Sunday, April 6, 2014

"Much more moral authority comes from the imprimatur of government" - David "funny sunny" Archibald at WUWT

Sou | 2:51 AM Go to the first of 123 comments. Add a comment

He's back!

I was wondering what had happened to David "funny sunny" Archibald.  He hasn't been seen for a good while at WUWT.  David is one of the wackier deniers who thinks we are heading for an ice age "any day now".

Setting the scene by twisting the facts

His article is about Nebraska, or partly (archived here).  David says he is writing his third book, which I think is about the impending ice age that cometh.  He is a strange one for a WUWT conspiracy theorist.  He writes:
At the urging of State Senator Beau McCoy in late 2013, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture was tasked with commissioning a report on cyclical climate change. The budget for the exercise was $44,000. That right, for a mere $44,000 Nebraskans would be told what was going to happen to their climate. If the Sun was going to sleep with the consequence that cold air from the Canadians would come south faster and longer, Nebraskans would be forewarned and fore-armed. Alas, the effort was abandoned when promoters of global warming in the state offered to do it for free. 

People who keep up with the climate blog wars will recall that the situation wasn't quite like that.  What happened was this. A lawmaker in Nebraska who is a climate science denier was happy enough to support a bill for someone to prepare a report on climate in Nebraska.  However he didn't want them to take account of any human factors influencing the climate, so he proposed an amendment to the bill.

Given that human factors now dominate global warming (ie climate change not day to day weather), that seemed not just pointless but a waste of money.  And you'd have to offer a lot more than $44,000 to climate scientists to persuade any of them to forsake their science for money.  They might have gotten Marc Morano or Anthony Watts or one of the other denier bloggers to prepare the report.  They come cheap I hear.  I don't know why they didn't do that.  Alternatively they could have approached some of the Not the IPCC Report writers.

Perhaps  they were hoping for a credible name to attach to their shonky report.  Or maybe they just wanted to test the waters and see if there were any corruptible climate scientists around.  (Judith Curry put up her hand, but I don't think her blog offer was accepted.)

I wrote about this at the time, because Judith Curry was arguing that politicians should be able to put constraints on climate studies to suit their political agenda.  Her stance was reminiscent of the various attempts to prevent high school teachers from teaching students about biology, wanting to bring their weird religious beliefs into the classroom and ban science.

If only deniers could drum up a fake report that was credible

Back to David "funny sunny" Archibald. His next paragraph was this:
The danger to the promoters of global warming was that the stillborn Nebraskan climate report would have been the first government-sanctioned report on the planet to say that carbon dioxide and the burning of coal are nothing to worry about. A report on cyclical climate change would say that there is something far more serious coming that is going to smack our civilisation like a freight train. That serious thing is one of the cycles that the Nebraskans were going to be told about. One day the science of climate cycles might get out to Nebraska but in the meantime they will be wondering why their winters are getting colder and Spring seems to be delayed and how can they begin planting while their fields are still covered in snow. 

There you see it.  Climate science is a hoax and information is being kept from the poor little Nebraskans.  What's odd about this is that David is arguing that the government could be trusted.  This is despite the fact that in this case the politician who put up the amendment to the bill wanted scientists to exclude some of the main factors that will affect Nebraska's climate in coming years.

More moral authority from the imprimatur of government!

David even writes (my bold italics):
It is one thing for books to be published which warn of the severe, solar-driven cooling coming (I’m on my third) and for retired academics to voice concerns over the low standards of US Government-funded climate science, but much more moral authority comes from the imprimatur of government

I know you'll be scratching your head wondering how this article of David "funny sunny" Archibald got past the censor-in-chief at WUWT.  Anthony Watts spends a lot of time complaining about "political interference".  I saw a couple of tweets that he put out only a day ago where, in his conspiracy-addled brain, he is clearly of the view that IPCC reports can't be trusted because the IPCC is a "political body".  I guess he's never read an IPCC report or any of the scientific papers underpinning it.

Only some governments have moral authority

There's a catch to this moral authority and imprimatur business.  You knew there would be, didn't you.  Apparently "moral authority" only comes from governments that reject climate science.  For example, the government agency the EPA doesn't have any moral authority.  Neither does the President of the United States.  David writes:
As the climate reports come in, the vague, almost-impossible-to-believe notion that the Obama Administration’s war on coal through the EPA is a peculiar form of malicious self-loathing will be seen with crystal clarity. That there is no scientific basis for what the EPA is attempting to do whatsoever. That the degradation and disruption that the EPA is intent upon is a loathing for America as it is, pure and simple. Instead of the loftiest ideals of “thinking of the children” and so on, President Obama and the EPA are driven by the basest of motives – that their fellow Americans be poorer with reduced opportunities.

Now why didn't more than half the people in the USA realise that President Obama is driven by the basest of motives, to reduce all his "fellow Americans" to poverty.  And he's got a funny way of going about it, too. Look at how he impoverished American investors - not!

As for people's jobs and other economic measures, well the charts here at CNN show he's not doing a very good job at reducing everyone to a poverty below what George Bush managed.  Arguably his biggest coup was helping Americans get health care when they need it.  Oh, wait. That can hardly have been prompted by the "basest of motives" can it?

Another twist: David sez that one government's climate report is as good as another's

There's yet another twist.  According to David Archibald:
One government’s report on something like climate is as good as another’s. 
Oh, I do wish he'd make up his mind.  He's just been telling us that the US government is not to be trusted, now it is.  I have a sneaking suspicion that David doesn't really believe what he says.  I've yet to see him tout the IPCC report, which is accepted by 193 nation's governments, as being  "as good as another's".

Nebraska braces for an ice age

While we're waiting to see if David can figure out what he wants to say, let's shoot back to Nebraska and see how his Nebraskan ice age is faring:

Data source: NOAA

Hmmm.  I guess David "funny sunny" Archibald is prepared to wait for all that hot weather of the past forty years to go away so that the temperatures can drop back to those more common in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Nope. He won't be satisfied with that. Here is what David has predicted for the world:

Incidentally, it looks as if the Nebraskan government has successfully suppressed any information on climate change from its Department of Agriculture.  Despite it's claim of "Nebraska Agriculture at Work for You" there is not a peep about climate change.  Thankfully here in my home state the government is not so draconian.

Have David's coal shares plummeted?

By the way, David's article was mainly moaning about the fact that coal has no future.  Here's what the rest of the world thinks about coal:

Peabody, "the world’s largest private-sector coal company" share price drops sharply

Here's a short bio of David "funny sunny" Archibald.

From the WUWT comments

hunter says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:38 am
Interesting concept. Please explain further how the AGW promoters derailed the state effort. The story seems incomplete. We need to know more so that the push back against the hype can be more effective.

Jeff is one of those conspiracy nutters that the deniers say don't exist.  He talks about control of "every facet of life in America" and says (excerpt):
April 5, 2014 at 1:51 am
I think the poster above gives Obama way too much credit. I don’t believe Obama cares one bit for the environment, I think his motives are entirely an effort to support the efforts of an extreme faction of liberals. Not all supporters of AGW science are the same. He gives voice only to those scare mongers whose goal isn’t to clean the environment, but to control every facet of life in America.

Patrick "knows" that the CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere! He says:
April 5, 2014 at 3:51 am
I just spoke to a friend of mine who called me to talk about cars they want to buy, and then talked about electrically powered cars because the UK had “servos” littered about the country to re-powered electrically powered cars. Apparently it was cheaper than petrol. Well, maybe so in the UK, but CO2 is still emitted. I asked how the electricity that “re-powered” the batteries was generated. We eventually got to gas and coal fired power stations. Which in the bigger picture of the situation, is correct. Then I asked how much CO2 “pollution” was in the air, right now, in their opinion. The answer was 40% (I kid you not – And most people I know “believe” this is the sort of concentration in the air right now). We’d all be dead I said, if that were true. The actual figure, as we know here, is ~3%.

James Strom comes up with a bit of trivia and says:
April 5, 2014 at 6:32 am
In light of your political leanings, which I am sympathetic with, it is amusing that your choice of title, “What is to be done?”, is the same that Lenin used for a pamphlet he published in 1902. The phrase is somewhat famous, at least to someone with an interest in early communist arcana.

G. Karst says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:45 am
I would like to see coal miners and the mine owners perform a pre-emptive strike. A shut down of coal production for thirty days will have an alarming effect on those trying to shut down the industry. A shutdown until prices improve would be justifiable and a real sharp eye opener. GK
I suppose it would be noticed in some states, anyway.  Coal still makes up 37% of electricity production in the USA. It was 57% in 1985 but only 46% in 1950.


  1. "G. Karst says:
    I would like to see coal miners and the mine owners perform a pre-emptive strike. A shut down of coal production for thirty days will..."

    I too would like to see coal plants shut down for a month: it would be instructive to see the fall in mortality rates over the period.

  2. Well yes I know I am an old skeptical white guy and therefore beyond silly
    and evil in your mind but to me your absolute confidence in what you believe
    to be true is exactly why people like me will tend not to bother engaging with
    you . Live your dream but please spare our families and children from the
    cost of your madness .

    1. Yes, just imagine believing what all the worlds academies of science believe!

      Another overwrought non-comment from an anonytroll. Pointless.

  3. Bill said ...
    "Yes, just imagine believing what all the worlds academies of science believe!"

    It is more a matter of what you imagine they believe . There are literally thousands
    of research papers telling an entirely different story . Sadly people like you are
    will not look and if you did probably could not understand them .


    1. List these "thousands of research papers" please. If you don't, I might think you have just made that up.

    2. Now, that's just stupid.

      C'mon Anonytroll, put up or shut up!...

    3. "It is more a matter of what you imagine they believe ."

      Or is it a case of believing what I imagine they believe? Oh, come on, that could go on forever and get nowhere. At some point you have to make some judgement of what you think is solid and real. Of course this is where real scepticism counts - remembering to have a reality check every so often to see what has changed.

      You slightly contradict yourself. Alleging "we" would not look at your "thousands" of denialist papers and then say you cannot be bothered to engage with "us". Is this not a tad hypocritical?

      Actually I have looked at quite a number of denialist materials while trying to understand if there was anything there. Perhaps towards the more sensible fringes there are some sensible questions and doubts. But on the whole it is a pile of self-reinforcing nonsense with a rather limited scope.

      Perhaps you should engage and try to learn how to be properly sceptical.

    4. "Sadly people like you are will not look"

      People like us? Sadly, people like us have been given this line time after time. And every time we look we find one - or more - of the following.

      1. The paper doesn't say what the denier thinks it does. So we have wasted our time because a denier does not possess basic reading comprehension.

      2. The paper has been thoroughly debunked. So we wasted our time because the denier apparently lives in the land that time forgot.

      3. The paper isn't a paper at all. Its a load of twaddle that dodged peer review because the author didn't care that his screed contained numerous 'errors'. So we wasted our time because the denier didn't even know what a research paper was.

      I am sure there are more cases if I could be bothered to dredge up more memories. But thats enough to show the problem isn't "people like us": the problem is a huge campaign of misinformation funded by fossil fuel companies assisted by a horde of credulous numpties.

    5. Well I'm sure you think there are thousands of research papers "telling a different story" but I wonder, Anonymous, whether that isn't something someone told you or that you read somewhere.

      Have you actually seen and read thousands of such papers? Have you even read a few? If so perhaps you could share just one or two of these research papers and tell me what it is that you find so convincing about them. At least then we'd have a place to start a conversation.

  4. Just a few would do as a start!!

  5. Here's one...


    as further discussed here...


    Then there's a good couple of dozen from the great intellectual titan of denialist science, here...


    But to get to "thosandS", you need to find about another 1,975 research papers. Can you please provide some indication of where they have been hidden?

  6. Funny, isn't it, how the people with their heads buried in the sand are the first to complain that everyone else has their head buried in the sand?

    What they don't seem to realise when they make up stuff like, "there are literally thousands of research papers telling an entirely different story", is that the IPCC reviews in great detail every research paper written on each and every aspect of climate science and then arrives at a balanced view. And based on that balanced view, which is summarised in the IPCC's numerous reports, all the world's scientific institutions—representing the vast majority of the world's scientists—make their declarations. These declarations are listed here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    So really, anonymous posters who deny the facts are just writing—in the language of Australia's current leader—unadulterated crap.

  7. Eric Worrall has what looks to be a comedy piece in the comments section:

    "Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055...."

    In reality the RAS is a signatory of the Joint science academies’ statement:
    Global response to climate change http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    It seems that a paper by an astrophysicist who is a member of the RAS somehow gets promoted in Worralls mind into the RAS's own position.

    1. He's not alone. I pointed this out to U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher after he made the same bizarre comment as Worrall did in this WUWT guest essay.

    2. Just to be clear, Watts promoted Worrall's comment into a guest essay which suggests to me that "very speculative theory" is a euphemism for "conspiracy theory" which supposedly never appears at WUWT or CA or any other contrarian site. What else could one call the "theory" that Chinese and American companies are plotting to take advantage of the impending global cooling Eric Worrall stakes his reputation on by buying land in Australia?

    3. Ok done telling me what an ignorant denier I am ?
      Nup you are just warming up right ?

      I am sure not a soul among you will read any of it but here
      is a fair starting point if you want to read up on skeptical
      research papers .


    4. ha ha ha ha ha. Anonymous is backtracking now - I thought there were meant to be "thousands* of papers disputing the greenhouse effect or human influence on the current warming or whatever it is he's disputing. Not a measly few hundred (most of which *don't* dispute AGW in any case).

      Anonymous, we all probably guessed that you'd go to poptech! My guess is that you cannot find any consistent explanation in his collection for the cause of the current warming, except for greenhouse gases and other human influences.

      Prove me wrong Anonymous. List five of those papers that show that the greenhouse effect isn't real.

      Or list five of those papers that "prove" that CO2 hasn't risen.

      Or list five of those papers that "prove" that average global surface temperatures haven't risen.

      In fact, if you can list even five papers from poptech's motley collection, written by five different teams (ie not written by the same people) that give the *same* explanation for the current global warming *without* it involving human activity, list them and give a brief summary of the science, I'll honour you with an article on HotWhopper.

      You'll also need to explain why, if you've managed to find five papers in any of the above categories, you find them credible.

      Since we are such dills, we need to have it explained to us and, given you are so knowledgeable about science, you are just the man for the job!

    5. "Ok done telling me what an ignorant denier I am "

      Not while you continue to display such ignorance. Ah yes the infamous poptech list:


      So, on my list of time wasters above, this list would make you a proponent of (1) and (2) and (3). So you proved my point. What, are you trying to be a comedian?

    6. So that's it is it? A link to a notorious denier site. Surely with the thousands of research papers you say tell a different story you could have come up with at least one from a top journal say 'Science' or 'Nature'.

    7. Anonymous wrote
      "Ok done telling me what an ignorant denier I am ?
      Nup you are just warming up right ?

      I am sure not a soul among you will read any of it but here
      is a fair starting point if you want to read up on skeptical
      research papers"

      And then you go and prove that you are an ignorant denier by linking to the denier list of lists.

      You are wrong though. Most of us have actually read through that list before as other ignorant denier's have thrown that list around before.

      You may notice that most of the papers are published in 'Energy and Environment', who published the famous iron sun paper. Anyone who has more than two brain cells knows that 'Energy and Environment' is ideologically based, and will publish any old crap.

      Many of the other papers have managed to get published in reputable journals have already been refuted, while most of the rest are written by Heartland experts and are pure bunkum.

      Interestingly, there are a number of papers that are written by highly respectable scientists, who are known to support the current consensus. It shows that the list is worthless, and anyone who links to it has most likely not even read the linked papers. I've read many of the papers, and not one has provided compelling evidence that manages to completely rewrite the laws of physics.

      Just face it. You are ideologically driven. You still haven't twigged that there are no published papers in reputable journals that you can cite.

      Look, you are denying over 150 years of careful and repeatable observations and science. Real scepticism is an inherent part of science, which is why we can be certain that AGW is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

      For more information have a read of this.

    8. While we're waiting for Anonymous to come up with his five papers, here's a bit of a rundown of the list he likes.

      The first paper on the list is by Sherwood Idso. The paper isn't disputing AGW, it's just postulating the warming won't be as high as mainstream scientists have estimated. His paper was published sixteen years ago. The Idso's have been twisting actual science for years for various interests.

      The next several papers are a real mish mash. One is Svensmark's paper on his theory of cosmic rays and clouds - which has yet to be proven. In any case the amount of cosmic rays haven't changed while earth has warmed so it's not cosmic rays that are causing global warming, so this paper doesn't fit Anonymous' criteria. There's a paper by Shaviv that tries to argue cosmic rays caused past climate change with something about "spiral arms of the galaxy". It isn't a published paper in any peer reviewed journal so doesn't count. (He might be able to get it published in the dog astrology journal if he tried.)

      One is by Willie Soon, which should be "'nuff said". His wasn't published in a climate journal. In any case, going by the abstract he doesn't dispute the greenhouse effect, he's just asking some questions and postulating that all the science is wrong about the extent of the effect.

      The next one is by an economist, Ross McKitrick from the Cornwall Alliance, who by that membership has sworn to not accept climate science, saying his god will look after nature (but not economics). His paper was published in a political science journal that looks like it went belly up after only three volumes. If anyone noticed it, it would have been debunked if anyone thought it worth their while. He published another paper on socioeconomic influences on land use changes in the journal Climate Dynamics. I think he's been pushing that barrow for years to no effect. Who could forget the time he mixed up radians and degrees!

      Then there's Nicola Scafetta, who Anthony Watts disowned recently, with his astronomical theories about Jupiter and Saturn.

      After that there's a pack of contrarians publishing in a little known journal that bears no relation to climate (Remote Sensing) - John Christy, Roger Pielke Snr, Roy Spencer are among that lot. We know they don't dispute the greenhouse effect. In this particular paper, this lot are trying to find a reason to argue that climate models are wrong.


    9. .../cont

      Without labouring the point, the conclusion is that there is no coherent, consistent explanation of global warming by poptech's papers, and most of them don't dispute the greenhouse effect or AGW in any case (except for a couple of utter nutters). Even Nicola Scafetta doesn't dispute AGW as far as I know. He just likes playing with numbers and looking for patterns to try to prove that humans don't have to wear all the blame.

      Like I say, most of poptech's papers don't dispute AGW. For example, further down you'll see a paper by Ryan O'Donnell et al. It doesn't dispute the greenhouse effect or the fact that human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming. Then Lindzen, who's been trying to argue not that CO2 doesn't affect temperature but that the effect won't be all that great. Poptech's even listed a recent Spencer and Braswell paper, which doesn't dispute the greenhouse effect or that humans are causing global warming. It's just arguing that ENSO can influence multi-decadal temperature trends and the temperature trend since the 1950 is not a "very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity" - whatever they mean by that.

      To keep it simple, perhaps Anonymous could tell us which other explanation for warming he favours. Is it Jupiter and Saturn causing global warming? Or perhaps he thinks it's all down to cosmic rays (that haven't changed). Or maybe he likes any wild hypothesis as long as it gets him off the hook.

    10. Even when cosmic rays did change, that didn't change the climate. Richard Alley mentioned (at 42:00 in his 2009 AGU talk) that beryllium proxy data reveal a spike in cosmic ray intensity during the “Laschamp anomaly” ~40,000 years ago, but the corresponding oxygen isotope proxy for temperature didn’t change unusually during that time period.

    11. Climate change deniers are like Einstein refuters.

      Each thinks that they have suddenly and magically found the key to opening the door of the Vault of All Prior Science Refutation, that no one's ever before seen their Remarkable Insight, and that they are pioneers in blazing this new trail.

      None of them are aware that countless fellow useful idiots have preceded them, using the same rebutted nonsense, and that they no more than roadkill on the road to The Realisation of the Laws of Nature.

    12. Snort! NOTE: silly, multiply-refuted list does not become less silly or less multiply-refuted upon umpteenth repetition.

    13. Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice...

    14. Sou, you're right to point out that Spencer and Braswell are agreeing with mainstream science when they argue that ENSO can influence multi-decadal temperature trends. It's also not controversial to say that the temperature trend since the 1950 is not a "very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity". Consider this figure of sensitivity constraints from the recent IPCC AR5. Notice that the instrumental studies (for instance, the temperature trend since 1950) have larger error bars than the paleoclimate studies, so they don't constrain climate sensitivity as strongly. The scientific conclusion here is that climate sensitivity can be estimated in different ways which have different pros and cons. These double-checks actually strengthen the conclusions of mainstream science, which in 2013 used the same lower bound on sensitivity (1.5°C) as in the 1979 Charney report.

    15. "Ok done telling me what an ignorant denier I am ?"

      Really not my intention or probably anyone else here. But if you treat the people you are addressing as ignorant then you are likely to get that sort of response.

      You have more than once stated that "we" would not bother with your materials. Yet I suggest to you that most people who think about this subject have looked. And yes you are right, they do not bother any more because it is (mostly) fringe crackpot material. Individuals like you keep pointing to the same pile of discredited and obsolete mumbo-jumbo as if it is offering something new. I cannot count the number of deniers that I have seen pointing to that list - all the way back to when it was "600+" papers and presumably before that. The point is you keep referring to the same stuff that just reinforces what you want to hear. There are probably 100000 climate change papers out there. Go and do some real research and sceptical analysis instead of accepting it second hand from crackpots. Then you will not be an "ignorant denier" any more but a fully fledged real sceptic.

    16. Bernard, are you summoning John, Paul, George or, heaven help us, Ringo?

  8. "Imprimatur of government"? That's a new one. Is Archibald playing loose with the meaning of "imprimatur" i.e. an official licence issued by the Roman Catholic Church to print an ecclesiastical or religious book? If not, which government body or official does he suggest will issue the nihil obstat prior to the imprimatur?

    Continuing in the Roman Catholic/papal genre, the Archibald article should be referred to an Archibald bull. Just saying.

    1. Perhaps Christopher Monckton will set him straight.

    2. Does the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley "Goodness! Is that me?" Christopher M. really exist? Silly me! I thought he was a vaudevillian doing a caricature of an English peer.

  9. "...the Obama Administration’s war on coal through the EPA is a peculiar form of malicious self-loathing will be seen with crystal clarity. That there is no scientific basis for what the EPA is attempting to do whatsoever. That the degradation and disruption that the EPA is intent upon is a loathing for America as it is, pure and simple."

    This crackpot unintended comedy routine is one of David's finest!

    Truly one of the great interweb funny men.

  10. "The danger to the promoters of global warming was that the stillborn Nebraskan climate report would have been the first government-sanctioned report on the planet to say that carbon dioxide and the burning of coal are nothing to worry about."

    so a report that is explicitly forbidden to mention anthropogenic factors, and therefore doesn't mention anthropogenic factors is meant to be evidence that anthropogenic factors aren't a factor? impeccable logic there.

    i think he's just pissed off because the scientists twigged that was the message McCoy was shiiting for, and decided they'd rather not give him any ammunition for his idiotic rhetorical games.

    1. uh, s/shiiting/shooting. though the more i think about it....

  11. # Let us define the argument . Most skeptics and skeptical
    scientists believe CO2 causes some warming . This issue is
    "how much warming " and whether there is any reasonable chance
    it will be damaging ( say plus 3 degrees C ) .

    # The second part revolves around need to act . Even assuming
    evidence unfolds at some point in the future suggesting 3 degrees
    is possible the fear mongers would need to show there will not
    be plenty of time to act.

    Do I accept CO2 has and may cause more warming , of course
    I do , as I said the issue is how much warming .

    Sou said ...
    "Prove me wrong Anonymous. List five of those papers that
    show that the greenhouse effect isn't real."
    Hey Sou , like most people I believe CO2 can cause some warming.
    The difference between us is that I would not ask the community
    to spend billions and kill jobs on a wild shot that it might
    get a bit warmer than we like. If you want to spend billions
    it is on you to prove it not me .

    Dave said ...
    Well actually what dave said was typical of our age of
    darkness . "everybody on the other side must be evil evil evil"
    Spare me the crap Dave .

    Millicent said ...
    Well sweet Millicent what can I say to your little pout ,
    other than suggest you stamp your little foot then go home
    and bake some scones .

    Dumb Scientist
    Thanks DS , looks like an interesting video . I will play
    it in a few minutes and if I appropriate , respond .

    Let me know when you have read the first 1000 research papers.

    Jammy Dodger
    Thank you for your polite response, I probably do not
    deserve it .

    Sadly Idunno has comes up with the usual sales pitch .
    "It is all rubbish" . Idunno have you checked out
    the thousands of whistleblower scientists and academics
    who are calling "fraud" . Yes there are such lists ,
    try this link .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    John Russell
    JR laughably thinks that the IPCC which was setup to promote
    carbon trading and global warming fear mongering is a fair and
    impartial scientific source. Sorry John your head is up your
    ass .

    Ok , I have not finished reading the remainder of
    your comments which is good because I will have something
    to when at a future date when feeling deeply masochistic .


    1. "the IPCC which was setup to promote carbon trading and global warming fear mongering"

      But no, the pseudoskeptics are not conspiracy ideationists...

    2. "the thousands of whistleblower scientists and academics who are calling "fraud" . Yes there are such lists, try this link .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming"

      I think quite a few people on that list will be very surprised to hear they are calling "fraud"...

      Misrepresenting others? Put a checkmark in front of that, too.

    3. Hey Sou , like most people I believe CO2 can cause some warming.
      The difference between us is that I would not ask the community
      to spend billions and kill jobs on a wild shot that it might
      get a bit warmer than we like. If you want to spend billions
      it is on you to prove it not me .

      What a fear-mongering alarmist is our Anonymous! Or maybe he's just feeling bad that he stuck with his coal shares instead of investing in a wind farm. (I can tell that Anonymous is doing his best to get into the HotWhoppery.)

      Thing is, just like the deniers at WUWT, for Anonymous it all boils down to protecting his hip-pocket from some yet to appear ransacking. He rejects science because he's scared he'll be asked to pay to mitigate. Yet if he lives in Australia and pays any tax, he's already paying a fair proportion of it for recovery (eg the Queensland flood levy, drought relief, repairing roads, rail and bridges after the amazing Australia-wide floods a couple of years ago, fire recovery). And if he has any household or flood insurance he's already paying extra for climate change, according to the letters I've had from my insurance company.

      The carbon tax is a pittance compared to what he's going to be paying for recovery and adaptation over the next few years. Though if he's old, as is my guess, he could be on the pension and the rest of us are paying all this on his behalf.

      As for Anonymous' "wild shot". The science is clear. Cut CO2 or suffer worse consequences. If Anonymous doesn't accept mainstream science then it's he who has to show good cause. The science is already in.

      (Sometimes I think deniers pay lip service to the greenhouse effect to pretend they are "reasonable people". Anonymous accuses HW readers - many of whom are climate scientists themselves - of not understanding science. Then he goes and spouts rubbish like poptech's list and a wiki article that includes people like Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, the Idso's, David Deming and co.)

    4. "Even assuming evidence unfolds at some point in the future suggesting 3 degrees is possible the fear mongers would need to show there will not be plenty of time to act."

      How do I fault thee? Let me count the ways...

      You cannot really seriously believe this position?

      1. There is already lots of evidence for 3 degrees and you must know this. It may be subject to uncertainty and only a probability but it is evidence. Not to mention that only 2 degrees would be very disruptive in itself.

      2. Fear mongers? What is that - some sort of smear against ordinary, everyday scientists and politicians? Not a logical addition to your statement.

      3. Is this just setting the bar of proof impossibly high so you can avoid facing the consequences? Everyone everywhere has to make decisions on incomplete information. With imperative decisions it is even more important to act. All that needs to be shown is that there is a good probability and that taking action earlier is precautionary and sensible.

      4. Many of the actions we have to take we will have to take at some point when resources run low. And they are on the whole good for us in the longer run anyway.

    5. "Well sweet Millicent what can I say to your little pout ,
      other than suggest you stamp your little foot then go home
      and bake some scones . "

      You overestimate your capacities. Not only do you not have any real response to anything I have written, you don't have any response to anyone else either.

      All we can learn from this is that you have a position that is founded on your own needs and not founded on reality. Freud says that people in denial have three excuses: it isn't happening, it isn't me, and it isn't so bad really. You would claim the third kind for yourself (low CO2 sensitivity), although as - apparently - you have discarded all scepticism and 'believe' that silly poptech list, its actually the other two as well. The drowning denier clutches at straws. Nothing we all haven't seen before and very, very boring. There isn't even any mental challenge here for us: its the intellectual equivalent of slapping a naughty six year old who just won't stop screaming.

      But you will never let yourself see it. So maybe I should go and make a few scones: there would be as much chance of getting sensible conversation out of them.

    6. "...make a few scones"

      Ha ha Millicent. I think making scones would be more productive for you than trying to talk sense to Anonymous!

      Interesting that Anonymous is so bereft of rational argument that all he can do is try and belittle you on the basis of your (assumed) gender. Do you think that puts him in a certain generation or is it a general trait of deniers to be so sexist?

      I (male!) have just made some hot cross buns. Guess that rules me out for manly debate about climate science.

    7. I'm ready to start reading when you give me a reference to even one paper in a decent journal that tells another story compared to the current strong scientific consensus. And I don't mean a reference to a thoroughly discredited list on a denier site, I mean a reference to an actual paper in an actual well-respected scientific journal.

  12. Mop and bucket to isle four please...

  13. Dumb scientist .

    I watched the video , thank-you . I did not seem much to disagree with .
    Interestingly however he did not discuss the decreasing effectiveness of
    CO2 as levels increase . Even more interesting he does not say the
    "end is nigh" or even imply it is likely .


    1. "nterestingly however he did not discuss the decreasing effectiveness of
      CO2 as levels increase .

      Um, do you even know what that's supposed to mean?

      Increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 does not mean that there is no additional absorbance of infrared radiation by the planetary system. There's a whole swag of not-trival physics involved (nicely summarised in the post and comments here) but the upshot is that for several doublings of CO2 concentration over the pre-Industrial Revolution level the temperature response is effectively logarithmic.

      Note: that's l-o-g-a-r-i-t-h-m-i-c. Not zero.

      And at the rate that we are emitting, that logarithmic response is still resulting in a fairly linear temperature response over the next century or two (and quite possible greater than linear) which means that the danger threshold for warming is fast approaching.

      Whale, meet petunias meet ground...

    2. Like all mainstream scientists since the 1800s, Richard Alley described the warming by CO2 per doubling which automatically tells us its warming is logarithmic. Otherwise the warming would be described in a linear fashion, like per gigaton. Alley's slides on the Great Dying and the spike in insect leaf damage during the PETM show that increasing CO2 warms the planet and that rapid warming causes extinctions and destabilizes ecosystems. That's the mainstream position. Anyone who thinks mainstream science says "the end is nigh" might have been listening to strawman caricatures instead of actually listening to the scientists themselves.

      Anyone who liked Richard Alley's talk might also like his freely available TV series Earth: The Operators Manual. In it, he reviews why scientists know that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2, and explains that building a clean energy economy will cost about as much as our sewer system.

  14. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    Dumb Scientist .

    I do not like calling you that , how about DS
    instead .

    I did not think the R. Alley speech was particularly
    marvelous but there were interesting moments.
    In particular the fact that prior episodes of high
    cosmic radiation had no discernible impact .
    ( which does not prove very much )

    My the "end is nigh" expression was of course
    hyperbole ,nonetheless I did not hear him
    predict doom , perhaps I missed it .

    There seems to be a misunderstanding about the
    logarithmic relationship between temperature
    and CO2 . Unable to post an image I can only
    refer you to a chart , one of which can be
    found at this link .

    Alley seems to accept that CO2 mostly trailed
    increases in temperature . Nobody doubts that
    at various times temperatures were much higher
    in the past and CO2 correspondingly so .

    Given your apparently staunch support for
    CO2 alarmism could you be so kind as to share
    your opinion on any of the professor Salby lectures
    one of which is found here .

    Your recommended "Earth: The Operators Manual"
    smells a bit too much like the same old same
    old for me . Thank-you but I will pass on that .

    1. Dunning and Kruger - look here.

      In his first comment, Cartman (previously Anonymous) rushed in arms waving and wrote, somewhat irrelevantly:
      Well yes I know I am an old skeptical white guy and therefore beyond silly and evil in your mind but to me your absolute confidence in what you believe to be true is exactly why people like me will tend not to bother engaging with you . Live your dream but please spare our families and children from the cost of your madness .

      For his second comment, Cartman (previously Anonymous) implied that not only does he knows more about climate science than the climate scientists who frequent HotWhopper, but mainstream climate scientists "don't know nuffin'", writing:

      It is more a matter of what you imagine they believe . There are literally thousands of research papers telling an entirely different story . Sadly people like you are will not look and if you did probably could not understand them .

      Since then he hasn't managed to produce his "literally thousands of research papers telling an entirely different story", all he has managed is to:

      - cycle through poptech's silly list of papers, most of which do not reject global warming and many of which are not out of line with mainstream science;

      - tout a Wikipedia list of contrarian scientists, including such luminaries as Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Willie Soon, David Deming and others.

      Now he's asking about Murry Salby of all people. I expect Cartman will get a suitable response from other people here. Meanwhile, he would do well to use a search engine or even search HotWhopper.

      Finally we get: Thank-you but I will pass on that .

      That last sentence pretty well sums up denialism attitudes.

    2. Salby's ignorance of decreasing atmospheric O2 and increasing oceanic CO2 was already boring the last time. I'd rather do something more productive and pleasant, like slam my head against a wall.

  15. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 12:59 PM

    Bernard J said ...

    "Um, do you even know what that's supposed to mean?"

    Bernard I was referring to this chart which is based
    on the results of several research papers .
    On viewing it you will be able to see that
    CO2 has a diminishing effect on global
    temperature as concentration increases.


    ps .... Yes the first chart I found was at a evil
    denier website , how dreadful !

    1. Yes, it is quite dreadful. You ignore mainstream science and choose what you want to believe - mainly Richard Lindzen and his favourite, if antiquated, contrarian sources. Did you check them? You do know that Richard Lindzen's Iris hypothesis does not have any legs, don't you?


      The IPCC AR5 report states the likely range of climate sensitivity to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. It has many references to support that estimate, including paleo studies as well as modeling of current forcings. The fact that you reject mainstream science doesn't have any impact on the science itself. CO2 has increased by 40% with a rise in global surface temperatures of 0.8 degrees, most of which has been attributed to human activity - and it would be higher except for aerosols. Do the sums!

      A rise of global average surface temperature of only 2 degrees will be bad enough. Given that CO2 is still being emitted more and more each year, it will double in a very short time. It will keep going up as long as we are adding more than can be absorbed. It stays in the air for a long time. That means that CO2 will be well and truly more than double this century if we don't do something about it. Global *average* surface temperatures could end up rising six degrees or more over a very short period of time, which would make life extremely difficult (to put it mildly).

      If temperatures rose by more than that, many regions will be uninhabitable for periods of the years. If average global surface temperatures rose by 12 degrees (which is not out of the realm of possibility), many areas of land will be uninhabitable all years around - for we highly adaptable human beings.


  16. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM


    Well Tiggy if you really believe there are no
    research papers of merit that cast doubt on
    the catastrophic global warming scenario then
    there is such a gulf between us that I just plain
    give up .

    1. How do you know what I believe? All I have asked for are references to at least some of the thousands of scientific papers you have read that cast doubt on the current consensus on AGW. So far you haven't done so. Don't give up, just give me some references to actual papers. Surely that's not hard?

    2. Good grief. Asking a denier to provide at least one research paper published in a reputable journal that provides an alternate model to the observed warming is like trying to get blood from a stone. They come onto this blog with all the bravado and certainty that they are right, yet when asked to provide a single citation, they throw their hands up and give up. Such poor form.

    3. "if you really believe there are no
      research papers of merit that cast doubt on
      the catastrophic global warming scenario"

      We KNOW and so do you.

    4. Come on Cartman. You can see that people are laughing at you now. You can have the last laugh by giving references to just a very small proportion of those thousands of research papers you have read that dispute the current scientific consensus.

  17. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 1:16 PM


    There has been no significant atmospheric warming for up to 17 years 8 months
    while CO2 has continued to increase in leaps and bounds .
    Which one of us is in denial .
    A chart produced by the unspeakably evil Monckton can be found at
    the URL quoted below .


    1. The earth is still warming, Cartman. I don't know about your hyperbole re Christopher Monckton. He has some talent as a professional entertainer and conspiracy theorist. Here's a good overview of Christopher:


      If you had any scientific scepticism you'd take what he tells you with a big lump of salt and compare what he dishes up with what's happening in the world around you. For example:


      Wishful thinking isn't enough. We all wish that global warming wasn't happening, but it is.

    2. Hmmm...

      ...just goes to prove what I said before.

    3. "Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 1:16 PM
      There has been no significant atmospheric warming for up to 17 years 8 months"

      And your point is? The atmosphere is just a small part of the earth. The planet has continued to absorb heat, but its been going into the those big wet things - the oceans. There: I have tried to respond in language suitable for any thicko who still clings to El Nino cherry picks.

      btw: Use of the El Nino cherry pick isn't too popular among climate change deniers at the moment because there's a threat of a new El Nino which would be at the wrong end of the trend for any idiot stupid enough to use El Nino cherry picks. If there is an El Nino soon, the use of El Nino cherry picks will be resuming for climate change deniers around the year 2020 when - for a few years - you will be telling us the earth is cooling.

    4. What Millicent said, what Bernard J said (below) and the honest, not dishonest presentation of the data:

      GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH (TLT) annual means, August 1996 - present; linear fits.

      Try being sceptical. Check the facts for yourself. Don't listen to climate liars like Monckton.

  18. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 1:24 PM

    Dunning and Kruger - look here.

    How remarkable it is that any scientist who disputes the global warming
    orthodoxy is smeared and dismissed as "denier" , "big oil shill" or
    whatever . What a remarkable coincidence it is that every last one of them
    is an evil corrupt incompetent turd . The fact is sir that some of the brightest ,
    best and most courageous are skeptical , you just refuse to see it through your dung colored glasses.


    1. "evil corrupt incompetent turd", "dung coloured glasses"

      Signs of frustration? Steve Milloy is not a climate scientist, he's a climate disinformer of long-standing, among other things.


      Who are these "brightest and best and most courageous"?

      I think of people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Ben Santer who have had to rise above appalling treatment by deniers and disinformers and have continued, with immense courage, to produce top quality research - while people like you complain about being called "science deniers" and try to shoot the messengers. Then when you can't produce the goods, revert to form with your "dung coloured glasses" taunts etc.

    2. "What a remarkable coincidence it is that every last one of them
      is an evil corrupt incompetent turd."

      No coincidence. Denying a clear physical phenomenon of paramount societal importance is evil, corrupt, incompetent and it certainly stinks.

  19. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM

    Did I ever say Steve Milloy is a climate scientist , of course not .
    Again we see the usual smear against anybody who dares to
    standup to the usual bullying . Doubtless you did not even look
    at the chart ( which Steve Milloy did not create , merely post ) .


    1. Surely the fact that, as I said, I traced some of Steve's references (incomplete and as antiquated as they were) back to Richard Lindzen's collection would have told you that I "looked at the chart".

      For someone who blithely accuses mainstream scientists of "knowing nothing", while claiming that you regard perusing links to science as "masochistic" and that "you'll pass on that" when it comes to actual science.

      Who thinks nothing of calling mainstream science "alarmism" and referring to people who accept and understand much of it as wearing "dung coloured glasses".

      Of saying to one of my readers "sweet Millicent what can I say to your little pout , other than suggest you stamp your little foot then go home and bake some scones"...

      ...you are remarkably sensitive to us pointing out the obvious and claim that you are being "bullied". Yet it was you who barged into my blog waving your arms about throwing metaphorical if aimless punches, and rejecting everything that HotWhopper stands for - which is demolishing disinformation of the type you are peddling.

      (I've commented before how sexism and climate science denial appear to be correlated, though most probably there is not a causal link. It's just the same demographic.)

  20. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 2:15 PM


    Looking back I see you have also quoted Barry Bickmore as
    a reliable source on Monckton . Kinda laughable given that
    Barry Bickmore is a Mormon religious zealout whose claim
    to fame is that he is employed at Brigham Young Uni Salt lake
    city . Have you ever read his ramblings on religion , they are
    hilarious . As to the allegations against Monckton his defense
    as I understand it is that the taped interviews were edited by
    an activist . Yes he probably does over inflate his resume ,
    who does not . Did he claim to be a Nobel winner of course
    not , that comment was made when he was ridiculing the
    Nobel claims of Micheal Mann . I will not respond to the remainder
    of Bickmores slander but not because I cannot , but because
    they are totally irrelevant to the simple issue of whether the chart
    I posted is correct or not . It is isn't it , you just cannot handle it .


    1. Cartman, time you took a deep breath. Point to something that Barry Bickmore wrote about Christopher that is wrong instead of trying to belittle Barry Bickmore.

      Then think about what is happening in the world. RSS is just one chart of tropospheric temperatures. It's not surface temperature for starters. And Christopher cuts out all that has gone before. Not only that, but Christopher likes to hide the signal by showing noisy monthly data, not annual let alone decadal.

      I'm not disputing the chart. What I dispute is what you appear to be concluding after seeing his chart. Here is some of what I've written about this in the past.



      Even so, the earth system is more than just the troposphere. Sometimes more heat goes into the oceans and sometimes more into the air. The land surface heats faster than the seas for obvious reasons. Ice melts as it gets hotter - and continues to do so. The oceans expand from being warmer as well as from melting ice.

      (Spoon-feeding a denier is extremely tedious, but probably not a complete waste of time because there are also more rational people lurking.)

    2. Bickmore's religious beliefs are irrelevant as were Galileo's, Newton's, Darwin's, Einstein's, etc. But if you want to go down that path. It's obvious that you've never read Bickmore's published works on religion as you've not quoted what it is that is "hilarious" in his publications. Furthermore, you've misspelled "devout" as "zealout" (sic) as Barry Bickmore is not a zealot i.e. he is a devout "Mormon". Got it? But, with Sou's indulgence, if you like to post what is hilarious about Bickmore's works on the LDS religion (they actually don't call themselves Mormons, non-Mormons do that), I'd just love to reply to that.

      What is more relevant is that Barry Bickmore is eminently qualified to comment on AGW et al unlike Chris Monckton. Now, Bickmore has an extensive Monckton Rap Sheet (Sou posted above), a post on The Church of Monckton and a YouTube video How to Avoid the Truth about Climate Change which explains why he is no longer a skeptic. I guess that you can see where this heading. You're resorting to an ad hominem because … (you should be able to fill in the rest yourself).

      I've looked at your "chart" and I'll raise you this graph, technically that's what you've posted i.e. a subset of "chart" (A chart (n.) = a diagram, a graph or a table. To chart (v.) = to make a map. Got it?). The graph I've linked is from David Appell's blog post "UAH but not RSS Again at Record 5yr High".

      Now if you get a ruler and draw a line-of-best-fit on the Appell graph, from 1997 to 2014 (March) then compare it to your Monckton graph, I think you'll be able see what Sou meant with the comment "The earth is still warming, Cartman.". (Note: To draw the line-of-best-fit using a ruler, position it so that there are equal amounts of the RSS and UAH plots on either side of your ruler. You should be able to figure it out.)

    3. "Kinda laughable given that Barry Bickmore is a Mormon religious zealout"

      Red herring --> logical fallacy --> fail.

  21. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM

    I see you also claim ...

    " The IPCC AR5 report states the likely range of climate sensitivity to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees "

    Clearly a misrepresentation of fact . Those are the extremes of model projections.
    As I understand it the median of model runs was 1.8 degrees , which is
    quite a credible figure . After saying that the IPCC has a long history of producing
    wildly exaggerated alarmist projections . Nothing to do with their mandate re
    global alarmism of course .

    . It has many references to support that estimate, including paleo studies as well as modeling of current forcings. The fact that you reject mainstream science doesn't have any impact on the science itself. CO2 has increased by 40% with a rise in global surface temperatures of 0.8 degrees, most of which has been attributed to human activity - and it would be higher except for aerosols. Do the sums!

    1. Cartman, I didn't misrepresent anything. The IPCC report states:


      TS.5.3 Quantification of Climate System Response

      Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on observed climate change, climate models and feedback analysis, as well as paleoclimate evidence indicate that ECS is positive, likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence, extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence) and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence). Earth system sensitivity over millennia timescales including longterm feedbacks not typically included in models could be significantly higher than ECS (see TFE.6 for further details). {5.3.1, 10.8; Box 12.2}

      If you're alleging that all the scientists who prepared that section of the report misrepresented something, then you'll need to be more specific and point out which references they misrepresented.

      I don't know where you get your 1.8 degrees from - care to cite? It's not what is shown in TFE.6, Figure 1 for example. Maybe you ought to look at the report itself and the references underpinning it. (You are edging closer and closer to the HotWhoppery.)

    2. Clearly a misrepresentation of fact . Those are the extremes of model projections.

      Um? What? Are you being serious? As Sou points out the range of sensitivities quite clearly stated in the report. And what else are the extremes of the model projections other than the range of projections? And why would anybody misrepresent such an ordinary, straightforward detail? Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word "range"? (Not median, range).

      You have really gone to town since I last looked in and are now resplendent in your full denier plumage. I see you have adopted the usual denier methods of never actually engaging with any issue or question but each time just raising another hare for everybody to chase after. After all if you had to actually engage meaningfully it might challenge your prejudices.

  22. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 8, 2014 at 4:24 PM


    I quoted a median value from memory . A full discussion can be found
    at the link below .

    Indeed you should ask yourself why the IPCC is so reluctant to publish
    a median values .


    1. "Quick, shift he goalposts! I made a false claim about Sou making a false claim, so better not apologize and open up a new line of discussion!"

      Seriously, it's not even true that the range of models is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.

      Someone (read: Cartman) who just assumes nefarious motives to the IPCC will never be able to be a constructive discussion partner, so Sou would do well to move Cartman to the Hotwhoppery. It reduces the noise and allows discussions with those who genuinely have a point or honest question.

    2. There's a problem with relying on memory, it's fallible.

      I'd think the 1.8 degrees median (if that's what it was) may well refer to the transient climate response, which is the indicative global surface temperature rise at the point of doubling of CO2. Not that it will ever be measured precisely because when CO2 doubles it's not going to stop rising. And the earth system isn't static. This is one thing the IPCC WGI report states about TCR:

      For scenarios of increasing radiative forcing, TCR is a more informative indicator of future climate change than ECS. This assessment concludes with high confidence that the transient climate response (TCR) is likely in the range 1°C to 2.5°C, close to the estimated 5–95% range of CMIP5 (1.2°C to 2.4°C), is positive and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C. As with the ECS, this is an expert-assessed range, supported by several
      different and partly independent lines of evidence, each based on multiple studies, models and datasets. TCR is estimated from the observed global changes in surface temperature, ocean heat uptake and radiative forcing including detection/attribution studies identifying the response patterns to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, and the results of CMIP3 and CMIP5. Estimating TCR suffers from fewer difficulties in terms of state- or time-dependent feedbacks, and is less affected by uncertainty as to how much energy is taken up by the ocean. Unlike ECS, the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century. The assessed ranges of ECS and TCR are largely consistent with the observed warming, the estimated forcing, and the projected future warming. {9.7.1, 10.8.1, 12.5.3; Table 9.5}

      ECS, which is the medium term estimate from doubling CO2 (after things have settled down but before the slow feedbacks take full effect (ie very long term factors) is what I quoted in my previous comment. Again, it's not at all likely it can be pinned down precisely because it's not at all likely that we'll stop adding CO2 right at the very time it doubles.

      I don't need to ask myself anything but I can understand that you want a particular single number. Thing is, the CMIP median (or mode or mean) won't necessarily be the actual number you want. That's probably why the scientists prefer to provide a likely range.

      I also think it's odd how deniers want a median of models to be identified rather than also taking account of what observation suggest has happened in the past (ie paleo data), when usually they really, really dislike models and call for observations.

      Nic Lewis' analysis is just one of many. (He's not a climate scientist, he's a retired financier so he doesn't have the insight of specialists). He seems to be arguing that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. His analysis changes a lot depending on what recent years are included, which suggests it's not very robust. (That is, if a few years of natural variation can affect it so much, then what will happen to his calculations after the next few years if temperatures take a big jump). You can read some of what some climate scientists think of a report he wrote for the GWPF on the subject:


      Thing is, the world won't have to wait too long to find out a ballpark figure for TCR. At the rate we're going CO2 will have doubled in a very short time, possibly before the middle of this century. It might be too far ahead for me to ever find out, but not my nieces and great nieces and nephews. They'll be the generations that have to deal with it. (I hope they have more wisdom than my generation and won't blame them if they find it difficult to forgive me and my generation.)

    3. "Indeed you should ask yourself why the IPCC is so reluctant to publish a median values ."

      Why should I ask myself this question? It is not good enough to just make some floating assertion with no context or explanation. Is the IPCC reluctant to publish the median? A citation would be helpful or some confirming details. Is it important they do not publish a median? Please explain why. Just a groundless attempt to ascribe some nefarious motive where there is none.

      This is just another hare you have set running. Anything rather than admit you are not actually able to properly discuss anything.

    4. Getting back to your original squirrel, hare, tortoise comment i.e. the 3 million, 200 hundred and 21 AGW-skeptical, peer-reviewed papers... (Just kidding). Your Pop Tech's plethora of papers, from one of your comments above, supporting the skeptics view of AGW, well … I think that it's best summed up by the following November 2009 comment on the blog post Better Recheck that List by one of the Pop-Tech-referenced authors speaking on behalf of himself and his dear old dad: "… If the peer-reviewed papers support 'Pop Tech's' skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be: " 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting 'Pop Tech's' Skepticism of Man-Made Global Warming". I hope that you can appreciate the nuance within the suggested, more appropriate title. And now, in 2014, Pop Tech sails on into another Ice Age, adding more self-classified, peer-reviewed papers, while shouting, " I'm the king of the world!".

      Interestingly, the "Better Recheck that List" blog post included an 11/11/11 update: "By email, Professor Russell Dickerson, University of Maryland has asked that I add his comment to this post: After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That site lists a paper on which I am a co-author as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

      In that 11/11/11 email, you should be able to pick out the following: "intentionally inaccurate and misleading", "refused to remove … after repeated written request". And of course, this reinforces that 'the list' you've linked in a comment merely reflects the Pop-Techian view which seriously reduces its reliability and moncktonises it.

  23. "I quoted a median value from memory . A full discussion can be found at the link below ."

    Trying to vindicate his claim that the ECS median value is 1.8°C, Cartman cites a blog post on McI by Nic Lewis arguing that the TCR likely mean value of 1.8°C posited by the IPCC is too large.

    One has to conclude that Cartman
    - has a very bad memory;
    - conflates ECS and TCR;
    - conflates mean and median, and
    - considers McI and Nic Lewis are reliable sources of information regarding climate science.

    Talking about "dung colored glasses" ...

  24. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

    A great article by Dr. Tim Ball explaining why the IPCC cannot be trusted can be found here

    Or as Klaus Eckert Puls put it ....

    “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”


    1. Yeah, I saw that article Cartman.

      Incidentally, you've told us some of your wacky ideas already but I hadn't pegged you for a full-blown conspiracy nutter of the type of Tim Ball (till now). Really and truly!

      Do you agree with Tim that "Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they [the IPCC] controlled national weather offices so global climate policies and research funding were similarly directed"? And that by logical deduction (if one applies logic to Tim's fantastic fantasies) that Tom Wigley is Ruler of the World? Or that Agenda 21 is an evil plot hatched by the UN? Or that the greenhouse effect isn't real (Tim's an author of the "sky dragon" book that disputes the greenhouse effect!)

      Do you take as gospel every wacky thing that deniers from disinformation organisations (like EIKE or the Heartland Institute) puts out? Are you saying you agree with the statement or are you merely providing data in the hope you'll get named in another HotWhopper article about conspiracy theorist Tim Ball?

      (Use the search bar above to find out more about Tim Ball. As for Klaus-Eckart Puls, about the only thing I can find out about him is that he's a spokesperson for the European disinformation lobby group EIKE. (And that Tim Ball can't spell his name.) I've no idea whether he said that or not. Whether he did or not it's a worthless statement - having about as much scientific value as Anthony Watts saying what bothers him the most about arguments that there is serious global warming is that "they want to apply taxes"

    2. Tim Ball? You must be having a laugh. Who is Klaus Eckert Puls? Someone who conflates the IPCC and the media and thinks he has made a meaningful statement.

      Come on Cartman, surely you can do better than this? This is just random noise. Have you got anything significant to say?

    3. Tim Ball - really? He has as much credibility as someone who turns up on this blog claiming there are thousands of research papers that show a different story to the scientific consensus on AGW and then refuses to list even one of them.

  25. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM

    Sou said ...

    you've told us some of your wacky ideas already but I hadn't pegged you
    for a full-blown conspiracy nutter of the type of Tim Ball (till now).

    Your post covered a number of points so I will endevour to answer
    it in several parts ( unless I run out of puff or interest )

    Is there a global conspiracy ?

    Not unless you also consider the Christian Church a conspiracy .

    I am not religious and to me , in a rational world it should be
    quite impossible for an organization like the Church to grow and
    prosper . Yet there it is , a massive world wide organisation
    based on false beliefs with zilch real evidence .

    Let me ask you these questions ..
    - "do you see the majority of religious people as evil " ?
    - "do you think there is a world wide religious conspiracy by say
    the Catholic church operating at all levels " ?

    Needless to say I do not regard all religious people as evil nor
    concisously being invovled in a conspiracy to do evil . On the contrary
    they think they are saving the world ( just like you do ) .

    "This is about science not religion "

    At this point I am sure you are going to say something like
    "this is nothing like religion " but please bear with me and
    follow the logic .

    So why was the church so successful ? To me part of the the answer
    lies in the fact that humans are predisposed to be religious just
    as they are predisposed to worry about the weather . In other words
    they were deeply vulnerable at an emotional level . Was there a conspiracy
    at the top of the church or was it just reasonable planning and
    control by people who believed they were saving the world ?

    Are church leaders exercising mysterious and sinister control
    or are they simply good people acting at times in unison and at
    other times completely independently .

    If the Pope rings up Rupert Murdoch and says "go easy on the peds
    you are hurting the church" is he a good man trying to save an
    organisation he believes in or a sinsister world manipulator
    operating behind the scenes ?

    So when Warmist Tom Wigley sends an email to Phil Jones proposing to fudge
    temperature data by .15 degrees C is a good guy lying to save the world
    or a consipracist engaged in world manipulation?
    ( actual email is here )

    So when Warmist Tom Wigley privately calls the Dr. Mann hockey stick
    "a very sloppy piece of work" but stays silent in public is he
    saving the world or perpetrating global deception ?
    <a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/2004-email-phil-jones-on-why-he-thought.html>( email found here )</a>

    1. Um, hate to break it to you, Pet, but Climategate is over, and you lost.

      And all the rest is just so much mush. And projection. No wonder you're susceptible to the likes of Tim Ball!

    2. "To me part of the the answer lies in the fact that humans are predisposed to be religious just as they are predisposed to worry about the weather"

      Oh dear. What deep insight. LOL. To me the whole answer is that you are a nutter.

      Life is too short to be bothered with a conspiracy theorist who has a few sheep loose in top paddock.

    3. Tim Ball is big on using the term "alarmism". He's actually following the path of 'false accusation of alarmism' that is used to discredit legitimate warnings. Winston Churchill was labelled as an alarmist for his warnings on the threat posed by Hitler's Germany (M. Makovsky, Churchill's Promised Land (2007) p. 140-1). Labelling Churchill as an alarmist turned out to be particularly infantile given what eventuated. If 'skeptics' of Tim Ball's calibre had been around in 1775 would they've declared Paul Revere is an Alarmist?

      Skeptics like Tim Ball (and others) use the term 'alarmism' because of its negative connotations through an implied 'panic' and in order to score cheap points by downplaying the danger posed by human-induced climate disruption. Tim Ball (and others) need to learn the difference between the terms, "alarmism" and "alarming".

      Which leads me to this:

      There is a Category 5 cyclone bearing down on the far North Queensland coastline in Australia as shown in this gif animation here and in this predicted path graphic here. I'd be willing to bet that there are extremely few individuals commenting on blogs or social media in North Queensland along the lines of accusing the Bureau of Meteorology or the government authorities of being "alarmist" or ignoring the warnings for the regions in the cyclone's predicted path because it was generated by a "model". (A "model" which amongst other things has correctly predicted the change from a Category 3 to a Category 5 cyclone before landfall.) And I'd be willing to bet that there are very few individuals in the predicted path of the cyclone who, because of their scepticism of "models", are questioning the accuracy of the Bureau of Meteorology's warnings and aren't battening down in anticipation of the cyclone's arrival.

      "Alarming" and "alarmism" aren't the same thing and Tim Ball just doesn't get it.

    4. Cartman started with a lofty "thousands of scientific papers" deny global warming and the insinuation that climate scientists "don't know nuffin'" - except for his mythical authors of the thousands of mythical papers.

      He couldn't produce one.

      Now he's sunk as low as quote-mining stolen emails. (+1 what Bill said, BTW) and conspiracy theorists of the One World Government/Agenda21 type.

      As for Cartman equating religious belief with scientific evidence, I was hanging out for him to tell us how he had a mate who took a photo of a chap with a white beard sitting on a cloud. Or for more robust evidence, maybe his mate climbed a very long ladder stretching up into the same cloud, and cut a lock of god's hair, which was verified as real god hair by his other mate, who's an analytical chemist. His analogy failed before he got to that point.

      P'rhaps he realised that one person reporting a UFO or god in heaven sighting isn't quite the same thing as thousands of independent teams of scientists collecting and analysing evidence over decades, with all these streams of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines all pointing to the same inescapable conclusions explained by well-established theories.

    5. PS To my question to Cartman about whether he's as nutty as Tim Ball (paraphrased), I think it's fair to interpret Cartman's answer as being in the affirmative.

    6. Tim Ball: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

      Not pretty.

    7. Sigh. Setting another couple of hares running Cartman?

      Just more random noise. Give us something real!

      How about giving Sou her 5 papers? Surely you can rise to that challenge? Or even one paper you would be willing to defend?

  26. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

    Tim Ball may appear to be nutty if you do not understand where he
    is coming from and/or know the history of what has happened over
    the life of the IPCC .

    To me he is a decent , very intelligent , brave and likeable man .
    Not that I think many of you will ever see it or stop the dreadful
    smearing .


    1. Oh, for God's sake: even you must find yourself ridiculous! Is this your life? You really can't find anything useful to do?

      (What freaking swearing? And what is it with Deniers and the , gap , punctuation thing ? Seen that from several sockpuppets; perhaps there really are only 6 of you, after all? And what is it with

      . this crap?)


    2. Read http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball. What's incorrect?

      But let's get back to the papers you rely on for your assessment of AGW.

    3. Tim Ball appears nutty as a fruit cake if you read what he writes. There is no smearing (or swearing) going on here.

      Tim is an advocate of the One World Government conspiracy theory that he's morphed to incorporate the IPCC, which he believes (or pretends to believe) that the IPCC is a "political" body (it's not) that was set up to help Maurice Strong or Tom Wigley (depends on which day it is) take over the world. When it's not one of them who's going to take over the world he leaves it to your imagination to decide just who or what is going to "take over the world".

      He's got "nefarious intent" oozing from every word he writes. He advocates the Agenda 21 conspiracy - this runs along the lines of his purported One World Government seizing the property of private individuals everywhere - and is often merged with the mythical FEMA concentration camp conspiracy theory - though I don't know if Tim himself has done that yet. Should I go on with Tim's crazy conspiracy theories? There's more, but readers will get the gist. (I've linked to where he's spouted some of his nonsense - or just do a "Tim Ball" search of HotWhopper or Google for more.)

      Like most conspiracy theorists, he argues his point by suggestion rather than being explicit about the details. It's more a case of "they" are going to do "something bad" to you (reader) without describing in detail who "they" are or what the "something bad" is. Though he's created a couple of bogey men (like Maurice Strong and Tom Wigley) - goodness only knows why he picked Tom Wigley. Maurice Strong features a lot in nutty conspiracy theories associated with the environment - beyond climate science. I don't know if he advocates the related HAARP conspiracy theory. Anthony Watts might draw the line at that one. He only allows some wacky conspiracy theories at WUWT. He's refused to allow at least one of Tim's articles, presumably because he figured it might alienate too many of his readers. WUWT-ers are happy to entertain Agenda21 conspiracy theories but prefer to not go as far as, for example, lizard men. (So far, anyway.)

      Tim doesn't accept that more greenhouse gases cause global warming, writing a chapter of the Sky Dragon book that argues that physics precludes the greenhouse effect.

      And talking of smearing, he's being sued for defamation by at least two climate scientists.

      It's hard to think anyone could be talking about the same person when they describe him as "decent" or "brave" or "very intelligent". As for likeable - if you class grubby little mud-throwing conspiracy theorists as "likeable" then you have a strange taste in men that would not be shared by most people in the world.

    4. "Tim Ball may appear to be nutty if you do not understand..."

      And climate scientists may appear to be normal, straightforward and uncomplicated individuals. Though of course we do not understand, do we?

      Naturally you believe the person who only appears to be nutty and reject the hundreds of people pretending to be rational. That makes sense in your bubble I suppose.

  27. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 11, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    Hey Bill

    I said smearing not swearing ya goof .


  28. Cartman ( Previously Anonymous )April 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. "He is an experienced scientist/academic": Tell us about this. How many peer-reviewed articles in climate science? List them. (It'll be quick.)

      "The fact that he thinks CO2 has limited effect is based on scientific argument which he explains. He hardly stands alone in the scientific world in the view global warming via back radiation from a trace gas ( CO2 ) is unconvincing."

      Sorry, that just means he's either ignorant, stupid, or deliberately wrong.

    2. Cartman writes
      "He hardly stands alone in the scientific world in the view
      global warming via back radiation from a trace gas ( CO2 ) is unconvincing ."

      Yes, we all know that some people think that back radiation doesn't exist, but really, it's based on ignorance and ideology. Back Radiation by greenhouse gases is not just a theory, or an opinion, it is measurable!!! It was first measured in the 1890's. That you find it unconvincing, well, it's because your ideology and total ignorance prevents you from understanding it. Without back radiation, the earth would have a night time temperature close to the moon's night time temperature.

      You have still failed to provide a single published paper, so it is only YOU who is unconvincing!!

  29. Oh dear what is this I see . Global sea ice extent
    is approaching record levels . Kinda strange in a world
    that is supposed to going through meltdown .

    Chart found here

    1. Oh dear, what have we here? Another anonymous commenter with a punctuation problem shouting "Squirrel!". Looks like a pattern is emerging. Quick, call Nicola Scafetta.

    2. And we have another who cries "Look! Squirrels!"

    3. SunSpam, is that you? Your ability to punctuate has deteriorated even further, it seems...

    4. Who is Raoul and why has he stolen my comment? ;-)

    5. Why do these hit and run commentators do this? Do they think they are making a sharp point?

      The question you should be asking yourself, Anonymous, is "Yes, it is kind of strange sea ice is increasing if the world is warming. Is there a possible explanation?". But that would involve real scepticism and some scientific ability which you do not possess.

    6. @Marco, sorry about that! Guess we both saw the same squirrel...

  30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. You will not find real science at a denier website Anonymous. That is just self-delusion.

    2. Anonymous writes
      "For those very few of you who are interested in real science there is an explanation here"

      You have got to be a poe because anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the adiabatic lapse rate can see the mile wide holes in the 'presentation' in the ideological blog you linked to. All you are showing is how completely enthralled and smitten you are with ideology.

      You have further demonstrated that with this

      "The explanation is further supported by new research found here"

      You just will never get it will you. The link was citing this paper


      which stated

      "Based on the GEOS-Chem/APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively."

      So using a model, they managed to get at most a 6.8% influence. That's right, a less than 10% influence on "global mean nucleation rates". Nothing about this effect on temperature, or in a real world situation.

      What you have illustrated is how ideological blogs will distort and lie to suit their own agenda. When is the penny going to drop that those sort of blogs are just ignorant, illogical and just plain wrong, and anyone who thinks that they present real science is totally freaking deluded.

    3. Cartman gone back to being Anonymous? Too many questions to answer? If you were interested in really understanding anything, you'd stay on one topic until we agree. The easiest question above for Cartman is to list Tim Ball's peer-reviewed climate-science articles.

      Abstract of new paper avoids the inconvenient truth that measured GCR flux does not have a trend that explains a trend in temperature. There may be a relationship on the 11-year solar cycle, but that's it.

    4. I notice that the denier sites have simplified the flow chart from the solar output hypothesis paper. I guess they don't think the slightly more complex version from the paper is dumbed down enough.

  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. "Do you really not understand the cumulative effect of that over years .
      Like all the accumulated CO2 - sorry, you don't think that has any effect. Silly me.

    2. Changes in GCR flux only work one way, like a diode? Amazing: "it's all cycles", until it's convenient that it isn't.

    3. Catmando

      Like all the accumulated CO2 - sorry, you don't think that has any effect. Silly me.

      Don't you know that conservation of energy works differently in libertarian physics? It is highly selective. Some kinds of energy can just disappear. Others can get bigger until they are efficacious climate forcings. It's wonderful stuff. I dare say one of these days it'll get written up in a decent journal and we can all stop worrying.

    4. BBD,

      I had noticed that the laws of libertarian physics don't obey Scottie's description - they can be changed. The simplest way is just to make stuff up.

  32. I do not expect to post again . There is no point anyway this one will be deleted
    fairly quickly based on what has happened to my last few posts.

    Good luck with your lives .

    Cartman .

    1. Your comments haven't disappeared, Cartman. They've been delicately moved but carefully preserved in their proper place.

    2. Hmmm...

      I wonder - is Cartman KarenMackSunspot?

    3. Different style, don't you think Bernard?


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.