort of climate change resilience planning are you currently undertaking? I’ll guess absolutely none, but you might surprise me. People in general make assumptions about the future, and then take such actions as they can to maximise their future happiness. What do you do?

    You might want to lead by example. After you have survived, when all around you have died, you will have proved your point. Good luck.

    Cheers.

  47. The main article here mentions adaptation while also not recognizing that climate change is a problem they can plan ahead for so nothing is said about resilience. Really adaptation is failed resilience because by definition it is after the fact. Some may adapt their food sources thinking that the current climate is a temporary setback, while others would plan for change and be resilient. It is an important difference that is not well appreciated.

    • JimD, well, no again. You can call construction of levees against projected storm surges pre-adaptation if you want, but it’s happening now in many parts of the world and it is local adaptation to climate change, even if the climate change hasn’t happened yet.

      These actions do not reduce emissions, so they are not mitigation. They are not global. They are specifically targeting impacts of climate change. They are adaptation before the fact.

      • This is the point. Reslience is planning ahead. To plan ahead you have to know what kind of change is coming, and that is where denialists are not helping. If a state makes it illegal to consider sea-level rise in planning, that is plain wrong and anti-resilience. This is the distinction I am making. Resilience planning has built-in assumptions, such as sea-level rise rates or other climate-change occurring in one direction, and not just oscillating randomly as “skeptics” would have us think.

      • JimD, planners should have information about sea level rise, although information on subsidence vs. uplift is likely to prove more useful. But when planners try to use IPCC guidance activists insist they use more fanciful figures put forward as more recent, more logical… more congenial to activists.

      • The Army Corps of Engineers know that the IPCC estimates are low and tend to use middle estimates of 1 meter by 2100, with a high of 1.5 m. The IPCC estimates are generally considered low because by their own admission they don’t project accelerated glacier melt rates, just steady ones, which they realize may be low.

      • jimd

        link please, that supports your assertion of a 1 metre plus rise by 2100 being used by the army engineers

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/ECs/EC11652212Nov2011.pdf

        Using history as a guide gives you a MINIMUM for planning

      • Steven Mosher,

        Didn’t someone already point out that past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future?

        In any case, I didn’t see references to projected rates of coastal land elevation or subsidence which of course affect sea levels.

        These factors have been well documented and researched by experts in the field. Presumably Army engineers are well aware of vertical land movements, but I couldn’t see any obvious references to same, with predictions.

        Could you help by providing links to such information as used by Army engineers for planning purposes? Surely they are not just ignoring history!

        Cheers.

      • Climate planning with modern militaries…Is there a drone for that? We like to keep our climate experts indoors, at the monitor and away from cloud (especially).

        Well, I’m sure the console warriors who gave us Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Syria will be able to come up with all kinds of interesting projections and solutions for climate. And if the temps and sea levels go the other way – as they tend to do now and then – there’s always exit strategy.

        Decades of juicy expenditure ahead for the Green Soldier who keeps his boots on the carpet, his eyes on the the monitor…and doesn’t fall foul of LGBT, gender, transgender and cisgender politics. Of course, there may be new forms of gender/sexuality he/she/it will need to anticipate, but life is full of such challenges.

        – ATTC

      • Steven Mosher

        tonyb wanted a reference for the army corps of engineers.
        provided.
        And their professional opinion that history is a good guide for minimums

        basically this.

        If you have a long record ( they say 40 years or more) then that record
        will be a good guide to a MINIMUM expected sea level rise.
        For the high end they use the IPCC numbers

        Its pretty simple. History is no guide. But, if your job is guessing
        how much the sea will rise then

        1. Extrapolate history for a minimum
        2. Use IPCC for the high end
        3. Add even more safety factor if you want.

        The Japanese mayor who saved his village by building a HUGE tsunami wall was laughed at for a long time.. Then he wasnt laughed at.

        Some folks have jobs guessing
        (Heck we had to guess at what the soviets would field as weapons 20 years into the future )
        When it comes to Sea level increase who you gunna call?

        Mike Flynn? nope
        Me? nope
        Army Corps of Engineers.. you could do worse.

        And what do the engineers say?

        read the document.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Could you help by providing links to such information as used by Army engineers for planning purposes? Surely they are not just ignoring history!”

        I gave you the link. are you illiterate?

        They suggest using history as a MINIMUM expected sea level rise.
        LIKE I SAID..

        They have an 18 step planning guide.

        its 32 pages plus appendix.

        took me a few minutes to read it.

        try reading more and commenting less

      • Steven Mosher

        “In any case, I didn’t see references to projected rates of coastal land elevation or subsidence which of course affect sea levels.”

        Are you illiterate. Here is what they say

        B-2. Determination of Historic Trends in Local MSL.
        a. The planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of USACE water
        resource projects in and adjacent to the coastal zone must consider the potential for future
        accelerated rise in GMSL to affect the local MSL trend. At the same time, USACE project
        planners and engineers must be aware of the historic trend in local MSL, because it provides a
        useful minimum baseline for projecting future change in local MSL. Awareness of the historic
        trend of local MSL also enables an assessment of the impacts that sea-level change may have had
        on regional coastal resources and problems in the past.
        b. Historic trends in local MSL are best determined from tide gauge records. The Center
        for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), of the National Oceanographic
        and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides historic information and local MSL trends
        for tidal stations operated by NOAA/NOS in the US (see http://www.coops.nos.noaa.gov/index.shtml).
        Most U.S. tide stations experienced a rise in local MSL during
        the 20th Century. Note the dominance of green and yellow symbols along much of the Atlantic
        and Pacific coasts of the continental US (Figure B-1). These stations exhibit local MSL trends
        between 0 and +0.6 meters per century. The highest rates of local MSL rise in the U.S. have
        occurred along the Gulf Coast (red symbols), whereas most stations in Alaska exhibit a falling
        trend of local MSL. Discrete shifts in sea level data or changes in relative sea level trends due to
        earthquakes are monitored by NOAA at their tide stations, and trends are recomputed from data
        after a known significant earthquake event (such as the 1964 Alaska earthquake). Trends are not
        computed from pre- and post event data. Post-event data analyses and surveys from the tide
        gauges to local bench marks and geodetic bench marks are used to estimate vertical movement.
        Data from nearby CORS are also now being used to estimate local vertical land motion to help
        monitor magnitude of the effect of earthquake events on sea level data.
        B-2

        EC 1165-2-212
        1 Oct 11
        Figure B-1.

        c. It is important to consider the length of tide station record required to obtain a robust
        estimate of the historic relative mean sea-level change. The length of the record is important
        because interannual, decadal and multi-decadal variations in sea level are sufficiently large that
        misleading or erroneous sea level trends can be derived from periods of record that are too short.
        d. The Manual on Sea Level Measurement and Interpretation (Intergovernmental
        Oceanographic Commission 1985) suggests that a tidal record should be of at least of two-tidal
        epoch duration (about 40 years) before being used to estimate a local MSL trend. Figure B-2
        (from Zervas, 2009) shows the relationship between period of record and the standard error of
        the trend for selected US tide stations. Note the significant decrease in standard error
        approximately at the 40- or 50-year period of record. Record lengths shorter than 40-years in
        duration could have significant uncertainty compared to their potential numerical trend values of
        a few millimeters per year.
        e. Figure B-2 qualitatively illustrates the asymptotic nature of increasing record length vs.
        decreasing standard error of the trend estimate, indicating that standard error of the trend
        estimate can be can be large for tide stations with shorter records compared to those with longer
        records. Figure B-3 (from Zervas, 2009) shows the mean-sea level trend 95% confidence
        interval versus year range of data, with actual data and the least-squares fitted line. The 95%
        confidence interval from the least-squares fitted line reduces to less than 1 mm/year once at least
        40 years of gauge data are available. Figures B-2 and B-3 thus support the suggestion that a tide
        station should have at least 40 years of data before being used to estimate a local MSL trend,
        particularly when such a trend will be extrapolated into the future for use as a minimum baseline
        for projected future change in local MSL. For project planning and design supporting the entire
        project life cycle, the actual standard error of the estimate should be calculated for each tide gauge
        data trend analysis, and the estimates in Figures B-2 and B-3 should not be used as the sole
        supporting data.
        f. Using trends in relative mean sea level from records shorter than 40 years is not
        advisable. In addition to interpretations by the International Oceanographic Commission and
        NOAA (Figures B-2 and B-3), Pugh (1987) demonstrates that 10-year records at some stations
        show trends of opposite sign depending upon the interval selected. If estimates based on shorter
        terms are the only option, then the local trends must be viewed in a regional context, considering
        trends from simultaneous time periods from nearby stations to ensure regional correlation and to
        minimize anomalous estimates. The nearby stations should have long enough records (greater
        than 40 years) to determine reasonable trends, which can then be compared to the shorter, local
        sea-level records (see paragraph B-2(h)(2)). Experts at NOAA/NOS should be able to assist in
        cases of short periods of record or where records are otherwise ambiguous.
        g. The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), which is a component of the UK
        Natural Environment Research Council’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, has been
        collecting, publishing, analyzing, and interpreting sea-level data from the global network of tide
        stations since 1933. Global sea level data can be obtained from PSMSL via their web site
        (http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/). PSMSL should be considered as a source of information for nonU.S.
        stations not contained in the NOAA report. Please note that the periods of record of
        PSMSL gauges vary; some gauges have shorter periods of record than are recommended for
        relative sea-level change trend analysis.
        h. The historic rate of relative sea-level change at relevant local tide stations shall be used
        as the low rate for analysis. The current, historically-based rate of change shall be estimated
        from local tide station records if oceanographic and geologic conditions at the tide station are
        determined to be similar to and consistent with those at the project site (Appendix C). For many
        locations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines, there are probably adequate tide
        station data from perspectives of both spatial density and record duration to permit extrapolating
        with an adequate degree of confidence. Recognized exceptions are the coastlines between
        Mobile, Alabama and Grand Isle, Louisiana, and in Pamlico/Albemarle Sounds, North Carolina,
        which contain no acceptable long-term tide-gauge records. Coastal Louisiana is also subject to
        extreme rates of subsidence. In the case where there is a tidal station that is close to a project but
        has a short historic data duration, and another tidal station that is farther away but has a longer
        historic data duration, a tidal hydrodynamics expert should be consulted as to the appropriate use
        of the closer tidal station data.

        etc ect tec

        And when you finish that I have more.

        But first you have to learn to read

      • Seen through a screen darkly.

      • Mosh

        Thanks for the link. Whether I disagree or not is immaterial as its prudent for them to look at all the various scenarios, as flood defences and zoning can’t be put in place overnight.

        tonyb

      • The cost for the world to adapt to a 0 m – 0.6 m sea level rise in 85 years is trivial, about $200 billion over 85 years: ‘The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise</i<' http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7

        Are there any serious consequences of the hypothesised CAGW? What are they, over what time frames, what is the estimated damage cost, the estimated cost of abatement and the estimated cost of mitigation?

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “Are you illiterate. Here is what they say”

        I don’t think I’m illiterate, but I don’t think you are asking a serious question. I assume you are trying to be gratuitously insulting, for some odd Warmist reason. I refuse to feel insulted. Hope you don’t mind.

        But back to projected sea level rise.

        Unfortunately your first link goes nowhere. Maybe it’s my fault, which is why I asked for further information .

        As to the rest of it, as you admit, they’re guessing. Additionally, from your reference –

        “a. In the preparation of this document USACE has relied entirely on climate change science performed and published by agencies and entities external to USACE. The conduct of science as to the causes, predicted scenarios, and consequences of climate change is not within the USACE mission. The USACE is a user of the currently accepted community consensus on the state of climate science knowledge and applicable USACE policies will be periodically reviewed and revised as the accepted consensus changes.”

        ” . . . relied entirely on climate change science . . . “? Of course, they contradict themselves in other places. I believe in the military, this is referred to as a CYA manoeuvre. But all joking aside, some previous history –

        “Federal judge blasts Army Corps of Engineers for failing to protect New Orleanians during Katrina”. So these are the people you choose to believe on the basis of their past performance? Or is the judge incompetent?

        I can understand your desire to believe that the future can be predicted by examination of the past. Unfortunately, desire often does not become fact. You may choose to believe the predictive abilities of the ACE, over, say, mine. No skin off my nose, but their past performance has not been exactly stellar. And what do you know of mine? Precisely nothing, but the argument from ignorance is widely used by Warmists.

        The guesses of the ACE may be right – who knows? The predictions of the US Government have not been terribly brilliant in regard to budgetary outcomes, interest rates, economic growth, military success or many other things. Pretty much on par with other countries and organisations. Your touching faith in the infinite persistence of trends is shared by others of similar bent.

        I disagree, and I seem to be ahead at present, based on history. Place your bets, but don’t complain to me if you lose your money. You win some, you lose some!

        Cheers.

      • The reason low-lying NY should have been better prepared for Sandy lies in a long HISTORY of destructive land-falling Atlantic hurricanes from the Gulf to Canada. 1635 is a pretty good start point.

        Instead, the mouth of the Hudson was actually narrowed not that long ago with WTC rubble. Were the hurricanes, surges and floods of 1693, 1821, 1938, 1944 etc so obscurely buried in HISTORY books that nobody could see the folly of of such neglect? Or were they waiting for more climate and sea-level data to be absolutely sure?

        Sorry about using the H word, but sometimes strong language is needed.

        – ATTC

      • Steven Mosher

        Peter lang

        ‘The cost for the world to adapt to a 0 m – 0.6 m sea level rise in 85 years is trivial, about $200 billion over 85 years:”

        Actually makes a point that Tom Fuller and I have been making for years.

        Look.

        1. you dont have to go to extremes to deny the science.
        Read that as.. You dont have to be an illiterate like Flynn
        2. you dont have to accuse people of fraud on zero evidence.

        All You have to do is use your head.

        A) When have always planned ( for better or worst) using history
        as a guide. Or you can pull a Flynn and demand no planning
        for the future. Heck nobody can predict the future, Burn your
        401K
        B) History gives us ONE FORM of predicting the future. It’s uncertain.
        C) Physics gives us another approach. Its uncertain.

        faced with this you have a choice

        1. Stick your tiny head in the sand– Flynn
        2. Use all available evidence to make your best informed guess.
        ( psst science is a guess)

        Lastly.. Assuming 1 meter of sea level rise you can GUESS what adapting to that will cost and what mitigating against it will cost.

        For sea level rise, Adaption guesses are cheaper than mitigation guesses.

      • Steven,
        Also thanks for the link. Interesting to see the Corps of Engr instruction on future sea level rise.

        Please hold the insults and continue providing useful links and data.

        Scott

      • “For sea level rise, Adaption guesses are cheaper than mitigation guesses.”

        Steve
        My perspective- Mitigation activities do not lessen the need or cost for adaptation activities since there is no reliable information to show that they will lessen sea level rise at all.

      • Given what Mosher said about the COE I assume they will be able to make forecasts for these locations based on NOAA Tidal gauge records for each site. All mm/yr. with the beginning year noted
        Honolulu 1.41 1905.
        California
        L.A. .88 1923
        S.F 1.92 1897
        Port San Luis .74 1945
        Alameda .67 1939
        San Diego 2.08 1906
        Crescent City -.84 1933
        Oregon
        Charleston .84 1970
        South Beach 1.38 1967
        Astoria -.27 1925
        Washington
        Neah Bay -1.76 1934
        Seattle 1.99 1899
        Cherry Point .10 1973
        Friday Harbor 1.07 1934
        Florida
        Fernandina Beach 2.05 1897
        Mayport 2.58 1928
        Key West 2.33 1913
        Naples 2.51 1965
        Fort Myers 2.73 1965
        Cedar Key 1.93 1914
        Pensacola 2.21 1923
        Fort Pulaski Georgia 3.07 1935
        Charleston Gergia 3.16 1921
        Beaufort North Carolina 2.83 1953
        Wilmington North Carolina 2.10 1935
        Kiptopeke Virginia 3.60 1951
        Sewells Point Virginia 4.60 1927
        Washington DC 3.24 1924
        Baltimore 3.14 1902
        Annapolis MD 3.53 1928
        Philadelphia 2.94 1900
        Lewes Delaware 3.41 1919
        Atlantic City NJ 4.08 1911
        Montauk NY 3.24 1947
        Kings Point NY 2.52 1931
        Battery Park NYC 2.84 1856
        New London CT 2.58 1938
        Newport RI 2.74 1930
        Boston 2.81 1921
        Bermuda 2.03 1932
        San Juan PR 1.87 1962
        Midway Pacific 1.25 1947
        Wake Island Pacific 1.99 1950

        If the Corps wanted to offer their services to foreign countries they could help to forecast Brest France at 1.05 mm/yr since 1807 or Sydney at .65 mm/yr since 1886.

      • If the Corps wanted to offer their services to foreign countries they could help to forecast Brest France at 1.05 mm/yr since 1807 or Sydney at .65 mm/yr since 1886. …

        This would be negligence.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “For sea level rise, Adaption guesses are cheaper than mitigation guesses.”

        I am pleased that you now accept that costs related to sea level changes are guesses, no more and no less.

        However, you still seem to be of the view that sea levels will continue to rise, based on extrapolating historical tidal gauge readings. I say this because prior to satellite altimetry, no one could measure vertical crustal movements with reasonable accuracy, therefore all you can use is tidal gauges, which rise and fall with the surrounding terrain.

        Given the shape of the Earth, and conservation of mass, there is no way of predicting crustal movements. Parts of the crust rise, parts fall, with unpredictable effects on sea levels in different places.

        As you point out, one must guess. The next large earthquake to strike Los Angeles? Who knows? Another Cascadia earthquake (which dropped forests along the US west coast below sea level, where they remain)?

        Or maybe a 30 m tsunami hitting Oregon again?

        How can you be sure that sea levels will not fall in one location while rising in another? It has definitely happened in the past.

        The problem with relying on flood walls and so on, based on the best advice, does not prevent something like the New Orleans flooding. Nature has a way of making our best efforts look pathetically inadequate.

        As I’ve said before, I make assumptions about the future, and act on them as I see fit. I don’t usually demand that others fund my chosen course of action. Warmists generally make this demand, apparently on the basis that they possess superior ability to look into the future.

        Or as you would say, guess! So guess away, but I’d appreciate it if you pay for your guesses, while I pay for mine. You never know, I just might be a better guesser.

        I seem to have done alright to date.

        As to putting your faith in the abilities of the ACE –

        “On 30 January 2008, Judge Duval ruled that even though the US Army Corps of Engineers was negligent and derelict in their duty . . . ”

        Cheers.

      • Negligence would be for the Corps or anyone else to forecast hysterical accelerations in SLR given the very long record of relative benign rise at these locations. Twenty years from now we will all be waiting for any sign that SLR is getting worse. Just more of the same. Scary stories and promises, promises and promises.

    • Jim D,

      Maybe you agree with this, maybe not –

      “Psychological resilience is defined as an individual’s ability to properly adapt to stress and adversity. Stress and adversity can come in the shape of family or relationship problems, health problems, or workplace and financial worries, among others.”

      To my way of thinking, both adaptation and resilience occur after the event. Maybe you are thinking about preparation for possible adversity, which is a rational activity. The problem with the Warmist demands is that the supposed adverse climate change outcomes are so vague as to be useless.

      Should one prepare for drought in California? Or floods? Abandon the Great Plains, in case another Dust Bowl event occurs? Depopulate the North East, in case of severe storms?

      Where will you stop? Warmism preaches approaching doom, demanding unquestioning belief, and continuous repentance, in order to be saved from unspecified harm in some unspecified future.

      What tosh! A pack of delusional deniers, demanding obeisance from their unthinking worshippers! Your support is obviously badly needed – people are starting to think for themselves.

      Cheers.

      • Adaptation is like New Orleans did with building better barriers after Katrina. Resilience would have been having them before Katrina. See the difference? Adaptation is rebuilding your house after a forest fire burned it down. Resilience is having cut back nearby trees beforehand to save it. It’s a slightly tricky distinction, but I think this explains it well enough. Adaptation is importing food and supplies to recover from a disaster. Resilience is having saved up some stocks over time in anticipation. Etc. Resilience is good. Adaptation is a sign of lack of resilience.

      • Jim D,

        From Merriam Webster –

        “Simple Definition of resilience
        : the ability to become strong, healthy, or successful again after something bad happens”

        You will note the phrase “after something bad happens”. Your proposed redefinition, involving preemptive action, is just another example of the Warmist practice of deny, divert and confuse.

        You can redefine words to mean whatever you want them to, but you might confuse many people who prefer commonly accepted or dictionary definitions. If you think the dictionary publishers are wrong, maybe you can convince them to use the Warmist definition. It might take a while.

        Cheers.

      • Danny Thomas

        Mr. Flynn,
        Apparently you’re not aware of this publication. The importance lies in how the questions are ‘framed’.

        “The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0441-5

      • Danny Thomas,

        You quoted –

        “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

        If I may rephrase the quote a little, and replace the word climate with its definition –

        “All weather events are affected by the change in the average of weather over 30 years . . . “, which is complete nonsense. Climate is the average of past weather. Climate affects nothing, as it is merely a number derived arithmetically – any reasonably competent 12 year old can work out averages.

        As to the (unspecified) environment becoming warmer and wetter, this will come as a surprise to places setting new records for low temperatures, or places suffering prolonged drought. The writer of your quote is obviously in a state of denial – of logic, facts, and history.

        Warmists continue to spout illogical nonsense. The gullible continue to lap it up.

        Cheers.

      • Mike

        My take on the climate is that the last 100 years or so have been relatively benign. As a result, in the UK at least, all sorts of things from generators to switching gear to railway lines to houses were built in places that our more distant ancestors would have looked askance at, and thought unwise.

        If we look to the weather of the past for the possible weather of the future, history tells us that we need to raise our game considerably, as many aspects of modern life-including people and their property-are at risk if the weather of the past returns. It was at times cataclysmic and modern weather (mostly) pales besides it.

        The need to take precautions is raised further when the population of most countries has expanded so dramatically, who often insist in living in places that are often most at risk and in addition want modern facilities which are often not very robust.

        tonyb

    • Jim D,

      Pick up a dictionary and use it. Making up your own definitions doesn’t make you sound smarter.

  48. ‘Deep thinkers’ posit that ‘human civilization’ has a decision to make, citing the precautionary principle. But this consideration when examined in a vacuum blithefully ignores the long trail of history wherein countless wars have been fought over resources (Minoa, Egypt, Carthage, Rome, Vikings, the Mongols, Nazi Germany (‘lebensraum’), Imperial Japan, ISIS, and on and on). By making energy resources dear, inevitable tribalism will only invite warfare and plunder back to our doorstep. Do not be so naïve to think that the world is bountiful with rainbows, unicorns, and chants of kumbaya.

    Steven Pinker has identified that humans are less likely to die a violent death that at any time in our short history. It is a worthwhile debate to discuss how to best build on this hopeful trend – adaptation and co-existence or globally enforced scarcity.

  49. Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
    Obama’s loose talk about “saving the planet” seems to elide rather than to clarify whether it’s really the planet that needs saving from mankind, mankind that needs saving from itself.

  50. It recently occured to me that CAGW is the most recent, but not the most corrupt of the Left’s fanciful scientific postulations.

    I do remember the insistance that Freon was to blame for the Ozone hole over the South Pole. So, we were forced to throw away that excellent refrigerant (Montreal Protocol). But, why has the ozone hole remained?

    In the ’60 era, we were forced to stop our use of DDT, which “saved” our beloved Eagles while allowing millions of African kids to be killed by infected mosquito bites. Now, DDT use has proven beneficial effectiveness, but can’t be used.

    The Theory of Evolution is still unproven, in the sense of new species formation. Adaption, yes – maybe the most resilient force seen. But, no known species formation ever discovered.

    So, if they can get away with such fantasies, why not continue with CAGW? Who’s to stop them? A political construct which is quite useful to those on the left. As stated by those in the U.N., this will help them to throw out our present economic system and replace it with one that is more to the liking of those on the Left.

    Any change in the US Admionistration will not stop this movement.

    • The theory of evolution is “fantasy”

      Wow.

      Just when you thought the comments here couldn’t get more antiscientific.

      Climate etc really is becoming a special place.

      • It’s a cesspool. Nothing else has this much crap.

      • I think you are a contributing correspondent, with no idea at all.

      • You say:
        The theory of evolution is “fantasy”

        Wow.

        Theory remains, until the proofs are presented. Something like that.

      • I repeat that Darwin, in his personal journals is reported to have expressed his view that new discoveries in biology would prove or disprove his theory. How about that? Double Helix stuff? Random walk? Who has the open mind now? You too.

      • Keep digging, Arch

      • verytallguy,

        tekguyjeff actually wrote “The Theory of Evolution is still unproven, . . . ”

        Your Warmist brain apparently translated this as “The theory of evolution is “fantasy” . . .”

        And then you expressed the normal dismissive Warmist Wow. Unfortunately, the Warmist tactics of deny, divert and confuse aren’t as effective as previously.

        You wrote –

        “Just when you thought the comments here couldn’t get more antiscientific.” Another condescending Warmist throwaway. Nonsensical assertions, without a shred of fact put forward. And this from somebody who probably believes that CO2 possesses magical warming powers, or that computer model runs are experiments? How silly!

        You finally wrote –

        “Climate etc really is becoming a special place.”

        At least I agree with you. Reasonably free discussion, with little apparent censorship. History shows bitter personal disagreements between eminent supporters of differing points of view. Newton, Lord Kelvin, Einstein, all were involved in disagreements of this type, for starters. Why anyone would want to suppress this, with the possibly of ultimately leading to something like Lysenkoisn, is beyond me, obviously.

        In the end, fact decides. Nature rules – yet again.

        Cheers.

    • The Theory of Evolution is still unproven, in the sense of new species formation. Adaption, yes – maybe the most resilient force seen. But, no known species formation ever discovered.

      Species is simply a matter of degree.

      A good irony of evolutionary genetics is that they were demonstrated by men of the cloth, Mendel and Darwin.

      Another good irony are the excitable greens that bemoan genetically modified organism only to order a fruit plate for lunch or have corn on the cob at the picnic. All crops are GMO from a long time ago:

  51. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    The facts and truth will overcome the propaganda and political agenda!

  52. Thank you, Mario Loyola and Professor Curry.

    Obituaries for AGW are under review at the editorial offices of Geochemical Journal of Japan and Nature Climate Change:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Tribute_to_Paul_Kazuo_Kuroda2.pdf

  53. Thank you for the insight JC

  54. If it were about science and facts or lack of facts there might be a point in arguing. But the AGW crowd are pushing ahead without debate, without letting facts get in the way, as with the CPP for instance or the disastrous deindustrialization of Europe because of bogus CO2 reduction plans. The perpetrators have told us what it is really about:

    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.”- Ottmar Edenhofer IPCC

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution” – Christiana Figueres UN FCCC

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”- Christiana Figures UN FCCC

    “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” – Maurice Strong UN

    “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” – Maurice Strong UN

    Isn’t it about time we believed them and stopped acting as if it’s about the science?

  55. It’s pointless. The rational people are being drowned out by the alarmists to the point it’s like screaming into a hurricane. The green movement has to burn itself out, or capitalism is finished.

  56. Lest we forget that 1010.org “No Pressure” video.

  57. Quoting from the above: “Meanwhile, on the policy side, the alarmists’ call for worldwide economic controls, including caps on fossil fuels, are largely recycled from previous scientific doomsday fads, such as the oil scarcity scare of the late 1970s”

    At this time, in the 2011-20 decade, the oil industry is struggling to find enough oil and gas reserves to replace production. Reserve additions were mostly induced by the high price environment, which I expect to continue once the price bounces from the 2015-16 lows. Whether we can add enough new production in the near future is a big question.

    I believe (medium confidence) the oil price will have to recover to $80 per barrel to justify investment in the majority of deep water, light tight oil, and heavy oil prospects. This implies the non OPEC producers are now losing capacity as existing fields are depleted, and it’s highly unlikely they will ever regain their peak production rate (which means the non OPEC producers already hit peak oil as a group).

    This leaves us with OPEC nations such as Iran, Iraq, and possibly Libya as the main sources of oil to replace the decline in the non OPEC world. These nations have volatile politics, which in turn implies high energy supply risk.

    Thus the “global warming mania” does have a useful side effect: if some policies are applied to increase fuel efficiency they should reduce the current demand GROWTH rate. Thus we may see that, sometime over the next 20 years, oil production will hit a peak. Such a peak will mostly be caused by market forces and energy insecurity (nations will feared relying on highly volatile MENA nations). The emissions reductions advocated by the “climate panic folk” may help a little bit. But a more effective aid would be a decent battery or energy storage system to make renewables more viable.

    Anyway, I throw this in, as I usually do, because this whole debate seems to be missing energy security and “we are running out of oil”, and both topics are key ingredients when the problem is viewed over decades/centuries.

  58. Can GDP Growth and Carbon Emissions be Delinked?

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16086

    Some rare good news on climate change. Twenty-one countries have managed to reduce carbon emissions while growing their gross domestic product, or GDP, which is one of the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country’s economy. This is according to a new report from the World Research Institute, a nongovernmental, global research organization focused on sustainable natural resource management.
    Ecologists and economists have long debated as to whether it was possible to maintain economic growth while at the same time reducing greenhouse gases. A large part of the debate stems from the fact that, historically speaking, ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, economic growth took place together with growth in emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. If that trend were to continue it would mean that we cannot prevent global warming, or that we would have to dramatically reduce the size and scope of our economies.
    So the big question is, is de-linking of economic growth and carbon emissions possible? Can we avoid a dilemma between ecological versus economic crisis? Also, can we meet the goals set up in the Paris climate agreement that was signed last December in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.
    With us to discuss this new report, “The roads to decoupling: 21 countries are reducing carbon emissions while growing GDP,” is its author, Nate Aden. He is a research fellow with WRI’s climate program, and also with the energy and resources group at the University of California Berkley, and has been working on researching energy issues for over 10 years.

    • Can GDP Growth and Carbon Emissions be Delinked?

      I’ve made a case for this in the past.

      Much of CO2 emissions take place during economic development, but economic development then leads to other factors: decreasing population growth rates ( and eventual falling population ) as well as massive improvement in efficiency ( which accelerates ).

      World CO2 emissions appear to be past a 2013 peak.

      Of course, that occurred with not global recession, but with sluggish global growth.

      The question may not be can GDP and CO2 be delinked, but can global GDP growth rates be restored?

      • What this argues for, somewhat counter-intuitively, is increasing fuel use by the third world in order to develop economically!

        With this energy, they can develop infrastructure, provide education, and tend toward more efficient use of energy and reduce population growth.

  59.  

    “To comprehend the impact of EPA’s proposed new rule [the CCP”s (Clean Power Plan) 32% reduction of CO2 emissions from US power plants by 2030] on America’s poorest, just imagine what it would be like to have to spend three-fourths of your household income on energy, leaving only one-fourth for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care, education, and everything else combined.” ~E. Calvin Beisner

  60. Danny Thomas

    TE,
    “The IPCC is a political organization not a scientific organization.” Kinda messes with the giving up politics thinghy.

  61. Alan Moran (Quadrant) writes,

    The Paris agreement was fundamentally created by President Obama, who said:

    Climate change could define the contours of this century more than any other [challenge]. I came here personally to say the United States not only recognises the problem but is committed to do something about it.

    The above is the greatest example ever of both MoneyTalking and SchittWalking…

  62. As a layman in climate science, my opinion on GW (of course) means nothing. I come here to CE to try and learn (or identify points I feel I need to better understand).

    While Dr. Curry’s (and other guests) blogs are of high content, one observation is that they usually present only one side of an argument. Then, the overwhelming percentage of Denizen comments will be to support Dr. Curry’s view.

    In my journey of learning, I follow Dr. Richard Tol. One aspect of Dr. Tol that I really appreciate is that when someone disagrees with him, he posts their disagreement and argument. Here is an example — the 97% consensus (Cook): http://www.realskeptic.com/2016/04/13/devastating-reply-richard-tols-nonsensus-peer-reviewed-journal/

    This above criticism raises a point that has never been discussed with Cook (or if it has, it has been weak) here at CE — the studies on climate change which do not state an opinion on the cause.

    As the criticism of Dr. Tol explains — if you are say, a biologist and are studying the impact of increase temperatures on your field on inquiry — the cause of climate change is outside the purview of your study. Per the above linked article, these are the studies that were eliminated — which to a layman, would seem correct.

    When points like this are not fully addressed here at CE it leads one to think — why isn’t it addressed? Its the omission that is particularly damaging as to a sense of objectivity.

    • Segrest,

      Have you ever spent any time at sites such as SkS or Real Climate? If you post anything that disagrees with the party line you get deleted. Judith allows all sorts of opinion contrary to her’s.

      And what is the point you are trying to make with your link – other than your obvious inability to recognize when someone is blowing smoke up your posterior? The only “devastating” rebuttals out there about Cook’s consensus paper have been those taking it to pieces. One of the red flags in following climate science is seeing garbage work getting treated like it was valid research. John Cook is not a climate scientist. That you go on to talk about objectivity after linking to Real Skeptic is laughable.

      Piece of advice – in your journey of learning, try buying an atlas. That way you won’t end up off in the weeds somewhere wandering in circles.

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        The Cook paper was written to sway the public, but in that purpose it failed; the public is not buying what the insiders (including the science insiders) are telling them. Bottom line: Cook is not worth your time.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout — We’ve had numerous posts (with hundreds of comments) on Cook’s 97% here at CE.

        I distinctly remember Dr. Curry (and others) being critical of throwing out papers in the sample that gave no opinion on the cause of GW. In originally reading Dr. Curry’s comments on this specific point, she made sense.

        But after reading an explanation of why these papers were thrown out of the sample — I would disagree with Dr. Curry on this one point.

        This point should have been part of our CE discussion.

        Why this hits home with me — I’ve co-authored numerous papers with the University of Florida, Oak Ridge National Lab, and EPRI on soil carbon sequestration — where we’ve certainly talked about the topic of GW/CC in our studies.

        But all of us are Ag or Biology types and don’t know diddley about climate science — so our studies (if in theory considered by Cook) should have been thrown out.

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        You made my point. Numerous posts and hundreds of comments. To what avail? It’s a social political subject and how often is that helpful, other than to determine what side of the football field you sit?

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        To answer your question more precisely: Lomberg’s criticism of Cook was not that it excluded the no opinion papers, but that it gave no evidence of how papers were selected. There should have been a disciplined objective process, and this was not evident. It would be presumptive to assume that all papers with no opinion were due to the authors lack of knowledge: could it not be due to high uncertainty?

        Richard

    • timg56 — Two points:

      (1) I’m not talking about other sites, I’m talking about CE.

      (2) Instead of a lot of name calling — Why don’t you technically refute the charge (make by not one source, but a lot of people) that studies reviewed by Cook, in say Biology (e.g., the effects of GW) were correctly omitted?

      • I do not follow “Real Skeptic”. I only knew and read the article because Dr. Tol linked his followers to it (and that was my point).

      • I’m not name calling Stephen, just describing the behavior of you nitpicking over some issue that apparently only you think is important to talk about. And from what I recall from the past discussions, your description appears to be off. As Richard above mentions, the criticisms had more to do with how papers were selected, who was reviewing them, and what criteria they were being evaluated on. If Richard Tol had the issue you want us to talk about – well, talk about with him. He has his own site. For me it is a non-issue, as there was so much else crappy about that paper.

    • While Dr. Curry’s (and other guests) blogs are of high content, one observation is that they usually present only one side of an argument. Then, the overwhelming percentage of Denizen comments will be to support Dr. Curry’s view.

      Yes, there is confirmation bias in all of us, so perhaps there is a natural tendency to read and post on sites which support one’s pre-existing ideas.
      There is a difference in the hosts filtering versus the brow-beating one may take from other denizens of a site.

      That said, I do think CE is probably one of the best among climate related blogs for open exchange among a variety of education and perspectives.

      • TE,
        always enjoy your science based comments. Thanks for joining the conversation.

        This is one of the better blogs and Dr Curry allows all types of comments within the range of politeness. One has to go far to exceed the bounds.

        But your points about coming reductions in carbon dioxide emissions due to slowing growth in the developed world and increasing efficiency in emerging economies make an interesting discussion. I for one, am counting on advancing technologies including fusion and advanced nuclear. IN the meantime dabbling in solar and wind is fun and interesting in the rich economies that can afford the extra subsidies and expense. Solar covering ground in sunny climes will get better and relieve some of the pressure on NOx, SOx and mercury emissions as well as slag ponds or mountain top removals. Those costs are externalized to the environment. Improving solar here will allow distributed energy in places like Africa to provide local energy. That plus energy to pump and clean water will be important in the dire economies.

        regards, Scott

      • Yes, there is confirmation bias in all of us, so perhaps there is a natural tendency to read and post on sites which support one’s pre-existing ideas.

        And there is so much confidence here that their understanding of climate science is superior to the experts. These people think they see obvious fatal flaws in AGW that these experts are apparently blind to. I have trouble understanding how that can happen.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,
        “And there is so much confidence here that their understanding of climate science is superior to the experts. These people think they see obvious fatal flaws in AGW that these experts are apparently blind to.”

        This perception appears to be off a bit. The blog orientation IMO is driven by the proprietor. One of her larger issues is a lack of recognition of the uncertainties. Many of us have read a sufficient number of ‘expert’ works to enforce that uncertainties need to be considered. Then politics comes in to play. That’s where the ‘fatal flaws’ are noted and currently unresolvable as a
        wicked problem. Both action and inaction have ‘potential’ consequences leading to acrimony.

        There is very little rejection of the notion that warming is taking place. From there, so many uncertainties abound that those less climate concerned make their case. Then those more climate concerned who seem to ignore that uncertainties exist and even when uncertainties are acknowledged their potential effects are then ignored. Therin lies the rub.

        But I think you recognize that.

      • I think most here would say that there are is no risk of severe consequences from AGW. I don’t think even Dr. Curry would say that. My take from the science is that there are risks and that we need to act to avoid these potential severe consequences. Acknowledging the risk means you are also acknowledging the uncertainties.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,
        I don’t think “most” would say there are no risks. I would say that based on evidence so far (actual during the time of warming and model related) that the purported risks have not come about begging the question as to if ‘projections’ (with a questionable track record so far, presuming we agree on this) looking forward will be catastrophic.

        There are most certainly risks. Both if ‘action’ is taken and if it is not.

        You seem to perceive that ‘skeptics’ exclusively deny. Well the skeptical perception (taking a large liberty here) is the ‘uncertainties’ remain unacknowledged.

      • I don’t think “most” would say there are no risks.

        Do you have any examples of anyone mentioning the risks of severe consequences from climate change? I can understand it might be hard to find any but maybe you can.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,
        Do you recognize that so far there has been very little “severe consequences” even though it’s been warming for (you determine the time frame). Do you recognize that the models via which projections are based have a suspect record?

        This in a nutshell is the challenge. To date, we have no evidence of “severe consequence”. I’ve asked this very question. Why, during our time of warming other than warming would we expect a change? I acknowledge warming, melting ice, modest slr. Uncertainties: storminess, level of slr, Antarctica related (or not) ice melt. Reduced ACE. Reduced level of tornadic activity. Uncertainty w/r/t droughts (doesn’t seem to have worsened). “Experts” have not nailed this down.

        Just talking science here. Not even treading into policy.

      • Do you recognize that so far there has been very little “severe consequences”

        Who has predicted severe consequences now? My understanding that the more severe consequences come later. That’s why we have the 2.0C limit. We are only around 1.0C now.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,
        “My understanding that the more severe consequences come later.” Yes, that’s what we’re told based on projections from models with a record which is less than stellar.

        But you seem to read, follow blogs and whatever else. We were told greater intensity/frequency of storms ** This has been ‘modified*****’ as the science knowledge level has expanded. We’re told greater levels of precipitation have occurred here in the US (let me know if you need a link). If that is the case why would not the other projected effects (droughts, ACE, tornadoes, etc.) have come along with the warming and increased precip?

        I don’t know the answer but it’s treated as ‘a certainty’ that more severe consequences will come, but based on what (the AR4 suggests an overshoot, this is who predicted severe consequences now)? And what is the evidence so far (that AR4 overshot)?

        **https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html

        *****(the modification) http://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events

      • I don’t know the answer but it’s treated as ‘a certainty’ that more severe consequences will come, but based on what (the AR4 suggests an overshoot, this is who predicted severe consequences now)?

        I am still looking for a specific references to evidence that we should be seeing severe consequences now. And I am also having trouble understanding why scientists would predict that something would get worse in the future if they had no reason or science to believe it would. This is where I believe you think their argument is obviously fatally flawed and for some reason they are blind to it.

        I think I will stick with the opinions who are experts in their field rather than those who are not. Dr. Curry is an expert in certain aspects of climate science but I don’t she is in a position to pass judgement on all the multifaceted aspects of climate change impacts.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,

        I cannot provide a source what you desire. The source previously was IPCC (that link was provided) but IPCC modified their level of concern. This to me is an indication that they originally overestimated the global climate response. Why, may I ask, would that they goofed earlier lead to a greater confidence that they will be more accurate going forward?

        I agree that they wouldn’t ‘project’ something lacking substantiation. But they did. Then they had to adjust.

        In case there is a lack of understanding here’s the source:
        “****When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”
        http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html

        We’re not even talking about forecasts. We’re talking about something which does not rise to that level.

        I’m not referring to Dr. Curry except for the orientation of uncertainties. Well from AR4 to AR5 I’d say the uncertainties won out and the IPCC’s compilation of “the opinions who are experts in their field” was modified.

        Facetiously, I could say that if I went to an expert in their field (an MD) who said I had arthritis when I actually had a bruise, I might (understandably) have a lower level of confidence in that expert going forward.

        It’s not what I’m doing/saying here. It’s what IPCC said, then had to adjust. I’m just the consumer.

        It’s certainly your choice to ‘have belief’ in the expert’s opinions. But it’s equally reasonable for others to have a varying belief in the same experts based on the track record of those experts (or their representative IE IPCC).

      • So do you think that if we double emissions and we reach 3.0C above pre-industrial period (which is a possibility according to the current science) that there won’t be severe consequences?

      • Danny Thomas

        Joseph,
        Is that in any way, shape, or form what I suggested?

        If we must have this discussion, I suppose we can.
        Define:
        Double ’emissions’ (which ones, base amounts)
        Pre-industrial period
        Severe consequences

        Then I’ll toss ‘uncertainties’ and we can play tennis. Or, we can look at it like the political conversation it is and have a couple beers and see if we can find some middle ground.
        3.0 after all is an uncertainty as you just suggested by saying: “which is a possibility according to the current science”. Possibility we might not……………..

      • These people think they see obvious fatal flaws in AGW that these experts are apparently blind to. I have trouble understanding how that can happen.

        Very simple really. It’s not that the experts are blind, but rather that the interests of their funder – government – that trumps any science motives. So they routinely hide data etc.

      • “these experts”

        Appeal to experts when no evidence can be produced. We know.

        Andrew

      • Danny –

        ==> I don’t think “most” would say there are no risks.

        and

        ==> I would say that based on evidence so far (actual during the time of warming and model related) that the purported risks have not come about

        IMO, this does pretty much provide a good explanation of what, to me at least, fits what Joseph was describing. Looking for whether risks have “come about” amounts to a dismissal of risks. The very nature of risks is that they have not “come about,”

        It is this incoherent operationalization of risk, despite that when convenient many “skeptics” say that they don’t question whether there is risk, that is problematic, IMO.

        Arguing about quantifying the risk, or whether the risk of action to mitigate that risk as more cost, respectively, than doing nothing is one thing. But you can’t get to that discussion if you don’t stop trying to base the discussion on whether or not the risk has “come about.”

        This rather reminds me of when “skeptics” say that they don’t doubt that aCO2 warms the climate yet argue that there is no valid measure of said warming and that the very notion of measuring “global warming” is fallacious and that the only reason why scientists determine that aCO2 poses a risk is because such findings enable them to maintain their funding.

      • I think most here would say that there are is no risk of severe consequences from AGW.

        The problem with that idea is that it, like the whole topic, is unbounded

        Warming is a trend.
        Clearly any trend taken for long enough duration leads to a bad outcome.

        Continued warming for long enough would lead to boiling temperatures.
        Continued cooling for long enough would lead to freezing temperatures.

        But there are other unsustainable trends. Population used to be increasing exponentially – clearly unsustainable. And since most other environmental issues wrt humans are dependent on the number of humans, it would make sense to reverse population instead of piece meal hysteria about consequences of population.

        Now, in the 1970s, environmentalists ( notably Ehrlich whose fingerprints are all over the IPCC ) tried to make population an issue. Their answers? Forced sterilizations and similar. Needless to say, they were not very popular. Giving up on this coincided with the fear campaign about global warming and the founding of the IPCC.

        But guess what happened while no one was looking? Population reached an inflection point. It took longer for the last billion births than it did for the previous billion. Also what happened while no one was looking is the Pill. The statistics people were looking at in the 1970s had yet to reflect wide spread birth control. Also, economic development is tied hand in hand with reductions in fertility rates.

        Countries that were desperate to slow population growth in the 1970s are now desperate to increase population growth because their nations are shrinking. Populations are not falling everywhere, notably Africa and some other undeveloped nations. But the examples of earth are now quite available: economic development leads to sustainable development ( in addition to reducing the human suffering of poverty ).

        Fortunately, the large trends would appear to be in place for all nations. Population will not continue growing ( as the economists say: ‘trees don’t grow to the sky’ ). Carbon dioxide will not grow forever either. global emissions already appear to have peaked in 2013, and demographics, efficiency and the use of cheap natural gas explain it quite well.

        Now, there has already been about 1C of warming ( depending on when you count from ). I have been alive for most of that and I can tell you the human condition has never been better. So this amount of global warming would not appear to have harm and in fact may have been a big benefit. What about another 1C? We’ll probably see, but the harm is just not apparent to me.

      • Joseph,

        The person who I can confidently state my understanding is superior to is you.

        You are aware that a lot of the issues people here have raised are related to things other than “climate” science, right? For example statistics. Are you implying that your average climate scientist also ranks among the foremost statisticians in the world? How about modeling? Are climate scientists also the worlds best model developers?

        One of the reasons Dr Curry’s site is so popular is that people with expertise in fields that climate science has to tap can comment without being deleted or banned.

      • I think I will stick with the opinions who are experts in their field rather than those who are not.

        Opinions don’t count for much in science.

    • Beta Blocker

      Stephen Segrest “This above criticism raises a point that has never been discussed with Cook (or if it has, it has been weak) here at CE — the studies on climate change which do not state an opinion on the cause.”

      Stephen, as opinions from laymen go, we don’t need to know the causes of global warming to predict that global mean temperature will probably continue to rise for another hundred years or more. GMT has already been rising for more than a century, so why should it stop now?

      We’ve all seen the arguments being made by readers here on CE and elsewhere in the AGW skeptic blogosphere that a turnaround in GMT is in progress and that a long term cooling trend is in the offing. So far, I’ve seen no convincing evidence that such a cooling trend exists.

      Here is my own graphical analysis of where GMT might go between now and 2100:

      The basis assumption of this graphical analysis is that past history will repeat itself for another hundred years, with the qualification that if the earth’s climate system is somewhat more sensitive to the presence of carbon dioxide, there will be more warming; if it is somewhat less sensitive, there will be less warming.

      That’s it, that’s the whole model. There is nothing more to it than what you can read directly on the graph or what you can infer directly from its three alternative GMT trend scenarios.

      One way or another, whatever the causes, there will be more warming. And as long as there is more warming, the climate change movement will be alive and well and will remain a more or less permanent feature of the political landscape.

      • You’ve got CO2 concentration, not radiative forcing form CO2

        RF = 5.35 * natural_log( C / C0 )

        As a consequence, you also indicated accelerating temperature trends.

        But rates of total RF peaked around 1989.
        And rates of RF from CO2 appear to be peaking now.

        Much more likely that peak rates of warming are in the past.

        Warming should, by theory, continue, but at rates lower than what we’ve already observed.

      • Beta Blocker

        Turbulent Eddie: “You’ve got CO2 concentration, not radiative forcing from CO2. RF = 5.35 * natural_log( C / C0 ). As a consequence, you also indicated accelerating temperature trends.”

        Beta Blocker’s Parallel Offset Universe climate model is a visually inspired method of analysis.

        It doesn’t care about anyone’s specific physics-based or model-based estimate of what the increase in radiative forcing will be for any specific increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. It only cares about what has happened in the past as a possible predictor of what might happen in the future.

        For example, let’s look at the visual derivation of Scenario 3, which is the floor GMT prediction trend. Scenario 3 represents a 1C rise in GMT between 2015 and 2100, roughly equivalent to a 2C rise from 1880.

        Historically, there was a 25-year pause between 1880 and 1905. Then GMT rose at +0.13 C/decade between 1905 and 1945. There was another pause between 1945 and 1970. Then GMT rose at +0.16 C/decade between 1970 and 2000, a difference of +0.03 C/decade from the previous period of steady GMT rise.

        As the model is constructed, what happens after the year 2015 is simply a visual reflection of what has happened in the previous 135 years, with visual adjustments being made to account for the acceleration in CO2 concentration which occurred over the last half of the 20th century.

        Scenario 3, which is the GMT floor prediction, says that between 2001 and 2025, there will be a twenty-five year pause where GMT rises relatively slowly, based on the fact that two similar 25-year pauses have previously occurred. The current pause will end decisively in 2025 and a steady rise in GMT which is +0.03 C/decade higher than its predecessor steady rise will begin; i.e., one of +0.19 C/decade. Another 25-year pause commences in 2061 and ends in 2085. That late 21st century pause is then followed by yet another steady rise of +0.22 C/decade, which is of course +0.03 C/decade higher than the previous steady rise.

        Scenarios 1 and 2 are nothing more than the result of drawing two upwardly-rising GMT trend lines visually parallel to the upwardly rising CO2 concentration line — one GMT line drawn from Year 2016 (Scenario 1) and the other GMT line drawn from Year 2061 (Scenario 2). All that differentiates Scenario 2 from Scenario 1 is that Scenario 2 contains a 25-year pause starting in 2061 while Scenario 1 doesn’t.

        There it is, a complete explanation of Beta Blocker’s Parallel Offset Universe climate model.

        Turbulent Eddie: “But rates of total RF peaked around 1989. And rates of RF from CO2 appear to be peaking now.”

        Is there a consensus about that particular opinion within the mainstream climate science community?

        Even if there was such a consensus, would it matter all that much to the accuracy of anyone’s prediction of future trends in GMT?

        Turbulent Eddie: “Much more likely that peak rates of warming are in the past. Warming should, by theory, continue, but at rates lower than what we’ve already observed.”

        Maybe that’s so. Maybe it isn’t. As long as warming of any kind continues, the climate change movement will remain a force to be reckoned with in national and international politics.

      • PDO influences over the GMST happened because the Eastern Pacific and Equatorial Pacific make up a significant percentage of the earth’s surface.

        The positive phase tends to be El Nino dominant; the negative phase tends to be La Nina dominant. Until ~1980 the GMST went up went the PDO went up, and the GMST went down when the PDO went down.

        Negative PDO plus La Nina – GMST went down… slightly and not for long:

        Positive PDO plus El Nino – GMST went way up… aggressively:

        In 1980 the direction of the PDO trend and the direction of the GMST trend diverged. Big deal. The PDO suddenly lost its ability to drive the direction of the GMST trend. The PDO trended down; the GMST trended up.

        Why? Anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

        They are back together… positive phase of the PDO, El Nino dominance, means an aggressive upward trend in the GMST over the next several years. Skeptics ignoring natural variation… too funny.

        Keep talking about the negative AMO. It’s never coming to save you guys.

      • Damn Beta,

        I’m thinking we could have provided you with a $10,000,000 grant and saved all of the remaining billions spent on GCM’s.

        Of course some of that “saved” expense would have to go to unemployment benefits to all of the researchers kicked off the govt tit.

      • The original data that was used for the adjusted numbers we have today was admittedly dumped by PJ. You are good with todays numbers even though you can never see the originals? From what I have seen even RSS data can be adjusted. And now you feel there is still a true history to Plot? I don’t trust people who would even consider the ‘dump’ to save ‘space’. Ask AGW believers how it was disposed of and when you are able to find out please let me know. Thank you.

      • They do not need the original data. You are fixated on a non-factor. Basically you just do not want it to be true. Nonetheless, it is true.

      • You are missing the point again. The answers to my three questions have nothing to do with adjusted data. It simply is a question about expressed historical facts and you get nothing. What was it? How much was there? How was it disposed of? So I ask you…

  63. Re: the Paris agreement
    MR. BAN: … I believe that this climate change issue should not be a subject of a political debate.

    Translation : this political act should not be subject of political debate.
    Typical vested-interest alarmism or what ?

  64. New Paper on the 97% Consensus: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

    It would be helpful for a point-by-point blog post which crisply explains: (A) Here is where I feel they (the 7 studies) made a specific mistake(s); and (B) here is why technically, I believe this.

    But “IF” the Climate Change Debate could be “framed” as a discussion of TCR — wouldn’t all this current 97% business mostly go away? Isn’t TCR what we really need to understand for the immediate future?

    • So, we have a measure of TCR +/- natural variability and what’s taken up by the oceans, since we have estimates for the various radiative forcing agents as well as temperature measurements, TCR ~= 1.68 K / CO2 doubling.

      People talk about ECS, but that will likely never occur because all ilk will change ( forcing will not hold still to provide results, it will change ) and it’s a dodge because it’s immeasurable ( if for no other reason than because it’s so far in the distant future ).

      There’s no compelling reason to believe rates of warming will accelerate. In fact, the rates of forcing are past peak, so temperature trends would seem more likely to slowly decelerate going forward.

  65. Cook’s cooked analysis that purports to show 97% of climate scientists agree on something, actually shows only 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts reviewed (by Cooks 12 apostles – i.e. his mates and those who work for him on Skeptical Science), “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

    • Peter Lang,

      One problem with “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is that these Warmist WeaselWords don’t allow for the possibility that there is any other way in which human activities can result in higher thermometer readings than invoking the alleged magical warming properties of CO2.

      As an example, one billion humans and their activities create quite a lot of heat. Seven billion humans, and a much higher level of activities, create much more heat. Thermometers react to increases in heat, by indicating higher temperatures, in this case.

      One might reasonably expect that thermometers might show an increase in the heat produced by seven billion humans in 2010, compared with heat produced by one billion humans in 1850. And indeed, this seems to be borne out by observation.

      To a Warmist, however, every ill afflicting humanity is a result of that wondrous and essential plant food, CO2.

      Floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, ice advancing, ice retreating, famines, wars, malaria, crop failures – can all be ascribed to failure to properly worship at the altar of The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism.

      As the numbers of supplicants drop, no doubt CO2 will be blamed for haemorrhoids, baldness and scrofula. The current Warmist alarmism doesn’t seem to attracting the same numbers of the gullible as it previously did.

      All part of the rich tapestry of life! Good for a laugh, at the very least.

      Cheers.

      • “Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

        No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2). The average heat flux of a human body, about 100 Joules per second (i.e. 100 Watts per person) represents only a few percent of the energy flux produced by our power supply systems in industrial countries. The human body’s heat flux is part of the natural energy budget, since the carbon contained in our food would be emitted as carbon dioxide by other creatures if not by ourselves. It is thus negligible. Compared to radiative forcing through greenhouse gas emissions which has already amounted to 3 Wm-2 and is supposed to steadily increase, we do not change global climate significantly through the heat we produce by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium.”

        http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

      • Tony Banton,

        I haven’t got the faintest idea why your comment has appeared as a reply to mine.

        Maybe you meant it for somebody else. You posed a question to yourself, and proceeded to provide the answer. I’m not sure why.

        However, just for fun, an ice cap at -3 C emits around 300 W/m2, which is far greater than your 242 W/m2, and about as relevant.

        The rest of the link is the usual Warmist sciencey rubbish, sad to say. Definitely fits the Warmist dogma of deny, divert and confuse!

        The amount of CO2 and H20 in the atmosphere do not increase the amount of energy received from the Sun. As a matter of interest, the hottest places on Earth are characterised by a decided lack of the most prevalent supposed GHG, H2O. As are the coldest places on Earth, in Antarctica. The greenhouse effect only seems to work in moderately warm areas, and only while the Sun is shining!

        And you really believe this stuff? I don’t.

        Cheers.

      • “One might reasonably expect that thermometers might show an increase in the heat produced by seven billion humans in 2010, compared with heat produced by one billion humans in 1850. And indeed, this seems to be borne out by observation.”

        That’s why I posted Mike.
        To me you allude here to warming by waste heat.
        Orders of magnitude to little.

        “And you really believe this stuff? I don’t.”

        Oh, and if you say so – then I’m sure it’s true … err, whatever you “believe”.

        I, on the other hand, take note of evidence proving empirical science …. and you may remember I have considerable first-hand experience of that.

    • Is it the argument that Cook and 6 other studies made the same mistake?

      • Stephen Segrest,

        You wrote –

        “Is it the argument that Cook and 6 other studies made the same mistake?”

        I’m not arguing. Just stating a fact. If 7 studies made the same mistake, I wouldn’t be surprised. Deluded people supporting other deluded people. Or possibly fools, frauds or the mentally deranged?

        7 studies? Looking at the same data time after time? Looks like a severe case of Warmist Wishful thinking – keep saying it, and it might come true! Anthropologists recognise this sort of behaviour as sympathetic magic.

        This is the basis of cargo cults. Richard Feynman gave a short address titled “Cargo Cult Science” some years ago. Cargo cult science still seems to be alive and well, in the guise of Warmism.

        Cheers.

  66. Interesting:

    Compare and Contrast:

    Despite the enormous costs these policies would impose, especially on poor countries, they would do virtually nothing to stop anthropogenic climate change, let alone protect anyone from relentless natural climate change that is one of our planet’s most prominent and inescapable features.

    Björn Lomborg and Gary Yohe
    Monday 1 September 2008 16.00 EDT
    The first, a constrained “mitigation alone” option, failed the cost-benefit test because discounted benefits fell short of discounted costs. In the authors’ opinion, however, this failure could be traced to faulty design. Allowing for more efficient allocation of mitigation efforts over time (with the major part of a reduction in the second half of the century), recognising uncertainty (including emissions scenarios that were higher and lower than the baseline), and/or including more timely participation by rapidly developing economies like China and India (the authors assumed that only developed countries constrained emissions before 2100) all pushed estimated benefits significantly above cost.

    Wonder what might happen if they considered the uncertainty in the ratio of positive/negative externalities?

    • Not to mention:

      Moreover, we both see no place for mindless repetitions of the contrarian rhetoric that humans are not to blame every time climate policy is discussed; we are beyond that point.

      Did Bjorn say that the science is settled?

    • I’m not sure what the point is. Is someone claiming that they can look into the future better than someone else?

      I can only presume someone pays for these guesses with somebody else’s money.

      You certainly wouldn’t waste a cent of your own, would you?

      Cheers.

      • Mike

        I gave you my take on the climate above

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/10/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/#comment-777945

        I think we need to learn from the lessons of the past and that lesson is that the climate and weather has at times been much worse than today.

        Some years ago, I lived in a 400 year old cottage with a small river at the front. We moved in during a period of drought. Virtually no river and the experts forecasting it would never have water in it again.

        Cue me working in the back garden, busy filling in a slight depression in the ground. Cue gnarled old man who stopped and looked at what I was doing.

        ‘You don’t want to do that’
        ‘Why?’
        ‘you’re filling in the ditch that takes the river overflow’

        I looked at this very slight depression.
        ‘Ditch?’
        ‘yes, its where the surplus water runs when the river is full . it breaks into it further up and acts as a bypass.’

        I wiped my brow as the sun beat down
        ‘That’s interesting.’
        he went on his way muttering.

        A few months later as the river continued to insult with its lack of water I came across a 130 year old book that described the river and its periodic droughts and subsequent recovery to flood conditions.

        A year later and it had been raining solidly for three days and the water was starting to return.

        Sure enough, within six months the river was frequently running full and on several occasions flooded into the garden as the river broke its bank, tried to pass along the filled in ditch and couldn’t because…er…it had been filled in.

        We eventually had to dig a new bypass channel to bypass the old filled in ditch (not just by us-I had stopped, but others higher up had completely filled in their section)

        So this long winded story is merely meant to illustrate that climate changes and we need to look to the past for possible pointers to the future, because there is very little new under the sun and someone has seen it all before, even if in much derided ‘anecdotal’ observations.

        tonyb

      • climatereason,

        I agree. The lesson from history is that if something has happened, it is a brave man who states categorically that such a thing could never happen again!

        I cruised on the Rhine etc. in 2011 and 2013. There are a few places with flood level markers going back a few hundred years. One interesting place is Passau, where the highest recorded flood occurred in 1501. And it did, indeed prove prophetic. I think they had a slightly higher flood in 2013.

        Adaptation? Wait for the water to drop, clean up, move back, resume living. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, I’m told.

        I live in a tropical location subject to cyclones. I’ve got no intention off moving, even though I lost the lot during a cyclone in 1974. Adaptation and resilience – that’s me!

        As to your ditch, one day you’ll bring your Zimmer frame to a screeching halt, and tell the sweating householder he might be better off not filling the ditch. He’ll roll his eyes, you’ll shuffle off, and the wheel will turn – again.

        Thus it always has been, and probably always will be!

        Cheers.

  67. Tony has delved down the memory hole…Old knowledge
    from naychur in the historic record …physical naychur’s
    variations over time … human naychur”s trial and error
    collisions with such, these are robust, like Tony’s own
    experience with ditches … see how he learned from
    experience? …

    What survives the test of long periods of time is robust,
    not them virtual-reality-short-term-models cited by the
    IPCC with 90% confidence, as robust. Hubris or jest
    conforming to a brief … tsk!

  68. The IPCC are going to make the climate great again.

  69. Harry Twinotter

    If Dr Curry likes the “uncertainty” so much, does she care to say something about the flip side of uncertainty? If it is accepted that the physical evidence for AGW is “uncertain”, how about saying something about how the rate of global warming may be underestimated.

    It is irrational to assume because something is “uncertain”, that uncertainty means the rate of global warming is an overestimate.

    • Wow, what an amazing insight. That will revolutionize discussions. /sarcasm

      That’s been done to death. You’re decades behind.

    • Observations at this time show no such thing.

      0.6 *C warming since 1940, 0.01 per year gives us a hundred years or so.

      a hundred years ago no space flight, electronics, few cars and airplanes.

      Lots can happen.

      It is within the margin of error. Flat temperatures for the last 18 years according to UAH. Now it has gone up, but still within the range of natural variability and margins of error.

      • Harry Twinotter

        scotts4sf.

        “It is within the margin of error. Flat temperatures for the last 18 years according to UAH. Now it has gone up, but still within the range of natural variability and margins of error.”

        I think you are factually incorrect, but provide a citation if you like. Include the surface temperature data set as well.

        You have not addressed my point. Something tells me Dr Curry is not going to respond.

    • Until they’re fixed, the satellite series say nothing meaningful at all about the surface air temperature.

      The trend over the last 18 years, the so-called pause in global warming, is .17 ℃. The current 30-year trend is .178 ℃ per decade.

      The PDO index has been going up since the beginning of the year, and is now just slightly under its “blob” peak. In a ramp up of the PDO to a positive phase there are very aggressive warming rates. See the 1930s and and 1970s -1980s.

      Over the last 5 years there has been very aggressive warming.

      There is not a 60-year cycle; there’s the PDO… a beast of an ocean cycle because is its direction coincides with ENSO’s direction, which encompasses a huge area of the surface of the earth. The PDO up phase is humming like a sewing machine; the PDO down phase barely works.

      It’s about time for some scientists to admit they blew it on the AMO, and to start explaining to people there are consequences to their mistake.

      • They have not kept the plot up to date about earthquake activity and the increases in magnitude either. An old text book predicted there would be a noticeable change up as man fell down further. GIGO or AMO what difference will it make tomorrow? We all understand that there are consequences to our mistakes when a poll has been taken. Now what’s next?

      • Explain to us what needs to be fixed WRT sat temp data, JCH.

      • A warning label that says “This crap doesn’t say much about the surface air temperature of the earth”.

      • I find it amusing that you fret over the structural uncertainty of sat temp measurement when the surface temp dataset structure (calculation technique or model) is continually revised so that the NET temperature trend is higher. Talk about structural uncertainty!!!

        Beyond that, I see a lot of speculation about sat structural uncertainty, but no specifics.

      • UAH is version 6.xx?yxx. There was a version 5.5 and a version 5.6. How versions are there? 10? 30? Who cares? How many stabs in the dark at the surface air temperature do those two clueless “gawd wouldn’t do this” bozos get? And then they have the nerve to come out and claim it’s not the warmest year on their series.

      • JCH, a lot of FUD, but no facts.

      • These are a couple of the satellite trends since 2000, supposedly measuring the same thing.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

      • JCH

        Are you really pinning your hopes on endless warming? Maybe that feels safe since activists like you control all the climate datasets and maintain its fictitious endlessly warming output.

        The ocean SST anomalies are looking somewhat cool of late, especially near the poles. But fret not – any day now all that blue will miraculously turn orange as another change is made to the baseline reference. Like they did in 2014 so that the following two years were magically the warmest evah.

        Have you ever wondered why all the current warming is where the people aren’t? In the middle of the largest ocean basins? At the poles ( e.g. the spectacularly worrisome warming of Antarctica that is causing the above average sea ice). Plus at the bottom of the ocean. Oh yes, and Siberia too. Odd that it’s never where there are people to witness it. But I’m sure the GCM models will reassure us that warming that actual people will actually notice, will happen any day now.

      • I do not have “hopes”. Have you pinned your hopes on natural variation cooling planet? That’s pretty irresponsible.

      • I’ll see you how many Ice Ages, there ever was.

      • You do that. The same scientists you will rely upon are the same scientists telling you to wake the duck up.

      • JCH,

        You wrote –

        “The same scientists you will rely upon are the same scientists telling you to wake the duck up.”

        Scientists can say anything they like, and frequently do. I listen to all, make my own assumptions, and proceed accordingly. Any scientist telling me what I should do, needs to provide cogent answers to any questions I might pose. This seems reasonable to me.

        People may demand my respect, but I’m probably more likely to respect those whom I think have earned respect. My choice. You can fawn over anyone you wish, obviously. Your choice.

        Cheers.

      • I would tell you to go post your drivel at Held’s blog, but it would be a disservice to Held. This is whack-job heaven, so you fit right in.

      • I do not have “hopes”. Have you pinned your hopes on natural variation cooling planet? That’s pretty irresponsible.

        It’s hard to predict in advance how a chaotic system will evolve.
        It’s a little early to be writing off any effect of the AMO. The “M” stands for multi-decadal.
        What is also missing from this discussion is the positive effect of CO2 in enhancing plant growth globally.
        Plus the absence from the geological record of any semblance of runaway warming due to much higher atmospheric CO2 in past ages.
        Your implicit assumption of alarm in connection with rising CO2 looks like an article of faith without scientific foundation.

      • Until they’re fixed, the satellite series say nothing meaningful at all about the surface air temperature.

        And nothing about Arctic sea ice either.

  70. You write on climate change but once again reposted a long piece that completely misses what the issue is.

    What you have to do in order to continue your beliefs on the subject, and self convince that those beliefs are “logical” and “objective.”

  71. JCH

    UAH is version 6.xx?yxx. There was a version 5.5 and a version 5.6. How versions are there? 10? 30? Who cares? How many stabs in the dark at the surface air temperature do those two clueless “gawd wouldn’t do this” bozos get? And then they have the nerve to come out and claim it’s not the warmest year on their series.

    So you are an intolerant bigot as well as a blow-hard? So shocking that there are six versions of UAH? How many GCMs are there? How many “stabs in the dark” do the climate-gamers get? Don’t be shy. Tell us – how many? How crap does that make all of them?

  72. Pingback: Stray Voltage | Questions and Observations

  73. “NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.”
    He certainly should know one when he sees one. >)

  74. Pingback: False Alarm – waka waka waka

  75. An interesting you tube talk on “A funny thing happened on the way to global warming”. Which addresses directly the requirement for an 80% reduction in CO2 emission by 2050. “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA