State of the blog discussion thread

by Judith Curry

Time to reflect on the blog.

I have been insanely busy since Dec 1.  Particularly the last 3 months, I have had little time to spend on the blog, beyond cursory monitoring of comments and week-in-review style aggregation.

Finally, this week, I am facing the prospect of a summer with few deadlines and commitments, so I finally have time to actually think and write.  Which has stimulated me to reflect on the state of the climate blogosphere and social media, and the near-term future of Climate Etc.

Reflections on the climate blogosphere and social media

Here are my impressions, sans any substantial analysis.

As recently as a few years ago, the blogosphere dominated the internet discussions on climate change, with WUWT, ClimateProgress, ClimateAudit, BishopHill, RealClimate, ClimateDepot dominating.    ClimateProgress has been absorbed into the amorphous ThinkProgress.  Both ClimateAudit and RealClimate have infrequently posted anything for the last few years.  Recently, BishopHill has declared a ‘blogging stupor.’  WUWT and ClimateDepot continue to post frequently.

A few atmospheric scientists have blogs, notably  Isaac Held, Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards, Roy Spencer, Cliff Mass, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger.

There are some new blogs on both sides of the debate.  Sou of Boudanga and Greg Laden are blogging on the ‘alarmed’ side, with apparently a reasonable following. Update:  How could I forget ATTP, probably the most significant  new blog. There are a number of skeptic blogs that are still active, and a number of technical blogs (e.g. Paul Homewood, Clive Best).  There are also a  number of blogs that occasionally provide thoughtful posts on climate but have a broader purview, e.g. Matt Ridley, Don Aitkin, Fabius Maxiumus, A Chemist at Langley.

I would be interested in hearing about which other blogs the Denizens are following.

But overall, the role of climate blogs seems to be diminishing. Twitter has taken over as the dominate place of influence in the climate discussion, and ‘influence’ in the climate debate tends to be judged more often by someone’s influence on twitter.  I find twitter to be an extremely useful source of information (i.e. providing web links to articles), but I rarely engage in actual discussions on twitter.

Facebook appears to be making a move, apparently through the discussion Groups, there seems to be a lot of posts and discussion.

Here is one piece of analysis.  Looking at the wordpress.com sources of referrals for ‘hits’ to Climate Etc., historically the sources have been dominated (in order) by WUWT, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, BishopHill, with huge boosts from pjmedia or Mark Steyn when one of my articles gets mentioned.  During the last quarter (not even the last year), Twitter jumped to the top.   Over the last 30 days, twitter and Facebook are neck in neck (with ClimateDepot, BishopHill, rank exploits and WUWT in that order), and over the last 7 days Facebook has jumped to the top (by a significant margin).  Note: I tweet and post on Facebook nearly all of my posts (but not the presidential discussion threads).

I think I now have a reasonable understanding of the dynamics of twitter, but not so sure about Facebook.  I have an order of magnitude more followers on twitter than on Facebook, but I am now getting more blog ‘hits’ from Facebook?

I would be interested in your takes on the state of the online information/discussion about climate

Whither CE?

So, with the prospect of a few months this summer when I have time to think and write, I’m trying to figure out what I want to tackle.  I will continue with 1-2 week-in-review posts, if for no other reason that this is a useful way for me to index recent publications and articles (e.g. if I am writing a post on Antartica, I can just search the blog for ‘Antarctica’ to identify any recent articles).  I will also keep a weekly or biweekly presidential politics discussion thread, if for no other reason than to divert comments away from the other threads.

I have a file of 95 draft posts on wordpress.  I’ve also ‘pinned’ about 50 emails sent to me with potentially interesting essays.  And this is not to mentioned things I’ve ‘favorited’ on twitter.

With regards to science topics, I am thinking of aggregating the articles topically, where I can provide some sort of integrated assessment.  I am working on a post on clouds for next week.  There are also a host of issues related to the sociology and politics of climate science.  So, I am thinking of providing some sort of overview/assessment post once per week.

One of the biggest challenges I have is sorting through requests for a guest post (that are submitted via email).  The decision is easy if the person has previously submitted a guest post and is a known quantity.  The decision is also easy if the post is very poorly written.  But in between are some posts  that are well written and potentially interesting – I can easily filter out obvious crackpottery, but don’t have the time to carefully evaluate them.  I am thinking of selecting groups of these for occasional posts, with a brief abstract and a link to the full article.  This would allow some of these articles that pass a moderate filter to receive some exposure and discussion, without any endorsement by me.  Your suggestions on this?

Also, I will be able to be more responsive in near real time to the ‘big’ papers or other events that are receiving media attention.

And finally, I am hoping for, and open to, your suggestions.  Do we need a new Denizens thread?  How about another ‘Skeptics: give it your best shot’ thread?  Moderation policy?

Thanks again to all of you who read and comment at the blog, and post on twitter and Facebook.  Special thanks to guest posters, and those who send me emails with links or original articles.

265 responses to “State of the blog discussion thread

  1. My comment is that I’m not a scientist and have recently come to the “skeptic” camp largely through this website, which seems to be a rational presentation of the science. Thanks for that. The writing is well-done, too. I don’t have time to look at everything posted but appreciate this resource. I’m not on Twitter and I rarely follow FB.
    We need websites that look at issues in depth and counter the prevailing groupthink.
    How about some skeptics on vaccines, too? Look at vaccinepapers.org for some in-depth science. I know this is off-topic but I encourage people to break away from “what everyone knows” and look at what the science, and the history, actually say.

    • Peter Lang

      I agree. I also do not use Facebook or Twitter. I like the format. Although it would be nice to have the ability to format text by highlighting the text and then clicking on a format button. That’s available on some other sites. It would mean less formatting errors.

  2. Judy,
    I have to say I appreciate your blog and the content of science and arguments. for and against.

    I check WUWT, every day.
    not a lot of people know that,
    CLIVAR
    Tisdale, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill,Dr John Christy, Global Warming policy foundation, Real Science, Science Matters, JoNova, Marohasy, Roy Spencer, PCMDI and various others.

    I do not use facebook or twitter as the privacy features and potential exposure seem too great.

    Thanks for what you do. I started reading this blog when the interview with you and Dr Mann published in Scientific American in 2010. Before that I had doubts about the science based on models. I work with and assess models as an engineer and tend to check them against observations to revise them. This is gone backwards in climate as they change observations to more closely match models. Models fail as Tisdale says.

    Thanks very much for keeping this difficult and time consuming effort going.

    Scott

    • Energy Matters http://euanmearns.com/ is very useful. Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews are both geologists with careers in the energy industry. One of their projects is to follow the El Hierro wind/pumped storage installation to compare claims with actual output. Like Dr. Curry they also publish weekly headlines.

  3. The summer silly season is upon us, which should provide fodder for some entertaining posts.

    WordPress allows you to highlight Twitter feeds, Facebook groups, etc. in sidebars–perhaps the site architecture needs more work than the content…

    I abandoned blogging ( at least for now) for work-related reasons–if I had more time I’d still be at it. But I noted more than a year ago that many of my go-to blogs had hung ’em up. Places like Collide a Scape, Bart Verheggen, Only In It For The Gold (and Planet 3), and this niche of the blogosphere was poorer as a result.

    Perhaps more disturbing, a lot of the commenters I was used to seeing also moved on to pastures new. The nature of the discourse was improved with some of their retirements, but lessened by the absence of others.

    So I hope you stick around. I will, even if this is the first comment I’ve posted on a site in over a month…

  4. Judy: My overwhelming reaction – though not really responsive to your request – is simply to hope you keep going. I still miss Roger Pielke, Snr’s blog posts with his objective summary of papers and his technical analysis. I also miss Roger Pielke, Jnr’s more eclectic blog. I have yet to succumb to twitter and have not followed you on Facebook, so I am an “old school” follower.
    One of the things that is critically important is that your credentials are enormously important for lending credence to critical commentaries when there are hyperbolic press releases or one-sided, agenda driven articles from folks like Chris Mooney.

  5. The thing I miss the most in this blog is the human dimension of the “etc.” After all the empirical data is analyzed, and all the equations worked out, basic human needs and desires should be taken into account when communicating scientific findings to politicians and the general public.

  6. I mostly lost interest in climate blogging a couple of years ago. Pretty much everything that can be said has been said, and in most case we just have to wait for another ten years or so of data, which should help to reveal whether the luke warmers or the hot warmers were right. (I’d bet on the luke warmers, except that I have a bad habit of losing bets.) On the policy side it’s increasingly clear that almost everyone is going to carry on claiming to believe in the dangers to global warming while doing little or nothing about it, so there’s not really much to discuss there either.

    Of course there’s always the possibility of a really interesting breakthrough at any time, but you can’t exactly plan for that.

    • we just have to wait for another ten years or so of data,

      We have 800 thousand years of ice core data from the Antarctic, we have 150 thousand years of ice data from Greenland. We have millions of years of other proxy data. In ten more years, we will be well inside the bounds of data we have now. We should include new data as it comes in but we don’t need to wait for anything to start trying to understand the natural causes of climate change. The climate models are all wrong, the make forecasts that never happen, Throw them away or fix what is wrong, using data and knowledge we already have. We went to the moon and came back, starting with very little knowledge or data, other than an understanding of the laws of physics. Climate is not harder than that and we have more data about climate.

      I promote the study of natural climate variability, open to all opinions for starters.

      • Do yourself a favor and be a complete skeptic when it comes to the ice core samples – they are based on unsubstantiated theories and they contradict dozens and dozens of historic documents from around the world.

      • Ice cores are the best proxy we have. It is records of ocean temperatures, where the source of moisture for the snowfall was. Oceans cover 70 percent of the earth, Ocean temperatures are the best indicator of earth temperature. Written records for two thousand years are consistent with ice core records. There was a Roman Warm Period, then it got cold. there was a Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice Age. It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm again now. It snows more when it is warm and then it gets cold. It snows less when it is cold and then it gets warm.

      • Ice cores are not just excellent temperature records, they are snowfall rate records, and CO2 records.

      • The climate alarmists are adding thousands of more incorrect documents every year. The number of inaccurate documents cannot even be estimated. A trace gas can be used to overpower the influence of water, give me a break.

      • As I’ve pointed out both here and in talks and posters at AGU Fall Meetings, there is a 20-21 year cycle easily observed in both local and global surface temperature records predating even the Maunder Minimum, namely Central England Temperature (CET). Satellite observations since 1979 of above-cloud temperatures show no trace of this cycle, suggesting it is driven by variations in cloud cover.

        This cycle is consistent with a strong rise in surface temperature during 1990-2000, a hiatus during 2001-2011, and a terrifyingly fast rise during 2012-2016 that on this basis is likely to continue to 2022. (The so-called tropical tropospheric hot-spot is completely irrelevant here as it is not a surface temperature.)

        Regardless of what the dozens of CMIP5 models might say, this is what’s actually been happening.

      • Vaughan Pratt | May 29, 2016 at 1:52 am |

        That would be quite interesting, if you can substantiate it. The solar cycle is actually composed of two quasi-harmonics at about 20 and 23.6 years (Hale Cycle), the time it takes for the Sun to return to its initial state. Rectified, these produce harmonics with 10, 10.8, 11.8, and 131 years. The cluster near 11 years is responsible for the ~11 year solar cycle behavior most often quoted.

        Another near 20 year phenomenon is the precession of the Earth’s spin axis due to tidal forcing. It is about 18.6 years. The precession traces an elliptical cone, which means the axis deviates from its nominal position by about 0.15 arcminutes every 9.3 years.

        If you modulate an 11 year cycle by a 9.3 year cycle, you end up with harmonics at about 5 years and 60 years. An approximately 60 year cycle is readily evident in the data, and roughly 5 year cycles can be discerned as well.

        Yes, I am aware this could all be coincidence. But, I suspect this is the dynamic responsible for the ~60 year cycle we see in the data, after the forcing encounters thermal distribution time constants of the Earth, attenuating the faster rate influences. If there is additionally a ~20 year cycle, that could be due to unmodulated response to the Hale cycle, possibly due to the influence of cosmic radiation.

  7. I’ve been taking part in a University of Melbourn Facebook discussion. The alarmists side is John Cook’s minions. They cite the 97% study that Cook did like it is gospel. I have recently acquired Brandon Shollenberger’s book that talks about his “hack” of Cook’s work. One thing I learned is in the peer review process the reviewers knew who was reviewing what, and they even had a private discussion forum to finalize their reviews of Cook’s Consensus Consensus paper. Perhaps maybe you could take apart the methodology of the incestious peer-review process Cook employs on his SkS web site and possibly give me more ammunition to continue discrediting Cook’s 97% consensus. Thank you for reading this. Have a good summer!

    link to the Facebook forum for UnMeb climate discussion. https://www.facebook.com/groups/351082655019932/

    It is closed now but you might be able to search for me. Randy Hall.

  8. JC, I appreciate your blog as it feels more like a discussion I have with colleagues out in the field. This is a valuable counter measure for climate “science” perpetuated through popular media and various internet based sources. It appears to me that not only is science being butchered, but people are being taught not to think. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some fool who is certain about climate science only because they are ignorant.
    I don’t visit the climate website you listed, I tried and I found them all to be biased one direction or the other. I don’t visit any climate blogs other than this one, but I probably should explore a bit. Most of my understand comes from literature review, colleagues, driving dirt roads, and spending time with people who know more than me. I know there is no scientific consensus. I have spent way too much time driving around in pickup trucks with experts in various disciplines actually observing the effects of climate change to know that it ain’t co2.
    Please keep up this island of scientific sanity. I find it very comforting.

  9. Here is something I found a bit disturbing: http://climatefeedback.org/

    I had hope until I dug in to it. Under their list of PhDs are “hypothesis” links where they review news articles to point out the science butchery.

    I found a couple problems.

    1. They only review what appears to be two articles. A “denier” article, and a pro-co2 control of climate article.
    2. The denier article is clearly a hack job.
    3. The pro-co2 control article is well written and somewhat accurate, yet incomplete.

    This leads to glowing reviews of pro-co2 control news articles by PhD level scientists (none of which I have ever met), while the “denier” article get blasted as it should. Although some of their PhD levels scientists get a bit giddy doing so.
    In my opinion this is simply more fodder for the ignorantly hysterical.
    I stumbled across that site the day after USAtoday published an article about how co2 is causing Lake Mead to reach record low levels; Lake Mead being an artificial lake of which the level is controlled not just by the Colorado River flows, but also by the outlet in the dam. Idiots.

  10. I sometimes think there are too many comments posted too fast, but I don’t have a solution that I like.

    Other than that, I just want to thank you for doing this. I don’t have a facebook page or twitter account and don’t want one. So, please keep the blog format. I’ve learned so much about climate science here and I’m grateful for that.

    Also, thanks for the political posts. For me, climate science needs more data and that will take time, so arguing over how many CO2 molecules fit on the head of a joule seem kind of pointless to me. Only time will tell for climate, but the US political situation is extremely important to my children and grandchildren right now. I want to see the US a bastion of individual freedom again, so this conversation is crucial.

  11. Dr Curry,

    CE is my go to site for climate issues. The only blogs I access as often are Camden Chat and Blazersedge, both sports related for Orioles and Trailblazers. I look forward to your continued efforts here.

    RE your moderation policy – as someone who occasionally gets put in moderation, I have no complaints. You have a very light hand, which is to the benefit of free expression of opinion.

  12. Thank you, Professor Curry. We are making progress against absolutely incredible odds to restore society’s contact with reality:

    https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/

  13. Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for once the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us! What do you say? It is true that when with folded arms we weigh the pros and cons we are no less a credit to our species. The tiger bounds to the help of his congeners without the least reflection, or else he slinks away into the depths of the thickets. But that is not the question. What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear.

  14. Whither CE? I like it as is, with the longer essays leavened by your week in review. I follow up a lot of links. Other blogs I read are WUWT, ClimateAudit (when there is a reference to it), RealClimate, and IsaacHeld’s Blog. I go to others when someone puts up a link to something new.

    I also take the print versions of Science Magazine, Statistical Science, Journal of the American Statistical Association, and Annals of Applied Statistics.

  15. Judy:
    I might be more representative of the teaching community in the social sciences than the ‘hard’ sciences. The college level text I use for an intro level course in cultural anthropology is deficient by its tunnel vision (IPCC, climate hysteria). I look for current articles and other materials that provide a skeptical perspective (isn’t that the starting point for scientific inquiry?).

    Prager University online short courses are helpful, given the consumption preferences of my students.

    My suggestion is that you not forget the literacy problem that is equally demoralizing as the ideological problem that dampens the actual science.

    Changing biases is always a challenge. If you put out an occasional blog along these lines, it would be much appreciated.

    Joe Nalven, San Diego

    • Peter Webster is thinking of putting his climate change course (which is superb) on the internet. The target audience is Georgia Tech seniors (from pretty much any field, but all GT students take calculus and two science courses).

      • Went to Peter Webster’s blog to encourage him to put his climate change course online, but no contact info. Please tell him that there is indeed interest in such an online course. Are there other online courses you recommend?

  16. Dr. Curry: My short response is to join others in wishing that you will continue to contribute to the debate, on the blog and elsewhere.

    I don’t “do” Facebook or Twitter, yet I find in my reading on politics I still go to Mickey Kaus every day, as I have for years, and now I’m back to Russ Smith (Mugger), who used to run NY Press. Both now run a kind of Twitter aggregator; Kaus will do the occasional “blog post,” and make a joke about it; Smith has an online “magazine” with blog post-length articles called Splice. I guess many people now want a short and sweet indication of what is interesting/worth reading, and then links to something longer, pictures, videos, etc.

    Among people speaking about climate online, skeptics have tended to be amateurs, or somehow lacking in credentials, whereas warmists have tended to be professionals. You are a great exception; even if you are still let us say on the luke-warmist side, you are known as a skeptic when it comes to a lot of specific claims that are made. If we over-simplify and say there are two sides, I think both sides are waiting for the other side to be persuaded, not recognizing how difficult it is to actually change the mind of an adult who believes she/he has already gone through a pretty sophisticated process to reach a decision. It’s a bit like people with kids; they have to wait with some patience while other people talk about their kids, but they’re mainly interested in talking about their own kids. They don’t really learn the lesson that people in general have very little interest in kids other than their own.

    Obama is a dogmatic warmist. He would obviously deny that he refuses to change his mind based on evidence, but it is pretty clear he is not really open to new evidence. Trump may be more skeptical about warming, but he seems at times to be an extreme example of a politician who will make up his mind based on who he last met.

    I like Jonathan Jones up-thread: “On the policy side it’s increasingly clear that almost everyone is going to carry on claiming to believe in the dangers [of] global warming while doing little or nothing about it, so there’s not really much to discuss there either.” Warmists are making a good thing out of travelling around by jet and saying the sky is falling; skeptics want to point out that bio-fuels, windmills etc. are not harmless, but things could be worse. For warriors, the motivation to go to the barricades may be weakening.

    • @B56: Obama is a dogmatic warmist. He would obviously deny that he refuses to change his mind based on evidence, but it is pretty clear he is not really open to new evidence.

      What “new evidence” are you offering as proof of this?

      Over the past ten years I’ve heard a lot of rubbish from both sides of the so-called “debate”, but nothing with the rigor of what was already well understood by the end of the previous century. Nothing of any significance has changed since then other than political backbiting.

  17. You should do what you are comfortable with. CE is an important forum for dissecting and understanding major papers and issues. It a form of science/technical publishing that gets severe ex post review, and it serves as an archive of sorts. These are not things that lend themselves to twitter and facebook.
    The climate wars are not over, but I sense it is in the late innings. Copenhagen failed, Paris is a nonbinding joke. CPP will be found unconstitutional. All the bad climate stuff that was supposed to happen hasn’t. And now that solutions like renewables have been sufficiently deployed, their considerable deficiencies are becoming ever more evident.

    Shining light on all this is IMO still a worthy enterprise.

    • Steven Mosher

      too funny.

      1. The reviews are not severe. They are rarely competent
      2. I’ve yet to have a poster respond simple requests for data and code
      3. Editorial control is lacking. In most reviews a writer is somewhat obliged to answer the reviewer and then the editor makes a decision. Accept or reject.

      I would say there are roughly 3 classes of publication.

      1. Traditional Journal publishing.
      a) strict formats
      b) competent reviewers
      c) practices of answering your critics
      d) an editor who decides when enough is enough.

      There are of course issues here: restrictive page counts, gate keeping,
      page charges, access, pal review, and the finality of the publish decision.

      2. On line open journals
      a) more open to reviewers
      b) no paywalls

      3. “Blog science”
      dont get me started

      Science is a set of behaviors that ends up being documented by texts and other digital assets. Over time a canon is established. That canon–, what is accepted or settled as science–like all canon’s is formed by a social process. As it stands blog science is outside the canon:apocryphal, gnostic gospels as it were.

      I think of Climate etc as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary

      • I have always enjoyed your sense, of humor Steven.

      • interesting . . . haven’t come across Gospel of Mary before

      • This book may be accurate but it is not essential to your salvation. As the Old Testament & New Testament, make clear enough the way of Christ. There are two gospels in the Bible, the Gospel of the Kingdom & The Gospel of Grace. So it is very important to ask questions and get your answers.

        2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

        Test it and see if it is so.

      • Steven Mosher

        “interesting . . . haven’t come across Gospel of Mary before’

        Gnostic Gospel’s

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

        I probably have my copy around here somewhere. It was good in 79, still good today I assume.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Like all hypocrites, there’s a disconnect between what you say and what you do.

        You miss no opportunity to bash this blog, or most of the people who frequent it. Here’s a recent example:

        But if you’re such an intellecutal and scientific giant, and tower over the rest of us mere mortals to the degree you believe you do, then why do you spend so much time on this blog? You’re always lurking, and sometimes spend hours commenting.

        Wouldn’t your precious time and towering scientific intellect be much better spent writing for the traditonal scientific scientific journals, or at least the on-line ones?

      • Stephen Mosher,

        And by the way, there is no ONE TRUE WAY to do science.

        It isn’t a religion. Nobody is in charge. There are no gods or prophets providing us with a golden path that will lead us to sure truth.

        Anyone who claims to have the one true way is lying, deluded, or both.

      • Steven Mosher

        “But if you’re such an intellecutal and scientific giant, and tower over the rest of us mere mortals to the degree you believe you do, then why do you spend so much time on this blog? You’re always lurking, and sometimes spend hours commenting.”

        I am doing an experiment.
        You are the test subject.
        So far the results are as predicted.
        thank you for your concerns.

      • Steven Mosher

        SM: “Science is a set of behaviors”

        Glenn: “And by the way, there is no ONE TRUE WAY to do science.”

        too funny.

      • It’s worth noting that Christianity was much more diverse before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. In fact, there’s good analogy between Constantine’s imposition of his single “doctrine” on the licensed Roman “Orthodox Catholic” Church and what the UN/IPCC did to climate science.

      • John Carpenter

        “And by the way, there is no ONE TRUE WAY to do science.

        It isn’t a religion. Nobody is in charge. There are no gods or prophets providing us with a golden path that will lead us to sure truth.” – Glenn Stehle

        Interesting comment, because so many times I read comments here saying that only when an experiment can be done to show the GHE exists, then it will be real. That science is only done right when it strictly follows the scientific method. That there is only one true way to do science and climate science ain’t it. Models are not science or experiments.

        Glad to see you are open to alternatives methods that have to be used when studying an observational science.

      • AK, “In fact, there’s good analogy between Constantine’s imposition of his single “doctrine” on the licensed Roman “Orthodox Catholic” Church and what the UN/IPCC did to climate science.”

        I believe both are post normal

      • AK said:

        In fact, there’s good analogy between Constantine’s imposition of his single “doctrine” on the licensed Roman “Orthodox Catholic” Church and what the UN/IPCC did to climate science.

        Absolutely, And with the recent calls to make dissent to the ONE TRUE WAY illegal, and punishable by law, the analogy becomes even stronger:

        In A.D. 330 Constantine I, the first Roman emperor to recognize Jesus as his savior, made Constantinople the empire’s second capital.

        Within a few years, a great many people who shared his faith began to die there for their interpretation of it. The emperor’s first Council of Nicea failed to resolve a doctrinal dispute between Arius of Alexandria and the dominant faction of theologians. Arius rejected the Nicene Creed, taking the unitarian position that although Christ was the son of God, he was not divine.

        Attempts at compromise foundered; Arius died, condemned as a heresiarch; his Arians rioted and were put tot he sword.

        Over three thousand Christians thus died at the hands of fellow Christians — more than all the victims in three centuries of Roman persecution.

        — WILLIAM MANCHESTER, A World Lit Only by Fire

      • Steven Mosher

        “Interesting comment, because so many times I read comments here saying that only when an experiment can be done to show the GHE exists, then it will be real. That science is only done right when it strictly follows the scientific method. That there is only one true way to do science and climate science ain’t it. Models are not science or experiments.”

        that’s why I had to laugh.

        I love these guys

      • richardswarthout

        We all are slaves to our perceptions. What we think we know is probably wrong.

        Richard

      • As it stands blog science is outside the canon…

        Climate Etc. is a communication conduit, not scientific research. As such, I find the links as well as the discussions helpful. Criticizing this blog as insufficently rigorous suggests an opportunity for improvement but also seems a bit gratuitous.

      • AK,

        But a more recent analogy to Steven Mosher and his ilk is to be found in Stephen Toulmin’s Cosmopolis:

        One thing about [Descartes’] ideas, however, was to [the Counter-Reformation theolgoians’] tastes: his insistence on the need for certainty.

        Once rationalism raised the intellectual stakes, Catholics could not go on playing by older, more relaxed rules: if formal rigor were the order of the day in physics and ethics, theology must follow suit….

        A manuscript entitled…Traité sur la réception et l’autorité du Concile de Trente en France…describes the stuggle, after the Council of Trent, to uproot the “pernicious heresies and errors” of Protestantism, and paints a revealing picture of the intellectual position of the Catholic Church in early 18th-century France….

        The ambition of the Counter-Reformation, it tells us, was “to prove invincibly our most fundamental belief.”

        Aquinas nor Erasmus would have been happy about this use of the phrase, “invincible proof.” Neither of them claimed that human beings, however wise and inspired, could put matters of faith and doctrine beyond scope of reconsideration and revision. Both of them would be shocked to see that the Christianity they treasured was abandoning its former sense of human finitude, and falling into a dogmatism contrary to human nature as they knew it.

      • This night before the rooster crows I will deny AGW three times…

      • Steven Mosher

        Opluso

        This is the claim I take issue with:

        “You should do what you are comfortable with. CE is an important forum for dissecting and understanding major papers and issues. It a form of science/technical publishing that gets severe ex post review, and it serves as an archive of sorts.”

        Your comment to me?

        “Climate Etc. is a communication conduit, not scientific research. As such, I find the links as well as the discussions helpful. Criticizing this blog as insufficently rigorous suggests an opportunity for improvement but also seems a bit gratuitous”

        1. I certaintly didnt claim it was research. So, strawman.
        2. Communication conduit? errr rather empty assertion
        3. You find the links helpful. Google Is your friend
        4. The claim was made it was rigorous, it appears to me that you were
        happy to let that slide, while you felt the need to “correct” me.

        too funny.

      • Steven Mosher

        “We all are slaves to our perceptions. What we think we know is probably wrong.”

        Which means we are probably wrong about being wrong.

      • Glenn –

        ==”…Steven Mosher and his ilk…”

        I’ve noticed that you say “ilk” a lot. Consider that generalizing like that might be sub-optimal.

      • @Steve:

        >That canon–, what is accepted or settled as science–like all canon’s is formed by a social process.

        Generally, yes, although narratives evolving within the domain of science typically have more constraints than say religious or political narratives, and these constraints increase as uncertainties diminish (may take years or generations or even centuries or more). This is why for instance some typical themes common to social canons, have a less literal expression within a science-spawned context. For instance, cannot have literal salvation in heaven for CAGW, so a near-equivalent consistent with narrative principles that still invokes sufficient and similar emotive response is, ‘saving the grandchildren’. All social canons in fact evolve, even though the timescales involved (say for the major religions) make some look quite static within a single generation. The Gnostic gospels (and probably many more truly lost to us gospels) were once part of the constantly competing elements within a much less mature canon than we see in Christianity today (which in fact has branched to several canon variants also). The social expression of an evolving canon and associated cultural adherence are fairly well known, and so looking for the relevant characteristics will tell one whether a particular science domain is, largely, in the grip of social evolution, or largely, constrained by reality. The latter doesn’t necessarily mean the science is yet ‘true’, it just means that it is not a social story. In the former case, the canon is just an emergent social story. CAGW has all the characteristics; its emergent social story is independent of what is actually happening in the physical climate and whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Someone (sorry I forgot who) once said here at Climate Etc that it didn’t matter if CAGW was a social story, if it turned out to be true. The problem with this position is that no social story has ever turned out to be true; their evolutionary purpose is to create consensus in the face of the unknown, and typically this means creating ‘truths’ rather than discovering them. The created (by which I mean socially emergent, not deliberately created) truth of CAGW, is that catastrophe is certain near-term (by ~2100), absent dramatic mitigation.

        >As it stands blog science is outside the canon:apocryphal, Gnostic gospels as it were.

        Climate science is still at a very immature stage, and likely the sheer size of the uncertainty monster as Judith names it, is what allows the pretty rampant evolution of many competing elements. There are few constraints as yet, which is what allows social process to dominate and come up with the same basic themes that social process generally comes up with. These themes are ultimately based on fear and hope and other emotive elements, which allows the most effective sub-text stories to rise to the top in a co-evolving environment that has internal competition but also co-operation relative to external cultures or reality constraints (gaming theory and social alliances can be used to explore this area) .

        Emails, blog, twitter, Facebook, and all other media are in principle no different to all the other social interaction that has enabled these processes to occur since the dawn of speaking homo-sapiens-sapiens. They will all contribute to the evolution of the canon, and though some media are still rather recent to detect effects, certainly the social process enabled by emails as visible in the Climategate releases, have had a significant steerage on the CAGW canon. As the canon is still young and evolving, we can’t know what it will eventually consist of. It is perfectly possibly that much of what is now considered the official canon will in fact become the equivalent of the Gnostic gospels. I.e. it will be thrown out (maybe for instance even losing the lead ‘C’ of CAGW). Bear in mind the canon of a social process at any one time is not just what exists, for instance, in something like a bible or a core scientific corpus (e.g. the IPCC AR’s). It is all narrative in all media associated with the domain, including all newspaper articles and press release and so on, as all these seriously contribute to the evolution, and everything in the heads of all folks operating in the domain also, even down to the most humble blog comment. In the world of memetic evolution, significant things can evolve from such comments, such as the first mention of ‘the pause’ by someone, or less significantly (but it springs to mind), the first mention of the word ‘Climategate’ by ‘Bulldust’.

        Emergent social narratives are blind of course, which is to say they are neither sentient or even agential. But to use rather agential language (which humans lean to anyhow), for an emergent social narrative to hitch its wagon to science is ultimately a mistake. When uncertainties diminish too much, when reality intrudes too much, the narrative must at some point collapse. When this happens, social consensus dissipates and the more conscious process of science as people normally understand it, which per above does not necessarily yet mean revealed truths, regains a majority stake. This occurred for instance with Eugenics (which was tangled in a very major and unwholesome social canon).

        Climate Etc is a healthy and significant part of the evolution of the climate domain, and may yet spawn more of the eventual canon inherited by the future, than much of what now passes as accepted and mainstream.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Climate science is still at a very immature stage, and likely the sheer size of the uncertainty monster as Judith names it, is what allows the pretty rampant evolution of many competing elements. ”

        I have no idea what people mean by “mature” or “young” science.
        I think it is a bad metaphor. I’d avoid it as it colors your analysis.
        Next I would question the adjective rampant and the use of the word evolution. Both carry too much baggage. Lastly, I’d question that there is any competing elements. Again, competing is a loaded description.
        When it comes to the core science its been pretty much the same for over a hundred years.

        “There are few constraints as yet, which is what allows social process to dominate and come up with the same basic themes that social process generally comes up with. These themes are ultimately based on fear and hope and other emotive elements, which allows the most effective sub-text stories to rise to the top in a co-evolving environment that has internal competition but also co-operation relative to external cultures or reality constraints (gaming theory and social alliances can be used to explore this area) .”

        Those are present in any storytelling. The point of saying the canon is formed by a social process is quite simple: People decide what goes in the canon. People decide when to “move on” and call an issue settled. The process by which they do this is of course interesting, but understanding that process doesnt tell you much.

        “Emails, blog, twitter, Facebook, and all other media are in principle no different to all the other social interaction that has enabled these processes to occur since the dawn of speaking homo-sapiens-sapiens. They will all contribute to the evolution of the canon, and though some media are still rather recent to detect effects, certainly the social process enabled by emails as visible in the Climategate releases, have had a significant steerage on the CAGW canon. As the canon is still young and evolving, ”

        Again, the language of youth and evolution gets in the way. We can note however that climate science is unlikely to grow two heads. As for vague assertions about climategate.. I will just repeat what I wrote. Mails dont change science. more science changes science. Same goes for blogs and twitter etc

        “we can’t know what it will eventually consist of. It is perfectly possibly that much of what is now considered the official canon will in fact become the equivalent of the Gnostic gospels. I.e. it will be thrown out (maybe for instance even losing the lead ‘C’ of CAGW). ”

        The C has never been a part of the science. Yes Dr Frankenskeptic tried to sew a second head on the science. The argument “we cant know” is pretty weak rhetorically. we cant know that monkeys wont fly out of your butt, nevertheless we dont take precaustions for that when standing behind you in line. You can be pretty sure that c02 will be a GHG tommorrow and the day after.

        “Bear in mind the canon of a social process at any one time is not just what exists, for instance, in something like a bible or a core scientific corpus (e.g. the IPCC AR’s). It is all narrative in all media associated with the domain, including all newspaper articles and press release and so on, as all these seriously contribute to the evolution, and everything in the heads of all folks operating in the domain also, even down to the most humble blog comment. In the world of memetic evolution, significant things can evolve from such comments, such as the first mention of ‘the pause’ by someone, or less significantly (but it springs to mind), the first mention of the word ‘Climategate’ by ‘Bulldust’.”

        No, that’s not what I mean by a canon. But you can rest assured that no one in the future will reference Climategate to settle an issue of science. 20 years from now, no one will tell a grad student to read Moshers comments on the blogs, or anyone for that matter.
        Side matter: marginalia.. interesting for a purely acedemic purposes but not a part of the day job of science.

        “Emergent social narratives are blind of course, which is to say they are neither sentient or even agential. But to use rather agential language (which humans lean to anyhow), for an emergent social narrative to hitch its wagon to science is ultimately a mistake. When uncertainties diminish too much, when reality intrudes too much, the narrative must at some point collapse. When this happens, social consensus dissipates and the more conscious process of science as people normally understand it, which per above does not necessarily yet mean revealed truths, regains a majority stake. This occurred for instance with Eugenics (which was tangled in a very major and unwholesome social canon).

        Climate Etc is a healthy and significant part of the evolution of the climate domain, and may yet spawn more of the eventual canon inherited by the future, than much of what now passes as accepted and mainstream.”

        I question the health. But to you I suppose its settled science.
        go figure.

      • ““Climate science is still at a very immature stage…”

        Peter Glieck the master of espionage. Gavin Schmitd and the Fox Studio buggie. Andrew Dessler and the amazing balloon thermometers who happens to be twitter buds with Gregg “Meltdown” Laden. Dr Cheese “pre-traumatic breakdown” Parmesan. :)

      • @Steve:

        >I have no idea what people mean by “mature” or “young” science. I think it is a bad metaphor.

        Young science = high uncertainties, low visibility, low traction on (ultimate) problems, naive investigatory tools, etc. Mature = more accumulated knowledge leading to lower uncertainties hence more predictability, higher visibility, higher traction on (ultimate) problems, sophisticated investigatory tools. Medical science could be described as reasonably mature, since we have at least some handle on its ultimate roots now (evolutionary processes, and specifically for humans our genome). This doesn’t mean there isn’t vast amounts to do, but medical science a couple of centuries back could be described as ‘young’. It’s a relative term of course, yet I think reflects in a directly understandable way the lack of grip we still have upon what our hostess terms ‘a wicked problem’. No metaphor is perfect, but I think this serves well.

        >People decide what goes in the canon.

        As part of the social process you correctly invoke, what goes into the canon is not ‘decided’, it is emergent.

        >Again, the language of youth and evolution gets in the way.

        These are part of the terms of art used to describe the social process you mentioned. They are appropriate in this context. In the context of describing science per above, the metaphor is also useful.

        >Mails dont change science. more science changes science. Same goes for blogs and twitter etc

        As you correctly note, a canon, ‘scientific’ or otherwise, can be formed by social process. Mails, blogs etc are simply part of the modern social process. Therefore all these media do contribute to changed science.

        >’The C has never been a part of the science.’

        As noted above, a socially developed canon includes all info in the domain; it all together steers the evolution of said canon. The calamitous part is particularly associated with authority, and has a powerful effect on the evolution of the canon. Emotional bias due to the calamitous narrative is definitely affecting scientists, so affecting science:
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/24/contradiction-on-emotional-bias-in-the-climate-domain/

        >’The argument “we cant know” is pretty weak…’

        How can anyone know what the canon will be in say 50 years? I’d be interested to know how you know that.

        >’No, that’s not what I mean by a canon.’

        But that most certainly is what is meant by a canon in the context of such as evolved by ‘social process’, which you specifically invoked.

        >’But you can rest assured that no one in the future will reference Climategate to settle an issue of science.’

        Goodness. What a certain prediction ;)

        >>”Climate Etc is a healthy and significant part of the evolution of the climate domain…”
        >’I question the health.But to you I suppose its settled science. go figure.’

        I have no idea what you mean by ‘to you I suppose its settled science’??
        A healthy forum has a spectrum of contribution and robust yet constructive comment. I see that here, even within this exchange :)

      • Steven Mosher

      • Steven Mosher:

        1. I certaintly didnt claim it was research. So, strawman.

        Since I specifically quoted you saying “blog science” is “outside the canon” your strawman accusation seems to be stuffed with something other than hay.

        You often recommend reading more closely. Good advice. My brief comment noted a feature distinguishing Climate Etc. from “blog science” which you dismissed as an “empty assertion” and then suggested Google as an alternative to Climate Etc. links. Fortunately, great minds do not always think alike.

        You further appeal your exam grade by writing:

        4. The claim was made it was rigorous, it appears to me that you were happy to let that slide, while you felt the need to “correct” me.

        What I actually said was:

        Criticizing this blog as insufficently rigorous suggests an opportunity for improvement but also seems a bit gratuitous.

        Given your quibble, I retract the word “gratuitous”. Your criticism was apocryphal.

      • Steven Mosher

        @Andy

        “Young science = high uncertainties, low visibility, low traction on (ultimate) problems, naive investigatory tools, etc. Mature = more accumulated knowledge leading to lower uncertainties hence more predictability, higher visibility, higher traction on (ultimate) problems, sophisticated investigatory tools. ”

        Climate science? High uncertainities? As with all fields there are portions, corners, niches, that have varying levels of certainty. I dont know how one begins to do the calculus to judge a whole field as ‘young”
        Plus “young” is the wrong term. Consider Mathematics. Chronologically old, but there are certain intractable problems. Before the proof of Fermats last theorem was mathematics young? after the proof is it a teenager? that problem had low traction for a long time. Ultimate problems? you make it sound as if Science has some sort of universal goal. Naive tools? Again with the bad metaphors. Replacing one bad metaphor with cognates doesnt improve the analysis. Its better to substitute measurable criteria. Functional operational pragmatic criteria.
        Even there its hard to quantify.

        “Medical science could be described as reasonably mature, since we have at least some handle on its ultimate roots now (evolutionary processes, and specifically for humans our genome). This doesn’t mean there isn’t vast amounts to do, but medical science a couple of centuries back could be described as ‘young’. It’s a relative term of course, yet I think reflects in a directly understandable way the lack of grip we still have upon what our hostess terms ‘a wicked problem’. No metaphor is perfect, but I think this serves well.”

        I think the “mature metaphors, the “wicked” metaphors, do not illuminate. They excuse. A good metaphor will illuminate the less well known by using the more well known. I dont think either metaphor illuminates the state of climate science.

        >People decide what goes in the canon.

        “As part of the social process you correctly invoke, what goes into the canon is not ‘decided’, it is emergent.”

        Ah well they most certainly do decide. Sometimes the decision is conscious, sometimes unconscious. If you want to describe this as emergent that is fine, but imprecise.

        >Again, the language of youth and evolution gets in the way.

        “These are part of the terms of art used to describe the social process you mentioned. They are appropriate in this context. In the context of describing science per above, the metaphor is also useful.”

        No again, I dont think the metaphor is useful. It’s largely unncessary and colors discussions.

        >Mails dont change science. more science changes science. Same goes for blogs and twitter etc

        As you correctly note, a canon, ‘scientific’ or otherwise, can be formed by social process. Mails, blogs etc are simply part of the modern social process. Therefore all these media do contribute to changed science.

        Even Cartoons? And Why limit it to media. The argument “everything contributes” doesnt explain anything. I’m not particularly impressed or informed by an analysis that doesnt rule anything out.

        >’The C has never been a part of the science.’

        As noted above, a socially developed canon includes all info in the domain; it all together steers the evolution of said canon. The calamitous part is particularly associated with authority, and has a powerful effect on the evolution of the canon. Emotional bias due to the calamitous narrative is definitely affecting scientists, so affecting science:
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/24/contradiction-on-emotional-bias-in-the-climate-domain/

        Now you have redefined the canon, so of course you can throw anything you like in it. Not an impressive move in arguing.
        try again.

        >’The argument “we cant know” is pretty weak…’

        How can anyone know what the canon will be in say 50 years? I’d be interested to know how you know that.

        Different logical claim. read harder.

        >’No, that’s not what I mean by a canon.’

        But that most certainly is what is meant by a canon in the context of such as evolved by ‘social process’, which you specifically invoked.

        No. That is not what is meant. Think harder. Just a simple example.
        Our good Sky dragon friends will not be a part of the canon. They will not be referenced by other science. other science will not build on there findings. In your version of the canon they are “in” because somebody somewhere talked about them.

        >’But you can rest assured that no one in the future will reference Climategate to settle an issue of science.’

        Goodness. What a certain prediction ;)

        Its not that hard. There is no science in the mails. No one will say,
        ah, clouds are a negative feedback, here is the mail that proves it.

        >>”Climate Etc is a healthy and significant part of the evolution of the climate domain…”
        >’I question the health.But to you I suppose its settled science. go figure.’

        I have no idea what you mean by ‘to you I suppose its settled science’??
        A healthy forum has a spectrum of contribution and robust yet constructive comment. I see that here, even within this exchange :)

        Simple you make a claim. I question the claim. I dont think its healthy

        it used to be more healthy, but it is quickly going down the same path that WUWT went down.. RC went down a similar path.
        Now walk over to climate audit and see what has happened to a thread on Christy.

        I think Judith’s perception that blogs are losing their relevance is closer to the truth than your belief that it is healthy.

        At some point one wants to calculate the half life of a rational discussion on the internet.. and also calculate the half life of blogs

      • Steven Mosher

        opsulo

        “Since I specifically quoted you saying “blog science” is “outside the canon” your strawman accusation seems to be stuffed with something other than hay.”

        Actually you got the quote wrong.

        There is a reason i put Scare quotes around the term Blog Science.

        Guess what that was?

      • “I have no idea what people mean by … “young” science.”
        I think settling on a metric (ECS) that can’t ever actually be measured would be a part of it.

      • Steven Mosher

        ““I have no idea what people mean by … “young” science.”
        I think settling on a metric (ECS) that can’t ever actually be measured would be a part of it.”

        http://www.businessinsider.com/the-end-of-physics-as-we-know-it-2016-1

        physics is young.
        no wait its old..

        young and old is the wrong metaphor.

        try again.

        try to talk about science without metaphors… you know.. be scientific.

      • “physics is young.
        no wait its old..

        young and old is the wrong metaphor.

        try again.”

        What is the average shelf life of a climate science paper versus a “physics” paper?

        Newtonian physics is old but still very relevant for most “real” world problems so that has a shelf life of a few centuries. Andrew Dessler’s ground breaking paper on the “definitely” positive feedback of clouds had a shelf life of about how long it takes to get a peer reviewed rebuttal published. Eric Steig’s ground braking paper on how the Antarctic was definitely warming had the same shelf life. Lean solar was a bit better with about 5 years since her work required additional instrumentation.

        Medicine is an old science, nuclear medicine, not so much, genetic specific medicine is still a tad “immature”.

        Nice to know when “physics” is invoke things get bullet proof :)

      • I presume you noted that Harry Cliff was applying metrics that could actually be measured.

      • Steven Mosher

        “What is the average shelf life of a climate science paper versus a “physics” paper?”

        Ah,, the shelf life argument. Papers don’t die. Old bad papers are still there. Pick another metaphor.
        Here is the problem. Since you cannot engage the science on its own turf, you know do science, you are relegated to using other tools to judge science. the tools of “meta science” which is an even younger “science” more uncertain science than the science you are judging.
        you are relegated to doing “joshu*” brand analysis… you know looking at the externalities. As Einstein said.. it doesnt take 100 people to prove me wrong, only one old paper with a longer shelf life” or as feynman said,
        all you have to do is look at the funding, the politics, the age of papers, the uncertainties of the field in general to judge the science.”
        opps.

        Here is a clue. you are not doing science when you talk about science or when you flail around characterizing a “field” using imprecise, untested, emotional language and metaphors.

        I find it hilarious that skeptics of all people try wholesale rejections of science based on mere externalities. Climate science is young.
        Therefore it’s the best. Its uncertain, so it attracts the brightest minds,
        its cutting edge, new things get discovered every day. its vital, alive, evolving, adapting, getting stronger… I love the youth metaphor.

        Here is clue. drop the metaphors.
        Here is a better clue, stop talking about science and do some.

      • “drop the metaphors.”

        Nope, metaphors are okay when dealing with analogies :) Neither will ever be perfect, both can be useful. As far as “doing science”, pointing out a flaw without a peer reviewed paper is and has been a part of doing science.

        http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/shortest_science_papers.html

      • Here, let’s try Dessler’s critique of Bates.

        “The correlation of 20S-20N SST with GMST and current state of the art measurement of OLR indicates that 20S-20N SST and OLR produce reasonably accurate estimates of climate “sensitivity” with smaller error margins than Dessler implies. Either that or the concept of “teleconnection” and the statistical methodology involved are fatally flawed. Unless there are more accurate means of determining correlation, balloons perhaps, Dessler’s comment is duly noted and filed with his other relevant work”.

      • Steven Mosher

        Captain.
        Metaphors are not quantifiable. All of them as frost pointed out break down. They are a crude tool especially in the hands of amatures as frost pointed out. Pointing out errors is one step. Getting that accepted into the Canon is a second step replacing the error with something better that others build on is the full monty. Auditing isn’t science..it’s a start. Do the whole job or hit the pine.

      • “Metaphors are not quantifiable.”

        Not quantifiable is more acceptable than improperly quantified. When someone improperly quantifies something “doing science” a metaphor is a useful tool for sarcastic dismissal. “Your science is immature.” is much more useful than “you are an idjit.” as a motivational tool. I believe it is also more polite.

        http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/metaphorical-thinking

      • @Steve

        >Climate science? High uncertainities? As with all fields there are portions, corners, niches, that have varying levels of certainty.

        So you believe there is low uncertainty regarding the fundamental workings of the climate system, i.e. excepting niches and corner cases, and ‘portions’ (albeit one presumes some portions might still allowably be quite large)? Doesn’t this imply that we could for instance describe natural variability to the level of most significance (i.e. excluding uncertain processes at the secondary level)? I didn’t know we could do that. Can we?

        >I dont know how one begins to do the calculus to judge a whole field as ‘young”

        There are many links which collectively here at Climate Etc attempt the exercise of assessing the size and even nature of uncertainties across the field, for instance one below. The output to date strongly suggests that the field is indeed immature:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/28/expert-judgement-and-uncertainty-quantification-for-climate-changeon-a-likelihood-and-prior-distribution-but-it-does-not-mean-that-the-result-of-the-learning-is-valid-validation-ensues-when-posterio/

        My own assessment rests primarily on the fact that the domain behaves in every way as one where emergent social process dominates. At the level of a whole domain (rather than sub-topics), this would be very unlikely to happen if the domain was mature. The social process wouldn’t have enough freedom to get to dominance.

        >I think the “mature metaphors, the “wicked” metaphors, do not illuminate.

        Goodness, you really don’t like metaphor. I grant immature is the natural opposite of mature and is probably better than young (I may have used both). But your strength of complaint seems OTT for such a completely mainstream usage. Everyone understands for instance that you can apply either ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ to a person, yet this is not speaking to their age but their typical behavior. Maybe there is sensitivity here; what you really don’t like is what the metaphor implies?

        > I dont think either metaphor illuminates the state of climate science.

        Per above that seems likely to be a reflection of our different assessments of climate science, not the metaphor employed.

        >If you want to describe this as emergent that is fine, but imprecise.

        If we are going down to only a word or two for the description of how social process creates a canon, then ’emergent’ is pretty much most precise word one can pick. Most other choices would be less precise. I guess “it’s evolutionary” would be an option. It belatedly occurs to me that perhaps you invoked the concept of social process creating a canon, while having no idea of how that process actually works?

        >Even Cartoons?

        Yes even cartoons are part of a socially generated canon if they are domain relevant. This is in part why there is such fierce reaction to (especially humorous) cartoons of Muhammad. To the extent of people getting killed. Cultures are geared to protect their canon and protect it from potential contamination.

        >The argument “everything contributes” doesnt explain anything. I’m not particularly impressed or informed by an analysis that doesnt rule anything out.

        Who but you said there was any analysis going on that doesn’t rule anything out? Everything occurring within a domain contributes in some way to its overall evolutionary trajectory. Whether in biological evolution or social evolution, a typical way of assessing a very large range of factors that may influence the selection of a particular characteristic in the biological / cultural entity, is to do a frequency analysis. Typically, only a small number of factors are dominant wrt to any particular characteristic. But analysis wrt all characteristics at once, or forward prediction of the evolutionary trajectory, is pretty much impossible right now. For instance one can’t determine what factors in the huge range of possibilities, are about to become important. Seemingly unimportant factors can get selectively amplified.

        >Now you have redefined the canon, so of course you can throw anything you like in it. Not an impressive move in arguing. try again.

        My definition of the canon remains per my first text above, and this is how the relevant disciplines perceive a canon produced by social process. If you did not in the beginning actually mean a canon produced by social process, then I guess your choice of words to describe what you do mean is rather unfortunate, despite that they’re also the right words regarding the climate domain.

        >read harder >Think harder

        Goodness. You are rude. The constant struggle to align language and perceptions and knowledge bases and cultural values etc to achieve mutual understanding (even without mutual agreement), is hard enough. One doesn’t need to resort to ascribing lack of success in this endeavor to reading comprehension problems or poor thinking on the part of your debater. This is just rude, despite we all slip from time to time, hence you too. If one falls into deploying such comments regularly, then with the best will in the world the constant reinforcement may leave you feeling inappropriately superior.

        >Our good Sky dragon friends will not be a part of the canon.

        They are still referenced / talked about within the domain, albeit rarely. Hence they still form a part of the social canon. Right now the frequency analysis above would put them right out on a fringe. I tend to agree with you that they’ll likely stay there, or possibly drop from all mention one day just like the truly lost gospels. Yet as noted above, predicting the evolutionary direction of any entity, cultural or biological, is beyond our current capability in anything but highly simplified cases that don’t reflect the real world. I think what’s a much more interesting question though, is how much of the existing canon that scores very high frequencies currently, for instance high confidence in calamitous climate events by around 2100, will remain at a high frequency into the future. While canons developing within a scientific context are subject to more constraints than say religious canons, with those constraints increasing as uncertainties decrease, this doesn’t make prediction too much easier. We can say that one day climate science will not be dominated by a cultural narrative, but it’s anyones guess when. Currently, it is so dominated.

        >There is no science in the mails. No one will say, ah, clouds are a negative feedback, here is the mail that proves it.

        So you think the climategate emails did not influence the direction of climate science at the time they occurred? At the top of this thread you correctly pointed out that social process can create a canon. There are very well known mechanisms via which this occurs. In light of the comment above, especially, what process did you mean? Can you describe it? Whatever it is you have in mind, it appears from your comments so far to be different to the well-known mechanisms noted above.

        >I think Judith’s perception that blogs are losing their relevance is closer to the truth than your belief that it is healthy.

        These are not necessarily in opposition. A healthy forum in one medium may still be eclipsed by larger events in the world that drive folks to other mediums. There are many superb books and much healthy exposition in books, but one day they may still be obsolete. As Judith notes Twitter is certainly on the rise, yet it seems to me an additive media in the sense that it must pretty much always reference meat elsewhere (Tweets too short for inclusive meat). Hence at the moment, you still need an elsewhere. Anyhow, I note that Climate Etc seems to be still healthy enough to engage your good self regularly; a great thing imo.

      • andywest2012 said:

        Cultures are geared to protect their canon and protect it from potential contamination.

        Subcultures are also geared to protect their canon and protect it from potential contamination.

        This goes for Mosher and the Wamists, who constitute a subculture (the dominant one I would say) of the overarching culture of climate science.

        Climate science, in turn, is a subculture of the larger culture of science, which in turn is a subculture of the larger overall culture of the society.

        And regardless of what Mosher and the Warmists might believe, no subculture is an island unto itself, but is shaped and formed in important ways by the overarching culture it belongs to.

        Steven Mosher states:

        Science is a set of behaviors that ends up being documented by texts and other digital assets. Over time a canon is established. That canon–, what is accepted or settled as science–like all canon’s is formed by a social process.

        Here Mosher speaks of two things: means (social processes) and ends (what is accepted or settled as science).

        Mosher fancies himself as being the arbiter of science: he wants to decree both the means and the ends of science.

        With science, both the means and the ends have their canon. The canon of the means is what is known as epistemology. It, just like the canon of the ends, changes and evolves over time.

        Your “evolutionary epistemology” is almost the 180º opposite of Mosher’s “traditional epistemology.” Mosher’s epistemology is normative. Your’s is naturalistic. Mosher’s epistemology is prescriptive. Your’s is descriptive. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/ )

        Mosher’s epistemology takes its cues from what Daniel Yankelovich calls “the culture of technical control”: It employs the “information-driven model”:

        The information-driven model leads to a concept of public education as a one-way process: the expert speaks; the citizen listens. Questions may arise about the best technique for grabbing the public’s attention and conveying the relevant information. But conceptually, the model is simple and unidirectional: the expert’s role is to impart information to the public skillfully and effectively; the citizen’s role is to absorb the information.

        — DANIEL YANKELOVICH, Coming to Public Judgment

        “All cultures,” Yankelovich goes on to explain, “support and promote a status system.”

        “For some, it is wealth that confirms their special status.”

        But the bulk of the experts, the influential gatekeepers of society — scientists and technologists and journalists and professors and specialists — “are not usually persons of wealth,” Yankelovich says. Instead,

        their status derives from their expertise. It is their prize possession, the source not only of their livlihood but their status and self-image. It distinguishes them from the majority of Americans by giving them a privileged vantage point, as befitting people who are “special.”

        The knowledge and interests of the experts, Yankelovich continues, “are specialized.”

        Their day-to-day contact with the general public is meager. They belong to distinct subcultures, each with its own outlook. Often they are graduates of elite colleges and universities, which indoctrinates them with a noneradicable feeling of superiority to the general public…. [I]n their personal lives many have adopted the outlook of a ruling social class, and though their attitudes may be benign, their life-styles create a vast social distance between themselves and average Americans.

        Yankelovich goes on to argue that the culture of technical control, along with its information-driven model, is highly flawed, and in the long run is bound to fail.

        When it comes to Mosher, however, there is an additional irony, for he lacks the credentials and accomplishments which would allow him to take his place amongst the ranks of the experts.

        He very much reminds me of the ribbon clerks who work at Neiman Marcus’ flagship store in North Dallas. It is not at all unusual to observe them exhibiting more pretentiousness than the wealthy people they serve.

      • David Springer

        “1. The reviews are not severe. They are rarely competent”

        What is being reviewed is rarely competent. The scale is thus balanced.

      • David Springer

        Fercrisake girls, get a room for your next handbag fight. My mouse wheel wore out trying to find the end of it!

      • andywest2012 said to Steven Mosher:

        If one falls into deploying such comments regularly, then with the best will in the world the constant reinforcement may leave you feeling inappropriately superior.

        That’s the understatement of the year.

      • Glenn Stehle:
        Even setting aside larger issues of Epistemological approaches, for sure the authority status (‘special status’ as you say) associated with science and scientists is one of the portals via which social process can muscle in and divert or dominate the enterprise of science.

        I never heard of Neiman Marcus before. Looks like a pretty swanky store.

      • andywest2012,

        Mexico, where I live, has a state with almost no authority, lacking in both legitimacy and credibility.

        In an attempt to gain and/or maintain authority, it has replaced legitimacy with state violence, as was reported in the NY Times yesterday:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/world/americas/mexican-militarys-high-kill-rate-raises-human-rights-fears.html?_r=0

        The NY Times article includes only the state violence committed against the Mexican people that has been investigated and documented.

        Many Mexicans, along with myself, believe that this is only the tip of the iceburg. Of the 160,000 people who have been murdered since the so-called “War on Drugs” began, most of these murders were committed or directed by the Mexican state.

        http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/05/27/politica/007n1pol

        An award-winning movie which documents the seamless partnership which exists between the drug cartels and the Mexican state, and the hopless situation created by the state-sponsored terrorism for working-class Mexicans, is this one:

        Needless to say, this is not the romanticized Mexico imagined by those demonstrating against Donald Trump and waving Mexican flags.

        We see the same phenomenon — an attempt to substitute state violence for credibility and legitimacy — but on a much milder scale, with the Warmists’ drive to use state violence to punish those who dissent to CAGW.

        As Hannah Arendt wrote in On Violence,

        Rule by sheer violence comes into play where power is being lost; it is precisely the shrinking power of Russian government, internally and externally, that became manifest in its ‘solution’ of the Czechoslovak problem….

        When violence is no longer backed and restrained by power, the well-known reversal in reckoning with means and ends has taken place. The means, the means of destruction, now determine the end — with the consequence that the end will be the destruction of all power.

      • andywest2012,

        Speaking of authority, you might want to make sure and take this in

        Paglia, the noted cultural critic, university professor, and Salon columnist, sat down with Reason’s Nick Gillespie to discuss whether we should still look to universities for cultural production and knowledge. She noted a shift in attitude toward authority on campus: Students used to look for ways to get administrators out of their private lives; today’s college kids are calling for more control over their lives.

        “It’s a nightmare, an outrage, and none of the faculty have fought back. […] They pretend to be leftists, they’re pygmys; they are passive worms; not to fight back against the bureaucrats,” says Paglia.

      • @Glenn Stehle | May 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm | …

        Mexico, where I live, has a state with almost no authority, lacking in both legitimacy and credibility.

        In an attempt to gain and/or maintain authority, it has replaced legitimacy with state violence, as was reported in the NY Times yesterday:

        Well, Breitbart has another take:

        The New York Times (NYT) decided to write about violence in Mexico. But, the publication chose to ignore the thousands of victims who have been kidnapped, raped, tortured, decapitated, dismembered, eaten, incinerated, or worse at the hands of cartel gunmen. The atrocity being reported by the American news outlet is that the Mexican military kills too many cartel gunmen and they are rough with the ones that they capture.

        In their most recent article “Body Count Points to a Mexican Military Out of Control,” Mexico City reporter Azam Ahmed and Washington-based reporter Eric Schmitt take on the Mexican military for human rights violations claiming they kill too many cartel gunmen and rarely suffer losses of life.

        While the NYT quotes American professors schooled in military strategy and warfare, they completely missed one key element in Mexico’s cartel war — that many cartel gunmen are in fact teenagers or young men, with minimal training on the high powered and illegal weapons given to them. The gunmen are used to taking on unarmed citizens rather than trained military or police forces.

        […]

        The article by the NYT simply helps to re-affirm the old cliche that foreign correspondents simply have no clue about the realities of the country they are reporting from and continue to push their own beliefs with an international byline.

      • AK,

        Thank you for the link to the Breitbart story. I will pass it along to some friends here in Mexico, because they are always interested in what is being said about Mexico in the US press.

        Breitbart is merely parroting the narrative being disseminated by much of the mainstream media on both sides of the border. The United States is, of course, interested in lending as much legitimacy as it can to its puppet government in Mexico.

        A similar media offensive was made by President Obama and Time, with a front-page story lauding Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto:

        http://content.time.com/time/covers/pacific/0,16641,20140224,00.html

        The reality in Mexico is not so sublime, and the situation is considerably worse than even what the NY Times story indicates. The Breitbart story is so remote from reality that it’s out in la la land.

        Here’s how a creative visual artist reworked the Time cover:

        And in this poll from Mexico’s leading finance journal from August 2015 (the most recent one I could find) respondents’ opinion on the Mexican Army was split almost evenly: 51.8% said they had some or a lot of confidence in the Mexican Army and 46.6%, said they had no or little confidence.

        That’s the highest level of disconfidence in the Mexican Army recorded during this century.

      • @Glenn Stehle | May 28, 2016 at 5:35 pm |…

        Stratfor has an open article from January discussing the cartels. To me the most notable issue is fuel theft:

        In 2016 organized crime-related violence will remain a significant issue, albeit somewhat less severe. At the same time, the continued expansion of fuel theft nationwide will be an increasingly pressing concern for Mexico City. In November 2015, Petroleos Mexicanos reported a 55 percent increase in the number of illegal taps on its pipelines between January and November 2015 compared to the same time period in 2014 (5,091 compared to 3,286). Roughly 27,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel were sold daily on the black market in 2015.

        Beyond the economic cost, fuel theft presents Mexico with a host of security concerns. Theft often leads to corrupt officials, pipeline explosions and leaks, and, most significantly, violent conflict over territory. Recognizing the potential for huge profits through access to the pipelines, criminal groups frequently clash for control of this access.

        Both Petroleos Mexicanos and Mexico City have taken a number of measures to stymie the rise of organized crime’s involvement in the energy sector. Since 2014, Pemex has invested $229 million to improve its ability to monitor its extensive infrastructure and has slightly modified its own supply chains, including phasing out the transportation of finished gasoline through its pipelines to deter fuel theft. Meanwhile the Mexican government has increased its efforts to crack down on crime groups responsible for stealing and selling stolen fuel. Since May 2014, federal troops have pursued crime bosses regardless of their involvement in organized crime-related violence and regardless of their criminal affiliation throughout Tamaulipas state. (Tamaulipas-based groups are still the primary offenders in fuel theft.) Most recently, in December, Mexico’s lower house approved changes to laws regarding the theft and sale of fuel, extending the possible prison sentence for fuel theft to up to 25 years.

        But current efforts are unlikely to slow organized crime’s expansion into fuel theft, at least through most of 2016, because there is still considerable incentive for further expansion. Additionally, combating organized crime’s fuel theft activity is as challenging as combating organized crime as a whole. Nevertheless, Mexico City is being pressured to ramp up its efforts to reverse the trend. In 2016, Mexico City will likely further focus its federal troops on targeting crime bosses overseeing criminal activities in the energy sector, particularly those operating in Veracruz, Tabasco and Guanajuato states. However, budgetary constraints will limit its options.

        Mexico has the potential to be a major energy supplier in the 21st century, both fossil and solar. But this anarchic warlordism, and the demands by large corporations that the government (itself widely corrupted) “control” the expansion of fuel theft seems to me to have Mexico on the edge of being a “failed state”.

      • AK,

        Stratfor?

        One writer here in Mexico has dubbed it texano-israelí Stratfor.

        Again, what it gives is a biased view. For instance, it’s not the cartels vs. “Mexico City” as the article repeately states. It’s the cartels and Mexico City. They are partners in a complex relationship.

        The stealing of petroleum and petroleum products is a huge and growing problem. Here’s a documentary by VICE News that I believe gives a more accurate account than the Stratfor report.

        One can see just how much authority the weak and corrupt state has: The gasoline and oil theives operate with near impunity. None of this criminal activity happens without the complicity — without at least a blink and a nod — of the higher ups in the state. The state is corrupt and weak. No one trusts it to do what’s right.

        As you watch the video, just ask yourself one question: Could the theives operate that openly in a country like the United States that has an extremely strong state with a great deal of authority?

      • @GS: And in this poll from Mexico’s leading finance journal from August 2015 (the most recent one I could find) respondents’ opinion on the Mexican Army was split almost evenly: 51.8% said they had some or a lot of confidence in the Mexican Army and 46.6%, said they had no or little confidence.

        Of what possible significance is “confidence”? A majority of the US Republican electorate has a lot of confidence in Trump. A majority of the US electorate has no confidence whatsoever in Trump.

        Confidence in leadership has led to world wars with more calamitous outcomes than confidence in whether Jesus was mortal or divine.

      • Vaughan Pratt said:

        Confidence in leadership has led to world wars with more calamitous outcomes than confidence in whether Jesus was mortal or divine.

        So let’s talk about “confidence in leadership.” Here’s an example.

        Humberto Moreira Valdés was arrested in Spain in January of this year for laundering money for Los Zetas. The alleged amount: 2 billion Mexican pesos, or about $110 million U.S. dollars.

        http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Nacional/16012016/1044287-Detienen-en-Espana-a-ex-Gobernador-de-Coahuila.html

        Moreira Valdés was:

        • The ex-governor of the Mexican state of Coahuila (2005 – 2011)

        • The ex-president of the PRI, the political party of Mexico’s sitting president Enrique Peña Nieto

        • Campaign manager for the presidential campaign of Mexico’s sitting president Enrique Peña Nieto

        Then in March of this year, Juan Manuel Muñoz Luévano, alias ‘Mono Muñoz’ and also ‘El Ingeniero,’ was arrested in Madrid for money laundering and organized crime.

        http://www.elespanol.com/espana/20160318/110488992_0.html

        Muñoz Luévano is:

        • Being held as a result of the same Spanish investigation that led to Moreira Valdés’ arrest

        • Is the owner of various gasoline stations throughout Mexico

        • Is charged with having links to Los Zetas, one of the three most important drug cartels in Mexico

        • Is charged with distributing the gasoline stolen by Los Zetas

        • Is charged with being the principal go-between between Los Zetas and Humberto Torres Charles, the brother of the ex-attorney general of Coahuila Jesús Torres Charles, charged with offering protection for Los Zetas

        So when we speak of a lack of “confidence in leadership,” it has a completely different meaning when it comes to talking about Mexico’s leadership as opposed to when we’re talking about Donald Trump.

      • Oh dear. I’m starting to like Mosher. Somebody call me a priest.

      • And then there’s the infamous Casa Blanca, or White House in Spanish.

        In Mexico there are three Mexicos. First there is the city of Mexico. Then there is the state of Mexico. And then there is the country of Mexico.

        Enrique Peña Nieto, before becoming president of the country of Mexico, was governor of the state of Mexico.

        Casa Blanca was a gift to Peña Nieto’s ex-movie star wife from a contractor who did several hundred million dollars of work for the state of Mexico while Peña Nieto was governor. It is a multi-million dollar mansion located in the exclusive Lomas de Chapultapec neighborhood of Mexico City.

        La Casa Blanca de la Gaviota
        http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/lacasablancadelagaviota-2205668.html

        And if one wants a glimpse of the sort of brutal state repression Peña Nieto is capable of, take a look at this:

    • “All the bad climate stuff that was supposed to happen hasn’t.”

      ?

      Do you see all the brown on this anomaly map:

      The brown regions on that map are unusually warm ocean waters.

      Warm oceans evaporate more quickly. The resulting clouds are carried by wind currents to nearby low pressure systems where the horrifying inundations destroy homes, roads, bridges and lives. Perhaps you are unaware of the record rainfall across several regions of our world over the past year. Where do you think that humidity comes from? It’s coming from the rapid evaporation of the ocean waters – but you conclude “the bad climate stuff that was supposed to happen hasn’t.” ?

      You’re not aware of the crop fields that have been destroyed by drought and floods? You’re not aware of the orchards that have been destroyed? You’re not aware of the thousands and thousands of people who had to pack and move because they had no water? Even in the Himalayan mountains, villagers have had to leave because the glaciers above them are gone. You’re not aware of any of this? You’re not aware of the mass animal die-offs all around the world? You’re not aware of the record-breaking heatwaves? You’re not aware of the record-breaking wildfires? You’re not aware of the thousands and thousands of people who have died from the heat, the fires, the floods, the record-breaking hurricane force winds?

      You consider yourself to be aware of climate change and its effects but you fail to do the research that would reveal to you the truth.

      You’re not aware that the heat from volcanic sea floor eruptions is warming the oceans which are then drilling river tunnels – nearly 1,000 feet high – into the ice shelves while volcanic heat below the ice sheet is melting the glaciers from below? You’re not aware that Antarctica now has hundreds of glacial lakes below the ice sheet which are being kept warm by the volcanic heat?

      You’re not aware of the increase in the volcanic activity? You’re not aware that the volcanic eruptions on the sea floor are nine to ten times more than the volcanoes that are documented? You’re not aware that six volcanic islands emerged from the sea floor in two years? So you haven’t calculated the heat from these six sea floor volcanoes which is heating the sea waters and so you haven’t even begun to calculate the hundreds and hundreds of other volcanic eruptions on the sea floor. Are you not aware of the volcanic sea mounts? You’re not aware of the volcanic eruptions on the sea floor around Antarctica and Greenland, Alaska, Russia, Svalbard, Canada and in the Arctic Ocean? You’re not aware of the volcanic eruption – larger than Yellowstone, larger than TOBA – in the Arctic Ocean?

      You are aware that the Arctic has been heating up faster than any other place in the world, right? But it hasn’t occurred to you that the heat in the Arctic is coming from volcanic sea floor eruptions? You’re not aware that the Arctic is a shallow ocean with less water volume that requires less heat to warm up?

      You’re not aware that the ice shelves around the world are rapidly melting because of the heat from the nearby volcanic eruptions on the sea floor?

      So you jump to the conclusion that “bad stuff” isn’t happening without actually doing the decades of research that would have provided you with some facts.

      Since you failed to do decades of research, you’re not aware that billions of lives are in danger – from the tsunami waves, heatwaves, wildfires, record-breaking flood waters, sinkholes, landslides, train derailments, lethal radiation poisoning, starvation, disease, violence, etc, but you’re content to proclaim your conclusions for all the world to see.

      I can only conclude that you are an innocent child – but since billions of lives are on the line and since an extinction level event is underway and since some researchers have concluded that all humans will be dead within 15 years, let’s take a more serious in-depth look at the climate data, let’s do a more intense review of the historic records, let’s translate the climate data from over a dozen languages and let’s take a few decades to review thousands of independent sources of climate data from around the world – going back to prehistoric times – so we can make intelligent contributions that might save a few lives.

      I don’t see anyone else online who has actually done the research – monitoring glacial melt around the world, sea temperature anomalies around the world, wind anomalies around the world, atmospheric methane levels, record-breaking rainfall, record-breaking heatwaves, record-breaking wildfires, landslides, sinkholes, train derailments, mass animal die-offs, historic documents from around the world going back over 500 years… who else has studied geology, glaciology, seismology, volcanology, marine science and atmospheric science? Who else has been doing this research for decades, monitoring for decades and translating from over a dozen languages?

      Most of the climate “experts” have a tiny sliver of the climate data and – without realizing it – are patting themselves on the back while publishing their climate forecasts. Notice the relatively few who are aware of the dangers are oblivious to the inaccuracies in all these forecasts.

      Please bring yourself up to speed with extinction level event that’s currently underway. Be aware that the ice shelves and glaciers are rapidly melting, sea level rise will come swiftly and will be preceded by colossal tsunami waves that will – most likely – destroy hundreds of nuclear reactors and thousands of nuclear waste storage tanks. Be aware that the jet stream will spread the lethal radiation poisoning all across the northern hemisphere and across the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

      Dozens of historic documents from around the world prove that the Antarctic ice was pulverized in January 1700 – mountains of ice were tossed into the sea where they quickly melted which resulted in rapid sea level rise. Thousands of independent sources of climate data strongly suggest this scenario will soon be repeated – only this time hundreds of nuclear reactors will be decimated, along with thousands of nuclear waste storage tanks, millions of cities, towns and villages and billions of lives.

      The forecast is actually worse than it sounds but with people like you who think “bad stuff” won’t be happening anytime soon, the number of unnecessary victims is even more tragic.

      Decide now if you want to survive – the choice is yours – most people are cowards who have chosen to take the easy way out but whatever you choose, stop regurgitating the spoon-fed lies that “bad stuff” isn’t happening.

      • So what are you going to do about it?

      • When a freight train is coming toward us, we step out of the way, right?

        A small percentage of the world population are aware that the equivalent of a giant freight train is coming toward us. We recognize it as an extinction level event.

        Most of them take a fatalistic attitude – I do not because my research reveals worldwide cataclysms are much more frequent than the public is led to believe –

        humans manage to survive them and humans will survive this one, although the devastation will be horrifying. I expect very few survivors.

        I monitor to dangers and remove myself from the most volatile and life-threatening regions.

        Across the northern hemisphere, for example, the heatwaves, wildfires, lethal radiation poisoning, floods, tectonic plate upheaval, hurricane force winds, landslides, sinkholes, starvation, disease, violence, etc., will make survival there next to impossible.

        Latin America, Africa, the South Atlantic, the Middle East and low elevations in the southern hemisphere have far too many threats to survival.

        I already left North America. I don’t think I could survive there.

      • Since science is value neutral, whatever happens is neither good nor bad. Some outside perspective is required for saying what ought to be. Generally that perspective is about human preferences especially Mother Nature is silent. Of course some hear voices and can divine what nature wants.

        As we sort out what humans want, we run into competing interests by different peoples in the world, different time horizons, different views about what is fair, etc. Perhaps we need a poll to see where climate change ‘ought’ to be. Oh yes, there have been such polls and the results have generally favored paying attention to more immediate problems of health, employment, with the trending of climate change predictions trailing. Perhaps we would do we’ll with a climate change Czar to clarify what is good for us.

        So, the discussion generally devolves into politics and whether we thnk we know can be generalized to all of humanity and optimally social engineer the world into a world best envisioned by Hollywood.

        Good luck to whirledpublishing.

      • Climate science is ultimately about chemistry –

        and on the topic of chemistry, Earth has the final decree –

        not the chemists with their periodic table of the elements –

        that’s not even close to the truth about Earth and her elements.

        Climate “experts” relay on the fake paradigm of chemistry and think they’ve got it all figured out –

        they publish their timeline going back millions of years

        and they publish their timeline going into the future a hundred years or more –

        Let’s watch and see how “scientific” their forecasts are.

        I’ll be watching from up here on the mountain –

        far from the American continents.

      • I’m waiting. Just a few more lines,.. please.

      • This is a cartoon drawing, whirly.

        Andrew

      • Whirled – tldr

        got about a quarter through your screed blaming all the world’s problems on Global Warming before I skipped to the end. While I’m sure you are brainwashed enough to believe that the earth had never seen bad weather before man started burning the cursed carbon fuels, the rest of us know better.

      • You’re hilarious –

        you just jumped to a ludicrous conclusion.

        Do a “find” search of my writings for CO2.

        Only imbeciles monitor and regurgitate that nonsense –

        Good luck to you.

        I’ll return to my decades of research –

        Remember the developmentally delayed kids you went to school with?

        They were only about 15 to 20 IQ points below yours

        Do you have any idea how many points you are below me?

        My IQ tested off the chart on the WAIS-R –

        and I have decades of research and I’m a Doctoral Scholar –

        not programmed by mainstream “science” – “psy-ance”

        So good luck to you and whatever ignorant arrogant spoon-fed lunacy you want to regurgitate.

        Before replying, be sure to get your SAT scores, your college placement scores and your WAIS-R score to remind you that you’re way below the 15 to 20 point threshold for intelligent communication.

      • Ok, I went back and read the whole thing.

        … and now I have to admit I think I got pwnd. Well played, sir. ^¿^

      • whirledpublishinggmailcom | May 27, 2016 at 2:53 pm | Reply
        “All the bad climate stuff that was supposed to happen hasn’t.”

        ?

        Do you see all the brown on this anomaly map:

        There is a lot that is “brown” about your map.

        Let’s repeat this experiment next year at this time.

        Anomaly from 1961-1990? That must be real accurate.

      • If you had been trained in basic climate science, you wouldn’t have made such a preposterous comment:

        “Anomaly from 1961-1990? That must be real accurate.”

        1961 to 1990 are the years of the temperature database…

        I can barely stop laughing long enough to complete my sentence.

        Wherever you took your climate science training, go ask for a full refund of your tuition.

      • I hope that your luck is better than the Frenchman who bought a banana plantation on Guadalcanal, to avoid the coming World War II.

      • You’ve concluded that I depend on luck?

      • If you don’t have faith in God, surely you can see that the only other option left to the unbeliever is luck, right?

      • You’re making silly assumptions.

        In what way did I get lucky with the DNA thing?

        Actually, I did hit some jackpots with that, but you’d have to compare me with my cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents – maybe even some great grandparents – to get an idea if it’s DNA or something else. I have made that assessment, and it’s something else.

      • Ms. whirledpublishinggmailcom,

        We sure got lucky with the DNA thing,…or is there a chance that you prefer, In the beginning… see what I mean?

      • Meanwhile you insist on your scientific assumptions, Shave & Haircut too bits.

      • Give a list of the “scientific assumptions” to which you refer.

        Comic relief is always welcome.

      • whirldpublishinggmaildotcom wrote, “When a freight train is coming toward us, we step out of the way, right?”

        You are right. What we don’t do is expend valuable resources trying to stop the train. We let it go by and enjoy the breeze. Some way down the track the train will jump the track or run out of fuel and stop on its own.

      • Exactly! Thank you! Hugs and kisses! What a relief! Whew!

      • These anomaly graphs just kill me.

        You are plotting an instantaneous measurement against an average. They are two different things.

        There is a lot of AC (sinusoidal ripple) in the weather patterns. So I’ll use that for an analogy.

        1. Averaging anything with sinusoidal components is sensitive to sample length. A sample length that isn’t an even multiple of the fundamental frequency results in a non-existent DC bias.
        2. The “average” of an AC waveform on even multiples is always zero.
        3. A “anomaly” from the average is purely a function of sample time, since you are comparing two different qualities, a long term average and an instantaneous measurement.
        4. A comparison of the old average to a new average will be zero absent DC bias drift or low frequency component.

        Plotting the “anomaly” of a 10 year period to a previous 10 year period may make more sense… But the whole sampling issue is going to cause a bias in the result because there are fundamental cycles longer than 10 years and you aren’t getting whole cycles.

        Further, in 1960 the measurement technology was different so you to some extent are comparing oranges and grapefruit and somebody will have had to carve the grapefruit down to orange size before combining them. And you have to trust they carved them down correctly.

        Further the 1960 data are less accurate and complete.

        So someone has generated a plot. Great. Is it accurate? If accurate is it meaningful?

      • You’re unaware that the unusually warm ocean waters – which are depicted on the anomaly maps – are drilling river tunnels, nearly 300 meters high into the ice shelves?

        You’re unaware that glacial ponds are drilling river tunnels downward into the ice shelves?

        If you were aware of the rapid glacial melt going on in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Russia, Svalbard, etc., you wouldn’t waste typing your totally pointless analysis.

      • 2035. I only need the one. Correct Ms. whirledpublishinggmailcom?

      • whirledpublishinggmailcom | May 27, 2016 at 6:26 pm |
        You’re unaware that the unusually warm ocean waters – which are depicted on the anomaly maps – are drilling river tunnels, nearly 300 meters high into the ice shelves?

        You’re unaware that glacial ponds are drilling river tunnels downward into the ice shelves?

        If you were aware of the rapid glacial melt going on in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Russia, Svalbard, etc., you wouldn’t waste typing your totally pointless analysis.

        1. If the “warm ocean waters” are drilling river tunnels 300 meter high into ice shelves, either the waves are exceptional high, or the shelf is irrelevant because of the Archimedes Principal.

        2. Drilling holes? This is one of those “it depends” (a plastic pants issue) questions. Summit Camp Greenland was between 0F and -27F today. So this isn’t happening on the main Greenland Ice sheet which sits in a 1000 meter trough with 4000 meters of ice on it. The water just collects at the bottom of the trough. This melting of yours is happening on the periphery.

        The relevant question is “is snowfall increasing?” because more snowfall balances out more melting.

        http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
        3. Antarctica is gaining 80-120 GT of ice a year according to NASA. What melting? Your reference to old flawed analysis is troubling.

      • Freezing cold temperatures at 10,500 feet means ocean temperatures can’t be above freezing – is that what you’d like us to believe?

        Sorry

        Please, get some education –

        and get decades of research behind you –

        then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

      • Freezing cold temperatures at 10,500 feet means ocean temperatures can’t be above freezing – is that what you’d like us to believe?

        Please seek help for your reading comprehension problem.

        Warmer ocean waters mean more evaporation. The last few years the Greenland snowfall has been above average.

        The secular melting or snowfall trends of Greenland by themselves aren’t meaningful. The important data is the difference. Since warmer waters tends to mean more snowfall it really depends on how the climate dynamics work out.

        The last 3 years net ice accumulation (Antarctic growth – Greenland loss) has reduced the sea level rise by 33 GT of water per year.

      • You wrote:

        ” Drilling holes? This is one of those “it depends” (a plastic pants issue) questions. Summit Camp Greenland was between 0F and -27F today. So this isn’t happening on the main Greenland Ice sheet which sits in a 1000 meter trough with 4000 meters of ice on it. The water just collects at the bottom of the trough. This melting of yours is happening on the periphery.”

        You refer to the warm river tunnels that are “drilling” into the ice shelves below the surface of the ocean – and in the same paragraph you mention the freezing temperatures at 10,500 feet –

        and then you accuse me of having trouble with reading comprehension.

        You attempt to camouflage your ignorance by falsely accusing others –

        that might work on the people you enjoy intimidating in your personal and professional life, but here everyone sees the person you are.

        Warm waters are drilling river tunnels into the ice shelves along the coast of Antarctica and Greenland – the ice shelves are rapidly melting.

        Your plastic underpants has nothing to do with it.

        Russia is also spewing massive volumes of glacial melt into Okhotsk and the glaciers and ice shelves of Alaska are rapidly melting.

        Do you deny the rapid melting of Jakobshavn, Petermann, Elephant’s Foot, Kangerlussuaq and the other glaciers?

        You haven’t figured out what’s causing the rapid glacial melt all around the world?

        You make your point that the unusually warm waters are increasing the evaporation and subsequent snowfall?

        The ice shelves are rapidly melting and you want to talk about snowfall?

        What happens when the ice shelves collapse and the glaciers on top – the size of Pennsylvania – crash into the seas. You’ll still be talking about snowfall?

      • “the unusually warm ocean waters – which are depicted on the anomaly maps – are drilling river tunnels, nearly 300 meters high into the ice shelves?”
        Tunnels are assumed to be mostly horizontal. So these are really big tunnels you could drive a ship through if you dared. Is glacial ice a good architectural material? I’ve often wondered about the pressure under 1000 meters of ice? Might it be the same as under 1000 meters of water which would crush a submarine?

      • If people like JimD and Whirling dervish didn’t comment it would be just like an echo chamber in here :)

      • You strike me as being off your nut. JMO.

      • whirledpublishinggmailcom | May 27, 2016 at 8:08 pm |
        ..
        Russia is also spewing massive volumes of glacial melt into Okhotsk and the glaciers and ice shelves of Alaska are rapidly melting.

        Do you deny the rapid melting of Jakobshavn, Petermann, Elephant’s Foot, Kangerlussuaq and the other glaciers?

        I see the bullsh*t is strong with this one.

        There are roughly 30,000,000 GT in Antarctic, 3,000,000 GT in Greenland, and 170,000 GT everywhere else.


        Greenland snowfall averages 500 GT per year. That is about 2.5 meters of snowfall average over the ice sheet.or 0.25 meters of ice. 500 GT has to melt just to break even. We have to lose 500 km3 of glacier just to break even.

        And the Antarctic is growing. And the high Himalayan glaciers are growing.

        The real question is whether the Greenland core ice sheet is getting thicker. If the core is getting thicker than this runaway melting fantasy is just a fantasy.

        As the recent NASA Antarctic announcement illustrates the error in these melt estimates is greater than the estimates. The old Antarctic melt figures were wrong by about 150%.

        So… until the estimates improve and get more reliable, so that we are at least certain the claims that we are losing ice mass here or there, are even true, claims of any acceleration or impending disaster are a little premature.

        The change in the Length of Day anomaly (which is measured very accurately) makes the high mass loss estimates and claims of acceleration invalid. If mass was moving from the poles to the equator the planet spin rate would slow down..

      • WhirlingBS – Master of Out-of-Context.

      • “Sir”

        ?

        wtf

        My apologies. Madame. It can be difficult to guess ones gender from an unnamed blog comment, and your WordPress blog has very little in it to help answer the question.

        Or… wait. This isn’t a ‘My Pronouns’ thing, is it? Guessing someone’s gender was so much easier back when it was a binary problem. @¿@

      • Sort of difficult to be aware of things that aren’t.

      • catweazle666

        whirledpublishinggmailcom, have you considered changing your medication?

        And learning some science?

      • PA makes a good point about the dependence of anomalies on phase. Suppose the reference or index temperature is determined for each region (whether a county, a city, or a single thermometer) on a given day of the year by averaging the high and low readings for that day over the 30 years 1961-1990 (so 30 such averages for that day). How might the choice of 1971-2000 make much difference?

        Well, if region A had experienced below-average temperatures (where the average is computed as above for 1961-1990) for 1961-1970 and 1991-2000, while region B had the opposite experience, then changing the averaging period from 1961-1990 to 1971-2000 will have the effect of depressing the reference temperature for A and increasing it for B. This will make region A seem hotter and region B colder than if referenced to the 1961-1990 averaging period.

        The advantage of a 30-year averaging period is that it’s long enough for such regional fluctuations to distribute themselves around the planet, thereby reducing the tendency of anomalies for regions to fluctuate independently of each other. Instead, as the start of the 30-year reference period is moved around the regions will all inevitably fluctuate, but in lock-step to a greater extent than if averaging say 15-year periods or even shorter. Climate time series will still move up and down as the start of the reference period is moved in time, but the shape of the curve won’t change as much as with a shorter reference period.

        Whereas HadCRUT4 references the temperatures of each region to the average over 1961-1990 (30 years centered on 1975), I believe BEST centers its 30-year period on 1950 (an important date for carbon dating because the nuclear tests at that time threw off C-14 thereafter, but otherwise somewhat arbitrary for climate purposes). Since the earlier period was about 0.03 C colder, BEST can be expected to be that much warmer than HadCRUT4. That’s just one of the things that makes BEST different from HadCRUT4. Mosher would be a better source than me about that and other differences.

  18. A wide menu attracts more interest and also assists cross-fertlization, which makes a blog still more of a pro-active component rather than a passive viewing place. Plus weekly or fortnightly assessments of menu areas (sociology and politics particularly interests me, for instance) as you suggest, would help to keep a wide menu in order and summarize positions and progress for folks who haven’t got time to track everything themselves.

    I don’t tweet, but twitter has always seemed to me an additive media rather than a replacement one. Despite high volume and high-profile exchanges, the size limitations mean these exchanges can only be initiating or shallow, and most tweets have to reference traditional papers / websites / blogs / forums for the real substance of any serious debate. Hence twitter may be a necessary or even critical amplifier for Climate Etc’s voice now, but surely it cannot be a replacement. To echo Thomas Fuller above, how to optimize a twitter / blog pairing is presumably the challenge?

    With above in mind, perhaps an interesting addition to Climate Etc would be monthly interviews with well-know Climate characters. Works well in the fiction world and is often a big draw for punters. Maybe a challenge to get participation from some of the big hitters from both sides of the fence though, which ideally would be needed for best balance.

    Another thought is some ‘publicly progressed projects’, kind of like Dan Kahan does at the cultural cognition blog, but in the physical climate domain and with bloggers digesting / contributing to steps and the thoughts behind taking those steps. Not sure whether that’s possible for physical climate topics, but it’s a wide field and some areas may be suitable.

  19. I’m an old guy and my first choice is email. I subscribe to your blog and like your approach to the climate “war” . . . technical, ethical, etc.
    I read WUWT, Steve Goddard, Real Science, Tom Nelson, Greenie Watch, JoNova, Donna Laframboise, and others.
    My least favorite platform is Facebook. I have an account, but seldom go there. However, if you force the issue, I’ll go to Facebook to follow you.
    Comments: I usually don’t read many comments.
    Next to plain old email, I like Twitter best. Pithy and sends me off to many interesting articles.
    Do what’s best/easiest for you. I certainly want to see you continue providing material to the public that you think is important; however, I recognize you also have a professional and personal life. If you chucked all this “sharing stuff,” I’d miss you, but I would understand.

  20. Joe Crawford

    Thank you, Professor Curry, for providing a window into the world outside the asylum. I have followed CE ever since you had the courage to temp excommunication and invited Steve McIntyre down for a talk. Please keep the blog active if you can as it still provides the best location to read all sides of the major issues of AGW. I suppose I’m old school in that I don’t follow (or trust) either Facebook or Twitter. Ignoring the total lack of security in both, I find the egocentric format of Facebook and the noisy, total lack of civility in Twitter (in 140 character sound/print bites). I much prefer the blog format where I can read an article and follow the comments as time permits. I find that on the more technical posts, the comments often help by providing more detail on the subject, often with references to other locations with additional information and/or discussions.

    Again, thank you and please keep it going. It provides a little sanity in this world where radicalism seems to be the rule not the exception.

  21. I started reading on climate science about the time of Copenhagen COP, and learned more here from posts, threads and links, than from any other single website. For me it has been a portal into many topics and to find scientific sources shedding light on climate and related issues. A year ago when you required a WordPress ID in order to comment, I got one, and is the process was offered a blogsite, which I took and have posted several times a week.
    I come here frequently, and appreciate the to and fro of the denizens, and also your links to articles and studies that I would never have seen otherwise.
    Please continue. Despite the fact some are fatigued (me too), the next few years will be pretty intense with claims and alarms.

    • Can’t imagine the climate science blog debates without
      you or Steve McIntyre! My regular reading, CA, Jo Nova,
      Bob Tisdale, Don Aitkin, The Bish, WUWT … ‘n stuff fer
      me own blog like Jane Jacobs, Henri Bergson and Karl
      Raimond Popper.

  22. Personally I think we are seeing the whole Climate Circus starting to wind down. Even 8 years of Obama hasn’t been enough to make any real headway on the Faithful’s wish for a decarbonized world, and most other developed countries have either abandoned it or only play it lip service. Paris proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that even in a venue where only the true believers are permitted, there are no takers to be the first to be ‘Carbon Free’. Indeed, several of their most successful nations like Germany have chosen to bow before Nuclear panic and accept the higher CO2 emissions of coal instead.

    Who knows, in another 5 years Climate Science may even be able to dump it’s infatuation with CO2 and get back to figuring out how the weather works. ^¿^

  23. You’re right – and we have no way of cooling the ocean waters around the world. This graph provides some indication of the increase in the volcanic activity but this does not include volcanic activity on the sea floor so we multiply this by increase by a factor of ten to get an idea of the unusually large volumes of heat coming off the sea floor which is causing the ice shelves to rapidly melt. The unusually warm oceans are also causing rapid evaporation of the ocean waters which is why record rainfall is happening all around the world. The rapid glacial melt would be causing our ocean basins to melt but the oceans are rapidly evaporating which keeps sea level rise to a minimum.

    When the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves collapse, the glaciers will crash into the sea which will launch hundreds of tsunami waves which will collide which will result in extraordinarily high waves – which will decimate our world. Ice shelves and glaciers around Alaska, Russia, Svalbard and northeastern Canada will also collapse – but then few people invest the energy to do the research or to conceptualize the consequences.

    • The rapid glacial melt would be causing our ocean basins to melt but the oceans are rapidly evaporating which keeps sea level rise to a minimum.

      When the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves collapse, the glaciers will crash into the sea which will launch hundreds of tsunami waves which will collide which will result in extraordinarily high waves – which will decimate our world.

      Please provide a date for this cataclysm so I can vacation in the mountains that week.

  24. David L. Hagen

    Give voice for the voiceless poor.
    Especially the 3 billion in poverty being further harmed by IPCC/Paris.
    e.g., see the Cornwall Alliance
    Why you should mourn implementation of the Paris climate agreement

    To comprehend the impact of EPA’s proposed new rule 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.

    Also efforts by Bjorn Lomborg e.g. re Paris accord:

    reality is that we need to respond to the real problem of climate change, but this well-intentioned treaty is a hugely expensive way of doing very little.. . .
    My own research and theonly peer-reviewed published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

    Copenhagen Consensus

    Keep up your excellent efforts.

  25. The trouble is that many of us are suffering from climate hype fatigue. Not a lot is happening to justify the dire predictions that Has promised Armageddon and that we only had 50 days to save the planet.

    The excitement of climategate has long faded and We remain within the bounds of natural variability if we take a Long enough view of hundreds of years rather than merely dozens.

    Our data remains imperfect and fragmented and it will take at least a decade of out of the ordinary weather wordwide before we can see if anything much is happening or if we are merely getting overexcited by the output of inadequate climate models

    The format of the blog remains strong but it woud be nice if once a month a recognised scientist could write an essay on a topic that we could debate.

    Tonyb

  26. Two topics:

    1). My list of blogs that I follow: climate etc, WUWT, Benny Pieser at Global Warming Policy Forum, and “Der Kalte Sonne” (German blog by Sebastian Luning SOmetimes nee ‘google translate).

    2). The idea o publishing abstract with links is a good one. It will require a little bit of screening to get rid of crack pottery.

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

    • Before assessing the cracked pottery…

      make sure your own pottery isn’t cracked – or otherwise deformed, malformed or under performing.

      Do this by reviewing your SAT scores – how many were perfect?

      How many of your college placement test scores were perfect?

      And your IQ score?

      We make this screening process compulsory because, as you know, developmentally delayed students are given a different curriculum –

      and the smart kids are also given a different curriculum.

      Climate scientists with impaired or limited reading comprehension skills will naturally gravitate toward simplistic scientific literature –

      and since the study of climate science is not a simplistic venture,

      the chances of brilliant PhD’s from Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, etc., being able to learn enough to understand what’s coming in terms of climate change is next to zero –

      so how will PhD’s from low level universities be able to discern fact from fiction?

      Do you have a genius IQ and perfect scores on the SAT and college placement tests?

      If you don’t, the chances of you gravitating toward low-level reports on climate science is 100% –

      you won’t have the intellect to recognize brilliant research or a brilliant climate forecast.

      On the other hand, if you have a genius IQ – over 160 – and if you’ve developed the intellectual stamina that can tackle the most comprehensive climate reports and if you’ve done decades of climate research yourself, then you’ll be one to watch.

      • That must be the reason you have been so much fun to watch here already, with all your perfect test scores it just speaks for itself.

      • A 15-point difference in IQ can relegate a person to the position of being developmentally delayed –

        no matter which side of the IQ bell curve you’re on.

        We’re all happy to allow the kids on the short bus to have their own curriculum but when we move to the other side of the bell curve, suddenly a 15 point difference isn’t supposed to matter?

        What are the chances of the average students being able to understand college-level chemistry or calculus?

        I breezed through Calculus and Chemistry –

        should I expect those who struggle with it to understand my research?

        No

        Clinically speaking, the imbecile is one whose language and math skills are that of a typical five year old. The IQ of an imbecile is 40 point below the low average IQ of 90.

        On the other side of the IQ bell curve, we see that discrepancy of 40 points tells us a low-level genius with an IQ of 140 is – compared to Nikola Tesla – a complete imbecile.

        Because of this, communication and understanding depends on choosing your friends and colleagues wisely.

        However, when an extinction level event is underway, human decency requires a more generous – and forgiving – approach to life.

      • I feel traumatized by the fact that the ice shelves are looking more like Swiss cheese – due to the warm ocean waters drilling river tunnels 300 meters high into them while glacial ponds on top are drilling river tunnels downward – because glaciers, the size of Pennsylvania, are resting on top of these collapsing ice shelves.

        Since you have no problem with this, the DSM has a few categories you can take a look at.

      • How long is the Web Hub channel complex today Ms. W?

      • Ms. Whirl;

        Intelligence is not rationality. Smart people do stupid things all the time. Conversely, stupid people occasionally do smart things…a broken clock and all that…Bobby Fischer has or had a high IQ but outside of chess what can this guy do? Life, as he tragically discovered, doesn’t come down to 64 squares.

        “Traditional IQ tests miss some of the most important aspects of real-world decision making. It is possible to test high in IQ yet to suffer from the logical-thought defect known as dysrationalia.

        One cause of dysrationalia is that people tend to be cognitive misers, meaning that they take the easy way out when trying to solve problems, often leading to solutions that are wrong.

        Another cause of dysrationalia is the mindware gap, which occurs when people lack the specific knowledge, rules and strategies needed to think rationally.”

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/

        The only reason that climate science matters outside of scientific circles is because of the push for policies enacted by government which, apparently to your great chagrin, places that climate science smack dab in the middle of public policy. That means both the intelligent and the stupid will have a say on the matter. How smart is it to parade about like an intellectual peacock and insist only those who can pass the pre-approved tests get to have an opinion? How effective is that political strategy?

      • Apparently you missed the part where Kev wanted to oversee the cracked pottery –

        I was suggesting he take a long hard look at his own cracks – all the misses in his SAT, his IQ test scores, etc.

        Aside from that, I disagree with you about public policy and public opinion – you apparently overlook the fact that our unusually warm ocean waters, the rapid evaporation, the record rainfall, the devastation of homes, road, bridges, crop fields, the landslides, sinkholes, the hurricane force winds, the rapid glacial melt, etc., couldn’t care less what politicians do.

        You apparently think CO2 is the problem.

        I know it is not –

        I couldn’t care less what the politicians believe.

        It’s all about greed and power to them – they know what’s coming – why do think all the survival facilities have been built?

        It’s one long con game – to keep the public ignorant and confused.

        Call me peacock if you like. People are content to acknowledge the special needs of the developmentally delayed – until they come face to face with their own special needs.

      • “Aside from that, I disagree with you about public policy and public opinion – you apparently overlook the fact that our unusually warm ocean waters, the rapid evaporation, the record rainfall, the devastation of homes, road, bridges, crop fields, the landslides, sinkholes, the hurricane force winds, the rapid glacial melt, etc., couldn’t care less what politicians do.”

        Nope. What you claim is “apparent” is not correct, and I doubt it is “apparent” too – my “overlook(ing)” that is.

        “You apparently think CO2 is the problem.”

        Nope, and there damn sure is nothing “apparent” about that.

        “I couldn’t care less what the politicians believe.”

        I didn’t ask you what you thought of politicians, I asked you if you thought your intellectual preening was a good political strategy. If you want to get into what is apparent, it seems apparent that you care enough about the politics involved to post several comments here. What is not so apparent is that you suffer from dysrationalia, and it is not so apparent only because dysrationalia requires the afflicted have adequate intelligence. Your presumptions tend to dismiss that adequacy. Arrogance can sometimes fool people into thinking the arrogant are smart, but smart people already know the defining characteristic of the arrogant is their presumption of knowledge.

      • Mister-Missus whirler, you are wut gots guuds lernin’ .. I feelz lik i gotz me sum lurnin’ tooz after-n-al a-redn’ all yer posts n’ stuff. Me n’ minz wonts 2 thank yo n’ yers fer learnin’ usn’s all up.

        havin said all thats, me n minz’ hopes yo n’ yers don’ go all a freezin whin all themz ice-burgs all stop freezin atop those glac-ers n’ stuff, cuz o’ them polotisianz beeinz all krookid. Weez is al glad you were her to tel uszn’ stoopid un’s howitallis n stuff, weeez all shore do appre (i don’t have to SAT lernin to spel thatun’) I do have som SUN lernin, but weez ony gits it after SAT n’ befor MON.

        weez al shore hop youzall don’t let yer big mellon freez win the big un’ cumz, cuz weez al needz yer whopin intellect to beez the ony un to no whutz gonna happin. thankz to u m/m whurler.

      • I suspect whirled rode the short bus to school.

      • David Springer

        Thanks. You’ll want to keep an eye on me.

      • Steven Mosher

        The phrase brilliant idiot comes to mind.

      • catweazle666

        Steven Mosher: “The phrase brilliant idiot comes to mind.”

        Yes Steven, so it does!

        Funny you should say that…

  27. Judy,

    Could you spell my surname correctly in your reference to me?
    As it happens, I feel the same way as you about where ‘climate change’ is. In our current Australian federal elections, only the Greens refer to it as an important issue. The major parties have said very little, and will say very little. Only 7 per cent of the electorate thinks it’s important, despite the constant reference to climate worries by the mainstream media. Nothing much has happened in the past twenty years, and I want to write about other things. So I’m preparing a 15-essay summary of what I think my perspective is on ‘climate change’, and why it is that way. If something really important happens, then I’ll write about it. Otherwise, there just are more interesting issues.
    But please continue! I have earned so much here. Many thanks for your great work since 2010.

  28. What I don’t see in this post is what Judith Curry wants to accomplish. Goals and objectives. Bring scientific discussion of Climate to a wider and non-specialist audience? Publish high quality pieces written by climate scientist and non-climate scientists? Publish high quality pieces about climate and related topics by non-scientists? Is publishing more important than discussion? Is discussion even important? Climate news? Who is the target audience?

    If the blog continues to be articles written by Judith, volunteers and invited authors, should discussion remain in the blog’s comments or be relegated to twitter, facebook et al with Judith linking to interesting comments and discussions?

  29. “But overall, the role of climate blogs seems to be diminishing.”

    Law of diminishing returns. I think the Germans stopped bombing Britain in WWII because of this kind of thing.

    Andrew

    • They stopped daylight bombing. Due to losses in aircraft and crews, not diminishing returns. They continued with night bombing and then with rocket attacks, up until the last year of the war.

  30. We can’t expect to ever get any measure satisfaction when it comes to the science of climate. Communication, as it is now, is a never-ending state of contention. In politics state of being has become known as, “The Permanent Campaign.”

    If it ever there was a strategy behind <the permanent campaign, the reality of it is that all of the participants are constantly looking for something (anything) attention-getting to sensationalize. Essentially, climatology has become nothing but car-chase science.

    Much like the Clintons may be referred to as the “permanent election,” climate science has become the permanent catastrophe. Faster, better computers change nothing except to facilitate the next computer-driven hoax and scare tactic.

    Just as American politics has changed, so to has the Western science of climate change. Global warming has become nothing more than a media-driven frenzy of experts, consultants, polls, political parties and patronage.

  31. This blog has too many comments to read. Most of the comments add nothing but opinion (noise). I think that is a problem.

    I read this:

    As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.

    But then no effort is done to keep posts relevant.

    Perhaps you could enlist some volunteers like in other popular blogs that can moderate the comments and cull the non relevant ones until people learn to contribute only when they have something relevant to say.

    When the level of the comments goes down, the level of the blog goes down.

    • A month or so ago I made a comment in a Washington Post article about climate change. The comment I made generated a response from a warmist who struck me as a reasonable fellow and certainly civil. We we’re on topic and debating the certainties involved but it was late and I had to stop for the night. When I returned to finish what I started the night before I discovered all of my comments with this fellow and his were deleted. Not all of my comments were deleted, mind you, only the ones where two civil people actually debate the issue.

      This is the Washington Post that did this. Sure, they can claim it was a volunteer moderator that did it, but what does it matter, all I know is that just as it was looking like a compelling argument was about to made to stress the uncertainties involved, that was ended through deletion, what remains in that article are the pointless comments.

      Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  32. Don’t ask me. I just come here to kick warmies and greenies.

  33. Mike Jonas

    “This would allow some of these articles that pass a moderate filter to receive some exposure and discussion, without any endorsement by me. Your suggestions on this?”
    Good idea. About the “moderate filter” : Anthony Watts asked for opinions on Peer-Review for articles on WUWT a while ago, and I suggested that reviews should be published with the articles https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/21/wuwt-housekeeping-ongoing-issues-updates-fixes-and-polls/#comment-2221025 – I think that a “moderate filter” could be done similarly. So, for example, if the article was basically OK but the reviewer/filterer had reservations, then those could be posted with the article. I also argued for reviews not being anonymous.

    Re Twitter and Facebook : I haven’t gone to either for any climate information (or for any other information). I understand that they have a great and increasing reach, so they may indeed be the best forums to use. My impression of both Twitter and Facebook is that 97% of the content is brief and either shallow or fatuous. (Actually, I would put it higher than 97%, but that seemed a nice figure to use). I appreciate the depth to which topics can be investigated on CE and WUWT, and the civil conversation between the sides in the debate. Well, mostly civil. If the conversation shifts from CE, WUWT, etc to Twitter and Facebook, then I will accept the reality and go with it. Reluctantly. Maybe.

  34. With Roy Spencer now shunning comments and WUWT intent on promoting the Great Willis personality cult and confused, professionally unqualified posts on critical issues, we look increasingly to Climate Etc. for serious presentations and commentary. Whatever Judy can do to maintain and expand that edge without resorting to radical revisions of M.O. will be rewarded by ever increasing readership.

  35. Curious George

    Prof. Curry, thank you for providing room for a voice of reason. You are doing an excellent job. Regarding other channels (Facebook, Twitter), please select one that you are most comfortable with. One well-maintained forum is better than three so-so.

    This must be huge drain on your time. Have you considered turning some of the administrative and other decisions to a team?

    Over at WUWT an idea was floated to allow only subscribers to comment without limits. There is a commenter on this thread whose IQ is off all charts (probably negative). Limits would help in these cases; maybe 1000 words per comment, and five comments per thread.

  36. Do what you gotta/wanna do.

    CE has had a significant impact on me.

    This 69 year old fart isn’t migrating to twitter or facebook any time soon. I’ll miss you if that’s your decision.

    • I’d have to agree. Twitter seems like a good way for celebrities to reach a large audience in a hurry. Facebook is too much of a millennial thing for me. WordPress is a great place for a discussion like this. Please stay the course.

  37. Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

  38. Lucia’s the blackboard, ATTP, not mentioned but are great sites. One provides comments in general, the other on specific topics.
    Would feel there is a time limit for most individual public communications.
    Bit like syndicating a comic strip or novel writing except they get paid handsomely for it.
    One option might be for someone to take it over who is younger and able to go on but it rarely works in practice.
    Dune series for instance.
    Perhaps Mosomo and Mosher could be subeditors in a week on week off editorial basis.
    Would keep it even.
    Getting too old myself?
    No, still 16 at heart.
    – This post is the poster boy [girl] for all Climate related presentations.
    It asks for civility and reason.
    Hence widely appreciated and condemned.
    Your status as a Climate Scientist adds great credence to it.
    Pleas go on for as long as you can.
    You do make an incredible difference.

    • oops, how could I forget ATTP! I just added this to the main post

      • David Springer

        “how could I forget ATT”

        Easily. Recalling him is the more difficult task.

      • David Springer | May 28, 2016 at 11:14 am |
        ” Easily. Recalling him is the more difficult task.”
        Easy now.
        You know you both have enjoyed a bit of dialogue in the past.

      • The only problem with ATTP’s site is he censors. It is impossible to have a conversation when one side just never publishes anything the other side says.

  39. State of the blog is well. The increase in facebook and twitter links means there are more people reading posts, not so much comments. If facebook allowed it, limiting technical posts to “technical” comments would be a plus, but not having that option isn’t going to kill the blog.

  40. Brian G Valentine

    The idea of a “greenhouse atmosphere” was preposterous to me, at the age of 16, as a Sophomore chemistry major in college, but the only surprise came to hear the idea resurrected and a basis for ruinous policy

  41. I like the week in review the most. There’s been many posts over the recent years that have been good. The recent presidential threads worked well I thought. I’ve thought a number of times, more relative minority viewpoints would be nice. Relative minority meaning warmists. As another has suggested, echo chambers are not so good. So I appreciate the minority posters.

  42. How about another ‘Skeptics: give it your best shot’ thread?

    And and a complementary ‘Alarmists: give it your best shot’ also.

    • Brian G Valentine

      The “best shot” the global warmers have is the “children” thing.

      When all else fails, using “children” as props (or unintended victims) is the last resort.

      It’s not the first time.

  43. Rarely comment, but I read CE every day. I find the following invaluable:
    1. Your posts hit a nice range of topics; climate, energy, censorship, even politics. I don’t go anywhere else for this info (except from links found on your site from your posts and in comments).
    2. Your posts are “middle of the road” and of the exploratory type. Nice change from most other news/blogs.
    3. The comments are very valuable (I try and read/scan the majority.) Great links to additional info and offer an eclectic (and I think necessary) range of differing views.
    4. I think that venues such as Facebook and Twitter can offer some specific value (at times), but are temporary in nature. But, I see those types of venues as being “anchored” by your current WordPress site.
    5. Don’t worry too much about perfect moderation of the comments. Takes too much valuable time and people should be able to scan through and ignore what they want (I’m an old man, if I can do that, anyone can).
    6. Branch out in your blog if you feel like it (at least to test the waters). You only live once and the “climate issue” is not going away any time soon, so you can always return when new/interesting info becomes available. My thinking is that it will be hundreds, if not thousands, of years before we can really get an idea of the important climate drivers and how they all work together. Of course, I could be wrong (and have been many times), so it’s good to have intelligent posts/discussions on “tipping points” occasionally.
    7. I think both your site and your personal actions (at conferences, etc.) have provided a well needed (and well known) counterpoint to the much more, ahhh, focused concerns of all the other sides of the issues. This is immensely important in order to keep (possibly) well meaning (but perhaps not well informed) movers/shakers from making ill advised decisions. That is a very poorly appreciated work that you perform. Takes guts to put yourself in so many gun sights (in a manner of speaking) for all our benefits.

    Well, that went on a little longer than what I originally figured : )

    Thanks,
    GeoffW

  44. Harry Twinotter

    The only reason I read the climate change dissenter blogs such as this one is to learn something new, and as motivation for my own reading. After several years I have not learned much new. The science of AGW is established, well-documented, and it is unlikely any climate change dissenter blog will uncover any new scientific evidence to change that.

    An observation I make about the “alarmist” blogs (as this blog calls them) is they are a reaction to the climate change dissenter blogs. As the climate change dissenter blog decline, so will the “alarmist” blogs.

    My only hope is the western media will get past producing anti-science propaganda, they are not doing anyone any favors in the long run.

    • HT:

      Interesting observations.

      I primarily look to blogs for policy-relevant information. In that regard, I often find something “new” as the tactics, pro and con, for adopting policies change over time.

      This perspective is probably why I disagree with the frequently implied blog attitude “science über alles” more than I disagree with the science itself.

      By itself, science is merely a tool. How you use that tool and what you try to build with it is, to me, the more important consideration.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Opluso.

        I ignore the politics mostly, except when the politics starts using anti-science. Opinions do count in politics, even if they are not so important in science (opinions still exist in science, but they are secondary to facts).

        To be honest politics bores me, so I am biased against it.

    • Harry Twinotter, Is the United Nations Agenda 21, science to you? You should read it and form your own opinion.

    • The science of AGW is established, well-documented, and it is unlikely any climate change dissenter blog will uncover any new scientific evidence to change that.

      The “science of AGW” you’re talking about is based on an obsolete paradigm, probably invalid, and “new scientific evidence to” help establish the replacement(s) is being discovered every day.

      The role of “dissenter blogs” includes keeping non-scientists informed about evidence they otherwise wouldn’t hear about, and, when necessary, raising the red flag regarding perversions of the process such as what “Climategate” revealed. As such, it provides a valuable aid to real science in dealing with the IPCC-sponsored pseudo-scientific “consensus” paradigm.

    • Harry Twinotter wrote
      The only reason I read the climate change dissenter blogs such as this one is to learn something new, and as motivation for my own reading. After several years I have not learned much new. The science of AGW is established, well-documented, and it is unlikely any climate change dissenter blog will uncover any new scientific evidence to change that.

      If I studied something for several years and did not learn anything, I would conclude that I should give up on studying. There are about 97 alarmist scientists who agree and thousands who disagree with AGW. The only thing that the 97 alarmists have is flawed climate model output. Actually, the 97% was a percent of 77 which was only 75. Several have changed sides since that came out, of the people who won’t lose their jobs if they speak against the consensus, most are skelptic.

  45. Judith,
    I think the number of posts and topics are about right.
    I rarely find anything of value in the comments.
    I don’t use Twitter or FB.
    I appreciate your efforts maintaining this blog and your observations of climate etc.

  46. John Costigane

    Judith,

    Your blog continues to be absolutely relevant, with the reality of American politics overshadowing all else. Climate change is an election issue which could very well sink the Democrats, since its policies burden the American people. Beyond the general election, I hope your efforts are recognized.

    Andy West’s talks on human narrative are fascinating, especially the overturning aspects. Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ could help with changing to a more hopeful outlook,with cascading effects elsewhere, including the UK.

    • John Costigane, If you have never heard the old adage, “Buy the mystery, sell the history”? This might be a very good time for you to take stock? A good liife can be as simple as this.

  47. Dear Judith – do – not – go – away – the
    open society needs U.
    A hypo – vent – till -ating serf.

  48. Question: “Where can the 10 ton gorilla sit?”
    Answer: “Anywhere he likes.”
    In the case of climate change the 10 ton gorilla of politics has chosen to sit on science. I understand that some people worry about an existential threat to the planet, but I worry about an existential threat to a 300 year old culture that consists of scientists seeking the truth without fear or favour. It has brought us extraordinary benefits. But nothing lasts forever and we must fight to protect this culture or the life will be squashed out of it. No one is doing more than Judith Curry.

  49. The energy guest posts are a great resource (Planning Engineer, Rud Istvan, Peter Lang, …). There’s a lot of hype out there over renewables with shameless touting of capacities while ignoring actual generation.

    • David Springer

      A great resource for the other side perhaps. Journals publish all the science that’s fit to print. What’s left over lands on blogs like this one.

      • They’ve apparently found it fit to print a study by Mark Jacobson larding the carbon footprint of nuclear power with the theoretical soot from future nuclear wars.

      • David Springer – Science? I write about technology, engineering, economics with maybe a little philosophy and politics thrown in. If you know of any Science Journals with even remotely similar treatment of related energy subjects I would very much appreciate being pointed in their direction. Technical publications cover some similar ground at times and I often seek to simplify those for the denizens. (IEEE papers for example can be quite dense and some technical publications cheerless for their advertisers). I don’t know that I have ever gone outside of accepted technology or science, but if you have examples or ever come across such, I would appreciate your bringing it to my attention as well as to the readers. But to date from you (and I admit I am not 100% with comments so I might have missed something) I’ve just seen unfounded dismissals, insults and niggling questioning of credentials.

      • Cheerlead, not cheerless.

  50. When it comes to Facebook, it is expanding its power and influence. It has no respect for our privacy. The best thing you can do for yourself it to opt out of it and figure out better ways to be social.

    From the article:

    The Pirate Bay cofounder Peter Sunde is not a fan of Facebook’s online domination. Specifically, he argues CEO and cofounder Mark Zuckerberg has too much power.

    “People in the tech industry have a lot of responsibilities but they never really discuss these things. … Facebook is the biggest nation in the world and we have a dictator, if you look at it from a democracy standpoint, Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator. I did not elect him. He sets the rules,” Sunde told CNBC. “And really you can’t opt out of Facebook. I’m not on Facebook but there are a lot of drawbacks in my offline world. No party invitations, no updates from my friends, people stop talking to you, because you’re not on Facebook. So it has real life implications.”

    The latest numbers from Facebook show the social network has 1.65 billion monthly active users. This is more people than in all of China, the most populous country on the planet, with some 1.38 billion people.

    http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/27/the-pirate-bay-cofounder-on-facebook-from-a-democracy-standpoint-mark-zuckerberg-is-a-dictator/

  51. From the article:

    The problem with Zuckerberg’s philosophy of privacy, of course, is that over Facebook’s 10-year history, users’ ability to control their information has largely decreased. Default settings lean toward making information public, and new advertising and third-party platforms are increasingly spreading users’ information beyond their direct control.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mark-zuckerbergs-theory-of-privacy/2014/02/03/2c1d780a-8cea-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html

  52. From the article:

    The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy

  53. From the article:

    The property is large enough for a set of villas or even a resort. But Zuckerberg apparently plans to only build one home: an ultra-private island hideaway for himself and his inner circle. “When the whole thing is said and done, he might be approaching $200 million on total purchase price,” Steve Hunt, a tax manager for Kauai County, said to the Pacific Business News. “This is someone who can afford to buy whatever he wants to buy and he’ll pay the price he needs to get, and privacy is a bigger issue to him than anything else.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2015/05/18/tech_billionaires_and_privacy_why_facebook_s_mark_zuckerberg_is_spending.html

  54. And then there is Zuckerberg’s influence on government to contend with. The best thing we can do is de-fang him by dropping Facebook. From the article:

    On Tuesday, President of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s lobbyist group Fwd.US, Todd Schulte, said the United States needs to allow more “unskilled” immigrants into the workforce and falsely suggested that “for every H-1B visa that is granted, nearly two jobs are created for native-born Americans.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/for-saturday-zuckerbergs-top-lobbyist-america-needs-more-unskilled-immigrants/

  55. |And of course, Zuckerberg and the other Robber Barrons want cheap labor, which is why they want “immigration reform.” From the article:

    What data is available comes from the initial employer applications for H-1B slots These Labor Condition Applications, called LCAs, include employer estimates of prevailing wages. Because there are always more H-1B applications than there are H-1B visas granted, every employer seeking an H-1B may file 3-5 LCAs per slot, each of which can use a different prevailing wage. But when the visa application is approved, it is my understanding that sponsoring companies can choose which LCA they really mean and apply that prevailing wage number to the hire.

    Because the visa has already been granted of course they’ll tend to take the lowest prevailing wage number, because that’s the number against which they match the local labor market.

    Remember that part of this business of getting H-1Bs is there must not be a U.S. citizen with comparable skills available at the local prevailing wage. If we consider that exercise using the data from Charlotte, above, a company would probably be seeking a programmer expecting $73,965 or above (after all, they are trying to attract talent, right?) but offering $50,170 or below (the multiple LCA trick). No wonder they can’t get a qualified citizen to take the job.

    Based solely on approved LCAs, 51 percent of recently granted H-1B visas were in the 25th percentile for pay or below. That’s statistically impossible under the intent of the program.

    http://www.cringely.com/2012/10/23/what-americans-dont-know-about-h-1b-visas-could-hurt-us-all/

  56. Hi Judith
    I enjoy your “Week in Review” editions. Those are priceless to occasional readers like me. Thank you.

    I used to read most of the comments that follow articles but nowadays I simply scan them. I wish more commentators would learn how to summarize their points and to acknowledge good points made by others. Often the comments sections resemble intellectual preening by feather-bare flocks of birds. That applies to both camps.

    I’d like to see a few articles by teachers of writing which offer suggestions on how to write comments that viewers will actually take the time to read.

    Thanks for taking the time to run the blog!

    • David, good point about writing quality. I will be taking more time to edit some of the guest posts to make sure they are more readable.

      I’m not sure what to do about writing quality in the comments. The only thing I’ve been doing is checking to see if anyone goes over the 5% of last 1000 comments guideline – if their comments are substantive and well written, I let them keep coming, but if non-substantive and poorly written, I will delete. I hope to have more time to moderate to delete comments that combine poorly written with non-substantive.

    • David Springer

      “I’d like to see a few articles by teachers of writing which offer suggestions on how to write comments that viewers will actually take the time to read.”

      Cura te ipsum

  57. pottereaton

    Steven Mosher, who I have admired since our early days at ClimateAudit, writes:

    \\Science is a set of behaviors that ends up being documented by texts and other digital assets. Over time a canon is established. That canon–, what is accepted or settled as science–like all canons is formed by a social process. As it stands blog science is outside the canon:apocryphal, gnostic gospels as it were. //

    I have been wondering about this for some time. Is there some way to define the current “canon” of “settled climate science?” Could a list of papers and documents be assembled into a “canon” that affirms the truth and validity of the theory of CAGW? Would gathering such an assemblage enable us to comprehensively judge the theory?

    Could a list of ten (or fifteen or twenty) fundamental papers or documents be compiled that affirms the claims of those who are convinced catastrophic warming is inevitable? And could we properly evaluate the truth of those claims if such a list was presented?

    Someone will probably say that it’s all there in the IPCC reports, but really, who has the time and/or understanding to comb through all of them?

    • David Springer

      Fac me cocleario vomere!

    • pottereaton said:

      Is there some way to define the current “canon” of “settled climate science?” Could a list of papers and documents be assembled into a “canon” that affirms the truth and validity of the theory of CAGW?

      But Mosher doesn’t believe CAGW is part of the canon. He’s gone over to the Warmist camp. To wit:

      ANDYWEST2012: The created (by which I mean socially emergent, not deliberately created) truth of CAGW, is that catastrophe is certain near-term (by ~2100), absent dramatic mitigation.
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/27/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread-3/#comment-786511

      STEVEN MOSHER: The C has never been a part of the science. Yes Dr Frankenskeptic tried to sew a second head on the science.
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/27/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread-3/#comment-786515

      In andywest2012’s rejoinder, he insists that the C is part of the canon:

      As noted above, a socially developed canon includes all info in the domain; it all together steers the evolution of said canon. The calamitous part is particularly associated with authority, and has a powerful effect on the evolution of the canon. Emotional bias due to the calamitous narrative is definitely affecting scientists, so affecting science….
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/27/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread-3/#comment-786526

      To which Mosher charged:

      STEVEN MOSHER: Now you have redefined the canon, so of course you can throw anything you like in it. Not an impressive move in arguing.
      try again.
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/27/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread-3/#comment-786535

      To which andywest2012 responded:

      My definition of the canon remains per my first text above, and this is how the relevant disciplines perceive a canon produced by social process. If you did not in the beginning actually mean a canon produced by social process, then I guess your choice of words to describe what you do mean is rather unfortunate, despite that they’re also the right words regarding the climate domain.
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/27/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread-3/#comment-786571

    • Man-made CO2 did not cause the Roman or Medieval Warm periods. This warm period is proceeding the same as those periods, for the same reasons. Ice has depleted and retreated since the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. Earth warmed because the ice retreated and one molecule in 10,000 did not cause the ice to retreat. That is way beyond reasonable.

    • There is no data that supports AGW or CAGW, only model output and model output look nothing like the real data and is not any kind of proof.

      When model output does not match real data keep the real data and throw out the model output.

    • Steven Mosher

      “I have been wondering about this for some time. Is there some way to define the current “canon” of “settled climate science?” Could a list of papers and documents be assembled into a “canon” that affirms the truth and validity of the theory of CAGW? Would gathering such an assemblage enable us to comprehensively judge the theory?”

      The canon in my mind is purely operational. A paper is published.
      That is the first hurdle since junk gets published. The paper is then regarded or ignored. Ignored stuff just sits there. nobody discusses it because its trivial or wrong or not very useful. Stuff that gets regarded is cited, used, improved, torn down and replaced. Next. There is no such thing as validity. There is science people build on. They build on it because they find it reliable, helpful, useful, and less wrong than other science. Finally, you cant judge the theory. This is not a court of law or a debate or a beauty pagent. The best way to judge something is to try to build on it. Is the foundation SOUND?
      yes, go try building on it to discover this.

      “Could a list of ten (or fifteen or twenty) fundamental papers or documents be compiled that affirms the claims of those who are convinced catastrophic warming is inevitable? And could we properly evaluate the truth of those claims if such a list was presented?”

      Nobody thinks CAGW is inevitable.

      Someone will probably say that it’s all there in the IPCC reports, but really, who has the time and/or understanding to comb through all of them?

      you can read it in your spare time if you read fast.
      if you cant be bothered to read, then no one will help you

      • ” Finally, you cant judge the theory. This is not a court of law or a debate or a beauty pagent. The best way to judge something is to try to build on it. Is the foundation SOUND?”

        I believe Schneider said it was like a civil trial, preponderance of evidence. Of course only evidence that is presented get pondered and some might find some evidence objectionable.

      • The big cannon you face today Steven, is explaining the 5 Tops, as I mentioned to you before. A new Ice Age is inevitable according to the proxies we have. One day we will once again be able to water ski on Lake Vostok, don’t forget its the way the world turns.

      • If, “nobody thinks CAGW is inevitable,” then what is the call for drastic, super-expensive measures to combat it all about?

      • Steven Mosher

        “I believe Schneider said it was like a civil trial, preponderance of evidence. Of course only evidence that is presented get pondered and some might find some evidence objectionable.”

        Well he was wrong. The question was: what is the canon? And the writer supposed that there was some list of papers that could be audited, or judged, or weighed or scored, to assess the science… A Science of Science as it were. It is all part of the futile attempt of non scientists to come up with some method they can use to dismiss science they dont like or dont understand.

      • “Well he was wrong. The question was: what is the canon?”

        I believe Schnieder was somewhat influential in developing the canon, at least when someone not in the inner circle mentions that “he was wrong” they get put in the “skeptic” pigeonhole. Of course, Schnieder was big into “communicating” the science, using those lovely metaphors. .

        ” And the writer supposed that there was some list of papers that could be audited, or judged, or weighed or scored, to assess the science… A Science of Science as it were. It is all part of the futile attempt of non scientists to come up with some method they can use to dismiss science they dont like or dont understand.”

        Kinda funny, someone in the inner circle will find a blemish in a paper, you know serious stuff like how glossy the publication cover is or how results that different from “their” model cannot possibly be correct and the inner circle will shun them, however, members of the circle can use all kinds of “novel” methods and be defended to near death by the in crowd. So when I hear this tripe about everyone critical happens to “believe”, I take it with a grain.

        The fact is that the debate is moving beyond the “ideal” and into the real with more discussion on “efficacy” and how all surfaces and forcings are not “ideal”. Things I have harped on for some time. That planetary boundary layer aka atmospheric boundary layer can be a beyatch.

  58. A good blog/board to read is http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/

    Social issues as well as good posts from ARGO data etc.

  59. Dr. Curry — I’d like to see more posts that explore looking for common ground. There are at least 2 areas that this could be done: (1)TCR of “how much and how fast”; (2) Fast Mitigation (methane, black carbon, HFCs, black carbon).

    (1) From a big picture perspective, I don’t think there’s all that much difference (years) in Dr. Schmidt’s low-end conservative estimate versus Lewis/Curry.

    (2) If we reduce our emissions of methane 50%, black carbon 90% and fully replace HFCs by 2030, then we’ll cut in half projected global warming over the next 35 years. (Drs. Molina and Ramanathan).

    I believe that when Lewis/Curry TCR and “Fast Mitigation” are coupled, that one has a very positive story.

  60. Facebook is an anathema to individual freedom. From the article:

    There is no escaping Facebook’s advertising reach. The social network has announced that it will now be foisting ads on to every single person who uses third-party sites that are signed up to its advertising scheme, regardless of whether the user has a Facebook account or not.

    Until now, Facebook showed ads only to its members when people landed on third-party sites that were signed up to its Audience Network ad system. That meant that it only ever bothered tracking what Facebook users did, in order to learn about them and better target advertising.

    Now, though, reports the Wall Street Journal, it will use the same techniques—largely plug-in and cookies, but also Like buttons too— in order to track what everyone does when visiting those web pages. Andrew Bosworth, vice president of Facebook’s ads and business platform, explained to the Journal:

    http://gizmodo.com/facebook-will-now-track-you-and-force-feed-you-ads-even-1779103394

  61. Beta Blocker

    My topical area of interest lies generally on the political side of the climate wars and its impact on America’s energy policies. I am most interested in examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s lack of a comprehensive approach to carbon regulation.

    WUWT, and Climate Etc. are the only climate blogs with any real following that allow my comments concerning the EPA’s lack of aggressiveness in pushing carbon regulation to appear unedited without blatant interference from the moderators.

    What is most apparent to me in following this aspect of the climate wars is the near complete lack of commitment among America’s climate activists for pushing the EPA to the limits of its full legal authority in forcing substantial reductions in our carbon emissions.

    One would think that climate activists would be eager to hear the good news that they’ve already won the most crucial legal battle of the climate wars in their successful defense of the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding.

    But When I raise this particular topic on the activist forums, my comments about the unfairness of the Clean Power Plan and the EPA’s failure to use its full legal authority against all of our GHG emissions are deleted within a few minutes. The same thing happens on the environmental discussion forums of the major online progressive magazines.

    Similar reactions to this message occur when I engage in face-to-face conversations with colleagues at work or with personal acquaintances who are active on climate change issues for personal or professional reasons.

    When I tell these people the EPA has full legal authority to enforce a broadly-applied array of new anti-carbon regulations, they either suffer a deer-in-the-headlights reaction or else they experience a ‘1984 Moment’ in denying the obvious benefits to their cause if that agency were to begin performing its assigned duties under existing environmental law.

    After three years of pushing the policy position that the EPA could and should be doing what current environmental law intends that it should be doing — so far with little or no support from the Internet’s environmental interest community — it is easy to speculate that climate change activists have an agenda which doesn’t necessarily include greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions.

    • If the EPA pushes to far to fast they’ll get slapped down. A takeover of the US by a bureaucratic monster has to be slow, quiet, and Fabian. Already they’ve moved too fast and will probably get slapped down.

      They don’t have the authority you claim, because Congress didn’t have the authority to give them that authority. Even what they’ve done has gone far beyond what the Constitution allows Congress to authorize an unelected, “independent” agency. If they stimulate too much outrage, the “Progressive” agenda will be set back decades.

      Personally, I’d be glad if they tried (for the reasons outlined above). But IMO they won’t.

      • S/B “too far too fast”.

      • Beta Blocker

        AK: “If the EPA pushes too far too fast they’ll get slapped down. A takeover of the US by a bureaucratic monster has to be slow, quiet, and Fabian. Already they’ve moved too fast and will probably get slapped down.”

        The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon identifies GHG emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The finding has been upheld in the courts.

        If the goal is an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emission by 2050, it can’t possibly be done without the EPA forcing the issue. Which is its sworn legal duty under long-standing environmental law.

        AK: “They don’t have the authority you claim, because Congress didn’t have the authority to give them that authority. Even what they’ve done has gone far beyond what the Constitution allows Congress to authorize an unelected, “independent” agency. If they stimulate too much outrage, the “Progressive” agenda will be set back decades.”

        The US Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s authority under existing law to regulate all of America’s carbon emissions. That train has already left the station.

        But the train which hasn’t left the station is the climate activist’s willingness to put an effective regulatory policy in place which covers all GHG emissions, not just those of the coal-fired power plants.

        The Clean Power Plan will be struck down on that argument, that it isn’t a fair application of existing law according to past precedent, not because that existing law, the Clean Air Act, has no constitutional basis.

        AK: “Personally, I’d be glad if they tried (for the reasons outlined above). But IMO they won’t.”

        If Donald Trump is elected president — something I don’t expect, but stranger things have happened — then it’s likely the climate activist groups will begin a seriously-funded campaign to sue the EPA into submission.

        At which point the question will be asked, why weren’t all you well-funded climate activists suing the EPA to follow those same policies when Barack Obama was president?

      • The US Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s authority under existing law to regulate all of America’s carbon emissions. That train has already left the station.

        Quite a few experts on Constitutional law think otherwise. Including many who support the “Progressive” agenda.

        It seems likely that the only “experts” who support the EPA’s current power grab are ideologues who care more about their ideology than their honesty.

      • And, BTW, it seems likely to me that the lawyers and bureaucrats involved in suits of the type you recommend are open to conviction under RICO laws.

        Anyway, if Trump wins and the socialists try this option, it’s likely that he’ll assure a good defense from the Justice Dept, regardless of what the bureaucrats want. And win. The primary reason the EPA has “lost” those suits in the past is that they deliberately threw them.

        We all know that.

      • If the goal is an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emission by 2050, it can’t possibly be done without the EPA forcing the issue. Which is its sworn legal duty under long-standing environmental law.

        But they know that if they try, they’ll be slapped down.

        Not even Clinton would veto a bill to redefine the EPA’s “authority” under those circumstances. Too many of the people who funded her would be hurt by it.

      • And yes it can be done “without the EPA forcing the issue.

        We just need more American-style innovation, and less socialist bureaucracy.

    • Green things grow better while using water more efficiently. Reducing CO2 emissions would not matter to temperature or sea level, but it would take away the help it is providing for the green things that grow and all life that depends on green things that grow. No good can come from reducing emissions of CO2.

  62. kenfritsch

    In my view climate blogs can continue to serve a niche that peer review of climate science can do only with difficulty and certainly not on a timely basis and that involves timely analyses of climate science papers and particularly those that are either overblown or misinterpreted in the MSM. Without the context and foundation of something like paper anchoring a discussion at these blogs talk can too often evolve into opinions, personalities and snark.

    • “peer review” should be “pal review.”

      • Steven Mosher

        “Without the context and foundation of something like paper anchoring a discussion at these blogs talk can too often evolve into opinions, personalities and snark.”

      • All joking aside Steven, how do you, explain the 5 Tops? Easy…? I can’t explain it but I am not an AGW scientist either.

  63. Dr. Curry,

    Like you, I have had an insanely busy year and so posting on my blog (A Chemist in Langley) has been slow with my emphasis on topics of interests in the evidence-based policy genre. I have added a blog at the Huffington Post where shorter, more peppy versions of my personal blog posts are put as it brings in a bigger audience and has helped me with my writing (I have difficulty being concise and they have pretty tight word limitations). I tread carefully on the climate topic because of the vitriol that comes my way every time I post on the topic. Sometimes I can’t help myself (like in the case of the Fort McMurray fire) but other times I will think long and hard before I post.

    As a subscriber to your blog I take a look at everything you post at sometime each week and find your weekly summaries particularly interesting. Like you, I seem to use Twitter a lot to find useful stories but I find that at least a couple of the articles in your weekly review got missed by me and are worth my time.

    As a family man, I don’t use Facebook for policy etc.. as it is how I keep up with my family which is spread across the country. Too many family pictures for the policy types.

    Thanks for the time you spend on this blog, it is certainly worth it to me.

    Regards,

    Blair

  64. Just a few thoughts:
    Have you considered asking for help to run the blog – I´m quite sure there are volunteers out there.

    Twitter only allows 140 characters that´s not nearly enough for a decent argument.

    I will have to learn how to not create a mess of all my roles by using Facebook – until then I will not use Facebook.

    The posts at you blog are quite huge – consider smaller posts with just a few issues to discuss in each of them.

    Thanks for doing this – you are great! :)

  65. Geoff Sherrington

    Climate Etc has played an important part in educating readers that there is a wider diversity of climate science than the ‘Establishment view’ presents. The Establishment view presents declining amounts of good, hard science while stressing the ‘selling of the message’. Good science does not have to do much to sell itself.
    One can hope that Climate Etc can continue as a blog in much the same form for so long as you have patience and means, Dr Curry.
    Presently, my daily read includes much that is not clisci, but includes Jo Nova, WUWT & Climate Audit, all of which have kindly hosted past essays from me, plus Bishop Hill, Chemist at Langley, Euan Mearns, The Air Vent and several Australian blogs. Facebook and Twitter are seldom used here, which is wrong because of the risk of getting out of touch with younger media users. I’m an oldie at 75, but like many others at Climate Etc, I like to think that that can impart experience and wisdom.
    Summary, it would be great to continue the status quo, particularly if it continues to assist in data gathering and expression for your work before Government Committees and so on. My preference is for a lower blog volume, by fewer essays on communication and perhaps more on data-backed classical science. Good, hard, physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics wrapped in neat explanations. A few more invited contributions to lessen your load.

    • As others have suggested, I think there seems to be a certain degree of climate-alarm fatigue that has settled both sides into political trench warfare where nothing much new gets said.

      I sometimes wonder how many new readers Judith gets, and what they think of the blog, being unfamiliar with everything that has already been said here so many times.

  66. Hi Judith. Thank you thank you thank you for your diligence, and your immense contribution to everyones’ understanding of our present knowledge of climate, and the political and ideological drivers of ‘Global Warming’. I’m glad you are continuing with your efforts; you even have the ear of the United States government. Yours, and many others’ efforts are beginning to get the message out to the general public, the media is beginning to come around, and governments will follow. I read many of your articals each week, and your respectful and thoughtful commentary is a good example to other skeptics. It takes guts to engage so deeply in this debate, and a thick skin.
    Yours in admiration, HB from B.C. Canada

  67. Although I am a bit late, I will add my 2 cents. I think your blog is very, very useful — far more useful than social media.

    Your weeks in review postings are very good, but they contain so much information that I don’t have time to read all of them. Still I scan them when I get a chance. However, I would suggest that you find a grad student who could index them. Over time, you would have a really good body of knowledge that could be easily accessed. In some ways, a comprehensive index could serve as a quasi-encyclopedia.

    Also, if might be worthwhile for a grad student to review the articles over time, to see which ones proved to be accurate (with respect to projections/predictions) and which ones failed. Additionally, probably would be useful to drill down further to determine why certain articles were successes and others were failures.

    Finally, a small insight. Where you have highly technical long articles, I skim them briefly and then go to the comments to find the gist of the article. Would also add that I skim the comments to look for commenters who are interesting/useful to me and pretty much ignore the rest (80-85%). Even though I ignore most comments, the comment section is still very useful to me because I use the comments to get a handle on the very technical posts.

    JD

  68. Megan McArdle has an interesting take on global warming today:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-01/global-warming-alarmists-you-re-doing-it-wrong

    I remember when the warm though Joe Romm was “the essential” source on global warming. Whatever happened to ol’ Joe?