by Judith Curry
On experts, lukewarmers, and unhappy heretics.
Shortly after I started Climate Etc. in 2010, Scientific American published an article Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues. I responded with a blog post Heresy and the Creation of Monsters. Climate heresy, in response to the consensus climate change dogma, has been a major motivation and theme at Climate Etc.
This past week, there have been two terrific articles on climate heresy and heretics.
Scott Adams – The non-expert problem
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article: The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:
Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.
If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?
You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?
Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.
It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:
- A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
- Prediction models are complicated.
- The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
- There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
- There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
- The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:
- Unwarranted trust in experts
- Pattern recognition
On the question of fear, in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix.
On the question of trusting experts, I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.
And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.
And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
Roger Pielke Jr – My unhappy life as a climate heretic
Roger Pielke Jr has published a stunning op-ed in the WSJ – My unhappy life as a climate heretic. Excerpts:
Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”
WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument.
When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.
More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me.
I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.
Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians.
Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, . . . pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past.
That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.
In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. Penn State’s Michael Mann called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.
Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change.
In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.
I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.
But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.”
The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.
But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point.
But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.
Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?
Matt Ridley – My Life as a Lukewarmer.
In response to RP Jr’s op-ed, Matt Ridley tweeted the link to a comparable essay he wrote in 2015 – My Life as a Lukewarmer. Excerpts:
I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future.
This view . . . is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk.
I was even kept off the shortlist for a part-time, unpaid public-sector appointment in a field unrelated to climate because of having this view, or so the headhunter thought. In the climate debate, paying obeisance to climate scaremongering is about as mandatory for a public appointment, or public funding, as being a Protestant was in 18th-century England.
I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor of The Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat.
Gradually, however, I changed my mind. What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.
The policies being proposed to combat climate change, far from being a modest insurance policy, are proving ineffective, expensive, harmful to poor people and actually bad for the environment: we are tearing down rainforests to grow biofuels and ripping up peat bogs to install windmills that still need fossil-fuel back-up. Some insurance policy.
To begin with, after I came out as a lukewarmer, I would get genuine critiques from scientists who disagreed with me and wanted to exchange views. They often resorted to meta-arguments, especially the argument from authority: if the Royal Society says it is alarmed, then you should be alarmed. If I want argument from authority, I replied, I will join the Catholic Church.
One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”. Their letters to the editor or their blog responses asserted that I was “error-riddled” or had seriously misrepresented something, but then they not only failed to substantiate the charge but often roughly confirmed what I had written.
Talking of the committee on climate change, last year Lord Deben commissioned an entire report to criticise something I had said. Among other howlers, it included a quotation from the IPCC but the quote had a large chunk cut from the middle. When this cut was restored the line supported me, not Lord Deben. When I pointed this out politely to Lord Deben, he refused to restore the excision and left the document unchanged on the committee’s website.
I suppose all this fury means my arguments are hitting home.
I have never met a climate sceptic, let alone a lukewarmer, who wants his opponents silenced. I wish I could say the same of those who think climate change is an alarming prospect.
The truly astonishing thing about all this is how little climate heretics – such as myself, Roger Pielke, and Matt Ridley – actually diverge from the consensus science position: RP Jr. hews strictly to the IPCC consensus; Matt Ridley is on the lukewarm side of the IPCC consensus, and I have stated that the uncertainties are too large to justify high confidence in the consensus statements.
RP Jr and Matt Ridley provide appalling examples of the personal and arguably unethical attacks from other scientists, journalists, elected politicians and others with government appointments.
Scott Adams provides some genuine (and as always, humorous) insights into the psychology behind the dynamics of the climate debate.
As to the question: to be or not to be a climate heretic?
I’m planning a climate heretic blog post shortly after the first of the year. After seeing RP Jr’s title, perhaps I will title it ‘Happy Heretic’ (stay tuned). Here’s to hoping that the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives on climate science and our policy options .
You all crossed the thin green line.
“…the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.”
I am a scientist who agrees with 90% of the so-called “consensus” position. The problems lie in that final 10%, where the data is scarce, the funding is bountiful, and the politics are heavy. And it is only that 10% that matters, where the risks are as high as the uncertainty. The cost of disagreeing with *this 10% of climate science* is unreasonably high, I can confirm, even though a fair and responsible study without political interference would present a much different picture than the narrative many media companies encourage.
Spot on. My own small involvement in this field (having the audacity to use Freedom of Information to actually see the raw data used by CRU) led Phil Jones to conspire to get me fired from my academic position in Oxford.
That is shameful, sorry it happened. I have reservations about even engaging in civil technical debate because I know I could easily lose federal support for future projects. The ironic thing is that I have published many papers on advanced energy technologies that would be (and have been) embraced by the alarmist-types. There are good reasons for making buildings and aircraft more energy efficient and improving distributed water supplies that have nothing to do with any imminent weather catastrophe attributed to CO2 emissions. Yet I feel real pressure not to publish other work that points to an underestimation of radiative transport through the atmospheric window when using the graybody surface emission model (which all CMIP5 models do). Being forced to choose between career risks and shelving potentially useful work is not ideal.
I have no interest in heretics. I’m looking for prophets with a track record.
Of course they have track records. They all run around in circles. There is no destination save the starting point.
Philip Tetlock studies show ‘we ain’t too good at prediction,
what with connfirmation bias and those black swan events.’
Track records are no guide to the future. Prophets are usually pretty good at predicting the past.
However, I’ll predict the future for a small fee. What sort of prediction would you like? My track record is 100% so far. Trust me. Obviously, my methods are secret – intellectual property protection, you understand.
I offer a money back guarantee. I guarantee it will be extremely difficult to get your money back – trust me.
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it! and commented:
All in all, it is not a career move to be even slightly sceptical about global warming. It is a bit like trying to get a job in the Treasury or reserve bank in the 1980s while espousing monetarist views.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Kudos for presenting this summary of articles! I also have quite a few examples of the “appalling examples of the personal and arguably unethical attacks from other scientists”
Here is just one –
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-143.pdf
I look forward to your weblog post.
All I need is the Air that I Breathe
Posted on March 1, 2012
The current composition of the atmosphere is as a result of CO2 breathing organisms (plants and bacteria) and is composed primarily of a neutral molecule N2 and a POISON. This POISON is O2, and is a waste product of photosynthesis. The evolution of higher lifeforms was a response to the pollution of the atmosphere by early life.
Oxygen breathing life evolved to utilise this waste product and balance the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the CO2 breathing lifeforms have been winning the war of waste products and slowly poisoning themselves. Humans are the final link in the chain, our evolutionary purpose is to change the balance of power, and reverse the trend of lower CO2. We need to release fossil CO2 to the atmosphere so that the cycle of life can continue.
The sun, the oceans, stochastic events and the very nature of the system that by its design encourages conflict, outweigh the fluctuations of a trace gas who;s effect is boxed in by all around it. As in any problem, its a matter of identifying the main drivers and assigning them value. Climatologists should be made to long range forecast for a year so they understand in an applied manner what they are playing with when they trying to explain weather events as a way to tell me how bad the climate is getting. The fact is that we can not write off co2, but its affect is at best questionable, and most likely so tiny compared to all the other major forces that have controlled the planets climate for so long, that only a zealot would reach a conclusion that it is now the climate control knob.
“The sun, the oceans, stochastic events and the very nature of the system that by its design encourages conflict, outweigh the fluctuations of a trace gas who;s effect is boxed in by all around it.”
Did you ever notice how so called skeptics make wild claims and never qualify their claims with any sense of uncertainty.
Did you ever notice how in your endless attacks on skeptics you make wild claims and never qualify your claims with any sense of uncertainty?
Did you ever notice how climate Alarmists, like Mosher, make wild claims about the dangers of GHG emissions and never provide valid evidence to justify their claims.
Tell us the one about not using adjusted data again, I still get a laugh out of that.
You know at # Fakenews.@GISS or was it Altnews@BEST?
Did you ever notice how alt-scientists make wild claims and never qualify their claims with any real data.
Hey willis. I asked a question. How is that an attack?
Alt-rhetoric from willis.
Ever notice how you alt science types can dish it out but not take some simple questions. ?
Miss me with your alt-logic.
This alt- prefix to everything is curious to an outsider. Some kind of unfathomable homage to Alt-A mortgages – the unmentionable first cousins of subprime? Crashed in 2010-2011 and so Big Blue media could not mention all the foreclosures etc. It would clash with the message that peace, harmony and prosperity had returned under Obama! As far as I know, the original Alt-?
Mosher is just being his endearing self. Like the 3 year old who found a trick to get guffaws from Gramps and Nana and believes he is on to something, he is trained like the Pavlovian puppy to repeat and repeat the trick expecting the same response. And like the Energizer Bunny, he won’t or can’t shut it off.
No, because sceptics only have to say “you are wrong”. They don;t have to make any claims about alternatives or present a different theory.
This isn’t the Arts, it’s science. We may discuss alternatives and some of them may be “wild”, but that is totally irrelevant. The claims made by you an the AGW crowd are refuted by looking at your claims, not with reference to anything else.
Alt-science def: The continual statistical re-analysis of the same data in order to obtain a pre-conceived politically biased speculation.
foias, I believe Mosher is playing off the “alt-right” which depending on who you ask, is a white-nationalist group that are active on several blogs, including the comments section at Breitbart.com. Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign chief and now advisor was the editor at Breitbart and claimed that Breitbart was a platform for the alt-right, albeit under a different definition. Now the big blue smear machine has in Bannon a direct link from the raciest alt-right to Trump. Therefore proving, in their minds, that Trump is a white-nationalist and racist to the core as they have been claiming. A political smear at worst, partial truth at best.
Oh great … now we have a prefix to add to the suffixes to everything that doesn’t comport to what the educated polite require us to think.
Steven Mosher | December 6, 2016 at 7:17 am |
So if I were to ask “Steven, why do you always have to respond like such a pathetic contemptuous ahole?” … that’s just a simple question and not an attack?
Steven Mosher: Did you ever notice how so called skeptics make wild claims and never qualify their claims with any sense of uncertainty.
That question may have merit, but its position as a seeming response to the post by Joe Bastardi is potentially misleading: it seems to be an innuendo that something in Joe Bastardi’s post is a wild claim, or that someone who write “we can not write off CO2” is some kind of “so called skeptic. “… most likely so tiny … climate control knob.” is qualified, and not wild.
Would you like to tighten it up a bit, and write an actual proposition?
Lets repeat the question
“Did you ever notice how so called skeptics make wild claims and never qualify their claims with any sense of uncertainty.”
“So if I were to ask “Steven, why do you always have to respond like such a pathetic contemptuous ahole?” … that’s just a simple question and not an attack?”
Can you spot the difference Willis?
if not there is always this.. for folks who are stuck on stupid
There did that help loosen the gears of your brain?
And no, I dont consider your name calling to be an attack.
The simple fact is the #Altscience crew are pretty consistent when it comes to making wild claims without any qualifying uncertainty.
Here is a test.
Go to any skeptical site and count the number of posts or comments you read that blather on about solar cycles, or that claim ECS has to be zero
Or any number of “definitive” statements. Or debunked “trace gas” arguments.
you wont do this. trust me.
Yes yes… you are the exception, but you are not a skeptic remember?
Mosher’s “alt-science” is just his own cute little version of the d-word. No one wants to be called the equivalent of a white supremacist any more than a holocaust d’nier. (and he thinks he’s real cute in getting away with it) Maybe mosher would be so bold as to discuss the merits of both white supremacy and holocaust d’nile? After all, just like agw skeptics, it’s well known that both groups actually DO have the data on their side. Don’t worry Dr. Curry, i know well that such a discussion would not be welcome on your (georgia based) blog. Just trying to point out here that “alt” may not necessarily be so…
“Did you ever notice how so called skeptics make wild claims and never qualify their claims with any sense of uncertainty.”
I have seen several justify their claims with uncertainties, so therefore the answer must be “No”.
Did you ever notice that those attempting to discredit skeptics make the sort of generalizations they would never accept from skeptics?
“And no, I dont consider your name calling to be an attack.
The simple fact is the #Altscience crew are pretty consistent when it comes to making wild claims without any qualifying uncertainty.”
And what is the level of uncertainty in that wild claim?
As I noted before your comments seem to be increasingly devoid of any content. That statement isn’t a “simple fact” it’s just superficial polemic, as I hope you well know.
If you don’t then take some time out and get yourself together would be my suggestion.
Qualification of uncertainty only has meaning if you know what you don’t know. We don’t even know what we don’t know.
Except of course the 100% certainty of, “Hey man, it’s a greenhouse gas”.
Altscience here and proud of it. I look at quantum spectral properties and find a gas that gobbles all the available light in its strike zone in a meter, yet has extremely low emissivity.
Gobbles ’em up, don’t spit’em out. (How’s that for an altscience uncertainty unqualified statement?)
Now I know you and your bandwagon ilk have not done this. I know you won’t do this because it is dangerous. It is Alt.
It is important.
Agree totally Joe. I once sat through a lecture by a NWP modeller at Reading University who was going through a new convection and rainfall scheme that was soon to be implemented in a major weather model. At the end of it he said that he put in the latest data today and this new scheme shows why it is dry weather today……It had been raining non stop for 2 hours….and someone called out….”have you not looked out the window”…the response was….a quick glance at the rain drenched windows and shuffled through his papers and said …”that shouldn’t be happening!” with no further explanation. That and many other experienced examples was the reason I realised that weather/climate modellers…may be very talented at doing what they do….creating incredibly complex models…but using these models day in day out and observing weather patterns, extremes and their relation to climate is where Meteorologists have a grandstand view of what is really going on rather than what computer models, media or fearful enviromentalists say is expected to happen. This is why surveys consistently show Meteorologists are no where near the 97% consensus on global warming and the grand claims of weather extremes and impeding disaster for the world. I would also argue that often NWP modellers come not from a pool of people interested in weather and climate, but rather that they have particular skills required to make the model. Unless you have a clear understanding of how these models are going to be used and display data then all you are doing is playing with numbers and computer code.
“This is why surveys consistently show Meteorologists are no where near the 97% consensus on global warming and the grand claims of weather extremes and impeding disaster for the world…..”
Well I am a (retired) meteorologist from the UKMO, who fully agrees with AGW science – and I do not know of any ex-colleagues who think differently.
Your “surveys” may be from the US where most work for media companies – and guess what – they are often right-wing in tendency and are very far from a scientific environment.
It is well-known that people tend to lean towards and comply with the opinions of colleagues/employers.
However on searching this it would appear to prove both you and my reasoning wrong (though it seems opinions have changed a deal in the last 5 years – maybe that long since I looked into it)….
“I would also argue that often NWP modellers come not from a pool of people interested in weather and climate, but rather that they have particular skills required to make the model. Unless you have a clear understanding of how these models are going to be used and display data then all you are doing is playing with numbers and computer code.”
No – in the UKMO at least, the 2 are closely integrated.
NWP is atmospheric physics primarily and that creates weather which metmen observe and forecast.
Verification schemes are run to validate the efficacy of any changes made to the code and it will not be implemented operationally unless having a +ve effect.
Joe: As I understand it (and I could be wrong), climate science has little to do with making long-range weather forecasts. In weather forecasting, imprecise starting conditions and chaos conspired to make features in the forecast atmosphere unreliable a few weeks into the future. The larger heat capacity of the ocean means that patterns in SSTs can be forecast further into the future and they tend to direct the atmospheric flow along familiar lines for months (with plenty of variation from day to day).
As I understand it, climate science begins much more crudely: How much heat is entering and leaving the planet as radiation? CO2 is the simplest major player in this game. Unlike weather forecasting, it doesn’t make any difference where on the planet the retained heat ends up after CO2 slows down the rate it escapes to space. Once heat stops flowing into the ocean (equilibrium), the planet’s new average temperature will depend only radiation entering and leaving the planet. Sure, we don’t know whether we will It is not approach that equilibrium state in somewhat more than a century or in a millennium. Yes, until we approach equilibrium, we need to worry about what fraction of retained heat ends up in the deep ocean and what fraction ends up in the atmosphere, surface and mixed layer. Yes, rising absolute humidity, changing cloud cover and altitude and lapse rate are critical, but they all impact the energy flux into and out of the planet. There have been warmer and cooler periods in the Holocene (possibly caused by the sun), but so far this is no evidence that the cause of those can compete with doubled CO2.
Precipitation is a little more challenging. In the long run, the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface must be equal (after ocean heat uptake becomes negligible). Evaporation/latent heat (not net radiation, OLR-DLR) is the main player in heat flow from the surface to the upper atmosphere troposphere, where it can escape to space. The rate of evaporation (and therefore precipitation) is therefore limited by radiative cooling to space.
Forecasting without specifying where it will be warmer and cooler and without specifying where the rain will fall is incredibly crude compared with what you do. AOGCM’s differ significantly about regional climate change – ie their forecasts are probably less accurate than your poorest long-range forecasts. However, as best I can tell, climate science can crudely inform us about global changes. Unless you consider a likely range for ECS of 1.5-4.5 K too wide to be meaningful forecast, the predictions of climate science are valuable.
A radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 is capable of warming the atmosphere plus mixed layer of the ocean at an initial rate of 0.2 K/yr (and that warming rate begins to slow within a few years because a warmer planet radiates more heat to space and because some heat is transported below the mixed layer. These are pitifully weak compared to changes in weather and seasons. As a weather forecaster, you are correct to be disdainful of them. However those forces always point in the same direction, and after decades, significant changes may occur.
The gravitational attraction between a proton and electron is 10^-40 times weaker than the electrostatic force. Nevertheless, the most important large-scale force in the universe is gravity, because almost every positive charge has a negative charge nearby to counter most of the electrostatic force, leaving gravity as the predominant force. Massive amounts of energy shift through and between the atmosphere and oceans, but these internal shifts are as meaningless to long-term climate change as the massive amount of electrostatic energy in the Earth’s atoms is to the Earth’s gravity.
Now, if you could just tell me whether there will be less cloud cover on a warmer planet, I can decide whether to be a lukewarmer or an alarmist (:)).
franktoo, your proposition that the main knob of forcing is GHG and that everything else is counterbalancing internal variability is not new. Just in case you are not aware of all the counter propositions I will list a few:
1) The energy balance includes not just what IR energy can escape but also what sunlight is not reflected at the upper atmosphere, off clouds and off the surface. All are variable, with the later being potentially a negative feedback dampening warming.
2) Although volcanic aerosols are short lived their significant blocking of sunlight is banked into the oceans, resetting the heat content. Thus in fact the surface never achieves equilibrium but is in a constant state of gradual warming until the next major volcanic event. The last 130 years have shown a lull in major volcanoes as compared to the prior centuries.
3) Solar activity modulation although relatively small can be for significant time scale, making it a significant net energy change.
4) The Little Ice Age and other paleo-climate fluctuations, on a much larger time frame than can be explained by internal intra-decadal variability, are not correlated with GHG, and thus provide strong evidence of non-GHG forcing variability.
5) Modern ice cores reveal that contrary to Arrhenius’ hypothesis of CO2 being the driver of the ice ages that in fact CO2 fluctuated in the counter direction to the abrupt glacial swings, offering little resistance, and instead adjusting in the opposite direction as warming due SST changing ocean solubility of CO2. #Not-a-driver
6) If Sea level rise is the only down side with upsides of increases in crop yields and habitable land mass then perhaps mitigation of storm surge vulnerability is a more apt solution. If cooling is indeed needed then geoengineering to modulate reflected sunlight would provide a controllable temperature knob that could be reversed for dangerous natural (or human caused) cooling events. We all agree we would not want to re-continuation of the glacial cycle under any circumstances.
Ron: I’ve heard the counter propositions. I did ask Joe to tell me whether whether cloud feedback is positive or negative; the big question in my opinion.
The forcing from volcanic aerosols (when integrated over time) and the sun appear to me to be smaller than the forcing from rising GHGs. W/m2 matter. In terms of W/m2, CO2 continuous forcing is already comparable in size to Pinatubo at its peak. I’d never call CO2 the control knob, just a large player among others.
The warming and cooling associated with the LIA, MWP, etc appear to be smaller than expected from AGW. If ECS is 3 K or greater, another LIA won’t make much difference. IF ECS is 1.5 K, another LIA won’t be needed. We can’t count on another LIA arriving in the next few centuries in either case.
It doesn’t make too much difference to me precisely what combination of GHGs, aerosols, solar, volcanos and unforced variability “caused” 20th-century warming – 20th century change is too small to defined ECS with adequate accuracy. See Lewis and Curry 2014. And ice ages don’t place many limits on ECS either, except that they suggest our climate is relatively unstable in the cold direction over millennial periods of time when slow surface albedo and CO2 outgassing contribute to other feedbacks. Our future is under the control of ECS/cloud feedback – whatever that may be.
GW will bring an increase in transpiration to counterbalance the fertilizing effects of CO2.
Frank, keep in mind how hard it is to crunch all of the variables and accurately predict the climate in 80-100 years. Pinatubo was a big one but if we get another Tambora (1815) we will reset the GMST by 30 years rather than Pinatubo’s 3. If we had a Toba (74,000 BC), Taupo (25,360 BC) it would endanger the Holocene inter-glacial if CO2 were allowed to go even back to 350ppm.
Yet, despite that the Oceans 2K study McGregor (2015) pinning the LIA on volcanism by use of GCM analysis, I strongly doubt it. For example, Tambora was in 1815 yet this was the closing of the LIA and the AGW (coal) did not even begin to trickle until 1850. My personal suspicion is that deep ocean disturbances can overwhelm and make SST plummet causing a LIA mostly out of unforced variability. I suspect inter-glacials end by statistical hazard of simultaneously overlapping random cooling events that white out the NH lowering albedo in an irreversible feedback loop lasting ~100K years.
For this reason I think human technology should address the issue by doubling down and intervening more in affecting GMST not less. If we dusted the top of the mesosphere 80km up with a nano-particle colloid we could give Earth and artificial glowing ring shading the equator. If we had an unforeseen cooling event we could dust the ring with an oppositely charged nano-particle causing the ring to precipitate and clear out. But as a dead-man’s switch we place the ring low enough that gravity and friction degrade it over a decade with no intervention.
You say: “GW will bring an increase in transpiration to counterbalance the fertilizing effects of CO2.”
I do not understand why transpiration would not enhance fertilization rather than dampen it. My thought is that CO2 at 500-600ppm could be a great ecological benefit if we control incoming sunlight and buttress shorelines for storms, which we need to do regardless.
==> If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory:… ===>
Interesting how Scott left out the “hoax” part, they’re publishing faulty science for funding and career development part, they’re just exploiting science for a political agenda part, it’s just religious fanaticism part, they are driven by guilt part, etc. I guess he’s just looked at different online discussions than the ones I’ve seen.
Also, interesting to note that he buys the “shy voter” theory, even though no one has presented solid evidence in support to justify a conclusion that it explains much by way of the electoral results. It is a convenient theory, however, so why let a lack of evidence get in the way? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence…that’s the kind of nonsense that “experts” get hung up on.
Joshua, with respect to your paragraph 1: the NRDC crop yield briefing to congress was a deliberate hoax misrepresenting a faulty paper (my first ever guest post here in 2011 shares the details), Mann published faulty science for funding, Obama and Kerry exploited science for a political agenda, the warmunist denial epithet is religious fanaticism, Klein and Oreskes are plainly both driven by liberal guilt, etc.
With respect to your second paragraph, the shy voter hypothesis explains why pollsters got it wrong, not the election result itself.
So in response to the first paragraph, you’re agreeing that Scott left out elements that are commonly found.
In response to the second paragraph, there could be myriad reasons why the polls “got it wrong,” (actually, the national vote polling average was close to if not within the margin of error). Your “explanation” lacks any actual evidence in support.
I think that the polling error was due to poor “likely voter” screens…because they are based on past voting turnout and probably a fair number of people voted in this election who hadn’t voted in previous elections.
The “shy voter” theory runs rather counter to the outcome that both Clinton and Trump outperformed the polls not in areas where their support was relatively unpopular (thus, suggesting that people would be “shy” to admit to supporting a candidate who seemed unpopular), but in areas where their support was relatively popular.
Sorry, Rud, but I find argument by assertion to be entirely unimpressive. Try bringing some evidence to the table.
J, I will let others judge the adequacy of my response to your comment, and your subsequent comprehension of same.
In other words, Rud, you can provide no reasoned arguments why the supposed “shy” voters were “shyer” responding to pollsters where Trump was more popular, or why Clinton outperformed the polls where she was popular, or why there was no data from comparing online polling to in-person polling to support your theory?
“One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”.”
No where near the standing of Mr. Ridley, but experienced the same behavior not from one but many on politics threads. My theory, therefore, is that this behavior is not related to the science but instead pertains to the associated politics. Experiment to ascertain the the viability performed on politics threads. Results discouragingly robust. The data runs extremely deep and pertains to participants on both sides of the debate.
Deniers offset by catastrophists. Lukewarmers offset by those more climate concerned. Not clear what happens dead center. Might be a g-spot.
Dr. Curry, thank you for the forum allowing discussion. There is an answer but the question remains uncertain.
Sorta happy, sometimes unhappy semi-heretic.
> My theory, therefore, is that this behavior is not related to the science but instead pertains to the associated politics.
I see it more as a set of personality attributes, Danny T. I haven’t a shred of evidence to give you, just opinion based on my own experiences slumming around various Internet discussion fora over the years. IRL, people are generally more polite, so I was shocked by the online vehemence I saw when I first started exploring it.
Actually, Dr. Judith, I suspect the real problem is not that you and the others are climate heretics. The issue is that you are climate apostates—someone who used to believe, but now speaks out against what they used to believe. That’s the worst. If you never believed, that’s passable. But if you were one of the chosen few, and now you speak in any form against your former affiliation, you are the embodiment of evil.
As regards the hatred of apostates, the climate establishment is much like Islam. Islam says that apostates deserve one of four fates: execution, exile, crucifixion, or having a hand and a foot lopped off on opposite sides of the body. It is because of this hatred of apostates that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with bodyguards and Salman Rushdie got death threats …
Gotta love it when the attack-dog section of the media, and far too many of the mainstream US climate scientists, are modeling their behavior on one of the most brutal aspects of Islam … I didn’t see that one coming.
‘As regards the hatred of apostates, the climate
establishment is much like Islam. Islam says that
apostates deserve one of four fates: execution,
exile, crucifixion, or having a hand and a foot
lopped off on opposite sides of the body. It is
because of this hatred of apostates that Ayaan
Hirsi Ali has to live with bodyguards and Salman
Rushdie got death threats …’
Oh Shukla! Oh RICO!
The difference betwixt The Enlightenment
and what preceded it was that heretics,
likewise ‘witches,’ weren’t required to git
burned at the stake.
Good points! Never believers are merely deplorables and can be dismissed out of hand by the PC Consensus. However, as in Islam, former believers must be dealt with harshly less their heresy become a cancer on the body of the faithful.
We have an exact Analogy Whereby the EU is determined to make an example of Britain as a punishment for daring to want to leave their corrupt club and to serve as a lesson to anyone else thinking about it.
The EU forgets it was tried before (shunning GB). It did not go over for that version of the EU either (circa 1940+).
I think you have hit on something important, Willis! A recognized climate scientist that strays from the orthodox is a very dangerous person! Anyone else can just be dismissed out of hand.
Regarding RPjr.’s op-ed… and because (despite some of the typical flaws that characterize much of his analyses) Brandon deserves some credit for exhibiting some internal consistencies that is so rare in the online discussion of climate change:
I find that I am treated like a heretic on this site for saying that manmade forcing dominates natural forcing and that the mean imbalance is in all likelihood positive. It comes down to what statements you stand by or stand against. A heretic isn’t someone who says “I just don’t know”.
That is not why you’re treated ‘like a heretic’.
Amen to that Danny.
Not sure what you read in to that. The ‘why’ IMO is political in nature.
No Jim2. I don’t perceive that he ‘needs’ any ‘snowflakes’. Just made a statement that in part why he’s treated as a ‘heretic’ is due to his political alignment. Having just experienced such treatment because I don’t agree with the likes of you politically and witnessing how you’re not being capable of reasonable disagreement but instead find the need to stoop to commentary such as you’ve just presented is evidence. Safe spaces & lefty loony all in one post of yours? Just juvenile behavior and you’re quite good at it. Soon someone will come along and call me a Social Justice Warrior for pointing it out.
=>> Maybe you could round up some snowflakes to surround him ==>>
Pretty ironic given that the theme of the post is concern about being treated like a heretic.
And hos is creating safe spaces for snowflakes similar to scientists being treated as a religious outsider?
So you got it right, even if for the wrong reason.
You know Josh has pushed that stoopid it’s all political argument. ( of course you do J jr). It is intellectually lazy.
Jim D gets a lot of push back because he repeatedly makes statements as if they were incontrovertible fact, when they are nothing of the sort. But he is persistent, honest and does not resort to personal attack. In that last he is a better person than I am. You might try emulating the honest characteristic Danny.
One additional point Danny. I for one don’t have a clue what Jim D’s political opinions are.
He stands his ground like a true believer. Logic, reason and fact do not diminish his belief. And if he is on the right side according to history, who knows, he may be remembered along the same vein as early Christian martyrs.
But someone who says “you don’t know, even though you pretend to know” is a heretic.
But we have exceeded the rate of change that previously occurred
“The Younger Dryas is a geological period from c. 12,900 to c. 11,700 calendar years ago… The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and resulted in a decline of 2 to 6 degrees”
Jim D | December 6, 2016 at 12:38 am | Reply
“I am treated like a heretic on this site for saying that manmade forcing dominates natural forcing and that the mean imbalance is in all likelihood positive”
Statement of fact Jim D, and obviously not a complaint.
Firstly you deny that natural forcing exists and you deny any negative feedbacks exist.
Personally I find your views and intransigence refreshing and enlightening and am very happy to have you commentating here forever.
You are rarely [never] rude and always able to find a circularity in an argument, unfortunately usually your own.
You are a welcome and much needed member of the team.
Seconded about Jimd. We do need other perspectives but it would be interesting to hear how much he thinks the climate varies naturally.
The climate has natural variation.
However it doesn’t add TW of energy to the oceans at the same time as Solar is steadily reducing.
Short of “under-floor” heating that is.
And please don,t resort to denying the ARGO data.
Or the unproven hypothesis of cloud feedback.
I have never denied The Argo data, indeed you will have seen me supporting the notion of more Argo buoys at greater depths which I discussed with Tomas stocker a couple of years ago. The more data the better especially on the very under sampled oceans.
As far as clouds go, yes it’s unproven and uncertain like much, but obviously not all, of climate science.
climatereason, yes, the climate varies naturally. We see and understand these fairly well, from Ice Ages to longer term paleoclimate driven by volcanic and other geological processes that affect GHGs. It is precisely because of paleoclimate that we know that GHGs have such an effect. We are headed towards CO2 levels last seen before glaciers existed tens of millions of years ago, but some here don’t consider this to be a factor to consider which I find remarkable.
“Paleoclimate” shows CO2 lagging warm periods. The reason why may be unknown (but actually the hypothesis for it is well founded), but the data is unarguable. You cannot have a cause that is preceded by its effect.
I agree with Jim D, that climate does change naturally, and that we have yet to exceed previous limits of natural varialbility.
But we have exceeded the rate of change that previously occurred, and are on a path to exceed previous hot house climates of the past, but I believe we will come to grips with that and take effective action before that happens.
Would have liked to listen in to what Al and Donald were talking about.
This is a reply to bobdroege | December 6, 2016 at 1:17 pm |
‘I agree with Jim D, that climate does change naturally, and that we have yet to exceed previous limits of natural varialbility. But we have exceeded the rate of change that previously occurred…’ Bob: how do you know that ‘.,..we have exceeded the rate of change that previously occurred’?
Cause some boffins have measured it.
> You cannot have a cause that is preceded by its effect.
Of course not, philjourdan. But you can have a molecule with multiple physical properties, and thus multiple effects on or responses to its surroundings. CO2 happens to be absolutely non-unique in that respect.
We need not limit ourselves to chemistry to understand the implications of multiple parameters for a single molecular species in equilibrium systems:
Which species is the cause? Which is the effect?
But then we are not talking about multiple properties, just one property. And the lag of CO2 to temperature rise is indisputable. Ergo, historically, rising CO2 is not a cause of the warming in the past, but a result OF warming in the past
Periods in paleoclimate had CO2 rises due to volcanic activity, and the temperature rose along with it. No one argues that the temperature rise caused the volcanoes. What we are doing today is like those volcanoes did in the past, but much faster.
Faster than a Volcano? Now that has got to be the ——— ever written! Volcanic eruptions are sudden and fast! Otherwise, no one in Pompeii or Herculaneum would be immortalized in stone!
Indeed, it took millions of years for volcanoes to raise CO2 levels significantly, while Man has only taken a century to do the same thing.
> But then we are not talking about multiple properties, just one property.
With respect to CO2, we ARE talking about at least two properties, philjourdan. Very simply:
1) Its partial pressure in oceanic/terrestrial reservoirs as a function of temperature.
2) Its radiative properties in the atmosphere as a function of its mixing ratio.
Same species, two properties. Thus …
> And the lag of CO2 to temperature rise is indisputable.
… is also not *necessarily* relevant. Which means …
> Ergo, historically, rising CO2 is not a cause of the warming in the past, but a result OF warming in the past
… does not *necessarily* follow, and is therefore “proof” of exactly … nada.
Going back to the plot of the hare and lynx I repeat my questions: Which species is the cause? Which is the effect?
Molecules are not animate life forms. We are still only talking about one property, regardless of how you want to micro divide it. The data is there. Until they find that “Chroniton” particle that allows future events to influence past facts, the data is still irrefutable. Effect cannot precede cause. If you have evidence showing otherwise, please present it to the world! The world is waiting for a predictive element that can be changed in the present to affect the past.
> Molecules are not animate life forms.
My recognition of which is why I prefaced my question with:
Since you’ve again failed to answer a simple and direct question, let’s try different some different ones:
1) If the Canada lynx population was eliminated from the environment, would you expect the snowshoe rabbit population to increase, decrease or stay the same?
2) If the snowshoe rabbit population was eliminated from the environment, would you expect the Canada lynx population to increase, decrease or stay the same?
And just for kicks:
3) As CO2 concentration increases, do you expect green plant growth to increase, decrease or stay the same?
That last one should dispense with any further objections about molecules not being animate life forms.
> We are still only talking about one property, regardless of how you want to micro divide it.
Mixing ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is a statistic, not a property of the molecule. And this …
… is not a micro-division, it’s a gross oversimplification — just not as grossly oversimplified as your insistence that there’s only one relevant physical property of CO2 to consider here.
In my book JimD you are honestly and politely putting your POV forward notwithstanding that the majority of commenters here disagree and have sometimes been rude to you personally.
If it were not for your efforts and that of a few others, Judith’s site would run the risk of being an echo chamber for the sceptical. Its always important that a diversity of views can be accessed by readers. and that we can judge for ourselves the merits (or lack thereof) of these views.
“If it were not for your efforts and that of a few others, Judith’s site would run the risk of being an echo chamber for the sceptical.”
As if the “scepitcal” are like-minded and always in agreement. That said, I think your comment is spot on. Jim D., has always been polite to me and has always (seemingly) been earnest in his efforts. His absence from this site, in my arrogant opinion, would be a tragedy and I, for one, would miss the hell out of him.
Reply to Peter M Davies: agreed. As one happy to be regarded as a ‘climate d’nier’ or ‘leftie agitator’ or whatever, I too value the diversity of opinion expressed on Dr Curry’s site. I look forward to Mosher’s sometimes incoherent yells of protest as much as I do to Nick Stokes’ pointed and usually searching questions.
What is heresy one day can be orthodoxy the next, and v.v. There will always be things that many people sincerely believe or reject despite lack of evidence and/or contrary evidence. JimD, like many others, seems to accept, or at least not question, the authority of the IPCC. As a scientist, I insist that it must be questioned, whether or not JimD does so. Without questioning, progress stops.
I appreciate the support from those who expressed it above.
I mainly said it because wanted to draw a distinction between someone who says “we just don’t know” and someone who considers a “very likely” statement by the IPCC, supported by data and forcing considerations, as instead “very likely wrong”. The people here seem to fall into both camps and sometimes shift between them without realizing it.
Jim D, well said. We are frequently fighting over statements; we should concentrate on facts. Take an IPCC “very likely” statement: what level of confidence does it represent? How many sigmas? That would be an exact number, but that’s not how IPCC works. They use some other mechanism – probably a vote by carefully selected experts. If you happen to know, please share your knowledge.
Peilke quotes almost exclusively from the IPCC, but he draws fire from the emotional who don’t like the fact that the IPCC doesn’t really predict CAGW.
I found it matters greatly if you refer to IPCC papers and IPCC advice to policymakers. One does not support the other.
I am glad people like JimD post here.
manmade forcing dominates natural forcing
For the global mean top of the atmosphere, GHG RF likely imposes a 1 to 2 percent change.
But climate is not defined by this or even by global warming.
Climate involves the general circulation.
So, for Global RF, I’d probably agree that manmade forcing dominates natural forcing ( though no one can know what albedo was or how it changed ).
For Climate, natural forcing dominates and it’s not clear that RF or resultant mean temperature change is even significant.
You are in effect saying that the temperature rise with the forcing change in the last century is coincidental and unconnected. Are you sure?
You are in effect saying that the temperature rise with the forcing change in the last century is coincidental and unconnected.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there is a mean temperature and there are real temperatures determined by dynamic circulation. Mean temperatures probably are increasing with the global RF change. Real daily temperatures ( and winds, and storms, and precipitation, etc. ) are determined by circulation ( like the recent Arctic outbreak ). The temperature changes from day to day circulation can be 20C or more – ten times larger than a CO2 doubling. The rise in mean temperature doesn’t determine the circulation so rising mean temperature is particularly significant.
No, they are not, well okay, maybe a 0.1F in afternoon temps, but other than that, active temperature regulation at night it doesn’t matter.
Just like deserts still get cold at night.This is the environment that is the most affected by co2, it has the lowest humidity and the highest natural forcing to illuminate any co2 in the atmosphere, get the biggest back radiation on earth. And at night temps still drop like a rock.
The mean summer temperature in the US could increase by 3-4 standard deviations by 2100. This means that an extreme hot summer today (a 3-sigma or 50-year event) would be just average in 2100, and their extremes would be nothing we have ever seen. So just dismissing a mean change of a few degrees is missing rather a large piece of climate change, which is seasonal temperatures. This is excluding potential tipping points like Hansen’s Greenland meltwater pulse scenario that cools Europe and raises sea levels faster.
The mean summer temperature in the US could increase by 3-4 standard deviations by 2100. This means that an extreme hot summer today (a 3-sigma or 50-year event) would be just average in 2100, and their extremes would be nothing we have ever seen.
Such things are certainly not validated by any observations. If Judith should accept it, watch for a guest post on this subject soon.
So just dismissing a mean change of a few degrees is missing rather a large piece of climate change, which is seasonal temperatures. This is excluding potential tipping points like Hansen’s Greenland meltwater pulse scenario that cools Europe and raises sea levels faster.
Hansen’s ideas are also not validated by observation.
And consider that Hansen’s idea – stronger jet streams is directly contradicted by Jenifer Francis idea – weaker jet streams.
Neither is validated but both are ironically accepted by the excitable climate industry because they are used to imply CAGW. That is part of the problem – a real phenomenon – Radiative Forcing – is used to insinuate other changes, sometimes by crazy unsubstantiated ideas.
Jim D: find that I am treated like a heretic on this site for saying that manmade forcing dominates natural forcing and that the mean imbalance is in all likelihood positive.
You are not a person who says “I just don’t know”. You write lots of assertions that are disputed. You are treated as a disputant, not as a heretic.
Exactly. A heretic has assertions that diverge from the norm. In the case of Judith, she says to IPCC scientists “you don’t know that it is very likely”, which is a bit different and more confrontational than “I don’t know whether it is very likely”.
A heretic has assertions that diverge from the norm.
Hmmm. Heresy is a religious term, perhaps appropriate to climate, but only because there are unknowables wrt climate that people tend to fill in with emotion as they do with religion.
But science abhors assertions? Repeatable observations of testable hypotheses that matters?
In the case of Judith, she says to IPCC scientists “you don’t know that it is very likely”, which is a bit different and more confrontational than “I don’t know whether it is very likely”.
The IPCC makes assertions about outcomes which are untested hypotheses. And just like governments that go into debt because the leaders won’t be around to answer for the debt payback, it’s easy to make predictions about the year 2100, because the predictor won’t be around to answer for their claims.
They give their uncertainty ranges. If you don’t like their ranges, produce your own and the methodology for coming up with them. Take a scenario such as 6 W/m2 for 2100 and give a temperature range for that, and your basis for it. Just dismissing things is not science. Science is pushing in your own direction and putting forwards arguments.
The real ‘heretic’ in this stupid cesspool of Judy’s is Mosher — he started out a skeptic, then actually worked with the ‘problematic’ data… and found himself convinced. And now he schools you guys on a regular basis.
I would suggest that makes Mosher a convert. Ain’t nothing more insufferably self righteous than a convert.
I consider Mosher to be one of the few skeptics that frequent this site.
You know he can be convinced, has an open mind and listens to reason.
“You know he can be convinced, has an open mind and listens to reason.”
In between endeavoring to silence it.
Mosher tries to silence nobody.
When he says “read harder”
In my opinion, he means to review your argument because you made an error somewhere in your logic.
Just because most denizens do not make reasoned arguments supported by evidence. and Mosher points that out, doesn’t mean he is trying to shut anyone up.
He cant anyway.
“Mosher tries to silence nobody.
When he says “read harder…”
Your assumption as failed you. If you have the comment I am responding to deleted it appears as if my quotations of your words will mean my comment gets deleted too.
Certainly one could take your decision to have your comment removed as conceding the argument, but if there is no acknowledgement that the point has been conceded, then, whether you’ve intended to or not, you have managed to erase your own faulty argument as well as the argument that convinced you your argument was flawed and everyone is none the wiser.
There ain’t nothing wrong with being wrong. There’s plenty wrong with refusing to admit being wrong when wrong. I have long admired Steven’s dogged attempts to get skeptics to act more like skeptics and I cannot tell you how utterly disappointed to discover that…in between making calls for reason, Steven endeavors to silence reason.
When Steven say’s read harder, you cannot read what Steven has had deleted.
JC reflections ends with:
Here! Here! to that. The broader range will need to include a major focus on researching and quantifying the damage function and its uncertainties. There can be no valid justification for public expenditure on GHG abatement policies without valid evidence that GHG emissions are harmful. To date the assertions about damaging GHG emissions are based largely on assertions and innuendo https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826495
Sampling peer reviewed climate change publication abstracts to arrive at the 97% (98%?) “of all scientists” appears equivalent to the sampling methods used to “guess” our presidential election results.
Marvelous compilation- thanks. The credibility of all earth sciences have suffered mightily from the legions of gravy-trainers feeding from the taxpayer’s trough while fully aware that the “C” in CAGW is a potpourri of data-rigging, FOIA/PR subversion and lies. It is time for truth…
I have a feeling that ‘climate change’ is falling apart. Several reasons. First, James Hansen and his support of nuclear energy and ridicule of Paris. Second, Obama pipes up every now and then and gives us a lecture ‘shame on you’. He’s history! Third, most people have little interest in it. It’s way down on the interest list. It was barely mentioned during the election.
A few more cold winters and it’s Meh for ‘climate change’. You wounded warriors will then truly wonder was it worth it. It reminds me of some lyrics in a John Lennon song: “Well I’d like to tell my story but you don’t wanna hear about the war” from: ‘I’m an old forgotten soldier’
Peace out brothers and sisters!
La Niña no longer likely in the coming months
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the tropical Pacific Ocean remains neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña). Although some very weak La Niña-like patterns continue (such as cooler than normal ocean temperatures and reduced cloudiness in the central and eastern Pacific), La Niña thresholds have not been met. Climate models and current observations suggest these patterns will not persist. The likelihood of La Niña developing in the coming months is now low, and hence the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook has shifted from La Niña WATCH to INACTIVE.
Next up… maybe El Niño. Three in a row would herehysterical.
I have a feeling that ‘climate change’ is falling apart.
I agree. Here’s another reason to add to yours. None of the climate alarmists who blog on CE responded to the eight comments I posted at the top of this recent thread https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826495 . The comments are about impacts and the damage function which is essential to any attempt to justify the belief that GHG emissions are dangerous. The fact the CE alarmists dodged this is telling. It suggests they have no answer and can’t defend their justifications for their climate alarmism.
” The comments are about impacts and the damage function which is essential to any attempt to justify the belief that GHG emissions are dangerous. The fact the CE alarmists dodged this is telling. It suggests they have no answer and can’t defend their justifications for their climate alarmism.”
Please link me to where in the IPCC reports it says that ECS is anything other than between 1.5 and 4.5C?
1.5 isn’t alarming (tho we are already at 1).
4.5C certainly is alarming.
In case you haven’t twigged – that’s a range of uncertainty.
CAGW is an invention of *sceptics*.
Oh, and don’t take any meaning from the science side not answering you.
Contrary to your belief we have lives and are far outnumbered on this *sceptic* blog.
It matters not a jot anyway.
As Mosher says…..
Science isn’t done or policy decided on what is written here.
“4.5C certainly is alarming.”
I’ll continue to soap box this –
Beyond the fact that alarm is an emotion, not science,
How does a global average temperature relate to actual climate?
Reacting to any GAT number carries implicit underlying assumptions, an increasing number of which appear to be invalid. The general circulation, which largely determines climate, is not determined by GAT.
Temperature is one of the key metrics that makes up climate.
“How does it relate?” It’s part of the definition.
‘CAGW is an invention of *sceptics*.’
Below are small but typical snippets of a voluminous narrative from world leaders, governments and other authorities plus orgs. Presumably you don’t hold the view that all the influential Western leaders represented in this sample are skeptics? Assuming not, I’m interested to know in what way you think the certain, urgent (apparently soon irrevocable), global, calamitous nature of the issue as framed in their narrative, is not consistent with the abbreviation used by some to indicate the concept of an unwarranted certainty regarding near-term (decades) climate catastrophe, i.e. ‘CAGW’. (a while ago I checked all these quotes back to what appeared to be decent sources, so I believe they’re accurate). Or do you have some different interpretation of what ‘CAGW’ means?
[GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND] to 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development : “So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” [OBAMA] Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet (2006) : “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Speech in Berlin (2008) : “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” George town speech (2013) : “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” State of the Union (2015) : “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] Paris climate summit Nov 2015 : “To resolve the climate crisis, good will, statements of intent are not enough. We are at breaking point.” [GORDON BROWN] Copenhagen climate plan (2009) : “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause…As scientists spell out the mounting evidence both of the climate change already occurring and of the threat it poses in the future, we cannot allow the negotiations to run out of time simply for lack of attention. Failure would be unforgivable.” [ANGELA MERKEL] to UN summit on Climate Change (2009) : “After all, scientific findings leave us in no doubt that climate change is accelerating. It threatens our well being, our security, and our economic development. It will lead to uncontrollable risks and dramatic damage if we do not take resolute countermeasures.” Same speech : “we will need to reach an understanding on central issues in the weeks ahead before Copenhagen, ensuring, among other things, that global emissions reach their peak in the year 2020 at the latest.” And while president of the EU, on German TV in a wake-up call for climate action prior to 26 leader EU climate meeting (2007) : “It is not five minutes to midnight. It’s five minutes after midnight.” [POPE FRANCIS] Asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris (2015) would mark a turning point in the fight against global warming, the pope said: “I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’. Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”
“…and are far outnumbered on this *sceptic* blog.”
“Ah, but ain’t that America…we’re something to see…”
~John – “Cougar” – Mellenkamp~
Temperature is one of the key metrics that makes up climate.
“How does it relate?” It’s part of the definition.
Right, but the metric – global average temperature – is not a term that determines the general circulation or climate ( precipitation, storms, winds, cloudiness ).
Changes of the general circulation do determine temperature, but it’s not clear at all that changes in the global average temperature have anything to do with changes of the general circulation.
They don’t have to. Climate is more than just circulation. Temperature is already a key part of climate. So if the global average temperature changes, then the climate does, too, by definition.
“Right, but the metric – global average temperature – is not a term that determines the general circulation or climate ( precipitation, storms, winds, cloudiness ).”
On average, the average of averages tends towards mediocrity.
A global average temperature is not a real temperature.
And you can tell that because there’s no way to compare an actual measurement to the GAT and tell if the GAT or temp are off.
This is my argument with Mosher about BEST’s out of band testing. He has stated they get their temp based on lat and alt and a bit of adjustment if near the coast, these are all calculations, if the original Gates is created by transforming the measurements used into a formula, to do out of band testing you have to take your out of band data and transform it, and you are no longer doing out of band testing. You never actually compare your formula to measurement.
Fracking autocorrect, Gates should be GAT.
I don’t get involved in the arguments over how average temps are calculated. My point was far simpler. Knowing what number the GAT is doesn’t tell us anything, even if it were accurate to a tenth of a degree. At best it can tell you over time if it is trending in one direction or another, or not trending at all. And even that may not be all that useful because of natural cycles, some of which are of very long duration.
But let’s say we all accept it is rising and the rise is independent of natural cycles. Knowing the GAT will tell us exactly zero about climate where climate matters, which is locally and regionally.
My first sentence is a quote of Ordvic’s opening sentence.
The temperatures keep getting warmer and warmer.. but climate change is almost done?
This reminds me of the creationists who think that the Theory of Evolution is going to fail any day now. But the scientists just keep on workin’ and ignore them.
Aside from the now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no statistically significant warming this century except by Karlization. And about 1/3 off all the CO2 increase since 1958 (Keeling Curve) happened since 2000. Discuss.
So you’re saying that if you cut off the warming blips, we can’t say for sure that it’s been warming? …right. (Hey, imagine how much warming we could show if we cut off the cooling blips!)
I don’t think there’s much to discuss there. Smaller sample sizes are more likely to be statistically insignificant, but that’s no surprise. Short-term periods are usually not going to show statistically significant warming. This is why “climate” is normally defined as 20-40 years, so as to meaningfully address and include the well-known short-term variations in surface temperature.
CO2 doesn’t directly heat the atmosphere. Rather it causes more heat to be retained; it causes heat to leave the Earth’s system more slowly. This means that CO2 operates with a lag.
If we doubled CO2 today, then next week you might say “hey, it hasn’t warmed much yet, what’s up?”. But that slower warming would be exactly what we’d expect. It’s not magic. It works a certain way.
The new CO2 acts instantly so there is no big lag. As for cutting off the warming blips, Ristvan is referring to the as yet incomplete ENSO cycle. Trend analysis of oscillators requires that partial cycles be excluded at both ends. When this is done there is indeed no warming this century. (Did you not know this?)
CO2 starts retaining more heat instantly. But it doesn’t make the heat jump overnight, it only changes the heat flows. So yes, there’s very definitely a big lag.
This is like putting your foot on the gas pedal of a stopped car. Is there a lag in getting up to speed? Well, the gas pedal works instantly, but it doesn’t instantly accelerate you to 60 mph. So yeah, there’s a lag.
You can’t remove a partial cycle from ENSO; ENSO is not a regular cycle like a sine wave, but a stochastic oscillation. And it’s super-imposed on top of other oscillations. So what you do is get long-enough trends that you can accurately judge statistical significance of the trends. E.g., 20-40 years, for surface temps.
Incorrect. Check the linear trend of GISTEMP from 2000 to 2014; you’ll find it’s 0.10 +/- 0.14 C/decade. That’s warming, it’s just not statistically significant warming. Meaning, the noise over this time period is sufficiently large that you cannot tell if the warming is random or not to 95% certainty. (it’s at about 80% certainty instead). If you hold to the 95% standard for certainty, this just means that we can’t say if there is “real” warming or not. Repeat: it does not mean that there’s no warming; it means there’s insufficient data in that particular data set to tell either way.
Don’t get “no warming” mixed up with “no statistically significant warming”. They’re two very different things, and much of climate science “skepticism” relies on you not understanding mathematical concepts like statistics.
No, we’re in a rapid spring-back warming from the stadium wave, which has already happened and ended – 2006 to 2013.
Typified by things like the PDO squelched, 2016 mini-La Niña that just ended before was more than a sprout.
Chaos theory will bite you.
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.
This century is not long enough to get a statistically significant trend either warmer or colder, so Ristvan’s statement is meaningless.
Did you not know this David?
“The temperatures keep getting warmer and warmer.”
And then, they’ll start getting colder and colder.
It was ever thus.
And there’s not one damn thing we can do about it.
Yea, the 90 degrees of 2016 is not as warm as the 85 degrees of 1936.
Excluding the recent El Niño, 40-year trends to 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012… all .17 ℃ per decade.
It is not going to get colder and colder. That is just laughable.
The Stadium Wave has come (2006 to 2013;) it has done it mild warming slowdown; and it has vamoosed the scene before its angry fans could lynch it for failing to deliver the goods.
A nonlinear system is full of fantastic surprises and great disappointments.
So you are saying the ice age is over now?
Interesting prognostication. Where is the data to back up your prediction?
JCH | December 6, 2016 at 5:43 pm |
JCH, your comment is interesting. How do you fit these two puzzle pieces together?
Unless someone just handed you the magic goggles that prevent “fantastic surprises and great disappointments”, neither you nor anyone knows what the climate will do over the next decade. If you did, you’d be rich.
They do if you rely on the NYT, the Guardian, the WaPo and the HuffPo.
How did that work for Hillary?
ordvic: I have a feeling that ‘climate change’ is falling apart
I wouldn’t want to dispute feelings.
This gets my vote for top comment
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article… — Judith Curry
Nice try, but I still think your feigned confusion over whether ‘more than half’, ‘most’ and ‘>50%’ meant the same thing still holds the record for obtuseness.
Nice try, but it is totally unclear (1) who you are talking to, and (2) what you are talking about.
Did you say ” obtuse”? …
Smegma can be ignored, obtuse or not.
He’s another Judith hater.
This? Read the article and comments – pretty confusing. https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/19/most-versus-more-than-half-versus-50/
We could throw “the most” into the mix and see what happens.
Experts are not always honest
ATTP has noted the unfair attack on Roger as well and has a good post on it at his blog if anyone is interested. Seems to be doing the rounds as a meme.
The outpouring of support for Roger from the scientific community on this attack on scientists is almost deafening.
Expect Peter Gliek and Michael Mann to offer their support as well very soon. That thin green line will be absolutely overrun.
The overwhelming majority of scientists will fully support RPJ’s right to say, whatever he likes without any outside pressure to muzzle him.
But of course, people are also free to criticize RPJ and his words. And sometimes, RPJ interprets said criticism as muzzling. But it’s not.
Unlike most commentators I believe that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no bearing on the surface temperature of the planet at whatsoever. My argument is evidence based.
Surface temperature exhibits a steep gradient of decline between the equator and the Poles and more particularly so in relation to Antarctica. At points between these extremes air temperature depends upon which way the wind is blowing. The flux in surface temperature on greater than daily time and seasonal time scales is then due to change in wind direction and intensity.To discover how and why air temperature changes we need to explain the changes that occur in the planetary winds that are in turn governed by the flux in surface pressure.
The strongest winds are not found at the surface but in the zone where the troposphere overlaps with the stratosphere. The stratosphere occupies most of the atmospheric column in high latitudes.
Low air pressure is predominantly due to the reduced density of the upper portions of the atmospheric column where ozone heats the air by absorbing the radiation from the Earth itself. The temperature of the stratosphere and the density of the upper air is very much a function of the ozone fraction that varies on all time scales. It is greatest in winter and it is at this time of the year that surface temperature is observed to vary most strongly from year to year and over longer time scales.
The failure of climate science is to come to grips with the forces responsible for the change is the winds that is part and parcel of the annular modes phenomenon.The failure to link the annular modes phenomenon with the ozone content of the air in high latitudes is terminal.
So, one waits and waits for commentators to catch up with reality.
Scott Adams: “astonishingly insightful?” That’s more humorous than his cartoons, which I like a lot. Here’s some of his laughable whoppers:
“you know they always take the following trajectory.” I don’t know that because they don’t always despite his assertion. Climate debates are as varied as any political discussions I observe or participate in.
“Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president.’ Ridiculously wrong. Nate Silver 70/30. NYT 85/15 Many Republican pollsters…we are going to win. He made this up, a bad sign for somebody that is pretending to share authentic reality with us sheeple.
“No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science.” What a blowhard. I came to Climate Audit and CE as someone worried about Climate Change. In the last five years I have absorbed an enormous amount of info from Dr. Curry, guest posters and the horde of commenters that lurk or pass through. Many display more common sense, have more facts at their disposal and come to more reasoned conclusions than Mr. Adams apparently is capable of doing. He should stick to cartooning, though I did like “God’s Debris,”
You’re taking him literally, not seriously.
Cherrypicking. Here are some cherries from the other side of the tree.
Huffpo said Clinton had a 98% chance of winning.
One ‘expert’ academic, Sam Wang, from Princeton, said that her chance of winning was 99%.
(Earlier, Nate Silver had put Trump’s chances of winning the Rep nomination at 2%.)
An interesting irony is that over-confidence in the chance of a Clinton win may have been a contributory factor to her defeat.
The political polls were no different than the climate model spaghetti results. Clinton was the preferred candidate by most of the pollsters, many of which are affiliated with the MSM. They are the CO2 advocates. Their assumptions (and hopes) simply didn’t measure reality. Obviously the Trump staff knew better what was happening in the real world, as evidenced by where and when they campaigned. The lesson, if there is one, is that when many factors (variables) are involved in a complicated system, it may be best not to assume any single factor is the “control knob”. Peanuts from Canada.
Per Mike Cernovich
Look at him as a political pundit, not a random observer of science.
So he’s guilty of a little exaggeration John. His point still stands. Whether it was 30%, 15% or 2%, it doesn’t matter. They were all terribly wrong.
But hey, try the popular vote argument.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
I agree with the IPCC consensus, I have no reason not to, although in terms of the transient warming (for example) there is a very large range, I think too large and this needs to be narrowed. I read your blogs on the science of climate change with interest, there is no doubt you are a distinguished scientist in my field. I agree with you that the uncertainties in future climate change need to be explained clearly and that is quite a challenge especially with all the disinformation out there. Where I disagree with you on this subject is that I think you over emphasise the uncertainty and don’t distinguish clearly enough between what is well known about man made climate change and its interaction with natural variability and what is not well known.
Since what is well known would fit in a post card, Judith’s offense amounts to sneezing in church.
It’s early over here so I just dipped into the article and was astonished to learn that judith was a trained hypnotist until I realised that this part of the commentary was not hers. It’s a great image though as she answers questions in congress and everyone starts nodding n agreement….
It’s an interesting article though. For what it’s worth I think our understanding of natural variabiloty is very poor whether that concerns an evolving climate or extreme events. As you have seen any references to historic climates similar to the current one or episodes of extreme weather are dismissed as anecdotal by some here and more generally in the scientific community . There is a pile of evidence to support this but those with closed minds or an agenda refuse to consider them
There’s a post @ Jo Nova on a new climate paper about
cold European winters in the decade of the 1430’s.You
might care to comment. )
‘While searching through historical archives to find out
more about the 15th-century climate of what is now
Belgium, northern France, Luxembourg, and the
Netherlands, Chantal Camenisch noticed something
odd. “I realised that there was something extraordinary
going on regarding the climate during the 1430s,” says
the historian from the University of Bern in Switzerland.’
Although it was prior to my main area of research I made the following notes about the 1430’s onwards in ‘the long slow thaw’
1431/2 A cold (possibly severe) winter in western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty Every winter from 1433/4to 1437/8 described as severe. Lamb-chmw
1434/35 (may be 1433/34)
(Winter)A very severe winter: the Thames froze solid (from December to February) and was closed to shipping from Gravesend to below London Bridge, and wine had to be transported overland (or over the ice-covered Thames) from Gravesend to London. [ Some sources have this as 1433/34 ]
1442/3 A cold winter western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
It is gratifying to see other peoples research confirming your own, not only in this decade but also around 1540 which an article described here last week as being as hot or hotter than today which chimed with my own research.
I think what we are seeing here is the justification for my intended but much delayed article that i have termed ‘tranquility, transition and turbulence’ that will eventually cover the period from 1200 to join up to 1538 . There are periods in this that are extremely cold and some that are extremely warm with some very wild storms. This is at variance with the generally settled MWP and is a period of turbulence that I hope we never see again.
I will take a look at jo’s article
Thank you for telling me that mortality is soon to be fixed. “On the question of fear, in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix.” While the danger posed by my mortality may not be far enough in the future to fall under your comforting assertion, I’m guessing a reasonable person would assume my grandchild won’t have to worry about such things. I’m sure she’ll be glad to know when I tell her the source of this eternal wisdom.
Or maybe you are not as insightful as I was assured? Or perhaps as a commenter on “God’s Debris,” opined: “Unfortunately, when someone who — by his own admission — knows nothing about quantum physics or probability theory writes very seriously on those subjects, the result is a lot of annoying gibberish.” I wonder if that reviewer was Dilbert employing a sockpuppet?
Once there’s a doubt, there’s no doubt.
Look forward to you commenting there, tony.
Pingback: ¿Fiarse … de qué expertos? | PlazaMoyua.com
That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.
The Guardians of Global Warming have little to lose if they are wrong. They will simply say that they believed what 99% of the scientists were telling them. They’ll blame the scientists which will be very very bad for science and scientists everywhere.
On the other hand, have any pollsters, writers or editors been fired over the recent US presidential election results? Maybe it’s not that the Guardians of Global Warming have little to lose but that they have nothing to lose. And in the meantime they have pages to fill and advertising to sell..
The opposite has happened. The public editor of the NYT has been attacked on twitter for having the temerity to call out journalists from her paper for mixing personal political opinion with their position as members of the 4th estate.
I love it. Apparently they don’t teach the bit about stop digging when you are in a hole
Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.
The problem with CE discussions are the same as found in almost any venue on Climate Change/Global Warming: The issue is framed in extreme views.
An example is the below graph from Pew — where the gulf between Liberals and Conservatives is huge:
Rarely is there any effort to find the “Common Ground” between Moderates (the much smaller gulf in above Pew graph).
In the past here at CE, I’ve asked the Denizens to correct my understanding of Dr. Curry — no one has done this:
Dr. Curry has repeatedly stated her Best Guess is that the human influence on Global Warming is about ~50%. Dr. Curry then clarified that this represents a range between 25% and 75% (where one would assume the average of ~50%).
The problem here at CE is that (for the most part) Dr. Curry’s above view has been “hi-jacked by the most vocal CE Denizens to mean 25% (or even less). But what about her 75% point range estimate? The most vocal types here never talk about this (and ridicule people who have this opinion as not following science).
Next we have TCR, and (my understanding) is that there is not a whole lot of difference between the Lewis/Curry estimate and Gavin Schmidt’s conservative estimate.
Within a context of her range of 25% to 75%, Dr. Curry has then written favorably on two mitigation actions: (1) Fast Mitigation of Smog, Methane, Black Carbon, HFCs; (2) Extending the life of existing nuclear power plants.
Reality check. There is no common ground between warmunist belief in CAGW (with various Cs like extinctions, SLR, crop failures, weather extremes) and reality. No common ground between faithnin high renewable penetration being viable and the realities of intermittency with consequences for backup and grid stability. No common ground between Merchants of Doubt and the uncertain realities of sound climate science like cloud feedback. So no point in seeking any.
Good point to remind everyone that another scientist- the godfather of climate change James Hansen – has also been declared a “heretic” by the warm.
Rud — I agree with you that there can be no compromise between people who hold extreme polar (opposite) views.
But if people are willing to look, there are plenty of views that are not defined in extremes.
The majority of CE Commentors come here to just fight.
The rate of SLR since 2013, which is when the cool phase of the stadium waved ended, is 5.9 mm/yr. Congruent with the death of the cool phase of the stadium wave. This nonlinear climate… ain’t it swell.
Jch, provide your published data for that ridiculous SLR assertion. Oh, and also the accuracy and precision specs for Jason 2, now in a failing and just replaced orbit. Try 3mm repeatability and 1mm random inatrumwnt drift, per year. Read the manual before evidencing abject instrument ignorance.
As regards SLR, you are much to experienced to try to claim a dramatic increase in rate of rise based on a couple of years of data taken during an el niño.
Here is the 2916 fasullo paper which confirms rate of SLR increase actually declined during the second decade of satellite measurements and the reasons they believe has caused this.
Rud’s Comment (now deleted), illustrates the problem here at CE in trying to find “Common Ground”:
(1) It is not propaganda when a correct macro approach to Renewables is presented using integrated grid engineering economics (taught at every leading engineering school like the University of Chicago, Georgia Tech — and used by every major electric utility).
(2) It is not propaganda when things like the Agriculture “Law of Limiting Factors” is presented, illustrating that Climate Change/Global Warming presents “Wicked Problems” to Ag (and it is incorrect to simply define CO2 as plant food)
(3) It is not propaganda when “Ideas” are presented from leading Economists (eg. Nordhaus, Tol) on things like trade and climate clubs.
It is Nasty Propaganda and Bullying when good faith people like Zeke Hausfather come to CE and are verbally attacked on a personal level — explaining why there is not much objective dialogue here at CE. Rud and Others want CE to be their echo chamber.
It is worth noting that Curry’s position is actually an extreme outlier.
The IPCC give a 95% probability of being >50%, with a best guess close to 100%. So roughly we have:
IPCC range 50-150%
Curry’s range 25%-75%
Curry claims much more certainty for a much lower range.
Obviously that’s entirely inconsistent with her advocacy that the IPCC is too certain in its conclusions.
More generally, the views expressed at CE are very certain, and very extreme compared to mainstream science.
How is a best guess much more certain than a 95% probability? Skepticism of AGW is not an outlier, except among Democrats, which most academic scientists are. Your rhetorical devices are showing, and showy.
David, for clarity “an extreme outlier in the scientific community”
A range of +/- 25% (Curry) *is* much more certain than a range of +/- 50% (IPPC). That’s a fact. No device necessary.
“IPCC range 50-150%
Curry’s range 25%-75%”
L M H
50 50% 100 50% 150
25 50% 50 50% 75
I’d say her range is the same as the IPCC’s.
Just at a lower median.
That didn’t format the way I wanted it.
L M H is low median high.
50 100 150
25 50 75
50 X 3 = 150
25 X 3 = 75
50 X 2 = 100
25 X 2 = 50
I wonder if I could cross multiply between the sets of numbers?
Just yesterday I was – in my country – a de facto compared to the idiot.
Just for the fact, that I quoted the paper proving (including the elaboration of outstanding scientists who agreed on consensus) that we know very little about the impact of the Sun on the climate; and that change TSI – in the cycle delayed, could have a decisive influence (not GW) of turnout severe winters in Northern and Eastern: Europe and North America (- A simulated lagged response of the North Atlantic Oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009, Andrews, Knight and Gray (!), 2015.: “Climate models have successfully reproduced this solar cycle modulation of the NAO, although the magnitude of the effect is often considerably weaker than implied by observations.“, “Recent analyses of observations have shown that solar cycle–NAO link becomes clearer approximately three years after solar maximum and minimum. In this study, the impact of solar cycle on the NAO is investigated using an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model.” “We show that the model produces significant NAO responses peaking several years after extrema of the solar cycle, persisting even when the solar forcing becomes neutral.” “This confirms suggestions of a further component to the solar influence on the NAO beyond direct atmospheric heating and its dynamical response. Analysis of simulated upper ocean temperature anomalies confirms that the North Atlantic Ocean provides the memory of the solar forcing required to produce the lagged NAO response.”
– Solar forcing synchronizes decadal North Atlantic climate variability, Thiéblemont et al., 2015. : “In the North Atlantic sector, the 11-year solar signal has been proposed to project on to a pattern resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with a lag of a few years due to ocean-atmosphere interactions.” “…comparison of both experiments suggests that the 11-year solar cycle synchronizes quasi-decadal NAO variability intrinsic to the model.“.)
Of course, my adversaries mainly focused on finding (out of context) “cherries” with my oldest comments from 2007-9 … Polemicize – also mainly – with them, not with my last comments …
But yet most of the paper, eg. about Holocene climate optimum, “speaks” of the existence of (at the “warm” time) “equable climate” – without catastrophic heat waves, superstorms, etc.
Prominent ecologist and a theoretician of basis for the use of scientific method – not only in our country; J. Weiner said: “Consensus exists only within a certain timeframe, ie. until when it will not replace […] the new consensus. Consensus is not a timeless axiom – dogma. “
“RP Jr. hews strictly to the IPCC consensus”
This is a telling point. The IPCC science tends not to be extreme or disastrous. But citing the non-disasters of the IPCC inflames the worse than expected emotions of the climate excitable who ironically reject the settled science.
“The Happy Heretic” theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYSCmpFyhc0 (Based on “The Happy Farmer”, piano version.) Orchestral version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=famJGgvDOdc
Pingback: Climate Heretic: to be or not to be? — Climate Etc. – American Creed
I’m reminded of the chorus of an old hymn.
Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone!
Dare to have a purpose firm!
Dare to make it known.
“The truly astonishing thing about all this is how little climate heretics – such as myself, Roger Pielke, and Matt Ridley – actually diverge from the consensus science position”
Yes, that is where you are wrong. All three of you greatly overestimate the impact of CO2. I applaud you for being brave enough to step away from the crowd, but apparently you are not analytical enough to realize that the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is next to nothing.
Oh well, you will come around eventually.
I doubt it.
The more people work in this field, and the better they understand the basic science, the closer to the mainstream views they hue.
If you have new data that overturns the tens of millions of man-hours that have gone into this, then by all means, present it. But, if you’re like other deniers, you haven’t even learned the textbook science, much less done new research to overturn it.
So, no, people aren’t going to come around to your view, because it’s almost certainly wrong.
I assume Dr. Alan Carlin’s post of 11/9/16
“A Proposed Early Priority for the Trump Administration: A Letter to USEPA to Reconsider and Withdraw Its GHG Endangerment Finding”:
is being reviewed by the EPA transition team.
Good article. I like Scott Adam’s contribution. “What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.”
Indeed. The truth is that the climate science Narrative is made of a number of pieces, pretty much all of which need to be true in order for severe mitigation (as proposed by all liberal politicians) to be a good idea. Some of those pieces like “the earth’s average temperature has gone up __ over the last century” are by now well supported, though there was legimitate question about them earlier (UHIs). Others remain fuzzy (TCR, ecology, etc.). Some are completely non-consensus (the economics and politics).
Seems like we could use a re-cap of Dr. Curry’s Italian Flag articles, updated.
“As regular readers of this blog already know, human brains did not evolve to understand reality in any deep way.”
I guess that must sum up the the value of the blog content.
“On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.
And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters.”
A rather tortured and unpersuasive piece of ‘othering’ that confuses the so called experts with the sceptics.
“If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed.”
That’s one side of climate change, and only a theoretical one, in the LIA in Estonia they ate the dead to survive.
Doesn’t seem like you listened to his points. He’s asking a sensible question: How do I know who to listen to? – I’m not an expert, I’m not going to study the details of the math, or I can’t.
The usual answer is, Accept the consensus of most of the experts. He wants to know when that’s not the right answer.
He didn’t mention it, but there are plenty of fields where hardly anyone outside them “accepts the consensus”. Gender studies, ethnic studies, some parts of sociology, stuff like that. The rest of humanity takes the attitude that these clowns aren’t really doing science at all, because they aren’t. They are just playing games within their little cliques.
So I would rephrase Adam’s question: Is climate science like physics, or is it like gender studies, and how does one tell?
The right answer is that it depends. There are a lot of pieces to the topic, stretching from measurement to model design to ecology to economics, and “climate scientists” are generally experts in one tiny corner or another. I expect that Adam’s rule will hold up pretty well: Where there is powerful preference for a particular result, that result cannot be trusted. Where climate scientists are able to do their jobs unthreatened, the results will probably be pretty good.
I guess I’d add that there are already parts of climate science where we already know which kind of science it is. Hockey Stick paleo is a good example. No matter how many times partisans claim that “the results have held up very well after a dozen studies confirming it”, anyone who has followed the history knows better. [I’ll leave it to the actual experts here to say whether I got this right. Mosher, you there?]
Measurement/UHI is another example, this time where the results went the other way, supporting the consensus – again, no matter how many times partisans claim otherwise.
I would say that the othering was being heavily reinforced in the following two paragraphs…
“While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.
To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.”
The science does indeed depend on the maths, but more importantly the physics.
mike, on trusting the experts, Freeman Dyson said this:
“The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. . .That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
Whoever controls the selection of experts, controls you.
Re listening to the experts:
My experience says listen to the people who say I don’t know, but this is my best guess (or the equally acceptable answer of I will find out.)
The “experts” said that the Ping Pong Pizza story was “fake.” Thanks God that there are people like the Flynn’s who aren’t “shy” and afraid to call out the ignorance of” experts. “
WOW you really nailed him timg56!!!
I’d give you a medal for bravery, but I don’t know where to send it.
The “experts” said the Edwards love child was fake, the blue dress was fake and a “video” was the cause of Benghazi.
I guess that makes them right all the time.
Much like others, I have found attacks on scientists who appeared to be eminently qualified distasteful. A pervasive atmosphere of we against them is what motivated me to do additional research so I could understand more about global warming.
My major complaint is that there is so much certainty when it appears less is warranted.
Below is just a small example of how much uncertainty one researcher has in his field of SLR. I wonder if it is emblematic of how a lot of climate scientists do their job but are ignored.
Here are a few quotes from a study and the supplemental studies that I just happened to read yesterday. The author and subject are not important. I just want to bring out how much apparent uncertainty there is.
“The acceleration in the long term trend…is difficult to isolate from transient acceleration due to variability, particularly the 60 year cycle…”
“…quantifying acceleration in tide gauge records poses technical challenges.”
“…the reason for the apparent absence of the 60 years cycle is unclear.”
“…at present, in situ sea level records are too short for these effects to be accurately quantified.”
“The nature of the multi-dedadal fluctuation in the GMSL reconstruction is not well understood.”
“…quasi 60 year oscillations explain anywhere from 31% to 62% of the residual variance.”
“The is no obvious 60 year cycle in Hawaii or on the West Coast of the US.”
“…it is doubtful that 120 years of data are sufficient to resolve such an issue.”
“…recent changes in trends…must be re-examined in light of possible 60 year fluctuations.”
“…The AMO may have contributed significantly to rapid acceleration..”
Reading just this one study with so many questions and uncertainties makes me wonder how confident anyone should be about SLR. Yet many treat SLR models and study conclusions as fact.
With data through September 22, 2016, it is now in question whether the end of the 2016-17 El Niño will cause the SLR will drop below the trend line.
And with La Niña weakness, OHC may actually be going up right now.
I was making a generic comment about difficulties in establishing facts and reliable data and sound projections. I wasn’t suggesting anything about the particular study or even SLR. It was just a commentary about climate science and how one scientist was forthright about how many challenges there were in determining any trends that he was working on.
While looking at this study and others, I came across the Jevrejeva 2008 study (maybe for the umpteenth time) and it reminded me that he had said the fastest sea level rise of the 20th century was during the 1920-50 period. Nothing like getting a little real every once in a while reading Jevrejeva. When I was looking at the other studies yesterday, I also found one that alluded to the inherent difficulties using the altimetry data. If I knew you were going to link the usual CU graph I would have saved it. But I was not that prescient.
Feynman – tell the truth, though nobody who likes him actually takes him seriously… at all.
To discuss the fastest sea level rate includes revealing that one estimate for that period is higher than all the others, and that the method used for that estimate has been called into question.
Ohh, so no consensus, on that point anyway. Interesting that you have included graphs by and links from the same author over the years ad nauseam. All of which should introduce more evidence for uncertainties, the cornerstone of every scientific endeavor.
Sea level rise and El Nino. El Nino releases more warmth into the the atmosphere. The Pacific then has less warmth. This should slow sea level rise.
“Another effect of the wind shift is that cooler, deep water that would normally rise in the eastern Pacific, stays deep, leaving the surface free to warm up and store more of the sun’s energy as heat, Dr Watkins said.
“As the water warms it expands, and it can’t go down or sideways, only up,” he said. “Hence, the sea-level rise.””
Say the circulation slows. Less cool water comes to the surface. While the water not coming to surface isn’t warmed, the water near the surface is. Whether you warm this water or that water, it should all balance out. Sea level rise is influenced
by the transmission of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere. Red ocean anomaly plots should be showing a reduction of sea level rise.
What might help explain the confusion with the subject is clouds.
The clouds in this region seem to reinforce what I said about transmission.
Ragnaar – when El Niño begins, sea level along the coastlines of the Western Pacific generally drops, and eventually sea level along the Eastern Pacific goes up as the water sloshes over to that side of the ocean.
2008 to now, that is the dominant trend.
There was a paper that suggest this iteration my be persistent on the Eastern Pacific.
Sea level has now stayed well above trend for a quite awahile. December could see it return to trend, maybe even dip below a bit, but the current ENSO forecast will send it right back above trend by Feb-March. The highest sea level was probably reached in Feb 2016.
Variability of where it rains makes a big difference.
Let me change my story.
Say warmed water sinks. Still contributing to sea level rise. Warm water at 10 meters or 1000 meters still occupies more volume. Now it is possible pressure at 1000 meters squeezes warm water to a lessor volume and then my whole theory may be wrong. With a strong La Nina upwelling we may have water that is easier to warm. Based on the thought that 0.0 C sea water at the equator will warm easier than 30.0 C seawater. It will emit less warmth to the surface. With constant sunlight in it should hoard more warmth while cooling the atmosphere when compared to warmer water.
La Ninas seem to warm the ocean causing volume expansion. A large IPWP would seem to cause more sea level rise. What about healthy Pacific Gyre rotations? In the NH warm water goes North losing warmth and volume. Cool water goes South gaining warmth and volume. Like simultaneous El Nino and La Nina. Reduced Gyre rotations. Northern water stays the same however, assume sea ice forms because of reduced warm Southern water up there. Ice insulates and retains warmth, increasing volume. Equatorial water being warm emits more warmth to the atmosphere. Its storage of warmth is limited by how warm that seawater is.
While it might be obvious to others, I guess seaice lose reduces sea level rise by cooling the oceans.
The word “propaganda” has not yet been mentioned in this post. The spirit of Dr. Goebbels must be smiling if it can look at the world in 2016. He should be considered a founding father of the IPCC. And maybe of other institutions as well; take Nobelists Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, Barack Obama, IPCC, and Paul Krugman.
There is a special issue of The Economist called The World in 2017. (As per predictions of the staff). It is full of gems like “a real-life bully has been elected to the world’s most powerful bully pulpit.” I won’t renew my subscription.
Ivanka and her three babies will make Al Gore a frequent visitor to the Oval Office, and by the end of 2017, which is shaping up to be very warm, the rats from the conservative think tanks will be walled off and sidelined.
How many babies (grandchildren) does Al Gore have?
I think 3.
Scott Pruitt changed his name?
So Donald accepts a phone call from the President of Taiwan and China, through its press mouth pieces threatens the US.
Yeah, that will go down well with any American who actually believes in his country. Add the Chinese leadership to the list of folks who are getting played.
The guy isn’t President yet and his accomplishments to date already exceed Obama’s
What is interesting about all three is the extent to which very bad progressive/warmunist behavior is being publicly unmasked. Rather like Climategate, except in a different sphere than the science per se. One thing to watch in the next month is the courts demand that Scheiderman comply with the CEI FOI demand concerning the ExxonMonil witch hunt. More very bad behavior will be exposed.
Pingback: Dilbert on climate –The Auditor comments | Climate Scepticism
Anecdotal observation from real life.
(I think anecdotal gets a bad rap…I offer up Kip’s observations of Trump signs in NY)
Anyways … a friend, a high end financial attorney with a paper subscription to the WSJ, cut out the Pielke article and brought it to me as she was aware of my skepticism.
She was the not least bit interested in reading the article herself because in her view people who doubt climate change are uneducated, right wing, Trump voting kooks (accurate in my case).
The cultural lines are drawn.
The wave form has collapsed.
She would probably read it for $950.00 per hour.
There is no heresy in falsifying (refutation of) scientific hypothesis, or even of so far accepted theories. Such critical thinking is essential to the scientific method.
Dogma are founded on irrefutable beliefs or conviction. They are the manifestation of a stalled intelligence. AGW is not a theory, it is a dogma.
Any person not adopting fully the dogma will be considered as a hateful heretic. He or she will be denied any parcel of humanity, which make less remorseful her or his elimination.
In the climate non-debate we are pretty close to such situation. Climate-AGW-credulous have already gone over this line (not green or red, but rather brown), at least verbally.
I postulated my heresy since more than 4 years. It consists in:
a) Putting in evidence the absence of evidences: no direct forcing observation, no valid correlations, no direct manifestation of its sensitivity.
b) Refuting models as invalid, incapable to reconstruct correctly the current climate evolution, but nevertheless used to estimate climate sensitivity or to construct vastly exaggerated story-making.
c) Refusing the damage only orientation of all assessments of climate change.
d) Rejecting the drastic decarbonation demands as futile (no significant effect), out of target, economically damaging, and totally unjust for the population having much more important and urgent needs.
e) Inferring that the true motive of climate activists, fully aware of the very likely ascientific basis of their arguments, are not linked with any concern for the well-being of the humanity and of the environment.
f) Preferring to adapt to climate change as it will develop, rather than to believe in human bad influence on it, and in a possible redemption by coerced decarbonization of the World.
g) And now asking the parliament of my country, Switzerland, to not ratify the Paris agreement, or at least to submit it to a referendum vote as we are used to do for much less important issues.
More from Freeman Dyson about science and heresy:
“Cultural evolution was enabled by spoken languages and tribal loyalties. Tribe competed with tribe and culture with culture. The cultures that prevailed were those that promoted tribal cohesion. Humans were always social animals, and culture made us even more social. We evolved to feel at home in a group that thinks alike. It was more important for a group of humans to be united than to be right. It was always dangerous and usually undesirable to question authority. When authority was seriously threatened, heretics were burned at the stake. ”
“I am suggesting that the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal. Science and politics are not essentially different from other aspects of human culture. Science and politics are products of cultural evolution. Thinking about scientific questions is still presented to the public as a competitive sport with winners and losers. For players of the sport with public reputations to defend, it is more important to belong to a winning team than to examine the evidence. ”
“Cultural evolution was centered for a hundred thousand years on tales told by elders to children sitting around the cave fire. That cave-fire evolution gave us brains that are wonderfully sensitive to fable and fantasy, but insensitive to facts and figures. To enable a tribe to prevail in the harsh world of predators and prey, it was helpful to have brains with strong emotional bonding to shared songs and stories. It was not helpful to have brains questioning whether the stories were true. Our scientists and politicians of the modern age evolved recently from the cave-children. They still, as Charles Darwin remarked about human beings in general, bear the indelible stamp of their lowly origin.”
From the Forward to CARBON DIOXIDE The good news
A few points of refutation:
1) Only a small percent of proto-humans have ever lived in caves. We find much of the evidence for pre-historic man in caves because it is an excellent place to preserve it. Having explored many caves I can assure you they are fairly rare, as were cave-children. An anthropologist would laugh at Mr. Dyson’s comic book concept of pre-historic man and their cultural evolution.
2) Common sense tells us most cultural evolution does not occur around a fire. While stories around campfires are important in some circumstances, cultural evolution by and large occurs during the day, doing the endless things involved in the details of the culture; making things, hunting things, and gathering things, Building shelters, creating tools, , demonstrating the gathering and use of medicinal plants, are not passed on by gramps chattering at night. I’d suggest Mr. Dyson should stick to the fields he is competent in.
Thanks for adding a more detailed description of folklore. Of course Dyson’s field is radiative activity, which is why he is skeptical of global warming.
Must read comment on McAdams’ piece from Steve McIntyre
Thank you for the essays. And for the link to Steve McIntyre.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
climatereason / tonyb: “For what it’s worth I think our understanding of natural variability is very poor whether that concerns an evolving climate or extreme events.”
The Central England Temperature (CET) record indicates there were regional increases in temperature in central England in the 1700’s which approached + 0.3 C per decade locally and which lasted three or more decades.
Has anyone done serious research to determine if any written or physical evidence exists from that time concerning what kinds of environmental impacts, human health impacts, and societal impacts these rapid increases in local temperature might have produced, either positive or negative?
A climate system that is sensitive to internal variability is possibly just as sensitive to progressively increasing ACO2. So chaos theory becomes what?
Look at the green segments:
I’m waiting for you to break out the orange crayon.
I wrote a long article on CET a few years ago.
It covers also the 1730’s Which, until the 1990’s, was the warmest decade in the record. There is a link to an addendum which provides numerous reports on conditions of the time.
The obvious benefits were greatly improved farming, better crops and a rising standard of living. The downsides were the witch hunts as climate changed and the advent of malaria as the climate warmed. There were also periodically, considerable flooding and violent storms
Am I the only person to read the last paragraph of this post as our hostess dropping a hint?
Denizens tradionally hold fire on supplying material until Judith makes us an offer we can’t refuse.
I was thinking more a hint about our hostess’s future position among the climate hierarchy.
I don’t know but if anyone is deserving of a more prominent position in the hierarchy, it is Judith.
Here is a big hint: I have no intention of joining the Trump administration (ha ha). Not to mention the fact that I have not been asked or otherwise contacted.
(you have intention to join the Trump administration?)
You would rather do science than administer it? Deplorable. You will never be a billionaire. (But you are always welcome at my campfire.)
Mike Flynn… science advisor to the POTUS… slam dunk… best fit ever.
Maybe you could start a petition to that effect. When you collect a hundred million votes or so, get back to me. I’ll reconsider my previous decision to decline accepting the position of science advisor – if offered, of course.
You might like to provide some evidence of the esteem in which your opinions are held by anyone in a position of power. I wouldn’t want to waste my time based on the fantasies of a delusional psychotic.
Can you provide unequivocal proof that you are sane?
Be careful what you wish for.
“Michael Flynn is Donald Trump’s most terrifying appointment”
“. . . to put it plainly, Michael Flynn is a crackpot.” – Washington Post.
My personal opinion is you would be better tasked at improving your forecasting business – meaning pushing for a shift in funding and research from GCM’s to more useful regional forecasts. That shows far more opportunity to benefit humanity than the crap we spend billions on now.
It was amusing while it lasted. Actually I would love to see you in charge of NASA/GISS.
I think the election of Trump is more akin to Ft. Sumter than Appomattox.
I hope I’m wrong.
It’s gonna get warmer before it get’s colder.
A couple of people mentioned Freeman Dyson, so I’ll chime in: Any consensus that does not include Freeman Dyson is not a consensus. Sorry.
Steven Mosher | December 6, 2016 at 3:36 pm |
Sure. You wrote one attack, and I wrote the other.
Saying “skeptics make wild claims” and that they “ never qualify their claims” IS AN ATTACK, Steven, even if you don’t realize it.
In particular, the lack of any qualification of your all-encompassing claim that skeptics “NEVER qualify their claims” is frickin’ hilarious, Ouroboros would be very proud of you … but it’s still an attack.
“Read Harder”, as a friend of mine once unkindly remarked …
A fair criticism. It’d be more accurate to say that skeptics rarely quantify their claims or provide data to back up their arguments.
Still, I thought the subtext was pretty obvious there: Mosher was challenging Bastardi to back up his empty words with solid data. And rather than focus on that objective lack of scientific facts, this has turned into another game of ClimateBall.
Facts. Focus on the facts. When you do that, it’s pretty plain that Bastardi’s got nothin’.
You may not agree, but it doesn’t seem rational to demand than non believers prove that the thing they don’t believe in doesn’t exist.
For example, I don’t believe that unicorns exist.
I also don’t believe that a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 exists.
I’ve never seen a unicorn, or a thermometer getting hotter when it was surrounded with CO2.
I would immediately become a believer if introduced to a unicorn. A third party sighting, or a colourful unicorn graphic accompanied by explanatory text and brightly coloured arrows wouldn’t suffice.
Nor would a very expensive computer programs producing unicorn graphs.
Heretics, heathens, apostates – no facts to be seen here. All faith based.
Benjamin Winchester | December 6, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Reply
Yes, and I was challenging Mosher to back up his empty words about skeptics. Is there a mystery here? Mosher is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing.
On my planet such bald-faced hypocrisy, combined with his sneers of “alt-science”, are worth pointing out. Sorry if this offends you ..
Here’s the bizarre part. You;re doing exactly what Mosher did, going on the attack with just the same circular lunacy.
You are saying that “rarely quantify their claims or provide data to back up their arguments”, but you are accusing them of wrongdoing WITHOUT QUANTIFYING YOUR OWN CLAIM OR PROVIDING DATA TO BACK UP YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!!!
Is this really so hard to understand?
We are literally on a website where skeptics regularly post their claims without any data to back them up. Much of this thread is made up of such claims.
I mean, sure, I could actually approach it a little more scientifically: randomly select posts from a half-dozen threads, try to qualify them as to whether they’re “skeptical” or not, and as to whether they make a claim, and as to whether they back up a claim with evidence… but…
(a) would that convince you?
(b) is it even necessary, given that you can just look around the thread yourself?
(c) the point is that people should offer supporting data when challenged. Thus why I mentioned that the message was Mosher challenging Bastardi to back up his points.
Now, if you’re challenging me, and you want me to actually randomly select posts and see if skeptics provide data… sure, I’ll do it, or I’ll retract my claim if time seems too tight. I think that’s the correct, healthy attitude. But I’m not sure what the point would be — my past experience leads me to believe that actual data isn’t very important to many skeptics. Most likely, it’d be met with a Tu Quoque fallacy.
Benjamin Winchester | December 6, 2016 at 6:43 pm |
Well, that’s only half of my quote. Since I didn’t write half a sentence, methinks we have selective quoting here, so lets get the full quote, shall we?
In other words, I said you were doing what you were accusing others of doing. In response, you say:
Dang, Ben … miss the point much? I accuse you of hypocrisy, you say “the data is there”????
Here’s another example …
Look, you imaginative fellow, I have NEVER heard any reputable skeptic say anything even remotely like that. If you hang out with skeptics who say that, get your ass out of there at once. You’ve mistaken your location, it’s actually a grade school.
Seriously, Benjamin, it seems you think that Hillary’s plan is the very best one. You know, where she calls her opponents a “basket of deplorables” and “racists” and “sexists” and the like, and you follow her lead by deriding your opponents as innumerate fools who don’t provide data …
How did that tactic work for Hillary? Because I can assure you, it’s not working for you. Making blanket character assassination statements about people who happen to believe differently than you is both poor tactics and poor strategy. Hillary found that out … but too late. You are luckier, you still have an opportunity to eschew her error …
Not my food fight. But, BW, yes there is a whole field of stats devoted to interpolation. About which you likely know nothing, and in which I happen to have a Harvard Ph.D equivalent. Steve Mc has it right, Mann, Karl, Schmidt, and you have it grossly, pathetically wrong. Bring some substance. Not your rubber knofe to a gunfight. This was deliberately insulting to you, as you deliberately have insulted my arduous education.
“I mean, sure, I could actually approach it a little more scientifically”
Could you, I wonder, approach the Paris agreement a little more scientifically? Could you approach a…say a carbon tax a little more scientifically? Could you maybe approach a little more scientifically the explanation as to why it is more urgent for some countries to reduce their fossil fuel use than it is other countries?
Could you approach a little more scientifically the whole #Exxonknew concerns? If Exxon knew when people are saying Exxon knew then didn’t Exxon know before the IPCC knew, and if so, what up wid dat? Could you approach a little more scientifically the solid statistical link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer versus Exxon knew and whatever statistical link that’s about?
A little more scientifically would be good.
> Mosher is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing.
This being the Dilbert thread, Willis …
… perhaps Steven would be so good as to print out the entire Internet for us. That might be some pretty hefty evidence.
Good for you! I certainly have.
I hear a lot of skeptics say “scientists just make up numbers”, when the skeptics can’t understand the math that went into it. I literally went back and forth for dozens of comments on the definition of “logarithm” once, which is really… not that complicated. And I watched an author of a WUWT article struggle with calculus, even when it was central to his conclusions about the error bars of a prediction over time.
So yeah, there’s a tremendous amount of anti-intellectualism embedded in the skeptical movement.
I’m sorry, am I not being PC enough for you? You don’t like it when I call a spade a spade?
Hmm, I don’t see you tone-policing people on the skeptic side very often.
“So yeah, there’s a tremendous amount of anti-intellectualism embedded in the skeptical movement.”
You are clearly using the more ambiguous common usage of the word “intellectualism” – “anti-intellectualism” proper would be voluntarism – and in the context of your comment this statement is somewhat “anti-intellectual” itself. Even if you attempted to fall back on stoicism to defend your word usage you would still run into problems. Specifically, Socratic paradoxes which call into question Socrates conception of knowing and “knowing” is something you appear to want address.
Perhaps your complaint is the lack of critical thinking you run into when engaging with skeptics, but if so this implies you are a critical thinker and as one, surely you must have experience of engaging with skeptics with very sharp critical thinking skills. It is more than plausible that skeptics (as a generalized group) have some members with no or little critical thinking skills, just as it is equally plausible that advocates of (whatever it is you’re advocating) have some members with no or little critical thinking skills.
It is also plausible that those lacking in critical thinking skills from both groups would disagree with my argument and find the notion wholly implausible, but if I’m right this reaction only makes them more entrenched in untenable thinking strategies.
Benjamin Winchester | December 7, 2016 at 11:34 am |
Surely you don’t expect anyone to believe a word of that without links to each claim, do you?
In any case, those statements have nothing to do with your claim, which was very specific. You didn’t say that people claim that scientists “just make up numbers” … and sometimes, sadly, that one is true. It didn’t say that some people don’t know what a log is, also true. And it didn’t say that someone might struggle with calculus … shocking I know.
No, your claim was much more specific and much more derogatory. You said:
Sorry, amigo, you can’t change the goalposts. You claimed that skeptics are so dumb that they think that math is magic. I think you’re just throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks … and trying to defend what you didn’t say and ignoring what you said is just more of that hand-waving.
You have to defend what you said, not what you’d like people to think you said.
Wasn’t BEST missing uncertainty until a year or two ago?
And BTW, how do you get uncertainty for a location that has every seen thermometer? Oh, I know, you make it up. Now that’s some certainty!
Never seen a thermometer…..
Y’know, there are whole fields of mathematics devoted to interpolation and statistics. But the “skeptical” response seems to be “well, I haven’t learned about any such math, therefore using it is equivalent to magic”.
it’s chaotic at the scale of small cloud bursts out in flyover land, and no that is not climate, climate is did that area have 10 cloud bursts a year or 20, and you can’t make that up and have it mean anything.
Another generalization with no data to support it. Willis has got you chasing your tail.
Again, this comes back to the field of Statistics which you are rejecting. Sure, maybe temperatures are somewhat random at local scales on timescales, but that’s considerably smoothed out as you move to months and regional averages.
It’s incredibly obvious that there is some structure and bounds to temperatures. If not, then it could be 0 Kelvin here tomorrow, or a million degrees. Or a million million.
But it isn’t. Why do you think that is? It’s almost like there are physical laws constraining how hot or cold it will get. But if there are, then we can predict the temperature within some error bounds.
what error bounds?
Oh, that’s right because you’ve never measured it there.
And night time min temp is regulated to dew point temperature. But that doesn’t get you actual day time temps.
You wrote –
“It’s incredibly obvious that there is some structure and bounds to temperatures. If not, then it could be 0 Kelvin here tomorrow, or a million degrees. Or a million million.
But it isn’t.”
Foolish Warmism. Stating tomorrow’s possibilities as present fact. Your opinions and assumptions about the future are equivalent to a five year old child saying it’s a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Until tomorrow comes, we won’t know for sure – we devoutly hope our assumption is correct.
As to things being incredibly obvious, it’s incredibly obvious that the Earth is the centre of the universe, the Sun rises and sets, Nature abhors a vacuum, and lightwaves need a luminiferous ether to vibrate, and that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 will cause the thermometer to get hotter.
Strike that last one, that’s too silly. Nobody would believe it.
Keep believing that you have established the bounds of temperatures in the future. I hope you’re right. I’ll let you know tomorrow, if I remember.
Hey Mike, are you the Mike Flynn who wrote/writes for Analog Magazine?
Not the SF writer, nor the general. Not this one either –
“The past caught up with Bedford man Michael Flynn today, Monday, 18 July 2016,” Phew!
Just plain old undistinguished and generally contented Mike Flynn.
A whole field, right?
Now tell us the exact location, who holds title, the soil profile, the climatic classification etc, etc.
Ahhh … Ye Olde “anything less than a full census is just guessing” ploy.
“Ahhh … Ye Olde “anything less than a full census is just guessing” ploy.”
I suppose anything less than a full census would be a con-census.
“I suppose anything less than a full census would be a con-census.”
Or a non-sensus.
Today’s happy heretics of global warming must take the broad view and satisfy themselves that they have shown public spirit in doing what was possible to educate every soul.
Say what? That is totally obscure, Waggy, I fear you’re losing your touch for the well-turned insult!
afonzarelli | December 6, 2016 at 3:58 pm |
Thanks for pointing that out, afonzarelli, I hadn’t realized that. It’s a wonderful phrase, like “fake news”, that you can use anytime and anywhere to denigrate and minimize another man’s point of view … what’s not to like?
In fact, there is no “alt-science”, there’s only “alt-right” and “ctrl-left”, and sadly Mosh seems to favor the latter …
Yup. Only took him a week to come up with the new warmunist slur. Of course, he had plenty of help. Regards.
> Only took him a week to come up with the new warmunist slur.
I’m partial to “climastrologist” myself, Rud. The oldies are the goodies, neh?
Here’s to Making America Great Again!
Moving forward, that is, moving onto January 20 and beyond, it is unlikely that heretics will be round up and placed in interment camps as has been the prevailing notion of what should happen amongst academics and political types. Rather, I must expunge from the darkest recesses of my heart, thoughts of retribution and revenge. I know I must be set such fury aside.
What next? Is there an opportunity now for rationale debate? Should we all go on as if all this unpleasantness never happened? My emotional side certainly says: NO! My rationale side, such as it is, would say: It’s conditional. Conditional upon the removal of those whose hands on the levers of power, influence, promulgators of opaque climate science, and I can think of a few, who have championed both here and abroad obsequious and blinding allegiance to catastrophic climate change. Their time is done.
As Mr. Trump’s thoughts seem to be modifiable on climate change, and the folks who will be at the controls for the climate change assessment, bureaucratic management and future research dollars, although it would be best, I believe a thorough house cleaning will not take place. Possibly a more surgical approach will be seen: lopping off a Penn State here, a Columbia there; reprioritizing NASA earth science under some other auspices. Nothing very much really, just whittling away at both the edges and core of the ideology. Something that could be done, say, in 4 years rather than engage in a 100 years war. More likely than not, energy innovation will produce abundant and less expensive electricity, necessary for global betterment of its inhabitants. Data sets will have more points, and tiresome forecasts of events 100 years hence will achieve their rightful spot in the dust bin.
What have you got to lose?
This L.A. Times editorial explains what there is to lose — trade, trade, trade of U.S. green, energy efficient, and pollution control products: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gardner-china-climate-leadership-20161204-story.html
SS, alternatively we can establish bilateral reciprocity, energy security and reliability, and control of only true pollutants. You lost the election. Tough. Your continued propaganda isn’t going to work any more. Get used to reality.
Who would want to buy stuff that is 10 x more expensive without government subsidies??
If green has value Stephen, you and I would be crushed by the rush to buy.
China has been SO helpful to constrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. And the Iran deal is so helpful to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Rud’s Comment illustrates the problem here at CE in trying to find “Common Ground”:
(1) It is not propaganda when a correct macro approach to Renewables is presented using integrated grid engineering economics (taught at every leading engineering school like the University of Chicago, Georgia Tech — and used by every major electric utility).
(2) It is not propaganda when things like the Agriculture “Law of Limiting Factors” is presented, illustrating that Climate Change/Global Warming presents “Wicked Problems” to Ag (and it is incorrect to simply define CO2 as plant food).
(3) It is not propaganda when “Ideas” are presented from leading Economists (eg. Nordhaus, Tol) on things like trade and climate clubs.
It is Nasty Propaganda and Bullying when good faith people like Zeke Hausfather come to CE and are verbally attacked on a personal level — explaining why there is not much objective dialogue here at CE. Rud and Others want CE to be their echo chamber.
But at what cost? What about the intermittent nature of wind and solar? Storage is expensive. And then what is never mentioned is the reliability of all of this electronics and mechanical parts in about the worst environment you can operate them in. What are we going to do in 10, 15, 20 years when 20 or 30 percent of what a few hundred million panels that are installed when they start to fail? 10 panels, with a 40 year life, will start to have failures in 10 to 12 years. and that was just 10 panels.
It’s propaganda because it made on usually, a very exaggerated base assumption, based on models that are worthless, which are based on a hypothesis that isn’t even right. It’s like quoting the military, it’s their job to extrapolate the worse case, it’s not meant to be “true”, didn’t I hear they even have a plan for zombies? Hey, there could be a virus that infects your brain and make you violent, right?
Personally I like it when people like Zeke pay us a visit. It is also good to see people such as Jimd and jch swimming against the CE tide. The last thing we want is an echo chamber and that very much includes Rud who has taken the trouble to investigate a number of related agw matters.
Personally I would like to see a monthly guest scientist publishing and defending a piece here. Most denizens are perfectly capable of being civil and perceptive when they are discussing a well laid out paper.
Your remark and the subsequent link to LA Times is based upon a speculation:
“If President Trump follows through with candidate Trump’s promises, it will be all but impossible to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. ”
As an aside, it should be noted that the LA Times official editorial policy is to prohibit skeptical views of climate change to be published as the science is already settled.
You embrace both an editorial policy and speculative outcomes not currently seen, only might come true. You project a Chinese economy upon the future where all economic models so far have proven unreliable. Donald Trump has proven to be a “Black Swan” in the usual scheme of world events.
I recommend against foretelling the future. Rather, I would suggest enumerating and holding to scrutiny what you would do if you were Queen. Then we all would learn something substantive about you.
RiHo08 — I agree with you that people should not speculate on what Trump could do. Just wait until January when he begins working with Congress to enact laws or enacts executive orders.
I was responding to your question: “What could we lose?” where I responded trade, trade, trade — which the L.A. Times editorial addressed.
My comment had no reference to any actual climate science issue.
Stephen Segrest: (2) It is not propaganda when things like the Agriculture “Law of Limiting Factors” is presented,
Is that one of those “limits to growth” that were so popular in the 70s?
It may not be the case that CO2 is “simply” plant food, but it is undeniably plant food, and there is evidence from experiments that its low concentration in the atmosphere is currently a “limit” on plant growth.
If there is but one takeaway from the Presidential election it should be that the MSM (of which the LA Times is a leading member) are not only biased and out of touch with a large segment of the American population, but both clueless and ignorant on a wide range of subjects. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the position that US trade will suffer under a Trump Presidency. If anything it is a hopeful wish so the authors can say they told us so. Which speaks volumes to the type of citizens they are.
> It is not propaganda when a correct macro approach […]
I read that as “macho approach”, Stephen S. I’d say it fits Rud to a tee, but that would be propaganda. ;)
> But at what cost?
Some things are best found out by doing, micro6500. One needn’t go the Full Monty to obtain a good idea, either.
Some are, others are not, that’s stupid even for you. And this is a stupid one to do.
Unless your idea of good job is washing solar panels.
> Unless your idea of good job is washing solar panels.
Beats flipping burgers I’d warrant, micro6500, but maybe not. At the very least it keeps them more efficient, which would tend to offset the expensive storage costs and ancillary maintenance expenses on the other gadgetry to handle their intermittence.
Which, by the way, sounds like good jobs to me.
Building and installing solar panels … well, that sounds like good jobs to me as well. But then again, I could say the same about nuclear power plants.
Don’t gas-fired and coal-powered plants also require no small amount of expensive engineering attention to operate at their design efficiency?
I’d be tempted to say that hindsight makes everyone brilliant, but I just can’t bring myself to be *that* stupid, not even for me. Case in point, witness how many liberal pundits are *still* desperately attempting to spin away from the very real possiblity that Trump didn’t so much as win the recent election as they lost it for Hillary.
Or lost it by propelling Hillary to the nomination to begin with.
I am wondering if we have read the same article, ie the one linked by you?
My first quote was lifted from the article. Here’s another:
“As 2017 approaches, China is poised to assume global leadership on climate change, and the U.S. is poised to become the new climate-action outcast.”
Is this all about trading in “renewables”? China going Green?
The speculations are: that any rise in CO2 will cause terrible harm to the world; renewables like wind and solar are the options available to forestall such calamity; China has the manufacturing capability to make more windmills and more solar panels which will give them control over the world economy; the trade wars ensuing from China’s renewable energy manufacturing will relegate the USA to second class something or other. Feel free to add more if you so choose.
In my mind’s eye, the entire article is about climate change as that is what is in the title and then repeated throughout.
I remind those who might care, that the LA Times’s specific editorial policy is not to publish anything related to climate change that is contrary to the dogma; ie, man is bad and is doing bad things and the Satan himself, Donald Trump has raised his pitchfork by way of colorful emphasis, climate change is a hoax conceived by the Chinese.
As with all forecasts, particularly political, economic as well as the CO2 caused catastrophe of climate change, not all of us are dependent upon the models of our own construct. We can, and probably should, wait to see what unfolds and then discuss adaptation. I certainly will. How about you?
matthewrmarler — I’m in Ag (and have co-written numerous peer reviewed science papers primarily with the University of Florida and DOE labs — go to ResearchGate to find them).
The overwhelming comments here at CE are that CO2 is simply plant food — end of story. Any posts balking at this conclusion is propaganda.
As my CE propaganda has stated, I believe that increased greenhouse gasses present Wicked Problems to Ag. Things like the different biology in plants (C3 and C4), how elevated CO2 levels (in studies) have reduced nutrition levels in plants like rice, soybeans, and wheat. That smog (a SLCP) reduces crop yields. Impact of heat and moisture on plant diseases and insects.
Matthew — no, the law of limiting factors is not something new — not some conspiracy I and Others are coming up with to fuel CAGW. If you would be of “Good Faith”, you’d at least Google this term to understand it.
Timg56 and RiHoo8 — Clearly you want an “echo chamber” here at CE where the only acceptable response to RiHoo8’s question “What have we got to lose?” would be nothing. Any other response is propaganda.
RiHoo8’s question is hypothetical (as Trump has not even been sworn in) — of course there is no evidence. The L.A. Times editorial as well as many other articles in economic publications state a very serious risk in Trump’s position on GW/CC could be U.S. export trade of high technology products (green, nuclear, efficiency, pollution control of SLCPs).
Many leading economists are saying this. But to even bring this concern up in CE is (to you) propaganda.
In the past here at CE, I’ve stated that I oppose a stand-alone U.S. Carbon Tax. It’s a regressive tax; would penalize U.S. manufacturing; and just increase World greenhouse gas levels as lost U.S. manufacturing would certainly more energy efficient and cleaner that in developing countries.
But I’ve stated “One way that a Carbon Tax might work is through international trade “Carbon Clubs”. Here at CE when I refer to work by leading economists (Nordhaus, Tol) on this — the “CE Echo Chamber” erupts saying I am spreading propaganda.
Interestingly, it appears that China is doing exactly this (but we shouldn’t even talk about this at CE).
Stephen Segrest | “Interestingly, it appears that China is doing exactly this”
China is building “Echo Chambers” that erupt saying you are spreading propaganda?
PA No, China is going to implement a Carbon Tax. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the Nordhaus, Tol, etc. concept of international trade and “Climate Trade Clubs”, especially between China and developing countries. China never does anything without giving itself a competitive advantage (and circumventing current WTO Rules?). Whoops! I’m spreading propaganda.
My Propaganda of Integrated Engineering Economics:
For all the so-called CE “Experts” in engineering — you should at least go visit a regional electricity dispatch center. As to sophistication, it’s something that NASA would “tip their hat” to.
At leading engineering schools, they teach simulation in how an integrated grid would perform under different scenarios (e.g., load profiles, fuel costs, generation resources, etc.) for planning purposes. An example of this highly complex simulation/modeling is the GE MAPS models (which you can Google).
As anyone who has experience in Integrated System Planning knows — generation resource decisions are not made simply on stand-alone operating characteristics (a micro approach) of an intermittent resource (wind, solar).
Decisions are made of how resource options FIT into the integrated grid (a macro approach) — with the objective to select options which result in lowest overall system cost on the integrated grid.
Which leads to my so-called propagranda where I’ve consistency said that all planning decisions must follow sound engineering economics:
(A) On a highly inflexible integrated grid, if the level of Renewable penetration is only 1% — so be it!!!
(B) However, on a highly flexible grid (e.g., lots of shiny new natural gas combined cycle units) with ready access to bulk hydro — one should not be surprised that a Renewable penetration of 30% results in the lowest System economic costs.
My belief in “engineering economics” is why I adamantly oppose a Federal or any locked in State Renewable Portfolio Standard — that would place decision-making in the hands of Politicians rather than our engineers.
The capital, and lost opportunity costs will reject this option without a mandate, other than as a marketing ploy. And this doesn’t even address my reliability concerns. The snowflakes are completely clueless.
One of the leads at Harris Semi was pulling a load of memory chips out of a life test rig, did some calculations on his RPN HP calculator, said they had a MTBF of a little over 2,000 years with a big smile, I asked why, they needed to be that high? He said, because when you put a bunch together into a satellite, all together the MTBF could be only a few years, even with 2,000 year life parts. Space is a harsh environment for electronics, but so is sitting in the baking Sun, wind and rain 365 days a year.
And how many solar panels are they going to try and deploy? With 40 year warranties (do you really think they’ll last 2,000 years too)?
They are mandating a power grid that Baghdad residents will laugh at.
“My Propaganda of Integrated Engineering Economics:”
My request seems to have borne fruit:
“I would suggest enumerating and holding to scrutiny what you would do if you were Queen.”
Question to Micro6500 — and others like him: And where specifically did you study or professionally apply integrated grid engineering economics? A Utility? An internationally acclaimed consulting company like GE?, Have you been professionally been published on your expert views?
Guaranteed Answer (if he would be truthful) — He has no educational or professional experience.
FYI to Mico6500 — Integrated System Grid Engineering Economics answers the questions you’ve raised.
Stephen Segrest: The overwhelming comments here at CE are that CO2 is simply plant food — end of story. Any posts balking at this conclusion is propaganda.
Like my post? CO2 is not “simply” plant food, but it is undeniably plant food, and the experiments show that increasing CO2 produces increased growth?
As for your “law”, is it true? Or is it like the “law” (due to Ricardo) of “comparative advantage”, which is widely asserted with little to no evidence behind it, and strong counter-arguments? Honestly, in science, some “laws” are better than others.
Lots of us have publications. Cite one of yours that is on point.
“Guaranteed Answer (if he would be truthful) — He has no educational or professional experience.”
There are countless educated professionals who argue that Jesus was the fountainhead of Catholicism and Christianity, but it appears as if Jesus himself was never ordained a priest and he wasn’t any Pope. In truthiness and as a matter of factiness, if there ever really was such a man named Jesus, credentialed or not, he, much like you, belonged to that cherished priest class umbrella.
Stephen Segrest: “Guaranteed Answer (if he would be truthful) — He has no educational or professional experience.”
You have the damn gall to accuse a poster of having “no educational or professional experience”?
Oh dear, you really can’t stand your authority being questioned, do you?
And when it is, you resort to personal insults, despite having railed against other posters for such behaviour.
Talk about chucking your toys out of your pram…
In my (almost half a century) of professional experience, there is only ever one reason for that…
Can you guess what it is?
If you want to consider comments of the LA Times as evidence, that’s your choice. Just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Opinion, even “expert” opinion is not evidence. And the editorial board of the Times is no more qualified to offer opinion on US trade than I am.
As for your reference to economists, well that’s simply more of your credibility being flushed. You’ve just picked climate science’s older, uglier sister to take to the dance. Nice.
So there is no desire for an echo chamber. I don’t care if anyone is interested in my opinions. However there are several here whose opinions I do find interesting. Yours could be one if you didn’t spend so much time whining about how no one treats you like a leading light here. Instead of complaining, go out and earn it. One piece of advice, don’t blow credibility with posts like the one I originally replied to. Editors and Economists, unbelievable.
Science does well in describing small things like molecules, rigid bodies, rubber bands.
Whenever it tries to piece them together into a theory it ends up having to deal with massive numbers of undetermined degrees of freedoms.
This is an unsolved problem.
Therefore science is basically a religion and a pretty dismal one, at that.
Disappointing to see abusive flaming in the comments on this post.
Science oriented discussion leads to debate but usually about data, interpretation, and application.
Once it devolves to politics the game changes.
ulric lyons | December 6, 2016 at 7:59 pm |
Ulric, since one man’s “flame” is another man’s “passionate outpouring”, what is disappointing is your willingness to accuse un-named folks of wrongdoing.
If you’re going to bust people for something, how about you have the common decency to either link to the comment or quote what you find objectionable, so each of us doesn’t have to wonder whether you are complaining about our own actions.
That way, you might accomplish something, rather than just complaining about the state of the blog.
Typical Eschenbach, you justify your own bad behaviour, and then pick a bogus argument as a smokescreen. Don’t preach to me about common decency when you are the one that flamed. There is no wondering to do as no one else flamed, and I don’t remember ever seeing such language on this blog.
“That way, you might accomplish something, rather than just complaining about the state of the blog.”
That is simply desperate obfuscation Eschenbach, this blog is wonderful without your flaming.
“Typical Eschenbach, you justify your own bad behaviour, and then pick a bogus argument as a smokescreen. Don’t preach to me about common decency when you are the one that flamed.”
Are you the pot or the kettle?
ulric lyons | December 6, 2016 at 8:49 pm |
Typical Lyons, accusing me without a quotation or any link to whatever I said has your knickers in a twist. You just like to wave your hands and make vague unsubstantiated, unreferenced accusations, and you don’t like that being pointed out.
Oooh, you’re so cute when you’re angry … you accused me, but you didn’t have the balls to name my name until I called you on it. Cowardly.
As to whether I’m the one that “flamed”, I couldn’t say, because you haven’t said what it is that you think is “flaming”. For all we know so far, you’re just seeing ignis fatuous and mistaking it for flames.
And you STILL haven’t had the decency to say exactly what it is I am supposed to have done wrong. Underhanded.
ulric lyons: That is simply desperate obfuscation Eschenbach, this blog is wonderful without your flaming.
See, that’s your problem. You were the one who obfuscated, and Willis Eschenbach demanded clarity — that’s not “flaming”.
ulric lyons: Disappointing to see abusive flaming in the comments on this post.
Please quote instances so we can tell what you are referring to. Otherwise you could mean anything.
Since one man’s “flame” is another man’s “passionate outpouring” he could mean anything…
Here’s hoping for Trump not being a proponent of tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Discusses a bit of Nasa’s ‘earth science’ long history and the value of it’s contribution to science and scientists. Good read: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nasa-earth-science-thanksnasa-2016-12
Thanks, Danny, interesting piece.
Some of the comments seemed to be more concerned about maintaining the location of the function rather than the function. If the Federal Government did a credible job of operation at peak efficiency and effectiveness and went through a legitimate thorough budget process, this kind of discussion wouldn’t unnerve so many people.
I worked for a Federal agency for a short period and with several Federal agencies for decades besides being in the military. Inefficiency infected every operation at the Federal level. Even a young Army specialist could identify where costs could be cut- every day in every way.
At the state level we went through rigorous budget evaluation every year looking for ways to eliminate lower priority activities in favor of more critical functions. When the budget is required to be balanced that kind of oversight is a natural outgrowth of the process. Where is the discipline at the Federal level.
Look at today’s news about a study finding waste of $125 Billion in the Pentagon budget being buried. A disgrace.
Every agency can accomplish more if forced to. The focus should be maintaining the critical mission functions regardless of where they are located and eliminating redundancy
so that they optimize efficiency and effectiveness.
I have no faith any of that will occur.
“Look at today’s news about a study finding waste of $125 Billion in the Pentagon budget being buried. A disgrace.”
Agree that it’s a disgrace just like $10,000 toilet lids and wrenches. This is where a ‘business’ type can impact things in an appropriate way. But tarring NASA with and DOD issue is not the way to go.
“Every agency can accomplish more if forced to.” Yep. Have seen the ‘doing more with more’, ‘doing more with less’, and ‘doing less with less’ approaches.
Doing what needs doing via the ‘right’ agency would be a pleasant surprise. I’m not happy with our choice of leadership but will live with it. Here, my expectations are quite high w/r/t efficiencies of operations. He applied, got the job, and now it’s time for action. Just concerned that much like the sequestration events we’ll see a hatchet job and not needed surgical precision. But I’m hopeful.
So many words with so little content.
You do your mentor Josh proud Danny.
OT, but heretical. Does anyone know what happened to the sea ice chart? Looks like a sensor died or something.
In terms of the Antarctic Sea Ice, Lavergne et al 2014, identified a polynya in the Weddell Sea in 1974, in about the same place that one exists now. Deep convective overturning was opening a conduit to the abyssal ocean. They viewed it as a rare natural event. Today’s NSIDC images show about the same thing as existed in 1974, maybe a little larger.
CK – I was referring to the flat line at the end of the graph. Double-click to enlarge.
Yes, cryosphere’s been down since April, it says why on their website.
If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side.
If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you are a rare person in a rare event. They almost always refuse to discuss or debate with anyone who disagrees. I have been to multiple climate conferences. The consensus alarmist people are almost always invited and they never accept to speak and almost never to just listen.
As a workers, compensation lawyer (17 years in the past) I routinely deposed board certified doctors, such as neurosurgeons and cardiologists. It was not unusual for highly credentialed physicians working for prestigious organizations to be wrong. For instance two egregious mistakes were made by the Cleveland Clinic. In the first a worker was unequivocally diagnosed with Scleroderma by his local Internist. However, the Cleveland Clinic “specialist ” found that the worker had a psychological problem. (Later disproved by the obvious lesions that developed) In another case, the Cleveland Clinic found that a workers facial paralysis was caused by a migraine headache, not the large amount of solvents he was exposed to in a poorly ventilated painting area.
So, my experience has been that notwithstanding what appear to be high credentials, one has to make one’s own judgments about the accuracy of any expert’s conclusions. The need to evaluate purportedly expert opinion is even stronger when the expert is biased as is quite often the case with respect to climate science.
> Climate Heretic: to be or not to be?
Why not drop the positioning and just do science? That used to be kind of a theme in these parts.
Foolish Warmists apparently “do science”. This seems to involve creating jargon, playing with computers, and making bizarre claims that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 will increase its temperature, and similar silliness.
Some researchers use “the scientific method” to increase mankind’s knowledge and understanding of Nature. These people are often referred to as “scientists”.
The word “science” is generally defined as a noun. Your implied admonition to “do science” makes as much sense as asking someone to “do shoe”, or “do banana”. Why not just use plain English?
Oh well. If I see a foolish Warmist actually applying the scientific method in respect of the supposed science of the properties of the average of particular weather records (known as “climate”), I’ll start revising my opinions on the existence of magic.
In the meantime I’ll leave you do science. Good luck. Let me know it looks when it’s done.
Wait, lemme do my shoe.
> This seems to involve creating jargon, playing with computers […]
Perhaps you should “do lunch” with a group of nuclear physicists some time, Mike F.
I was referring to fake scientists, who refer to themselves as climatologists.
I’m not sure why I should “do lunch” with a group of nuclear physicists. Is that somehow better than working with them?
Lumping fake scientists in with real scientists is Is just another attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. Climate is just the average of weather. Not much science there, is there?
The predictions of nuclear physicists can be evaluated against reality – some experimental equipment involved is really, really big. Really, really expensive, too!
From time to time, the experimental result consistently doesn’t support the theory. Oh well, wrong, have a think, change the theory. That’s physics – nuclear or otherwise.
Climatology takes the view that experiments are either not necessary or impossible, and if model projections are wrong, just adjust the model. Do this on a daily basis, and claim this demonstrates the brilliance of your thinking.
From NASA –
“Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed.”
Deny, divert, confuse. Don’t complain, the model will work sometime. We can’t provide a fixed description, because that would show we don’t actually know what we’re doing, which is why we have to furiously revise the model, continually.
A lifetime task! Who needs to look for a real job? Yay!
By the way, “my” physicists ate lunch, had lunch, met for lunch, and so on. I can’t remember them ever “doing” lunch. Maybe that’s what climatolgists do. They don’t seem to much else of lasting value, that’s for sure!
You need to go back to pizzagate.
The tedious trend continues, as predicted, despite not knowing the future.
Another flawed Flynn theory into the dust bin.
Who or what is pizzagate? Is it yet another piece of climatological jargon?
Oh all right, I actually looked it up – that’s 10 seconds of my time spent – well or otherwise, who knows
‘Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory.”
Your comment has not enlightened me. Are you claiming that NASA is some sort of conspiracy? Are climatologists supposed to be part of a conspiracy, or are they claiming that others are conspiring against them?
Delusional psychotics sometimes claim that they are conspiracy victims – they might claim that their failure to be awarded a Nobel Prize was due to their enemies conspiring against them.
Having never to been to pizzagate (as far as I am aware), your suggestion that I return there seems to indicate you may indulging in a bit of unwarranted conspiracy theory.
I suppose if you were, you’d probably have an unshakable conviction that the GHE was real, and Gavin Schmidt was a first class scientist. After all, NASA wouldn’t put an undistinguished mathematician in charge of a large budget, would it?
I wish you well with your scientific endeavours. Have you managed to prepare a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 yet? Or do dark forces keep scrambling your brain waves? Maybe it’s a conspiracy to suppress your scientific brilliance!
Again our false-flagging warmist betrays his real POV.
Only a totally unskeptical socialist would have taken that without checking further.
“Pizzagate” hasn’t been debunked yet. In fact, almost nobody but a bunch of #gamergate veterans has even looked into it. The MSM is just perpetrating a cover-up good for making sensible people more suspicious.
That was another Mike Flynn (son of yet another Mike Flynn), who got removed from the transition staff after he retweeted the pizzagate fake news. His father, like his boss, also retweets fake stuff but remains in the cabinet as of now, so the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. These people live in Twitterworld, and there is no rescuing them now.
You wrote –
“Another flawed Flynn theory into the dust bin.”
What theory is that, in particular? Maybe you are confusing a fact with a theory, or even a speculation?
A theory is just a theory. Climatological speculations don’t even get that far.
You might care to point to the experimental results that falsify the supposed theory that you claim is mine. I believe you are fantasising, but a few facts will quickly disabuse me of that notion, eh?
Quoting my exact words could be a starting point, but GHE believers seem to prefer “factiness” and “truthiness” to facts and truth. Oh well.
I’m not sure what your objection to me using the first search result I saw when I searched for “pizzagate”. I just had another look, in case you thought I was part of some bizarre conspiracy.
Still there. en.wikipedia.org. If you believe it’s incorrect, you could always let them know.
I don’t know, and my care factor is zero, anyway. I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, I was usually the last one to know about the latest office romance. Maybe that was a giant conspiracy designed to keep me in the dark for reasons of national security! Personally, I’m not convinced.
There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy for people to act irrationally. “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, Lysenkoism, CO2 GHE belief – on and on.
If pizzagate affects the fact that the CO2 GHE is nonsense, it would be relevant to me, and I might give a toss. Nope, all my tosses are safe and sound.
There you go again. Everybody knows Wiki can’t be trusted for controversial issues. For that matter, they firmly support the same GHG theories you deny.
But you’re perfectly willing to accept their authority WRT Pizzagate.
That spells false-flagging warmist to me.
You wrote –
“Everybody knows Wiki can’t be trusted for controversial issues. For that matter, they firmly support the same GHG theories you deny.”
I see. So Wiki can be trusted or not trusted, depending on whether you think they can be trusted or not.
As for me, I prefer facts. There aren’t any supporting a CO2 GHE, or even a falsifiable hypothesis propsing such a silly thing.
I still don’t know or care what a pizzagate is – call me ignorant or apathetic if you will. My care factor about your opinion is still zero.
Flynn, a few more iterations and you might catch on. You need to pay attention to what you write more closely. In the meantime, do proceed as usual.
BTW, I agree, you have no theories. You have some opinions and ideas. So my bad, I will not refer to them as theories in the future. None of your ideas could ever develop to that level of understanding.
Or said another way Brandon, we’re getting our butts kicked, so let’s change the subject.
“We” are getting “our” butts kicked, and given how the Electoral College is almost certainly going to allocate Hillary’s majority of the popular vote to Mr. Trump, it’s likely to turn into a full on ass-whipping.
My question stands. Why the positioning? How about simply doing science?
If you do science the way you do constitutional law then the butt kicking’s are only going to get worse.
Electors (those of the electoral college) are chosen by each state. Alaska, for example, has 3 electors, Arizona has 11 electors, Arkansas has 6 and California has 55. You seem to think that Alaska, Arizona and Arkansas should relinquish those votes to California simply because California has more people in that state than the other three combined.
Further, you seem to think that the name The United States of America is just a populist corporate branding name like some hotel with full amenities (including HBO and an honor bar) that calls itself the Rustic Inn.
We are not the Confederacy of New York and California with Those Other States Who Do What California and New York Tell Them What To Do. Probably not because then we would be the CNCTOSWDWCNTTWTD.
Why Brandon? Maybe because when you do that, you get ignored or insulted.
What you really expect is that they will then pick your side, well I did the science, and your side is the wrong one.
> Maybe because when you do that, you get ignored or insulted.
I know the narrative, micro6500. I also know that the likes of Roger Pielke, Sr., Nic Lewis and Dr. Curry herself still manage to get published in reputable journals when they put their minds to it.
It’s a brand new day in America with Trump coming online. One may never find out what grant money could come their way if one persists engaging as if Obama were sitting in the Oval Office.
And so far as I know, thin-skinned whining about insults never won any special flowers a Nobel Prize for Science.
Maybe you noticed, I didn’t let it stop my work, I just thought your comment was about as insincere as it could possibly be based on past behavior.
> If you do science the way you do constitutional law then the butt kicking’s are only going to get worse.
I don’t do either, so I guess my goose is well and truly cooked, Jean Paul. If your Constitutional law is as good as your punctuation of plural nouns, I may have some spare sauce for your gander.
> You seem to think that Alaska, Arizona and Arkansas should relinquish those votes to California simply because California has more people in that state than the other three combined.
What I *actually* think is that the Electoral College was put in place to keep a direct popular vote from installing just the sort of incompetent populist demagogue I fear that Trump might turn out to be. I also think that function was long ago neutralized when most States mandated by law that their electors award all their votes to whichever candidate took the majority of the popular vote in their State.
Thus, *effectively* the EC has functioned as a surrogate popular vote under that regime. Five times now that surrogate majority has sided with the minority of the national popular vote.
Which I think is ridiculous. Nevertheless, that’s the way it works.
I am somewhat amused, however, at how so many self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars thumping the States’ Rights hardline *apparently* overlook the fact that the Founders were *very* concerned about the potential hazards of a fully-direct democracy, especially for the executive officer. Neighborhood of Federalist 65, popularly attributed to one Alexander Hamilton, is about right methinks.
> Further, you seem to think that the name The United States of America is just a populist corporate branding name like some hotel with full amenities (including HBO and an honor bar) that calls itself the Rustic Inn.
I haven’t expressed any such thinking here or elsewhere, which is probably my cue to simply ignore it, plus the balance of your post.
> Maybe you noticed, I didn’t let it stop my work, I just thought your comment was about as insincere as it could possibly be based on past behavior.
You mean my past behavior wherein I told you that I thought your method had some merit, pointed to some problems I thought were rather glaring, encouraged you to seek expert advice and get it published? That behavior?
What was your response?
IIRC you got pissy with me for being insulting, micro6500.
“If your Constitutional law is as good as your punctuation of plural nouns, I may have some spare sauce for your gander.”
Maybe, but I’m not a Grammar [Nazi], I’m just alt-write.
“What I *actually* think is that the Electoral College was put in place to keep a direct popular vote from installing just the sort of incompetent populist demagogue I fear that Trump might turn out to be.”
In part; here is Hamilton’s #68 and the part that addresses that:
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
Of course, your assumption is that the electors would universally decide that Trump’s demagoguery during a campaign represents Trump the President-elect, but *discernment* – it could be interpreted that I have used the asterisk to couch that word to communicate I would like to bold, italicize, or underline the word but am not in a position to do so or it could be interpreted that I’m just a big fat grammatical ignoramus, but I would hope you interpret this as me winking back at you, you big flirt…because I’m alt-write – is a quality Hamilton assumed electors would have. Hamilton continues explaining other reasons for electors:
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.”
So Brandon, when you say:
“I also think that function was long ago neutralized when most States mandated by law that their electors award all their votes to whichever candidate took the majority of the popular vote in their State.”
You seem more than a little confused. On the one hand, you appear to have an issue with the fact that Clinton, who won the popular vote on a national level will likely not be elected by the electoral college and you have this issue despite the fact that you are aware that Trump won the necessary electoral college votes to secure the office. On the other hand, you have an issue with the electoral college because it has *through time* been neutralized by states compelling electors to vote for the popularly elected candidate in that state. Consider this tidbit from Hamilton:
“Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.”
But you make it clear that in your mind *the people* are not those people in separate sovereign states, but instead:
“Thus, *effectively* the EC has functioned as a surrogate popular vote under that regime. Five times now that surrogate majority has sided with the minority of the national popular vote.” ***Which I think is ridiculous.”
This argument is then undermined by your subsequent argument:
“I am somewhat amused, however, at how so many self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars thumping the States’ Rights hardline *apparently* overlook the fact that the Founders were *very* concerned about the potential hazards of a fully-direct democracy, especially for the executive officer.”
A fully direct democracy would be one that elects Hillary for having the most votes instead of allowing an electoral college to elect (presumably) Donald. The electoral college goes towards addressing that thing you have correctly argued the Founders were *so very* concerned about. I too am somewhat amused but at your amusement at the *many self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars* while you then your offer your own, somewhat flawed interpretation.
Ignorantia juris non excusat remains a bedrock principle in American jurisprudence and the people are expected to know the law, including and beginning with the Constitution.
To bad you ignored the rest of my post as it drove home the point that the most populace states in a nation made up of separate states sovereign unto themselves do not represent *the people*. In order for the *the people* to be represented in a confederacy of states, even under federalism, the people in each state have to be considered, not just those in the most populist states.
Well this should rule Hillary out even had she won the EC.
Have you a clue about how intellectually vapid, not to mention ignorant of our history or even basic civics, your popular vote vs Electoral College argument is?
Congratulations. You have just qualified to be a Millennial. Fillings and emotion trump reason and education.
> Have you a clue about how intellectually vapid, not to mention ignorant of our history or even basic civics, your popular vote vs Electoral College argument is?
Do you have any idea how silly it is to ask the retarded kid why he’s stupid, timg56?
Here’s a protip … intelligent people cogently explain why they think someone’s argument is wrong.
> Maybe, but I’m not a Grammar [Nazi], I’m just alt-write.
I normally pass on grammar lames, Jean Paul, but in this case I thought you’d appreciate me returning you a favor.
> Of course, your assumption is that the electors would universally decide that Trump’s demagoguery during a campaign represents Trump the President-elect […]
lol. What are electors supposed to do other than decide how a prospective President might perform other than, at least in part, note his or her behavior on the campaign trail?
Why do election campaigns at all if they’re so allegedly useless for this purpose?
And no, I don’t assume that the EC as *originally* envisaged by Hamilton would “universally decide” that Trump’s *evident* demagoguery or *utter* lack of governing experience precludes him from the nation’s highest public office. Think of it as more of my hope that it would.
I have only the faintest of hopes that it presently *will*.
That should just about dispense with your presumptions about my assumptions.
> But you make it clear that in your mind *the people* are not those people in separate sovereign states […]
As originally conceived, the electors *could* be chosen by a state’s voting population, but the Constitution allowed states to appoint them however they wished to do so.
Regardless of how electors were selected, in no case did the Constitution demand that electors then vote for any particular candidate — they were intended to use their *own* judgement to select from candidates they deemed suitable.
> A fully direct democracy would be one that elects Hillary for having the most votes instead of allowing an electoral college to elect (presumably) Donald.
Yes, which is precisely what Hamilton wished to avoid for reasons which he laid out in Federalist 68.
> The electoral college goes towards addressing that thing you have correctly argued the Founders were *so very* concerned about.
Not now it doesn’t. Electors in most states are bound by law to answer the popular vote in their state in “winner take all” fashion, except those few states who use the district method. A trained monkey could do that job.
“I normally pass on grammar lames, Jean Paul, but in this case I thought you’d appreciate me returning you a favor.”
It is more than greatly appreciated.
Brandon, I accept several of your points as valid. I’m still a little confused on your problems with the EC, but am satisfied you know why you have these concerns. You certainly look a lot less confused than I thought you did. Thanks for your clarifications.
As to electors bound by state law requiring them to vote how they’ve pledged to vote versus voting their conscience. I am ambivalent on this matter. I have heard and read people refer to Ray v. Blair as authority to support the argument that electors must vote as they’ve pledged to do, but my reading of that case isn’t interpreting it that way. To the best of my understanding the SCOTUS did not even address the issue of an elector actually voting for the pledged candidate and the narrow scope of the ruling concerned whether the state could compel an elector to take that pledge to begin with.
I’m also fond of Justice Jackson’s dissent of which you more and more seem to echo. I’ll tell you what, I’m all for the Democrats picking this fight and attempting to get electors to vote their conscience and see how the courts react to that.
You didn’t make an argument Brandon, other than the drive by about how Hillary would be President except for the Electoral College.
By your reasoning Hillary would be Bill if she had a penis.
> I accept several of your points as valid. I’m still a little confused on your problems with the EC, but am satisfied you know why you have these concerns.
I can perhaps sum that up, Jean Paul. The main problem I have is that it doesn’t function as originally intended, i.e., to insulate the presidency from a direct democratic process. It rather does the opposite, but in a way which I feel has disenfranchised my vote for Hillary. Hence arguments along the lines of “the EC ensures that all voices in all the states are heard” ring … rather hollow … to me.
Were the situation reversed, I imagine I’d be saying something like: I appreciate your position but [shrug] that’s just how it works … let’s give her a chance. Or something.
> I’ll tell you what, I’m all for the Democrats picking this fight and attempting to get electors to vote their conscience and see how the courts react to that.
I dunno. If the EC doesn’t perform as expected, I think there could be blood. Interesting times.
Your vote was not “disenfranchised”. It was minimized due to the outcome and the INTENT being fulfilled! Your logic is convoluted and also wrong.
The only way your vote would NOT be minimized is if we used a popular vote. You do not like the EC because you lost, but you lost because the intent of the founders was NOT to allow the big states to monopolize the vote. Hence the EC. It worked as designed.
> It was minimized due to the outcome and the INTENT being fulfilled!
No it was not the *original* INTENT at all, philjourdan. I’ve already described above why:
The INTENT was for election of the president (and vice-president) to be insulated from the pressure of direct democratic polling. The founders had a healthy aversion to the tyranny of majorities which can happen in direct democracies … which is why they overall architected a constitutional *republic*. They read their history, hmmm? They knew what happened in Athens for instance.
> Your logic is convoluted and also wrong.
Irony. You’ve muddled up the original intent of the EC vs. what it became: a *winner-take-all* rubber-stamp “voting” body within state boundaries. My logic isn’t convoluted; the way the system actually works vs. how it was originally intended to work is convoluted, if not silly.
> The only way your vote would NOT be minimized is if we used a popular vote.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. My argument is to ask the question about which we want: a directly elected president, or an indirectly elected one instead of this stupidly redundant hybrid which five times now has managed to do neither.
Sorry Brandon you are the one trying to use convoluted logic. Clearly the intent was for the States (not the people) to choose the president. Clearly the way the states chose their electors was up to the states. And most have decided the winner take all. The intent is fulfilled. Your vote was not disenfranchised. You voted for a losing candidate. Clearly the system worked. The intent was to insulate the small States from being overwhelmed by the big states. And indeed that is what happened. Those whining about Hillary winning the popular vote (a useless measure since the rules going into the game did not take that into account) do not realize that without one state, she loses the popular vote as well! And that state had no republican on the statewide ticket other than Trump. In other words, no reason for Republicans to vote. And they apparently did not.
49 States were saved the tyranny of the one state by the wisdom of the founders. The EC worked as designed. That is EXACTLY what it was designed for.
> Clearly the intent was for the States (not the people) to choose the president.
Again, from Federalist 68 confirming that the intent was to insulate the choice of the president by a direct democratic process:
> Clearly the way the states chose their electors was up to the states. And most have decided the winner take all.
Binding an Elector’s vote to a particular candidate based on a popular poll — whether by district or winner takes all — defeats this stated purpose of intent:
Electors which rubber-stamp the will of the popular poll inside their state borders are redundant. No special knowledge or insight is required to be able to recognize that one candidate received a plurality of the popular vote, and tick off the correct box reflecting that statistic.
> You voted for a losing candidate. Clearly the system worked.
And there we have it, philjourdan. Thanks for that nice and tidy circularity.
Electors that defy the will of The State (remember this is the UNITED STATES) are going against the intent. The intent was for the States to choose the president. And when the country was formed, there were 13 INDEPENDENT States. Thus the intent was to allow each State to set the rules for how they would select the electors based upon the policies and needs of that State. Thus the intent of the founders is fulfilled. I have no doubts that others today wanted the founders to think of the original Intent as one monolithic solution, but that is not what they wanted.
Thus once again, you completely miss the point of both the intent and effect of the EC, and how it has worked for over 200 years. Perhaps one day you will be able to understand that there was 13 Independent States at the founding. And, by the intent of the Founders, supposed to be 50 Independent States today.
> Electors that defy the will of The State (remember this is the UNITED STATES) are going against the intent. […] Perhaps one day you will be able to understand that there was 13 Independent States at the founding.
lol, Phil. Which is it?
Your first sentence is factually incorrect about defiance. It’s only state, not federal, laws which attempt to bind Electors to particular candidate as determined by the popular vote within their own state — and not all states have laws to that effect.
Even though the Constitution does not specifically prohibit states from binding Electors to a particular candidate by way of a popular vote, that clearly was not Hamilton’s original intent when he laid out the arguments for the EC in Federalist 68.
> I have no doubts that others today wanted the founders to think of the original Intent as one monolithic solution, but that is not what they wanted.
Curious “rebuttal” since I’ve not been arguing that the founders intended a “monolithic solution”.
> Thus once again, you completely miss the point of both the intent and effect of the EC, and how it has worked for over 200 years.
I understand the historical context of the 1787 Constitutional Convention regarding proportional state representation in both the Federal Legislature and Electoral College from two perspectives: large vs. small states and Northern (free) vs. Southern (slave) states. Thus the Connecticut Compromise reached between small/large delegates creating a bicameral federal legislature (and the equal-representation Senate in particular) and subsequently the Three-Fifths Compromise reached between free/slave state delegates which mitigated — but did not entirely remove — slave state representation in the population-weighted proportional representation in the House.
Thus, it’s not lost on me that the way number of state Electors are awarded — exactly equal to number of House Reps. and Senators — is rooted in the very same arguments regarding the debate between weak vs. strong central government and proportional vs. equal representation of states’ interests in the federal legislature.
So no, I’m not the one “completely miss[ing] the point” here. I simply don’t subscribe to your stark this-not-that mutually exclusive view of historical context and Constitutional law regarding the EC …
… a view which thoroughly glosses over the original thinking behind indirect election of president and vice-president by way of an intermediate, select and purpose-specific body of Electors who were clearly intended to be an investigative, deliberative and judicious body in contrast to the collection of party-loyal, rubber-stamping monkey-puppets they’ve instead become.
“Why not drop the positioning and just do science? That used to be kind of a theme in these parts.”
That was in the days of climate science, which was almost entirely science-based.
What we have now is climate “science”, with is mostly politics based – and very dirty, corrupt politics at that.
> What we have now is climate “science”, with is mostly politics based – and very dirty, corrupt politics at that.
Well then since all the cool kids are doing it, I guess there’s apparently nothing for it but to go with the flow, catweazle. Such a pity.
Denier, alt science, cargo cult, heretics, spoon benders, witch doctors… all the same thing. Feynman was onto all of them. Some wear bones in their hair; some do statistics; all are entertainers… it’s a show, they all pet their gimmicks. If they can sell tickets, people will fill the venues.
Pertinent to this discussion is Richard Lindzen’s detailing how climate science was corrupted and heretics were treated.
Surface warming from 1998 to 2012 is larger than indicated by earlier versions of the conventional datasets used to characterize what the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change termed a hiatus in global warming. None of the datasets exhibit net warming over the Antarctic since 1979.
gsod has 80k records from 1940 to 2015, many years with no records, and about half with only 1, this is for stations south of 62.5S lat Other datasets may have more.
That said All years have an annual average min temp change of -0.00213F, and Max is -0.00031F. Average Max temp of -4.3F and Min of -15.2F
But I’ve also started to use fluxes to do my averaging, so the fluxes scale properly, where temps do not. It’s been a long term objection. So I’m in the process of switching my math over to fluxes then converting them back to temps.
What do the denizens think of that?
When I do that, I get an average min temp of -11.6F and max of -0.98F
About 4F different than doing it with temps!
We have a new meaning to “Taking the Fifth”.
I’m wondering if our resident Climate Heretic agrees that the apparent change in the polar vortex is due to man-generated CO2? From the article:
A new international study on climate change predicts that Europe and North America will be experiencing bouts of very cold weather, while insisting that the freezing temperatures will be the result of global warming.
In its “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” moment, the study published Wednesday in the journal Nature Climate Change asks readers to suspend disbelief and continue to have faith in global warming even as they pile more wood on the fire this winter.
While acknowledging that the “chaotic nature of atmospheric circulation precludes easy answers,” the authors suggest that continuing changes in the Arctic are influencing wind patterns and the occurrence of extreme weather events in northern mid-latitudes.
A related study, published in the same journal earlier this week, claimed that the Arctic “polar vortex” has been shifting from North America toward Europe over the course of several decades. This means that winters in Europe and North America have been getting colder and should continue to do so.
Confidently asserting that “Arctic temperature increases are an inevitable aspect of anthropogenic climate change,” they propose “a perspective that rejects simple cause-and-effect pathways and notes diagnostic challenges in interpreting atmospheric dynamics.”
“I’m wondering if our resident Climate Heretic agrees that the apparent change in the polar vortex is due to man-generated CO2? From the article:”
Well I cant speak for JimD(?)
But as a (retired) UKMO meteorologist I can give you my answer…
It’s a case a cause, effect, cause, effect ……
We do know that low Solar weakens the stratospheric PV.
It is ad it is – this has a dwonwelling effect on the troposperic PV.
We do know that open E Siberian Seas in late Autumn (esp Oct) lead to more WV being injected into the atmosphere and causing higher Eurasian snow-fall than usual ( a sig correlation between Oct snow advance and -AO winters).
Put that together with Tropical forcing (La Nina like E Pac and a weak QBO).
And you have the current.
Now I would suggest that at least the more open E Siberian Seas part is AGW related.
Thanks for that analysis, Mr. Banton. I was referring to our Hostess – the Climate Heretic.
My pleasure never-the-less.
Oh, and I’d be staggered if you get an answer from her.
“Fake news” is the latest anti-skepticism (and anti-Trump) rhetoric from the left.
Fake news is a meme within the soap opera which is news, in the business which is news and which has a specific audience.
it’s not an overarching category but part of a work of fiction.
Fiction isn’t fake, it’s fiction. It has a certain structuree to qualify, in this case being part of a narrative that keeps the soap opera audience tuned in and interested.
The product of the news business isn’t news but you. They sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
A small audience but big enough to pay the daily bills. Soap opera tastes have edited every national debate for years. Trump may be breaking through, not killing off soap opera but taking away its reputation as serious stuff, and perhaps its news editing position.
The term “fake news” is being applied to non-liberal news. It is widely claimed that the only reason Trump won is that people were misled by fake news.
“The term “fake news” is being applied to non-liberal news.”
Right, it’s a meme within the soap opera news. It’s part of the fiction that makes it up, it’s an element of the narrative.
You can say, outside the soap opera news, that the soap opera news is fake news, but really it’s soap opera.
You don’t say of fiction that it’s fake, but that it’s fiction. It has its rules that define the genre.
“You don’t say of fiction that it’s fake, but that it’s fiction. It has its rules that define the genre.”
Literary critics do…come to think of it so do all kinds of other critics too.
And then there is Picturesque:
“Fake, fiction, make believe
Bring out the worst in you
Bring out the best in me
I’ve gotta learn to let you go
First up with the worst luck
Chew me up and spit me out
Each time I fall
Why can’t you just be real with me
It’s all, it’s all
It’s all, it’s all just
Fake, fiction, make believe
Bring out the worst in you
Bring out the best in me
I’ve gotta learn to let you go
It’s fake, fiction, make believe
You wouldn’t share the truth
I was too blind to see
I’ve gotta learn to let you
Learn to let you go”
If the reported dramatic drop in the number journalists is true, presumably the movement of consumers from traditional news media to social media and internet sources, has a significant part in this.
It is part of the totalitarian state crackdown on the narrative:
“On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017”, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”
Fake news is the MSM doubling down on failure. They don’t get that they have lost their position of trust among a large part of their audience and in fact are losing the audience altogether.
Who knows, maybe they are preaching to the choir in the hope that the choir at least will stick around.
Yep, they ignored all the fake news and down-right lies out of people like AlGore, SlobMoore, CNN, Obummer, Piglosi, Harry Screed and other lefty people and organizations. It’s only when the right gets communications out to the people at large that there’s this sudden concern for “fake” news.
“Those fact-checkers are a nuisance to Trump when 70% of his statements are made up.”
Sigh. Ya gotta wonder about the sanity of Trump fact-checkers who spend 70% of their time fact-checking made up stuff…unless, you made up that statistic. I just don’t want to, for the sake of my own sanity, fact-check your likely made up statistic.
68.32% of statistics are made up on the spot. Fact-check that, brother.
It is well known already from several studies. This is one. They can also list the lies and back their work up.
Apparently you only get your information from fake news sites – http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/12/epic-humiliation-politifact-makes-13-errors-in-a-single-clinton-cash-fact-check/
Whoops! So JimD is now pushing fake news!
Fairly obscure because they also check inconsequential statements. Did any of this make the news like Trump tweeting Boeing were charging $4 billion for Air Force one, and to cancel it, which caused their stock to go down. Most people have heard Trump’s lies, and some even act on them.
Obscure? LOL! You do not even know the language! It is a documentation of 13 error by a supposed fact checking site! What is “obscure” about that? And that is just one of them! There are many others! But does JimD know? Does he even try to refute it?
No, because he relies on Fake News sites. So anything not fake news is “obscure”. Regardless of the facts, which do not support him!
By obscure, I mean in the weeds. Have you checked Politifact on Trump yet? Much more straightforwards to follow.
It is not ‘in the weeds’! It is out in the open! Straightforward? There are no “facts” in Politifact! I have given you several instances (there are many more) of their incompetence to their stated mission! They have no integrity, and you have no idea how to do any research!
Try again. Why not go to the Defense Appropriations document, that shows Politifact has fabricated another story!
The Politifact article you linked doesn’t support your 70% claim. Or maybe the problem is I lack the calculator that can translate pants on fire numbers into percentages. I don’t mind admitting I have no idea to do that without a proper tool.
The “fact-checkers” are all fakes. Left-wing propaganda sites that mix twisted truth with outright l1es.
Typical Len1ninst tactic: create the forms of authority then subvert it.
Anybody stupid enough to believe those fake “fact-checkers” would also probably be stupid enough to set off a fire alarm at a lecture they didn’t approve of.
Then gape in surprise when everybody in the auditorium ignored it.
Ask yourself why there are no right-wing fact-checkers supporting Trump’s indefensible statements. The fact-checkers are journalists who can actually check facts. Like the MSM these people are not ideological.
Journalists these days don’t even know how to check facts. All they know how to do is support an agenda.
The MSM is all highly left-wing ideological. As are the fake “fact-checkers”
Claiming the MSM is “not ideological” is another example of Len1nist subversion of authority. Like setting off a fire alarm at a lecture you don’t approve of and expecting everybody to leave the room.
Check the facts via the fact-checkers. Point to pants-on-fire Trump statements that were wrongly characterized that way. Hillary also got a few of these, so they are not politically selective, just Trump has such a high rate, which is not surprising considering that his main information source appears to be Twitter and various conspiracy theorists in his close circle.
Not going to waste my time on somebody so lost in cognitive dissonance.
That they’re so biased and don’t know how do to research.
We have. We fact checked the fact checkers and I gave you links to half a dozen cases where they out right lied! They are not fact checkers. They are agenda pushers!
Only you are pushing the fake news about fact checkers.
You showed some obscure ones. What about Boeing or the 3 million fake voters with no evidence provided that seems to have faded away. He invents lies or retweets them. Great stuff.
Trump is right that Air Force One is ridiculously expensive. He’s wrong about why.
Longer comment waiting moderation. Original URL got it flagged.
Obscure? Trump is obscure? Seriously? What planet are you on?
The 3 Million is still out there. But your problem is you rely on fake news sites which is not going to report it! LOL! Yes, they affirm your fake news for you! But do not give you any real news.
And lest you forget – the story about Fake News Sites at WaPo was a fake news story!!!!
This is getting better with each faux pas by Jim D! LOL!!!
Trump is right that Air Force One is ridiculously expensive. He’s wrong about why.
The figure I’ve seen thrown around several places is $3.2 Billion, but when you add contingency factors, it’s well within a $4 Billion margin. (IIRC I followed a link from somebody’s tweet to a story with the whole $4 Billion, but I couldn’t track it down just now. And it may have been a less reliable site.)
And note that this is from a left-wing site. Vox has been accused of being “fake news”, but nobody’s ever suggested its fakes would support Trump or anybody on the right.
Are the fake “fact-checking” sites going to go back and adjust their analyses? Will the MSM report on the fact that everybody who jumped in about how Trump was wrong were the ones that were really wrong?
Gimme a break.
Of course, there are valid reasons why it’s so expensive. Based on R&D and Wright’s Law. Maybe if the MSM would do their research and pop back with explanations like that first thing, rather than headlines about how Trump was wrong, he would have a more cooperative attitude.
BTW, somebody needs to explain Wright’s Law to the President Elect. Obviously it’s not currently considered necessary for presidents to know that,stuff, unless Obama tweeted something about it and I couldn’t find it.
If Obama had known about it, I would be very surprised if he didn’t take the opportunity to tweet something telling the PEotUS to google it.
==> Evidence for that linkage? ==>
Please. Why would you need evidence to prove that career NSA and CIA staff are lying? After all, it’s obvious that they ….um…are in the tank for Clinton. And not a single one has provided (or leaked) proof of this linkage between Clinton and this anti-Russia propaganda because….um….they fear for their lives because the senior level official would put out hits on them if the exposed the conspiracy.
See? No evidence is necessary. All you need to do is make an assertion, and describe hypothetical conditions that make it impossible for your assertion to be falsifiable.
Same explanation for why AK didn’t need any actual evidence before reaching a certain conclusion that Comey is in the tank.,..for…well, obviously not Clinton…but clearly he’s in the tank for….somebody.
More hallucinations from your cognitive dissonance.
I never actually reached any conclusion about Comey. My favored hypothesis, based (IIRC) on something from Scott Adams, is that he was trying to be an honorable man caught between conflicting responsibilities.
But I did say that if he was in the tank for Clinton, he probably had to be wary of being arrested by his own rank&file.
Of course you and your hand puppet don’t understand deductive logic, or any other sort of reasoning. All you know how to do is extract a few words from something says and twist them into some sort of attack.
Typical SJW trick.
Here’s another theory. For the record, I’m skeptical. I should also note that I don’t think he’s speaking literally. Not entirely. (But I could be wrong.)
What evidence do you have to show that the CIA was in the tank for Bush when they said Iraq had WMDs?
Ah the hypocrisy! 13 years ago, the CIA was a Bush Puppet, but now we are to believe they are as pure as the driven snow!
Got to distinguish between appointed people at the top (and their sycophants) and the rank&file who actually run the operations and do the work.
Difference is that the current appointees have had 8 years to dig in.
[i]If you have a link to some evidence that it took cleverness to break into either one please cough it up.[/i]
A month later there is no linked evidence that it took any cleverness to hack Hillary’s server or the DNC.
The DNC intrusion was caused by a common form of phishing email that someone foolishly clicked. A unsecured outlook server (Hillary) is just an invitation waiting to happen.
Spoken by people who still believe all the fake news posted by verifiably fake outlets. It’s like believing The Onion.
Spoken by somebody who still believes
allthe fake news posted by such MSM fake news sites as the NYTimes, WaPo, etc.
Those fact-checkers are a nuisance to Trump when 70% of his statements are made up.
No, just the source of your statistic. Tough when you believe fake news.
Jim D –
There are no facts. There are just opinions. And people have different opinions. Thus, Pizzagate was not a fake story. And Clinton got millions of fraudulent votes.
People are too lazy to go beyond what they read on Facebook or in tweets, Trump included. If it’s on the internet, it must be true.
Hmmm, that is why you quote a number with no support to it.
Easy to Google, but I did it for you. Here.
LOL! Still no SUPPORT of your number! Google does not help you when it pops up with fake news stories!
You are so embedded with fake news, you do not recognize opinion from fact!
But here’s a clue for you. Supply a comprehensive list of his statements, along with documented proof of which ones were incorrect.
Now get to it! LOL!!!
Check this out one by one if you want.
You might find their assessment of the Boeing statement is reasonably rated Half True.
Speaking of post – truth:
==> Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It, New Survey Says ==>
People who say they voted for Hillary Clinton were less likely than Trump voters to view the claims made in these fake headlines as accurate, according to the survey. This may be partly due to the fact that the majority of top-performing fake news stories about the election on Facebook had a decidedly pro-Trump or anti-Clinton bent. However, it’s notable that a majority of Clinton voters still believed the fake news stories to be very or somewhat accurate.
Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth college who conducts research into political misinformation, reviewed the data and said he is surprised by the high percentage of Democrats who rated the pro-Trump stories as very or somewhat accurate.
“It’s especially striking that both Democrats and Republicans think the stories are accurate in many cases,” said Nyhan. “Even partisan-motivated reasoning — which we might expect to make people question fake news that is harmful to their candidate — does not appear to protect people from believing in it.”
I think they call that a circle jerk. Getting the fake news to verify the fake news sites. Yep!
Might want to explain why so many of “Hillary” supporters believed CNN when they doctored the quote from Trump. Or how about when Dan Rather forged the memo from the Texas ANG? Or when Politifact called the fact that jeeps are built in China the biggest lie of the year?
Yep. Hillary supporters believe all sorts of fake news.
Pizzagate is a real story. The story is that a bunch of over-eager young researchers on the Web think they’ve dug up a massive blackmail conspiracy. They have piles of evidence.
Are they right? I doubt it. But they believe it (or at least take the possibility seriously). They have evidence that needs some explanation. That’s news. Real news.
Laughing and dismissing it as “fake news” isn’t going to make them stop. Only explanations for their evidence will do that. Hopefully much more mundane and harmless explanations. But they need explanations that make sense, and hopefully have some sort of proof.
But the MSM’s current behavior:
Behind each of these fake stories is an individual or group who dreamed it up, and you can probably trace who they are, which is when they would normally be debunked, but not in the current post-truth climate where journalistic research counts equal to random tweets.
What journalistic research? LOL! Do you make up things as you go along?
Didn’t someone here post a link to that evidence about the FBI agent investigating Clinton’s emails being involved in a murder-suicide? Did someone here link to articles that provided evidence of Clinton’s brain diseases? Not fake stories I’m talking about evidence that needs explanation
Trump also says he doesn’t believe the Russians did things that the intelligence agencies said they did. Who are you going to believe?
Believe Obama or Trump? They report to Obama right now and say what he tells them to say. Like: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
LOL! No one could construct a better puppet than you.
You’re completely clueless.
It was a simple question.
I don’t believe either one. The “intelligence agencies” are full of sh1t. I don’t believe the Russians leaked anything. They probably did have the data, from both agencies, but it was somebody else who leaked it.
Based on my own review of the data.
You and Trump consider yourselves to be more knowledgeable than the intelligence agencies. If so, who did the DNC hacking?
Again, you demonstrate you’re completely clueless.
The “DNC hacking” was actually at least two groups, making independent penetrations, generally associated with the Russian FSB and GRU. These two groups generally don’t cooperate, and appear not to have in this case.
The leak has rather blatant signs of having been modified by some Russian-language group before being leaked. Best guess is that this was a false-flag effort to frame them, although the GRU, at least, has in the past been fast&sloppy enough to have made such errors.
Most likely, there were more hackers, enough better than the “official” Russian groups that they didn’t leave back trails.
The leaks themselves may have come from one of the hacking groups, or may have been an inside leak. NOBODY KNOWS. The statements of of the “intelligence agencies” are clearly politically motivated and thus of no value.
All of the information my opinion is based on comes from public information from private security agencies.
The agencies examined the raw data and compared signatures with past associated efforts of which I am sure they have many examples they won’t tell anyone about. Even Putin has not denied it, and is more likely proud of it.
Actually, AFAIK what they examined was what the private agencies extracted. And the private agencies had already matched the signatures and publicly identified them.
None of which says anything about who leaked what. We “know” two different Russian agencies had the data, that means nothing. They were legitimate intelligence targets.
There’s no evidence that the Russians leaked it, except for a few bits of metadata that are better explained as a false-flag frame attempt.
Anyway there’s no good reason to think that the US “intelligence agencies” had any good evidence of Russian involvement in the leaks. They have (IIRC) never given any sign beyond fantasy stories that they have anything like the capabilities of the private agencies.
And, IMO, they never will.
Your preferred theory is what? Who has access to Russian intelligence in a way that they can pretend to be them?
Anybody who buys a copy of Office software in Russian. (And knows how to set their computer clock to a Moscow time zone.)
They would need know what signs the US uses to identify Russians too. Do you think these intelligence agencies are complete amateurs?
Either that or they’re doing a mighty good imitation.
More likely you are the amateur.
I know how to track down what the professionals in the private agencies publish. Little if any of the stuff they share with each other is actually restricted.
The government “intelligence agencies” have never shown any sign of being able to do more than that. And they seem to have missed several things I’ve seen.
Not to mention how politically driven their conclusions are.
If Trump thinks even all the US intelligence agencies are conspiring against him, what does he do? Purge them? This is a major problem in his mind. He will base his policies on his own fantasies rather than anything their analysts say.
And where did you get the fake news about what Trump thinks?
LOL! Just because 2 people disagree does not mean one is conspiring against the other! And Trump (unlike JimD) is smart enough to know that!
Have you seen any of the “signs”? The answer is no. All you have is some political appointee mouthing what Obama told them to!
Stop pushing fake news.
You do not have to buy it in Russia – just get it off the grey market. And you can do that from your home.
You do not need access to the scapegoat to plant evidence implicating them! Geez, do you think before you write?
#1 – While it is generally understood that Hillary’s server WAS hacked (given the lack of security), to date there is no hard evidence of a hack. LIe #1 (and the Intel agencies have not claimed otherwise since the server was bit bleached).
#2 – What WAS hacked was Podesta’s emails. And that could have been done by a script kiddie as it was a simple social engineering hack. You do not need the intelligence agencies to tell you that since the hacking email was part of the last ones released.
#3 – Many servers in Russia are staging places for data, NOT the origin of data (and intelligence agencies will tell you that as well). The only one who knows where the emails came from is Assange, and while you have no obligation to believe him, he has stated the source was not Russia.
How much fake news do you consume in a day?
Trump said the next Air Force One would cost $4 billion. Do you believe him? Boeing doesn’t, and they are the ones with the contract. Where does he get this stuff from – Twitterworld?
Pentagon Appropriations – or do you not even bother with the sources any more, just the fake sites?
Boeing gave their number and it was not $4 billion.
Boeing is not paying for it. Or did you forget who the buyer is?
LOL! Boeing is not buying the planes!!!
Yes, there is a Politifact that lays all this out, as I pointed out. They count the $4 billion claim as Half True. Today he is knocking a fighter-jet program and Lockheed Martin stocks have dropped. It is becoming a pattern.
Wrong again! Politifact is all Iie! The only truth you find there is by accident. But keep citing them. You lost that battle a month ago when the country rejected the fake news of the MSM. And over the next 4 or more years, they will reject more of it because Trump has shown he does not need their “filter” to talk to us!
If you Iie to me, why should I ever believe you again? Politifact has repeatedly Iied and has to EARN the trust back. They will not by publishing half truths.
You need to learn that.
Your news source is what? You have eliminated about 90% of them as MSM, so I think you are now left with just Trump’s tweets that you seem to trust.
Explanations are always so simple when you’re convinced of a conspiracy.
FBI, intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, Comey…. they’re all in on it. Tens? of thousands of people, and not one has provided actual evidence of AK’s conspiracies. But he has reviewed the evidence.
The fact that between one and two handfuls of groups hacked the DNC makes blaming the Russians pretty pointless.
When everyone competent on the planet has hacked your server the person at fault stares back from your mirror.
Ask yourself why you want to defend the Russians as completely innocent in all this. Would you think the same if they were accused by intelligence agencies of helping the Dems?
I’m just following the evidence where it leads.
The fact that you think I “want to defend the Russians” just demonstrates how worthless anything you say is. Pure projection. All it proves is that any time you say something, you’re just rationalizing wishful thinking.
If the leaked data had the same signs in it, yes.
You mean who is in bed with the Russians? Would that be the candidate who enriched herself by millions of “speaking” fees for her husband from the Russians? The one who facilitated the transfer of control of 20% of the US Uranium resources to the Russians?
Or do you now call facts, “fake news”?
” Even Putin has not denied it, and is more likely proud of it.”
I have never, not once, ever ever seen your denial that you beat your wife. So Jim, what is it, do you still beat your wife?
Putin won’t make a public denial because he knows he has already been caught.
Putin has repeatedly denied responsibility for any leaks.
Show us the evidence. LOL! You must me an alarmist – you don’t need no steenkeen evidence!
Point – Jean Paul!
Ask yourself why you want to defend the Russians as completely innocent in all this.
The DNC pulled down its pants, bent over, and got molested by 5 to 10+ groups.
We don’t even know who all the people who climbed on that server were.
Why are you blaming the Russians? For all we know they just stood and watched.
I only blame the Russians because the intelligence agencies and several independent groups do. They should know.
The intelligence agencies would NEVER do that. What they do (and have done) is to say there is some “evidence”, of which you will never see it. And of course there is “evidence”, because the data resided on a Russian based server! But any computer hacker will tell you that is SOP for those who steal data! And more often than not, the Russians have no hand in it!
But you keep telling your l1es. As I have said, you cannot pay for someone to be this clueless.
You should really stop spreading fake news.
Lies. Damn lies!
Yes Danny, you should stop spreading them. The so called report from the fake news is not what even you are talking about. The WaPo simply states there is NO evidence of Russian Government involvement, and that the ONLY evidence is third hand of some “Russians” doing the hacking, but no direct evidence.
Sucks when you get the story wrong, don’t it?
I get it. You like Putin and trust the Russian intelligence services completely. Fine. Trump does too. What could possibly go wrong?
JimD, JimD, JimD (shaking head). I have not stated any emotion concerning Putin nor any opinion! I stated the facts! So show us ONE piece of evidence to back up your ignorant opinion about me!
Then show us where Trump said he loved Putin and Russia (fyi – RESPECT is not love – I can respect a tyrant for the way he performs his job, but that does not mean I like it).
Please go learn the difference between facts and opinions! No one cares about your childish opinions based on the FACT you do not like facts!
Most Americans would be outraged by Russian involvement in the election. I am watching Republican, Joe Walsh, on CNN now and he is amazed that Trump is so tepid on this issue.
Most people would be outraged at the indiscriminate slaughter of Unicorns too! And both are happening with the same regularity!
You dodged the challenge. Show me where I said I loved Putin. Or retract your statement. Your incompetent attempt to divert the thread was just that. Incompetent.
Jim why do you continue to comment on stuff with such certainly when it appears you have no expertise at all. What do you know about code and hacking it? What us your experience with intelligence agencies or law enforcement and how they investigate crime? It sounds like you read something, most likely from sources you like, and believe it without question. Or maybe you are so sure of your own beliefs that you don’t need evidence to support them. All I can say it is mind boggling to me how you can say the things you do.
I think Trump believes that the intelligence agencies are all conspiring against him, because that appears to be what he is saying. This is a worrying development.
No, you “believe”. It is evident you are not familiar with the activity of “think”.
You can decide not to believe him when he mistrusts the intelligence assessment. No wonder he doesn’t attend their briefings. He lives by his own “facts”, and doesn’t need them. This all fits together.
LOL! All the “facts” fit together? LOL! You mean like in a conspiracy theory? And where did you get that ghost from, Wapo? Or the NY Crimes? LOL!
No one would believe you are serious. No one can be serious and be as wrong as you are consistently!
It fits that he doesn’t want intelligence briefings from agencies he sincerely thinks are against him. I am not surprised at all. Maybe you are.
It fits that you are trying to convince us, impotently, that you know what Trump is thinking! But you have offered no evidence, not even a scintilla, that you know anything about Trump! Your only statements about Trump have been proven to be false. And you doubled down on them because you have no facts!
Just more wild conspiracy theories. Lewadowsky should study you, but then he has no clue how to study any group!
Jim D | December 8, 2016 at 12:05 am |
I only blame the Russians because the intelligence agencies and several independent groups do. They should know.
The Russian claim is like playing spin the bottle with the Lacrosse team in the Duke case and claiming the lucky winner is guilty.
You have no proof, just some politically motivated speculation at the intelligence agencies. Yet another “consensus” argument where there is no smoking gun. We already know the DOJ ran interference for Hillary. The agencies are so politicized at this point that their word without proof is meaningless.
Yes, and the FBI was for Trump too. We heard that from Giuliani.
When did Guiliani replace Comey as head of the FBI?
YOu cannot help yourself with planting fake news! LOL!
Giuliani said he had insider friends at the FBI who knew this for a fact. OK, don’t believe Giuliani. Fine by me.
WOW! More conspiracy theories from JimD! I got friends in the FBI, so I must know EVERYTHING about that the Agency knows as well!
You cannot possibly be thinking before you write your comments! No one is that clueless!
Maybe you didn’t see what Giuliani actually said, so I will give you a pass.
We heard that from Giuliani.
The FBI wanted to go after both Hillary and Petraeus hammer and tongs. Petraeus was an idiot who thought with the wrong head. Hillary was just plain dirty.
Hillary is dirty. The FBI at the agent level knew Hillary was dirty. They didn’t support Trump as much as loathe Hillary. The secret service seems to have been particularly disgusted with her.
There wasn’t anyone honest and well informed that voted for Hillary.
The FBI also knows that Russia was involved in the hacking. Aren’t you going to believe them this time?
Really? You have access to the FBI research? And you did not publish it?
LOL! Right, more fake news from JimD
The FBI also knows that Russia was involved in the hacking.
Show the public statement from the FBI that lists the proofs.
At least with Hillary we can read her emails and we know she was dirty.
I am fairly sure the details of kind of thing would still be classified, and it is the lack of public information that drives these conspiracy theories.
You are “fairly sure” that the details would be classified, yet you “know” the details! So you are the hacker! Do you work for the Russians?
LOL! And you do not even see the hypocrisy of your own claim! Too good not to laugh at! Fake news ala JimD
> NOBODY KNOWS.
Oh, but you DO know, AK. Let’s rewind to one of your previous statements in this subthread:
> The statements of of the “intelligence agencies” are clearly politically motivated and thus of no value.
Yes. Clearly. No dispute. No value whatsoever. Because you have Decided it to be the case.
> All of the information my opinion is based on comes from public information from private security agencies.
Mmmhmm. It’s just an “opinion” now. Based on “public information from private security agencies” … to which you have not linked (that I have seen), and by virtue of being private cannot be easily audited for whatever *other* information they *might* have chosen to NOT release.
I don’t know the answer either, but I do find it odd that you’re implicitly defending the Russians on this one while at the same time bawwing about the “Len1nist” tactics of the MSM …
… which last I looked is a free-market, for-profit enterprise in this country. Kind of like those private security agencies you talk about, but don’t specify.
Protip: Sometimes “facts” aren’t necessary to detect bullsh!t … failed internal consistency checks often suffice.
> Putin has repeatedly denied responsibility for any leaks.
We’re believing Putin now, AK? Is he significantly less Len!nist than the MSM?
If you’ll excuse me, I need to take a shower … I just crapped my shorts laughing.
Putin apologists all over the place suddenly.
The private security agencies aren’t “news” sites. They’re there for people with problems, including potential customers. (While there’s enough difference between them that I’m skeptical of some of what they say, mostly it hangs together.)
As you mention right below, it’s my opinion. Which is what I was asked for.
I linked to some of it a while back, when the issue first came up.
I’m simply not willing to waste time “proving” my case to deniers. AFAIK nobody responded to, or even noticed, my timely comments. I’ve moved on. There’s nobody talking about “Russian interference” who’s worth wasting time on today.
I was referring to the MSM as the victim of “Len1nist subversion of authority”. A standard trick: penetrate (or establish and penetrate) an institution of authority then subvert it to your own purposes.
That’s right. I was expressing an opinion. Not wasting my time trying to convince deniers. (It’s not that hard to track them down.)
That only works if you’re able to overcome your own preconceptions and biases. Otherwise you won’t be able to distinguish “internal consistency” from your own confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
Post-Soviet Russia is dominated by former KGB agents. They used such tactics widely against the West, it’s doubtful they would allow anybody else to use them against Russian institutions.
And my statement was in response to a claim that he “won’t make a public denial because he knows he has already been caught.”
I’ll mention for the record that I read an article in RT a while back claiming the Putin’s interference was based on a “certain” expectation that Horrible Hillary would win and efforts were intended to de-legitimize her future administration.
I couldn’t find it again with a quick search (and deniers here don’t deserve more) but IIRC it was bylined, and contained no links or other sources for its claims WRT Putin’s motivations. Or the FSB’s. Or whoever it was talking about.
Frankly, I don’t really believe any official Russian organ was responsible for the DNC leaks, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Putin’s denial of responsibility.
> Putin apologists all over the place suddenly.
Indeed, Jim D, indeed. Here’s the money quote:
Invoking Saint Reagan’s outreach to Gorbachev was also pricelessly ironic:
*Who* was POTUS “in the 1980s”?
This couldn’t *possibly* have anything to do with the Paul Manafort angle, could it? Nah. Everybody knows the NY Times is just another liberal MSM fake news site, and all the Russia-bashing is just a cover for the Real Len1inst Agenda of turning us into Communists.
Oh … my aching sides. [whew]
> The private security agencies aren’t “news” sites.
Which matters … why, AK? Can they be as easily investigated by Congress as can a *public* security organ like, I don’t know, the FBI, CIA or NSA?
> While there’s enough difference between them that I’m skeptical of some of what they say, mostly it hangs together.
While BS can be easily detected by things NOT hanging together, veracity is not insured by consistency.
> I’m simply not willing to waste time “proving” my case to deniers.
Begging the question of denial does not sound like “opinion” to me. Your narrative isn’t hanging together.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I expressed mine, along with my opinion that “backing it up” to people who will just find more reasons not to listen will be a waste of my time.
Flashback? “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
> You’re entitled to your opinion.
I’m aware of my legal rights as a US citizen, AK.
> I expressed mine, along with my opinion that “backing it up” to people who will just find more reasons not to listen will be a waste of my time.
Again, I’m telling you that I don’t need to see your “backup” to smell the rat in you “opinion” because this statement of yours …
… *begs the question* that any who disagree with your “opinion” are in *denial*.
Denial of *what*, AK? Your right to have an “opinion”?
Somehow I don’t think so.
As you know.
In denial over even the possibility that anything I say might be worth actually reading except for the purpose of formulating fake “rebuttals”.
Want an example?:
A blatant straw man, used against somebody other than the person who brought up Len1n.
You’re not interested in honest rhetoric or debate. Only dishonest word-games.
Which is why you’re not worth spending time digging up comments I made months ago.
AK: “You’re not interested in honest rhetoric or debate. Only dishonest word-games.”
Yep, that’s Gates in a nutshell.
And prolix, verbose, disingenuous, passive-aggressive and condescending with it.
And to cap it all, he thinks that crap is clever…
Putin has far higher approval ratings than any leader of a western ‘democracy’.
Besides which, American democracy is completely totalitarian. A new Princeton study demonstrates the opinion of the people matter 0%.
Demonize Putin at your own risk. The hypocrisy is stunning.
The money shot:
I think Russians find that demonizing Putin is really at their own risk, hence his ‘approval’ rating. We are lucky that the worst Trump has is a Twitter flame.
Oh yeah. These people are terrified of Putin:
Putin’s approval rating: 80%
> As you know.
Sorry AK, you’re a lousy mind reader.
> In denial over even the possibility that anything I say might be worth actually reading except for the purpose of formulating fake “rebuttals”.
Did I not say to you above: “I don’t know the answer either […]”?
> A blatant straw man, used against somebody other than the person who brought up Len1n.
Not address to you specifically, was it.
Satire of the gibbering mouth-frothing of MSM-haters. It’s a nice compliment to the spittle-flecked tirades against Fox News and Breitbart.
> Which is why you’re not worth spending time digging up comments I made months ago.
I’m not the only reader of this blog. Let’s not make me the sole object of your excuses.
Since it now appears to have become relevant, my earlier
analysissummary of analysis was posted here:
I remain highly skeptical of anything “from the CIA”, whether “leaks” or otherwise. Judging by how they fumbled around in 2001/2002 (“WMD”) and the behavior of the current PotUS, there’s a strong disconnect between the appointed top officials (with sycophants) and the rank and file.
I haven’t seen anything claimed to be from the CIA that hasn’t been already exposed by the private organizations. I suspect the “report” of which 2nd/3rd hand accounts were just published in the WaPo are the creation of a few “top-level” Obama appointees, and when/if we all get a good look at it will include caveats similar to what I mentioned back in July.
I also note that you were involved in that conversation. This is the sort of reason I don’t have much use for your “contribution” here. It’s all about dishonest rhetoric.
> And prolix, verbose, disingenuous, passive-aggressive and condescending with it.
Here’s your Gold Star for being succinct, concise, ingenuous, assertive — and above all — oh so polite and respectful:
Congratulations, catweazle666, you earned it!
You mean like inserting a word into a quote to change the meaning? (CNN)
You mean like forging a document from 40 years ago to incriminate a candidate? (CBS)
You mean like calling a FACT the biggest lie of the year? (Politifact)
That fake news?
Errors in the MSM also get called out by the MSM. It is good to have a competitive media that also challenges statements from even the most powerful people.
Sorry, no. An “error” is not capitalizing a proper name, or printing “to” when you mean “too”. Inserting a word into a direct quote that changes the meaning to what you want it to mean, and not what the speaker meant is not an error. It IS FAKE NEWS. That you are so blinded by bigotry you cannot realize that truism shows how far gone you are.
A recent error that the MSM corrected was a Yahoo report that Clinton had more votes than any president in history, when in fact Obama had more in 2008, and it is close for 2012. When they say something wrong, they don’t double down on it like Trump, they admit it.
No, they do not admit it. Where is the admission from Rather that he forged a document? Keep looking!
And that was also fake news (the number of votes). It was not an error. An error is too instead of to. Not 5 is greater than 7!
LOL! YOu cannot help it! You have a deep seated mission to be wrong every time!
The Democrats’ narrative is that:
1.The Russians hacked DNC emails. Narrative – this somehow explains Hillary’s loss (it being terrible to disclose what DNC honchos are saying).
2. Russians who hacked DNC emails would never, ever have hacked the easily accessed private server of the sec state. Narrative- if they had, Hillary was reckless rising to criminal, therefore they must not have hacked it.
In short- the JimD/Joshua want us to believe Russian government hackers are omni-present, genius infiltrators of American political communications. Sometimes.
I think those who think Hillary used her server just so the Russians could hack it, are the ones making that assumption. We would have seen much more interesting wikileaks if they had done that.
WRT this whole “Russia” thing, all we have is vague recycled “he said” “she said” stuff and this:
Read it carefully (something people claiming “scientific” expertise should be capable of).
They are “confident” (but see below) “that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”
But they are not confident about the leaks:
Tricky stuff, but it’s for public consumption: designed to say one thing while implying another.
Sad that our intelligence agencies are being used as press agencies, especially to favor one candidate in the election. But that goes back to 2001/2002, when they pushed Iraq. (Perhaps that’s why Mr. Trump doesn’t care for their “briefings”?)
A somewhat more recent, but still pre-election, perspective from Jeffrey Carr, “a cybersecurity analyst and expert.”: Putin’s Response Options To U.S. Cyber Attack
This hysteria is a blatant effort by the Clinton establishment to prop up the ridiculous efforts “To Push For An Electoral College Coup”
“This hysteria is a blatant effort by the Clinton establishment to prop up the ridiculous efforts “To Push For An Electoral College Coup””
Wow! Project much? Evidence for that linkage?
I thought not.
Conclusion from evidence. Wait and see (or check the Tracy article I linked).
I ‘checked’ your linked article. Not even a ‘theory’ of a “blatant effort by the Clinton establishment to prop up the ridiculous efforts “To Push For An Electoral College Coup” much less actual evidence.
Not even a good try. But an interesting projection of a ‘conspiracy’ (theory excluded purposefully).
I’m sure you’re lying. It’s right in the headline:
The “blatant” was mine, but you asked for evidence and it’s there. Check out the growing list of tweets at the bottom.
Ah. So if headlines are ‘evidence’ it’s a done deal: “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House”
Or it could just be a ‘conspiracy’ (theory purposefully omitted).
A real conspiracy by the MSM/Democrats to use a debunked conspiracy theory “To Push For An Electoral College Coup”.
Just like I said. Plenty of evidence. Enough to justify the word “blatant”.
Using the AK method:
But the headline said so.
The headline was in response to your “Not even a ‘theory’ ”. The headline includes the theory. The proof is in the article. Like I said:
Really, J0shua. You started this sock-puppet with a different strategy, but at this point its strategy is indistinguishable from yours.
More proof: Electors demand intelligence briefing before Electoral College vote:
Enjoy those hot-dogs and cheese pizza, John.
Notice that Trump at one point asked for Russian help in hacking US emails, and his former assistants in the campaign had those ties, so he brought this suspicion on himself. Russian oligarchs may also be some of his big investors, but with his tax forms still hidden we don’t know where his interest payments go. You might defend it by claiming he didn’t know what he was saying or doing during the campaign, but that doesn’t fly. Anyway this is all over the media today, and they want a report by the inauguration, because it sure isn’t going to be investigated afterwards if Trump can help it.
No he didn’t.
He actually said something else. The idea that he “asked for Russian help in hacking US emails” is a mass hallucination.
Don’t believe me? Go back and look at his actual words.
What do you think the chances are that Obama will (try to) cancel the inauguration if the “Electoral coup” doesn’t work?
Trump’s statement showed a belief in Russia’s abilities (at least at that time). I don’t think it needs a civil war or EC revolt. They just need to do this investigation, and he is already on the wrong foot with intelligence, who are not people he would want to antagonize. He brings up WMD to spite them, and won’t say anything about all the terrorists that they have helped weed out.
Well, I suspect everybody with 3 or more brain cells figured the Russians could and probably already had penetrated Clinton’s home server.
Which changes the equation: he didn’t ask them to hack anything, he jokingly asked them to release some of what they had.
The way the MSM arrogated themselves the right to lie about what he said, even while printing his exact words, is shameful. The number of people who snarfed up the excrement spewed by the MSM without even comparing it to his actual words is even more so.
Sure, they can hack some things, but no way for others. Logical, not.
The original subject was a report. The claim that the Russians had also hacked the RNC.
Seems likely to me, but I strongly doubt they released anything from either party. I also doubt there was much to release. Certainly nothing to justify either a bad election or any risk of blackmail.
After all, considering how much tumult Trump has simply ignored, even if all the dirt present in the RNC servers came out, I doubt it would bother him at all.
Maybe the establishment Republicans, a bit.
The subject was the DNC hack, wikileaks and the election, and the connections to Russia. Were Russia capable of the DNC hack? You say no? Intelligence comes up with the answer that they did, and you will have none of it.
Liar, denier, or fool. I said nothing of the sort.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you’re suffering hallucinations due to cognitive dissonance. Try going back and reading what I wrote. I just put up a link to the stuff from July a little while ago. You can find it with browser search.
This seems to finally be a sign that you can give the intelligence the benefit of your doubt, that Russia was responsible. You think it more likely or not? If Trump’s 400 lb guy on a bed can do it, why not Russia? Is Trump being consistent?
Still completely clueless.
Get a clue!
These negatives don’t get at what you really think about Russia’s hacking capabilities which you studiously avoid.
No, I’ve told you repeatedly. Your claims that I “studiously avoid” are dishonest rhetoric.
I drew you a picture below.
Interesting times. Trump wants to Make America Great Again. Wonderful and funny at the same time.
YOu seem to have a problem differentiating between capability and deed. You keep mixing the 2. Trump never denied Russia had the capability. He denied the DEED. And right now, no one knows who did the deed – not even the CIA. The liberal talking about saws and fingerprints are merely trying to get their 15 minutes of fame and are totally clueless!
As are you. Until you learn the difference between capability and deed, you will remain confused.