Why We Should Be Thankful For the Cold

Painting by Walter Launt Palmer, American Impressionist

Painting by Walter Launt Palmer, American Impressionist

Some people not only deny global warming—paradoxically (or not) they also wish for it.

They particularly and most vigorously deny its existence, with what at first glance seems empirical rationality, when they are experiencing bone-chilling weather. Or when they watch with horror as tons of snow pile up on top of places like Buffalo, NY. That certainly seems to make sense.

Except that things are more complicated, and the most descriptive term probably isn’t “global warming” – or even “climate change”; it is Climate Chaos. And this ongoing phenomenon is fueled by global warming—even the heavy snows in Buffalo are a result of warming. Thanks to the overall heating of the planet, the Great Lakes are more often ice-free. And when a cold blast from the arctic flows over the warmer lake water, it picks up moisture and turns it into snow. This is the “lake effect.”

Photograph by Derek Gee, The Buffalo News/AP

Photograph by Derek Gee, The Buffalo News/AP

Let’s take a closer look at Buffalo. The daytime high temperatures on certain days may surprise you, as may the wild fluctuations. From AccuWeather:

November 11:  68 degrees

November 18:  24 degrees

November 24:  64 degrees

Typical temperatures in the high 40s are predicted for this area in the near future, and we may see widespread flooding. Or not…depending partly on the winds.

In any case, if you don’t want a ton of snow on top of your house, if you don’t want your neighborhoods flooded with melting snow, if you don’t want coastlines flooded with ocean water, then don’t pray for more global warming.

Because that is exactly what we are already experiencing. In fact, even some of the coldest places on the planet are melting. Take Greenland.

GREENLAND

Why should you care about what’s happening in this remote, forbidding place?  Well, if the entire Greenland Ice Sheet melted, NASA scientists saythe sea level would rise by a staggering 23 feet. And Greenland really isn’t so very far away, as you can see from the map. It is also huge, nearly 80 percent the size of the entire United States east of the Mississippi.

Greenland belongs to the North American continent, and its southern part has the same latitude as Alaska, as shown above.

Greenland belongs to the North American continent, and its southern part has the same latitude as Alaska, as shown above.

Ice Fjord in Greenland, 2009.

Ice Fjord in Greenland, 2009.

Is Greenland melting? Climate scientist Konrad Steffen says the amount of ice Greenland lost in 2007 was “the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps, or a layer of water more than one-half mile deep covering Washington, D.C.”  These pictures should leave no doubt.

Seven years later, the loss is even worse:

Greenland, June 2014

Greenland, June 2014

The graph below shows the stunningly rapid disappearance of ice in 2014 alone—compared with average loss between 1981 and 2010.

2And rather alarming things are happening at the opposite end of the planet, in the Antarctic.
THE ANTARCTIC

Melting of an area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has “passed the point of no return,” according to Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Rignot and his colleagues have documented a continuous, rapid retreat of glaciers in a large section of West Antarctica. After studying the phenomenon for decades, they concluded that this section is unstable and will contribute significantly to sea level rise in decades and centuries to come.

Red shows where temperatures have increased the most during the last 50 years. Dark blue shows where there was less warming. Temperature changes shown are in degrees Celsius.”

Red shows where temperatures have increased the most during the last 50 years. Dark blue shows where there was less warming. Temperature changes shown are in degrees Celsius.”

NASA/GSFC Scientific Visualization Studio

3

According to NASA, the Amundsen Sea area is only a small part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, but it has enough ice to raise the sea level by four feet.

And something extraordinary happened elsewhere in the Antarctic 12 years ago. Between January and March 2002, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island, collapsed. (See inset in diagram below). Since 1995, the ice shelf has shrunk by 40 percent.

4

INCREASING SEA ICE IN THE ANTARCTIC

Mysteriously, while the glaciers have been melting and retreating, the sea ice in the Antarctic has been increasing. This has been well known for years, based mostly on satellite images.  See diagram below:

5

What was not known, until recently, is that the sea ice is thicker—perhaps much thicker—than was previously thought, scientists announced this month. They discovered this with the help of a new tool: an AUV (autonomous underwater vehicle).  This is an underwater robot designed to measure the underside of ice floes—with upward-looking sonar.

But why is the Antarctic sea ice increasing in the first place? Several experts—including Ted Maksym, the lead author on the current study with the AUV—said that global warming seems to be the cause. Here is a summary of how the researchers said it works:

In the Antarctic, the main driver is the wind, not the sun. Changes in the strength and direction of the wind pushes the ice farther north, extending its reach. These changes in the wind are related to climate change from greenhouse gases. As NASA’s Waleed Abdalati put it:

“Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica.”

And, they say, the hole in the ozone layer indirectly causes winds near the ground to be stronger and steadier, pushing the ice further outward.

The hole in the ozone layer is greater in size than all the land mass of North America.

The hole in the ozone layer is greater in size than all the land mass of North America.

Next, we travel from the Antarctic to its polar opposite, the Arctic.

 

THE ARCTIC

The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by ocean. The Arctic, on the other hand, is the opposite: it is ocean surrounded by land.

And here, melting sea ice is a problem—but for very different reasons than those associated with melting glaciers.

One important difference is simple, but could not be grasped by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) a leading congressional advocate of the notion that man-made climate chaos is a hoax and has nothing to do with melting glaciers (though it is unclear if Stockman knows they are melting).

If you’d like to be smarter than a congressman—should such a thing be possible—consider the following somewhat technical background. It is about the mechanical difference between melting sea ice—versus melting glaciers and ice sheets.

To understand it, imagine this simple experiment:

Take a glass containing nothing but water and add ice cubes to it. As the ice displaces the water, the water level rises. (Just adding more water to the glass will have the same effect.)

But if you give the ice cubes that are already in the glass time to melt, you will see that the water level does not rise. Why should it? All that happened was this: melted water was substituted for what was previously an ice cube. No additional water or ice cubes were added.

Here’s how this relates to the current discussion: glaciers and ice sheets, which are grounded, are like the ice cubes, or ice melt that is not yet part of the sea. When ice melts, the water drains into the ocean, and the ocean level rises. In other words, ice sheets provide additional water.

Sea ice, on the other hand, is already part of the ocean.  When it melts, it merely substitutes a liquid for a solid. Each form takes up about the same amount of space. So melting sea ice does not directly cause the sea to rise. Rep. Stockman gets this part—but not the part about ice cubes not yet placed in the water. At a House Hearing on climate, he said:

“Think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow. It’s displacement. This is some of the things that they’re talking about that mathematically and scientifically don’t make sense.”

This is why Rep. Stockman does not believe melting glaciers and ice sheets could possibly raise the level of the ocean. Perhaps, and this is said with a smile, someone should add an ice cube to whatever he’s drinking, and make him watch.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex)

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex)

But enough of Rep. Stockman and his glass of whatever. Let’s get back to the problem of melting sea ice.

Sea ice reflects the rays of the sun. When it melts, the sea water becomes exposed. Dark sea water does not reflect the sun’s rays, it absorbs them. This warms the water which, in turn, melts even more sea ice. And the Arctic Ocean is that much warmer.

Pictured below is NASA’s view of the North Pole. It shows the extent of sea ice on Sept. 17, 2014. See the orange line?  It shows how much more sea ice there used to be, on average, from 1981 to 2010, on that same day. Over the past three decades, over a million square miles of perennial sea ice has disappeared.

Be thankful for what is left of the ice cap:

6

 

CONCLUSION

 

What we have shown above is only part of a very complicated process that seems like a Rube Goldberg machine, with events in one place having often unexpected effects far away—some of them irreversible. There are many mysteries, and many certainties.

One of them is the permanent loss of a way of life.

We hope that, when you are sharing your blessings with your family and friends, you will take a moment and ponder the obligation we all have, considering both current and future generations—to steward our world, wisely.

7

IMAGE: Walter Launt Palmer Painting

IMAGE: Buffalo Snow

IMAGE: Greenland Icescape, 2009

IMAGE: Greenland, 1979, 2007

IMAGE: Greenland, 2014

IMAGE: Graph: Greenland Melt Extent

IMAGE: Antarctica image from NASA

IMAGE: Amundsen Sea

IMAGE: Map of Antarctica

IMAGE: Diagram Antarctic Sea Ice

IMAGE: Hole in Ozone

IMAGE: Steve Stockman

IMAGE: Polar Ice Cap

IMAGE: Polar Bear

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

69 responses to “Why We Should Be Thankful For the Cold”

  1. rms says:

    I love your political and historical work, but you are way off base here

    • Muppins says:

      Totally agree with you Rob.

      All the way down to the emotive lost-n-lonely-looking polar bear.
      Sadly, he will just think we are ‘deniers’, in the pay of the Koch brothers, or ignorant trolls.
      ’99 percent of the world’s scientists’ ‘self-righteously ignorant’ ‘inconvenience their selfish lifestyles’ ‘complicity in our own doom’ – sure, the sky is falling. same as it always was.
      To me, this is the ‘angels on the head of a pin’ debate with a modern twist.

      Well, here goes, as I ‘robotically rush’ to ‘dominate’ with my pesky objections . . .etc etc.

      I don’t buy it. This is, at root, a metaphysical malaise.
      That’s right – metaphysical.
      This is how I see the argument;
      Man has become a careless, crazed, demi-God, wreaking havoc on pristine nature.
      Man is a parasite. Man has ruined the pristine systems of ‘nature’. Man does not ‘belong’.
      He must be stopped.
      The earth is fragile, and we have broken it. Things are becoming extinct because of our intransigence. We must preserve ‘nature’. Keep it as it’s always been. Or at any rate, how it’s been recently.

      None of this is demonstrably true, and is a total misunderstanding of reality and matter, and our place in the cosmos. It fetishises the conservative instinct, and speaks to the horror in our souls of previous ice ages when everything [most everything] did indeed die. The earth’s systems are not a locked system, but nevertheless, relatively perfect, and subject to change – that is their ever-changing perfection. The argument that a new variable [man] changes all the equations of the earths perfect systems is at best very very weak logic. The faulty logic of the correlation between carbon [or is it carbon dioxide] in ice from the past and CO2 in the air now is is also very very weak logic. As are the computer ‘models’ based on this flawed logic. The models that they won’t let anyone examine. Those models. The secret ones. So stop getting angry and living your life in hatred of the human race, because you do sound like a hater when you riff on this particular topic – it’s a trick to make you live in fear, anger and hate. Life is short, the planet is long. It will be here long after we have left or become extinct, so do yourself a favour and stop worrying about the sky falling or the sea rising, or life as we know it . . etc etc etc.
      HOWEVER – I’m far more concerned about the muck that the planes leave in the sky most days over my head, because it sure as heck is not water vapour.
      For me, a better use of your time [Russ] would be an investigation into exactly what and why they are spraying this stuff into the cloud systems – I see it on a daily basis. It makes me think that someone is trying to affect the weather systems. They certainly say that they intend to do this in the future, but they are in fact already doing it. This is a huge political scandal – one you would be really good at investigating. If mad scientists were to do such a thing [they already are] – would that not perhaps affect the weather? Would we perhaps see weird weather due to this meddling? Might that, in fact, be the real threat?

      DDT didn’t result in a silent spring. Multiple megaton nuclear tests in the ionosphere didn’t do it [well, maybe they did cause holes in the atmosphere to form – why not?] , but perhaps years of planes bombarding the skies with whatever it is they are spraying – well, that might do it. That might, eventually, actually make some changes that are not in keeping with what we need as humans. It is certainly making changes right now – it’s blocking out the goddamned sun. The sun – the provider of life on this planet, is now seen as an enemy of the planet? Now that would indeed be a metaphysical malaise.

      Thanks for reading.

    • russbaker says:

      Providing your identity, town, and professional affiliation would go a long way toward giving anyone reason to trust this anonymous opinion–that runs contrary, in our estimation, to common sense and truth. We’re in the truth business. We expect those who post these things to have the decency to fully identify themselves and their credentials, without hiding behind excuses. (Also we notice you have never posted another comment to our site… and that elsewhere you accused Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden of working to increase the NSA’s budget (!)

    • Nick Miller says:

      To me I smell government funding. You stink like it. You talk like a cop not a journalist. U seem to have all answers neatly brushed away with “who are you? Identify yourself! ”

      LOL okay deputy dog. I agree I like your work on the Boston bombing, but you are way off base dude.

    • russbaker says:

      Ok, i think these posters are either all the same person or, even worse, just as dumb as they appear. Surely if you dont trust this site, you should not be here arguing–you would go somewhere else. Going to start pulling the plug on the trolls as a courtesy to the real people reading this site. Sorry to have to do this, but no news site wants to be degraded by intentional garbage.

    • kennyalligood says:

      I came to you and told you that I disagreed with your assertions. My name is in the post yet you did exactly what I thought you would … attacked. It seems that anyone that has disagreements with you are trolls, shills or using different user names but all the same person. Well I see a completely paranoid writer that sees shadows around every corner. In the business you are in you need to be able to have discussion with those that disagree but you only threaten and call names. That tells me you have no case for what you wrote and that there is nothing of value to be gained from anything else. Therefore, I am done with you and this site because your credibility is nothing now. Keep jumping at shadows Russ and soon that will be all that is reading what you write.

    • Kenny B Good says:

      searching on “Kenny Alligood” (as this person says that is all we need to know to figure out who he is and what his credentials are) turns up this person: https://www.facebook.com/kenny.alligood/about . If that is the correct person, he appears to be a firefighter, meaning he may actually know something about what happens when things heat up. He also is a fan of the Duck Dynasty.

    • spinneywebber says:

      inviting people to make fun of others is the kind of lynch mob behavior I come to sites like this to avoid.
      i don’t care what he is a “fan” of, shame on you.

    • GAguilar says:

      If you’re going to promote the views of the repeatedly debunked, such as Roy Spencer, it’s unseemly to then go all peevish wounded innocence on us when we point it out to you.

      By the way, do you share Spencer’s anti-evolutionist views, too?

    • kennyalligood says:

      Nope that is not me. I am not a fire fighter and do not have a FB page … also I do not care in the least for Duck Dynasty. I however, I pulled away from this entire thing … except to answer your question now … because it bothers me to a great extent that I am required to offer name, rank and serial number when my opinions do not match someone else’s. In my opinion that type of paranoia and censorship is more than I care to deal with. But thank you for at least attempting to check … far better than what the chief paranoid russbaker did … his valiant recourse was to just block my posts.

    • Nick Miller says:

      Not arguing. Just pointing out that u sold out. It’s all good.

    • russbaker says:

      Please identify yourself. I am identified. So are all our writers. Have some guts. (Amazed at all the frequent Web posters who criticize others’ work in an aggressive manner, but fail to have the courage of their convictions). Look up PsyOps. This kind of thing has a long history.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      So sad that you have to post this.

      Are you that stupid?

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Yep

      Government drones always push for MORE GOVERNMENT!!!

      Without Global Warming they would be out of a (taxpayer funded) job.

    • Muppins says:

      How about no to all of that.
      I’m not asking you or anyone else to trust me.
      I simply disagree with you and your analysis and am voicing my opinion – get over it. And yes, I think Greenwald and Snowden are 100% suspicious, but you trust them. Good for you.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      They ignore the satellite temps that show ZERO warming, but trust the thermal readings taken near asphalt.

      Global warming is natural.

  2. russbaker says:

    A note on Climate Chaos “deniers,” who almost robotically rush to dominate every conversation in Comments sections on the topic. From my observations, conversations and inquiries, I find that deniers’ motives for so blithely assuring us they know more than 99 percent of the world’s scientists (or that all scientists are in cahoots or corrupt), vary widely. They typically include the self-righteously ignorant; those who simply can’t be bothered to deal with something that could inconvenience their selfish lifestyles; those whose rigid political and economic positions mean they cannot bear to hear about anything at all that requires international cooperation and government action; and the class of people who merely enjoy claiming to know more than the rest of us, when they usually don’t. Some, experience shows, are trolls employed by or wound up by the vast Koch-funded disinformation machine. The overwhelming majority, fooled on so many things, do get this one right, but, predictably, do not speak up. This construct in itself demonstrates our complicity in our own doom. Now, over to the deniers, whose toolkit is generously stocked…..

    • spinneywebber says:

      Sorry, none of the vices you list (selfish, rigid, anti-cooperation, know it all…), apply any more to me than the average human. Funny, though, the know-it-all term actually seems to fit most climate hysterics I know, who insist that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is some kind of primitive troglodyte. In my experience climate hysterics are the ones who self-righteously refuse to hear words and arguments and quickly retreat to finger pointing and name-calling.
      I am a very left leaning liberal, I grow a lot of my own food, I volunteer with local social programs, we get by with only one small old toyota because I mostly car pool, where I live I have the option to pay more for 100% renewable energy off the grid, which I happily subscribe to, I could go on & on, but I don’t want to overly disappoint you.
      The reason why I question the very loud media chorus/echo chamber on man made warming, is because I have read very convincing scientific arguments by climate scientists that warming is not driven mainly by CO2. Some of the scientists were on the original IPCC panel but have resigned because
      of serious doubts about political agendas corrupting the process.
      The climate is a very complex mechanism that is not very well understood, climate science is in its infancy, but the data alone shows clearly that CO2 is not driving climate: in the long term CO2 lags temperature, and in the shorter term (past 100 years) there have been periods where CO2 increased dramatically yet temperature decreased. There are also many more technical issues which raise doubts, for instance with greenhouse warming there should be more warming in the troposphere than has been measured. And why did all of the models fail to predict the lack of warming of the past 20 years? Why should you have confidence in the same models that failed to predict that? If I claim to be able to pick winning stocks yet pick losers over & over, would you invest your own hard earned money in my stock picks? Why do you do that with IPCC climate models?
      Generally, I agree with the precautionary principle, and support a gradual shift to renewable energy, at a pace that doesn’t cause economic crisis or hamper third world development, but there are far more pressing ecological concerns that are being ignored because of all of the CO2 hysteria:
      deforestation/extinction due to destruction of wild habitat, over-fishing, continued production and use of depleted uranium (and conventional) weapons, nuclear industry, fukeshima, huge increases in herbecide/pesticide use, GMOs, geo-engineering…When I see all of the energy that should be going into those very real concerns being deflected/drained /used up by the ineffective and useless demonstrations for an arbitrary ppm number (350) of a very minor greenhouse gas, one that has been shown to not have a large influence on the climate, I feel like someone has done a very good job of distracting/manipulating the public. When it is so very clear that the function of the media when it comes to the financial crisis, war-mongering, fear-hype to weaken civil rights, you name it, is to distract and disengage the public, why are people so taken aback by the suggestion that the unified media chorus on “climate change” is also motivated by a political agenda?

    • russbaker says:

      Maybe so, maybe not. We did notice that you just began posting comments–regarding this story. Why have you not posted favorably in the past on other articles you liked? Surely if you feel that strongly you would speak out directly and publicly like the serious public advocates of your position. We do notice that almost of the climate deniers refuse, for various reasons, to identify themselves fully, including their professional work and location, so that others could have reason to trust that they are not paid disinformation people–sorry to be so blunt, but our site is aware of how disinformation ops work, and we cover the role of them as a regular feature. We do not feel obligated to allow anonymous comments when we believe there is an underlying if hidden agenda– see our COMMENTS POLICY. btw “very left leaning liberal” sounds like someone who….isn’t. Please identify yourself fully, including profession and location. We promise not to come visit you. ;-)

    • spinneywebber says:

      I prefer to keep my identity anonymous for personal reasons, mainly to avoid threats from the very militant climate brigade. Anonymity is a very common posture to take on online comment boards and shouldn’t be treated as a suspicious activity in my mind. If you prefer to receive comments only from people who post all of their personal information, that is up to you, but personal information and claims are easily faked, so I don’t feel it makes any difference.
      You are right, I have never commented here before, guilty as charged of the all too common shortcoming of offering only criticism and not praise – sorry. I did try to moderate my comment though by complimenting your website, which I very much appreciate especially for the work you’ve done on the Boston bombing.

      I openly admit that I am not a climate scientist, I am not trying to claim any particular expertise other than having read work by climate scientists who disagree with anthropogenic warming climate modeling. My opinion isn’t worth any more than a journalist’s with regard to science, all I can do is share information that I feel is relevant. But, if someone only reads IPCC press releases and not other sources, s/he can’t really claim to have an informed opinion. For instance, take a
      look at this graph of climate model predictions vs actual recorded temperature increases:
      95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

      To understand how the perverse world of grant funding can turn everything on it’s head and skew the perspective of researchers, read this article:
      Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence | Global Research
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294

      To read about the evidence that warming has stopped for the past 18 years read this:
      If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped | Watts Up With That?
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/if-97-of-scientists-say-global-warming-is-real-100-say-it-has-nearly-stopped/

    • GAguilar says:

      Oh, so Roy Spencer is your “expert,” is he? Great choice!

      Let’s see, anti-evolutionist Roy Spencer seems to have been repeatedly debunked on his global warming “facts,” hasn’t he?

      See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

      And: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

      But perhaps the best roasting of Spencer can be found at Think Progress:

      Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

      BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON JULY 29, 2011 AT 3:28 PM UPDATED: AUGUST 22, 2011 AT 4:40 PM

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

      “Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer”

      Share:

      Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article. That ain’t news. What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.

      First, the disinformers have figured out they should focus on journals that don’t seem to have a very deep understanding of climate science. In May, it was a paper in a statistics journal, which was ultimately withdrawn because of “evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process.” This time it’s an article in the open-access Remote Sensing co-authored by Spencer.

      It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

      It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

      That doesn’t mean Spencer’s new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know. And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.

      As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

      “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

      “It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email toLiveScience.

      NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”

      Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”

      As for the second denier trick, well, they got Yahoo News to host a “news story” on the article — written by James Taylor. Not the brilliant singer song-writer who wrote, “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain, I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end.” No, the uber-denier James Taylor whose Heartland Institute wants to bring to America’s heartland too much fire and too much rain — and heat waves that you thought would never end. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    • spinneywebber says:

      If I had a nickle for every time someone shouted triumphantly that something I posted has been “debunked” I’d be a rich man. Russ accused me of being a troll for a passionate post, so your long missive certainly qualifies there.
      I find the “climate” in the climate science world alarming.
      Let me explain something: in science, someone does research and publishes the data along with their conclusions. They are very careful not to make grandiose claims about being “right” or knowing the “truth”. This is because all conclusions are theories, and will be poked, prodded and thoroughly examined by other scientists. Usually, there are other scientists who take issue and don’t agree, and they publish their ideas, and the debate progresses as such, respectfully. Silly ideas don’t last long and go away quickly as part of the natural process, of which ridicule is most definitely not a part. An atmosphere of bullying, name-calling and accusations is not conducive to open sharing of ideas and the end result would suffer.
      What does the argument “but the world is going to end, we have to act now!!!” remind you of?
      Patriot act, perhaps?? Tarp?
      When scientists start attacking and insulting, I become very suspicious of their agenda. If their arguments were so strong, Spencer’s theories would die a quick natural death, with no need for disrespect.
      In short, methinks they doth protest too much.

    • GAguilar says:

      Oh, so rather than consider the facts they adduced in debunking Spencer you’d prefer to argue that the spirited debunking is too much of a protest.

    • russbaker says:

      Calling bullshit on you. Nobody posts as passionately as you do without some kind of personal stake, and then hides behind a claim of “threats.” THere is zero evidence that anyone who has publicly stated their views on this issue has faced any sort of risk. You need to tell your p.r. firm that the approach is just too sophomoric–if they paid better, they might be able to hire smarter and more articulate trolls.

    • spinneywebber says:

      That is the problem with the whole climate thing, otherwise reasonable people start getting very personal and insulting, because they believe they are “saving the planet.”
      Science is not supposed to be that way, people can respectfully disagree, no matter how whacky they think the other person is. Every new idea is born that way, the truth is discovered that way, and if it got shouted down by the majority every time there would be no progress. The talking points “97% percent of scientists” has no place in a scientific discussion. The fact remains, there are serious, respected scientists with long standing careers with very respectable institutions who have a different viewpoint, so you simply have to respect their opinion and allow them to have their say. Shouting them down to me is highly suspect, and yes, I am passionate about that process, just as you are highly passionate about other things.
      Regarding your comment, I am not afraid for myself physically, I just don’t want to be harassed personally, so I don’t put my information out there. Just read some of the comments on this board and you can see what I mean. I can log on here when I want, but I’d rather not find those in my inbox every morning.

      Let me ask you this, how do you respond to those who call you a “Boston bombing denier” or a Warren Commission denier”?
      Maybe your experience there could help me respond to you in a way where you wouldn’t insult me.
      Hint: replying to the information I posted would be a good start, rather than simply ad hominem attacks.

      Frankly, I’m disappointed to see that you spend your time harassing your readers should they have different viewpoints on some issues. Kindly please do some research (actually read what some of these scientists have to say) and respond to the issues I raised, or do not respond at all. The world doesn’t need more anger/aggression.

    • russbaker says:

      That is again an attempt to spin things. We are concerned about people assiduously putting out false information on a crucial topic, and failing to identify themselves and their expertise and interests. This is because we are so aware of how the coal industry, the oil companies, the Koch Brothers and others use anonymous “people” just like you to keep the public off guard and prevent progress on this urgent matter. So, accusing us of “harrassing” you when we simply insist that people who are so insistent on spreading what we believe to be falsehoods identify themselves and prove it’s not astroturfing, is in itself a very convenient ploy.

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinny,

      I note with amusement that you don’t cite your sources, their publications and the authors’ credentials, the specific assertions of fact, etc. You only cite your impressions of what you think you’ve read.

      Well, thanks for your impressions. With them, and $2.50, I think I’ll get a cup of coffee. ; ~ >

    • spinneywebber says:

      kindly refrain from ridicule and insults, for your own good as well as the spirit of open debate, as it makes your agenda suspect.

    • GAguilar says:

      Okay. How about this? Assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

      Following this sensible rule, please explain why we should not dismiss your assertions.

      And please explain why we should pay attention to your anti-warmist “expert,” Roy Spencer. Hasn’t he been repeatedly debunked?

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

    • spinneywebber says:

      You seem to have very advanced google skills, so no need to hold your hand regarding scientific opinions that differ with the mainstream. They are all over the internet.
      The problem would lie with whether you bother to read them, or simply skip to searching out some dirt on the authors.
      For instance, did you read the letter from 100 prominent scientists that I posted a link to? No, you immediately posted something which in your mind renders the whole scientific basis of their claims meaningless. Unfortunately, in actuality you did no such thing, just threw some more mud around and left the scientific basis of their argument standing completely intact.
      I’ve already told you, but here it is again –
      ad hominem attacks are an extremely ineffective method of debate (in other words you’re losing).

    • GAguilar says:

      “climate hysterics”

      Now I know how offensive you find ad hominem remarks. ; ~ >

    • Rick Fitz says:

      If the Arctic was an ice free ocean I would agree.

      Reality shows you are just a government drone.

  3. b zimmer says:

    well i understand……

    but there has been no warming for 18 years……. why is this not in the models?

    • russbaker says:

      Full name, professional expertise and location please? See below for details.

    • GAguilar says:

      b zimmer:

      Why? Because it’s been debunked, that’s why: http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

      1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

      This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

      Kevin Trenberth

      Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

      What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

      “That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

      Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:

      (Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

      But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

      Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

      Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

      He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

      This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:

      Land, atmosphere and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). (Graphic: From Nuccitelli et al., 2012)

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Your love of government approved sources is hysterical.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      The model is “adjusted” to make it warmer.

      The NASA satellite data shows no warming, so they use terrestrial temps to push the agenda of government.

      Al Gore would be a laughingstock in an elementary physics course.

  4. costasm says:

    Most impressive and informative. Do you pay this writer? if not, you should, a lot; if you pay a little, double it. And keep up the good work! The problem with all the doubters is that they will all be dead before any of this stuff happens, and they obviously do not care about their kids or grandkids– if they have any.

  5. spinneywebber says:

    I like the political articles on this site, but am very disappointed to see this propaganda piece so full of straw-men arguments and red herrings.
    The whole premise of attacking warming “deniers” makes that bias clear from the very start.
    Of course most serious science that questions man-made warming DOES NOT deny that warming took place, even though said warming appears to have slowed/stopped the past 20 years, but by all means go out of your way to lump all “deniers” into one fictional straw-man stereotype and proceed to ridicule it. What a convenient way to avoid engaging with the many very solid scientific arguments that dispute the far-fetched claims of the climate change hysterics.
    On the contrary, it is the global warming hysterics who have had to work so hard re-branding their movement, after decades of “warming” hysteria, to “climate change” and now, apparently, “climate chaos”.
    Beware of simple minded one-size-fits-all scientific solutions:
    record snowfalls?…why, caused by co2 induced warming, of course.
    declining temperature trends?…why, caused by co2 induced warming, of course.
    increased antarctic sea ice?….why, caused by co2 induced warming, of course.
    I remember “January thaws” and “Indian summers” when I grew up in the 70’s, when we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to a new ice age. These unseasonal periods or warm weather in the fall and winter were such common phenomena that the terms “January thaw” and “Indian summer” existed in the everyday lexicon, but when it happens now it is because of….you guessed it, co2 induced warming. Of course.
    Man-made co2 warming causes everything that is wrong with the weather and all ecological disasters, it is the only thing we need to worry about (not).
    Meanwhile, the world continues to be ravaged by uranium mining, depleted uranium weapons, nuclear waste and the whole witches brew of toxins unleashed by modern industry and warfare.
    But by all means, lets have a war on CO2, a harmless minor greenhouse gas that is necessary for life on this planet.
    CO2 is the OJ Simpson trial distraction event of the century when it comes to the ecology movement. We even have purported ecologically minded people advocating irresponsible and dangerous geo-engineering projects on a world-wide scale that would pollute the very atmosphere of the earth in order to combat “global warming”, no, I mean “climate change”, no, I mean “climate chaos”.
    The irony would be funny if it weren’t so dangerously tragic.

    • russbaker says:

      please see our comment below regarding our concerns about commenters on this issue being involved with disinformation activities–and provide the disclosure we request. Thanks.

    • WHY says:

      I regularly read this blog and I am also disappointed in the propaganda in this article.

      Maybe the author is ignorant and hasn’t read the latest IPCC report except for its propaganda section which does not reflect what is reported in the science report. The science report says clearly that computer modelled expectations do not match reality and that globally averaged temperatures have been steady (and more lately dropping) in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising.

      Or maybe the author is intellectually dishonest and has something to gain from writing the same sort of misleading information that has been written by others for years on behalf of those who can and do profit from.

      In either case, the author is not qualified to write about science.

      By including this kind of report, the entire whowhatwhy site loses credibility.

    • russbaker says:

      Please identify yourself fully. For all we know, this is a single troll repeatedly posting under various names. Direct feedback from our readers via email indicates that they realize what is going on here, folks. We do not have to be a platform for such ops.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      They don’t care- government tells them what to think. Warming, cooling, whatever- as long as the government gets more power it is good!!!

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Another scientist here, and you’re full of $hit.

      The planet is warmer than in the 1970s, but cooler than the 1910s.

      If it is CO2 created warming then the opposite would be true.

      Global warming is cyclical, and we should PRAY for warming temps- a cold planet is not conducive to life!

  6. kennyalligood says:

    I am certainly a “denier” and after reading the comment threads now fear the wrath from russbaker. I am not a scientist or a koch plant or whatever else will be hurled my way but I am certainly not the person that requires the name, address and phone number of everyone that does not share my opinion. Oh and this is my first post on your site as well … thought I would save you the search time. That being said there are many questions that have yet to be answered regarding “climate chaos”. Although spinneywebber and I have completely opposite political leanings I can find common ground with his assessment on this article – disappointing. Now I await the assault of russbaker..

    • russbaker says:

      Why not continue to use “SpinneyWebber”? But seriously, trolls actually do not identify themselves as such–otherwise they would not be trolls. However, if you were to identify yourself by name, location, profession and so forth (“who are you”), and we could verify that and the basis for your statements, including ludicrously “fearing the wrath” of an investigative reporter, we could make some progress here with this Climate Denial Business.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Ignorant trolls hate that the polar ice caps are still around! If they accept that government lies about climate change, they have to admit that government lies about EVERYTHING!

  7. Milicent Cranor says:

    Globally averaged temperatures have been steady or dropping slightly, and carbon dioxide levels are rising. But this hardly means there is no correlation between C02 and global warming.

    Few correlations are perfect when the issue is complex. For example, not all smokers get lung cancer, yet there is a definite correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

    Here’s another analogy: because smoking damages the body in so many other ways, it’s a good idea to quit smoking. And, considering all the other ways in which carbon emissions damage the planet—e.g., the acidification of the ocean and its corrosive effects—it’s a good idea to put a cap on them.

    By the way, there used to be trolls who denied what cigarettes do to the body.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Excellent reply. The lack of evidence of anthropogenic global warming is easy to see. Glad you are smart enough to see it!

  8. GAguilar says:

    I agree whole heartedly with the denialists! Global warming is nothing but communist disinformation and propaganda. And one can easily prove that by pointing out that commie-leftist outfits like the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (a govt-supported program, don’t ya know) report that

    Quote:

    Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
    Unquote. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

    In other words, 97% of “good scientists” agree that there’s human agency in global warming. The 3% who don’t have poor qualifications.

    Well, I’ll bet over 97% of “good scientists” believe in evolution, and that the earth is round and not flat, too. And we know what codswollop that is!

    We should not trust “scientist” who are on the payroll of our socialist state; we should instead trust anyone who’s on the payroll of private oil companies, particularly those funded the Koch Brothers, such at Roy Spencer of the Heartland Institute. http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

    It’s high time the US govt. stop having us taxpayers fund “scientific education” in universities, which is where all manner of anti-Christian, anti-capitalist nonsense gets spread. We need to fund only conservative, Christian truths – such as that God’s Good Earth is but 6000 years old; snakes can talk; people can live in whales for 3 days. And that the Good Lord would NEVER allow us, his precious creatures, to despoil the earth he made solely for us.

    Kill a scientist, I say – for Christ, and for our honorable and deserving friends in the oil and gas industries!

    • spinneywebber says:

      GAguilar: really, what’s up with the sarcasm? Who said anything about a
      communist plot? Any idiot could easily say the same thing about the
      majority of stories on this website if they wanted to stoop to the
      lowest denominator.
      And why are you throwing religion into the mix? Talk about an easy way to reach boiling point. I am a buddhist, and refrain from commenting on other people’s choices, but I will defend their right to think what they want without having to bear insults.
      And creationism, who brought that up?
      Seriously, dude, you need to get off your pedestal, you don’t own the truth, there are people in the world who don’t agree with you, you can either go through life hurling insults, or be respectful. I can’t help you there, but you’ll be a lot happier if you lighten up a little and choose to be respectful.

    • GAguilar says:

      “Who said anything about a communist plot?” you ask.

      Why, none other than that world’s foremost authority on just about everything, Rush Limbaugh:

      Limbaugh: Global Warming Is A “Left-Wing Scam” To “Advance Communism”

      http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/01/22/limbaugh-global-warming-is-a-left-wing-scam-to/197695

      (Ya just can’t make this shit up!)

    • spinneywebber says:

      so let’s see, Rush says something about global warming/commy plot, so therefore all global warming hysterics are right!!!
      victory for you sir…not.
      Just more tomfoolery and intellectual dishonesty.
      Rush has absolutely nothing to do with my scientific arguments.
      Plenty of wackos are global warming fundamentalists, just like you. Don’t worry though, I won’t try to incriminate you by association , it wouldn’t be honest.

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinny,

      You write, inter alia, “Plenty of wackos are global warming fundamentalists, just like you,” whilst you rail against those who deal in ad hominem. I feel your pain, pal, and, no, I don’t write your stuff.

      I just love your logic: “Rush says something about global warming/commy plot, so therefore all global warming hysterics are right!!!” This comment reminds me of that famous syllogism, “All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; therefore, all men are Socrates.”

      Oh, and, yes, your “scientific arguments,” which to date seem to have sedulously avoided your admitting that you’ve rejected the credible scientists of the National Academy of Sciences in favor of outed mountebanks and scientific back-benchers like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry.

      But if you’ve not rejected the National Academy of Sciences, just say so, here, now.

      G

  9. spinneywebber says:

    There are real actual scientists who work for respected institutions who have dissenting opinions on the causes of global warming. I feel strongly people should inform themselves of their arguments, because it is in everyone’s interest to understand what is really happening, especially when science becomes highly politicized.
    I find it disappointing that as soon as a dissenting opinion is expressed people find it necessary to become disrespectful and insulting, as if all they have to do to discredit a scientific opinion is dig up some dirt on someone on the internet, or accuse someone of being a troll. It is especially disappointing to see such behavior on a site such as this that prides itself on being open to non-groupthink.
    Here is a link ( http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html ) to an open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations which expresses a dissenting opinion to the mainstream regarding climate change, it is signed by 100 prominent scientists, including:

    A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland;
    Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

    John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
    Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Directorof the Institute of Antarctic andSouthern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania,Australia

    Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France;
    former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

    Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

    Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

    Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse
    Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

    Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

    Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

    • GAguilar says:

      The actual label on the graph is “www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org”. “Science and Public Policy” is basically a one-man operation run by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/contact.html

      The following information about Robert Ferguson and the Science and Public Policy Global Cooling graph can be seen at:
      http://www.desmogblog.com/the-endocrinologist-the-viscount-of-brenchley-and-the-dc-think-tank

      “Notes on the Science and Public Policy Global Cooling graph.
      (Run by Robert Ferguson)
      The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was founded by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson. According to the SPPI website, Ferguson “has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to
      Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.

      Until recently, Ferguson worked for an oil-industry funded think tank called Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom are one of the most active groups in the attack on climate science and have received over $1 million in grants from oil giant ExxonMobil.”

    • spinneywebber says:

      you’re so predictable…more ad-hominum attacks.
      I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier, “as if all they have to do to discredit a scientific opinion is dig up some dirt on someone on the internet”.
      Actually, you’re not as predictable as I thought…I expected you to dig up dirt on all of the scientists.

    • GAguilar says:

      Oh, so you reject the conclusions of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the credibility of climate denialists?

      http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

    • spinneywebber says:

      Come on, I’m still waiting for some dirt on A. Zichichi, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics and President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland, you know, one of the scientist guys who actually signed the letter.
      Problem is, once you go down that road, there are 99 others, then a vast conspiracy network that you have to cook up linking everyone who disagrees with you to the oil industry…boy that’s going to take some time…meanwhile the nuclear power/arms industry (it’s all one industry) is laughing all the way to the bank while you keep pumping the CO2-global warming hysteria.
      Very tragic and sad for the planet.

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinney,

      Surely your googling skills are as good as anybody’s, no?

      So why not share with us what anyone can find on non-climatologist A. Zichinichi?

      Look here, for example: http://www.desmogblog.com/antonino-zichichi

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinney,

      Since you won’t do it, let me do it for you about your climate “expert,” Zichichi. First, can you name a single article on climate he’s published in a peer-reviewed journal? No, you can’t, because he hasn’t. He’s a physicist and hasn’t the expertise and authority to do so.

      Your last “expert,” Roy Spencer, when he’s not taking speaking honoraria from oil and gas-funded Heartland Institute, keeps himself busy denying evolution. (What’s Zichichii say about evolution?)

      Here’s what you’d prefer your lurkers not see: http://www.desmogblog.com/antonino-zichichi

      Antonino Zichichi

      Credentials

      Ph.D.

      Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.

      Source: [1]

      Background

      Antonino Zichichi is an Italian physicist who specializes in the area of nuclear physics. He was president of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare from 1977 up to 1982 and is currently an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna. [2]

      He has also been a leading scientist with European Organization for Nuclear Research
      (CERN), and the Geneva Founder of the World Laboratory. [3]

      He is the co-founder and president of the World Federation of Scientists (WFS), which he helped form in 1973. [4]

      WFS is an organization concerned with the fight against planetary emergencies, but also appears to have opened a “Permanent Monitoring Panel” on Climatology run by Canadian climate skeptic Christopher Essex. [5]

      Zichichi is on Senator James Inhofe’s list of “400 + scientists” who dispute man-made global warming as one of 49 who are currently retired. [6]

      Stance on Climate Change

      “[I]t is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes. [It is plausible that] man is not to blame.” [7]

      Key Quotes

      “[The IPCC] has led the public to believe – as said before – that Science has understood all about Climate. If that was true, climatologically, the destiny of our planet should be free of uncertainties and under the rigorous control of Science. But it’s not this way.”

      “The conclusion is that years of work and strong financial support are needed in
      order to improve the theoretical formulation of the problems and the corresponding experimental worldwide observations.” [8]

      Key Deeds

      January 27, 2012

      Zichichi is one of 16 scientists who appended their signatures to a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”

      The piece begins, stating “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”

      Other “scientists” whose signatures appear include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong,Jan Breslow, Roger Cohen, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen,James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, and Henk Tennekes.

      It has received criticism from numerous sources (see here [9], here, [10], and here[11] for example.)

      Media Transparency also examined Op-Ed and concluded that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who said that the WSJ was guilty of a “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.” [12]

      December 13, 2007

      Signatory to an open letter to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that describes global warming as a natural phenomenon.

      The letter describes carbon dioxide as a “non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis,” and claims that the IPCC’s reports are “inadequate as justification” for implementing climate change policy. [1]

      April 27, 2007

      Spoke at a conference sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace titled “Climate Change and Development.”

      During the conference Zichichi made the assertion that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment, and said he was not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of greenhouse gases produced through human activity. He also said climate changes depended significantly on the fluctuation of cosmic rays. [7]

      Note that this is a common argument used by skeptics, according to examination bySkepticalScience.

      The National Post covered the conference, and had this to say about Zichich’s presentation:

      “The man most responsible for quelling any potential call to action is one of the Vatican’s own, Antonino Zichichi, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Dr. Zichichi, who made the seminar’s most powerful presentation, set its tone. It amounted to a damning indictment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for most of the dire warnings that the press reports daily.” [13]

      Affiliations

      The Heartland Institute — “Expert.” [14]

      World Federation of Scientists (WFS) — Co-Founder. [4]

      The Vatican — “Academician,” The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. [15]

      Publications

      According to a search of Google Scholar, Zichichi has never published in a peer-reviewed journal in the area of climate science.

      Other sources mention that he has published over 1000 articles in journals, primarily in the area of physics.

      Resources

      “Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” December 13, 2007. Reprinted by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

      “Professor Antonino Zichichi’s Short Biography,” Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture. Accessed January, 2012.

      “Antonino Zichichi (2005),” Liberal International. Accessed January 31, 2012.

      “About the Organization,” World Federation of Scientists. Accessed January, 2012.

      “Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology,” World Federation of Scientists. Accessed January, 2012.

      “49 of Inhofe’s Global Warming Deniers Are Retired,” The Daily Green, January 10, 2008.

      “Scientist: Models used to analyse climate change are incoherent & invalid from a scientific point of view,” Global Research, May 2, 2007.

      “METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE: PROBLEMS AND EXPECTATIONS” (PDF), 38th Session, International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, 19 – 24 August 2007. Accessed January 31, 2012, from physics.harvard.edu.

      Michael Tobis. “The Wall Street Journal, Again,” Planet3.0, January 27, 2012.

      Chris Moony. “On Global Warming, Should You Trust the Wall Street Journal, or Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Defense Department??,” The Intersection, January 30, 2012.

      Peter Frumhoff. “Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal,” The Equation, January 27, 2012.

      “The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery,” Media Transparency, January 30, 2012.

      “Some restraint in Rome,” National Post, May 23, 2007.

      “Heartland Experts: Mr. Antonino Zichichi,” The Heartland Institute. Accessed January, 2012.

      “ANTONINO ZICHICHI,” The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Accessed January 31, 2010.

      ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Antonio Zichichi.

      “Antonino Zichichi,” Wikipedia Entry.

      Jeremy A. Kaplan. “Green Smoke and Mirrors? Vatican Weighs in on Climate Change,” FoxNews.com, May 12, 2011.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      Great post. Facts don’t matter to people like that. Global Warming is their religion!!!

    • Rick Fitz says:

      They believe in government power. Period. Reality is optional.

  10. Eivets Rednow says:

    Russ, or anyone: does anyone know anything about Suspicious Observers and how he/they are funded? This guy seems to be a very popular voice against anthropogenic climate change and has a fair amount of followers. He acknowledges that climate change is real and a concern. He acknowledges that pollution and greenhouse gases are a danger to people and planet and that something must be done. He just argues that the sun may have more to do with actual climate change than we care to admit and that it is too early to tell whether we are in a warming or a cooling pattern. For my input, though there is obviously a lot of money invested in climate denial, there seems to be a lot more money invested in the anthropogenic global warming narrative. And where there is private money invested, there is always an agenda. And where there is coordinated major media coverage, there is an agenda. This is all above my level of intellect and knowledge so I am quite curious. It does seem that there are an increasing number of scientists who are retreating from the anthropogenic argument. And did I not see in the news about a year ago (only once) that other planets in our solar system seemed to be experiencing some kind of climate change as well? I don’t know the answer but I would like to get clear on this. It seems to me that pollution and the multi-layered damage it causes was always the better approach and argument that could have been personalized for more people and covered more ground. And it would have accomplished the same goals and possibly more. And possibly more expeditiously. IMHO

    • Rick Fitz says:

      The facts don’t fit AGW. The NASA data for 2015 shows zero warming since 1998.

      Why do you trust the government? The same government that lied about WMDs in Iraq, and continues to invade and kill innocent people because of our military industrial congressional complex? Why believe the government about ANYTHING?

  11. spinneywebber says:

    …and then there are the 30,000+ scientists who signed this petition:
    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Global Warming Petition Project
    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    • GAguilar says:

      Ah, yes, the “Global Warming Petition Project.”

      And let’s remember that it wasn’t I who asked you to tout this.

      Keep ’em comin’. Yer battin’ a 1000.

      Gary

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

      Kevin Grandia Become a fanPresident, Spake Media House

      Email

      The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

      Posted: 08/22/2009 5:12 am EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 1:40 pm EDT

      To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition” project stinks would be the understatement of the year.

      I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

      .1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

      The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

      In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

      Atmospheric Science (113)

      Climatology (39)

      Meteorology (341)

      Astronomy (59)

      Astrophysics (26)

      So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

      The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on “unverifiable mess” below].

      This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

      When I think I’m having chest pains I don’t go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.

      In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn’t surprising given its questionable beginnings.

      The Petition’s Sordid Beginnings

      The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

      Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

      The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

      Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

      Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

      The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news releasestating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

      An Unverifiable Mess

      Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

      For example,

      “Munawwar M. Akhtar” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

      “Fred A. Allehoff” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

      “Ernest J. Andberg” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

      “Joseph J. Arx” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

      “Adolph L. Amundson” – a paper by Amundson on the “London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage.” [PDF]

      “Henry W. Apfelbach” – an Orthopedic Surgeon

      “Joe R. Arechavaleta” – runs an Architect and Engineering company.

      And this is only names I picked in the “A’s.” I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn’t stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

      Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

      Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinney,

      Here’s another one on your precious “Global Warming Petition Project”: This one from ‘Rogues and Scholars’
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
      Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project

      Posted on 11 March 2010 by angliss

      In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published theirPetition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.

      The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

      It is also false.

      According to the Petition Project “qualifications” page, “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” The fields that are considered “appropriate” by the OISM are as follows:

      Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography

      Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics

      Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering

      Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering

      Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science

      Medicine: medical science, medicine

      General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science

      The OISM’s qualifications for being a “scientist” are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a “signature” (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lie about having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?

      At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

      Unfortunately, the OISM’s list has had its credibility fabricated for it by individuals and groups as diverse as Steve Milloy of Fox News (see this link for a S&R investigation into the background and tactics of Steve Milloy), L. Brent Bozell of conservative “news” site Newsbusters and founder of the conservative Media Research Center, Benita M. Dodd of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the libertarian/conservative site American Thinker(a site that has regularly failed to fact-check their AGW posts), conservative commentatorDeroy Murdock (who works on Project 21 with the wife of one of Steve Milloy’s long-time associates), RightSideNews, Dakota Voice, Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute,Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, Michelle Malkin, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to name just a few of the better known. As a result, the OISM’s petition has been elevated to a level of credibility that is arguably undeserved.

      While it’s not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 “scientists” listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.

      According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Doctorate of Philosophy in a field related to physical sciences is qualified as a scientist. In addition, the OISM sent the petition cards pictured above only to individuals within the U.S. Based on this information, we can us the OISM’s own guidelines to determine how many scientists there are in the U.S. and what percentage of those scientists are represented by the OISM petition.

      The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. We’re specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312. Table 1 below show how many graduates there were in the various categories defined by the Dept. of Ed. since the 1970-71 school year (click on the image for a larger version). The numbers have been corrected to account for the fact that PhD’s will usually have MS degrees as well, and that both are preceded by BS degrees.

      As you can see, Table 1 shows that there were over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year. This is a conservative estimate as illustrated by the 242,000 graduates in biological and biomedical sciences from 1950-51 through 1969-70 alone, never mind the 166,000 engineering graduates, and so on. Many of these individuals are still alive today and would be considered scientists according to the OISM definition thereof.

      The OISM website lists how many signatures they have for scientists in each of their categories. Given the number of graduates and the number of signatures claimed by the OISM, we can calculate the percentage of OISM-defined scientists who signed as referenced to the total. These results are shown in Table 2 below.

      In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

      However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian orforestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

      However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working inclimate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.

      13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

      We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climagologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU)has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

      The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%.

      The AGU ocean sciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated.

      The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. That’s only 2.4%.

      It’s clear that the OISM names don’t represent a significant number of scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the number of practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields. But that’s not all.

      Over recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by thePew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% ofclimate scientists surveyed “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring” and that “[o]nly 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.” The STATS survey involved a random sampling of “489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union” and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%.

      The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.

      84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree thatclimate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals.

      The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

      That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard.

      A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

      Figure 1: Response to the survey question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

      Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it’s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it’s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.

      Acknowledgements to Brian Angliss at Scholars and Rogues who guest wrote this post.

  12. spinneywebber says:

    In the interests of transparency, one last post:
    Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
    “Global warming” is not a global crisis
    (Here is a link to a list of the 206 endorsers of this declaration who are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields:
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66 )

    We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

    Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

    Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

    Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

    Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

    Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

    Hereby declare:

    That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

    That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

    That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

    That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

    That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

    Now, therefore, we recommend –

    That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
    Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinney,

      With all due respect, Sourcewatch has the goods on the International Climate Science Coalition.

      I’ll let you go through the list of its leaders and their ties to oil and gas and mining interests and I hope you’ll get back to us.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition

      Please explain to us why we should ignore the following, which you’ve ignored before:

      Quote:

      Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
      Unquote. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

      In other words, 97% of “good scientists” agree that there’s human agency in global warming. The 3% who don’t have poor qualifications.

      If you had cancer, would you follow the agreed-upon views of the 97% of oncologists or the 3% who disagreed with them, particularly if the 97% had better credentials than the 3%?

    • spinneywebber says:

      You evidently need to read some of the articles here by various authors regarding science and consensus:

      Consensus | Climate Etc.
      http://judithcurry.com/category/consensus/

      the “97% of scientists…” mantra is a PR stunt.
      I have posted lists of thousands of scientists, many affiliated with the world’s top universities and science associations, and you continue to blithely repeat ad nauseum a number (97%) which is just PR talking points from one poorly conducted “study” , as if it means anything anyhow. Before Einstein, 100% of physicists would have agreed that the theory of relativity is nonsense.
      Now, granted, I am not claiming any dissenting climate scientists are the intellectual equivalent of Einstein (who is?), but the point is that science has to allow for dissenting opinions, and not shout them out of the room, as is happening in Climate science now, and as you are trying to do on this chat board.
      Your simple minded “good” and “bad” scientists argument is highly reminiscent of George Bush’s good & evil speak.
      You claim to “debunk” websites, but you have yet to say anything about the very explicit statements made in the letters I posted which were signed by many highly credentialed scientists. The scientists wrote the letter, not the website. Statements like “assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false” and “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
      You are being intellectually dishonest because you don’t respond to those statements, or the principle that science proceeds by argument & evidence, not consensus, you only sling mud around the room and say over & over “me and the good scientists are right, me & the good scientists are right!!!”
      You have been had, science is never “settled.”
      Especially on the climate, which we barely understand.

    • GAguilar says:

      What a dodge, Spinny!

      So then, you’re saying that you reject the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, right?

      And if so, I suppose that means there’s a vast conspiracy of 97% of the best credentialed climatologists in the world to lie about a non-existent problem and to defame the poor credentials of the denialist truth tellers.

      I mean, how else to explain PNAS’s unequivocal conclusion:

      Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    • Rick Fitz says:

      They get paid by the government, so lying is in their best interest.

      Al Gore has warned that we would be snow-free by 2016. I’m looking at snow, from a week ago, in an area that sees 8-10 inches a YEAR!

      Why do you believe the government so fervently?

    • Alan says:

      ” 97% of the best credentialed climatologists in the world ” When you were only just told how that stat is BS? Quite the turd, aren’t you?

    • GAguilar says:

      Spinney,

      You sure can pick ’em!

      But before I read Judith Curry’s denialist stuff, please tell me: Is Curry a credentialed climatologist?

      Please also explain to me why she should not have earned the moniker “Climate misinformer?”

      Inquiring minds want to know, Spinney.

      https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

      Skeptical Science Blog Posts

      Corrections to Curry’s Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
      Posted on 30 January 2014 by dana1981

      Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: ‘Climate change is a clear and present danger’
      Posted on 20 January 2014 by dana1981

      Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy
      Posted on 4 October 2013 by dana1981

      The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry
      Posted on 3 September 2013 by dana1981

      Italian flag curry
      Posted on 21 December 2012 by gws

      Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
      Posted on 23 October 2012 by dana1981

      Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
      Posted on 17 October 2012 by dana1981

      The Certainty Monster vs. The Uncertainty Ewok
      Posted on 2 March 2012 by dana1981

      Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
      Posted on 5 November 2011 by dana1981

      Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
      Posted on 1 November 2011 by dana1981

      Preference for Mild Curry
      Posted on 28 February 2011 by dana1981

    • GAguilar says:

      Here’s some more on your latest authority, Judith Curry:
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/baked-curry-the-best-way-to-hide-the-incline.html
      Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline

      Posted on 1 November 2011 by dana1981

      Sadly, the so-called climate “skeptics” continue to find new ways to spin the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results. First they came up with bogus excuses why the BEST results are not valid. Then they tried to change the subject, doubling-down on other climate myths. Now Judith Curry – a member of the BEST team no less (though her involvement in the project has been relatively minimal) – has claimed that the BEST team has tried to “hide the decline” in recent temperatures.

      “This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.”

      Curry’s comments were in response to a BBC radio interview with the leader of the BEST team, Richard Muller, who said:

      “We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down”

      So is Muller right that BEST shows no evidence of global warming slowing down, or is Curry correct in accusing her colleagues of hiding the decline in temperatures?

      Misguided Curry

      Firstly, it’s worth noting that the BEST team addressed the myth that global warming stopped in recent years in their FAQ:

      “decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.”

      In short, Curry’s comments are contradicted by actual statistical analysis done by other members of the BEST team. As SkS has discussed at length with Dr. Pielke Sr., over short timeframes on the order of a decade, there is too much noise in the data to draw any definitive conclusions about changes in the long-term trend.

      On his blog, tamino does the statistical analysis of the BEST data and finds that because the timeframe in question is so short, the uncertainty is too large to say for certain that the short-term trend in question is any different than the long-term trend. Right off the bat, it’s clear that Dr. Muller was correct to say there is no definitive evidence that global warming has slowed down.

      Hiding the Incline

      The Daily Mail article containing the Curry interview includes a graph of BEST dataoriginating from serial misinformation source GWPF, with a cherrypicked starting point of January 2001, through the final BEST data point in May 2010 (a period shy of a decade). Figure 1 highlights the magnitude of the cherrypick by comparing the full BEST record to the fraction of the record included in the article.

      Figure 1: Entire BEST record vs. the data examined in the Judith Curry Daily Mail article

      Eagle-eyed readers may notice a problem towards the end of the record, as tamino did: the April 2010 BEST anomaly is -1.04°C, which represents a sharp cooling of 1.9°C from the previous month, and is followed by a 2.1°C warming the following month (Figure 2).

      Figure 2: BEST record since January 2001, with the April 2010 anomaly highlighted in red

      Was there really such a large temperature drop and rise between March and May 2010? It doesn’t show up in any other surface temperature record. When we examine the BEST data, the problem is immediately apparent. The uncertainty levels in April and May 2010 are 2.8°C and 2.9°C, respectively. Going back to January 2001, the next-largestuncertainty level is 0.21°C, and the average uncertainty is less than 0.1°C. Tamino plots the monthly data hockey stick-like uncertainties (Figure 3).

      Figure 3: BEST monthly uncertainties since 2001, with a huge spike in April and May 2010

      So what happened with the April and May 2010 data? While the March 2010 anomaly was based on 14,488 stations, April and May were based on only 47 stations, all in the Antarctic (h/t Nick Stokes). In other words, April and May 2010 should be excluded from BEST data analysis because they are incomplete, their uncertainties are just too large, and April 2010 is quite obviously an anomalous outlier. Frankly they should not have been published in their current state.

      Figure 4 shows how the short-term trend changes when we exclude those two unreliable data points.

      Figure 4: BEST data and linear trend since January 2001 including and excluding April and May 2010

      The BEST linear trend increases from 0.03°C per decade when including the faulty data points, to 0.14°C per decade when they are excluded. It’s also important to remember that according to NOAA, which is the dataset most similar to BEST, 2010 was the second-hottest year on record over land (behind 2007), and the hottest globally (effectively tied with 2005). Ironically, the analysis the “skeptics” are using to argue that global warming has stopped ends in a record hot year for global surface temperatures.

      In short, the problem is not that Muller is hiding the decline, the problem is that Curry is hiding the incline.

      Enough Cherrypicking Already

      As we have recently discussed, although we can’t say for certain statistically, it’s likely that the global surface temperature warming trend has slowed over the past decade, becausevirtually all short-term temperature impacts have been in the cooling direction over that timeframe. Climate “skeptics” desperately want us to believe that the trend has slowed because global warming has magically disappeared, but that’s simply not the case. In fact, as Santer et al. (2011) showed,

      “Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenicwarming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

      Although the Santer et al. analysis applied to the temperature of the lower atmosphere, the same argument applies to surface temperatures. Figure 5 shows the BEST trendfrom March 1993 to March 2010 (the most recent 17-year period available in the data, excluding the two final unreliable points).

      Figure 5: BEST most recent 17 years of data with linear trend

      Over the most recent 17-year period, the BEST trend is 0.36°C per decade*, clearly showing the anthropogenic warming trend over that period.

      Examining the causes of decadal variability is both interesting as useful, but exploiting decadal variability to try and incorrectly argue that global warming has magically stopped is neither. And of course those who argue that global warming has magically stopped conveniently ignore the continued increase in ocean heat content (Figure 6).

      Figure 6: Total Global Heat Content from Church et al. 2011

      Note that Curry has agreed that tamino’s analysis (replicated in this post) is correct and useful, but

      “my statement to Rose was about the plot with the 10 year running mean ending in 2006 being misleading. It is misleading.”

      As it so happens, most of the BEST graphs include 12-month running means (i.e. see their research papers). Moreover, how plotting a 10-year running mean is automatically “misleading” is a mystery (unexplained by Curry), and Curry’s accusations of deception remain unsupported, unwarranted, and unwise.

      Accusing other scientists (especially one’s colleagues) of deceit for doing proper statistical analysis is simply unconscionable, and why Curry would accuse others of “hiding the decline” while herself hiding the incline is a mystery. On her blog, Curry complains that the article misrepresented her to some degree (while standing behind some of her worst comments, and acknowledging that the quotes attributed to her in the article are correct), but frankly when dealing with fake skeptics like those at The Daily Mail, most of us know that misrepresentation is the norm.

      We conclude by offering Dr. Curry the same advice we recently offered Dr. Pielke: DNFTD (Do Not Feed The Delayers). In short, if an interviewer tries to “tease out” from you a quote about “hiding the decline,” or some other denialist myth, don’t let them.

      ===================

      * There is probably a small contribution to this trend from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. The 15-year trend is 0.30°C per decade, 16-year is 0.28°C per decade, and 18-year is 0.41°C per decade.

    • spinneywebber says:

      couldn’t resist answering this one before going to work, hope it doesn’t make me late…
      in 1980 you would have had look look really hard to find a scientist worried about global warming, if anything they would have been worried about global cooling and a new ice age. Talk about catastrophic change, that would make you wish for global warming.
      Anyhow, 18 years later, in 1998, after a period of warming, warming fundamentalists were besides themselves because there had been warming.
      Now, after 18 years after that, even though said warming has stopped, (see link to graph I posted above, data is from RSS, not questioned by any of your experts), all of a sudden 18 years is not a long enough time period to be significant.
      Summary:
      18 years of warming: hysteria!
      18 years of flat temperature: means nothing.

      The secret to understanding such inconsistent reasoning/insult to logic may lie in the fact that now, after 18 years, all those bright young scientists who staked their carers publishing about global warming are now in their 40’s-50-‘s, and a reversal would spell a quick end to their careers. Unemployment is a powerful motivator.

    • GAguilar says:

      No global warming since 1998? Yikes!

      Surely your googling skills aren’t that hypoplastic,are they?

      As I’ve already pointed out, ole “Spinney,” (you’ll find my mention of it in response to b Zimmer, below) that’s one of them silly factoids that’s long since been debunked.

      To save you time and energy, and help you get to work on time, I’ll lay out the whole enchilada. If you bother to read it, it may save you the time it’d take you to find and trot out other, debunked anti-warmist myths.

      Always here to help, ole courageous Spinney. (Posters who hide behind names like “Spinney” are nothing if not courageous.)

      Best,

      Gary

      Ps, click the link and look at the graphs.

      http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

      CONNECTING THE DOTS

      Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

      May 16, 2014

      by Joshua Holland

      1.8K

      Jonathan Tucker in a cave beneath a glacier. (Photo: Rex Features via AP Images)

      Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.

      But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.

      So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

      1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

      This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

      Kevin Trenberth

      Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

      What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

      “That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

      Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:

      (Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

      But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

      Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

      Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

      He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

      This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:

      Land, atmosphere and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). (Graphic: From Nuccitelli et al., 2012)

      2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions

      In the real world, we have natural climate variability, and then we have human-caused warming,” says Ben Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who ranked 12th in a 2002 study of the most frequently cited scientists in the field. “And that human-caused warming is embedded in the rich, day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of natural climate variability.”

      Ben Santer

      Climate researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

      Santer was explaining the misleading nature of the claim that because the earth hasn’t warmed as quickly as some previous projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested it would, the science is somehow suspect.

      “Lord” Monckton and other skeptics make much of the fact that the IPCC’s first model projected that the planet would warm at a rate of 3.5 degrees Celsius, when real-world readings since then have shown a warming rate of 1.4 degrees per century.

      According to Santer, “The inherent fallacy here is that they’re looking at very short-term changes over a decade or so and saying that if there’s some mismatch between modeled and observed changes over a short period of time, then that falsifies all climate models, and all of their projections of future climate change — but it does no such thing.

      “What we do in our line of work is we beat down that short term noise of natural climate variability by looking at changes over long sweeps of time. This claim is classic cherrypicking — it’s treating IPCC results from previous assessments as predictions rather than projections, and exploiting short-term climate noise to argue that there’s some fundamental mismatch between the models and observations. If that were right, you’d see evidence of such a mismatch over long sweeps of time, but we don’t.”

      John Abraham adds that “the atmosphere heated faster than the projections from about 1990 to 2000, and then they rose slower from 2000 to the present. And now, with a new El Niño forming, we’re probably going to see a new record and erase that slower trend.”

      3. Yes, the Temperature Readings Are Reliable

      Andrew Dessler

      Professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University

      “The thing to remember here is that scientists aren’t idiots,” says Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University and winner of this year’s Louis J. Battan Author’s Award from the American Meteorological Society.

      Dessler was responding to a study conducted by Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman and prominent climate denier, for the Heartland Institute, which has received funding from the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil.

      In 2009, Watts claimed that 90 percent of the stations used to monitor the earth’s surface temperature were positioned in places where they were prone to artificially inflated readings — near heat sources, for example.

      “This was a big issue maybe four or five years ago,” says Dessler. “In fact, this wasthe issue the skeptics were touting. But if you look at the peer-reviewed literature, this was stuff that was answered years ago.

      “It is true there are issues [with some surface monitoring stations], but you can make adjustments for them. For example, you can look at a station in a city, and say, ‘Okay, maybe there’s an urban effect,’ and then you compare the trend with a rural station nearby.” What matters most is the trend of rising temperatures measured at many different locations.

      More to the point, says Dessler, “the surface temperature record is only one of eight or ten different data sets that we look at — and the others agree very well with the surface temperature record.” Scientists have compiled independent temperature data using weather balloons, satellite measurements and sea and ocean readings, and they all show the same thing: a warming planet.

      4. Yes, There Is a Scientific Consensus

      The most important thing to understand about the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm is that it isn’t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists’ opinions. It results from the scientific method.

      John Abraham

      Professor of thermal and fluid sciences, University of St. Thomas School of Engineering

      “Scientists are very interested in theories that other factors may be causing climate change,” says John Abraham. “The contrarians put forward ideas and the consensus scientists investigate them honestly and find that they don’t withstand scientific scrutiny. This happens all the time. That’s how science works. In fact, showing that these guys are wrong makes the science better.”

      A scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence for a proposition becomes so great that serious researchers stop arguing about it among themselves. They then move on to study and debate other questions. There’s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing the planet to warm isn’t one of them.

      There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists — 97 percent — accept the consensus view.

      But what if those three percent who reportedly reject the consensus are like Galileo, who challenged the 16th century view that the sun revolved around the Earth? John Abraham and five of his colleagues published a study earlier this year which found that studies authored by climate contrarians “were often found to be unsubstantiated by the data,” resulting in “criticisms, corrections, and in some cases, resignation of editors.” They add: “the same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.”

      But that hasn’t prevented climate deniers from compiling long lists of people they claim to be dissenting climatologists. The most prominent of these was the Oregon Petition, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.”

      The petition was supposedly signed by “31,000 American scientists” who opposed the consensus “entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.” But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters.

      More recently, climate change denier Marc Morano, who in the past has worked for both Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James “Climate Change Is A Hoax” Inhofe (R-OK), compiled a smaller list that he says is proof that the consensus is “falling apart.”

      Barry Bickmore, “a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican,” looked at a sample of the names on Morano’s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working climate scientists who had published in peer-reviewed journals.

      5. It’s Not the Sun’s Fault

      Henrik Svensmark is a physicist and professor at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen. He’s published a number of papers, spanning a decade, arguing that the Earth is warming as a result of solar activity.

      He hasn’t been persecuted for these beliefs, nor run out of the scientific community on a rail. Nobody has tried to censor his views. Rather, his theories have been tested by other scientists, repeatedly, and don’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s how the scientific method works.

      “There’s no evidence to support Svensmark’s contention,” says Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “It’s a testable hypothesis, and we routinely look at whether Svensmark’s ‘the sun explains everything’ hypothesis is in accord with available observations. And it isn’t.”

      Santer explains that if the sun were warming the planet, we would see heating “throughout the full vertical extent of the atmosphere.” Yet scientists have found that while the lower atmosphere is heating up, the upper atmosphere is actually cooling, and that finding is “fundamentally inconsistent” with the idea that the sun is to blame. But, says Santer, that pattern is exactly what was “predicted by the earliest computer model simulations” of a planet that’s warming due to increased greenhouse gases.

      6. Doubling Down With “Global Cooling”

      Climate change deniers seized on an op-ed Henrik Svensmark wrote in 2009 for a conservative Danish newspaper claiming that the sun had entered a cooling cycle, and therefore the Earth would begin to cool as well.

      “There is no credible data nor any credible scientist who would make this claim,” says John Abrahams. “Perhaps Cliff Clavin from Cheers might say this but not even the few contrarian scientists would agree that this statement is correct.”

      Several of the other scientists we spoke to agreed that this claim is simply bizarre.

      7. Yes, It’s Been Warm Before

      Katharine Hayhoe

      Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech

      Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech, says that on three occasions she came down with food poisoning after eating at a certain chain restaurant. For some reason, she tried the chain again, and once again suffered from the exact same stomach pains the next day. She assumed that she was dealing with another bout of food poisoning, but it didn’t go away. Finally, after two weeks, she discovered that she was actually pregnant — it was morning sickness.

      “Just because something happened before for one reason, doesn’t mean that when it happens again it’s for the same reason,” says Hayhoe in response to a claim, popularized by “Lord” Monckton, that the fastest warming ever recorded occurred in central England in the 17th century. This, says Monckton, was before the industrial revolution began, so “it cannot have been our fault.”

      Anthony Leiserowitz: Making People Care About Climate Change

      “Our planet is running a fever,” says Hayhoe, “and I can think of six or seven reasons why it could be running hot. As a scientist, you don’t just jump to conclusions. You do the tests. You say, ‘OK, could it be a natural cycle this time? Could it be the sun? Could it be volcanoes? Could it be orbital cycles and ice ages?’ We run those tests and we see if it could be any of those things that caused the climate to change naturally in the past. And in this case, we’ve run those tests and the answer to all those questions is, ‘no.’ In fact, if our temperature were controlled by natural causes right now, we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.”

      Hayhoe also notes Monckton’s reliance on temperatures in Central England during odd ranges of dates, like 1663-1762. “It’s cherry-picking in both space and time,” she says. “If you’re going to look at global climate change, you have to look at global temperatures. When it’s hot in one place, it’s cold in another. And when you see weird dates, you should be suspicious — there has to be a reason why someone chose those odd dates. Climate scientists tend to use nice round numbers like 1800 or 1900.”

      8. No, Antarctic Ice Isn’t Increasing

      The claim that Antarctic ice is increasing rather than melting is an interesting one given the two major studies released this week which found that six large West Antarctic glaciers are in an irreversible state of decline.

      Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explains the importance of distinguishing between sea ice and land ice. Ninety-eight percent of Antarctica’s land mass is covered by ice that accumulated over thousands of years. This ice is melting at an alarming rate.

      Sea ice, on the other hand, builds up in the winter and melts almost entirely in the summer. The difference between the two is crucial — melting land ice increases ocean levels significantly, while sea ice melt has a lesser effect.

      Trenberth says that the claim is based on the spread of sea ice, not overall ice volume. “This is a very important distinction because sea ice gets blown around by the winds, and around Antarctica there are very strong winds,” he says. “And we actually know why the sea ice changes from year to year — we have solid evidence. When there are southerly winds, winds blowing away from the continent, then the ice spreads out and almost creates an ice factory because it opens up little gaps between the ice and then more ice forms in the gaps. That sea ice is often very thin, and while it can spread a long way, it doesn’t amount to much in terms of volume.”

      The Antarctic winds are changing, sea ice is spreading out, and scientists haveseveral theories to explain why. But the important thing to understand is that a number of studies, using different methods to approach the question, have all concluded that we’re losing massive amounts of land ice, and that’s what’s driving the rise in sea levels.

      And 168 more…

      These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. TheSkeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others.

    • spinneywebber says:

      I can read a graph myself, and it is perfectly obvious that there is no upward trend the past 18 years, even most of your climate fundamentalists admit that there has been a “pause.” Very “inconvenient”, I know, but if you can’t even admit that you are truly blinded by “the truth.”
      It seems pretty clear you’re convinced there is only one truth, the word of Global Warming, a wonderful truth full of fire & brimstone with large doses of guilt for all, laid out and made clear for us in the holy book of the IPCC by the incorruptible (convicted criminals) holy canon of climategate scientists.
      ps, your favorite website “skeptical science” has been repeatedly “debunked” as a fundamentalist propaganda site.
      They have endless streams of circular thinking spinning their version of the holy climate truth, but edit out any dissenting voices on their discussion boards. It’s a perfect echo chamber.
      And now, for something completely different, please allow yourself to enjoy these videos:

      10 Climate Myths Busted (in 60 seconds!) – YouTube
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB109lhkAyk

      The IPCC Exposed – YouTube
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI&feature=youtu.be

      pps –
      another laughable spin job:
      sea ice melts in the Arctic: emergency, emergency!!!!
      sea ice melts in the Antarctic: yawn…we can explain that, it’s because winds, blah, cracks, blah, thin ice, doesn’t amount to much anyway blah blah blah…

    • GAguilar says:

      Is this the graph you say shows no rise in mean temps since 1998? ; ~ >

      http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

    • spinneywebber says:

      Yes, it’s there it is plain as day on the first graph in the Bill Moyers article you linked to. Just look at the pause starting around 1998. However, any graph with reliable data will show it, this one is just for that time period, so it is even more clear:

      Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend | Watts Up With That?
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/01/happy-anniversary-1-october-marks-18-years-without-global-warming-trend/

      Now, go back to the graph in the link you sent. See the rise 1910-1950, a period before significant human CO2 production? Then in the war/post war boom years when industrialization and human’s CO2 output really exploded there’s a pause in warming for 40 years! In other words, there was a significant 40 year period of warming before CO2 became a big factor, then as soon as CO2 rises there is a 40 year pause in warming! Now again another pause (18 years & counting) in warming as we are reaching record levels of CO2! There is no short term correlation with CO2.
      Long term there is a large lag of decades-centuries of CO2 content of the atmosphere going up after warming has already occurred. According to all of the records, CO2 goes up long after temperatures have gone up. That is undisputed.

      That’s why climatologists are constructing complex computer models that force, through the invention of yet to be observed “feedback loops”, a correlation with CO2 and warming, even though the warming plainly happens much earlier.
      According to their models, CO2 that is not yet present in the atmosphere causes warming…it makes no sense. Conversely, they have no explanation for why in the past, when CO2 levels have been much higher than now and temperatures warmer, the earth begin to cool again. According to their models, high CO2 means maximum runaway greenhouse effect, so why does the earth cool? Why is there a cycle of warm periods followed by ice ages in the climatic record?
      According to their models the history of the earth should be warming, more CO2 (from the oceans as they warm), more warming, more CO2 from the oceans, more warming etc…runnaway greenhouse effect….everybody dies/scorched planet. That should have happened a long time ago when CO2 levels were way higher than today. Yet somehow, that’s not what happened. The earth cooled off.

      It’s plainly obvious – CO2 is not driving our climate.

      ps, good treatment of the subject:
      When Did Global Warming Begin?
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/when-did-global-warming-begin/

      “In 2010 Phil Jones (of climategate fame) was asked by the BBC, “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” Phil Jones responded that,”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

      The warming during the periods of “1860-1880″ and “1910-1940″, before anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions became potentially consequential, is “not statistically significantly different” from the warming during the periods “1975-1998″ and “1975 to 2009″. Thus there is no indication that the warming between “1975-1998″ and “1975 to 2009″ is unnatural, unusual and/or caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.”

    • Rick Fitz says:

      You’re wasting time.

      Global warming is religion to these people. Real liberals look at facts.

    • GAguilar says:

      Here’s Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

      What has global warming done since 1998?

      What the science says…Select a level… Basic IntermediateFor global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

      Climate Myth…

      It hasn’t warmed since 1998
      For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society’s continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)

      No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

      Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much abouttrends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.

      There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heatstoring capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

      Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

      Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.

    • spinneywebber says:

      really sorry GAg, my weekend is over, had to go back to work today…there is absolutely no way I can keep up with your serial posting.
      Good luck with your agenda, I really hope you have read some of the dissenting scientific opinions I posted. That’s what science is all about, after all, keeping an open mind!!
      And remember,
      “It’s a very important thing to learn to talk to people you disagree with.”
      Pete Seeger

  13. Muppins says:

    The long overdue Ice Age is coming. I’m not basing that on anything but my own observations.
    It will be interesting, if it is in my lifetime, to see how we fare this time round.

  14. Club Girl II says:

    Tumblr article

    I saw a writer talking about this on Tumblr and it linked to