Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

swastika_in_forest
Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

DISCLAIMER: Any views expressed here are my own, and unless otherwise stated, are not those of my employer, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, or the State of Alabama.


891 Responses to “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. O. Olson says:

    I’m with you. I’ve never thought publicly calling names was a good idea, but at some point you need to stop turning the other cheek to save face. Also like that you point out that the Nazis were anti capitalist. They were in fact firmly ensconced on the left side of the political spectrum as even a cursory look at their domestic policies and actions will show. Another generally accepted part of the definition of fascism is the use of fear and violence to exercise control. Remind you of any comments regarding dark alleys?

    • Jimbo says:

      “I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.”

      your own pseudo-science and phoney PhD is the perfect example of this statement.

      Enjoy your circle-jerk of the brainless because you cannot take any responsibility for the damage being done to the Earth that we rely on to live.

      You talk about the povery being the biggest issue yet it is western greed, globalisation, world banks, wars over resources that keep the developing world in poverty.

      Pathetic article by the poorest excuse for a scientist i have ever seen. Putting Nazi’s here is just stirring up hatred against people who are legitimately concerned for the welfare of this planet. Clearly you are not…

      • CiceroTheLatest says:

        So, a Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison is “pseudo-science and phoney PhD”?

        The was just about the stupidest incidence of Leftist lying/ranting I’ve ever encountered (that wasn’t on MSNBC).

        • John F. Borowski says:

          I have taught for 32 years. I have studied global warming. Why are the oceans becoming more acidic? Why is Arctic ice at record lows? Why are animal migrations changing so quickly?

          I am not a Nazis……..I love my kids/grandkids. Sorry.

          • SDN says:

            Arctic ice isn’t at record lows. You are a liar.

          • Elliott M. Althouse says:

            We have only been able to observe all these things you mention recently. Have you seen the articles in the New York Times 100 years ago about the melting Arctic? Are you aware that polar bears did not just appear after the last ice age? That they have survived several eras MUCH warmer than now? Are you aware that the oceans are NOT becoming more acidic, because they have a pH which is basic to begin with. They are becoming less basic; slightly. Coral have survived untold ocean changes over millions of years, they are not going to become extinct by a pH change of .1 or .2. You have taught, but you fail to mention if you are a scientist. Do you have an advanced degree? Ever done SCIENTIFIC research? Understand what a null hypothesis is? Know statistics? Computer code? I love my kids and granddaughter, and do not wish to see their future ruined by self serving Chicken Littles with an agenda which will rob them of their opportunity to prosper.

          • Jimbo says:

            @ elliot

            you are so niave…

            just because something is basic (pH>7; actually ~8 for the oceans) doesn’t mean it can become more acidic by the pH decreasing!!

            that decrease in pH will have astronomical effects because the ionic state of many many many millions of molecules that exist in the environment are effected by the pH. Minor changes in pH result in major changes in environment. CaCO3 is the perfect example. If you would care to do 5mins of research you may discover the extent of the problem. Major disruption to the food chain…less fish to eat from an already drastically depleted food stock… but you don’t care do you because you don’t want to feel guilt…

            ocean acidification = climate changes lesser known side kick…

            thanks again baby boomers!

          • DocinPA says:

            The Arctic ice sheet is 50% larger than it was a year ago. WHAT are you talking about? As to the educated elite: Some of the most vapid, senseless, utterly devoid of a shred of common sense twits that I’ve ever had the misfortune of working with were MD’s from Ivy League schools. God save us from academics. They should all be required to undergo remedial blue collar training, learning a useful trade (4 years oughtta do it) before they’re allowed to talk to young skulls full of mush.

          • Elliott M. Althouse says:

            Ocean pH has varied widely over a long long history. Life on Earth adapts. That’s how it survives the continually changing environment it finds itself in. The only reason people say “More Acidic” is because the lay public equates acidic with sulfuric acid. It is an intentionally inflammatory characterization of a change of pH in a particular direction. If atmospheric CO2 dropped to 200 ppm, the increase in pH would also have consequences, just not catastrophic ones. More acidic for a drop in pH above 7 is just bad Chemical grammar. “A reduction in pH” is non biased, non misleading and conventionally correct. Just as Dr. Spencer is trying to point out, calling people names, (“naive” is mild, yet you do not know me, my qualifications, or my knowledge base), has no place in a scientific discussion. Anything to the contrary can only be construed as political, and has no place in science. The very act of being “alarmist” implies that defense of your position is the most important thing, when in reality the ONLY important thing is the ANSWER. Honest science, honest results, unadulterated data and I believe the results. Lies, cheating, hostility, greed, this I don’t trust. Watch what happens now that Mark Steyn has countersued Michael Mann. Mann will have to release all his data to discovery, which he has been guarding since the beginning of “The Pause”. Hopefully the alarmists arguments will fully unravel and everyone can get back to a proper study of our climate wherever that leads.

          • Russell Bennett says:

            I was taught that one mistake in a theory voids the theory. The Arctic ice is at Record high. Did you follow the news when the Global Warming Nazis got trapped in the Ice that was not supposed to be there in the Antarctic. Guess it was just a cold summer.

          • Tom Harris says:

            But then you are not calling others “deniers” and doing all the other despicable things that the ones Dr. Spencer is calling NAZIs are doing. It is that fringe group that are acting like Nazis, not people who sound reasonable like you. People on both sides of the discussion can see when others are acting like Nazis. It actually doesn’t matter what your view on the science is. Despicable behaviour is despicable, and people following this approach should be roundly condemned by people of good will on all sides of the debate.

          • llew Jones says:

            If you loved your kids/grandkids you would not embrace the de-industrialisation of advanced economies. Not only are many alarmist climate scientists like the Nazis in their intolerance but they essentially are ideologues of the Neo-Pagan variety.

            Following that backward looking path will do far more damage to future generations than any imagined catastrophic global warming.

          • GTMGQ says:

            Because the oceans are not acidifying, ice is at record HIGHS you big fat liar, animal migration is subject to so many variables including natural warming which ended almost twenty years ago…WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

          • JulesBue says:

            The oceans are not becoming more acidic except possibly close to a metropolis. Ice has been at record lows… but also have been at record highs in the short time they have been keeping records. Migrations changing so quickly? Wait, and that too will change. Wait again and you will have intermittent evidence for, and against AGW. These scientists studying this problem are up against fluid behavior described by the Napier-Stokes differential equations. Weather, climate, life, heating, heat transfer, fluid transport, solar radiation, galactic radiation, magnetic fields, chemical reactions, Coriolis forces, and a thousand more factors affect this. All of these intertwining phenomenon are chugging out chaos on all cylinders. To state with full confidence that global warming is happening, is caused by humans and is catastrophic is hubris of the highest order. To question that position is reasonable. How do we get to the position where AGW theory is considered a consensus? I will propose a modest answer to this question for your consideration. Given that: 1) people are naturally sympathetic to the environment, and 2) people have egos and want to be seen and understood as being good, and 3) the natural solution to a catastrophic AGW would be trillions of dollars international taxes and governmental control of all power (and just about everything else); governmental and intergovernmental power, most scientists, and egos will take the path of self interest, perhaps without even knowing it.

          • John B says:

            You may have taught for 32 years, presumably not chemistry.

            The oceans are alkali; they may become more or less alkaline but not more acidic unless their pH drops below 7.

            Pure water has a pH of 7, that is neutral, if its pH goes up to 7.1 has it become ‘less acidic’ or has it become alkaline?

            The ‘oceans’ is a big place. Not all areas of the oceans share the same pH, so saying that the oceans have changed in pH… however you choose to express it… is uninformed.

            And judging by your questions, your studies of global warming are somewhat incomplete.

            Animal migration, ice mass are not proxies for global warming because a variety of factors can influence them jointly or severally. Whilst it is true global warming may cause such changes, such changes in themselves do not prove any particular cause.

          • Leigh Haugen says:

            I love my kids and want to save them from a life of starvation, misery and servitude created by the global warming cult – idiots like you John.

          • Best to keep schtumm rather then peddle untruths. The Arctic had a number of low ice periods in the 20th century, and at least one of them before CO2 began to rise in the atmosphere. Do some research. We’re talking science here, not a belief system.

          • Jenny Cameron says:

            What have you taught? Obviously not history.EVERYTHING has history ,including climate.If you really love your kids/grandkids start looking at the climate history of this planet.

          • rum says:

            you teach ? you teach science? and you have a theory that because it is slightly warmer since (go ahead cherry pick a time)..that its because and only because of man’s contribution of .03% of co2? no wonder our children have no clue.

          • John Cunningham says:

            Many Nazi leaders were loving family men. loving your kids is quite compatible with ideological beliefs that are absurd, anti-human, and contemptibly stupid. Arctic ice is not at a record low, and antarctic ice is way high. do you even know that computer “models” of climate have failed for the past 20 years? do you know that none of the models can hindcast? they cannot produce the observed temps of the 20th century.

          • Doug Leach says:

            The oceans aren’t becoming more acidic. pH is still up around 8.1 last I looked. By definition, greater than 7 is alkaline, not acidic. To be acidic at all, you got to be below 7. Also, Arctic sea ice is NOT at record lows.

            Please read and educate yourself. If you taught for 32 years, I feel sorry for all your students.

          • WestHoustonGeo says:

            Arctic Ice is at average levels. Antarctic ice has been at RECORD HIGH levels until just recently.
            Every one of the “climate models” that the global warming myth depends on have been PROVEN wrong by actual temperature OBSERVATIONS.

          • hunter says:

            The oceans are not becoming “more acidic”, the Arcitic is not diong anything it has not dome many times before, and you don’t cre for your grandchildren if you teach them to lie like you are now.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Why are the oceans becoming more acidic? Answer: They aren’t. The oceans all have a pH ABOVE 7, which means that they are slightly alkaline, and not “acidic” at all. There have never been ANY pH measurements ANYWHERE in the oceans that were < 7 pH units, so NOWHERE is the ocean "Acidic".

            Why is the Arctic ice at record lows? Answer: It isn't. It was at record lows in August of 2012 and has been recovering quite nicely since then.

            If you love your grandkids, support policies that will enable them to grow, thrive, and be free and independent. The climate will do what the climate wants to do – it always has, and it always will.

          • Gail Combs says:

            I pity your students if you do not even know that while rain water (pH of 5.7 ) is acidic the oceans are alkaline.
            I pity your students because you are completely unaware that the ocean is BUFFERED. It CAN NOT become acidic.

            Atmospheric CO2 dissolves, hydrolyses, and protolyses in the ocean water, and combines with calcium and precipitates solid calcium carbonate, forming sediments. CO2 partitioning between air and water is governed by Henry’s Law, resulting in some 50 times more CO2 in water than in air at equilibrium. The ocean’s carbonate system will buffer the ocean’s pH to a value around 8. Together with other mineral buffers they add up to an almost infinite pH buffer capacity (Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. 1970: Aquatic Chemistry. Wiley, 583 pp.). Hence to double the amount of atmospheric CO2 would require the addition of much more than is now present therein (Mason, B. 1966: Principles of Geochemistry, 3rd ed. Wiley, 329 pp.).

            There is not enough fossil fuels available for a doubling of CO2 in air through anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels (Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. 1992: Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review, 2nd rev. ed. Norsk Polarinstitutt Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute Memoirs] 119, 76 pp.).

            H/T to Dr. TOM V. SEGALSTAD
            Natural History Museum, University of Oslo; Geological Museum

            for the information on ocean buffering.

          • RickS says:

            And Dr. Spencer is not on the same moral plane as a Holocaust denier. And for you people to keep insisting that he and other skeptics are is not only repugnant, but also really, really hurting your cause. People see it as a sign of desperation. It’s a big reason why your side is losing so badly. Well that, and the fact that pretty much everything your side puts out is completely unsubstantiated by actual scientific observation.

          • Slave to Truth says:

            @ John F. Borowski

            You are aware that none of the climate models accurately predict past, aren’t you? If that is the case, why do you trust the predictions of the future. The models don’t predict the medieval warm period or the the little ice age associated with the Maunder Minimum. I get the feeling you have studied nothing.

            BTW the history of science is the history of science being wrong. Look at things like phlogiston vs. oxidation, earth centered universe, classical mechanics (breaks down at the quantum level), etc. Consensus can be very meaningless in science.

          • Alcheson says:

            The oceans are NOT becoming more acidic, just slightly less basic. I dare say the oceans are NOT in any danger of becoming acidic due to its enormous buffering capacity. It is unlikely to even change by 0.2units even if CO2 hits 1000ppm.

            Artic ice comes and goes… some decades it on the high side, some decades on the low. How much arctic ice was there when the Vikings settled Greenland?

            You may love your Grandkids, but you are fighting for them to live under NAZI like conditions. State control of everything. Forcing every commoner to live in energy poverty and a much lowered standard of living.

          • Villabolo says:

            SDN says:
            February 20, 2014 at 7:57 PM
            Arctic ice isn’t at record lows. You are a liar.

            The comparison is to past extent in 1980 when accurate measurements were first possible.

          • barry says:

            Arctic ice isn’t at record lows

            In terms of recent conditions over the last few years, it certainly is. The rocrd-breaker, by a large margin was September 2012.

            The Arctic ice sheet is 50% larger than it was a year ago.

            Absolute baloney.

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/02/Figure2.png

            Do you mean that the Arctic “ice sheet” is bigger than it was 6 months ago? Well of course. It’s winter in the Arctic now.

            Saying the oceans are becoming more acidic is correct. They don’t have to actually be acidic for that to be true. Like saying that a body going from 150 degrees kelvin to 200 degrees K is getting warmer, even though both temperatures are below the freezing point of water. Arguing the reverse would be the same as saying a child midget could not possibly grow taller because they are below average height even when adult. And when they do grow taller, no doubt proponents of this strange convention would argue that the proper terminology is that they “grew less short.”

          • Clyde Spencer says:

            You didn’t say what it is that you teach, JFB. It apparently isn’t chemistry or English. The oceans aren’t acidic, so it is impossible for them to become “more acidic.” They are strongly buffered alkaline solutions whose pH is being lowered slightly by the weak acid created by CO2. As the temperature of the oceans increases, the solubility of CO2 decreases, thereby reducing the amount of carbonic acid that can be sustained. The oceans will probably never become acidic, barring some natural volcanic disaster. It is characteristic that people who have a poor grasp of science are the most fervent defenders of unsubstantiated claims and environmental jingoisms.

          • metro70 says:

            The grandkids button is just the refuge for those denying the developments, the hiatus , the lack of SLR acceleration—the short time frame of reference, considering OHC was measured with buckets , and then later with faulty XBT floats until the deployment of Argo floats in 2003, considering satellite measurement of global temperature has only been possible since the 70s, and measurement of LST was only patchy before that—considering the world was worried about ‘the coming ice age’ just before the all-natural Great Pacific Climate Shift changed everything in 1976 etc etc.

            You ask why the Arctic is melting.

            A whole bunch of very highly-credentialled scientists testified to Congress that nearly half that melt [ some say more], and that of the glaciers and the permafrost is caused not by CO2, but by black carbon [ soot] from the burning of forests in Asia and Brazil—and from old inefficient diesel vehicles.

            The darkness of the soot covering the whiteness, decreases the albedo, or reflectivity, of the ice, which increases the absorption of heat, and that in turn increases the amount of melting.

            It’s been likened to pulling a black curtain over the ice, and the melting of the ice with dark water left in its place, sets up a catastrophic feedback cycle that affects global climate.

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell/Shindell_House_testimony_3_16_10.pdf

            That’s anthropogenic, but it’s carbon, not CO2.

            Also anthropogenic, is the fact that there have billions more people added to earth’s population in the time frame in question— with all of the domestic and farm animals—all of the deforestation and other land-clearing—all of the concrete and cities where once there were grasslands and forests—UHI—all of the burning of biomass for cooking and heating.

            If CO2 is such a demon-warmer, then it seems astounding, does it not, that the world has not warmed more even than claimed over that time-frame.

            Doesn’t it seem likely to you that the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 is lower than thought, as many respected scientists now suggest—that climate is infinitely more complicated than we’ve been asked to believe—that some of those elements of climate that had not even been comprehensively studied at the time when warmists told us the science was already ‘settled, ‘over’, finished’—elements like clouds, oceans, wind patterns, aerosols, the various oscillations, particularly El Nino and La Nina—are a great deal more influential than has been accounted for?

            How many animal migrations or endangerments of animals were ever talked about , widely-publicised —or noticed by other than locals in the past?

          • barry says:

            I think only one scientist made that deposition to congress.

            He attributes anywhere between 18 to 55% of Arctic warming to black carbon, and the rest to GHGs.

            It is well-known that black carbon absorbs sunlight and contributes to melting snow. It also has a dimming effect on the sun when on the atmosphere, as Schindell pointed out. More recent studies contend the effects have roughly canceled aech other out over the Arctic for the last couple of decades. Black carbon deposits were at their highest concentration in the early 20th century.

            At best then, the melting Arctic sea ice is a result of anthropogenic GHGs and black carbon from both natural and (largely) anthropogenic sources.

            If CO2 is such a demon-warmer, then it seems astounding, does it not, that the world has not warmed more even than claimed over that time-frame.

            Mean aerosol forcing (including black carbon) is estimated to have had a nett cooling effect over the industrial period, but the range is an RF of -0.77 to 0.23 W/m/sq. CO2, by comparison, is estimated to have had a mean positive forcing of 1.68 W/m/sq (range 1.33 to 2.03). Best estimate is that aerosols have been keeping the “demon” tamer than it would have been.

          • John says:

            I have observed for more than 32 years.

            Why is Niagara falls frozen?
            Why is there 90% ice coverage on the great lakes?
            Why is the medium global temp unchanged from 30 years ago?
            Why is the ice cover in Antarctica at record highs?

            Quit the selective stats for affirming your bullshirt.

          • Dale left coast says:

            Ocean is acidic? That is just insane, dropping from 8.5 to 8.3 .. . . is as anyone with a swimming poor knows . . very alkaline.

            You are an enviro-loon . . . a believer in Computer Models . . .

        • Jimbo says:

          Its not about left or right its about the world old people like yourselves are leaving for the rest of us!

          I don’t give a crap about big govt or little govt…all governments are corrupt. But you older baby boomer types don’t care because you won’t be around. We will. You tell yourselves that nothing is happening so you don’t have to feel guilty. But you know we are affecting the planet. that couldnt be more obvious. How can polluting the way we do not?! Circle jerk of the brainless…

          so thanks a lot for a world that we need to fix…thanks a lot for not doing anything because it might cost a dollar or two of your superannuations.

          But don’t worry you’ll be dead before things get bad…so thanks again!

          signed
          the youth

          • BBould says:

            I miss those days when I was young and stupid – NOT!

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Spare us all your righteous indignation, Jimbo. We can already tell you are one of those self-righteous, entitled kids that mama never spanked. Pity that she didn’t give you any of the tools you need to operate in the real world when she’s no longer able to provide you with a basement to stay in. Of course, you might prove me wrong one day and actually make a contribution to society instead of whining about those who gave you everything on a platter.

          • tony says:

            Wow. Awesome job and post, Jimbo. I can only quote the well known movie:
            >
            “At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”
            >
            No points, for making absolutely no discernible and intelligently based point. If you are to inherit the earth from which the old will leave – I can only hope that there is there another option for which the inheritance can be left?

          • Skip says:

            Sucks to be you Jimbo!

            As one of those “baby boomer types” that don’t believe in the Climate Change lie, I hope you agonize every day about how the earth is being destroyed. You deserve everything you get and while I’ll be long gone and watching from a distant place, you will be here, sucking on air with slightly higher CO2, swimming in slightly more acidic oceans, with no polar bears and no arctic ice, beaches along the Wasatch mountains and average temperatures in mid 70′s. I will laugh every day at your misery!

          • Jimbo says:

            @skip…
            you got it spot on…

            your generation doesn’t give a toss…

            thanks buddy. We’ll continue to live and try and clean up this mess…thanks again.

            Enjoy being a grumpy ignorant old man

          • hunter says:

            Jimbo,
            The world is just fine. You are a lying idiot.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I wish these idiot kids today were alive back in the 1960′s and 1970′s so they would have SOME idea what “pollution” actually looked like.

            Most days in the 1970′s you couldn’t even SEE in Los Angeles, and if you were driving through Gary, Indiana, you pretty much couldn’t breathe.

            Now, instead of realizing exactly how much we have cleaned up the air, land, and water in the past 40 years compared to how it was back then, and thanking us for our efforts, which have reduced “real” pollution in the US by over 85%, they instead complain about CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere that is completely NECESSARY for ALL life on Earth.

            Shows you how little they actually teach in schools these days… instead of raising intelligent youth that can reason, engage in critical thinking, and be self-reliant and free, we have raised a bunch of freaking morons that have no idea what they are talking about, and don’t even have the logic and critical thinking skills to REALIZE that they don’t have any idea what they are talking about.

            That’s what you get from 55 years of government-sponsored “public education”….

          • Charlie says:

            The oceans pH varies from 7.7-8.3, sometimes it is sufficiently alkali to precipitate calcium carbonate. The weathering of calcium feldspars and limestone produces excess calcium in the oceans. The ocean are well buffered and the chemical reactions between water, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, calcium , calcium carbonate, calcium bicarbonate are complex .

            Many of the sediments in tropical carbonate platforms and mid-ocean ridges comprise greater than 75% calcium carbonate. Any reduction in the pH and calcium carbonate reduction of the sea water will only induce dissolution of calcium carbonate in the sediments.

            When it comes to education neither Newton, Clerk Maxwell or Freeman Dyson have doctorates.

          • Art Peters says:

            Everyone that believes in AGW needs to blame Obama for inaction. When he was elected they (O and congress) could have passed anything and they did nothing to curtail plant food (oops, carbon). So, it must not be that much of a problem. Anytime a politician tells us that we have to do something with no rebuttal, better watch out.

          • Mark D says:

            Jimbo, what scientific answers to you have to counter the thoughtful comments made in the numerous unemotional comments above? Your last message actually hurts your cause if that cause is convincing non-scientist citizens that you and others are right about man-made global warming.

          • Gail Combs says:

            The world you are inheriting is a Darn sight better that the world we inherited bud.

            I remember when the Genesee River (Rochester NY) ran all different colors, the vegetation that managed to grow was white and strange shapes. and the odor would choke you without a mask. (I sailed the mouth of the Genesee to get to Lake Ontario in the 60s and 70s)

            I remember when anyone with a degree in chemistry when asked location preference put down NOT BUFFALO NY, to the point where it was a standing joke with Head Hunters.

            We cleaned up our messes and the messes from our parents and grandparents. We gave you a life where you didn’t see your friends and brothers and sisters paralyzed or dead before they graduated high school.

            So quit your darn whining.

          • RH says:

            Dumbo, put down the bong, get out of your mommies basement, go outside take a look around. You will see the world isn’t the scary place you think it is.

          • Slave to Truth says:

            Wow all governments are corrupt and you don’t care if they are big or small? Don’t you see that small is better if they are all corrupt. Big governments can do more to hurt you.

            But one reason those of us that are older are skeptical is because in the 70s scientific consensus said we were heading into a new ice age. BTW, why do you worship at the alter of scientific consensus? I have a BS in physics and you should have faith in repeatable experiments that bear out a theory. The only “experiments” these guys have hare computer models of climate and no one really understands climate enough to effectively model it. The models they have don’t predict/regress to unusual climate in the past such as the medieval warm period or little ice age. If they can’t model the past, why do you assume they can model the future with any accuracy.

            What are you a liberal arts major, you can’t have an good scientific training. You appear to be more indoctrinated than educated.

          • Alcheson says:

            Jimbo. Actually if you look at what CO2 addition by man has done so far, it has actually been a NET POSITIVE to the climate as we speak. We are ~1.5C warmer than the LIA, and crop yields have increased by ~30% since the 1970s, thanks in a very large part to the increase in CO2. You probably don’t realize that at 200ppm and less CO2, plants start dying off, which means animals and people will as well. You are advocating the we reduce earth temperatures back down to the LIA and bring the planet to the brink of plant and animal death? If you ask me, if CAGW due to CO2 is not real, then I would think todays temperatures are pretty close to ideal. CO2 probably should be even higher, more like in the range 500-700 to be in the ideal range. I would prefer not living so close to the 200ppm edge and have much better crop yields myself.

          • Laura says:

            I love how this generation feels that they are the ‘first’ to care about the planet. You don’t have a clue.

            It’s because of the baby boomer generation that eagles were brought back from the brink of extinction. It’s our generation that first fought to save the whales, the eagles, the condors, etc.

            It’s because our generation fought against big business that pollution control devices were installed in factories and smoke stacks and coal plants back in the 70′s.

            It’s because of our generation that vehicles are now low emission and fuel efficient. It’s because of our generation fighting against big business that you can now swim in Lake Erie. Back in the 70′s, it was so highly polluted, you were nuts to go in that water.

            It was from our generation that environmental watch groups were formed. It was from our generation that wildlife preservation movements began.

            I got news for you Jimbo. We started the anti-establishment movement. It’s because of us that you have cleaner air and cleaner water. So jump down off that soap box. Your generation is just following along in our footsteps.

            Oh, by the way, it was our generation who was fighting overseas for the freedoms you now enjoy, while you type away on your laptop or play online games with your buddies.

          • Canada-Ken says:

            “Youth is wasted on the young.”
            George Bernard Shaw

            “And the ignorant.”
            Me

        • beaverly says:

          Uw-Madison – I was actually quite shocked when I started grad school there. What an incredible step down from MIT. UW deludes itself

      • Big Bob says:

        Can you explain to me How The Last Ice Age ended ?
        Can you explain to me how the cycle of Ice Ages began ?
        Can you explain why it is also warming on the other planets in our solar system where man does not live ?
        What is the temperature supposed to be ? Since it has been changing for the last 100,000 years it’s hard to pick a temperature that has stayed the same. And since we see from the fossil record that many of the animals that once lived on this continent have died off, IE two toed sloths, Mammoths, saber toothed cats, along with the flightless mega birds that once lived on the north American continent. Could not the extinctions of species we see today just be an extension of the same climate change that killed off the three toed sloths. Or does your religion of lies prevent you from asking questions and thinking. Because your remarks certainly make you Ignorant of Earths long and varied history. Answer any and all you feel you can. I am not a scientist either but I can do one thing you seem incapable of, and that is to think, and not parrot what someone else says. Have a nice life in your ignorance, they tell me it is bliss….lol

        • goldminor says:

          @ SDN and Russell Bennett…Actually the Arctic sea ice growth rate on it,s way to the maximum did tundergo a siginificant slowdown which started in early December of last year. It dipped below the -2 sd line approximately 8 days ago, which did set a new all time low for that sequence of days. However, there is almost always an however, over the last two days it has started to swing back the other way. What is interesting about this is that it looks like it may follow the pattern from the previous year, which was the year of the record low, 2012/13. What I find intriguing in this is that last year the sharp upward swing occurred shortly after the full moon. This current upward swing has also started right after the full moon. The only question is will it be as sharp a rise as what happened last year. That sharp rise from last year coupled with a below average temps for the Arctic summer of 2013 to lead to the sharp regrowth, which most of us applauded. Is this about to happen again, and if it does will it lead to a similar result later on this year?

          I found that it is generally a good idea when trying to defend a ‘held’ position to make sure that I go take a second look at current data, prior to the defense of that position.

          • dp says:

            Goldminor – can you please identify for your audience the length of the data record you use when you say Arctic ice was at an all-time low for the period? Can you state and defend the data record is representative of “all-time”?

            Do you think you might have gone over the top with your admonition regarding “held” position and the taking of a second looks? Because you really do look like a flaming idiot.

          • Slave to Truth says:

            Goldminor you are confusing weather with climate. We only have about 50 years of good measurements on the Arctic. That is a blink of the eye in climatological terms. You really need hundreds of years of data and that would still be a small dataset for climate studies.

            What did the arctic look like during that hot (possibly hotter than now) medieval warm period? Answer, nobody knows. It is just as likely that all we are seeing now has happened before. You are aware that the sun goes through all sort of periodical changes in output that we still don’t understand?

          • goldminor says:

            @ dp…Sorry, I did overstate my position. First, I was refering to myself when saying the part about defending a position. Looking back on that I should have left that part out, but I was very tired last night.

            Second, upon looking back at all three Arctic data sites, JAXA, DMI,and NSIDC, I now see that only JAXA is showing about 4 days where the trend line dips below the previous 3 low points. The DMI shows one season lower and several are tied. The NSIDC interactive graph is only updated to 2/3/14, so I can not compare it to the 3 lowest seasons. The front page of NSIDC does show the current trend line below -2 sd and also below the 2011/12 season by a noticeable amount. The use of the phrase ‘all time’ was ill conceived.

            @ Slave to Truth…Yes, the reference to all time was not the right words to use. I am only talking about current conditions in relation to the total data set at DMI, JAXA and NSIDC.

        • Big Bob,

          You’re one of the most arrogant and stupidest global warming lunatic Nazis I’ve ever encountered online. You absolutely don’t have a clue what MAN-MADE or ANTHROPOGENIC global warming is all about. According to this stupid, pseudo-science theory, the catastrophic warming of planet earth is caused by human activities, e.i., by burning fossil, fuels.

          You stupid global warming Nazi asked: “Can you explain to me How The Last Ice Age ended?”

          Are you telling us the last ice age was caused by man-made global warming? LMAO! Did you man-made global warming religion tell you ancient homo sapiens bombarded the atmosphere with too much carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels?

          How stupid can you get?

          You asked: “Can you explain to me how the cycle of Ice Ages began?

          Do you really believe the beginning of the ‘cycle of Ice ages’ was caused by man by emitting too much carbon dioxide?

          You also asked: “Can you explain why it is also warming on the other planets in our solar system where man does not live?”

          You’re a TOTAL MORON! Can you explain to me how EARTHLINGS are causing warming “on other planets in our solar system”?

          You’re indeed a lunatic man-made global warming zombie and Nazi!

          • MGCC says:

            Um…I think you misunderstood what Big Bob was saying…by about 180 degrees. I’m on your side, but so is Big Bob.

          • VTHomie says:

            I am Jewish, and am really quite offended by the number of times Nazi has been said within two pages of text! In addition, Global Warming is real. How can you explain the hurricanes that have been hitting VT? That NEVER happened before!

        • Gail Combs says:

          The Wisconsin Ice Age ended about 11,700 years ago in just three years when the solar insolation @ 21 June @ 65◦ N was above threshold.

          And just in case you were wondering CO2 FOLLOWS temperature. There is an ~800 year lag so while temperatures are falling the CO2 continues to increase. This suggest it is the oceans controlling CO2.

          The more interesting and pertain question is what causes glaciation.

          Here is a peer-reviewed paper from the September 2012.
          Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
          QUOTE
          ….although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). …..
          UNQUOTE

          The paper also gives the solar insolation for 21 June at 65◦ N and CO2 for termination of several interglacials. Current values are insolation = 479 and CO2 = 400 ppmv.

          MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
          MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
          MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
          MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
          MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv

          So the current solar ‘Forcing’ is low enough to support glacial inception.

          And while we are at it. There is the paperCarbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.

          So with the current subdued Solar ‘Forcing’ 9% lower than at the Holocene Optimum and carbon starvation in trees during the Wisconsin Ice Age, why ever would anyone in their right minds want to stop putting CO2 back into our atmosphere?

          Are they suicidal?

      • Byron says:

        I dream of a world of eastern greed, localization, tiny little banks and wars over who has the best looking goldfish. THEN and only THEN will the 3rd world prosper.

      • Bill says:

        So “Jimbo”… And you’re qualifications to discredit and dismiss a distinguished scientist are what exactly? Please, we anxiously await for you to regale us of your qualifications that lead you to dismiss this man’s work. Oh please, I can’t wait Jimbo for you to regale us of your accomplishments. I’m sure they’re legion…

      • common sense says:

        western greed, globalization (we’re not in Britain, dunce. It’s a z, not an s), world banks, and wars over resources…

        Substitute “Jewish greed” for “western greed” and “Jewish financiers” for “world bank”(and we all know what you mean by that) and you could be a writer for the nationalistic Nazi party.

        It’s silly to suggest that people are any less “greedy” in communist utopias or that income inequality doesn’t exist. You have very wealthy, brutal dictators suppressing the masses. At least in a free market society, people have the ability to improve their lot in life.

        Any why is it, do you suppose, that the “fix” for “global warming” happens to match exactly with the goals of the global socialists? And that the cause of “global warming” is people living their lives as they see fit. And why is it that the same group of people jump from one misanthropic pseudo-scientific doomsday scenario to the next (eugenics, DDT, environmentalism, “population bomb,” global cooling, global warming, man-made climate change, etc) that all require an all powerful government to kill their citizens and infringe of the peoples natural rights?

        • Jimbo says:

          all that needs to be said to that moronic statement is that believe it or not the internet exists outside of the good ol’ US of A…

          Some of us are from countries that spell things the ol’ fashioned way…ain’t that unique that we are different…

          • tony says:

            Wow – another great outpouring of wisdom from our friend Jimbo. If “Hank” were here, he would say, “Jimbo – just when I think you’ve said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talking.”

          • Gail Combs says:

            Jimbo go read Dr. R.J. Rummel. He has some interesting information.
            link

          • ParisParamus says:

            Jimbo, are you a cyyptic troll? Is there any hope of reaching you? AGW is a hoax to raise taxes and gain control over people. Only morons could believe otherwise at this point.

        • Mark Lunn says:

          Ever noticed how the “fix” for your car’s transmission happens to match exactly with the goals of the global socialists?

          A curious species, humans. I wonder if they’ll be missed…

      • K. Kern says:

        Your grammar, spelling, and punctuation are substandard for a primary school graduate. I suggest you check out your local Adult Basic Education resources. If that doesn’t appeal to you, Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich’s (now HBJ) book English 2200 would be excellent for self study. It’s available on Amazon for less than five dollars for a used copy. Eng. 2200 is a programmed textbook — a self teaching resource that could improve your writing skills substantially. There is a separate test booklet with answers. If Amazon doesn’t have it, try ABE Used Books.

        • Jimbo says:

          oh so punctuation and grammar matter but spectroscopy does not because your tiny little brain cannot comprehend it so you turn to ignorance and dismiss all notion of it because ignorance is bliss and lets you continue to make the big return on investment on mining and petro companies because society chooses not to pay the full price of carbon (YET) instead leaving the external cost for future generations to deal with.

          Oh what can’t follow?! its ok ignorance is bliss…

          • Tom says:

            I think Jumbo is just a paid troll. Turns out, the US gov’t is spending quite a bit on sockpuppets trying to sway online opinion. I think we found one.

          • Skip says:

            Jimbo, If ignorance is bliss then you are having an orgasm!

          • Jimbo says:

            well if this is the website you turn to for your “knowledge” such a wealth of knowledge as Dr Roy’s here…wow! you must be real smart. I mean what the hell does science know?!

            It knows only the things it tells us that we want to hear. Otherwise its full of crackpots right?!

            how are your actual peer-reviewed publications going these days Dr Roy? Oh can’t handle it when you dribble is torn apart by actual scientists studying atmospheric chemistry and climate science? How is your knowledge of spectroscopy and the absorbance spectra of GHGs? Oh wait am i being a Nazi again asking such rude questions?

            well not to worry you have your army of superbrains here on drroyspencer.com, the hub of global knowledge

          • mikeworst says:

            Jimbo is either a total moron or doing this on purpose as a childish wind-up. I go for childish moron.

          • Jimbo says:

            @Mikeworst
            what an intelligent response. wow did you muster all that yourself…Your mum will be proud

            p.s. yet again your skirt the real science of this topic…well done
            Scientist will be the next bunch labelled Nazi’s because they are telling govts. and big business things they don’t want to hear and yet again the baby boomers eat up anything that can protect their precious image.

          • Mike Workman says:

            Think of the CO2 you expelled Jimbo with that run-on sentence…

            Regarding naivete and your “more acidic” argument: Would you say a 400 lb man is becoming “more lean” if he lost a pound? Yes if you were a marketing person trying to argue a point for some fat busting wonder drug…but we are arguing reasonable discipline of thought and articulation. We are trying to get away from the simple minded hyperbole, the homey but wildly incorrect statements in order to understand the world. Statements by the Secretary of State like “If the sea level goes up one meter, Chicago will be wiped out…pretty much an SNL or Onion article but from one who espouses your viewpoint. Yes, Chicago is on the shore, but it’s the shore of Lake Michigan, not the Ocean, and both are ~200 meters above sea level.

            I confess I cannot confirm that Kerry really said something this ignorant. I tried. If he did I wouldn’t be surprised, if he didn’t I apologize and substitute any number of things that are said by his boss “The Science is done” Obama.

            Could you put down your anger long enough to pursue honest balanced answers to simple questions?

            Only a goofball could make a statement like “The debate is over, the Science is done”. Or someone who doesn’t know what a Scientist is…

            Really there “Jimbo”, calm down, drop the anger, and have a *think*.

          • Jimbo says:

            @mike
            decreasing pH is synonymous with increasing acidity
            same as increasing pH is synonymous with increasing basicity.

            losing weight is becoming more lean. Why are you arguing these trivial ridiculous semantics?

            Drop the anger and think. wow you are a funny guy. Look at the slander every comment of mine gets on here. its hilarious. All in response to a rather childish article from a “supposed scientist” calling anyone who thinks emitting increasing amounts of CO2 into the air is related to a warming climate a Nazi…

            One this site there have been people giving examples of spectroscopy which has experimentally demonstrated the absorbance spectra of CO2 (and other GHGs) and the emissions spectra of the Earth. How these cross over interacting and trapping heat.

            We have seen global temperatures increase (although you will mine the data so it shows no warming since 1998…, or like the good Doctor just focus on Nth America when its cold and ignore warming elsewhere).

            Yet you choose not to acknowledge this especially the former because it is something you don’t want. That’s not learning. Deciding on something before you read an scholarly article is just a waste of time reading as you have no interest in considering the information that is put forward. sadly that’s what is happening here…you don’t want anything to be happening so you seek someone (Dr Spencer) that is saying as much…

          • Mike Workman says:

            @Jimbo

            I feel like dropping this because you’re not listening but I will make one simple last try…

            “decreasing pH is synonymous with increasing acidity
            same as increasing pH is synonymous with increasing basicity.”

            No, it is not: It is not “Acidic” in the first place, nor is it now. I think you know acid refers to a pH of < 7… we are 10X in [H+] away from acidic…that would be an order of magnitude Chief.

            But you are still on the marketing hyperbole side of things – this may make them dramatic and entertaining to you, like 98% of the arguments by the Warmists make, but it is just this kind if statement that serves to cloud or obfuscate the facts. It is far less interesting to the general public to say "The Ocean is less alkaline" than it was (I will not debate the ridiculous nature of these similar over simplifications at the moment). It is far more provocative to say that the Ocean is "More Acidic" because lay-people think that is synonymous with "bad".

            I think you have been sucked in with the casual disregard for precision of thought and articulation. Of course this is the entire basis for the AGW or Climate change arguments in the first place, and sadly enough it works on most people.

            Out of curiousity, are you a scientist/engineer?

          • PeterK says:

            It’s CO2 dummy, not carbon!

          • Jimbo says:

            http://faculty.stcc.edu/AandP/AP/AP2pages/Units21to23/ph/ph.htm

            look just under the diagram on the pH scale…

            stupid semantics. How best can we avoid discussing actual science by debating punctuation, semantics and anything else at verbatim…

            p.s. answer to your question is a scientist, chemist to be precise.

            Check out spectroscopy of absorbance of GHGs and emissions spectra of the Earth and Sun, if of course you would ever like to learn something other than someones opinion because they agree with you!!

      • Chuck L says:

        NONE of the predictions made by “establishment” climate scientists and their GIGO computer models have verified. Your side lost the argument the day they started calling skeptics the reprehensible appellation, “deniers,” and quickly resorted to personal attacks as data and new papers contradicted “consensus science,” which is an oxymoron. You and your fellow AGW worshipers are eco-fascists who want to impose their will and green religion on the rest of us. If you don’t like “western greed” why don’t you move to lovely North Korea, China, Cuba, Bolivia, or Venezuela. You are pitiful and repulsive at the same time, not an easy thing to be.

        • Bryan says:

          Jimbo says:

          “…decreasing pH is synonymous with increasing acidity
          same as increasing pH is synonymous with increasing basicity.

          losing weight is becoming more lean. Why are you arguing these trivial ridiculous semantics?”

          I looked in vain for a definition of acidity that is consistent with the statement above. I conclude that the statement is incorrect.

          My question is: Why do you insist on incorrectly calling the small decrease in ocean pH an increase in acidity?

          I think I know the answer, which has been alluded to already. Acid sounds bad and scary.

          If someone is paying this guy, they are not getting there money’s worth.

          • Bryan says:

            …not getting their money’s worth.

          • Shoshana says:

            No one ever stops to ask the question about whether or not undersea volcanic activity could increase the acidity of the oceans in selected areas? Do ya think? There is an awful lot of undersea volcanic activity going on that nobody in the Gaia “pseudo-scientific” community wants to even discuss.

            Bottom line: and listen up Jimbo and put down your Kool-Aid, you dolt. It’s all about power and control. It’s what the eco-fascist foot soldiers want; and it is certainly what the likes of George Soros, David Rockefeller, Michael Strong, and the rest of the “New World Order” ilk want. Open your eyes and learn to think for yourself before that becomes a dangerous past-time.

      • nomoregore says:

        Dimbo is an example of the lunacy we are dealing with here.

        No grip on terra firma.

        Progressive ideology is a sociopathic cult of self annihilation. They fear what does not exist, and ignore or embrace that which they should fear.

        Their entire world view exists in a nether world of the imagination, so trying to reason with them is useless.

        I suspect that it might be possible to deprogram them as you would a “Moonie” but this requires forced removal from the cult for a period of re-awakening.

        Roy, there is only one way to stop this lunacy. REAL scientists must replace the nutballs at GISS and NOAA. Once legitimate data was released, the dragon can be slain.

        I’m absolutely certain they are plotting ways to remove YOU and have been for some time. Beware.

      • BBould says:

        Jimbo sounds like David Appell. If not please beg my pardon.

      • John Diatribe says:

        Pretty compelling arguments, Jim. I’m stunned.

        So let me see if I understand this. When you disagree with someone all you have to do is call them names, make fun of their education and suggest they’re mental masturbators (which was both enlightened and extremely funny; the imagery and the impact … amazing); and everyone finally comprehends your position as the only logical one in the room!

        By golly, I’ll have to petition to have this argument style substituted for the scientific method straight away! I can’t believe scientific, ethical, and moral superiority can be achieved so EASILY! To hell with the facts … to hell with discussion or debate … ignore any and all facts that don’t jibe with your pet theory … just call anyone who disagrees in the least names and YOU’VE WON! Ingenious!

        Marginalize everyone who disagrees with you …. genius!

        You, sir, are a great man!

      • Paul says:

        No offense Jimbo, but you are gulping up the Kool aid that you have been fed since you were a kid (about the same year the earth stopped warming :-)

        Globalization is enriching the poor. All metrics indicate that the poorest are far better off now than ever before. Billions are benefiting and cheap energy will give these poor folks the ability to adapt to a changing future. Meanwhile the rich can find better solutions than what we have now.

        If you want to save humanity, give poor people a chance.

        • Jimbo says:

          metrics judging the poor eh?! wow…now thats rich! (and i make no pardons for my puns)

          why dont you chat to a refugee from Afghanistan and see if there country is better off or from iraq for that matter. lets look at the latter. The war was for the people of iraq right?! yet do they have a better control over their oil?!

          why don’t you ask a person living on the streets in your own country if the poor are better off. Ask someone on minimum wage whether life is easier since inflation continues to rise yet their wage remains bottomed out…

          “give the poor people a chance”…yeah right….lets take any remaining resources off them before they make too much money and do something stupid like drop a nuclear bomb

          • Wow..... says:

            (Would someone please give Jimbo his pacifier, turn out his night light, and let him go to bed now?)

          • goldminor says:

            The increase in utilities and fuel from this push to tax carbon will spill over into a rise in the cost of all goods, which will beat the poor soundly around the head and shoulders. Is this what you want to see happen?

          • Jimbo says:

            there are simple ways to avoid that by giving tax credits to low income earners…

            uh oh…now i am a commo and a nazi…oh wait…the intelligent people of this blog tell me they are the same now?!

            Your blessed current fossil fuel based economy relies on subsidies and credits for it to remain viable. Tar sands in Canada takes huge amounts of energy investment to extract the oil, its debatable whether the energy return over energy invested is even positive in this case.

            If this same government investment was provided to fund the development of concentrating solar thermal power, wind power or geothermal power for exmaple these technologies would be viable options. But it is the fossil fuel industries that make government decisions. And of course the baby boomers that invest most heavily in these industries would stand for a reduction in their “economic growth”

            Economic growth. Now there is the centre of all global problems. How can economic growth be sustainable? it requires exploitation of people (credit, increasing gap between rich and poor, inflation) or the environment (resource extraction from a finite body of resources)…but again your generation has no interest in worrying about the future. bang up job guys…cheers

          • Paul says:

            Jimbo, you are looking at the micro, while ignoring the macro. The reality is that a billion people have been lifted out of poverty, while 100 million have been driven into poverty.

            It isn’t us that wants to rob the poor of their resources, it is you. You want to force them to use expensive renewables while leaving the fossil fuels untouched.

            In the 60′s poverty rate was much higher that it is today. Now people are struggling to pay their network charges, while 50 years ago they were struggling to put food on the table.

            Thanks to cheap energy, humanity is leaping forward….it is a basic undeniable fact.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Jimbo,

            “Giving” “Tax Credits” to “Low Income Earners” just ensures that all of us become poor even faster.

            You see, the thing that you don’t understand is that the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.

            Even if the Federal Reserve simply continues to print money out of thin air, there will eventually be dire economic consequences for that action. Apparently you simply think that giving tax credits to one person doesn’t have an associated COST for anyone else in the equation.

            Have you ever taken an economics course? Even the Keynesians would find your idea horrifying, and the Austrian school of economics would be blown away by your complete lack of understanding.

          • Mike Workman says:

            Jimbo – can’t help this one, it’s too easy:

            You’re confusing Capitalization with Capitalism: Regardless of your politics and ideology, the Capitalization I refer to here is that sentences begin with CaPitAl letters as opposed to lower case… like these rules which could help your articulation/communication a bit here Chief:
            1. The first word of every sentence.
            2. The first-person singular pronoun, I.
            3. The first, last, and important words in a title.
            4. Proper nouns

            Not hard….the shift key in conjunction with the letter you wish to insert!

            Like I said before, calm down, take your time, and think. You might find things will become clearer as will your articulation.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Jimbo, I would invite you to come to Canada and actually SEE the OIL SANDS area. It is not what the propagandists ould have you believe. Come see the areas under reclaimation and You might not like it but they are “CLEANING UP natures mess. Or you could stay camped out in mommy’s basement (or wherever in the UK you are).

      • Tom says:

        Jumbo, sounds like you live in propaganda land. This is all about carbon taxes and making beaucoup dollars on shifting industrialization from the Western world to China, which is an authoritarian state far more to the liking of the global warming fascists. Tell me Jumbo, what has global warming wrought on the world. Lets see, no temperature rise for 17 years, we’re at outside the error range for most of the climate models upon which this hokum was created, meaning the models are completely Inaccurate/worthless. THAT is the only basis for the entire AGW hysteria, oh, that and global bankers wanting carbon taxes. UNESCO summit of ’92 was dominated by bankers wanting carbon taxes to fund their globalist forays. The GW Nazis even had to fraudulently alter the US and Global temperature records to make it appear that there was warming where none occurred. AGW is the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th,and so far, 21st century. Wake up Jumbo, you are living in a fabricated fantasy. Seems your mind is the one that’s weak, not Dr. Spencer’s.

      • Frank says:

        What part of….”we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. ” Did you miss?

      • Brenda says:

        Wow, Jimbo- you are truly a global warming Nazi. You have proven the good doctor is correct in his assessment of you. You and your kind think you’re so smart by calling good, factual, intelligent people names like deniers, or how about “birthers”, wow- and O didn’t even have a BC. You are vile people and Dr Spencer is RIGHT. Whenever you big fat babies don’t get your way, you are the very first to call others names to try to intimidate. Your “man made global warming hysteria” is just that- hysteria without any scientific backing. Go away little man. By the way- Capitalism is AWESOME!! Wealth creates wealth. Poverty is the greatest threat and that’s what you and your hippy friends somehow want to turn America into. Yea, lets all be poor and penniless like the Cubans….. that will be great.

      • RH says:

        Jimbo, do you not see how you’re hateful, eco-fascist attitude is proving Dr. Spencer’s point?

      • G Martinez says:

        I have always thought this to be ironic. But NAZI is a German acronym for National SOCIALIST German Workers party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party). What part of the right wing today is advocating Socialism.?????
        The Socialist thing is a today’s left wing exclusive

      • Vern Williams says:

        You only show your ignorance by your rant. The truth is that the “neo-climate azis” are espousing communist ideology of government control over industry and provides government funded “scientific research” that presumes man caused global crisis in order to control American’s behavior as evidence. Truth is, all of this nonsense is strictly unconstitutional and has no place in the US Government. The founders warned us of the overreach of the federal government being one of the most feared outcomes of the self-governance experiment and they put in place protections that this president is dismantling. In case you did not catch it, I used the term “neo-climate nazis” because the same group that first decried the coming man caused “global ice age” are the same one decrying man caused global warming. Hmm… I wonder what their real motives are?

      • Bill Lioio says:

        That’s it Jimbo. We shouldn’t respect a PhD. in meteorology. We need to believe in the rantings of a tobacco farming hypocrite and failed Divinity student. Global warming, aka climate change, aka whatever else we will need to call it as the modeling predictions continue to fail, has become a quasi-religious orthodoxy that can’t accept reasoned dissent and instead demonizes those who disagree. I came to my skeptical position on this issue from my own independent research into it. I discovered that most of the assertions made by climate alarmists were very inaccurate or simply not true at all. I invite you to live dangerously and go to some of the “denier” sites and read their science based critiques of CO2 alarmism.

      • alfred says:

        the developing world that you are so proud to defend until very recently was a STONE AGE pseudo nations…a mix of recently(last 60 years or so) named countries who came to existence as nations thanks to the so called European colonization…otherwise they would be proudly until today stone age palm trees covered comunities cannibalizing themselves which by the way would be the best for the ones who are today carrying them on their backs…and please please stop demonizing the ones who are giving them opportunities to become civilized…poverty stricken countries are as poverty stricken families… 10 children at the age of 30 for each family is the only receipt to be eternally poor and dependent on others sweat…STOP having children or don’t come crying wolves on our dime!!!! this is communism plain and direct…on our dimes …

      • metro70 says:

        Jimbo..

        How on earth would you know how old any of us are?

        You reveal, in your rant on globalisation, world banks etc, your own agenda—but it seems a little muddled, since you don’t seem to realize that globalisation of the like the world has never even contemplated in the past outside the totalitarian aspirations of world domination, that have driven various iterations of the Left in the Communist countries—is what your friends the CAGW proponents demand.

        It was all in the Framework for the Copenhagen Convention.

        The preferred world of CAGW proponents requires a huge global bureaucracy watering down if not eliminating the sovereignty of the successful democracies, mandating that they surrender billions of their taxpayers’ money each year [ and submit to UN oversight in the process] to the dysfunctional and often murderous and totalitarian despot-ridden UN, for them to redistribute as they see fit amongst the developing and undeveloped countries, which they had categorised and labeled according to perceived need.

        Most of the countries refugees are fleeing, because their lives are apparently in danger, not because of stand-alone poverty, but because of murderous despotic rule—–are the very countries with the very despots a CAGW-empowered UN would be showering with our hard-earned taxpayers’ money.

        Under that UN global bank regime, my country , Australia, would be sending billions every year to the dictators of China—and in fact part of that is already underway, because the Left wing government we had until a few months ago had signed up.

        The democratic world really dodged a bullet with the virtual collapse of the Copenhagen Convention, but the Left is relentless in its pursuit of global governance, with the CAGW house of cards as its main plank.

        What has saved us from being swamped and brainwashed by these propagandists , is the integrity and commitment to truth of the realist scientists like Dr Spencer, who have taken enormous flak, character assassination attempts and wild, vicious and gormless accusations such as your own here— in order to inform us of the facts and the alternative science.

        We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Spencer , Steve McIntyre and others for being willing to run that gauntlet in the name of truth .

        I for one, am very grateful for their tenacity and courage.

      • J Christian says:

        Jimbo. What an idiot you are. No, really.

      • metro70 says:

        Barry..March 1 10.58pm

        On the contrary, Barry…

        Not just one as you say, but a group of scientists, including Shindell, Ramanthan and Mark Jacobsen testified before Congress.

        From the testimony…

        [ 'When globally averaged, BC is estimated to exert a net positive radiative forcing at the top-of-the atmosphere (i.e, a global warming effect). The estimates of BC heating by this author’s group (Chung et al, 2005 and Ramanathan et , 2007a), using observationally constrained data from satellites, ground stations and field observations is that the current BC radiative forcing at the top-of-the atmosphere (the so-called radiative forcing as per IPCC) effect is as much as 60% of the current radiative forcing due to CO2 greenhouse effect.'

        ' Black carbon alters the environment in two ways. In the sky, the suspended particles absorb sunlight, warming up the atmosphere and in turn the earth itself. On the earth's surface, deposits of black carbon on snowpacks and ice absorb sunlight, thereby heating the earth and melting glaciers. The Arctic sea ice and the Himalayan and Tibetan glaciers, for example, are melting as much as a result of black carbon as they are as a result of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide. ' ]

        New studies are finding black carbon forcing is much more significant even than thought at that time ..

        http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/global-black-carbon-emissions-double-once-thought.html

        [ 'In a study published in last week’s Journal of Geophysical Research, the researchers calculated the global total of black carbon emissions at 17 teragrams a year between 2000 and 2005. This result is significantly larger than the majority of global air pollution modeling studies, which employ a bottom-up approach — adding together the emissions estimates from different economic sectors to find a global total. One such study found humans emitted only 7.5 teragrams of black carbon per year during the same five-year period — less than half the new estimate.' ]

        http://www.igbp.net/news/pressreleases/pressreleases/blackcarbonlargercauseofclimatechangethanpreviouslyassessed.5.4910f0f013c20ff8a5f8000152.html

        [ 'Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this issue.' ]

        http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569686-soot-even-worse-climate-was-previously-thought-new-black

        [ 'The implications are profound.
        This study, a four-year affair conducted under the auspices of the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, an umbrella group for research into such matters, is based on a lot more information about soot than was previously available, and a better understanding of how it affects the climate. It found that the black carbon around at the moment has a warming effect of about 1.1 watts per square metre of the Earth’s surface (W/m2). This is greater than that of methane and second only to the 1.7W/m2 of carbon dioxide. An earlier estimate by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) put the black-carbon effect at only 0.3-0.6W/m2. The higher the figure, the worse the warming.' ]

        http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/11/gas-flaring-responsible-for-42-of-black-carbon-in-the-arctic/

        A study published in August found that Arctic surface temperature is almost five times more sensitive to black carbon emitted from within the region than to emissions transported in from mid-latitudes, as it is more likely to settle on the surface.

        James Hansen agrees…..

        [ ' Our analysis of climate forcings suggests, as a strategy to slow global warming, an alternative scenario focused on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon (soot) aerosols.
        These gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing.
        We argue that black carbon aerosols, by means of several effects, contribute significantly to global warming.' ]

        The ‘dimming effect’ you say cancels out the warming effect is different in black carbon.

        The black carbon dims the surface, not the atmosphere—it darkens the snow and ice—amplifying its warming effect, not neutralizing it as you claim.

        I don’t believe you’re correct about mean aerosol forcing, but in any case , lumping it all together as mean aerosol forcing is irrelevant when mitigation is the aim, and the aerosols have to be mitigated separately and in different ways.

        The net effect of black carbon is a net warming effect directly on the Arctic ice and on glaciers and permafrost—setting up a catastrophic feedback cycle, as the dark melt water from its effect on the ice absorbs even more heat and causes more melting and a global effect on warming.

        Contrary to your assertion, the effect of black carbon is becoming more clear in recent research—as you can see from the links above—and is more than double previous estimations.

        And the thing about black carbon is that it can be relatively easily mitigated—often with almost immediate effect.

      • Rob Ryan says:

        A typical example of the ad hominem response to the science-based objection to the AGW campaign.

      • common sense says:

        here, here!!

      • Dr Goldstein says:

        Oh yes you are a Carbonazi !

        25,000 human beings starve to death every day. Instead of feeding them, you Carbonazis turn millions of bushels of corn into ethanol. That corn could be used to feed people and prevent starvation. Hitler used gas chambers. Carbonazis use food-destruction. The results are the same.

        And you carbonazis better quit whining about the ocean-acidification myth. If this was caused by alleged global warming, then lakes and rivers would also be turning into acid, but this is not happening.

        Last summer (oops – summer is called global warming now) I swam in the Pacific Ocean, and I never got any acid burns. It was extremely pleasant even though summers are getting cooler.

    • John, UK says:

      Nazi’s left-wing? One of the first things they did was to destroy the left in Germany; communists, the trade unions, the socialists, killing and sending left activists to the concentration camps. they happily reached a working accommodation with the industrialists, who of course were happy to take the profits from massive state orders for armaments.
      NB. I’m not arguing rabid greens don’t behave very badly, I’m disputing your correlation of the Nazis with left-wing politics.

      • Tom Servo says:

        Nazi is short for “National Socialist” – Did you know that? Apparently not – they were SOCIALISTS! Stalin and Hitler were two peas out of the same pod, but neither one could put up with a rival.

        By the way Stalin killed more Communists and Bolsheviks than anybody – does that make Stalin “Right Wing”???

        By the way, that Socialism bit was why so much of the British Upper Classes were outright Nazi Sympathizers, starting with King Eddy the Nazi.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • John R T says:

            Johnson, P., “Modern Times”
            A quick read: compare Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin
            Come back when you have it straight.

          • You guys are idiots. says:

            Man you guys sure can rewrite history.

            “NAZIS R LEFFTISTS, HURR!!!!”

            Too funny, sadly stupid. Blinded by your own ideology.

            “BUT IT SAYZ SOCIALIST IN THERE NAME!!!111!!!”

            Just think about what you are seriously saying. Ask yourself, “Am I this stupid?”

            Get educated.

          • Hopefully not and idiot says:

            Wonder who the idiot is. “COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD” Sounds truly right wing. Or does it?

            The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party

            1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

            2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

            3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

            4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

            5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

            6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

            We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

            7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

            8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

            9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

            10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

            Therefore we demand:

            11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

            12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

            13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

            14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

            15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

            16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

            17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

            18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

            19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

            20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

            21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

            22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

            23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

            (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

            (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

            (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

            Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

            24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

            The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

            COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

            25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

            The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

            The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

          • Sissy says:

            One of the first things the Nazi party did was take German citizens’ guns away. One of the second things was make abortion legal. Hmmmm… does that sound like the left or the right to you?

          • Bryan says:

            The only thing “right-wing” about them was nationalism. In U. S. lingo, nationalism is way down the list of what distinguishes “right” from “left”. Free market vs. socialist-leaning and small government vs. big government are mostly what people mean by “right” vs. “left”

            And the quote you provide confirms what people are saying: The Nazi’s were socialists (although, as the quote points out, not marxist internationalist socialists). The fact that they were nationalistic does not mean that they were “right-wing” as that term is used in the U. S. today.

            “Nazi’s were … right wing fascists.” Sure, if right-wing just means nationalistic. But it never meant only that, and today even less so (at least in the U. S.).

            So please don’t insult people just because they have a much more complete understanding of what is meant by “right-wing” than you do.

          • Alcheson says:

            The Nazi’s were indeed socialists. Just because the Nazi’s were killing communists does not make them Right wing. If Sarah Palin were to have Rush Limbaugh whacked it would not make her a socialist. The Nazi’s were offing the communists so they could consolidate their power, NOT because they were trying to promote free market capitalism.

          • You guys are idiots. says:
            February 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM
            “Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.”

            Hmm, I was born in 1936, in Nazi Germany, and never had to go to high school under Hitler, but my youngest brother, nine years older, did. I wonder why “Das Kapital”, by Karl Marx, was required reading for him.

            Perhaps it had something to do with the name of the party that ruled our lives: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei — National-Socialist German Worker Party)

            Can you explain it better?

        • John, UK says:

          Of course I knew that, just because they called themselves that doesn’t mean they in any meaningful way behaved like socialists or supported socialism. Greenies call themselves saviours of the planet, do you believe that is what they are?

          • Slave to Truth says:

            Perhaps you are arguing the wrong point. In the U.S. the argument is between liberty and a big central govenment planning peoples lives. So to us right wing socialist and left wing socialists are essentially the same. The seek central planning of peoples lives. Since all of Europe is centrally planned you guys fixate on right or left. We fixate on free or slave. Whether you are in fascist or communist state, we see it all as socialist. Sadly Europe has never really had freedom and individual liberty. Maybe UKIP can finally free you British subjects.

      • CiceroTheLatest says:

        Yes, you’re exactly right.

        When I read “National Socialist German Workers Party”, I don’t spot a single clue as to what their political or economic beliefs might be. I’m certain “socialist” and “workers party” are just in there for poetic effect. (Given how easy it is to use Bing or Google or Wikipedia to find the 25 point program of the NSDAP, only the stupidest people on the Internet could dispute the “… correlation of the Nazis with left-wing politics.”)

        BTW, the second act for Leftist movements attaining dominance is a purge of rival Leftist ideologies. I wouldn’t read too much in the NAZI thugs killing off the Communist thugs – it was just a matter of which group of feral humans stole the state first. (Maybe you could conjure the ghost of Leon Trotsky to explain that to you.)

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Being a historian, take it from me. YOU are the one in need of an education. Is your other name “Jimbo”?

          • Skip says:

            Saying the same lie over and over again doesn’t make it true, it only makes brain dead liberals believe it.

          • Mike Workman says:

            Bill Sparling is a riot! Good one Bill – “Jimbo” indeed. LOL

          • DCA says:

            This whole argument over weather Nazis were left/right wing is futile.

            The Nazis, just like the Communists, were/are authoritarian and anti freedom of thought. That is what Dr. Spencer is condemning.

      • Christian Rioux says:

        Please, the Nazis were socialists. (National Socialism).
        They were not “right wing”, they were closer to communism than capitalism.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • Andrew says:

            That awkward moment when you realise that you are a nazi , or at least are supporting their cause.
            You are now experiencing the first stage – DENIAL.
            Next comes ANGER I believe.

          • Brenda says:

            Nazi’s were socialists. Left wing Democrats in America are socialists -the Nazi way of life is what they fight for every day which is more taxation and the stripping of personal rights and freedom which includes confiscation of guns and squelching freedom of speech. Right wing Republicans are all for capitalism and economic growth, less gov’t and personal freedom. THE NAZIS WERE NOT RIGHT WING~~~ JUST THE OPPOSITE. Just watch any of Obama’s speeches and you might as well paint a little black mustache under his nose.

        • ParisParamus says:

          Read Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. The Nazis and Communists were and are close cousins. Telling companies (like, INSURANCE COMPANIES), or nationalizing them (creating SINGLE PAYER) are different, but not that different.

          The Global Morons, like Jimbo, are totalitarians–that’s all that really matters.

          I’m sure Jimbo and his ilk think Kennedy was killed by a crazy right-wing nut with a gun–right?

      • common sense says:

        Of course they were left wing (in the American sense). They advocated government control of industry, labor unions and all aspects of human life. They believed in the Progressive pseudo science that was eugenics.

        That they found an enemy in the (largely Jewish) Russian-inspired communist movement has nothing to do with how they governed or what they believed.

        It’s something that always annoys me… There is not a single policy that the national socialist workers party (Nazi’s) had in common with the American or British “right,” but somehow we’re impugned with that statist world view?

        In other words, the major difference between soviet communism and Nazism was the stress on international verse national (Nazi’s were nationalistic, Soviets with “internationals” sort of), but in practice they were very similar forms of government.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • John Diatribe says:

            Repetition doesn’t make it more convincing.

          • Brenda says:

            Nazi’s were socialists. Left wing Democrats in America are socialists -the Nazi way of life is what they fight for every day which is more taxation and the stripping of personal rights and freedom which includes confiscation of guns and squelching freedom of speech. Right wing Republicans are all for capitalism and economic growth, less gov’t and personal freedom. THE NAZIS WERE NOT RIGHT WING~~~ JUST THE OPPOSITE. Just watch any of Obama’s speeches and you might as well paint a little black mustache under his nose

      • O. Olson says:

        Of course the Nazis were left wing. They nationalized everything they could get their hands on and allowed companies to exist only if they did the governments bidding and didn’t make more than a very small profit doing it. They promoted mandated yearly vacations for all, Government paid further education for all who academically qualified regardless of class, paid retirement… sound familiar? Shall I go on?
        Of course they did the things John UK says they did. So did the communists of the USSR. The left has always been good at figuring out that you need to eliminate the competition WITHIN the left to stay in power.
        When we found out what the Nazis were doing the left needed to distance themselves, so they labeled them with a word THEY didn’t like. Sound familiar? I guess labeling is what this whole post is about. Right?

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

      • O. Olson says:

        PS
        I once asked a friend why she thought the Nazis were right wing and further to that how she defined left and right. Her answer was “If it’s bad it’s right wing”.
        Labeling the Nazis as right wing by the left accomplished 2 things: it distanced the left from the most abhorrent government then known ( communism has since been recognized as even worse), and it forever tied the right to the worst of evils that humanity is capable of.
        The confusion and images that followed obviously last to this very day (see John UK above). And sometimes the only way to fight fire is with fire.
        That’s why I’m with Dr Spencer on this. Enough said.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • BBould says:

            You should get an education, it isn’t quite as cut and dry as you think. In fact it seems rather ambiguous. My German Mother of 92 has always equated it with Big Gov. as well as all of my German relatives.

            Wikipedia,

            combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics,[clarification needed] in opposition to communism, socialism, liberal democracy and traditional conservatism. Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left–right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.[3][4]

          • John Diatribe says:

            You’re kind of a one note Johnny; and not very convincing.

        • Joe Born says:

          “I once asked a friend why she thought the Nazis were right wing and further to that how she defined left and right. Her answer was ‘If it’s bad it’s right wing’.”

          That puts me in mind of Charles Krauthammer’s book, in which he said of liberals’ and conservatives’ basic tenets, only partly in jest, I think, that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil.

          That paints with an extremely broad brush, but it does explain a lot.

      • Bob Hoye says:

        Politically, the terms Left and Right are archaic. They were used in the 1920s to define the difference between international socialists and national socialists. However, the “Left” still has meaning but the term “Right” and “Nazi” is thrown at those who are concerned about liberty.

        A better term is “authoritarian” and a definition of their ambition is “That which is not compulsory, is prohibited”.

        Musolini defined fascism as the combination of big business and big government. This nincely describes the “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” movement. But it extends beyond nation-states.

        Guess we will have to call it “International Fascist Socialism”.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • John Diatribe says:

            Again … not convincing … and rather dull. Do you get invited to social thingies; what with the Aspergers and all?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I don’t think it is Aspergers… I think he has Tourette’s Syndrome… a bizarre uncontrolable “tick” makes him keep typing the same thing over and over again.

        • Dan Macgowan says:

          The term “The Left” and “The Right” had to do with where French political figures sat in the late 18th Century.

      • Geoff says:

        National Socialism was left wing fascism. There were not right wing, though they have been misclassified as such.

        Just think of the name, National Socialists. They were socialists.

        • You guys are idiots. says:

          “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism”

          Nazi’s were, still are, and will always be right wing fascists. Go get an education.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            His name is “You guys are idiots” which is clearly projection, since he – quite clearly – is a complete idiot. Only a complete idiot would type in the same response over and over again and think it somehow made any difference.

      • Bill Sparling says:

        Sorry, John. Wrong. The Nazi’s were extreme left with highly facist overtones. The first thing they did was remove any competition (kill off) leaving them the only above ground political game in town.

        • goldminor says:

          About a year ago, I started to read that great book by David Cassidy called “Uncertainty”. The book is about the life and mind of Werner Heisenberg. The first 5 chapters are all about the years prior to the rise of Hitler and detail a good bit about the social changes which lead up to Hitler. Then the story switches to the science of Heisenberg. It gave me some new insights to that time period. Well worth reading.

        • John, UK says:

          So British, European and American workers, communists and socialists went to Spain in 1930s to fight Fascism because it was a socialist movement?

      • RH says:

        Has anyone noticed how closely the commies and eco-fascists are aligned?

      • metro70 says:

        John,UK…

        Many of the tenets of Nazism were modeled on that time’s version of the Greens.

        The industrialists were necessary for the war effort, but the unionists and socialists were rivals.

        The book [ 'How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich (2005)', by Franz-Josef Brüggemeier, Mark Cioc, and Thomas Zeller ] concludes that “the green policies of the Nazis … demonstrate with brutal clarity that conservationism and environmentalism are not and have never been value-free or inherently benign enterprises”

        Reportedly, 60 per cent of members of Germany’s main green clubs in 1939 joined the Nazi Party, when the rate for German men was just 10 per cent.

        From an Australian magazine, Quadrant, Dr Mervyn F. Bendle , senior lecturer in history and communications at James Cook University, Queensland, speaking of Australian Global Green, Paul Gilding, —

        ‘ as the ex-executive director of Greenpeace, Paul Gilding makes clear in his new climate change manifesto, The Great Disruption: How the Climate Crisis Will Transform the Global Economy (2011), global warming requires that the entire world be placed on a war footing that will vastly exceed that achieved in World War II, and its targets will be every aspect of modern industrial society, ranging from the technological to the ideological and political, leaving no aspect of life unaffected.’

        Germany’s Hans Werner Sinn advocates forming a ‘seamless consumer cartel’ run by the UN that virtually appropriates resources, forcing resource countries to leave their resources ‘in situ’, as in the following, The Green Paradox.

        http://www.ifo.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1191466.PDF

        Sinn says ‘only taking resource owners by surprise—can get the desired effects’, and even then concedes military conflict could result.’

        He says ‘the UN will become, in economic terms
        albeit not legally, the joint owner of the fossil fuel.’

        ‘The resource owners could not wriggle free of the power
        of the UN.’

        Does the following sound a little like the Nazi’s eugenics program?

        In Australia, a former Swinburne University academic, recommended in a lecture on the ABC’s Ockham’s Razor that we “put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system, and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile”.

        And…Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson said….

        “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion” because humans are “the AIDS of the Earth” and “our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves”.

        And in the Greenpeace commercial that shocked many of us, the hooded boy says, menacingly..reminiscent of the Nazi Youth’s [Tomorrow Belongs to Me]….

        “Starting today, the lines are drawn. You have to choose sides. You can be for my future or you’re against it. You’re a friend, or you’re an enemy.

        And the alarmist view is all-pervasive in our schools and universities now.

        But to try to engage with a true-believing academic is futile to say the least—the first thing you find is that they militantly will not engage.

        The purification process must not be tainted by alternative views or questioning.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Why would a man stand up against the consensus of scientific opinion, and the belief system of the educated elites? I’m not sure, but I’m glad Galileo did it! You go Dr. Spencer!

    • amiller says:

      “There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.”

      Economist Thomas Sowell

    • G Martinez says:

      I understand the frustration on dealing with the illogical climate change crowd and and tying them in to the NAZI philosophy due to their intolerant nature. But I have always seen their logic as more in tune with a religious cult . A definite faith based science where all measurable parameters no matter how contradictory are considered proof to the faithful of man made climate change. One of many Examples are several years ago when the south experienced an unusually high number of hurricanes the climate change faithful sited this fact as proof of their cause. The very next year the same region had unusually light amount of hurricane activity and the same faithful proudly claimed that as proof of the same. So while I do get the NAZI’s comparison I think a pagan-istic worshiping cult more accurately describes this movement.

    • Jack Wolf says:

      I think we should start calling you baby killers.

  2. RickA says:

    I totally agree. The term “denier” is name calling of the worst sort. I have disagreed with its usage on many websites and fully support your outrage.

    I have had the term applied to myself – and it pushed my button also.

    Thanks for posting your comments.

  3. joletaxi says:

    They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

    excellent

  4. Scott Owen says:

    I’m with you Roy! It’s time people were allowed to hear both sides of the story and to understand fully just how these “Global warming Nazis” are destroying our economy by forcing billions of dollars of unneeded ‘carbon controls’ and ‘clean energy’ policies upon both industry and the individual. The cost to all of us – from the manufacturing sector to the home is staggering, as we have to pay for countless taxes, manufacturing restraints, emissions policies, and added energy costs on everything we buy, from electricity to canned food. We are being fleeced with our eyes wide open!

    • Jeff Gierloff says:

      As I understand it, there was a significant “green” component to the Nazi movement, at least in the early years before everything was militarized. It was a going back to nature, or worship of nature type thing, but it isn’t talked much about on the different history channels. The photo of the forest with the different trees making a swastika may have been photoshopped, but there were trees planted just like that and only discovered from the air fairly recently

    • D. Ap says:

      Destroying your economy? Name one CO2-related regulation that is destroying your economy…. Just one.

  5. richard says:

    I prefer to use the word Climate change Gestapo.

    • Fonzie says:

      Nah, folks you’ve got to have something that sticks. They have “climate change denier” which kind of rolls off the tongue. We’ve got “global warmists” which is a weak counter to that… Perhaps the term “climate change liar” would pack a little more punch. At any rate Dr. S., I don’t think the phrase “global warming nazi” will ever go far; After all, Rush has already coined the term “feminazi”…

      • Geoman says:

        I prefer the term “global warming enthusiast”. Makes me laugh every time I write it.

        • Gordon says:

          American Thinker had a recent article titled:
          ‘Climate Parasites: The Answer to ‘Climate Change Deniers’ on the importance of labels to the left and made it’s own suggestion on turning it on them.

    • Bruce says:

      Goebbels Warmers.

    • goldminor says:

      That does have a better sound to it, and more appropriate to the core group that twists thoughts and deceives others to think that they are on the right side. My first wife,s father wore a German uniform in his young days. We had some conversations about that time period. Basically he said that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. In that respect the word Nazi can also mean a group of people who were deceived by others into doing their evil will, where the participant truly was blind to the totality of the evil.

  6. richard says:

    and pronounced the way Churchill did, so phonetically – Jestapo.

  7. Who pushed your button(s), Roy? I empathize with you. I’ve been called so many things over the years, I don’t know what or who I am anymore. The scar tissue’s so thick, my hide is aa rugged and durable as shoe leather, maybe more so.

    Pursuant to your comment about AGW public policy pushing people into poverty, consider the insurance companies are now using it as cover to raise premiums. Homeowner’s Insurance premiums, for example, are out of control. If you have a mortgage, you are forced, by the mortgage contract, to carry this increasingly costly insurance, and considering the intermingling and commingling of investment funds that’s going on at the highest levels of finance, the bank these days is also the insurance company. So yes, it’s increasingly like a mafia state, and we’re being extorted at every turn and that extortion is both promulgated and enforced by the government whose purpose, at least in theory, is to serve… not impoverish.

    • Support for my point. I may do a future pots about this at my blog once I complete my initial post which is still a work-in-progress but it’s almost complete.

      http://blogs.mprnews.org/updraft/2013/04/climate_cast_the_not_so_hidden/

      It’s called “mutualized risk.” And it’s why some of your insurance bill in Minnesota and the “safer” areas of the USA end up paying for costly events like Hurricane Sandy and Katrina on the coasts.

      As insurance companies try and price climate change into the market, they are hiring an increasing number of scientists to evaluate future “risk.”

      I know I’m often satirical, but this isn’t funny. It’s tragic. Why? Because faulty and hijacked science is being used to extort people at every turn and mandatory costly insurance is just one example. This, coupled with all the other extortions schemes that have thus far been concocted as a result of AGW Consensus and the extortion schemes that are currently in the pipeline are going to force many people on the margins into poverty and many who aren’t on the margins onto the margins. Poverty kills. Mission Accomplished, I suppose.

    • hunter says:

      The reinsurance industry funds global warming hype, and then uses the hype to justify rates that are as much as 500% higher than the actual risk levels jsutify.
      Those reinsurance premiums are passed on to the consumers.
      That is how manmade global warming is real: It is really fabricated by humans. The climate ignores the humans, as it has the stories of Noah.

      • Thank you. You are correct, Hunter. If only some of these Neanderthals would acknowledge it. Their ideology won’t allow it. Corporations are always good…never bad. Look at everything Siemens did for the Jews during their Nazi days? It’s all good.

    • DCA says:

      I’ve heard from clients that their flood insurance premiums have gone up as much as 500%. Some of them are worried about losing their homes and the snowball effect of foreclosures in flood prone areas.

      They say there were somes changes made at the beginning of the year by FEMA regarding flood insurance.

  8. How about Climate Change Gazpacho instead; it sounds more appetizing? A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

    • Bill Sparling says:

      This isn’t something I would make fun of. They made fun of the Nazi’s in 1935 and look where we all ended up then. I don’t find it funny at all. After 32 years of military service, a lot of it at the sharp end, I don’t find the advocates of genocide funny at all. Personally, I would love to walk them through the evidence of the holocaust, but strangely enough, they call us “deniers” and most of them do not believe the systematic murder of the Jews, gypsies, slavs, disabled, mentally ill, etc took place (or that it was as bad as reality says it was).

      Recently, we have already heard from some of the more radical warmists, who also happen to be prominent eccolobby nuts, that are openly advocating sever changes to human geography and politics to reduce human populations. Tactics being discussed include mass sterilizations, cutting off food supplies, engineered epidemics, and even (as another mentions) a “limited” nuclear strike on selected world targets. Apparently, they haven’t heard the news, Malthus has been proven wrong, so they can’t use him to justify their nonsense anymore. If you need an example in the news, just take a look at the Sea Sheppard Society, led by pirate/terrorist Paul Watson. (His brother was in the Canadian Navy and they HATE each other. When Watson blew up those ships in Iceland, he brother advocated hunting him down and hanging him on the spot for piracy.) Not only do these wingnuts endanger people at sea, and the environment they claim to love so much, but they also advocate murdering people who rely on harvesting marine mammals for their livelihood.

      Does this mean that Clancy was correct when he predicted (in a fictional story) that the ecconuts would really try to wipe out most of humanity? The upshot is that I fully agree with Dr. Spencer on this. Time to stand up against the idiots.

      • Sorry Bill, everything’s fair game for satire. Satire has a serious point you know. Besides, levity helps to temper destructive rage and helps maintain perspective. Otherwise, you become as irrational as the “Nazis.”

        As far as the other cheek is concerned, I’ve always appreciated this take on it. Irreverent satire is turning the other cheek. We need to do more of it like Roy did in his last post. Notice how he rattled a few banana trees and some bananas, and monkeys, fell out? It works.

        http://theirreverentgospel.tumblr.com/post/69736797499/if-anyone-slaps-you-on-the-right-cheek-turn-to

        This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.

        • JohnKl says:

          Cold N Holefield,

          While I agree that satire does allow one to maintain perspective and is an effective communication tool to sharpen wits and alter perspective, MERE SATIRE followed by complacent acceptance seems irresponsible especially when confronted with agenda driven individual’s with minds seemingly impervious to facts. Active effort on many fronts becomes necessary. I understand that you don’t recommend complacency, but historically complacency and inertia prove powerful tendencies that allow madness to go un-opposed.

          Thanks for your post and have a great day!

        • Mike Workman says:

          Yah, and you can say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism Dude, but at least it was an ethos. {Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski]

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Bill,

        Thank you for your post. I’ve expressed similar opinions frequently and agree with you. You wrote:

        “Does this mean that Clancy was correct when he predicted (in a fictional story) that the ecconuts would really try to wipe out most of humanity?”

        They already have. It’s nothing new. I’ve mentioned in a previous post that Oceanographer (now deceased) Jacques Cousteau wanted to eliminate 2/3 of the world’s population. The UN and individual’s like Cousteau have been working toward this goal for decades. If you don’t believe me take Jacques Cousteau at his own words:

        “The United Nations’ goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day.”
        - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991

        “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. ”
        - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1994

        Perhaps after reading this many of the somnambulists who read this website will WAKE UP! Although the historical record casts doubt on that. Nevertheless, the actions taken by the climate alarmists and the preceding quote by Jacques Cousteau prove H L Mencken to have been quite perceptive:

        “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

        Have a great day!
        H. L. Mencken

        • Bill Sparling says:

          He did advocate for it, BUT, has anyone been mad enough to actually try it? Or is it only a matter of time?

          • JohnKl says:

            I read some where that the UN has already been involved with the forced removal of Africans from their native lands due to CLIMATE CONCERNS or some environmental claims. The other night President Obama spoke about if the Ukrainian government went too far their would be consequences. It seems the US and selective European organizations already see themselves as masters of the planet. We only SEE IN PART what various communications media including the internet gatekeepers (don’t kid yourself into thinking only China has them) permit the general population to perceive. What makes you think actions aren’t already being taken. Forced abortions have been commonplace in China, and possibly elsewhere, for some time. Euthanasia of those deemed unfit already happens in Europe and possibly here but just not reported or spoken of. In the 40′s Eugenics was popular and many people were sterilized against there will in this country. In fact, CNN reported a gentleman filed suit (I think against the government, you may want to look it up) for such a procedure having been applied to him years ago.

            I’d say people have been MAD ENOUGH to try it for some time. The MAD pointlessly ideotic practices have been applied, re-worked and tried again and again for a long time. The time is NOW!

            Have a great day anways!

  9. Mark says:

    Thank you for speaking out on this vital topic. It is shameful that real science is being subverted, aided by both the over and under educated, as well as those that are a bit dim (Most politicians and “celebrities”).
    Tweeting this far and wide.

  10. Mark says:

    Richard, may I suggest “Climate Change Gorgonzola” – the deeper you dig into it, the more it stinks.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      What actually happens is that they try to throw stink all over other people they don’t like and end up so obnoxious that no one can stand to be around them.

    • myrightpenguin says:

      Appreciate the humour, but would be better if folks here stopped trying to be clever with trying to better the terminology which Roy is putting forwards otherwise we all become divided and it becomes a mess. Amplification is better than scatter.

  11. Hank says:

    I refer to them as cultist of the Church of Climatology. They won’t admit Global Warming has happened in the past (how did the Ice Age end?) or that ‘Dr’ Mann has made his data as available as President Obama his college transcripts, or John Kerry his military records. No, we must believe in their ‘Chicken Little: the Earth is warming, the Earth is warming!’ dogma.

  12. richard says:

    Mark,

    great name for a climate change blog.

    www. Climate Change Gorgonzola .org

    with strap line
    the deeper you dig , the more it stinks.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Hey! I like Gorgonzola …

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        I like too!!!
        I live in the place were cows breeders invented it!
        My grandfather was one of the cows breeders who supplied the milk to do it. I remember that when he came back from the cheesemaker, he always had a big slice that I really loved to eat (and still I love to eat).
        My grandfather was enthusiast about the seasoned with a strong taste, while I always preferred the creamy one. He always said that I never understand what the “true” gorgonzola was indeed :)

  13. Fonzie says:

    “freedom-loving people” bear the responsibility of at least being minimally informed on this issue. If they are being taken for a ride by the propagandists then they are partly to blame for that… Right after “inconvenient truth” came out, Rasmussen did a poll on the question of who produces more co2 ; Is it humans or nature? A whopping two thirds of the public thought that humans produce more co2 than does nature! (and one can only guess as to how many of the third that got it right knew what the actual percentage is…)

  14. Hops says:

    Well Dr. Spencer, between this post and the last, I think you’re just losing it, and there’s just no point at all anymore wasting time in this blog.

    Good luck, and good bye,
    Hops

  15. Brian Valentine says:

    I’m with you, Spencer.

    - Brian Valentine

  16. Paul says:

    As a longtime lay skeptic I have tried many times to engage in debates with “warmists” and every single time (but once), I have meet with the exact type of person that Dr. Spencer is referring to. I did happen to get a reply from a nice chap just recently, so perhaps there is hope.

    Since I can’t comment on the quality of science and I know that any science can be spun in any direction depending on the researcher, I tend to look at the “meta-information”. Honesty, clarity, recognition of weaknesses, being open minded. These characteristics are NOT the hallmark of “warmists”. This is IMO where lay people like me can see who is closer to the true science.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      The “radiation physics” applied to conclude anything about “global warming” is extremely poor science and exactly nothing can be concluded from it.

    • Bill Sparling says:

      YOu are not along. I recall a conference at the Royal Roads University (Disaster & Emergency Management) attended by the graduate studies students in that field.

      During a series of round table discussions, a paper exercise actually where the scenario was a “sea level rise”, the students (who were all professionals in the field to being with) all agreed to ignore the AGW/CC controversy and treat it as real-for the purposes of the exercise.

      The University Chancellor heard about it and came flying in to castigate them all for daring to be unbelievers. Disgusting. I found out later that afternoon that he was also the vice president of the David Suzuki Foundation. Yes, many of us who were present had a great deal to say to the university about this in defence of the students. (He ended up resigning a couple of months later.)

      Just another example of the lengths this lobby will go to.

      • Bill Sparling says:

        (DAMN! between typing on an iPhone and my sausage fingers, spelling is atrocious. Alone, not along. If there are any others, please excuse.)

  17. plazaeme says:

    Climate parasites! – is more fun.

  18. Frank K. says:

    I with you too, Dr. Spencer. However, I feel that the extreme rhetoric currently being used the left-wing eco-CAGW advocates is a sign we are WINNING. The lay public has seen through the bad science and has rejected their arguments. Just look at any comments sections for articles related to global warming in the news…

    • Bill Sparling says:

      Unfortunately, the news organs censor those comments from “deniers” while allowing all sorts of attacks by supporters.

      • BBould says:

        So true! HuffPo censors any comment that disagrees with their climate articles. Even links to NOAA that disprove what they espouse.

        • Leigh Haugen says:

          Proud to say I was banned by HuffPo several years ago…won too many arguments and posted too much factual information while also responding to vicious warmist attacks with rebuttals matching the vehemence of the attacker. As a result I was banned and they even went to the trouble of going back and deleting my comments from the history – but the vicious posts by the Global Warming Nazi’s were left intact.

  19. Tom Harris says:

    Yes, they certainly do behave like Nazis. Look what happened when I asked a simple question of climate activists at a meeting here in Ottawa on Feb 5:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_cZV1yOHM

    Tom Harris
    ICSC

    • Bill Sparling says:

      Tom, That was excellent. And youare correct about so many things regarding this. BUT, I have noticed that people are not as apathetic as you think. They are fearfull about speaking out, as it affects their homes, thier children and their livelihoods. Everything and anything you say that contradicts the extremists (who have the power these days) opens you and your family up to retribution.

      Even though, being retired, I am “bulletproof” in that regard, I still have to be carefull for the sake of my spouses’ career and our children. The internet is so intrusive that virtually anything can splash on people and have completely unintended and serious consequences. At least for those of us who don’t support the false consensus.
      But a great interview. You should post listings of meetings such as this so people can attend and speak out if they wish/dare.

    • Tom Harris says:

      Note to readers: My comment above is already being misinterpreted by our opponents.

      When I wrote, “Yes, they certainly do behave like Nazis.”, I meant no more nor no less than what I said. Those who personally attack others in despicable ways simply because they disagree with their opinions on science matters are indeed behaving like Nazis. They are clearly trying to silence opposition through bully boy tactics, just like the Nazis. Despicable behaviour is despicable, and people following this approach should be roundly condemned by people of good will on all sides of the debate.

      While I am not surprised that some people have come to calling them Nazis, I do not call them Nazis (or, generally, anything else, for that matter) but these trouble makers certainly behave like Nazis. End of story.

      • Leigh Haugen says:

        Back in 2008 our left wing Governor Granholm created the Michigan Climate Action Council to ‘stop Global Warming’ and force expensive renewable energy down the throats of Michigan taxpayers. I sent research emails and phoned into one of the early meetings of the MCAC meeting to try and figure out the scientific justification for the costly and damaging ideas they were proposing. Their abrupt dismissal of my efforts: the Governor didn’t tell us to evaluate the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming – we’re just supposed to do something about it!

        Draft Summary MCAC Mtg.
        PUBLIC INPUT- DAY 1
        The following individuals offered comments:
        Leigh Haugen, Citizen (via phone): The MCAC should recognize that there is debate about the science of climate change. He has sent e-mails to the Council and asks that they be considered.

        Jim Weeks, MMEA: Responded that the Governors charge to MCAC did not include assessing the science of climate change, but rather to develop a Climate Action Plan to
        address it.

        http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatestrategies.us%2Flibrary%2Flibrary%2Fdownload%2F331&ei=okYHU4uOEKfR2wWY5IHYBw&usg=AFQjCNHjlwYxRIBQ8gZ2DQ5Umsek-goKfQ&sig2=zQNWGnsbK92XYf65VhMatQ&bvm=bv.61725948,d.b2I&cad=rja

        That day I went out and created the only group on Linkedin dedicated to exposing the Global Warming / Climate Change scam. I’ve been fighting these vicious Nazi’s ever since – in every way that I can. If you’re on Linkedin, please join my group (search Global Warming in the groups section).

  20. Lubos Motl says:

    I agree with all of your justifications etc. Still, it could sound strange if you were using the term in isolation.

    Wouldn’t it be a good idea to try to spread it and agree that this is the new official term? For example, your colleagues McNider and Christy would use the term “climate-change-consensus community” in the Wall Street Journal yesterday which seems “somewhat” more submissive.

    If a sufficient fraction of the top skeptics agreed, we could start to use “global warming Nazis” and argue that it’s the official term how to call these people.

  21. Thomas says:

    “They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists.”

    Just remember that this analogy works both ways. You are equally guilty if you yell “stay put, there is no fire!” when the theater really is on fire.

    As far as “denier” goes, while some people may associate it with holocaust denial, that’s not what the word means, just check in a dictionary.

    I have to agree with Hops that Roy Spencer seems to be losing it in this post. Instead of using his scientific credentials he’s competing with Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk for simple rhetorical points based on outrage and a total conviction that he is right.

    • I have a solution for the theater fire analogy. Don’t go to theaters. I don’t. It works like a charm. No theater, no fire…or claim of a fire.

    • except there is no fire, silly.

      And apparently it’s ok for your side to call us “deniers’, but not for us to not respond in kind? Really? Look up “hypocrisy”.

      again I say, I didn’t start this.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Roy… You have to be aware that most of the scientists doing climate research do not agree with your position that there “is no fire.” It strikes me as odd to take the position that your position is absolutely correct and the rest of the scientific community is absolutely wrong.

        Based on the larger body of opinions there is a distinct likelihood that there is a fire. You may not agree with it. That’s fine. But the fact remains, there is an extremely large body of research that suggests there is a fire and that the repercussions could be very serious for later generations.

        • Hans Erren says:

          it is pleasantly warm, yes, but not a fire.

          For the next 70 years global warming will be a net benefit. By then, the world will be so rich that they have sufficiect money to geoengineer any problems. Why should the poor (that’s us, now) solve the “problems” for the affluent rich of 2100?

        • Bob Dutch says:

          Rob… you are acting exactly the same as the Nazi’s that Dr Roy speaks of.
          Making out that there might be a fire, we just don’t actually have the evidence of it just now!

          I am still waiting to see one scrap of actual evidence that proves AGW is real, and in the absence of any real evidence I have to assume it is not happening. I also apply over 60 years of my own history and observations to conclude that there is no AGW.

          You could use the temperature charts that have been adjusted to suit the cause as your proof, but I would not accept that.

          You appeal to the “extremely large body of research that suggests there is a fire and that repercussions could be very serious”, but most of this reasearch is based upon the adjusted data and models that are not real.

          Good on you Dr Roy Spencer for making a statement that hopefully will encourage more of the masses to look for some evidence before jumping on the band wagon.

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            I would have to differ on that position, Bob. Roy is certainly welcome to disagree with his colleagues in the scientific community, but he has to accept the fact that he is clearly in the minority in his position. Being in the minority doesn’t make you absolutely correct, any more than being in the majority makes you absolutely correct.

            The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence that the current trajectory of CO2 emissions will likely cause 3-4C of warming by 2100. That’s not an absence of evidence. There is a great deal of evidence that supports that position, and regardless of whether you believe that evidence is there, nearly the entire community of researchers who work on this issue believes it is. They may be wrong and Roy may be right, but that is a risk assessment that requires a personal value judgement.

            My issue here is that Roy, as a scientist, has made a statement of absolute FACT (“there is no fire”) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He would be fine saying “I don’t think there’s a fire” but that not what he’s done. He has made a statement without caveat that he believes that the nearly the entire scientific community is wrong. That is an extraordinary thing for an actively publishing scientist to do.

          • Bob Dutch says:

            Rob Honeycut below says

            “The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence that the current trajectory of CO2 emissions will likely cause 3-4C of warming by 2100. That’s not an absence of evidence. There is a great deal of evidence that supports that position, and regardless of whether you believe that evidence is there, nearly the entire community of researchers who work on this issue believes it is.”

            Just saying it doesn’t actually provide the edidence.

            Please name one relevant piece of solid evidence that supports the case for AGW.
            No computer models please.

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            Bob Dutch… Here’s a very short list of CS estimates. There are dozens more where that came from.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-20.jpeg

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            And some more here (note the separate listing for models):

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg

          • goldminor says:

            @ Rob Honeycutt…I don’t see any smoke yet, except from those modeling demons, who are blowing smoke up our ‘you know where’.

          • Bob Dutch says:

            Rob

            If that is your proof, you are more gullible than I gave you credit for.

            I am looking for something in the natural world that ties warming to CO2 increase, not estimates.
            You think by throwing graphs at people they will just accept your stupidity.

            Please provide REAL proof.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your argument from consensus is weak and feeble, and almost certainly built on propaganda surveys and misuse of statistics by your fellows in the trough.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Rob: estimates are NOT evidence. Show us the smoking gun, provide the real (unadjusted) data that proves increasing global temperatures. (Please leave out the “edumacated guesses” and interpolated readings, show only the raw data and methodology.)

        • richard says:

          those being paid to find a fire will find a fire or if not will create one,

      • Thomas says:

        Roy, the name calling has been getting gradually worse, and you may not have started it, but people on your side certainly have been very active with attacks. I’d put the point at which attacks went mainstream at Frederick Seitz attack on Ben Santer in Wall Street Journal, and it has been downhill from that. In 1996 Santer was accused of “scientific cleansing” by GCC. After Mann, Bradley and Hughes climate reconstructions and later on “Climate Gate” it really took off with claims of fraud and deception being too numerous to count. Just read the comments in this thread and all the accusations of a planned genocide! Against that your interpretation that the word “denier” has to refer to the Holocaust falls flat.

        “except there is no fire, silly.”

        I’m afraid I don’t share your faith. We could get lucky and the fire not being so bad in the end, but there definitely is a fire. Do you feel lucky, punk?

        • Bob Dutch says:

          Thomas

          Omce again you are using the precautionary principle argument.

          And yes, I feel lucky, punk, because I have yet to see a smoking gun, a loaded gun or any gun for that matter!

  22. Deryl Henson says:

    Right on Dr. Spencer!! I hope more scientists grow the cojones you have and start pushing back against these nazis. Illigitimi non carborundum!!

  23. Gustav says:

    Good for you, Roy. I used to call them eco-fascists.

  24. Peter Samuel says:

    A forceful linguistic response is certainly justified, but the increasingly aggressive language being used to denounce skeptics by the ‘GW Nazis’ may be a sign of desperation – a sense they are losing the battle for public opinion. They risk alienating the middle ground with this vilification and mockery of the unpersuaded. I guess they think they can intimidate the wimps. It will be interesting to see if they lose more by provoking a reaction than they gain by intimidation.

    NOTE the typo:

    media, because the cream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

    I think you meant ‘they scream’

  25. David Gillies says:

    The shrillness of the global warming zealots is indicative that the so-called science they are doing is pathological. If the science were sound it wouldn’t need cheerleading. GCMs might, in principle, be useful predictive tools one day but the sad fact is that at the moment they can’t even do backcasting (retrodiction) let alone forecasting. When it comes to some of the forcings it’s not that we don’t know their magnitude but we don’t even know their sign. On the basis of such shoddy scholarship we are meant to up-end the entire world economy and hobble future generations with smaller economies than would otherwise be the case. The only winners from global warming hysteria are the transnational elites like John Kerry, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri who will continue to live high on the hog while admonishing the rest of us to curb our iniquity.

    Lest anyone be under the illusion that the science will out and the warming alarmists will slink off when the failure of their predictions becomes too obvious to hide: sorry, but no. If instead it’s shown that the earth is cooling their prescription will be the same i.e. illiberal and economically-damaging policies with the alarmists at the helm. It’s not about science and never was. It’s about control of the means of production and to whom the benefits accrue.

  26. James M. Davidson says:

    AGW has all the features of a religion:

    1) Original Sin. ( Our burning of fossil fuels which will lead to our destruction.)

    2) Salvation through Sacrifice. ( Radically change our way of life by ceasing to burn fossil fuels and we may be saved.)

    3) The Promise of Heaven. ( If we stop burning fossil fuels the Earth will be restored to its pristine Garden of Eden state.

    Since I don’t believe any of this I am an unbeliever, not a denier.

    • Peter Yates says:

      AGW enthusiast quote: “If we stop burning fossil fuels the Earth will be restored to its pristine Garden of Eden state.”

      Actually, a luxurious ‘Garden of Eden’ world would need lots of CO2 plant food. …

  27. Mike says:

    If the ‘Science is Settled’ why did they change the name of the hysteria from Global Warming to Climate Change?

    Things that make you go Hmmmm…

  28. John Adams says:

    So how much do humans really contribute to temperature change? Does anyone know?

  29. P. Jakob says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer

    Reading a couple of your recent blog-articles (not just this one) I got the impression that you become more and more frustrated.

    There may be/is very good reason for this, i don’t know…

    Be that as it may, … but please – do not start calling those idiots nazis. You don’t want to walk this road.

    Yes, the global warming movement is costing lives, like countless other policies in our history… but it has not descended into the darkness that ruled my country 70+ years ago.
    It might happen some day – but I don’t think so…

    Regards
    P.

    • David L. Hagen says:

      P. Jakob
      Please see the definition of facism:

      a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

      : very harsh control or authority

      Roy is pointing out that global warming extremists are imposing their beliefs on all others by dictatorial authoritarian methods. The Nazis were the worst example.

      If you don’t want to use “Nazi”, an equivalent statement would be: “Global warming fascist”

    • I understand your concern. But I’m not calling them “Nazis”. I’m calling them “global warming Nazis”.

      Besides, the communists killed many more people than the Nazis did, we we don’t hesitate to use that term.

      We can’t wait until we have descended into a similar fate before we start speaking out.

  30. David L. Hagen says:

    I second Roy’s opinion. See Isaiah 5:20-21 NIV

    Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.

    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.

  31. Eliza says:

    Actually he amount of carbon on earth now is exactly the same as it was millions of years ago. This is what no one seems to realize. Unless it can escape gravity. You could have 10 times more humans animals etc the amount is always the same.

    • John Adams says:

      You think some of the best educated people in the world aren’t aware that millions of years ago there was 400ppm CO2? Seems like you haven’t done any research.

      • Alicia says:

        You are refering to the distribution of carbon, NOT the actual amount of it. My greenhouses are doing very well with 8% CO2 in the enclosures.

      • Bill Flickinger says:

        We live in a carbon based ecosystem, not silicon. Yet most of the carbon on this planet is locked in its crust as Calcium Carbonate; marble, limestone,shale, chalk etc…

  32. Yes , “watermelon” , “eco-crapitalist” , etc don’t have the shock value express the mendacity and danger of this criminally , willfully ignorant delusion . The world cannot be run by the intentionally stupid .

    I’ll only pull out the word in defense , when someone uses the “d-” word or claims we are in this for the money ( please visit the PayPal link on my site if you’ve got some spare . )

    The damage to the teaching of quantitative science will be with us for a generation . The ignorance revealed in the current generation painful to endure .

    My own efforts are to explain the most essential , non-optional , physics of planetary temperature , understandable and computable in succinct APL expressions at a “talented teen” level so anybody anywhere can experimentally test them themselves .

    Even learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated uniformly colored ball is enough to show that Hansen’s claim that Venus is an example of a “runaway greenhouse effect” does not compute .

  33. Walter Allensworth says:

    They precisely are Nazi’s.

    They follow all the rules.

    They are intolerant of anyone and anything that does not agree with their Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme.

    Here are the Nazi rules, and you can find an example of each of them in Skary Kerry’s recent speech.

    Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.

    Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.

    Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.

    Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.

    Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.

    Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.

    Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”

  34. Mike H says:

    Watermelons are the #1 threat to mine and my children’s future. They are Opportunity Thieves. If it was just a bunch of researchers sucking money up from the gov’t trough, I wouldn’t really care. However, with the advocacy of policies which steal opportunity, (especially from my children’s generation), I decided to get more involved in exposing for the dishonest people they are.

    Dr. Spencer, you and your ilk are doing yeomen’s work. Please realize how much it is appreciated by an ever growing number.

    All the best

    • John Adams says:

      Do you know much about the science or have you just read something against liberals and you’ve taken a political side?

      • Bill Sparling says:

        John, is it your intent to hold yourself up as an example of what Dr. Roy, and others, are describing?

      • Mike H says:

        About 5 years ago, a couple of buddies and I were having a couple of beers and talking about global warming as it was more commonly referred to back then. Essentially we were all talking through our hats. I decided to learn as much about the topic as I could. My mech eng background lent itself quite well to the topic. Religiously went to Real Climate as my bend at that time was to question the alarmism. Wanted to make sure I understood the counter points to my innate thoughts. After about a year, gave up on them on having any objectivity. I would post contradictory evidence and sure enough, deleted. Gavin stating, and I paraphrase, “We really have to stop having these debates, they don’t do us any good” was the nail in the coffin. Once a hypothesis has for all intents and purposes to be demonstrated to be wrong, you stop reading their propaganda, so don’t go there anymore. Note, I’m not saying the long wave absorption properties of CO2 are wrong. What I am saying is the data is stating very strongly the probability of CO2 being a catalyst to catastrophic outcomes is getting lower and lower. Even if we make the HUGE assumption it caused all warming to date, the data sure is starting to say it is pretty much a zero probability influencer from this point. But you, as a person who completely understands the science, knows that. You also know our system is not linear and as an open system, we can’t build models of our system. We have to rely on data and computer models. The computer models have failed miserably. We live in a chaotic system which we are just starting to learn about. Yes, much of my learning has been courtesy of Dr. Spencer and tothers and for that I thank them.

        Since you brought up politics, I’m pretty much a libertarian but have many left leaning friends. Once they see how the policies the faux environmentalists mostly hit the poor, they start to look more closely at the issue. Never had one of them not question the CAGW mantra once they started actually looking beyond the headlines. Note, here in BC, we see first hand how the carbon tax hits the lower income harder than the upper income. In addition, 70% of all carbon tax collected ended up in the hands of gov’t friends. They found a way to hit property taxes as all school boards have to pay it. They cirumvented money from health care as all hospitals have to pay it too. Surprise, Surprise. Gotta get that money back in donor hands. Political donations can be considered a unique bridge financing method.

        Also have many friends who are true environmentalists. Once they go beyond the headlines and start studying it they realize how much the anti carbon people are actually leading society away form sound environmental stewardship. All I do is ask them to be skeptics for one month. That’s pretty much all it takes. The worst anybody has come back to me is “I still think it is a problem, but I understand your point”. Fair enough. Nobody knows the future but the data from the past supports far more benefits than risks.

        And the personal attacks on honorable people such as Dr. Spencer and others are beyond the pale. A sure sign people are arguing from a point of weakness. As Roger Pielke Jr. once said, (and again I paraphrase), “this topic moved from actual science to political science long ago”. Have a great day.

  35. The reason why they are resorting to such tactics is out of fear. They realize the CON they have been trying to put upon the public is on shaky grounds and therefore are very fearful of those who have the know it all to expose their con. The con of course being man made global warming. A joke.

    Getting back to the sun. The sun is the main driver of the climate, and I think everyone would agree that there is some threshold change in our sun which would exert an influence on the climate, either through direct means or secondary means, or both.

    This leaves us with two very important questions which I believe have yet to be answered.

    They are how variable is the sun really ,and what thresholds of solar variability are needed either through direct means or secondary means or both to have a significant impact on the climate?

    I gave the parameters I think are necessary and I also stated I think they occur during times of prolonged solar minimum periods and refer to the MAUNDER and DALTON MINIMUMS as examples.

    I also think the strength of the earth’s magnetic field can either compound solar effects upon the earth’s climate or moderate them.

    The best combination for a significant cooling in my opinion are a combination of weak solar and earth magnetic fields, over a prolonged period of time.

  36. Jim Hines says:

    Hello Doctor,

    Thank you for your stance! I love it and I’m a supporter. I just wish there was a way I could show my support. Can you have someone put links on your website to places like your facebook page, google +, and maybe even have someone build you an online petition that we could all sign? That would be cool.

  37. Roy, well said. I endorse everything you have said and I am delighted you have spoken out so strongly.

  38. PEER REVIEW IN TODAY’S ENVIROMENT DOES NOT MEAN ALL THAT MUCH.

  39. Dr. Spencer is the most objective climate scientist I have come across and approaches the science in the correct manner.

  40. Leif says:

    The largest moral discrepancy in the law that I see currently happening, off the radar of most, is the the ability of the rich to profit from the pollution of the commons while you and I are severely fined, $1,000 in AK, for throwing a paper cup out the car window. The president himself would be hounded out of office if caught on camera. Yet the richest people in the world continue to profit from the pollution of the commons . This fundamental flaw has bequeathed a legacy of polluted land, waters, air, oceans, even now the bowels of the planet itself. Worse yet, this effort still gets the funding subsidies of your and my tax $$$. “We the People” all pay to dispose of trash, $144/ton in my area, yet Corpro/People demand a bulk rate of free++ for toxins! They piddle all over themselves at the thought of $25/ton even as you and I are holding the bag for far more. This “oversight” has become intrenched into the fabric of both political parties, and even the foundation of Western Capitalism. As humanity awakens to the dawn of the Anthropocene era we begin to see the dark clouds of the melting Polar ice, acidified oceans, species extinction, floods, drought and famine. We see climatic refugees fleeing and dying in the attempt to save the lives of themselves and their progeny from the winds of Mordor. The ability of the few to profit from the pollution of the commons.

    • Leif, pollution (the leftovers from what humans do to survive) is unavoidable. I can be reduced, but not eliminated.

      I don’t see you arguing against the way trees have taken over vast areas of the Earth, rendering much of the ground under them unfit for the survival of many other kinds of vegetation.

      You and your family have benefited greatly in return, with a high standard of living, medicine, etc. You seem to be laboring under a delusion which has been made worse by popular culture and fiction from the entertainment industry.

    • Alcheson says:

      CO2 is NOT pollution Leif. In the US, soot and other toxic emissions from coal fired electric plants were cleaned up in the 70 and 80s, to the point that there was little air pollution to be of much concern. I grew up 8 miles from a very large coal fired plant in the 60s-80s. Air quality was excellent. The cheap and abundant energy from our coal plants provide benefits in far excess to the negatives. With the shutting down of coal fired plants planned over the next several years and decades, things will get MUCH worse for the common person, and also for the environment.
      The gas companies are funding the global warming side because they want to kill off coal and eliminate competition which will allow them to increase the price of natural gas more readily (higher demand, no competition).

  41. Leif says:

    Carnage. No other word comes to mind. Those that deny the climatic disruption realities that confront the people, Nation, Species and Planetary Life Support Systems suborn nothing less than “mass suicide” IMO. Climatic Disruption goes hand in hand with the corporate/fossil baron ability to profit from the pollution of the commons. “We the People” are forced to subsidize this atrocity. You or I cannot stop it but you and I can. Many hands make light work.

    • …and imagine the problems we would have, Leif, if everyone had to create everything they need, by themselves, from raw materials where they lived.

      The Earth really would be really polluted, then, because there would be immense inefficiency. Not to mention rampant disease, pain, suffering, and endless labor.

      Do you really want to return to the Dark Ages?

      The masses get far more from corporations than the corporations get to keep for themselves.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Roy,

        Thank you for presenting an obvious but overlooked point! Industry, by competitively reducing the number of people attempting to complete similar tasks enormously increases efficiency! That’s NOT to say all redundancy is BAD, but by reducing the number of people occupied at the same repetitive task it frees labor for higher, more productive accomplishments.

        Have a great day!

        • it frees labor for higher, more productive accomplishments.

          Yeah, like Climate Science. You ideologues need to quit while you’re ahead. You’re cutting off your noses to spite your faces.

          • John K says:

            Thank you Cold N Holefield,

            Hmmh! Climate science wouldn’t be anywhere without government largesse and massive borrowing. Who funds the University research, concocts and compiles the ADJUSTED DATA? Very few private parties would be willing to fund such dribble without any promise of pecuniary benefit. Btw, I’m not the ideologue you may think. Your other post regarding CORPORATIONS I found largely accurate. The entire corporate structure has little to do with Laissez Faire or free markets. The whole point of creating legal entities called CORPORATIONS is to limit the liability of those who put assets at risk. In practice this merely encourages often irrational speculation with sometimes dangerous consequences. Too large to fail, the insurance scams seem small pittance to the many corporate horrors throughout time. You might remember the REAL industrial enviro horrors like Bhopal, Minamata, Love Canal, strip mining, etc.. Sometimes in the midst of trumped up enviro panics like GLOBAL WARMING where supposedly they only thing we have to fear is CO2, the TRUTH GETS OBSCURED. At first glance these seem to be examples of the EXCESSES OF CAPITALISM. In fact, GOVERNMENT in most every case either encourages it or does nothing to stop it.

            For example, strip mining happens almost exclusively on GOVERNMENT LAND LEASES. Very few private land owners would treat their property so poorly! However, when a government seeks to extract the coal on land it controls at the cheapest price, well let’s just say the private company having NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE LAND will take few if any environmental stewardship precautions to protect the land and it’s resources. The company has no capital gain to re-coup selling the land and therefore has no interest in preserving it. Environmental disaster isn’t an accident it’s a foregone conclusion. Or take the Love Canal toxic waste disaster. If I remember correctly, a private party buries waste on his property. The government pressures him to sell his land which the owner does for a dollar with a contract in which the new governmental owner agrees not to penetrate and/or expose the toxic waste to the open environment. The government later proceeds to build A SCHOOL ON TOP OF THE TOXIC WASTE SITE AND PENETRATE THE BURIED WASTE RELEASING IT INTO THE LOCAL SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN CONTRACT AND ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN! If a private citizen did such a thing criminal charges would be likely. When the government does it FOR THE CHILDREN the result proves to be endless cover-up and little if any accountability.

            My wife hales from Indonesia. The government there encourages PALM OIL. The OVER-INVESTMENT in this mono-culture screws up the natural ecology and retards productive land use in favor of only one crop. Frankly the seemingly endless parade of government subsidized horrors blamed on free markets proves LAUGHABLE. It only proves that Barnum and Bailey may be right no one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American public. Oh! Btw you may remember in the 19th century the old muck-raker political cartoons showed businesses with hats in hand to KARL MARX!!! You see there joined at the hip and have been so for a long time! Whenever you sacrifice the lives and property of others to any goal even PRO-BUSINESS goals it seems you feed the very same COMMUNIST BEAST!!!

            You see the corporate model and communism are NOT FAR APART! When the lives and property of citizens become playthings in the hand of state regulators WATCH OUT! The government no longer serves you. You serve it!

            Just one more example. Remember some years back the Kelo decision in Connecticut regarding eminent domain. The way I remember it the government sought the power to grab the land from Connecticut homeowners without proper compensation. They wanted to use the land for DEVELOPMENT. Historically the government only used eminent domain to obtain land for constitutionally defined public use like roads or bridges. They re-defined public use to public purpose or whatever some government official wanted to do with it, like give it to some other party. In other words it seems the government sought to act like any common hood! Of course, China used such powers to forcefully remove thousands from their land to build a damn. I’ve read they also use such techniques to enrich well connected developers. A private party alone can do little to oppress you without your consent. With the help of a government un-restrained by LAW or ETHICS you become just a means to an end for some well connected government favored LOOTER!

            Have a great day!

          • John K says:

            Cold N Holefield,

            Btw, just one question! Is the name Cold N Holefield related to J D Salinger’s book “Catcher in the Rye” and the story-teller/character Holden Caulfield? The name just seems to similar to be coincidental. Don’t worry I won’t act like Holden and call you a phony!

            Have a great day!

    • cynical1 says:

      My goodness, I’m surprised you use the internet.

      These machines being made of oil and all that.

      Still, smoke signals do release C02, and didn’t
      someone once say “Gotta break eggs to make omelette”.

      Perhaps you need a sandwich board and a street corner,
      although I believe “The end is nigh” has already been taken..

      • cynical1 says:

        That for Leif by the way. Not Dr Spencer:-).

        I have always believed in fighting back against
        the environmental fundedmentalists.

        The antics of the likes of John Cook, Clive Hamilton
        and co here in Australia, need return fire from all guns.

        • Interesting what you call a fight. Calling people names on the internet won’t cut it you coward.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Give it a rest, Lad. We already know your position.

          • You give it a rest, boy. We already know your position as well. Don’t you have a war to fight somewhere, or are you looking to take out some “Nazis?” The likes of you were no where to be found when the real “Nazis” came knocking. In fact, thugs like yourself joined up with them because thugs like a good bash.

            Tell us, darling, what’s your idea of “fighting back?” Really? Be honest now … if you can. What would you do to the new “Nazis” if you could, or when you can?

          • DEEBEE says:

            First thing first tell them to STFU. And then get serious

      • Bill Sparling says:

        Resorting to personal attacks again I see. I have no need to justify myself to you. Keep the discussion sane or go away, I don’t care which.

        • Put a sock in it, soldier boy. You have no status out/in here. None. Straighten up or ship out. You hear me? I don’t want to have to say it again.

          I’m going to have a fine time pillorying you at my blog. I’m salivating at the thought of it. I’m picking out the skewers as I type.

          I love authoritarian types like you. You go down hard and have a hard time getting back up…kind of like June Bugs.

        • DEEBEE says:

          Collie, med time after wiping the froth from you mouth

    • hunter says:

      Leif,
      If that is all that ocmes to mind, then your mind must be remarkably small.

    • Alcheson says:

      Climatic disruption. Makes me sick. The climate will always be changing no matter what man does. Best to have an abundant and cheap energy source so that we will have a strong economy and the ability to adapt to any changes that nature throws our way. To date, their is NO credible data (models don’t count) that says man’s generation of CO2 is causing any hazardous change what-so-ever to our environment. In fact, so far I would say that the increased warmth since the LIA and the increase in CO2 has been quite beneficial so far.

  42. Fred says:

    Global warming Nazia would mean they are also Global Warmongers.

  43. stevek says:

    Just last week we had Kerry calling skeptics “Shoddy” scientists. This is coming from the Secretary of State. He is suppose to act in a dignified manner.

    He is calling Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry “Shoddy” scientists. He has no background to make such a claim. He can suggest they are right wing or against the norm but he is not a scientist and has no right to use such a term.

    • Exactly. I can only guess which websites his advisers get their “information” from.

    • Marmo says:

      And when did skepticism become a bad thing in science? Didn’t science always rely on skeptics to prove or disprove the works of other scientists?

      Science has gone down the rabbit hole.

    • cynical1 says:

      “Shoddy”!

      I wonder what he calls Mann, Jones, Karoly etc.

      The arrogance is stunning.

      But as they say “The wise have doubts, the fools have none”.

    • John Moore says:

      This is the same Kerry who said that Vietnam Veterans were akin to Jengis Khan (“Jengis” is how he pronounced it). Kerry is the worst of this crowd – he started his political career with treason (another strong but appropriate word for him).

  44. Eric says:

    I prefer the term “heretic”

  45. Marmo says:

    I agree, Roy. Global warming Nazis works for me. Also, be sure to never refer to it as “climate change”. The whole issue started as global warming due to man-made CO2.

    I also always ask for the peer-reviewed scientific experiments that prove that man-made CO2 is warming the planet. Computer models are not scientific experiments.

  46. Morph says:

    As someone who is “Neutral” on CAGW and a target Guardian reader demographic – I have to state that this “push back” is probably the worst course to take, and the use of “Nazi” is an own goal straight away – I can already predict the response to this post, and it won’t play well anywhere.

    I hate the term “denier”, I also hate “watermellon”, “fearmonger”, “flat earther” (that one comes from both sides), “anti science” and so on.

    If your opponent has decided to use insults of any kind then their case is weak and you are on the home straight. All you have to do is wait for the right time. If your allies do so then you should also be wary of what they are saying.

    In short if you descend to their (the name callers’) level, then they will drag you down further and you will lose to them because of their experience.

    Up to you of course at the end of the day.

    I would stay classy. ;-)

  47. Curious George says:

    Actually, Nazis forced 100 leading German scientists to denounce a horrible Jew named Einstein and his un-Aryan theories. A good illustration of a consensus.

    Einstein’s reply went – if I remember correctly – like “It does not take 100 scientists to prove me wrong. It takes one fact.”

    • Rob Honeycutt says:

      But that one “fact” has to be extremely well founded.

      • Magoo says:

        Try this one Rob:

        1/ If there is no tropospheric hotspot, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?

        2/ If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, how can the miniscule warming of CO2 be doubled/tripled?

        3/ If the miniscule effects of CO2 can’t be doubled/tripled, why is AGW a problem?

        • Rob Honeycutt says:

          Magoo…

          You could try reading the published research on the hotspot. If there is no hotspot, there is no warming, because the hotspot is a result of the moist adiabatic lapse rate and thus an indication of warming regardless of the source.

          All dataset show warming over the past 50 years (35 for satellite). So, either all the dataset are wrong or the hotspot is challenging to detect. The published research suggests the latter.

          • Magoo says:

            Nice try Rob but not quite. The upper troposphere has been warming alright, just not faster than the surface as predicted by the models – either the surface temperature readings have been adjusted up too much hiding a troposphere that is supposed to warm at a faster rate, or the tropospheric hotspot doesn’t exist. The scientific literature agrees with the empirical evidence that the tropospheric hot spot doesn’t exist. As a result there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, which is backed up by the empirically observed temperatures.

            All datasets do NOT show warming over the last 50 yrs, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16-23 yrs depending on which dataset you’re using – check it out here if you don’t agree:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

            This gives approximately 16yrs warming attributable to AGW (1980-1996) followed by 17 yrs of no warming. During the 16 yrs of warming both 30,000,000 radiosondes & 2 satellites failed to find the hotspot – to put it another way, empirical evidence from multiple sources all agree that the tropospheric hotspot is non existent.

            Now, how does it warm more than 1.2C without positive feedback from water vapour? It doesn’t.

          • DEEBEE says:

            No warming though in the last 15 though. So why is 35 a significant number. There was arise of tem in early 20th century, then a flattening and then a rise and now another flattening. While CO2 escalates. Almost all skeptic I know would agree that co2has a warming effect, but the Nazis attribute all almost all warming to GHG

      • cynical1 says:

        The one “Fact” causing problems is this (And it is well founded).

        A flat lining of temps during a large increase in C02 emissions
        for the last 15 years.

        This “Fact” has caused more twists and turns than Greg Lougainis
        ever performed.

        We always said: less/ more snow
        less/more rain.
        less/more cyclones
        less/more droughts

        And on and on.

        Is there a hypothesis that states:

        “Modelling chaotic systems is impossible. The end”.

        If not, there should be.

        • Rob Honeycutt says:

          There is no “flat line” since every data set shows a warming trend, and OHC 0-2000m definitely shows warming.

          • Magoo says:

            Ocean heat content 0-700 metres hasn’t warmed in the Atlantic and Pacific basins in a decade – how did the heat get below 700 metres without traveling through the top 700m, magical osmosis? It’s an echo of previous warming. The warming that has been measured in the oceans is so small it comes nowhere near the ‘missing heat’. You live in fairy land Rob, grow up and face the facts – the IPCC, the Met Office agree there’s been no warming, and all the data sets show no statistically significant warming in at least the last 17 yrs.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

          • DEEBEE says:

            Not for the last 15 years.

  48. Curious George says:

    I saw somewhere a beautiful word CLIMASTROLOGY.

  49. Magoo says:

    Turning the tables & calling the alarmists ‘deniers’ would be better. They are the ones who ignore all the science (i.e. failed computer models, lack of warming, no tropospheric hotspot, no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, no increasing trends in extreme weather, etc, etc…). The result of doing this is that everyone is calling everyone else a ‘denier’ which renders the insult redundant.

    My inclination is to take the high ground on the issue and ignore them, they’ll use it against you otherwise. They name call in lieu of any evidence to back up their claims, and the more they lose the battle the more vicious they become – the only thing left for them is to try to side track the issue to avoid their failings. Keep exposing their constant and endless failings – it’s the best weapon & it pisses them off no end.

    • Magoo says:

      I might just add also that when the AGW bubble bursts (and it can’t be too far away), that those who shamelessly pushed it’s false agenda such as Mann, Jones, etc. need to have their noses mercilessly & relentlessly rubbed it until the day they die.

  50. SAGWH says:

    CATACLYSMANOIDS !!!!!

  51. simon says:

    Like the Nazis, it seems now that appeasement will not stop the extremist enviro-politico-mentalists, so a very forceful stance has to be made against them. The key to this strategy however is to also attack their MSM lapdogs who communicate these extremist’s utterences to the (gullible?) populous, shaming them to the point they have to take a neutral line.

  52. Colten says:

    Its now called global climate change not global warming and yes it is a natural process that the earth would go through regardless of whether humans were here or not. Although its a natural process the effects of global climate change are being accelerated by the pollution caused from burning fossil fuels.

    • Marmo says:

      No, it started as global warming caused by man-made CO2. You can change the name, but the fact remains you think the problem is an increasing build-up of heat caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      All it would take to convince me is peer-reviewed scientific experiments that shows that to be the case. Computer models are not science experiments. They haven’t predicted anything accurately.

      Nobody wants pollution, but the argument on the global warming Nazis side is that global warming is specifically caused by CO2.

      Put up the evidence or shut up.

  53. The masses get far more from corporations than the corporations get to keep for themselves.

    I’ve spent an entire career in corporations, and yes, while there are exceptions, they are, for the most part, totalitarian regimes. These regimes lobby and influence government tremendously and have done so for so long and so well, we now live under a velvet-gloved (velvet for now at least) totalitarian system and corporations are very much a part of that.

    In my estimation, Communism (on LSD) won. It infiltrated every aspect of Western life, to include the corporations. I gave just one example a few threads back…which was largely ignored, no doubt because it was disconfirming to those who think there is miraculously no nexus between corporations and the government just as these Climate Change Communists believe there is no nexus between corporations and the government…or at least feign to believe it.

    What do you call the Bail-Out if not outright Communism? Too Big To Fail? What? How in the hell is that Free Market? Explain that to me? You can’t. It’s not a Free Market when corporations become Too Big To Fail and do everything in their power because they are the power to prevent competition.

    I’m all for Free Enterprise, but Free Enterprise has absolutely nothing to do with behemoth, totalitarian, Communist-like corporations that seek to crush competition and usurp innovation and creativity. I’ve met many a CEO who was nothing more than a Stalin on steroids and his upper management team a Politburo. The reason so many of the elite, the shareholders in the behemoth corporations and the owners of our now centrally-planned economy, are now on board with AGW is because they see it as an opportunity to further enrich themselves at out expense. My insurance example above is one of so many examples that supports this point. They’re endless…the examples. The highest levels of government and the highest levels of these behemoth, totalitarian corporations are interchangeable with many elite circling and cycling in and out of each.

    Sorry if that all seems a little edgy; I just recently found out Larry Hagman died in 2012 and all this time I thought he was still alive. It will take me a few days to get over the shock.

    Also, once more, I’ll ask again. Who specifically pushed your button?

    PS: Using my insurance example. I’ve been paying, coercively, for homeowners insurance for many years and the rates are going up, up, up. I have never, in all this time, made a claim against any of my policies. I’ll go a step further and bet that I never will. When you tally it up, not considering the time value of money, when I reach my end days I’ll have paid maybe $30,000 just for Homeowners Insurance without a claim ever paid back. $30,000!!!! If you include time value of money for all those years, it amounts to close to $60,000. $60,000!!!!! I’m part of “The Masses” and this “Mass” is here to say, at least when it comes to this example, the insurance company/companies have gotten far more from me than I’ve ever gotten from them and I want some god damned thanks for it rather than being told I should thank my lucky stars I gave them $60,000 pure profit.

    For the record, I’m critical of both corporations and the government. I consider them, with some rare exceptions, two heads of a multi-headed beast. Most corporations when they reach a certain size become anti-free enterprise, and I’m down with that…way down with that.

    • cynical1 says:

      That’s what insurance is for.

      “I gave them $60,000 pure profit”.

      Sheesh. ONLY CAUSE YOU NEVER HAD A DISASTER AND CLAIMED.

      Poor you.

      Unbelievable….

      • A survey of my neighbors would reveal the vast majority of them, 98% I’d say, haven’t had a claim.

        Yes, you are unbelievable. If you look at the history of insurance, once upon a time in a smaller community of tight-knit people who knew and trusted one another, it made sense. Today, it’s a scam where the majority of people hand over pure profit to the insurance companies who continue to raise your rates even though you’ve never made a claim. It’s a form of socialism, but ideologues such as yourself, in your rush to defend “corporations” rather than free enterprise, contradict yourselves by approving this version of socialism so a few fat cats can have second and third homes and a boat for the lake house.

        What a dope you are and yet another liar. Ideologues can’t help making fools of themselves. They decry other ideologues but can’t see the ideological plank in their own eye. You play the ideological game, you lose. You obviously do, so you’ve already lost.

        • Bill Sparling says:

          You seem to have a lack of understanding of what insurance is; you buy it to protect you IF something bad happens. It is not a savings account or investiment plan.

          Let me put it another way, which you might be able to grasp: Robert Heinlein compared buying insurance to placing a bet with a bookie. You hand over some money, betting that something bad will happen. He takes your money, betting that nothign bad will happen. The odds (risk) decide how much money you are both betting. If your house burns down, you win. If nothing happens, the bookie wins. Do you get it now?

          • It doesn’t change the fact the insurance company has done nothing for me and instead, I’ve given it $60,000 pure profit. It, as the casino, set the odds well in its favor, and priced the “bet” accordingly. Fair enough if I had a choice in the matter, but I didn’t. I was coerced by the mortgage company which is also now the insurance company to purchase the increasingly costly insurance, i.e. I was forced to bet and gamble, i.e. I was forced to be the losing end of this scam.

            You’re the one who doesn’t get it, Billy Boy. Pooled risk within a small group of people, below Dunbar’s number, is a good idea. Once it exceeds this boundary, it quickly becomes a scam, and socialistic, and that’s what it is now. But hey, keep defending it…it only serves to prove my point that you’re an ideologue.

            I’m willing to take the risk and not carry Homeowners Insurance but I can’t by force of rigged contract law. There’s a fire station a mile from my house so my house isn’t going to burn down and Homeowners Insurance doesn’t cover much else without one hell of a fight and the involvement of attorneys.

            Now, go back to doing what you do best, Bill, and that’s fighting and dying, and teaching other dolts to fight and die, for “corporations.” Or are you going to argue that Smedley Butler, someone infinitely more decorated than you could ever hope to be, didn’t know what he was talking about? Bill wants to replace one form of totalitarianism with another. I can’t and won’t hang with that, Bill Boy. No way.

          • Bill Sparling says:

            Ok, kiddo. Enough with the personal nonsense. You simply prove that you have no case to begin with when you continually resort to such. As for your complaint about “rigged contract law”; so get your mortgage elsewhere. Oh, wait, all those evil lenders want to have some protection for the investment in your house so you have to get that insurance from someone…..or give up the mortgage. TOO BAD. I guess the fact you you are using someone elses money is not important to you and you think you should have a free ride in the world. TANSTAAFL. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Grow up and learn to live in the real world.

          • Got ya, Billdo. I thought that’s where you would take this. Good. Yes, Billdo, grow up and live in the real world; that real world that now says the science of AGW is settled, so shut up about it and eat your real world shit sandwich you whiny little baby.

            Billip, you’re such a dork. Has anyone ever told you that? If they haven’t, they were just being nice.

            Billson is a Socialist/Communist/Nazi/Fascist in disguise (and a not too good one at that). He believes you should pay taxes to the rich, but not the government. I say, whether we like it or not, we pay taxes to both and both are pretty much one and the same. Barnacle Bill needs to see the Wizard for a brain.

          • Alicia says:

            I have no idea who this Cold N. Holefield twit thinks he is, but he certainly proves Dr. Spencer’s point about the extremists on the warming side. Right from the start he plays both sides of the debate and then attacks people who point out his foolishness. Isn’t there a bridge somewhere that this troll could make a home under and stop bothering real people?

    • DEEBEE says:

      Gaul out is not communism. Do not let your detestation, which I share get you to open the meaning of words until they are vacant.

  54. Peter Gleick says:

    Roy, have you lost your fucking mind?
    Peter

  55. harleyrider1778 says:

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

  56. harleyrider1778 says:

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

    • Manfred says:

      ….so does this:

      JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt365 First published online: December 6, 2013
      No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
      1. Judy Peres
      A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.
      “The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
      Investigators from Stanford and other research centers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS). Among 93,676 women aged 50–79 years at enrollment, the study had complete smoking and covariate data (including passive smoking exposure in childhood, adult home, and work) for 76,304 participants. Of those, 901 developed lung cancer over 10.5 mean years of follow-up.
      The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more.

  57. harleyrider1778 says:

    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
    http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/06/epidemiologists-vote-to-keep-doing-junk-science.html
    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

    Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

    An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
    Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

    Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
    proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
    placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

    Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
    relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
    different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
    perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
    one risk factor, including social factors.

    Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

    But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
    epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
    to epidemiology.”

    But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
    it was public health that mattered!

    we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
    Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
    see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
    the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
    would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

    Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
    after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant
    Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
    other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
    of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

    The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
    back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
    corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
    Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
    lives that selective blindness has caused!

  58. C3 Editor says:

    I would concur with the push-back. I don’t think calling them “Nazis” will soon stop them from labeling CAGW skeptics “deniers” but at a certain point there will be those that see the errors of their unnecessary smearing.

    That might finally set the stage for a cascade of more civil discourse from most global warming alarmists, eventually.

    In the meantime, labeling them as Nazis should bring some retribution pleasure I would think. I may have to give it a try soon. ;-)

    C3 Editor

  59. Truthseeker says:

    I have been using the term “global warming alarmists” for a while now, but I like and approve of the term “global warming Nazis”. If they object you can point out that the “denier” term was coined with an association link to holocaust deniers.

    After all the SkepticalScience crowd have posted pictures of themselves in Nazi uniforms (since removed). Freudian slip perhaps?

  60. Threepwood says:

    National Socialist German Workers Party

    That’s what NAZI stands for, it didn’t tend to lean socialist, it was socialist first and foremost- Jews were targeted for their personal wealth to help fund global socialism. if racism helped that goal it was utilized.

    I agree enviro-socialism is potentially just as dangerous- for the same reasons; an ideological combination of hatred and sense of superiority, righteousness with designs on bringing the entire planet into forced compliance.

    But I agree with many here, ‘deniers’- of natural climate variation – or something along those lines is a little less incendiary- more likely to win over those on the fence.

    CLIMASTROLOGY.- love it!

  61. Dr Roy,

    You are more right about calling the global warming, or the now more preferred term ‘climate change’, advocates Nazi’s.

    The policy was designed by global fascists who seek to reduce the human population from seven billion people to less than 1 billion in next few decades. Eco-fascism is just one way of achieving this goal.

    The people behind this agenda, the ruling power elite, are the very same people and families that sponsored Hitler and funded the war machine and policies of the Third Reich.

    I would urge you read the history of this at http://larouchepac.com/greenfascism

    There are enough articles there to allow to see how this agenda was born in the 1960′s and connect the dots to the real enemies of mankind.

  62. Dikran Marsupial says:

    I’m sorry Roy, I am shocked and deeply saddened by this, and hope you will reconsider. If you object to being called names, calling other people even worse names is unlikely to produce a desirable effect.

    Luke 6:27-36

    • cynical1 says:

      Why?

      Fighting the Germans back worked twice…

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        There is a bit of a difference between calling somebody names and killing them. Also I wouldn’t say that WW1 or WW2 were particularly good solutions to the problems that gave rise to them.

        The advice in Luke 6:27-36 is good, not just because it helps to prevent disagreements from escalating unnecessarily, but because it stops us from suffering self-inflicted damage from our own anger. I mentioned it because I don’t like to see anybody as angry and hurt as Roy obviously is, whether I agree with their standpoint on AGW or not.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          But Dr. Spencer is human too, all probably started from here:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/exactly-how-does-global-warming-cause-50-deg-f-in-minnesota/#comment-104863

          That “scientific” journalist depicted him as failed scientist at the end of his career, which is equivalent to say that his life is a failure.
          IMHO, it’s too easy give suggestion when you aren’t directly involved in the dispute.
          For we (humans) sometimes externalize our disappointment is a good way to feel better, it’s not a solution but at least improves our own self esteem, which is finally a good thing.
          So, I’m by Dr.Spencer side.

          Have a nice day.

          Massimo

          • Dikran Marsupial says:

            Massimo, there is a big difference between venting (externalising) ones anger/dissapointment in private, quite another to call a group of people Nazis in public in writing for posterity, and thereby to incite others to do likewise (see comments in this thread).

            I do hope Dr Spencer takes time to reflect Luke 6:27-36 (I gather that, like myself, he is a Christian), and that he doesn’t stay angry for too long, for his own good as well has for the health of the debate on climate change.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Dikran Marsupial,

            You claimed:

            “…quite another to call a group of people Nazis in public in writing for posterity, and thereby to incite others to do likewise (see comments in this thread)…”

            It seems wise to me if you desire not be labeled a “NAZI” to avoid proposing Nazi like solutions to problems as apparently Jacques Cousteau. Please ready my previous post above. Not to mention the Nazi-like solutions already being implemented. To allow pretentious conversational discretion to throttle honest conversation simply serves to mask real conflict behind a cloak of feigned domesticity. That’s a tactic fit for Stepford wives not functioning human beings.

            Moreover, to avoid being called a “NAZI” refrain to referring to others as “DENIERS” for simply disagreeing with some half-baked, enormously expensive if not dangerous, and ineffective solution you’ve proposed to a global problem.

            The passage in Luke is correct. Do you think Luke ever intended Love of neighbor to be a plastic fake? Does not love of neighbor rather require honest dialogue when confronted with destructive evils? Shouldn’t people be free to protest iniquity? When confronted by belligerent WARMISTS labeling those they disagree with as DENIERS similar to HOLOCAUST DENIERS, does it not seem strange that the only advice many give to those afflicted is ANGER MANAGEMENT?

            Btw, what is a Dikran Marsupial. Personally, THYLACINE proved to be the only marsupial I thought was cool, but I’m opend-minded.

            Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi DM
            “that he doesn’t stay angry for too long, for his own good as well has for the health of the debate on climate change.”

            So do you are really worried about Dr.Spencer who became angry because this could deteriorate the “health of the debate on climate change”?

            Uhmm… Where were you, when the people on other side of the “barricade” (the skeptics or “denier”) has been insulted and had been requested to be executed because don’t agree with the “climate consensus”?
            No DM, don’t worry about that, if the debate on climate change is sick, it’s not because an esteemed scientist decided that “too much is too much”, rather it’s because too many people on the warmists side (comprising some famous scientists) are just too arrogant and sometimes not polite.
            I don’t like the way you supposed that the comments on this thread are the simple consequence of the call to react from Dr.Spencer, such us we all are brainless people who just respond to the call of our master guru.
            No DM, call me presumptuous, but the difference between me and many of the skeptics who post here and the “warmistas” is that we just believe in our minds and we don’t like any impositions from the above such as “the consensus view”.
            For this I’m absolutely sure that all those expressed their approval to Dr.Spencer position, did it not because Dr.Spencer was their master, but just because they got enough of swallow the bitter pill in silence.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

  63. Tom Servo says:

    I find that I do prefer James Delinpole’s term “Eco-Fascists”. But it’s much the same thing.

  64. Peter H says:

    Thanks Dr Spencer I agree with you, i have had a gut full of this climate science fraud perpetrated and funded and driven by political marxist and socialist agendas.

  65. Dr. Spencer, I’m with you in these matters.
    This “Climate Change” cult has morphed into a political monster; fascism is what it is. Mass extermination is one of its components, “justified” by alleged overpopulation.
    I heard it myself from an invited “professor” at FIU. I’ve read it many times in their press interviews and articles, and blogs.
    If we fall asleep we will wake up as slaves.

  66. Stephen says:

    Denial is an accurate term for a wide range of conservative campaigns hostile to a range of established truths, ranging from evolution, the link between tobacco and cancer to anthropogenic climate change. Denial is emotionally or ideologically driven and devoid of reason. This response of Roy’s seems like a genuine case of Godwin’s law! That is given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

    • Magoo says:

      Well then Stephen, where is this evidence proving AGW. Almost all sceptics accept that there is a warming of around 1.2C maximum per doubling of total atmospheric CO2. This warming is supposed to be doubled/tripled from positive feedbacks, almost all of which is supposed to be water vapour.

      The water vapour should be evident in a tropospheric hotspot that 2 satellites and over 30,000,000 weather balloons have failed to find in 40 yrs of searching. So ask yourself these questions:

      1/ If there is no tropospheric hotspot, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?

      2/ If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, how can the miniscule warming of CO2 be doubled/tripled?

      3/ If the miniscule effects of CO2 can’t be doubled/tripled, why is AGW a problem?

      Where’s your evidence? Your statements about evolution and tobacco are irrelevant and are an attempt to avoid the fact that you have no evidence for AGW – in fact, can you name one of the IPCC’s predictions that has eventuated? No?

    • cynical1 says:

      You need to educate yourself.

      “Quirk’s exception”.

      When a comparison to Nazism is valid.

    • BBould says:

      Stephen,

      Your stupidity is obvious.

  67. I use one word to describe any person, persons and/or group with whom I find disfavor. Bastard(s). Let’s just call them whet they are; Bastard(s)…and be done with it. That being said, there are an awful lot of Bastard(s) from my perspective so I’m saying Bastard(s) quite a bit. It’s efficient and effective so I’m sticking with Bastard(s). The parenthesis were a pain in the ass; I don’t know why i did that –– I blame that Bastard Larry Hagman for dying without informing me and wasting another liver.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Saying someone was born out of wedlock is not much of an insult these days …

      • You speak the truth. I like the sound of it, the way it rolls off the lips and tongue, but I think if we all use it too often, we’ll give Joe Bastardi a complex.

        Nazi doesn’t do it for me, though. It’s overwrought. How about Chowderhead(s)?

        • Truthseeker says:

          And what have you got against chowder?

          • Nothing. I love chowder. I never understood why this term was an insult, I just chose it because it was the word of day at Meriam-Webster not too long ago.

            But now that we’re on it, what do you have against Nazis? Despite being murderers, which we all are to one degree or another, they gave us the precursor to the interstate system in the U.S.; the Autobahn. How generous of them and how thoughtful they were to provide the greased skids for a fossil fuel boon. So many lucrative executive payouts over the years, to include Big Oil, owe their good fortune to the Nazi visionaries, and yet look what history’s given the Nazis instead. There’s nothing more tragic than unrequited love.

  68. Les says:

    I think a better name would be form “Lysenkos”. Stalin’s pet who through back genetic research in the Soviet Union for about 30 years. Anyone who disagreed with sent to concentration camps or just killed. Anytime a government gets behind an action it is very dangerous.

  69. anticlimactic says:

    The main problem is that we need a new word to describe ourselves. ‘Denier’ or ‘sceptic’ are not appropriate as they imply there is something to deny or be skeptical about. But ‘denying’ or being ‘skeptical’ about climate ‘science’ is the same as ‘denying’ or being ‘skeptical’ about Santa Claus!

    As everyone knows : 97% of climate ‘scientists’ agree they could not get a job elsewhere if the money dried up!

  70. Dan Pangburn says:

    Seems like I remember someone referring to a denier as someone clinging to the denial of natural climate change.

  71. Jamie says:

    Bravo Dr Spencer!

    What has become of society and science when one of the core principles of the scientific method – the ability to question it – is met with “Nazi” totalitarian hostility?

    The inference ‘eco-fascism’ not too far from the truth at all.

    Blogged only last night about “Denier” inference, which has sadly crept its way into a prestigious German Research centre:

    http://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/prestigious-german-research-centre-endorses-the-league-of-deniers/

    Thank you Roy for everything you do. Inspirational to say the least.

  72. Dale Smith says:

    Who are you gonna believe when you bore down through past all the opinion-loaded information to get the true facts? The choices are: a) the comfort of being part of the crowd or b) your own lying eyes. Get with it folks

  73. SunnyJ says:

    I cried when I read your remarks. I teach college level Neuro Rehabilitation and the very idea that any science is “settled” flies in the face of the dynamic and ever evolving universe and human brain. Your words touched me so profoundly because they are intellectually intelligent and emotionally intelligent…and recognize the meta cognitive experience when you know the facts of history, science, psychology and human behavior. I appreciate your courage, as do all free thinking, science minded men and women of the world.

    • Mike M says:

      Let’s do a debate. Facts are facts – no bias, no politics, no bs. I believe that climate change has and will happen. It’s a history of the planet – ice age – climate change; no ice age – climate change.

  74. Bobaloo says:

    Good for you Dr. Roy- it seems more and more people are cutting through the smoke and mirrors and seeing the “global warming”/”climate change” agenda for exactly what it is. A scam of unprecedented proportions. Those who perpetuate the lie knowingly (as opposed to their dupes)will not give in to any amount of reason, evidence, or common decency. They are too far vested in the fabrication,committed to a falsehood.It is just a matter of time before they will be seen by history for what they are. Francis Bacon (sometimes referred to as the father of scientific method)wrote, “Truth is the daughter of time, not authority.” So it will be for climate science and those who would manipulate science for political and personal advantage.

  75. BigBoyScotty says:

    What about just simply ” WarmNazis “.

  76. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Roy… Can you provide any supporting evidence that taking action on climate change would kill more people than the Nazis did?

    That’s quite an extraordinary and outrageous claim for a scientist to make!

    • WillR says:

      It might be worth reviewing:
      Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment

      By Holdren and Ehrlich — available in pdf on the internet. Listed on Amazon.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        I know both Holdren’s and Ehrlich’s work. They don’t say that taking action on climate change will kill more than 30 million people (~60 million died in WW2, total).

        • WillR says:

          You are correct. They give no estimate of numbers — only the methods.

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            My question for Roy is: Does he have any supporting evidence that shows climate action will kill more people than the Nazis.

            You are not answering that question. Roy has made an extraordinary claim, and as a respected scientist, should be able to provide supporting evidence to support such a claim.

        • hunter says:

          Ehrlich and Holdren are two pillars of the faux science scam damaging humanity for many years.

    • WillR says:

      From Ecoscience: Holdren and Ehrlich

      p796: One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

      p787-8: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

    • cynical1 says:

      There were supposed to be 50 million “Climate refugees” by 2010.

      Maybe they all died escaping…

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Can you show us where you find this statistic in the peer reviewed literature?

        • GTMGQ says:

          Peer reviewed papers are nowhere near as good as the servile corporate controlled media for creating a scare. Seriously, what percentage of the population reads scientific journals? And you bleat peer review like some sort of mantra shield against the truth. Scare tactics have been used from the get-go.

          • corporate controlled media

            What? Haven’t you gotten the memo? Corporations are good, government is bad. or government is good and corporations are bad…depending. I’m not talking about you here, but rather some others whose ideology doesn’t let them see past their missing noses that have been severed to spite their faces. To all the defenders of the totalitarian, anti-free enterprise corporations, I have NEWS (pun intended) for you…that “Liberal” press you so often decry, and rightfully so, is comprised of corporations (gasp…imagine that!) that grift a profit by exploiting ignorance for the shareholders you worship and serve. Understand your ridiculous contradictions. Your two-bit small business, whilst a corporation, has little to nothing in common with a larger corporation that issues stock, but “conservative” ideologues will conflate the two and defend Communistic totalitarianism under the guise of protecting small businesses. It is yet another lie. Some do it purposely, and some are so ridiculously stupid they can’t see their own contradictions and that they’re being played and manipulated by their own select pundits because both “sides” in this Hegelian debate have their vaunted pundits.

  77. pat says:

    when the Glossary in the UK dept of energy & climate change’s official document (see page 16) can define “climate change” thus -

    Climate Change – The process of changing weather patterns caused by the increased number of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere as a result of human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
    http://ccs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/contracts/DECC%20guide%20to%20carbon%20offsetting.pdf

    one has to wonder how future generations will ever be able to understand climate change at all.

    on those RARE occasions when those disputing the degree or seriousness of MMGW and/or the political remedies being touted are asked for comments by the MSM about CC – & not MMGW – surely it’s possible to ask the MSM to first define what they are referring to? similarly, if the MSM asks for comments about “carbon”, interviewees should also ask for clarification of the term before responding.

  78. JohnB says:

    Why not “Climate Beliebers”? People who are shallow, vacuous, spiteful and without talent who have a tendency to whine when they don’t get their own way. ;)

  79. Bill says:

    The alliteration to ‘climate Nazi’s’ is actually not far fetched. At the turn of the 20th century, there was a widely held ‘scientific’ theory that was widely supported by a ‘consensus’ of scientists and academics. It was viewed that the situation at the core of that theory threatened the very underpinnings of civilization. Many of the published statements made in support of the theory at the time sounded alarmingly similar to those being made about the ‘threat’ of climate change. Then, as now, any opposition was loudly denounced. That theory was called Eugenics and its’ ultimate expression was….Nazi Germany.

  80. John Tiller says:

    Can you imagine people who divine the temperature using tree rings calling people who use thermometers to measure it fools, charlatans, deceivers, global warming deniers?
    They are special fools, the kind of which we haven’t seen since their kind attacked Galileo 500 years ago for describing what he saw, not what they wanted him to see. Galileo was right but alone and backed down.
    But this time half the meteorologists and weather experts in the world, our real revolutionaries, are fighting the gov grant apparatus and openly calling “global warming science” a scam.

  81. WillR says:

    Normally I would not even comment on a discussion of this nature, but…

    Maybe it’s time to call it like it is.

    Best wishes.

  82. RW says:

    I guess I’m in the minority. I don’t mind being called a ‘denier’. I see it as an overt sign of insecurity from the opposition.

  83. Leif says:

    People the world over readily accept the scientific fact that changing a patch of South Pacific from warm to cool by only a hand full of degrees of degrees C, and the resulting comparatively narrow El Nino/La Nina current across the Equatorial Pacific to South America, can have a profound effect on the weather. Not only here in the United States, but to a lesser degree Europe and Africa.
    On the other hand, transforming a much closer, (boarders in many cases), highly reflective patch of earth from significantly bellow freezing to dark open water above freezing, a difference of 10′s of degrees C and its no problem? Couple that with an area that is larger than the states of Alaska and Texas combined. World wide science as well as on the ground reality are both raising red flags here. Of course vested interests are spending big bucks trotting out “red herrings” as fast as they can. Perhaps that must be factored into the attitudes of the masses, you think?

    We all pay fees to dump garbage, waste water and more. Corporations, “People” now and I call them Corpro/People, dump tons of toxins for free and accumulate mega-bucks. Even get tax subsidies. The GOP don’t fund abortion. Fine. A precedent! Why tolerate our tax dollars funding the ecocide of the PLANET via fossil subsidies?!!! Try throwing 19 pounds of paper cups out the car window for each gallon of gas you burn. Report. Who is making money here and who is losing? Toxins verses paper cups? (I bet you could be real creative about increasing your trash stream if it were paper cups.) Even absorb a “slap on the wrist” fine once in awhile. Surely a good lawyer on retainer. Once established perhaps even a “scientist” or congressman or two.
    I pay $150/ton to dump my household garbage. $50/T to recycle yard waste. Waste water fees, of course. I even have a rain water run off fee of $5/m. (guide lines here?) Yet Corpro/people piddle all over themselves at the thought of $25/ton for TOXINS! Go Figure!

    • cynical1 says:

      Yeah, I hear Microsoft have a big hole in New York called

      “Broken windows”. They dump old pcs therev

      Cause there are no regulations on evil, Capitalistic,earth raping
      corps, unlike the costs to your pure self.

      You should be charged for dumping your crap here.

      Go back to your cave.

    • Alcheson says:

      Problem is Leif, the Arctic has been ICE FREE in the not so distant past and the earth was JUST FINE. So, the loss of ice in the arctic for a period of time does NOT automatically equate to catastrophy, at least it didn’t in the past.

      • Alcheson says:

        And once again… CO2 is NOT a toxin at 400ppm. So do NOT need to be paying $25/ton for CO2.

        • Brian H says:

          It should be subsidized up to about 5X current levels. But the oceans are in charge, and will never permit that much increase; even 2X is not going to happen.

  84. Nick Shaw says:

    Rather late to the party, Roy.
    I’ve been pushing back against the denialist terminology for years.
    The ploy is obvious.
    What’s irksome is that some in the skeptic camp use the term as well!
    Never, ever use leftist language.
    For anything!
    When they control the language they control the discussion.
    1984-101 as it were.

  85. John F. Borowski says:

    The oceans are becoming acidic? Why?

    Arctic ice is one million sq. miles below normal?

    There is record glacial ice loss from Greenland to the Cascades to the Alps to the Andes?

    Animal migrations are changing very quickly?

    We have had some 37 straight years of above normal temperatures.

    Roy: no one should be compared to Nazis……..you cannot DENY that? Can you?

    God bless and I will pray for you. I taught marine science for 32 years.

    • Jake says:

      Global temperatures in the year 2000 were below “normal”. 37 straight years? No, and this is the propaganda that we have to fight. Have been in a prolonged warm period? Yes! Do humans have some impact on that? Yes, probably. Is some of this natural? Yes, certainly. Are the models wrong? YES YES YES. These are the facts.

    • cynical1 says:

      “I taught marine science for 32 years”.

      Well you shouldn’t have.

      Acidic oceans are the next scare.

      Didn’t you get the memo.

      PS. Have you checked Antarctic ice levels lately?

    • Alcheson says:

      You taught marine science and you think the oceans are going to be acidic with CO2 concentrations around 400ppm? Perhaps a little bit LESS basic but they are not becoming ACIDIC! I pity your students.

      • Brian H says:

        Carbonic acid in the oceans drives, but is not driven by, atmospheric CO2. It is hundreds of times more massive, and buffered not only by dissolved carbonate, but by all the limestone deposits lining the seabeds and continents.

  86. KevinK says:

    Dr. Spencer, I’m with you on this one. The similarities between the two are astounding;

    1) Both believed in scientific theories later learned to be failed; eugenics & CAGW.

    2) Both ridiculed anyone that disagreed.

    3) Both blamed a convenient scapegoat for all the world’s problems; folks of a certain religious persuasion & fossil fuel vendors.

    4) Both had a final solution to the “problem”; we all know the first “final solution”, the new “final solution” is to eliminate evil fossil fuels (even though no practical replacement is at hand).

    5) They both had many “leaders” quite skilled at demagoguery; “you poor people, I feel your pain, all your problems are caused by “that guy over there”, let’s “get him”.

    6) The leaders never set an example by changing their lifestyle, only insist everybody else do so. One of them shot himself (to avoid the “unpleasant” results of his actions) shortly after pinning medals on teenage boys before sending them off to be slaughtered. Another flies all over the place(spewing copious amounts of “GHGs”) to scold us all about what we are “doing wrong”.

    7) The have grandiose visions of their own abilities. One thought declaring war on the biggest industrial might on the planet was a good idea (“If I knew the USA could produce that many ships I would never have declared war on them”, paraphrased from Adolf). Another thinks he can heal the planet (“This is when the Oceans stopped rising”).

    I could go on like a certain Secretary of State, but why bother. Apparently I am already doomed since I am several hundred meters lower in elevation than Chicago and once the Oceans rise by 1 meter (settled science I have been informed) I will be too busy swimming for my life.

    Keep up the good work.

    Cheers, Kevin

  87. Mervyn says:

    You are most certainly right, Dr Roy Spencer.

    You, sir, have earned the right to respond to the people who refer to realists as deniers by calling them global warming Nazis.

    It was time someone did.

  88. Shinsko says:

    So, have I got this right? You object to the term denier, and think that it’s use only relates to the Holocaust, so you’ve decided to call everyone Nazis?

    Additionally you claim;

    1. that a move to more sustainable environmental and energy policies (which you agree with) will kill millions of poor people because, presumably, they will be early adopters

    2. people who are educated and qualified in climate science are part of some kind of conspiracy cartel to benefit financially by presenting a united front on atmospheric physics and the like. Presumably because with all those PhDs in physics and chemistry Wall Street or Tech firms would never hire them on anything like the pay packet they can currently get doing research work

    3. that by advocating global agreements (presumably on emissions) these non “freedom loving” nazis are forcing the “supreme authority of the state” onto the rest of us. In the same way that other global agreements (like trade agreements?) are Fascist.

    I think that’s captured some of the jist of it.

    • cynical1 says:

      The word is “Gist”.

      And no, “Climate scientists” for the most part seem more
      like rabid environmentalists than Capitalists.

      That’s where the problem lies.

      Do tell how the third World will manage with “sustainable” living.

      It’s already agreed they cannot have Western standards of consumption.

      Vale third World. A human experiment in “sustainability”.

      One death is a tragedy.

      How many millions is a number..

  89. KevinK says:

    Oh, one other observation. One country (the USA) with lots of help from our allies; UK, Australia, Canada, Russia, Free French, Free Polish and others (not leaving anybody out on purpose) defeated both the Nazi’s and Imperial Japan (and Italy along the way) in less time than it takes some of these “wizards” to implement a simple website to purchase health insurance.

    • Bill Sparling says:

      “hem…… much of the world would remind you that the US was the johnny come lately to both World Wars. Yes, american industrial production was badly needed, as was the additionaly manpower but please spare us the hollywood revisionism.

      • KevinK says:

        Mr. Sparling, with all due respect, I expected just such a response as soon as I hit the “submit comment” button. I have the greatest respect for all the countries that fought vainly against Germany and Japan in WWII. And their efforts are greatly appreciated. BUT the simple fact remains that IF the USA did not enter WWII the continent of Europe would have likely been overrun by the Russians and much of China and the south Pacific would still be controlled by the Japanese.

        Yes, we came to the party a wee bit late, but IF we NEVER came to the party it would have been quite a “downer”. If you live in the UK, or France, or Poland, etc. etc. you should be quite grateful that the USA “came to the PARTY”. Without us you would all likely be speaking German or Russian right about now.

        And this is not a “Hollywood” interpretation of the facts. England was “on their last legs” when the US came along to “assist” with efforts like “lend-lease” well before Pearl Harbor. Winston Churchill was in fact “joyous” when Pearl Harbor was attacked because he knew that the industrial might of the USA would finally be released.

        Regarding WWI, we only came along to finish it since the folks on the continent could not.

        My Grandfather served in the US Army in WWI in France, and all of my uncles served in WWII. My Father was a P-51 pilot fighting the Nazis over Germany in 44. If you think that it could have been “finished” without the USA you are sadly mistaken.

        Dr. Spencer, sorry for hijacking your thread on this somewhat off topic rant, but anybody that thinks they “know exactly” how everybody else should live smells just like a Nazi to me.

  90. Ball4 says:

    Top post: “When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”…”

    Now we have the Obama proposed “climate resilience fund” announced last week in Calif. $1Billion to “help communities deal with the impact of climate change.” Let’s deny that. Here’s what it will go for.

    Obama was expected to spend Presidents Day weekend on the Ca. golf courses at Sunnylands (not open to public) and Porcupine Creek (does charity but not generally public).

    Golf courses in the desert. How many public funded Calif. reservoirs were drained to water the private greens:

    “The 124 golf courses in the Coachella Valley consume roughly 17% of all water there, and one-quarter of the water pumped out of the region’s at-risk groundwater aquifer, according to the Coachella Valley Water District.”

    Porcupine Creek has 80ft. diam water fountain with 90 illuminated water jets. Never mind flying out (& back) to one’s tee times on carbon belching Air Force One.

    T-Shirt slogan: “Procrastinators Unite! Tomorrow.”

  91. Gary Hemminger says:

    On the issue of the finiteness of fossil fuels, whey does everything think that the process that created fossil fuels all of a sudden has stopped?

    Isn’t it much more likely that this process continues today and that all of the excess biological waste ends up as some form of fossil fuel and will continue to do so forever?

  92. Ed Zyskowski says:

    I’m with you ! There’s too much warping of science to prove a point rather than do research. As I was told by my Statistics professor, you can manipulate numbers anyway you want depending on the outcome you want. You can make a study say anything you want. Historic analysis usually has the final say.(and I don’t mean a decades worth of data either)

    • Peter Yates says:

      Yes,
      another way of saying that :-
      You can make statistics say anything you want them to say.
      And… You can make words say anything you want them to say!

      A similar effect can be seen when people make mistakes when using the Scientific Method.
      Quote :-
      “..when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests.”
      [It is not easy to conduct experiments on a climate system!]
      “Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. … The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.”
      http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html#Heading5

  93. cynical1 says:

    If these climate models are so good, reckon the scientists
    would use them to invest their life savings in the stock market?

    I’m 97% sure..

  94. Bob says:

    Go get em Roy.

    Climate Nazi = Climate Parasite= Climate Fascist. All you have to do is think of Mann.

  95. Bob says:

    John, you say,
    “The oceans are becoming acidic? Why? What oceans, what pH, show me your link.

    Arctic ice is one million sq. miles below normal? John, it is not due to CO2, it is currents. How is the Antarctic doing?

    There is record glacial ice loss from Greenland to the Cascades to the Alps to the Andes? Show me that record.

    Animal migrations are changing very quickly? You know the Parmesan study has been repudiated, don’t you.

    We have had some 37 straight years of above normal temperatures. Tell us about the Midevil Warm Period, John.

  96. Brett says:

    I completely agree with you Dr.Spencer.i believe that man made global warming is the greatest hoax forced on mankind ever.

    • SAGWH says:

      Obamacare is the greatest Hoax foisted on us so far. This is just the nextest ,betterest hoax coming down the pipe. But give the Ruling Class enough time and they’ll have Carbon taxation , Cap’n'trade and anything else they can think of rammed down our throats…for “Our own Good” ,of course. And the Ruling Class use their Cataclysmanoid “Useful Idiots” to CON the Country Class into buying into their Meme. Problem: What happens if the Country Class doesn’t believe your meme anymore? Oooopps!! The right of every individual to determine for themselves what they perceive to be the truth is an inalienable one that goes back to the founding of our nation. So, a bigger problem: What if the people who don’t buy into your narrative, also perceive that their free moral agency (to determine for themselves what is correct) is being threatened by those who INSIST that we MUST believe them ,or else we will be Labeled as ‘Deniers’ or Heretics or criminals or something worse? What do you think is going to be the response when the “Unbelievers” have had enough of being called names?

    • richard says:

      absolutely , the good news is, going by Alexa statistics, more and more people are visiting skeptic blogs where as the alarmist ones are on the decline. It takes time to change, after all alarmism had early 80s till the start of Roy and co internet blogs to pollute our MSM.

  97. Climate change critics aren’t the only ones to be thusly labeled as deniers, nor are they the first. People standing up to the radical smoke-banners and their second-and-third-hand smoke pseudo-science have had to deal with that label for the past twenty years.

    If Dr. Spencer thinks he’s being attacked on the basis of his use of the term Nazi, he should see some of the attacks I’ve gotten over the years for even HINTING at the fascist methods and propaganda techniques used against smoker.

    As I explore in some detail in my “Author’s Preface” at http://TobakkoNacht.com there are quite justifiable reasons for drawing the parallel in that area — perhaps even more so than in the AGW area.

    Funnily enough, one of the old Free Choice claims from the 90s, the one revolving around the very concept of passive smoking (or Passivfrauchen as they called it) was invented by the Nazis in the late 1930s as part of their campaign to eliminate “the Jewish habit.”

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “TobakkoNacht — The Antismoking Endgame”

    • Tim says:

      Is this a joke? I do not need scientific justification to be disgusted by your smoke and not want to breathe it. What gives you the right to expose me to something I find offensive? And, just exactly why is it okay for you to throw your butts on ground?

  98. Magic Turtle says:

    Much as I understand and sympathise with how you feel, Roy, I think that to reply in this tit-for-tat manner would be a mistake because in doing it you would be descending to their sewer-politics level. Do that and they will win. It will be very unfair, but you already know that they don’t play fair and that they don’t give a damn about the truth, so the truth will be no defense against their attacks upon you. Calling them Nazis will just give them ammunition to fire at you. They will misrepresent everything you say about them and twist it to their advantage, no matter how conscientious you are in sticking to the truth in what you say about them.

    The strength of the AGW-sceptic position lies in the fact that it doesn’t have to prove anything but only needs to be sceptical about what the AGW-alarmists are proposing. They are asserting that dangerous AGW is happening so the burden of proof lies solely with them. But if you assert that they are Nazis then you will have something to prove and that will pit you against the world political establishment which is in bed with the alarmists. Suddenly you will have ceased to be merely a sceptic and will have become an advocate of something instead. And what you are advocating – that the AGW-alarmists are Nazis – will draw extreme hostility from the entire worldwide green zombie-horde as well as from the political establishment. It would all get very ugly very fast I expect.

    This is all unnecessary. They are the ones mounting aggressive character-assaults upon us by calling us “deniers” of “climate change”, “climate science” and even just “the climate” (!), which are all risible smears in the eyes of anyone who stops and thinks about them for a moment. All we need to do to rebuff these slanderous assaults and turn the tables on our accusers is to challenge them to prove that we really are denying whatever they are accusing us of denying and when they have visibly failed to prove it treat them to the same scornful derision with which they are wanting to treat us. Show them up to be the fraudulent, malicious accusers that they are and don’t let them get away with it. This will discredit them and their discrediting will disempower them too. And we can do it without having to prove that they are Nazis, even though it may be patently obvious to us and to everyone but the alarmists themselves that Nazis is just what they are.

  99. Kenneth Lapre says:

    Thank you. I’ve been waiting for someone to stand up to these people. I absolutely agree with you.

  100. Sandra says:

    Finally, someone making sense! Thank you. I am so tired of the garbage being spewed about global warming. It’s time to stand against it.

  101. Bryan says:

    I think you made a reasonably good case for “global warming nazis”. However, I think it is too provocative and distracting. “Global warming fascists” might be better. It would hopefully spark some discussion of the similarity (in some cases equality) between fascism and the kind of control that they want to take over the energy industry, and over our lives.

    I think if we are going to start calling names, we need to be careful about who we apply it to. There is a difference between well meaning but misinformed and foggy-headed “beliebers” and the power hungry, intentionally deceptive leaders (although could Al Gore be both?). Terms like “fascists” and “nazis” should not be used lightly.

    • Chad Wozniak says:

      I would respectfully disagree. “Nazis” hits harder than “fascists,” which is a much less recognizable and understood term – and we should hit these people as hard as possible.

      Something to think about: a key player in the controversy is Obama’s “science” (translate: “witchcraft”) adviser, John Holdren, who has spoken of doing what it would take to reduce the world’s population to just 1 billion from the present 7.2 billion. I recommend everyone find and read the zomblog article on Holdren. The things this man has said underscores the genocidal intentions of too many of the alarmist cabal. To my reading, Holdren comes across unnervingly as another Julius Streicher, who was the Nazis’ leading sadistic baiter and torturer of Jews.

      I think we need to point out the parallels between the alarmists and the Nazis at every opportunity.

      • Bryan says:

        I have read some of John Holdren’s statements, and I agree that parallels between the worst of the alarmists and the Nazis should be pointed out often and forcefully. It is mind-boggling that an individual like him is in the President’s inner circle.

        I still think “nazis” is too strong to use as a catch-all term to apply to alarmists. But you convince me that it is appropriate to hit some of them with it.

        I also think that Magic Turtle above makes some good points, but…

        I think there is a place for name-calling, when it provides clarity, gets people’s attention, and makes them think. (There is still hope for some within the Zombie-Horde.) It needs to be accompanied by explanations of why the name is appropriate. Yet name-calling can be over-done.

        I appreciate Roy’s and others’ attention to this, and efforts to stand against this threat.

      • GTMGQ says:

        Future holocaust deniers…

  102. Gordon says:

    American Thinker had a recent article titled:
    ‘Climate Parasites: The Answer to ‘Climate Change Deniers’ on the importance of labels to the left and made it’s own suggestion on turning it on them.

  103. Chad Wozniak says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I am definitely with you. We who simply want to look at the issues of climate honestly have taken enough abuse from the alarmist cabal. Time to hit them where it hurts.

    The irony is that they who equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers are themselves deniers of the new Holocaust that is already in progress, as a result of their attempts to control carbon dioxide: tens of thousands dying from hypothermia because carbon taxes made them unable to afford to heat their homes, and millions dead from malnutrition and starvation because the ethanol program has made food grains unaffordable and unavailable. Put simply, global warming alarmism is mass murder.

    Also, you are spot on in calling leftist alarmists Nazis. Contrary to most people’s understanding, the Nazis (and Italian Fascists) were a left-wing, not a right-wing phenomenon. The Nazis were quite serious about the “Socialist” in the name of the Nazi Party. And it so happens that even Nazi anti-Semitism was grounded in socialist doctrine. The founder of the Nazi Party, six months before Hitler joined it, was one Anton Drexler, a doctrinaire Marxist whose contribution to the meme was to equate the Jews with the Marxist bourgeois class enemy.

    The old German nationalist right wing made a devil’s bargain with Hitler because of his promises to regain the territories lost by Germany in World War I.

    Yes, indeed, let’s hit these people back HARD.

  104. Noel Darlow says:

    I’d like to push another of Roy Spencer’s buttons, the one that marked: “press to submit detailed technical argument plus supporting evidence to a recognised, major climate journal” (ie not Remote Sensing).

    It seems to be broken though.

  105. I have to say at this point, “wow, where am I?” The comments to this thread will provide a great series of posts at my blog. Roy’s provocation really brought out the termites. I’ll observe and study for a little while longer before parsing and opining on the patterns I’m seeing emerge in this thread. My opinion right now is that it all fits very nicely with the theme of my blog, and I was so hoping to find an exception to my theory.

    • Bill Sparling says:

      For the record, you DO NOT have my permission to reproduce any comments made by me as I am the sole holder of copyright to any of my statements, as I am to my publications. Is that clear enough for you?

  106. rossbrisbane says:

    This an is out burst from you, Roy Spencer you will learn to regret. As one fellow to another – you have spit the dummy and gone down to the level of gutter talk. You lost credibility by doing this.

  107. Jim says:

    If you want to call someone a Nazi, that is your choice. If you think that anyone who uses the word deny is a Nazi, you are wrong. The entire global warming debate has NOTHING to do with WWII or anything that happened during that time. People who claim to be able to read the minds of other people and determine that if someone who uses the word denier is referring to the Holocaust are as wacky as they get.
    I deny that anything about global warming has anything to do with Jews. I deny that Al Gore has any clue about global warming. I deny that any normal person would claim to be able to read the minds of other people. I also deny that any normal rational person would pretend that the global warming debate has anything to do with denying the Holocaust. I further deny that any normal rational person would believe any of this BS about global warming and Nazis.

  108. Eli Rabett says:

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that Roy Spencer is a global not warming Stalinist, or even a global not warming great leap forward Maoist. Eli just imagines that he is doubting about his future from the damage that our fouling the atmosphere is doing to this planet given into our care

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Wasn’t the stuff people are putting in “the atmosphere” (using imaginative ways of controlling fire) in “the atmosphere” at some point in the Earth’s history?

      At least you admit your concern about “yourself” and don’t drag in “doing it for the children” fluff.

      The last refuge of a scoundrel is “patriotism” – but the first is “the children”

      • Eli Rabett says:

        Brian,

        Even for you this is silly. Among other things there are a lot more of us right now than there have ever been, and each of us together and alone have a lot more capability of shoving stuff into the atmosphere. So yes, we, us, all of us and all of our kids and theirs.

        • Brian Valentine says:

          Whenever you don’t agree with my half-baked, overblown, hyped, and exaggerated “theories” always remember that I am doing it for “the children” and if you disagree with my nonsense it just proves that you don’t like “children” one single bit.

        • richard says:

          yes Eli have you seen the figures from the UN on africa by 2100, they reckon on 4 times the population of China, but go figure, if they think this then agriculture will be booming- thanks to co2!!

          Already the worlds population is increasing at 100,000+ per day , the fastest growth in Africa,

          • Brian Valentine says:

            Those criminal Chinese think their “sea-oh-too” from coal combustion is actually a “gift” to world to help people grow their food.

            Some nerve! Make ‘em tear down their society and put up solar panels, I say.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Yes. In that regard the Index Mundi map of total fertility rates are the goto. The only countries above 3 are Afghanistan and African nations. The UN does linear projections so the result you mention is no surprise, but what is clear is that education for girls, a bit of prosperity, controlling diseases like malaria, etc. will limit population growth to make it problems more manageable.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            The Chinese are leading the world in new installed solar and wind power. Yes, they rely too much on coal, but so does Germany.

          • Brian Valentine says:

            That’s because they are their own customers for their solar and wind tech that their government subsidizes to overproduce.

            Solar panel market crashes, somebody needs to buy it up, it might as well be themselves.

            Good thing too because they won’t get hit with lawsuits when their junk fails after 4 and a half years instead of the “guaranteed” 20 years they stamp on the box

          • Eli Rabett says:

            And the Germans burn brown coal (aka crap), and the brown coal strip mining wipes out villages and churches. Oh, alas and alack.

    • richard says:

      NASA earth observatory – northern hemisphere greening,

      worldwide leaf area index increasing ,

      oh yes fouling,

  109. Beagle says:

    The Nazis were Aryan (Germanic really) supremacists. They looked down on most other white people. Just to set the record straight.

    Some Warmist, eh, Nazis are actually proposing blowing particles up in the atmosphere to cool the planet. That could cause a prolonged ice age akin to disastrous volcanic cooling. If they kill billions of people the Nazi label could be letting them off easy. But Permian Great Dying Warmists does not really roll off the tongue.

  110. Ray says:

    I Can’t agree more. These people don’t deserve respect. If they want to try to shout you down you just have to shout louder. The time for niceties has passed. That ship has sailed.

  111. AlecM says:

    I wrote this in Curry’s blog about the APS allowing real physicists to set its Global Warming stance instead of bureaucrats acting as agents of the Federal State pushing its totalitarian agenda: http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/#more-14710

    “Excellent news because the concepts of ‘Forcing’ and ‘Thermalisation of GHG-absorbed energy in the Gas Phase’ are outrageous breaches of standard physics, a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.

    No professional Scientist or Engineer properly trained in radiative physics and statistical thermodynamics can accept these claims. To teach them is a corollary of Gresham’s Law; bad science driving out good.”

  112. Darren says:

    The problem with this is alienating the teachable who may still be swayed toward believing in AGW. I understand wanting to single out certain segment of the loud AGW honks who run very fast and very loose with the truth and want to tar and feather everyone with an even partially contrary view.

    I believe most people are not of that ilk however and in fact most are skeptical of those using such rhetoric.

    Both the “deniar” wielding types and this post smack of “Godwin’s Law” to me.

    • AlecM says:

      If you look at the History of the term ‘denier’, it was coined to identify any person who does not accept the IPCC pseudo-science as equivalent to someone who denies the Holocaust.

      That means Godwin’s Law was invoked first by the climate extremists, not those whose opposing this attempt to destroy the Scientific Enlightenment.

  113. Chris says:

    I’ve read articles which suggested the sun will be going to sleep for a while, relatively speaking. If we have a return to cold winters in combination with reduced solar temps, and CO2 levels change in lag of temperature, the alarmists may end up scrambling to explain a drop in greenhouse gas levels at the same time industrial usage of coal increases.

  114. Stephen says:

    Interestingly, all this is highly inconsistent since many Deniers prefer the name.

    Richard Lindzen, said he preferred, “denier” rather than “skeptic” despite being Jewish.

    Steve Milloy, said “I’m happy to be a denier.”

    Lawrence Solomon’s book is called “The Deniers” based on a series of columns he wrote called “The Deniers”.

  115. Pointman says:

    For me, the final straw was being equated to a holocaust denier by the very people I think are most responsible for conducting one in the developing world.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/know-your-ultimate-enemy-the-dream/

    Pointman

  116. Milton Hathaway says:

    You know, the odd thing to me, scanning through the comments, is that about the only thing I believe with absolute certainty about the AGW debate is that the atmospheric CO2 level will continue to rise on the same trajectory for at least the next 50 or 100 years. There is absolutely nothing in my understanding of human nature or basic economics that leads me to believe there is even the remotest chance that any other outcome is possible.

    That’s not to say some the AGW proponents can’t have some successes in implementing their policies in some countries. If you happen to live in one of those countries, bummer for you. But in the big picture, it will make no difference in the CO2 trajectory – other countries will gladly pick up the slack with any drop in the price in fossil fuels caused by any drop in demand in the ‘self-sacrificial’ countries.

    Why do so many people insist on fighting a battle that can’t be won, but has the potential to inflict great personal harm in the attempt?

  117. Jack Cowper says:

    Well done Roy. I agree, I too am sick of Eco-Fascism or Eco-Stalinism.

    In the UK the green Party has gone down this route unfortunately.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

  118. rivetz says:

    “They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.”

    Here’s a question I can’t seem to get answered anywhere I go: skeptics claim that Cook’s methodology is flawed and his conclusions worthless, and say the same thing about Oreskes, and Doran, and Powell, and no doubt will file the same claims about the next half-dozen studies which seem to show overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that AGW is real and having a significant impact on Earth’s climate. I would be more than willing to lend such claims more weight…if only the anti-AGW principals could muster a study of their own demonstrating that there is no such consensus among scientists working in climate-related fields.

    What about it? It can’t be solely a financial issue; Cook’s study was done with volunteers, and I feel fairly certain there would be no shortage of eager folks here and at WUWT, ClimateDepot, etc. I see all this disparaging of the 97%, which is all well and good…but where’s the actual argument presenting a different conclusion?

    These rebuttals and refutations only go so far, in my opinion; at some point you have to product actual evidence to the contrary. Yet skeptics seem to have the following:

    1) The Oregon Petition. Presumably I don’t need to provide details on why that thing is inept at best and deceitful at worst. The very fact it’s still posted online and is still routinely cited around the internet is not a ringing endorsement of the anti-AGW position.

    2) Misrepresentations of other surveys, like the infamous AMS survey from last year (you know, the pilfered logo, innocuous “AMS” Heartland email address, etc) or that tenuous attempt to present the APEGGA survey as representative of climate scientists nationwide. In the interest of peaceful discussion I’m willing to consider those not willfully deceptive but innocently misconstrued.

    I’m genuinely seeking a clarification on the skeptic position re: the oft-cited consensus. Which is the best representative statement?

    A) The studies are improperly structured and ask the wrong question; though human activity is causing the earth to warm, its impact has been demonstrated to be minimal, and thus there are thousands of unheard researchers who remain largely unconcerned about the cumulative impact of AGW.

    B) The survey is quite accurate and there really are +90% of climate scientists that are concerned about AGW, but their research and conclusions are incorrect; AGW is not a concern, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who think otherwise are simply wrong/misguided in their research and calculations.

    C) The survey is quite accurate and there really are +90% of climate scientists that are concerned about AGW, but their research and conclusions are willfully deceptive; these thousands of scientists are deliberately distorting their research in pursuit of grant funding, and the majority of them know perfectly well that AGW poses no threat.

    These are the three positions I can see in opposition to the “scientific consensus.” You are welcome to provide a fourth that I am missing. I would accept that all three of those may be true to some degree in your opinion, but if so would appreciate thoughts as to which is the dominant explanation.

    Regardless of the answer(s) I receive, I’ll ask again: why has no skeptic survey been run according to skeptic standards, asking the “right” questions, or polling a more inclusive body of research? Wouldn’t such a study be more effective than the latest in a series of hit jobs on someone else’s work? Obviously, both sides are guilty of this vack-and-forth, but the usefulness of a constantly contrarian position seems finite to me.

    I am not a climate scientist, just a concerned father (like poor Jimbo above, who’s surely taken his lumps here). Before you chew me out, note that I’ve tried not to insult anyone or mischaracterize intent. It’s an honest question: if Cook’s 97% conclusion is so grievously invalid, what changes would skeptics suggest to his approach, and why isn’t such a project currently underway? Can you imagine how much weight a revised survey showing 65% or 48% agreement might hold?

    A closing note that I exclusively use “skeptic” because of the negative connotations associated with denialist. I don’t consider skeptic to be any more or less offensive than alarmist, but maybe we should all migrate to pro-AGW/anti-AGW, both being free of negative connotation.

    And the only direct criticism I’ll present in this post is unfortunately reserved for Dr. Spencer: it disappoints me to see you as a professional researcher stoop to the level of your opponents by embracing this Nazi analogy. I understand and acknowledge your rationale, but whether you believe in AGW or not, adding yet more rhetoric-based fuel to the fire seems childish and counter-productive. Still, it’s your right to liken people like myself who are concerned about our planet to Nazis, and it’s my right to think less of you as an objective scientist as a result, I guess. :(

    Thank you for reading.

    • steveta_uk says:

      A surprisingly stupid post from an apparently intelligent person.

      If you failed to notice, the real stupidity of the Cook survey and others was that the terms were so loosely defined that it is surprising that they failed to find 100% concensus. Dr. Spencer identified himself as part of the concensus, given how loosely defined the terms were.

      What is even more amazing is that apparently intelligent people would not know from the outset that any social science survey, or meta-survey of various studies, from numerous sources, that consistently finds a figure close to 97% should be rejected automatically – the idea that such loose terms could provide the same result, within 1%, over numerous studies, is simply fanciful.

      PS. For all those who have suggested that Dr Spencer has gone over the top with his use of the “Nazi” analogy, how many of you have already contacted John Kerry to point out how insulting his recent talk was?

      • rivetz says:

        “A surprisingly stupid post from an apparently intelligent person.”

        Well, that was quick. Let’s see if I can struggle through a post without calling anyone’s opinion stupid.

        “If you failed to notice, the real stupidity of the Cook survey and others was that the terms were so loosely defined that it is surprising that they failed to find 100% consensus[sic]. Dr. Spencer identified himself as part of the consensus, given how loosely defined the terms were.”

        But that was the conclusion, and in fact the intent of the survey: to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of formal research investigating AGW had concluded that human activity was playing a role in climate change. Furthermore, a cursory review of the data shows that all five of Dr. Spencer’s papers were specifically classified as making no statement on AGW (either by offering no stance or implicitly rejecting/minimizing AGW), and thus were not considered part of the 97% consensus.

        I find it notable as well that Cook’s team disregarded around 2/3s of papers on climate change on the grounds that they did not specifically mention a stance on AGW in the abstract.

        Furthermore, doesn’t the close correlation with author self-ratings provide some validity?

        “What is even more amazing is that apparently intelligent people would not know from the outset that any social science survey, or meta-survey of various studies, from numerous sources, that consistently finds a figure close to 97% should be rejected automatically – the idea that such loose terms could provide the same result, within 1%, over numerous studies, is simply fanciful.”

        Not to oversimplify, but this seems like a clever way of disregarding any survey of the scientific community. Would you show the same disdain for a survey of physicists to determine the percentage who currently endorse the theory of gravity? If one were conduct three such surveys, each time using different questions or methodology but finding similar results (that physicists endorse the theory of gravity), are you implying that such similar findings would invalidate all the surveys at once?

        Politicians and activists have (predictably) run with the study’s findings and have consistently misrepresented them, but that is not Cook’s fault, nor those who worked on the study. The conclusion of the study is that an strong majority of published research on climate change identifies human activity as having an impact. Nothing more, nothing on the extent, no doomsday scenarios or predictions, just the basic fact that scientists who look into whether or not climate change is being pushed by humans. But by your logic, we won’t ever really know what scientists think, since the more studies performed that produce similar results, the more suspect they all become.

        Perhaps you’re suggesting we ignore any attempts to find out what our world’s climate scientists think about AGW, as I haven’t seen anything resembling a response to my original questions: what sort of evaluation criteria would a skeptic like to see on this kind of survey of research? Is there any preferable approach to reviewing published literature on the subject? And if the results would so obviously be radically different from the multiple studies performed to date, why aren’t skeptics busily nailing down the lid on the consensus’s coffin with some kind of study demonstrating the allegedly widespread dissent on AGW?

        “PS. For all those who have suggested that Dr Spencer has gone over the top with his use of the “Nazi” analogy, how many of you have already contacted John Kerry to point out how insulting his recent talk was?”

        Like many (I would hope), I tend to hold scientists to higher standards of objectivity than I do politicians. John Kerry is permitted and in many ways required to incorporate an agenda into what he says; somewhat dismaying when a scientist chooses to do likewise.

    • Bryan says:

      In answer to your question: A

    • Paul says:

      First, I want to apologize for the rough ride you were given. Rude comments are uncalled for.

      In regards to the Consensus…. the consensus is not quite the way you portrayed it…

      “seem to show overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that AGW is real and having a significant impact on Earth’s climate”

      The actual consensus is much more along the lines of …

      “seem to show overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that AGW is real and having an impact on Earth’s climate”

      Skeptics are onboard with the consensus and always have been. The difference of opinion is in the amount of impact.

      One thing you bring up that is spot on is the idea of trust. You have every right to question everything you hear. You ask why no survey was ever done to pose a question that skeptics want posed. Honestly that is a great point. The only answer I have is a lack of funding or perhaps there is one. Not sure.

      Look at how trustworthy “warmists” are as well. IMO the scientists are fine but their message has been twisted by activists (and activist scientists). Look how Mann’s lawsuits are going for example.

  119. Stacey says:

    Dear Dr Spencer
    It’s a bit of a mouthful maybe should be shortened to GWN’s? Pronounced Goons? Posted similar at Bishop Hill. :-)
    Thank you for your good work.
    Take care

  120. David Vanegas says:

    Not being a scientist I feel a little misplaced posting a comment here. I’m just a insulation and heating engineer with a keen, but limited understanding of climate and feedback effects, but I read as much I can on the subject trying to gain a balanced view.
    In my line of work I see many many British people being suckered into installing inefficient renewable heating systems and expensive energy harvesting ‘kits’, often by force from regulatory bodies. I’m all for saving people money and energy (it’s my job) but not because a Gestapo council official with a clipboard tells me we’re doomed if I don’t. I’ve had these arguments with them!
    Using the term ‘Nazis’ is perfectly fair. Poor and low income earners in the UK are having to find money they don’t have to satisfy the Drama Greens in Jackboots.
    This is not the same as hitting the real poor in developing countries, but for low UK earners these regulations and taxes hits them pretty hard.
    Devising these expensive mitigation schemes are hoped, at best, to take a few tenths of a degree centigrade off global warming during the 21st century (right??).
    The Gestapo respond by saying we must enormously increase our efforts, doing far more to prevent warming. But in economically depressed Britain the public appetite for even the sacrifices we make right now has all but evaporated. How can we then ask the truly poor in our world to make them?
    Even if prevention were feasible, it is rare to find a global warming policy that comes anywhere near having benefits that match costs. It is preposterous to suggest that the UK doing 10 or 50 times as much to prevent global warming could possibly be a good policy. The economics of trying simply never add up. In 2012 the UK government received £44.5bn from environmental taxes, equivalent to 2.9pc of gdp, while the government estimates green policies will raise typical medium-sized business bills by 39pc by 2030. This is economic madness.
    If the climate is indeed working against our interests, surely adaptation is more feasible and less risky than mitigation. From what I read, it seems very likely that climate change will not, and is not, turning out as expected. If we had known in 1998 that even if we had tried nothing to prevent climate change there would be no warming for two decades, that really ought to have changed the policy assessment. We know relatively little about the effects of mitigation strategies, but we do know they will have perverse long-term effects on the poor.
    As I said, I am not a scientist and my comment is long winded. I’m just scared of the consequences of further Green Nazi expansion into our lives.
    Thanks for all you do, Dr Spencer.

    • richard says:

      David,

      Some woman rang me representing a government department on green schemes for the house, I passed her onto my brother as he is the really clever one. He took a look at the website and went through the figures, he said it was frightening, he said there is no payback, you would spend the money and end up poorer, so ok for the rich who want to make themselves feel good but for the poor suckers who have no money they will take a bashing,

      • David Vanegas says:

        Hi Richard,

        Absolutely right, I see this every day. The government’s flagship Green Deal policy has a golden rule that says any capital cost repayments cannot exceed fuel savings. This is a con.

        The surveyors (2 weeks training) load people with massive debt on promises of lower energy bills and a reduced carbon footprint. I’ve called two of these charlatans to my own home to give them the facts and tell them what I think of them. Their answers are always the same… “Do it for your children”. I tell you, it makes me hopping mad.

        Bunch of commission salesmen armed to feed rubbish to normal people, backed by the regime. Glad you’re switched on with it.

        Best

  121. Lewis Guignard says:

    Excellent.
    Yesterday’s (Thursday) Wall Street Journal carried this against the GWNs – http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

  122. coturnix says:

    Nazi is no good term. It means national-socialists, and what kind of nationalists the warmmonegerers are? If anything they are not nationalists, they are globalists.

  123. Tim Spence says:

    Yes, agreed, I also push back against the denier slur, in return I refer to them as eco-fascists. They are damaged individuals, I think the propaganda dosage must have been set too high.

  124. Hoi Polloi says:

    Personally I would favor the term “Global Warming Taliban” a.k.a. طالبان as it’s more contemporary and appropriate.

  125. D J C says:

    And another thing that’s way out with the radiative greenhouse calculations is well explained in a comment on WUWT which points out that a blackbody by definition absorbs all radiation and does not transmit any.

    But the surface of the oceans (say 1mm deep) obviously does transmit most of the radiation which then warms layers below. So the surface of the ocean is not a blackbody and it would require far more radiation than the SBL calculations indicate to raise its temperature to the observed level.

    As I have been saying, there is obviously nowhere near enough direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface either. So obviously there is a non-radiative supply of energy as well as the direct radiation and these work together to raise the surface temperatures to what is observed. Remember, back radiation can only slow radiative cooling: it cannot actually add thermal energy (like the Sun does) or raise the surface temperature.

    The non-radiative supply of energy is actually energy that has been trapped over the life of the planet by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and more can always be added to the troposphere by the Sun.

    The key to understanding how this energy actually transfers from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface lies in understanding thermodynamic equilibrium and the isentropic state, all of which is explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available through Amazon late April.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      To quote from hyperphysics

      “Blackbody radiation or “cavity radiation” refers to an object or system which absorbs all radiation incident upon it and re-radiates energy which is characteristic of this radiating system only, not dependent upon the type of radiation which is incident upon it.”

      So yes, the surface of the ocean essentially acts as a blackbody radiator in the thermal IR re-radiating IR photons back into the atmosphere. As to heat transfer from the skin layer down, well there are these things called conduction and turbulance. Water is a not bad thermal conductor and you may have seen water waves.

      • Brian Valentine says:

        Thanks for the fizziks lesson, Perfesser!

        Doesn’t “air” have the very same property of “heat conduction” that will equilibrate heat gained by the lower atmosphere to a cooling stratosphere, which is the point Gerlich and his German side kick (I forget his name) were trying to make all along?

        • Eli Rabett says:

          Still air is a lousy conductor of heat. Insulation works by trapping pockets of air in between the fibers. C’mon Brian, don’t treat the rest of the readers as idiots. Roy maybe, but even in that case a commie non warmer like him deserves more respect.

          • Brian Valentine says:

            uhhh yuh but is does in fact conduct, don’t it. There is a reason that a thermopane window is evacuated, ain’t there.

            So then Perfesser what is the time frame for CO2 to increase the average temp by x Kelvin?

            What is the time frame for a Maxwellian distribution of speeds to achieve a new average internal energy?

            You can forget about convection, agreed. You can forget about dispersion or eddy mixing components of conduction, agreed.

            But no matter how much you would like to, you can’t forget about molecular conduction, not over the time frame for the assumed radiation forcing in the atmosphere.

            Your friend,

            The Pinko Commie Denialist Non Lukewarmer

          • Brian Valentine says:

            Gotta go, Wascally, nice talkin’ with ya.

            But there are a tiny, tiny minority of folks you aren’t selling your AGW product to.

            Me, Gerhard Gerlich, and whatever his name is.

            Tannhäuser, that’s it.

            Or something like that.

            And Gerhard Kramm.

          • D J C says:

            It’s all about conduction (or diffusion) in a planet’s atmosphere. None of you will understand Earth’s troposphere until you understand the “heat creep” process that is blatantly obvious on Venus and Uranus.

            Thermal energy absorbed from the Sun in the upper troposphere each Venus day moves towards the surface, warming both the lower troposphere and the surface by about 5 degrees.

            Since only about 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaches the Venus surface, the vast majority of the required energy is conducted into that surface during the 4-month-long Venus day, and back out at night, partly by radiation and partly by conduction.

            How can conduction (diffusion) possibly travel up the temperature gradient?

            That is explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available late April. Rather than being a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is more like a corollary of that law because the isentropic state is disturbed by the new energy and will be restored spontaneously.

            So, no, I’m sorry but the 1mm surface “body” at the top of the oceans does not absorb all radiation from the Sun (most of which is transmitted through it to lower layers) and so this 70% of the Earth’s surface is not a black or grey body. And nor is the other 30%.

            Perhaps if you covered the whole solid and liquid surfaces of Earth with black asphalt you might get closer to a grey body, but until you do, stop applying Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. They don’t work on Venus, or Uranus, and they don’t work for Earth’s surface. Radiative forcing is not the primary determinant of planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Most thermopane windows have argon between the inside and outside glass, some have vacuum, but those are more expensive. The most important thing is to eliminate moisture which will condense. FWIW the conductivity of glass, generally considered a thermal insulator, is about 35 times that of air.

            Then the gish gallop starts.

            what is the time frame for CO2 to increase the average temp by x Kelvin?

            Another ill posed question. First no indication of what system Mr. Valentine is talking about, second, no indication of what energy is flowing into the system, third no indication of the available mechanisms for heat to flow out of the system, what the composition of the system is, where the CO2 is and how much it increases. Then. . but let Eli not bore you.

            What is the time frame for a Maxwellian distribution of speeds to achieve a new average internal energy?

            Another ill posed question. What is the size and composition of the system, how is the system disturbed. Easier to answer is how long it takes for a vibrationally excited molecule to thermalize at atmospheric pressure, about 1-10 microseconds

            Taa

          • Brian Valentine says:

            Well, let’s take the atmosphere for example. CO2 is added to the atmosphere, then Trenberth Hansen and some others apply some meaningless physics to arrive at a “climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” and and they give a time for some ill-defined “new equilibrium” to be achieved at a new temperature in the atmosphere.

            This, they claim, is of the order of a decade give or take a few years. If heat conduction in the air plays a role, I don’t see how the “new equilibrium” is achieved if a difference in temperatures between upper and lower portions of the atmosphere (resulting from the CO2 influence) is simultaneously expected to happen.

            G&T claim that if this doesn’t happen, a hot reservoir becomes hotter at the apparent expense of a cooler reservoir, without work being done.

          • Brian Valentine says:

            “As I have been saying, there is obviously nowhere near enough direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface either. So obviously there is a non-radiative supply of energy as well as the direct radiation and these work together to raise the surface temperatures to what is observed. ”

            I don’t believe that the heat of formation of the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus has been accounted for accurately to date.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Well what can a bunny say, after all Brian knows that physics is meaningless.

          • Brian Valentine says:

            Wabbit, I’ll put it to ya this way: If you never heard about AGW before, and and if someone who you had zero regard for (like me) told you about it, and you asked for some basis behind it, and I gave you Trenberth’s, –

            You would devote more than 10 pages of your blog to tell everybody what a joke this theory (and I) was

            Go ahead and deny it

          • Brian Valentine says:

            “…how long it takes for a vibrationally excited molecule to thermalize at atmospheric pressure, about 1-10 microseconds…”

            with no net gain in energy

            Ta*+a=Ta+a*

  126. Leon says:

    Roy:

    Nazi’s did not have an open mind and debate was not tolerated. How could you equate warmists to the Nazi’s?

    UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres: U.S. democracy is ‘very detrimental’ in war on global warming

    President Obama: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.”

    U.S. Interior Secretary Jewell: “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior.”

    U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz: “Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change. I am not interested in debating what is not debatable.”

    Secretary of State John Kerry: ‘‘We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society,’’

    Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Tim Ball, ain’t he the guy who sued Dan Johnson for dissing him?

      • Brian Valentine says:

        No, I think Ball sued Michael Mann for making fun of Ball for being a “denier”

        • rivetz says:

          No, you have it backwards. Dr. Mann is suing Dr. Ball for libel because, as it turns out, you can’t endlessly besmirch and belittle other public individuals without eventually having to answer for it. Ball is currently also being sued by Dr. Andrew Weaver under similar charges.

          You might be confusing lawsuits (a forgiveable offense in Dr. Ball’s case, perhaps), as he did sue the Calgary Herald a few years back for claiming that he lied on his resume. The lawsuit was retracted when it was revealed that he did, in fact, lie on his resume:

          Contrary to his resume, he does not hold any degree in climatology;
          Contrary to his resume, he was a professor of geography, not climatology, at the University of Winnipeg;
          Contrary to his resume, he was a professor for eight years, not twenty-eight;
          Contrary to his resume, he has no formal qualifications in the field of atmospheric physics or climatology as a broader field.

          Ball’s lawsuit against the Herald was quietly dropped in 2007, apparently upon Ball’s realization that when you lie about your professional background, the newspapers are allowed to mention it.

          All things told, an unusual choice for a citation on the subject of academic transparency, but I guess I would go ahead and accept whatever he says as the truth and not propaganda; after all, he’s a doctor.

  127. Jimbo, all you have to offer are insults.

    How old are you?

  128. Bill "The Denier Guy" says:

    “It was 60 degrees at 6:00 this morning. It is now 65 degrees. At this unprecedented and – obviously – uncontrollable rate of exponential, ‘extinction-level’ temperature increase, my ‘scientists’ have undeniably CONFIRMED (and this is SETTLED, by the way) that by tomorrow at this same time, it will be 4,700 degrees. Send me $1,000,000,000.00.” ~ Al “Earth-Raper” G(wh)ore

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Well, the Earth’s crust is already “millions of degrees” we we can extract Geothermal heat so i suppose a couple thousand more on the surface won’t matter too much.

      Only a couple of years left according to Al “The Motel Room Groper” predictions. I wonder if the idiot had faith in his own predictions and never bought life insurance for himself?

  129. Psalmon says:

    It’s time to push back before it’s too late to push back.

    The bigger the gap becomes with their predictions, the colder it gets, the more radical claims, predictions and explanations become. Data is now irrelevant, it’s all propaganda.

    The global warming movement is anti-human to it’s core. The biggest threat to the human race is not climate, it’s other humans.

    Time to call it what it is.

  130. anon says:

    No matter how shouty you get and insist emotionally about climate change, the evidence indicates man is changing the climate and there will be a wide variety of consequences.

    Why is is so hard to accept that taking carbon from what might as well be rock in the ground and moving it to the atmosphere/biosphere could have, and are having, negative effects?

    If you have criticisms, level them at the science, don’t just call people names and otherwise muddy the issue. This criticism is probably best underpinned with maths, not just old and faulty points, if you can manage that?

    I am surprised to see someone who claims to be a scientist take such anti-science views on a topic. Actually, now I’ve looked again you are actually claiming to be an ex-scientist, given the context of the header when juxtaposed with the content of your website.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      I don’t suppose you apply the same condescending attitude to global warming blogs you visit?

    • richard says:

      blimey Harvard as well.

      http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

      extract

      Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. Consider a greenhouse gas absorbing at 11 mm, in the atmospheric window ( Figure 7-8 ). Injecting such a gas into the atmosphere would decrease the radiation emitted to space at 11 mm (since this radiation would now be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the warm surface). In order to maintain a constant terrestrial blackbody emission integrated over all wavelengths, it would be necessary to increase the emission flux in other regions of the spectrum and thus warm the Earth. Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.

  131. Squildly says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    While I have taken issue with your position on some things in the past (namely GHE physics), I must say that I applaud you for your boldness, and I will support you 100% in this endeavour. This is a bold move, and I have your back!

    For those of you criticizing Dr. Spencer for being “over the top” .. all I can say is pppfffftttt. It is WAY past time that folks grow a pair and stand up to the BS that has been coming from these Global Warming Nazis.

    My hat is off to you Dr. Spencer, and again, I will support you 100% !!! … Good Move!

  132. Rathnakumar says:

    Nice post, Dr. Spencer!

  133. Nathan says:

    Thankyou Dr Roy for taking a courageous stand. These people mostly certainly act like Nazi’s and Stalinists and the worst of any totalitarian regime. But thankfully the real world has undone them.
    Keep up the good fight for the little people.

  134. Sonal says:

    Kinda weird how you just jumped right to Nazi language. Would you prefer being called “nay-sayer”, “disbeliever” or “refuter” instead? I don’t think using the term denier relates all that often to those who deny the Holocaust. People are denied benefits, denied entry, denied drivers licenses. Heck, when a sports team fails to score, they are denied.

    Want to play the victim much?

  135. cRR Kampen says:

    “They are the ones who are sure they are right…” Sure, go after my Pi Sekt: those who know the ratio of circumference and diameter of any Euclidean geometric circle is a transcendental number.

    O yes, we are sure we are right. We also know there are a exactly a hundred cents to a dollar. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it has dead simple consequences for the climate system’s energy budget and -distribution.

    Something else, ‘dr’ Spencer. We know your god does not exist.
    Now back to Kindergarten! Shame on you!

    /cRR

  136. alex says:

    The Nazis were anti Jewish same as today’s left-liberals are. Nazis were (are?) Socialists. I know what Nazism is. The island I live on right in the centre of the Mediterranean sea was the most airial-bombed place on earth during WW2, by the Nazis of course. We survived the onslaught thanks to Mr. Churchill’s insistence that the island had to be saved at all costs. That is the reason why I can comment on this blog. With his Jewish surname my dad would have ended up dead somewhere in central Europe and my mum working in some factory in Germany and I would not have been born.
    Now they are back dresses in green. They hate human life and they even hate Jews. Hate is the lowest form of thaught. Hate is the predecessor of war.

    • cRR Kampen says:

      Yeah, never thought one would find climate science on revisionist blogs like that.
      Just look at this insanity:


      alex says:
      February 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      The Nazis were anti Jewish same as today’s left-liberals are. Nazis were (are?) Socialists. I know what Nazism is. The island I live on right in the centre of the Mediterranean sea was the most airial-bombed place on earth during WW2, by the Nazis of course. We survived the onslaught thanks to Mr. Churchill’s insistence that the island had to be saved at all costs. That is the reason why I can comment on this blog. With his Jewish surname my dad would have ended up dead somewhere in central Europe and my mum working in some factory in Germany and I would not have been born.
      Now they are back dresses in green. They hate human life and they even hate Jews. Hate is the lowest form of thaught. Hate is the predecessor of war.

      Huh? O, well, sure, either there are more cause for war or hate == AGW: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/drought-helped-caused-syrias-war-will-climate-change-bring-more-like-it/

      • hunter says:

        Global warming policies imposed by true believers are to blame for bad things world wide: the conversion of food to fuel tightens food markets and helped lead to the failed Arab spring. Enviro-extremists have prevented California from building new dams and drought resistance for decades.
        Lack of maintenance on infrastructure in the New jersey shore left the area vulnerable to known storm risks. The UK is flooding right now due to enviro-extremists. Australia just flooded last year thanks to enviro-climate imposed policies. And the list is long- much longer.

  137. Gail Combs says:

    Dr. Spencer BRAVO!

    Also every time anyone talks of Obama’s policies remind them the War on Carbon/Coal is really OBAMA’s WAR on the POOR and ELDERLY!

    The UK news reported 25% of UK families are in ‘Fuel Poverty’ In the USA Shadowstat give ~24% under/unemployed with a loss of 6.5 million jobs in 2008-2011. That is before the rising cost of energy send more jobs overseas.

    UK
    63,700,000 population
    569,024 total deaths in 2012
    30,000 excess winter deaths
    so about 5.2% of the UK deaths were do to fuel poverty.

    Translate that to the USA if Obama does shut down coal (42% of electric) while the EPA also goes after wood stoves and fireplaces.
    USA
    313,900,000
    2,500,000 total deaths

    132,000 possible excess winter deaths

    To put that in perspective:

    2,173 US military deaths in Afghanistan (2001 to Feb. 18, 2014)

    58,286 US military deaths in the 20 years of War in Vietnam (1955 – 1975)

    So A War on CO2 is A War on Energy which translates to a War on US Jobs. So should be called OBAMA’s WAR on UNIONS, the POOR and the ELDERLY!

    Please use this idea everyone. It puts US government policies in a form everyone can understand.

  138. Steve says:

    Wow! It’s great to hear from a qualified source that has the courage to speak up.
    Thank you for serving the rest of us so faithfully.
    Steve

  139. I’m sorry Dr Spencer but I think making use of that term would be a mistake on your part. Here’s a full response:

    http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/sticks-and-stones/

  140. Tom Anderson says:

    I’m not sure if anyone else has mentioned what I think is an incisive treatise on the question this name calling derives from, so I’ll suggest it here as a valuable insight into the issue.

    It is “The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality,” by Milton Rokeach.

    It was published in 1960, but as far as I know there have been no better thorough discussions of the nature of bigotry intolerance, and “true belief.”

    It might be time for all of us to peruse Rokeach’s treatise to see just where we are now.

  141. I always laugh when so many, in discussing the Nazis and Nazism, because of its name I guess, assume it was socialism. It certainly was not. It was dictatorial capitalism. Corporations maintained their charters and their profits. In fact, many profited handsomely for quite some time until Germany was eventually defeated. Yes, the Corporations were in bed with Hitler and the Nazis…and not just German Corporations –– American Corporations profited as well by trading with the creepy chowderhead bastard Nazis. The aforementioned misguided people also seem to think the same thing isn’t happening now…that this current wave of Nazism is isolated to a few bad apples…namely the Obama Administration. As if! Seriously?

    http://archive.adl.org/braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.html#.UweOr87eWSo

    Twenty-three years later, another controversy erupted over the publication of a book critical of German industry. In 1972, a German satirist, F. C. Delius, published (in Germany) a mock history of Siemens to coincide with the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the company’s founding.3 The book, Unsere Siemenswelt (Our Siemens World), was a fake official company publication that proudly listed some of the famous electrical company’s numerous “accomplishments”: the mistreatment of slave laborers in its factories during World War II, the installation of the crematoria at Auschwitz, etc. It was not immediately obvious that this book was an unauthorized satire, and less than a month after its publication, Siemens took legal action against Delius in an attempt to suppress his mocking commentary on corporate guilt. Ironically, a series of depositions, trials, and appeals drew attention to the conduct of Siemens during the Nazi years (and initiated a debate within the literary community about the role of satire in a democratic society). After three years of legal wrangling, a district court and a provincial appeals court in Stuttgart determined that several of the book’s claims, including the Auschwitz assertion, were false, and ruled that Delius’s ideas, despite being presented as satire, were damaging to Siemens. (The district court also thought it was suspicious that Delius’s evidence had been derived from “communist” publications.) Eventually both parties reached a settlement, part of which stipulated that future editions of the book could only be published with the controversial lines — including the crematoria claim — literally blacked out. The most recent edition (1995) of this book still bears the legacy of this settlement: many pages contain black bars concealing lines of text.

    Delius has been vindicated in some ways. Contemporary scholars are continuing to learn about the extent to which Siemens, and every major German business in the Thirties and Forties, was implicated in the brutality of Nazi economic policies, most egregiously through the abuse of forced and slave laborers. Siemens ran factories at Ravensbrück and in the Auschwitz subcamp of Bobrek, among others, and the company supplied electrical parts to other concentration and death camps. In the camp factories, abysmal living and working conditions were ubiquitous: malnutrition and death were not uncommon. Recent scholarship has established how, despite German industry’s repeated denials, these camp factories were created, run, and supplied by the SS in conjunction with company officials — sometimes high-level employees.

    • JohnKl says:

      Thank you Cold N Holefield,

      You claimed:

      “…I always laugh when so many, in discussing the Nazis and Nazism, because of its name I guess, assume it was socialism. It certainly was not. It was dictatorial capitalism. Corporations maintained their charters and their profits. In fact, many profited handsomely for quite some time until Germany was eventually defeated. Yes, the Corporations were in bed with Hitler and the Nazis…and not just German Corporations –– American Corporations profited as well by trading with the creepy chowderhead bastard Nazis.”

      Hmmh! Why does corporate involvement mean to you that it wasn’t socialism? You are aware that many SOCIALISTS INCLUDING GEORGE BERNARD SHAW ADVOCATED CONCENTRATION CAMPS and apparently liquidating the un-fit. The NAZI’s called themselves SOCIALIST and included communists as members! Not to mention that Hitler traveled with and advocated many SOCIALIST environmental ideas including RE-WILDING. In addition, you must also be aware if you have functioning cerebellum that CORPORATIONS OPERATED IN THE SOVIET UNION throughout it’s history as well. You must be aware that Occidental Petroleum (Al Gore is a large stakeholder) was widely understood to have very close ties with the SOVIETS!! The US government gave enormous sums of money to the Soviet Union in the 1920′s to rebuild factories and stave off starvation of the masses etc.

      To keep it short IF THE NAZI GERMANS AND COMMUNIST SOVIET UNION WERE SO OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER WHY DID THEY COLLABORATE TO INVADE POLAND!!! From what I’ve read the favored internet book, at the top of the charts internationally, especially in North Korea, is MEIN KAMPF!

      So you just keep telling yourself leftist bromides and fall asleep with the black sheep and see what happens.

      Have a great day!

      • JohnKl says:

        Oh! Btw Cold N Holefield,

        Two more points. Do you know that Stoner prior to having made the AR-15, later to be adopted as the M-16, by the US military had made the AR-10 prototype. It chambered a larger 7.62×51 cartridge if I remember correctly. Fidel Castro liked it’s ruggedness and preferred it’s greater accuracy and power to the AK-47 and bought 100 prototypes. He sought more but was only prevented from buying them by the US government. Since when are corporations and socialism somehow distinct?!!!

        Oh! you may also choose to remember the country that Karl Marx came from. That’s right GERMANY!

        The devil plays opposits!

        Have a great day!!

        • Why does corporate involvement mean to you that it wasn’t socialism?

          I don’t think they are, or have to be. But many misinformed people think that corporations and socialism can’t coexist. Germany under Hitler proved otherwise. Remember, my statements have a Devil’s Advocate bent to them. I found this article to be more informative about what Nazism was. It seems it was a little bit of everything.

          http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

          As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism….

          Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

          It’s an interesting read and perspective. I wouldn’t call Nazism socialism although it certainly had a socialist dimension as well as a capitalist dimension. My initial comments are aimed at those who consider Nazism a far “Leftist” ideology. Others, consider it a far “Rightest” ideology. My take? I consider the far “Right” and the far “Left” to be so close in their authoritarianism that they are practically embracing…and that describes Nazism as well as anything I’ve ever seen written on the topic.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Cold N Holefield,

            Your thinking still seems muddled. The word “corporation” derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a “body of people and has been used to describe various organizations throughout western civilization and currently the entire planet. Objectively, the purpose of such entities supposedly described in said CORPORATE CHARTER governs the actions of it’s members. Whether such an entity be “RIGHT-WING” or “LEFT-WING” depends on the goals of the founders and members of the entity.

            As to Nazism, you’ve basically admitted your initial claim that NAZISM WASN’T SOCIALISM to be FALSE. This should be abundantly clear if one merely takes a glance at socialist writers before, during and after the Nazi regime. It would be difficult if not impossible to find any Nazi horror that was not advocated by some socialist prior to Hitler and the Nazi’s gaining power. This includes most notably socialists that were not themselves Nazi’s. Previously I mentioned Shaw’s support for concentration camps. One could also mention other Fabian Socialists like the Webbs. Please review telling quotes attributed to George Bernard Shaw from another website below:

            George Bernard Shaw, “ I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

            Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

            Interviewed on Germany Shaw declared:
            “Germany’s contention of ‘race pollution’ was ‘despicably unscientific.’” But he said he “appreciated” Hitler’s political sagacity and the courage with which he has rescued Germany from the gutter,, and placed her once more at the head of Central Europe.”
            ( SOURCE: GEORGE BERNARD SHAW Approaches His 82d Birthday Anemic But Still Vociferously Aware of His OwnJJnique. Significance, Galveston Daily News: 7/24/1938)

            It is important to note that George Bernard Shaw was a Eugenicist who supported Planned Parenthood Founder, and eugenicist Margaret Sanger and others in the eugenics movement.

            What many people do not know is that Shaw was a contributor to Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control Review”.

            Shaw endorsed Sanger, Birth Control, and EUGENICS..

            In the June 1929 Birth Control Review, George Bernard Shaw supports Sanger’s efforts to promote birth control when he, ” We are up against an overpopulation problem created by Capitalism…Socialists say quite truly that Socialism can get rid of it…But it cannot wait for Socialism…”

            In Margaret Sanger’s Autobiography, Sanger writes, ” Jane had lnvited literary luminaries and their wives George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Professor E W MacBride of the Eugenics Education Society, Walter Salter of the League of Nations, and Lord Buckmaster.

            “It had been my experience that personages gave little of themselves on formal occasions So many people expected these lions to roar bravely, forgetting that they preferred to save their sparkling sallies for the pages of their books.”

            Sanger continues, “I was back In New York by the end of October, and soon came a letter from Shaw cheering me with his point of view.”

            Sanger reads the letter from George Bernard Shaw and says Shaw compares the “more evolved people” or “White Elitists” to “lower classes who need to be taught to control their populations calling them “amoeba” ,

            ‘ Birth control should be advocated for its own sake, on the general
            ground that the difference between voluntary, irrational, uncontrolled activity IS the difference between an amoeba and a man, and if we really believe that the more highly evolved creature is the better we may as well act accordingly. As the amoeba does not understand birth control, it cannot abuse it, and therefore its state may be the more
            gracious, but it is also true that as the amoeba cannot write, it cannot commit forgery yet we teach everybody to write unhesitatingly, knowing that if we refuse to teach anything that could be abused we should never teach anything at all .’

            Allow me to expand on my point made earlier regarding the Molotov agreement between the Soviets and Nazi Germany. Wikipedia even admits:

            “During his meeting with Ribbentrop, Stalin promised him to get rid of the “Jewish domination”, especially among intellectuals.[18] After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939,[19] Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews”, to appease Hitler and to signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks.[19][20][21][22]
            According to some historians, antisemitic trends in the Kremlin’s policies could be fueled by the exile of Leon Trotsky.[23][24]
            In the late 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s far fewer Jews were appointed to positions of power in the state apparatus than previously, with a sharp drop in Jewish representation in senior positions evident from around the time of the beginning of the late 1930s rapprochement with Nazi Germany. The percentage of Jews in positions of power dropped to 6% in 1938, and to 5% in 1940.[20]”

            The attempt by SOCIALIST APOLOGISTS now to attempt and distance themselves from the actions of their predecessors will draw criticism from myself and others who know the history.

            Have a great day!

  142. Marc77 says:

    I think Nazi is a bit over the top, but Eco-fascists is clearly deserved. One of the best way to understand fascists is to find what diversity they fight while claiming to be a superior alternative. I think Eco-fascists are against intellectual and psychological diversity.

    What we have to understand is that since civilization has started, the brain has superseded DNA and there is no contest anymore. Creativity is to the brain what mutations is to DNA. Each event is unlikely to bring anything good, but sometimes a better alternative takes the lead all by itself. Science might double in size every decade, but clearly DNA information does not increase to any similar level. The brain is simply more complex and adapts faster than DNA. We could see the Anthropocene as the era of the brain. I wonder if humans will affect climate as much as trees of grass, probably not.

    It is interesting to see how Eco-fascists position themselves in how they value diversity. On one hand they claim that “natural diversity” is the most precious thing to defend. But they do not like GMOs. And if climate change was to alter the genetic diversity of some population of critters, they would probably frame it as a loss. On the other hand, they seem to have some serious problems with intellectual and psychological diversity. They cannot tolerate any different view about anything, even when it is clearly a matter of opinion.

  143. Eric says:

    This article constitutes a grave injustice to all Nazis, everywhere!

  144. uh says:

    You’re called a denier because you deny global warming.

    • No, he doesn’t. He has emphatically stated that he agrees the atmosphere has warmed and CO2 levels have risen. He also has said he doesn’t believe it will continue to warm as much as the Nazi Bastards say it will, and he believes it will not be catastrophic. He also states, unequivocally, he believes humans do have some effect, but it’s not substantial and the majority of the non-catastrophic warming is from natural causes and those natural causes should be the focus of the research.

      So, you have lied. Yet more support for my blog thesis. Don’t equate Roy with the barnacles who latch onto him here. There position is not necessarily his, and he’d never get anything else done outside of this blog if he had to continually separate his wheat from their chaff.

  145. here is another attack says:

    Here is another attack on skeptics. A project on KS.
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/787934767/the-league-of-deniers-jokes-from-climate-change-de

  146. Walter Allensworth says:

    Another Global Warming Nazi threatening 70,000 employees at the Dept. of the Interior…

    Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Not Welcome at Interior – Secy. Jewell

    by Marlo Lewis on July 31, 2013

    DOI Secretary Sally Jewell told employees today that combatting climate change is a “privilege” and “moral imperative,” adding: “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,” E&E News PM (subscription required) reports.

    Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think.

    What does she mean by “denier” anyway? Is it literally someone who denies that greenhouse gas emissions have a greenhouse (warming) effect? Or is a “denier” merely someone who thinks climate change is not a ”crisis,” or who regards the usual panoply of climate policies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, other market-rigging interventions – as a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease?

    see: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/31/climate-change-deniers-not-welcome-at-interior-secy-jewell/

    • Well, that’s the beauty of Roy’s stance. It’s very strategic because he’s not easily cornered. He doesn’t deny global warming. He doesn’t deny climate change. He doesn’t deny humans have had some effect. So if they’re calling him a denier, what is it that he’s denying? That they’re all poisonous cancers and deserve to die for their sins of fouling this former paradise? If that’s the denial that gets him the label, and apparently it is if you read between the lines, then Roy should be glad to be called a denier, and they should be glad he is what they’ve labeled him because it’s one less person who calls for their extinction.

      • Richard D says:

        Hey Cold, perhaps you could be a gem and take it back to your blog if you want to hold court on your inane, off topic crap. It gets tiresome scrolling by, thanks…

  147. Ofensive and Peculiar says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer,

    I wish to take exception with something you said. You used the term “fossil fuels.” I submit to you that may well be one of the greatest misconceptions of “science” today. It is “settled science” that our planets source of liquid hydrocarbons is buried formerly living organisms. Sooooo why is Titan, brimming with liquid hydrocarbons? It is of course settled science that L.H. can be derived from plant material and yet … there is Titan.

    Concerning AGW, I say K.I.S.S. We learned in grade school that the Sun heats the oceans and so drives the “weather” aaaand weather gives us climate.

    I of course not being college educated (or barely) have decided to watch the Sun for about the last 6 years via SOHO. There was a break in the most recent cycle. Oh, not a big one but it differed from other cycles in that the sun flat lined from 2007-2010 and its subsequent increase has been paltry. We are going to see over the next 10 years significant cooling as the sun continues quieting, hopefully not on a Dalton or more frighteningly a Maunder minimum, but significant cooling.

    Anyway, that is this amateur’s take on it. But I encourage you, a trained scientist to take a second look at “fossil fuels.”

  148. johnthetreehugger says:

    i’m surprised that you had the mental acumen to earn a Phd.

    Usually, people with your level of dysfunctional paranoia and delusions don’t make it that high in academia.

    Your assertion that scientists are radical environmentalists is dumb as shit. You have no idea on what you are talking about. I’ve been a rad treehugger since 1990 and no climate scientist ever joined our ranks till 2009 when Hansen decided it was time to get arrested over the issue. and even now, people like him only show up to make a point. there is no cooridination between scientists and radical activists. of course, you might be of low enough mental capacity to call the Sierra Club radical, but i’m refering to the real radicals – Earth First! and those types.

    your conspiracy paranoia is pathetic. There are NO phd’s or gov’t employees or environmentalists competent enough to pull off a conspiracy, just like there are no neo conservatives or wall st elites competent enough to pull of 9/11 or the New World Order.

    Your equation to Nazism is also pathetic. You know how to tell when a dumbass is losing an arguement? He compares something to Nazism. I bet you are one of those ahistorical fools who thinks National Socialism is a left wing political faction.

    for frack sake man, you are supposed to be a scientist, so please, use the scientific method, and please, show us all the data on the conspiracy and collusion. you won’t, because you can’t, ’cause you are not a real scientist, but a right wing ideologue with paranoid delusion issues just like the rest of the fools that make your so called political movement.

    • Bob says:

      “or frack sake man, you are supposed to be a scientist, so please, use the scientific method,”

      You’ve got to be kidding, right. An Eco-fascists waxing about the scientific method. Schmuck, look at Mann, Trendbirth, Jones, Santer, Gleick.

    • Jim Schmidt says:

      Wow… do you get your Mann-caused global warming Kool Aid by the QUART, or are you on the 55 gallon drum I.V. drip plan?

      As usual for the radical lunatic left, your argument consists solely of one Alinsky-inspired ad hominem attack after another, sprinkled with time tested leftist buzzwords (psst… you missed using “imperialist running dog capitalists”) …

      Ad typical, predictable and empty of substance as is the MGW mantra.

      • Bryson Brown says:

        Of course the climate science is a clear example of a coordinated, well-controlled propaganda campaign, while think-tanks with fossil-fuel funding are the touchstone of truth. Or maybe not… evidence-based disagreement is well-rewarded in science, which makes collective consensus judgments by groups of scientists (reflected in IPCC reports and academies all over the world) very reliable. On the other hand, in active political groups and paid mouthpieces, the ‘truth’ is just what the customer wants to hear. The paranoia displayed here about those of us who worry about the environment (once something part of the political consensus) marks the asymmetrical polarization of U.S. politics: the right, to put it bluntly, has lost its mind.

    • Richard D says:

      You failed freshman composition, right?

  149. Brian Valentine says:

    I thougt everybody new that deniurs was just dum and stupid and they dont know nuthin and they make stuff up cuz the tobaco looby pays them to do it

  150. Gail Combs says:

    On the Nazi left wing vs right wing debate read EM Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

    The true fight has never been ‘Capitalism’ vs ‘Socialism’ it has always been about whether or not a middle class should be allowed to exist. A middle class allows the peons to aspire to positions above their stations and therefore threatens the power of the wealthy establishment.

    Karl Marx attacked the ‘Bourgeois’ The word comes from the French and originally denotes the wealthy stratum of the middle class. In the middle ages the term applied to self-employed businessmen.

    Today we have Maurice Strong Chair of the First Earth Summit and Kyoto saying during the opening ceremonies in 1992.

    “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

    More recently the Head of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy said the same thing.

    “In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared…

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? “

    Even the 1974 CIA report: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” says:

    “The Wisconsin analysis questions whether a return to these climate conditions could support a population that has grown from 1.1 billion in 1850 to 3.75 billion in 1970. The Wisconsin group predicted that the climate could not support the world’s population since technology offers no immediate solution. Further world grain reserves currently amount to less than one month; thus any delay in supplies implies mass starvation. They also contended that new crop strains could not be developed over night… Moreover they observed that agriculture would become even more energy dependent in a world of declining resources.”

    On Pg 7 of that CIA report they note:

    “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

    The US government has aided the striping of assets of the USA including literally packing up and shipping our factories and technology overseas. The US Freedom to Farm Act got rid of the US Strategic Grain Reserves in 1996 then ran the grain silos dry by 2008. (Remember the food riots?) Now the USA is burning any excess grain as bio-fuel. The Midwest grain silos have now all been destroyed.

    If the US government is so all fired concerned about Climate Change, why have they made very very sure we will see mass starvation if the weather turns for the worse?

  151. John Bills says:

    You shoul call them “gutmenschen”.
    They will (must) save the world.

  152. Your use of the term Nazi in this instance is quite accurate. Malthusianism spawned the ideology of Lebensraum as well as Eugenics. Whether it’s Wotan of the Nazis or Gaia worship of the radical environmentalists the hatred of humanity is the same.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Meaning they hate themselves, there’s nothing I can do to fix that, but everybody else is compelled to put up with their sick sh-.

      Political appointees in the current administration must have had to put up a pretty fervent display of global warming agony to get an appointment in any department. I’m glad I didn’t have to witness any of it, it must have been pretty embarrassing to watch

  153. Jim Schmidt says:

    Well said, Dr. Spencer. Kudos!

    The MGW crowd belongs to the leftists for whom Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals is a bible… “The ends justify any means, including lying” is a core principle.

    Also, the left’s initial response to any perceived slight is to throw a temper tantrum that would make a two year old envious.

    As with a two year old, they have learned that if they throw a massive tantrum, civilized people become uncomfortable, and often give in to keep the peace… NO MORE!

    It is time for capitulating to the lunatic left to STOP, and if they choose to act like children, it is up to us to act as parents and put them in their place by refuting their unsupported drivel with FACTS, and come November, to seal the deal with our VOTES. It is long past time to push back…

    NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!

    • Bryson Brown says:

      What makes you think this has anything to do with the ‘left’? Jim Hansen is no left winger– and neither are the many scientific academies and associations that have adopted statements regarding the threat our GHG emissions pose to the stable climate we depend on for so many things.

  154. Walter Allensworth says:

    It appears that an opinion writer at the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, has “had it” with the “fascist dictator” tactics as well.

    Amazing! Never thought such a piece would appear in this left-leaning pub. There may be hope yet, if even the left thinks the snubbery and suppression has gone too far!

    Just a snip… and you can read the rest at the link…

    “The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge…”

    see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

  155. Wisco says:

    What cheese would you pair with this whine?

  156. JohnWho says:

    After some thought, I find his characterization of Global Warming Nazis to be mostly appropriate.

    However, calling non-Global Warming Nazis “Deniers” or “Denialists” does not since we (I consider myself an non-Global Warming Nazi) do not deny anything of substance.

    We do not deny that it has been warming globally since the end of the LIA.

    We do not deny that there is something described as a “Green House Effect” caused by certain atmospheric gasses, primarily water vapor.

    We do not deny that CO2 is one of the gasses that make up the “Green House Gasses”.

    We do not deny that these Green House Gasses add to atmospheric temperature warmth, although at some altitudes it may actually contribute slight cooling.

    We do not deny that man contributes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

    We are in agreement among ourselves that the amount of warming of the atmosphere caused by our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    I suppose we do deny the catastrophism espoused by the GW Nazis, but, perhaps if more people had opposed the Nazis 60 plus years ago we wouldn’t be using either the “Deniers” or “Nazi” characterizations now.

  157. Mike Flynn says:

    Interestingly, Arrhenius was a firm believer in racial hygiene. As far as I know, this did not involve donating soap to the racially inferior.

    If Mann were to refer to me as a denier, with its normally understood Holocaust associations, then I should be able to refer to him as a Nazi, with its normally understood connotation.

    I doubt that the Incredible Shrinking Mann would agree, but I’m not sure why I should care.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  158. Peri says:

    Anything that advances the NWO. Global warming does that quite nicely by requiring global measures, to be administered, of course, by some global authority controlled by the same gangsters that print worthless paper tickets and pretend it’s real money.
    Since that racket is so obvious they feel they need to solidify their position with another issue, one of life and death that no reasonable person can oppose. When the global warming issue was presented to them they loved it and signed off on it. Some “research” was funded, and their media were instructed to promote it, like they promote other deeply subversive issues… feminism, homosexual promotion, etc. that are only here to break down solid societies that have the potential to give the gangsters opposition. The main purpose behind it is to keep these parasites in power. It’s quite important to them.
    True believer useful idiots were found aplenty. And that’s the sort of guys we contend with here, if they are not pure trolls.
    To add insult to injury – once the global warming con men succeed – they will say that they are so smart, and the herd so stupid, that they can tax the suckers even for breathing. That must have tickled their arrogance. And without internet, who knows, it might have gone through, like other pure BS that used to go through and was justification for every war since World War 1.
    But the whole thing is just another racket. How they must hate the internet.

    • Bryson Brown says:

      The breathing thing just doesn’t work, you know. The carbon has to be taken up by plants before it’s re-emitted as we ‘burn’ the fuel. Maybe you should read a little more about the carbon cycle (and check out the basics of radiation and other heat-transfer mechanisms at Science of Doom) so you won’t sound so paranoid and uninformed.

      • Peri says:

        This smart ass genius here is unaware that what the parasites promote has never anything to do with truth or facts.
        And useful idiots are not in the habit of questioning what comes from above.

  159. JohnWho says:

    Just a thought,

    but I suppose we have:

    Global Warming Nazis

    Climate Change Nazis

    and

    Climate Disruption Nazis.

    Essentially, the same folks however, proving the slightly paraphrased old adage:

    “A Nazi by any other name is still smell bad”.

    • JohnWho says:

      Uh,

      ““A Nazi by any other name still smells bad”.

      Doh!

      • Bryson Brown says:

        So you criticize other people who use the word ‘denier’ in its well-established sense and without any reference to Nazi apologists and holocaust denial, by explicitly using the word “Nazi” to describe them, because you find the (very distant) association you take to be implied by their use of the word ‘denier’ offensive? Doesn’t it occur to you that your rhetoric is clearly much more offensive than theirs?

  160. RC says:

    I understand your frustration Roy, and I’ve coined a few phrases myself (“Climatology: The thinking man’s Scientology”, “Climatology: A triumph of medieval science”(apologies to any real climate scientists)) because AGW is dogma to most believers and facts are irrelevant.
    My problem is that my arguments over climate are face to face with people I’ve known for 40years or more (who were turned to the dark side by a socialist English teacher in the dying days of the Vietnam war)and while the facts don’t seem to be helping, name calling usually ends the conversation.
    Anyway calling independent thinkers “climate deniers” obfuscates the fact that “believers” were denying climate history themselves.
    I’ve decided to quietly point out the inevitable recants of the IPCC and bad climate science when I see it and to make the odd prediction eg. There next climate prediction will be wrong and that someday they will have to come clean and admit that the oceans were warming long before the atmosphere.
    It’s the source of some amusement that my godless, socialist friends don’t see the irony in their new cause.
    “The science is settled”, “Have faith”, “We are in possession of the facts, trust us”, “buy solar cells or burn in an earthly hell”.

    • Bryson Brown says:

      Oceans warming before the atmosphere? Do you have a mechanism for that? (You do know we have pretty good measurements of heat flowing from the earth’s core, and it doesn’t come close to the radiative imbalance produced by GHGs, right?)

  161. Carlton the doorman says:

    Poor Dr. Spencer,

    He must have gotten another paper rejected by
    the evil-overlords who control the science journals.

    Time to lash out and get the denialist
    troops frothed into a frenzy.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Doorman were you on your way someplace else when you happened to stumble in here?

    • ORLY says:

      Poor little Carlton, your false substitute religion is going down in flames, shot down by actual science. Maybe now is the time to give Scientology a try? Hey, “science” is sort of in the name, so that’s good enough, eh?

      • Brian Valentine says:

        Xenu says he doesn’t want him.

        • Taxman says:

          It is true Roy didn’t say why he was suddenly so angry that he started calling people Nazis. I think the Doorman has a pretty good theory. Why would you doubt it unless you know better. Are you a Doorman Denier?

  162. Niels Dolieslager says:

    Wow, your scare mongery is worse then the other side’s. In Europe we stopped the acid rain that was killing forests back in the eighties by acting against pollution. No one died.

    You show a lack of imagination. Progress doesn’t have to come with greenhouse gases.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

    All you deniers do is allowing the oil companies to do what they do. Show us the evidence.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Vielen Dank für diese Informationen, Niels!

      But getting SO2 and NOx out of the combustion products is a bit less of a task than removing the CO2, is it not.

      • Chris says:

        Take a look at the chart on the page titled “Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree”

        Look at the temperature increase from around 1910 to 1940, and a virtually identical increase from around 1970 to around 2000. Similar time periods, and similar temperature increases.

        Also quoting from that page “human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s”

        So if you believe in AGW due to CO2 emissions, then you believe that temperatures increased from 1910 to 1940 due to natural causes. You also believe that in 1950 natural climate change more or less ceased.

        You also believe that around 1970 AGW kicked in for 30 years and then stopped.

        You also believe that whatever caused the warming from 1910 to 1940 could not possibly have caused the warming from 1970 to around 2000.

        Does that really sound plausible to you?

        • Brian Valentine says:

          “Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree”

          The nice thing about science is, all it takes is one.

        • Basil says:

          One thing to not from those 30 year cycles is that after a period of steady warming there was a bit of cooling. Akin to taking 5 steps up then 2 steps down. This has gone on for all the 30year cycles as far as modern global temperature records go, back into the mid 1800′s.

          The most worrisome thing to note here, is that the most recent upward temperature cycle ending near 2000 was the sharpest rise yet, and that there in fact has been NO cooling the past 14 years…a gentle UPWARD trend resembling a slightly upward angling top, as both 2005 and 2010 were as warm or slightly warmer than the mega El Nino year of 1998.

          So where is the cooling that proceeds every 30 year warming cycle? What happens when the next warming cycle begins in a few years?

          • Niels Dolieslager says:

            That’s not a problem for the deniers, they work with the richest multinationals and know where to put their money so they can still buy food when harvests go lost.

            First put your money in Shell, Exxon, BP, Aramco, Vitol, Chevron and Total (7 of the 20 companies with highest revenue), while they steal natural resources from poor countries and occupied territories (let’s ignore the nature reserves) and don’t clean up their mess. They only stop when the oil is gone, unless Roy Spencer fails to stop the nazi’s.

            Then put your money in Nestlé and Monsanto. When the natural oil is gone there’s less profit in energy.

            Nestlé is stealing the natural water from poor countries and occupied territories, Monsanto already owns 90% of the US seed market and is expanding fast in other companies.

          • Niels Dolieslager says:

            I meant countries, not companies :D

            How do I get my replies after the post I reply to?

        • Niels Dolieslager says:

          Glad to hear you believe you’re smarter then NASA.

          I don’t have to believe every single thing that scientific organisations who conclude that greenhouse gases are the main cause for global warming say.

          Where is your evidence that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global warming?

          You reason the same way Bayer does. “Neonicotinoid pesticides kills bees. Ever since our seeds are coated in neonicotinoid pesticide there has been bee colony collapse disorder. Let’s deny that the two have anything to do with each other and sue the EU for banning neonicotinoid pesticides so we can endanger the bees even more for profit”

          I think it’s smarter to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

      • Niels Dolieslager says:

        Who made you believe we need that many combustion products?

        And for the ones we really need, there are technologies for CO2 removal.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

        Combine a scrubbing tower with this:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

  163. Mike says:

    A denier, is someone who ‘denies’ something. It is not a specific term coined from the Holocaust, it existed long before the Holocaust and is in common use to describe anyone who denies facts regardless of their origin.

    A Nazi is a Nazi. It is specific to a certain far-right wing fascist ideology and is intrinsically linked to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

    If someone calls you a denier, it has nothing to do with the Holocaust, unless they call you a ‘Holocaust Denier’

    If you are unable to logically separate, identify, understand and use these terms appropriately, how on earth are you able to comment logically and impartially on climate science?

    Dr Spencer has taken a step which does not reflect on those who support the work and results of climate science or those who may call him a climate change denier or similar, it reflects only on himself, to his demerit.

    • ORLY says:

      I can tell you skipped to the end without reading a single comment, because your steaming pile of BS has been thoroughly debunked. Regurgitating a lie doesn’t magically make it true even when you with really really hard that it did.

      • Mike says:

        I read the comments and commented on something that was not covered adequately: Dr Spencer’s poor decision to use a strawman argument against those that claim he is a denier.

        There are no lies in my post. A denier is appropriately described and is historically found derived from the french and latin languages at least as far back as the 1200′s. We all know where Nazi comes from and that is the early 1900′s.

    • Richard D says:

      I doubt you’re capable of even explaining the basic physics much less arguing the science. You’re a perfect spokesman for the cause!

      • Mike says:

        If you actually read my comment you would realise your comment is a total non-sequitur. Whether I am able to explain the physics to you is irrelevant. My comment is not about physics, it is about a poor choices made when choosing a defense against a claim of denialism.

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Mike,

      You are delusional. The holocaust link with the term “denier” in regards to climate change is without question. Here are some quotes:

      “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” [Ellen Goodman, 2007; http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

      In a March 23, 2006 interview about his coverage of environmental issues Pelley was actually asked by CBSNews.com's senior political reporter Brian Montopoli why he refused to include skeptics of global warming and he replied: "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"

      "Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust." [http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php]

      “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as Holocaust denial.” [George Monbiot, Published in the Guardian 21st September 21, 2006.}

      These are just but a few examples.

  164. Bryson Brown says:

    This is pretty sorry stuff, Dr. Spencer. Denialis a well-established phenomenon, with clear diagnostic criteria: it is a form of motivated reasoning in which the denier becomes hyperbolically skeptical about strong evidence for a conclusion and simultaneously credulous and uncritical of supposed ‘evidence’ against it. For instance, when a scientist publishes mistaken results, claiming they show a widely accepted view is wrong, has his or her own work corrected because of a significant error in analysis, but continues to claim that, despite this error, he/she is still right on the issue, and all the (still robust) evidence for the other side must somehow be wrong, what we’re witnessing is credibly described as denial!

    Claiming that calling someone a denier is equivalent to calling them a holocaust denier is ridiculous and self-serving. Many forms of denial are out there- from vaccine denial to evolution denial to global warming denial. No-one called you a ‘Nazi’, and it’s disgraceful for you to call those whom you disagree with ‘Nazis’ just because they dare to offer a diagnosis of your state of mind (one which I think the evidence supports quite convincingly).

    • Chris says:

      What evidence in particular supports the theory? Certainly surface temperatures do not offer convincing evidence. In Australia the historical temperature records have also been modified, so we can no longer even trust comparisons to the historical records. Doesn’t that trouble you?

      The strongest sceptic of any theory should be the person writing up the paper. I still don’t understand how we can be more sure of catastrophic global warming now, given the temperatures of the last decade of so. Scientists are supposed to be their own sceptics.

      The observations don’t match the theory, and in science that really does mean something.

    • Richard D says:

      Bryson, your feelings and intuition are fine but not really relevant to a serious fact based discussion….better save it for an alter call at your personal faith based organization of choice whatever that may be.

    • Alcheson says:

      So Bryson, what do you call it when the data, even after massaging it to show the most warming possible, invalidates 95% of you precious climate models, with the remaining 5% due to fail within the next 3 years at the current rate?
      Is that NOT denial that the models are wrong?

  165. kevin king says:

    Well done Dr. Spencer. The global warming activists are children with whom you cannot reason and shockingly these child-like minds occupy some of the most important positions in western society. The chinese must be laughing at the incompetence of western society to deal with this problem. How do you castrate and neuter a movement of fools that is pushing us back into the dark ages in a society that is built on principles of freedom and the rule of law? This is a problem that is not so easy to solve. I’m not religious, but all that occurs to me is…. god help us.

  166. RC says:

    Do I have a mechanism for that Bryson? No. Just historical data.
    You know, the sort that wasn’t adjusted to accommodate the desired outcome.(getting harder and harder to find)
    Don’t worry you’ll backslide on that one too.
    I can’t prove it has anything to do with the left but every labor voter repeats the left wing soft jocks climate hysteria verbatum (regardless of intelligence), the Greens party in most democracies appears to be to the left of Mao on the political spectrum, it’s the Greens empowered by Labor, that impose the climate penance on a recalcitrant electorate and it may just be another amazing coincidence but the left, in this country, adopted AGW not long after the collapse of the USSR. (Before that they would espouse communism, the majority of Labor politicians having done some training, before 1989, in the USSR)

    • Richard D says:

      Bryon, there’s a bunch of people with advanced degrees in engineering, medicine and natural sciences here on this blog. Just saying….

  167. rossbrisbane says:

    A lot of denial going on in the last few attack dog posts.

  168. Murray Allan says:

    Politics keeps bastardizing science. Data itself is not even safe anymore. Warmists are rabid. The playing field is not level and you proved you are human by losing your temper and I fully understand why you did.

    All people like me can ask is that you continue to report data accurately. I am concerned about the accuracy of most sources, with NASA being a good example of that.

    For the earth and for the truth, I hope to see warming continue to be flat or to see the decrease in temperatures soon soon. I am also human and the thought of a downturn in global temperatures appeals to me on many levels. Just be there to evidence that, Mr. Spencer, as I don’t have faith that other sources are going to report the truth readily. Stay the course, I have a feeling you are on the verge of getting the last laugh. This is good for the truth and for the earth.

  169. James Samworth says:

    Names aren’t particularly helpful. Facts, evidence and science are. On these measures you’re on the wrong side, unfortunately. Life would be easier if you were right, but sadly there’s work to do.

  170. Burke Burnett says:

    This bit of hypocritical grandstanding by Dr. Spencer is neither academically respectable nor morally tenable.

    He owes the public an apology.

    • Murray Allan says:

      Sorry but the science behind global warming is seriously flawed in its quantitative aspect. This is why the climate models are a joke. CO2 definitely can and does act as a greenhouse gas but to what degree is obviously unknown. The science is absolutely not settled.
      The word denier was applied to anyone who dared question science’s present ability to understand CO2′s effect, in real numbers. The word denier was used to compare anyone who dared challenge this obviously incomplete scientific understanding and it was used to relate it to the holocaust deniers. Spencer is simply taking great offense to that. The left really did start the name calling. Honestly, the control of the media and the endless propaganda does give the impression of a Nazi state.

      • Basil says:

        Climate Science in not perfect, it has some flaws, but also has done pretty well in some realms and HAS captured the steady temp rise of past 35 years. Climate models do not pick up on periodic fluctuations like El Nino’s,Pacific Decadal Oscillations, so the temp curve is never going to be as smooth as the CO2 curve. But the loss of Arctic Ice is on par with what many models predicted 10 years ago.

        Skeptic Science, on the other hand cannot even rise high enough to be called science.

        At best its sloppy science with working toward a desired end result.

        At worst, blatant deception, due to the invisible bank accounts provided by Big Oil and its subsidiaries.

  171. Bob B says:

    I prefer to call them “climate parasites” because they live off the taxes collected from countries to promote their religion and global-socialist vision of the future:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/climate_parasites_the_answer_to_climate_change_deniers.html

  172. Agnes says:

    I am unfortunately not surprised at the support shown here by too many people for one who ended up resorting to insults of the worst kind when he couldn’t win the argument.

    Just keep doing what you seem to do so well, and keep showing that this species is, for all it titles itself “sapiens”, mainly made up of monumental morons, who love to stick, ostrich-like, their heads in the sand, in the belief that if they don’t see the problem, it doesn’t exist.

    Yes, science is flawed, after all it is made by humans, and we have limits to our brain capacity, although some seem to have absolutely no capacity for thinking, as amply demonstrated here. Yes, the system that climate science attempts to model is incredibly complex, and as such very hard to model accurately. But as much as one can use that to refute the theories of climate changes, it can just as well be used to refute your arguments. If modelling is so hard and inaccurate, HOW can you say there are NO changes? You have no proof of that. Or rather, the climate in the last few years, at the very least, seems to be enough to refute your opinion.

    So I must wonder: have all those who deny climate change and its consequences gone DEAF and BLIND through all the head-in-sand sticking?? I don’t need a model to note the increasing frequency of previously much rarer extreme climate occurrences. Hasn’t the number and severity of storms in the Caribbean been steadily rising? Don’t tell me the US hasn’t felt their effect more and more every year. And what of the tornadoes? Stronger tornadoes every year, and now some appearing in areas where there hardly occurred at all. What of the cold wave this year? If it repeats next year, will you finally admit something is changing? Check the spanish and french atlantic coasts: how many heavy storms have they endured this year, one after the other? Northern South America has had rainfalls for 2-3 years in a row now that are way above normal. Just check the reports from Colombia. All of those events taken on its own might still be said to be something happening every now and then, and not a symptom of any changes, but ALL TOGETHER?!? Do please switch your brain on. And those are just the few I’m citing of the top of my head, without checking out other locations.

    The ice levels are not receding?!? Have you compared photos of the beginning of last century with actual ones? Have you checked such photos of the Alps, for instance, with present day ones? If you don’t see the receding line of the glaciers, then sorry, but you’re blind!

    So species like the polar bear or corals have survived drastic changes in their environment? True, many species are quite hardy, and if enough individuals survive, they manage to make it through.. But do please take note that there is a difference between survival of the SPECIES and survival of the INDIVIDUALS!! are we humans, as hardy a SPECIES as we are reputed to be, really capable of surviving if the climate changes become more drastic?? We have become increasingly inflexible with time, and our increasing numbers (and yes, we have a huge overpopulation problem) will not make things easy at all if the climate changes only a little bit more. Yes, the human SPECIES will most probably survive the coming changes, but how many of the INDIVIDUALS will die, before things stabilize again?!?

    Honestly, do please switch your brains on, and use the senses you were given to gather information. In particularly, your eyes and ears are more than just pretty adornments for your head, do make use of them. Gather data, and reach conclusions. As bad and partial as news services are, you also have the internet. There is enough information to start checking out changes in the climate patterns, and if you do it just a bit, you’re bound to notice what any logically thinking person does: there are changes occuring, and they are not good. At least not good for us humans, who are to a great degree responsible for them.

    STOP STICKING YOUR BLOODY HEAD IN THE SAND UNTIL IT’S TOO LATE!

  173. Blood and Guts Patton says:

    “Nazis”? Using that term like a schoolgirl with her panties all in a bunch is an insult to the brave men and women who fought and died doing the dirty work during WWII. It’s time chickenhawk wimps like you stopped using true American heroes to further your cheap and tawdry political ambitions.

    • Quilpie says:

      Well at least here Dr Spencer lets more or less anyone post their comment… not like Skeptical Science who sensor any comment that dares to question their gospels… or the comments section in the Guardian. I tried to post a comment at the Guardian under this article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap?commentpage=1 a number of times. It makes it on there but as soon as it is “liked” and commented on it gets deleted… what’s the deal.

      Below is the actual comment I have posted at the Guardian… tell me how it breeches community standards?

      “As per the definitions in the Cook et el paper that Dana co-authored, he know’s full well that Dr Roy Spencer falls into the “97%” category.
      He has stated many times that he believes that
      1.) the earth is warming
      2.) part of that warming is due to anthropogenic causes
      This fits definitions (2) Explicit endorsement and (3) Implicit endorsement. link to paper .

      The fact that this paper was peer reviewed and published totally undermines the entire peer review process. I note in the paper there is no breakdown of the first 3 categories which have conveniently been lumped into one basket “Endorse AGM”. Maybe the author(s) should have added the categories…
      1) “Humans are contributing to global warming but are not the primary cause”
      2) and “Global warming is not particularly dangerous or catastrophic”.

      Where Dr Spencer differs from the hard line AGW proponents is that he believes the evidence suggests most observed warming (as much as half or more) is due to natural variability and warming is not catastrophic. So my question why has the above article inferred that Dr Spencer and others are in the “2-4%” like some kind or pariahs when they are not?

      Additionally why is there an obsession with polarisation on this topic? Why is it always “them and us”, eco-warriors vs deniers, good vs evil? Clearly there is a lot of space in the grey area in between which is actually where most scientists sit. Why is it that many climate scientists can’t accept their research and theories contain weaknesses which are being scrutinised as per scientific method as they should be? I recently read a paper by Legates et el that suggests extreme CAGW proponents (i.e. all observed warming is human caused and climate change is dangerous and catastrophic) actually fall in the 0.3% of scientists. It is interesting that it is this small minority of scientists that carry on most with the nasty slandering, false accusations and misleading information about any of those that dare scrutinise pro AGW work?

      Is AGW science so bad that it can’t speak for or stand up for itself?

      Is it so weak that that supported have to turn to writing utter rubbish and constant ad hominem that is actually a very common trait of fascist and communist states?

      I don’t remember Einstein carrying on this. He also never had any consensus when he published his work. It’s rare for any scientist to try to stop all forms of criticism or debate against their work… so why do so many pro AGW scientists suggest such action? When are the pro CAGW crowd going to accept that there are many people and scientists in the grey area of AGW and don’t believe that it is
      1.) necessarily bad or
      2.) that CO2 is as big a player as is made out?

      Despite all the AGW proponent views, this is not a them vs us battle on AGW… it is actually a quest to understand the nature of our climate system and how big an impact we are having on it. Thankfully we have a lot of measuring equipment installed now… in the oceans, in space and on the ground… the data over time will reveal the true picture. It is the earth that will tell us the real story… not the anti-debate advocates or eco-zealots.”

  174. Tony Butler says:

    The makers of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and the Government scientists, conceded in the British High Court, that rising global temperatures cause identical rises in the levels of CO2, 800 -2,000 yrs later. (It takes centuries for the oceans to warm and thus create more CO2) As the Judge put iy. “Mr Gore has inadvertently reversed the science of thew ice-cores.” I thought the anthropogenic global warming scam was dead in the water.

    The premise that rising CO2 levels created identical rises in global temperatures had been exposed as a reversal of the science.

    The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    So, for 650,000 yrs rising global temperatures were followed 800 – 2,000 year later by identical rises in levels of CO2 – until 1966?

    As a layman I am puzzled as to how the global warming alarmists can refer to current CO2 levels when they were caused by the historic global temperatures of 14 AD and 1200 AD?

    • What about you are referencing the actual scientific sources on which your assertions are based, instead of just repeating some hearsay you copy from second or third hand?

        • Your reply and showing the temperature record at one location of the world, in response to my request for the scientific sources for assertions doesn’t make any sense.

          Having said this, I see you still don’t know any confidence intervals. And yes, any statistically estimated parameters, including a moving average, has a confidence interval.

          • RichardLH says:

            “confidence intervals” on a filter. That’s a novel approach!

            Not all the world is statistics you know.

          • Not all the world is statistics you know.

            True. But data filtering as a noise reduction method belongs to statistics. The curve you obtain by applying the Savitzky-Golay method, which fits low degree polynomials to subsets of the data, or any other fitting method for the matter of fact, is a statistical approximation. That is, there is statistical uncertainty in the estimates. Accordingly, there should be confidence intervals for it. That’s not so different from applying Loess fits. Latter have confidence intervals, too.

            The same is true for your fits of the global temperature anomalies. Those fits aren’t of much use without information on the statistical uncertainty of those fits. Also, how are the curves you show supposed to refute global ocean warming?

          • RichardLH says:

            I know what S-G is and its limitations. I even mention those if you look hard enough.

            It is indeed the same (actually better because it fits to a curve rather than a line) as LOWESS. One is statistics, the other is engineering.

            The full kernel ‘Gaussian’ is not and cannot be an estimate however. That is what I use to validate the parameters chosen for the S-G.

            A ‘Gaussian’ filter does not have a confidence interval to it. I can be absolutely certain that it passes all frequencies above 15 years and rejects all those below.

          • Your Gaussian filter should have confidence intervals too. You still apply your method on data, which were statistically sampled and have a statistical uncertainty. The answer you get from applying any filtering method you apply on the data is uncertain. Your curve is still just a statistical approximation, no matter what. And usually, the confidence intervals get wider near the ends of the data series.

      • RichardLH says:

        “Your Gaussian filter should have confidence intervals too. You still apply your method on data, which were statistically sampled and have a statistical uncertainty.”

        I can be as certain as to the validity of the data in Gaussian filtering as you are about Monthly or Yearly averages. More so in fact as a Gaussian filter does not have the very poor sub-sampling, running single mean frequency characteristics that the normal SSRM does.

        The Annual CRTM is more accurate by a large margin than a trivial 13 month SSRM.

        The 15 year one likewise more accurate over its period.

        In fact if you will supply me with a hourly sampled signal of the appropriate length I will supply you with an even more accurate trace that will show exactly the same behaviour.

        I would strongly suggest that you study some engineering rather than statistics if you wish to criticize those curves in more detail. You are obviously out of your depth.

        You do believe that a Annual average figure, or a Monthly or Daily one is a valid basis for analysis don’t you? You do understand just how poor that methodology is?

        Welcome to what happens if you take just a slightly longer, 15 year, viewpoint.

        • I can be as certain as to the validity of the data in Gaussian filtering as you are about Monthly or Yearly averages.

          Also monthly and yearly averages have statistical uncertainties, and, accordingly, confidence intervals. I am only as “certain” about those averages up to the degree of their statistical uncertainty. I can’t make scientifically valid claims about data from a statistical system, e.g., whether two average values statistically differ from each other, w/o taking into account this uncertainty. And you are making big claims.

          I would strongly suggest that you study some engineering rather than statistics if you wish to criticize those curves in more detail. You are obviously out of your depth.

          Ah. Here comes the ad hominem. I already have been waiting for it. And yet, it’s just another engineer with an inflated ego who thinks to know it all better in a scientific field where he is just a layman. You are the one who is over his head in the field of climate science.

          There is barely any other field, like the field of climate science, that comes to my mind where as many laymen are notoriously convinced to know it all better than the ones who actually intensively study and work in the field, and where as many laymen think the ones who work in the field are all just dumb. Interestingly, the degree of ego-inflation of the laymen that is displayed also seems to be inversely correlated with the actual knowledge about the field, even about the basics.

          You do believe that a Annual average figure, or a Monthly or Daily one is a valid basis for analysis don’t you? You do understand just how poor that methodology is?

          Welcome to what happens if you take just a slightly longer, 15 year, viewpoint.

          To what does this refer what I am supposed to have said? At what time frame am I looking, allegedly? You are attacking a strawman, which you have created yourself. If you want to debate any of my statements do it based on quotation of such statements and proof of source, please. Don’t attack what you only have made up at your convenience to score a cheap point.

          • RichardLH says:

            I do rather know about sampling theorem and the errors that encompass it. As you observe any sampling methodology has uncertainty to it. Even the Daily figure that Monthly and Yearly are based on. There would be (smaller) errors if we were to switch to an Hourly basis.

            The nice thing about uncertainty though, is that if you accumulate enough samples, you can reduce the amount of it left.

            So for instance, you can be more certain that an average of 365 days produces a more accurate figure than an individual day. Likewise we can be sure that 15 years or 75 years accumulation is a more accurate summary than an individual year.

            That’s just the way it works.

            What you’re trying desperately NOT to explain is why a low pass filter, of a better and more accurate methodology than the one you normally rely on, shows that there is significant periodic structure to the temperature record to date and that validated projections from those figures says that it is more likely to go down in the near future than go up.

            http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters.png

            The data is all from the approved source authorities. The methodology used is approved by acknowledged experts in the field. The observations it draws are just not to your flavour.

          • You are babbling and presenting irrelevant points to the question at hand. All I ask you is to show your results, you obtain from filtering a statistical data set, with confidence intervals around the curves included. If the outcome is that those intervals are very small, fine, but you haven’t shown that. You are making big claims based on your curves. You also present non-sequitur conclusion from it, but I already had addressed this somewhere else. There is no ground for any further discussion, if you don’t even acknowledge such a basic aspect of the methodology that it is a prerequisite to take statistical uncertainty in the data into consideration, before one can draw any scientifically valid conclusions.

          • RichardLH says:

            “You are babbling and presenting irrelevant points to the question at hand.”

            I am not sure how the history of the figures to date is irrelevant but…

            “All I ask you is to show your results, you obtain from filtering a statistical data set, with confidence intervals around the curves included.”

            But I don’t have a curve that I created. That is the point and something you just don’t get. I draw nothing. The data draws something. That Annual line. I didn’t create it. It is purely a summary of the figures themselves, i.e. the 12 month data drawn with an accurate monthly sampled rate.

            “If the outcome is that those intervals are very small, fine, but you haven’t shown that.”

            These are Monthly sampled figures, at Monthly intervals summarised by longer filter lengths. They are more accurate (mathematically) than the simple, sub-samples single running mean you typically call ‘Yearly’.

            “You are making big claims based on your curves.”

            I make NO claims – only observations and questions.

            “You also present non-sequitur conclusion from it, but I already had addressed this somewhere else.”

            What conclusion – that a validated known method that shows that a particular outcome is likely in the near future? Based on the factual summary of data that it follows?

            “There is no ground for any further discussion, if you don’t even acknowledge such a basic aspect of the methodology that it is a prerequisite to take statistical uncertainty in the data into consideration, before one can draw any scientifically valid conclusions.”

            You either do not understand how filters work or do not accept that they can be used at longer lengths that you feel it is convenient and ‘proper’ to use them. You will happily use Daily, Monthly, Yearly in your offerings but as soon as someone tries the same (actually better) at 15 years you run and hide and say it is invalid. Talk about discrimination on filter length.

          • RichardLH says:

            If it makes you feel happier, why don’t you take whatever confidence intervals are quoted by the originating sources for those figures and say that the answers I produce will be at least that in accuracy/confidence interval!

            Actually the answer is smaller than that. Try 15 * 12 * the monthly error and assume a normal distribution of sampling error if you want an approximate and final answer. It will be smaller than the input figures themselves – but you knew that already right?

          • But I don’t have a curve that I created. That is the point and something you just don’t get. I draw nothing. The data draws something.

            Oh. Now I see. It’s not you with the methodology you apply to carry out noise reduction. It’s the data themselves, these little buggers. They are arranging themselves in the graphic. You are just leaning back and watching them.

          • RichardLH says:

            I am observing that the data exhibits a cyclic form. With an apparent periodicity of ~60 years. What are your conclusions as to why that pattern should/does occur?

  175. And in the meantime, while Roy Spencer ups the rhetoric and delves into absurd conspiracy fantasies about an agenda of world control behind established climate science, supposedly pursued by sinister, omnipotent global forces, and his followers are raving in response, the multi-decadal global ocean warming continues.

    http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2014/01/no-hiatus-pausestop-in-global-ocean.html

    And it will continue as long as greenhouse gas emissions from human activities continue to increase the mass of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Accordingly, warming of the surface and the troposphere will continue as well, since the atmosphere is just an energetic appendix, regarding heat accumulation in the climate system due to the perturbation in the radiative balance by the increasing greenhouse gases. Sometimes, the short-term trend at the surface (like the one since 1998) will be below the longer term trend, at other times it will be above the longer term trend (like between the years 2002 and 2006, when it was about 0.27 Kelvin per decade) due to natural variability, but that won’t change the longer term outcome.

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Jan,

      The recent 17 year halt in warming is nothing. What about the 45 plus year slight decline in warming from 1936 to 1982?:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1982/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1982/trend

      And this is in spite of your former boss monkeying with the temperature data, cooling the past and warming the present, and in spite of the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2.

      Secondly, the warming rate of the early 20th century was statistically no different rate-wise than the late 20th century warming (even Phil Jones agrees with this)

      And finally, when is NASA GISS going to get back to its original intended purpose, which was, “to do basic research in space sciences in support of Goddard Space Flight center programs”, before it was hijacked by the nutcase James Hansen. You guys are wasting my hard earned tax dollars.

      • And this is in spite of your former boss monkeying with the temperature data, cooling the past and warming the present, and in spite of the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2.

        This statement alone contains two examples for the non-scientific pseudo arguments by fake skeptics, commonly used by them to attack the results from scientific research not liked by them.

        1. Attacking the climate scientists who conduct the research, by using innuendo or open accusation of misconduct.

        2. Strawman argumentation like this one: It didn’t warm despite “rapid increase in atmospheric CO2″. As if anyone claimed that CO2 was the only factor that could cause temperature variability.

        And finally, when is NASA GISS going to get back to its original intended purpose, which was, “to do basic research in space sciences in support of Goddard Space Flight center programs”, before it was hijacked by the nutcase James Hansen. You guys are wasting my hard earned tax dollars.

        And here, in addition to attacking the scientists again, using political arguments against the science.

        This is why the AGW-deniers/fake skeptics are no true skeptics. The arguments of the fake skeptics don’t have anything to do with actual scientific skepticism. Instead, they have hijacked the term “skeptic”, and use it as a term for political/ideological identification. For them, rejecting the science is not about the science itself. Instead, it’s primarily a political/ideological fight for them. One can see this already from the original post by Roy Spencer. (His views additionally have a strong religious component in the background, under which his scientific views are subordinated, though. But that may be true for quite a number of the fake skeptics, too. Many of them likely also hold creationist views.)

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Jan “I shoot you dead” Perlwitz:

          NASA GISS had a specific purpose when created, and nutcase Hansen changed it. GISS, (Goddard Institute of Space Studies). What the hell do you do there that has anything to do with space studies or in support of Goddard Space Flight Center? Nothing. You and your fake scientists with their fake science and fake studies are wasting money studying a fake problem, using fake models that have no basis in reality.

          I AM a true skeptic and scientist who understands the scientific method. Who understands when people like you, Hansen, Trenberth, Jones and the rest of the Climategate science quacks are trying to pull the wool over my eyes. YOU clowns are the ideologues. Hansen in his 1988 fake testimony before congress had NO scientific evidence concerning CO2 and warming. He had NO qualifications as a atmospheric physicist. He was a total environmental nutcase with a “cause”.

          The year that Hansen became head of NASA GISS, he published the following paper:

          http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

          On page 5 of the document, Hansen makes the following statement:

          “A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940″

          Looking at Figure 3, it shows 1980 temperatures about o.15C cooler than 1940. Now, spring forward to the latest NASA GISS graph:

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

          1980 is now about 0.2C higher than 1940. Thank you Hansen for the artificial 0.35C rise in temperature! Wow! The Mann/Hansen tag team is a win-win!

          I rest my case.

          • I AM a true skeptic and scientist who understands the scientific method.

            You are not a true skeptic. A true skeptic doesn’t use non-scientific arguments against results from scientific research. A true skeptic debates scientific hypothesis and theories on the grounds of science using scientific arguments, presents alternative hypotheses and backs them up with empirical evidence. A true skeptic has to adhere to high standards. These are the standards to which scientists are mandated to adhere. The scientists themselves are the ones who are the true skeptics.

            You don’t do anything of this. You just use the common arsenal of pseudo-arguments of the fake skeptics who use the term “skeptic” as a false flag, e.g., smearing scientists, applying strawman arguments, using political and ideological arguments. Your whole comment here was nothing else than a smear attack. You are just a fake skeptic. And a liar. And you have falsified a quote to attack my person.

            And why should I believe that you are a scientist like you claim? I only see a noise-making anonymous coward on display.

            YOU clowns are the ideologues.

            Why would I be an ideologue? Unlike you, I do not use non-scientific, politically/ideologically motivated arguments against science.

            Looking at Figure 3, it shows 1980 temperatures about o.15C cooler than 1940. Now, spring forward to the latest NASA GISS graph:

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

            1980 is now about 0.2C higher than 1940. Thank you Hansen for the artificial 0.35C rise in temperature!

            Figure 3 in the Science paper by Hansen et al. (1981) shows the 5-year running mean of cumulative trends of the surface temperature, derived from a smaller number of meteorological station and ship measurement data. The data base for the GISS temperature analysis today is much larger than it was 35 years ago, since more and more data have been integrated in the analysis, now it uses SST reanalysis data for the ocean part, and there have been some methodological changes. Thus, it is to be expected that there are differences between what was shown in Figure 3 in the 1981 paper compared to today’s analysis. Additionally, GISS doesn’t produce the input data for the analysis. The input data come from outside sources.

            The fact that there are differences between the results from an analysis published 33 years ago and the one today is not evidence for the validity of your accusations of misconduct. Those accusations are baseless, they are nothing else than libelous smear, and you are obviously clueless about the topic. You claim to understand the scientific method? There is nothing coming from you that indicates that this was true.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Jan “I SHOOT YOU DEAD” Perlwitz

            Let’s see, Hansen et al 1981. Did Hansen produce his study in strict accordance with the scientific method? NO. One repeatedly ignored tenet of the scientific method is:

            This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. [wikipedia]

            Did Hansen perform this critical step? NO. He made temperature predictions to the year 2100 based on his hypothesis and did not test his hypothesis. Might as well get out an ouji board. This paper does not fall under the realm of science. More like science fiction.

            Hansen is in good company, for all IPCC temperature projections additional fail to meet the standards of the scientific method. You do remember studying the scientific method in school? Maybe you slept through those lectures.

          • @SkepticGoneWild:

            As a fake skeptic, liar, and falsifier of quotes, you are not qualified to judge about this.

  176. RichardLH says:

    “And it will continue as long as greenhouse gas emissions from human activities continue to increase the mass of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    ASSUMING that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have the same immediate impact on global temperatures given the multiple, competing, feedback paths that exist in the larger scale, as they do on much smaller scale laboratory experiments.

    That’s a big assuming.

    • No, based on what we know about the physics of the climate system.

      About what small scale laboratory experiments are you talking here? The oceans are warming. In the real world.

      • RichardLH says:

        “The oceans are warming. In the real world.”

        And your longer term projections (and hindcasts) on that are….

        Sure it is possible to demonstrate that they have warmed in the last 30 years or so. They do that on a regular basis and then cool again. That is what the long term data says anyway. Would you like a view of the PDO since 1470 to back that up?

        http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-15-and-75-year-filters1.png

        (Assuming that you accept that PDO is a driver of sea temperatures in the Pacific that is).

        • Sure it is possible to demonstrate that they have warmed in the last 30 years or so. They do that on a regular basis and then cool again. That is what the long term data says anyway.

          Show me the data and the scientific sources. The global surface/tropospheric temperature hasn’t just gone up and down over the 20th century. There has been a secular warming trend, longer than the phases of the PDO last.

          The PDO index has shown a downward trend since the 1980s, while the global surface/tropospheric temperature has been going up. In the first half of the century there is an opposite pattern. Where is the alleged correlation between PDO and global surface/tropospheric temperature?

          Would you like a view of the PDO since 1470 to back that up?

          How did you produce this curve for the PDO? Based on what data? You do not provide any information on the sources and how you made this curve.

          And how does the PDO index correlate to the global surface/troposphere temperature from the late 19th century to today?

          (Assuming that you accept that PDO is a driver of sea temperatures in the Pacific that is).

          I can’t accept that because the PDO is a pattern of the Pacific sea surface temperature anomaly. Thus, saying the PDO was a driver of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific is logically just a tautology. The statement that the Pacific sea surface temperatures drive the Pacific sea surface temperatures isn’t a physical explanation for anything.

          Generally, when we talk about a “driver” of climate change we talk about an independent variable that causes changes in dependent climate variables. The sea surface temperature is not a driver of climate climate. It’s just a dependent variable that interacts with other climate variables.

          • RichardLH says:

            As you might suspect from the name of the image it was from Shen 2006.

            I did not say (or anyway did not mean to say) that the PDO is a driver of temperature. That has never been shown to be true. It does, however, at the very least track its overall behaviour in a temperature sense. Or do you dispute that too.

          • RichardLH says:

            P.S. You might have got that from the label on the top! Did you even bother to look at it?

          • RichardLH says:

            “The PDO index has shown a downward trend since the 1980s, while the global surface/tropospheric temperature has been going up. In the first half of the century there is an opposite pattern. Where is the alleged correlation between PDO and global surface/tropospheric temperature?”

            Welcome to the world of abstract terminology. Up does not always mean positive, it can just as well be negative. It is only a sign change on an abstract value! So write it as -PDO if that makes you happier.

          • As you might suspect from the name of the image it was from Shen 2006.

            “Shen 2006″ is not proper biblographical information. I am not in such a generous mood today to search around what reference and data could be meant, exactly. I have a paper by Shen et al. AAS (2006), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00376-006-0291-z here. That paper’s topic is measuring soil dust concentrations and mineral fractions at a location in China. Obviously, that one isn’t meant.

          • Welcome to the world of abstract terminology. Up does not always mean positive, it can just as well be negative. It is only a sign change on an abstract value! So write it as -PDO if that makes you happier.

            Why should I write it as “-PDO”? Why would that make me happier? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make any sense to me. What is the relationship supposed to be between the sign of the PDO index and the Pacific temporal sea surface temperature variability or the temporal global surface/troposphere temperature variability? Aren’t we talking about the change over time here?

          • RichardLH says:

            Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reconstruction
            ———————————————————————–
            World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
            and
            NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
            ———————————————————————–
            NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!

            NAME OF DATA SET: Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reconstruction
            LAST UPDATE: 4/2006 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
            CONTRIBUTOR: Caiming Shen, State University of New York, Albany.
            IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2006-045

            SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Shen, C., et al. 2006.
            Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reconstruction.
            IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
            Data Contribution Series # 2006-045.
            NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

            ORIGINAL REFERENCE:
            Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
            A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed
            from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
            Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.
            doi:10.1029/2005GL024804.

          • RichardLH says:

            “Why should I write it as “-PDO”? ”

            Because you had observed a negative correlation and the sign in abstract values is by convention only?

            Thus it can be either a positive or a negative correlation without affect the results.

            “Show me the data and the scientific sources. The global surface/tropospheric temperature hasn’t just gone up and down over the 20th century.”

            The data sources are, UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS as you would notice if you actually looked at the graph and its legend.

            Do you need me to post the urls that the data came from as well.

            http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
            http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
            http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

            Pretty poor researcher and scientists you are if you need that level of provision in a blog post.

          • RichardLH says:

            Jan: Just to help you find relevant information when someone suggest there may be something of interest.

            http://bit.ly/1bEerml

          • “Why should I write it as “-PDO”? ”

            Because you had observed a negative correlation and the sign in abstract values is by convention only?

            Thus it can be either a positive or a negative correlation without affect the results.

            I was talking about about the correlation between PDO index and global temperature, i.e., about the statistical relationship between the change in the PDO index and the change in the temperature. The sign of the absolute value of the PDO index is irrelevant for this correlation, regardless the sign of the correlation. You were the one who suddenly started to talk about the sign of the PDO index, without any meaningful connection to what I had written. You seem to be confused about this.

            “Show me the data and the scientific sources. The global surface/tropospheric temperature hasn’t just gone up and down over the 20th century.”

            The data sources are, UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS as you would notice if you actually looked at the graph and its legend.

            Are you serious? I have shown that there has been an ongoing global ocean warming. In reply to this you made following assertion:

            “Sure it is possible to demonstrate that they have warmed in the last 30 years or so. They do that on a regular basis and then cool again. That is what the long term data says anyway.”

            I asked you for the data and sources to back up this assertion. Are you seriously claiming that the data sets, which you just have named here, support your claim that the global temperature was merely going up and then down again (the original statement was about the oceans, though)?

            Here is a graphical representation of one of the data sets:
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

            Does the temperature anomaly, which can be seen there, merely goes up and then down again, according to you? Is this what you see there? Because I see a secular net warming trend over the whole of the 20th century. Thus, I guess, one of us must have a very distorted perception.

            As for the references to the Shen et al. GRL (2006) for the PDO reconstruction. Thank you very much! Why was this so complicated? I hadn’t known this particular data set and the publication. Now, my question is what did you want to demonstrate with showing those data? You brought them in the context of your reply to my statement about the global ocean warming. But the PDO is not a measure for the global ocean temperature. So nothing can be concluded about the global ocean temperature variability from this reconstructed PDO index.

          • RichardLH says:

            Add this to the Chen data (which extends it back before CO2 can be considered to be the ’cause’).

            http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/PDOLowpass_zpsa9b3df25.png

            Then compare to the timings in this.

            http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png

            and tell me what you see. An apparently matching behaviour one against the other?

            P.S. Did you see that rather rhymic behaviour of the PDO in the Shen 2006 data (which given the site where it comes from I am surprised you did not know about of could not find with Google).

          • RichardLH says:

            Jan:

            Just so that you can compare Shen, jisao and HadCrut (detrended) on a single image -
            http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-15-and-75-year-filters-and-hadcrut-overlay.png

            And yes, the data sources are all valid, the treatment is valid, etc.

        • http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/PDOLowpass_zpsa9b3df25.png

          Then compare to the timings in this.

          http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png

          and tell me what you see. An apparently matching behaviour one against the other?

          No, I don’t see this alleged matching behaviour one against the other. They don’t match. The PDO index started to decrease in the 1980s, but the global temperature didn’t. So we have a decrease in the PDO-index during the 1980/90s, but an increase in the temperature, i.e., an inverse (negative) correlation between the two during these two decades.

          On the other hand, in the first half of the 20th century, between 1920 and 1940, both the PDO index and the global temperature were increasing. Thus, the correlation was positive during those two decades.

          Two different behaviours at two different time periods. That tells me that those correlations (negative or positive) are just temporary pattern, which rather occur by coincidence, whereas over the whole of the 20th century, there isn’t any clear statistical relationship between PDO index and global temperature. They are not well correlated with each other.

          • RichardLH says:

            Jan:

            Just so that you can compare Shen, jisao and HadCrut (detrended) on a single image -
            http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-15-and-75-year-filters-and-hadcrut-overlay.png

            And yes, the data sources are all valid, the treatment is valid, etc.

          • How were the HadCRUT data detrended? By subtracting the linear trend from 1850 to present day? If it was done in this way, then all the non-linear components of the anthropogenic factors causing temperature variability are still not removed. And you can’t validly conclude that the temporal variations are all just natural variability.

          • RichardLH says:

            Jan:

            “How were the HadCRUT data detrended? By subtracting the linear trend from 1850 to present day?”

            As that is the normal terminology for the work done, then yes.

            I would like to have used the greater than 75 year trend line to have done it properly, but the data length is too short for that to be applicable currently. So Linear trend will have to stand in for any longer term ‘natural variability’ of longer than 75 years.

            However as that only alters the basic line slope not the inflection points that is a pointless observation in any case.

            You claimed that PDO and Global temps were not in anyway linked. That graph proves you wrong quite neatly.

          • You claimed that PDO and Global temps were not in anyway linked. That graph proves you wrong quite neatly.

            How so? You don’t show the global temperature in this graphic. You only show what’s left after removing the linear trend, i.e., you have removed a large part of the anthropogenic signal. Secondly, it is doubtful that there is only a linear contribution from anthropogenic forcing to the temperature variability. So, you can’t simply conclude that all you see, what’s left after removing the linear trend, is only natural variability. But apparently, you already have decided to ignore this objection, since I had made it already in my previous comment. Also, you are aware that correlation doesn’t prove causality, aren’t you?

            But maybe you can explain to me in words, what relationship I am supposed to see between PDO and global temperature?

          • RichardLH says:

            As the PDO is itself based around a zero centre line, the only way you can sensibly compare it to temperature is a detrend the temp data which is what I did.

            If you cannot see that a downwards trend in one is then reflected later in time by a downwards trend in the other and vice versa then there is probably not much I can help you with. Normally called lag – you know.

            You claimed they are completely unrelated. If that were the case there would be no such co-incidental patterns of rise and fall to be observed between the two.

            As to any longer than 75 year pattern, then take great care where you tread. The CO2 rise cannot account for that as the rise happens too early and, in any case, temperature patterns before 1850 do not match the CO2 levels at that time.

            You want me to go back to regional data such as CET to demonstrate that fact?

  177. gangsta says:

    Be as accurate with the language as possible. Prepend “discredited” to the “global warming nazi” moniker.

  178. Roy Spencer writes:

    When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

    They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

    Isn’t this just in your head? Something you project yourself into something, when it is not said? How would you infer that “AGW-denier” is being used to equate with Shoa deniers? “Denier” is someone who is in denial, which is a known psychological defense mechanism.

    “1. Denial

    Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit. For instance, a person who is a functioning alcoholic will often simply deny they have a drinking problem, pointing to how well they function in their job and relationships.”
    (http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251)

    People can be in denial regarding many things. The claim that calling someone an “AGW-denier” meant equating this person with a Shoa denier is a non-sequitur. Your whole rationalization, which you use to justify for yourself and for others to insult others as “Nazis” is a big logical fail.

    • RichardLH says:

      Jan P Perlwitz says:
      February 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

      ““Denier” is someone who is in denial, which is a known psychological defense mechanism.”

      As in denying that there may be some reason other than CO2 which just might be responsible for a larger proportion of the recent warming than currently allowed for?

      Given that the ‘inevitable’ upwards trend has yet to resume and might even be considered to be falling.

      In the UK anyway….

      http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cet-monthly-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-and-75-years-filters-with-a-15-year-savitzky-golay-projection.png

      • As in denying that there may be some reason other than CO2 which just might be responsible for a larger proportion of the recent warming than currently allowed for?

        And who is denying such a thing? “May be”, “might” are used for stating a possibility. The absence of such a possibility of another cause than CO2 would require absolute certainty about CO2 being the cause. Who is supposed to have claimed that there was absolute certainty? I don’t know anyone, any scientific publication where such a thing was claimed. There is no absolute certainty about anything in science. This is an epistemological question.

        Given that the ‘inevitable’ upwards trend has yet to resume and might even be considered to be falling.

        I only can repeat myself. These are just scientifically invalid claims, i.e., the one about the alleged “pause” or even about “cooling”, without taking into account statistical uncertainty.

        • RichardLH says:

          A reasonable observation of the data series available shows that the linear rise that had been projected to occur (Linear Trend = Tangent to the curve = Flat Earth) has not continued.

          There is good scientific observation (using a close cousin of LOWESS and validated by a match to an invariant surrey of the data to date) that we have in fact passed a local peak.

          The time taken to resume any underlying upward trend (or if indeed that underlying trend itself has now also reached a peak) will have to wait for new data.

          http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png

          • A reasonable observation of the data series available shows that the linear rise that had been projected to occur (Linear Trend = Tangent to the curve = Flat Earth) has not continued.

            Please state the sources, on which you base your claim that a linear rise of the global temperature had been projected. I don’t know any scientific source, where this alleged projection of a linear rise has been made. You are just making this up or you have copied this false claim from some non-scientific source. If latter, which one?

            There is good scientific observation (using a close cousin of LOWESS and validated by a match to an invariant surrey of the data to date) that we have in fact passed a local peak.

            You are just repeating the same assertion over and over, and you still don’t show any confidence intervals, which would be needed to put the wiggles that can be seen in a context of the statistical uncertainty.

            Do you believe that the curves you obtain by applying your filtering methods aren’t just statistical approximations? Do you believe they represent absolute truth about Nature?

          • RichardLH says:

            Linear trends are only applicable over the range they are from. They have no validity at all outside of that range.

            They are completely useless at most things and demonstrate a very narrow, blinkered view of things.

          • RichardLH says:

            The confidence intervals are less than the confidence intervals for the monthly data on which the filters are drawn.

            So tell me, what ARE the confidence intervals for the Monthly data?

            That is your answer.

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Jan,

      Even professor Micha Tomkiewicz, a physicist, AGW believer, and Holocaust survivor, stated in an article about climate change and the Holocaust:

      “The comment reflects the undeniable fact that the term “deniers” has a direct association specifically with Holocaust deniers and captures much of the intellectual spirit and tone of this debate.”

      Unfortunately he approves of the term and further stated:

      “We know what we must do to mitigate this possible future genocide, but we need our collective will to do so. We can’t allow the deniers to win again.” [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2012/04/22/first-post/]

      Earlier in this blog, I made several references that linked the term “denier” to Holocaust denial:

      “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” [Ellen Goodman, 2007; http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

      In a March 23, 2006 interview about his coverage of environmental issues Scott Pelley was actually asked by CBSNews.com's senior political reporter Brian Montopoli why he refused to include skeptics of global warming and he replied: "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"

      "Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust." [http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php]

      “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as Holocaust denial.” [George Monbiot, Published in the Guardian 21st September 21, 2006.}

      Maybe you should spend more time on your own blog, and instead of hurling the hate term “denier” around, make your boring blog posts interesting. In 2014 no one made any comments on your blog. And for all of 2013, you had only 14 comments, most of which were probably relatives of yours who you bribed to post something. And then you spent half of 2013 whining about Anthony Watts permanently banning you from WUWT because of your post on WUWT where you threatened to shoot another WUWT commenter dead. No wonder nobody visits your blog. You take “creepy” to a whole new level.

      I suggest you abandon your blog and maybe try and join the SkS team. You’d fit right in.

      • Even professor Micha Tomkiewicz, a physicist, AGW believer, and Holocaust survivor, stated in an article about climate change and the Holocaust:
        “The comment reflects the undeniable fact that the term “deniers” has a direct association specifically with Holocaust deniers and captures much of the intellectual spirit and tone of this debate.”

        Why “even professor…”? Why some physics professor said it it was true?

        This is his personal view. I don’t agree with this claim about the “direct association”. You certainly can find examples where some people explicitly make such an association or where comparisons are made, but it still doesn’t follow that the use of the term “denier” by itself implies the alleged equation.

        And then you spent half of 2013 whining about Anthony Watts permanently banning you from WUWT because of your post on WUWT where you threatened to shoot another WUWT commenter dead.

        Firstly, you are blatantly lying. I didn’t spend half of 2013 with this topic. Secondly, you seem to have a problem with the concept of the right to self-defense of an attacked person, when someone tries to do lynching of this person, at least when the targets were climate scientists. I am not surprised. (Interestingly, articulating fantasies or announcements of violence against climate scientists doesn’t get you permanently banned from Watts’ WUWT blog. This seems to be within the tolerable.)

        And no, I don’t need any suggestions from some fake skeptic what I should do.

  179. richard says:

    Hello Jan,

    I typed ALCOHOLIC DENIERS into google to see how many were denying their problem,

    well alcoholic certainly came up !

    first up in Google was

    Al Gore: Climate Change Deniers Like Racists, Homophobes …
    http://www.breitbart.com/…/Al-Gore-Climate-Change-Deniers-Like-Racists-Ho…‎;
    Al Gore: Climate Change Deniers Like Racists, Homophobes, Alcoholics, Smokers. by Elizabeth Sheld 22 Aug 2013 post a comment. Share This: …
    Gore Compares Climate Deniers to ‘an Alcoholic Father … – TheBlaze
    http://www.theblaze.com/…/gore-compares-climate-deniers-to-an-alcoholic-fat…‎;
    22 Aug 2013 – Al Gore, former vice president turned environmental advocate, in a recent interview said climate change is often an avoided topic because …
    Gore: Climate change ‘deniers’ like ‘an alcoholic father’ – The Lead …
    thelead.blogs.cnn.com/…/gore-climate-change-deniers-like-an-alcoholic-…‎
    22 Aug 2013 – Former Vice President Al Gore is optimistic that climate change deniers are falling by the wayside, but the environmental crusader’s recent …

  180. richard says:

    22 Aug 2013 – Former Vice President Al Gore is optimistic that climate change deniers are falling by the wayside, but the environmental crusader’s recent …

    the only thing falling by the way side is al gore,

    http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=al%20gore&#65279;

  181. Tom Anderson says:

    I’d like to follow up an earlier very hasty post about closed versus open minds in general and specifically in debating climate.

    I was familiar with Milton Rokeach’s “Open and Closed Mind,” published in 1960, which I recommended. I decided tardily to check for later work on the subject. As we might expect, there has been more since then.

    The most recent title, in 2000, bearing Rokeach’s name is The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Amazon’s introduction to the Kindle version ($2.99) describes the book’s intent – paraphrasing – as (1) to define dogmatism as a cognitive state that mediates objective reality (sound familiar?), (2) to
    describe how it is organized, and (3) to propose postulates about the relation of dogmatism to linked traits, as a basis for measuring individual differences in dogmatism and for testable hypotheses for a “conceptual definition.”

    Because of how authoritarianism and intolerance converge with closed cognitive systems (dogmatism, the book aims also to examine assumptions of previous research on authoritarianism and intolerance for describing the whole behavior pattern. It seems to be a work in progress, so no conclusions yet, but it’s an active discipline and a worthy psychological endeavor.

    But it’s best to keep in mind, I think, that many of the more vituperative of greens – call them Nazis or jihadists, if you will – are disturbed personalities with whom it is best not to deal with on their own terms. There are other more effective ways – firmly rational, legal if necessary – to do that.

  182. Samuel Smith says:

    You’ve gone too far, not on climate change, but on your thesis statement (follows). There is NO connection between the argument on climate change and the Third Reich and tossing around the word Nazi demeans the significance and lesson of it. You reached too far and you should recant it.(“They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.”)

  183. JOHN REEVES says:

    HI ROY,, LOVE YR WORK. i agree its important to fightback against the tyranny of AGW.

  184. former says:

    This blog post is a massive failure. “Denialism” does not refer exclusively to “Holocaust denialism,” you dunce.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      It might as well, emotions are just as piqued.

      “CO2 in the air is not doing anything that is going to hurt you or people you care about or anybody else.”

      Say these words, and people will tell you, the world is coming to an end.

      Or maybe they will have to find a job or something and get out of their parent’s basement and take some personal responsibility good Lord can you imagine anybody with the nerve to say that

      Hi There trolling bloggers w/o the guts to print your correct name!

      • Austin Papageorge says:

        Alright, now I’m using my real name, since it matters so much to you.

        And now, I’m going to respond to every line of your incoherent reply.

        “It might as well, emotions are just as piqued.”

        Tough.

        “’CO2 in the air is not doing anything that is going to hurt you or people you care about or anybody else.’”

        It is a fact that CO2 has properties that accelerate global warming. It’s also a fact that polar ice caps are disappearing. This leads to a rise in sea level that can hurt people who live on the coast.

        “Say these words, and people will tell you, the world is coming to an end.”

        They’d be mistaken.

        “Or maybe they will have to find a job or something and get out of their parent’s basement and take some personal responsibility good Lord can you imagine anybody with the nerve to say that”

        What the fuck are you trying to say?

        “Hi There trolling bloggers w/o the guts to print your correct name!”

        Irrelevant.

        • Brian Valentine says:

          “What the fuck are you trying to say?”

          I’m telling you, Buster, that CO2 in the air is your misdirected concern and you can take that right to the bank and you have the option of wasting your life worrying about it.

          • Austin Papageorge says:

            “I’m telling you, Buster, that CO2 in the air is your misdirected concern and you can take that right to the bank and you have the option of wasting your life worrying about it.”

            But what does that have to do about employment, my parents’ basement or the price of orange juice in Ontario?

          • Brian Valentine says:

            It means that if you worry about that CO2 shit you have been told you can’t do anything to help anybody, not even help bring orange juice to Ontario

          • Austin Papageorge says:

            “It means that if you worry about that CO2 shit you have been told you can’t do anything to help anybody, not even help bring orange juice to Ontario”

            How does any of that make sense? Eh, whatever, you’re a total idiot, and that’s not my problem.

          • Brian Valentine says:

            Eh, from reading your your responses, you are your own.

            eh

  185. george Moore says:

    This is one if the most paranoid and ridiculous rants I have heard. No facts,No logic, No data, No evidence, supporting any of your claims. The use of they so often shows you are defending your self from the unnamed out to get you. Paranoia is your game. Your Phd and career is not even in the Climate Sciences!!!

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      So, change blog!

    • Brian Valentine says:

      So right you are, it is in engineering, in my case.

      Engineers tell you the truth, pal, and you can live with the truth in any form you please.

    • Eliza Doodle says:

      ” Your Phd and career is not even in the Climate Sciences!!! ”
      Hallelujah for that. Climate Scientists don’t understand the climate any more than the understand the Universe.
      They use pseudo-scientific method to promote a largely political endeavour.

      Climate Science does however give the less gifted an opportunity to remain in the cosy unreality of Academic life.

      • Brian Valentine says:

        Climate science used to be on a par as “science” as stock market forecasting. Trends, historical data, known cycles, that kind of thing were applied to forecast the future, it had all the value of astrology.

        Then it became a little sexier with the advent of “climate modeling.”

        Unfortunately for everybody else, this endeavor was not backed by actual science, but it became their own reality.

        So to say that I am a “climate science denier” is absolute accuracy

  186. Brian Valentine says:

    YOOOOOOOOO hoooo!

    Mister Rabbit!

    You there?

    You know who I am calling!

    Can you please come and tell these people that everything is going to be okay?

  187. Richard says:

    Oh Austin Austin Austin,

    Stop worrying , even the un predicts by 2100 the population of Africa will be four times that of Chiba today, for that to happen will mean that the climate in Africa will have to be wonderful.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Quit trying to make sense to Austin, will ya? He can’t deal with that.

      RABBIT WHERE ARE YOU WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET YOU HERE WHEN WE NEED YOU

    • Austin Papageorge says:

      “Oh Austin Austin Austin, Stop worrying , even the un predicts by 2100 the population of Africa will be four times that of Chiba today, for that to happen will mean that the climate in Africa will have to be wonderful.”

      That has nothing to do with global warming, Richard Richard Richard.

      • Brian Valentine says:

        austin austin austin they wouldn’t make the prediction if globel globul globule scaremongering wuz as real as they had already said it was they must be contradicting themselves austin

        RABBIT???

      • Villabolo says:

        If the UN is making such absurd predictions then it’s because they are not factoring global warming and other factors like aquifer depletion especially 90 years into the future.

        • Austin Papageorge says:

          “If the UN is making such absurd predictions then it’s because they are not factoring global warming and other factors like aquifer depletion especially 90 years into the future.”

          What part of the UN’s methodology indicates that they aren’t factoring in global warming? Even if they ignored global warming, how wouldn’t that indicate sloppiness on the UN’s part, rather than anything else?

          • richard says:

            oh auston, austin, austin,

            right now Israel is producing water from desalination plants at an incredibly cheap price.

            Imagine how this technology will have advanced in 90 years, after all go back 2000 years water was being shipped efficiently around countries by aquaducts.

            Imagine Austin this was 2000 years ago, imagine what they will able to do in another 90.

            http://www.touropia.com/ancient-aqueducts/

    • Austin Papageorge says:

      Some of you people seem to think that the global population can’t expand if global warming is happening as described by current research.

      Newsflash: That’s bullshit. No one in research has ever concluded that.

      • richard says:

        dear Austin,

        “Some of you people seem to think that the global population can’t expand if global warming is happening as described by current research”

        So what are you worried about then , it means the population is being fed, so agriculture is fine which means the weather is fine.

        • Austin Papageorge says:

          Just because the population is expanding doesn’t mean there aren’t other problems. Are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

          • richard says:

            Austin, Austin , Austin ,

            Calm down!!

            NASA Earth OBservatory – “Northern hemisphere is greening”

            world wide -leaf area index increasing ,

            2013 – bumper crops world wide,

            Polar bears increasing,

  188. Brian Valentine says:

    Well don’t worry, Rabbit will be here to tell you that you’re gonna die all because of Deniers.

    He’s got the magic touch to make you feel good about it, though.

    Rabbit

    RABBIT!!!!!!!!!

  189. Brian Valentine says:

    You had it comin’, Rabbit. After all those nasty contributions of yours.

    bgvalentine@verizon.net

  190. Jack III says:

    I’m fine with calling them parasites global warming nazis.

  191. Villabolo says:

    Your comparison and demonization are absurd regardless of the reasons (excuses) stated.

    You may yet live to see the day when tens of millions will die due to persistent crop failures resulting from the altered climate.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Quit being an idiot. Populations have increased or decreased according to availability.

      The populations that have made access to fossil fuel have always increased, no matter what the weather had brought to them.

      That is because they can bring in something from someplace else if they need it

      People like you are the reason there is no progress, congratulate yourself, please.

      • richard says:

        Populations have increased or decreased according to availability.

        where are they decreasing.

        Africa’s population is increasing the fastest. There again easy to see why,

        http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/africa-continent-of-plenty

        Once Africa concentrates more on expanding its own indigenous plants for food it will really take off,

        • richard says:

          after all,

          ” Fewer Africans face famine now than at any time since the world began counting. While it’s true that sub-Saharan Africa as a whole still leads the world in poverty and food insecurity rates, it is also true that in Uganda in East Africa and in the 15 countries of West Africa, food production now outpaces population growth”

  192. Villabolo says:

    “Quit being an idiot. Populations have increased or decreased according to availability.”

    Again, your insulting language makes you unworthy of a response. Nonetheless I will make one.

    Availability, as a rule, cannot be taken out of context. The impact that open ended fossil fuel use will have is unavoidable unless you want to believe that Carbon Dioxide has zero effect on temperatures.

    Do you believe that CO2 has no global warming potential at all regardless of how much of it is released?

  193. Brian Valentine says:

    “Nonetheless I will make one.”

    And to what do I owe this special courtesy. I am not going to speculate, I guess it is just the goodness of your heart.

    “Do you believe that CO2 has no global warming potential at all regardless of how much of it is released?”

    Whether it does or it doesn’t, sweetheart, people are not going to stay alive without it.

    Boa noite, por agora.

  194. Villabolo says:

    “Whether it does or it doesn’t, sweetheart, people are not going to stay alive without it.”

    That avoids the question. If you believe that it does have an effect then how much of it will be acceptable and how much will not?

  195. Brian Valentine says:

    This cannot go on all night.

    Here’s a quote from Roy:

    “Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.”

    Well Roy, maybe you should have!

  196. Brian Valentine says:

    You’re a tough one, Villalobo. But I will carry on because I like your name, it is close to a composer who I admire very much, he has been very meaningful to me.

    “1: Carbon Dioxide’s warming potential, or lack thereof.”

    There is no way to really state this, because it has no meaning. There are absorptivity measurements in the IR, and people have deduced some value to ascribe to this based on what they want, but in the atmosphere, it has no real meaning. I can tell you how it will influence a furnace, but that is all. If you want a “global warming potential” for CO2, first state one for water in the atmosphere, then I will give you a value based on that. Unfortunately you cannot do that because it is not given by the people who want the Earth to be warmed by CO2.

    “2: The sun being less luminous in geologic past ages.”

    Prepare a graph of the luminosity of a type G-V main sequence star over the past 15 million years and the relative position of the Earth and it’s variation in position and inclination over the period and I will interpret it for you. The point is, one is quite meaningless without the other.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Brian Valentine,

      Going a little further, perhaps, the simple response might be that the global warming potential of any GHG is precisely zero. This is especially noticeable after the Sun sets in the desert.

      As to the Sun and geologic past ages, it is quite obvious that the ground beneath our feet is no longer molten. The Earth has managed to cool in spite of the Sun’s luminosity over the last four and a half billion years or so. There seems to be no cogent reason to believe that the Earth will not continue to cool for some millions of years, barring unforeseen and probably catastrophic circumstances.

      Oh well.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

  197. Brian H says:

    Climanazis to the wall! Obama is arming all “his” departments, from DoE to USPS, to the teeth.

    • Brian Valentine says:

      Yeah, but cheer up, these things change with the elections.

      I am reminded of the book, 1984: “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.” Then: “Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia.”

      The point is the government can appoint people to say anything, nothing changes but the people who say them.

  198. barry says:

    I don’t use the term denier, because sometimes the discussion turns to word-usage, which is a waste of time. But while there are a couple of instances linking holocaust denial to global warming denial, I certainly do not and never have. The term is centuries old. The umbrage taken regarding this supposed link is far more prevalent (and opportunistic) than any intent to use it in the way causing offence.

    There’s plenty of name-calling on all sides, more’s the pity. This site, hosted by a qualified researcher, does better ignoring that than wading into the muck. I could have accepted a call for all parties to calm down on the language. That would have been an ok non-science post. But adding to the fray with Nazi references is reprehensible, and more so when the rationale is a race to the bottom.

  199. Basil says:

    There are two thing in Dr Spencer’s statement that are quite disturbing and lend me to believe that much of what he says is more right wing politically motivated than anything to do with true science.

    1) In any debate, calling someone a “Nazi” invokes Goodwins Law of Debate which simply suggests that anyone who resorts to calling another a “Nazi” or “Hitler” in a debate has basically nothing of substance to retort with, and has degenerated the discussion to the point where it cannot continue, and basically invalidates their own argument.

    2) Another red flag…invoking “Capitalism” into a scientific debate is quite bizarre.

    I’m starting to think that Mr Spencer spends a lot more time watching Fox News, and listening to Rush Limbaugh blasting away on his AM Hate Radio than he does performing legitimate, honest, climatic studies.

  200. gbaikie says:

    “I’m starting to think that Mr Spencer spends a lot more time watching Fox News, and listening to Rush Limbaugh blasting away on his AM Hate Radio than he does performing legitimate, honest, climatic studies.”

    A lot Americans watch Fox news and listen radio.

    If one going spend some time watching TV or listening
    to radio, what would be better programs to listen to?

    Personally I like to use formats with less commercials- so
    listening live to radio or watching TV is not something. I generally do, so internet and recording it, is generally
    what I do, but my point is since find these shows as something wrong with them, what would you suggest?

  201. gbaikie says:

    So some people desire to go to North Korea as a tourist
    and some people go because they are paid to go there. Or some
    people just want to go to every country on Earth.

    And I wonder why people go somewhere to listen to Al Gore
    give his talk.
    “Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.”

    Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/22/4843012/al-gore-brings-climate-change.html#storylink=cpy

    Is sort of similar being able to experience a historical Nazis rally?

    Or is it mostly the food and entertainment?

    An thing people in Kansas tend to do?

    Would you go to such a thing once, if it was convenient or would you go every possible time you are can- because you saving the planet?

  202. Eddie Sharpe says:

    A lot of followers of the Nasties just wanted someone to tell them what to do & to feel better about themselves.

    That way they font have to take responsibility for being tight or being wrong, whole the sense of belonging gets them through.

    Watch this short 1981 film showing just how insidious the collectivist meme can be
    The Wave :-
    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2014/02/the-wave-1981-film-that-shows-students-trading-their-individualism-for-collectivism.html

  203. Freddie Stoller says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer, please continue the polite way you have always followed. For me and a lot of people I know it was the way the global warmers behaved that led us to not believing them! Turning the other cheek ist the most powerful way of defeating your opponent. Best regards from the Swiss mountains

  204. Matt Engel says:

    In as much as there may be any truth in the observation popularised as Godwins so called Law, use of the term Denier is just another manifestation of the same.

    Most Nazis were just followers, unknowing and initially unaware of the insidious whole they were part of. By the time they may have realised it was already too late as they had become thoroughly swept up in the collective hysteria.

    That is a typical behaviour of the Leftists who would impose their will on all of us though, projecting the worst of their own behaviour onto innocent others.
    A case of do unto others before they even think of exposing you.

  205. If one going spend some time watching TV or listening
    to radio, what would be better programs to listen to?

    There’s no better way to maintain your “ism” and be a proud “ist” than watching and listening to propaganda. So, I suggest one sharpen their mind and think for themselves rather than gobbling up predigested bullshit.

    Bill Sparling is as much an “ist” as anyone in the AGW Consensus crowd in my estimation. Too many just want their particular brand of “ism” to reign supreme without reasoning that it’s the “ism” and being an “ist” that’s the problem, not which one is better or worse.

  206. Ossqss says:

    You go Doc!

    Some related casual reading also.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/where_are_ the_global_warmists_for_freedom.html

  207. Louise says:

    Dr Spencer, did you write “While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.” as reported here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/30/roy-spencer-says-that-if-you-d/#.UwoJyMYca_Q.twitter

  208. Louise, I found the following comment at your link. It is the epitome of Elitism.

    Marion Delgado
    June 6, 2008

    The same reason the Ponder the Maunder girl is not worth replying to applies to all the trolls here.

    It’s not just that non-scientists don’t have a lot to add to the climate change discussion, which is true collectively, and less true the closer you approximate the scientific norm, which is focusing on a small area, not pretending it covers more than it does, and being scrupulous about everything from your sources of evidence to your chain of reasoning.

    Since when are Obama and Kerry scientists, or any politician, and yet they have added quite a bit to the climate change discussion? In fact, I would argue it’s even worse when politicians or any powerful, influential non-scientists get involved in the debate and make it actionable, because those non-scientists are adroit opportunists deft at the art, and science, of avaricious exploitation.

  209. Will J. Browne says:

    If you have to resort to calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi then you’ve lost the argument. The Merriam Webster definition of “Denier” is
    one who denies
    First known use of DENIER: 15th century

    To infer from the use of the word that “They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened. ” is a false argument. It is utterly illogical, but then who would expect any better from you?

  210. Wow Dr. Spencer,

    Denial=
    “de·ni·al noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\

    : a statement saying that something is not true or real : a statement in which someone denies something

    psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

    : the act of not allowing someone to have something ”
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    What’s with your Nazi fixation?

  211. Jack'nJill says:

    Time to fight back against the leftist revisionists, but we must not play this game according to their rules.

    They call themselves “Progressives?”
    We name them “Regressives!”

    They call themselves “Liberals?”
    We name them “Anti-Liberty!”

    They call themselves “Democrats?”
    We name them “Communists!”

    They call us “Global Warming Deniers?”
    We name them “Global Warming Nazis!”

    • Will J. Browne says:

      The unwritten rule of internet arguments states that the first person to compare their adversary to the Nazis/Hitler loses. The purpose of the rule is to try and prevent debate from degenerating to the level Dr Spencer has stooped to here.

      • Walter Allensworth says:

        Godwin’s law.

        However, that rule was preceded with another law which states that the first one in an argument to resort to name-calling has lost. It is the lowest form of argument, and a propaganda technique with no basis in fact. It is employed by the Global Warming Nazi’s ALL THE TIME.

        see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

        Dr. Spencer and in fact millions upon millions of people who do not believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have been called a ‘denier’ a ‘flat-earther’ and other vile and despicable things because those hurling the epithets have no logical rational arguments left.

        Dr. Spencer didn’t start the name calling. He is reacting to it.

  212. Shelama says:

    Devout Christians need to be a careful when invoking the Nazi’s.

    The Holocaust was enabled by the often murderous Christian antisemitism that fertilized Europe for centuries – individual and institutional, religious and cultural and political.

    The success of the Nazis was also significantly due to enabling by Christians and Christianity within their reach.

    In any case, regarding AGW, Roy Spencer as a missionary for the fundamentaloid branch of Christianity has already publicly labeled himself as a denier in both The Christian Post and thru his Cornwall Alliance: “…we deny “that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.”"

    “Denier” obviously was not what pushed Roy’s button and his gross mis-characterization of the legitimate climate community. If Spencer would study that science more honestly and carefully – same as if he’d study the Bible more honestly and carefully – he’d see that neither are what he believes or portrays them to be.

    • gbaikie says:

      “The Holocaust was enabled by the often murderous Christian antisemitism that fertilized Europe for centuries – individual and institutional, religious and cultural and political.”

      That about the same blaming Christians for ObamaCare.
      The Holocaust was caused by the totalitarian Nazis regime-
      which are not any more Christian than Obama.
      The fault or blame of Christians is they didn’t strongly oppose it.
      Kind of like ignoring that another totalitarian called Iran
      is making nuclear weapons.

      • Shelama says:

        There’s a difference between ‘enable’ and ‘blame’ or ’cause.’

        Undeniably, the Holocaust never would have happened and never could have happened without those centuries of Christian antisemitism first, sorry.

        Roy Spencer is the one who made ‘denialism’ and the Nazis apropos, not me. The history of Christianity denies Roy any moral high-ground. That would be true even if his post wasn’t just blatantly stupid to start with.

        • gbaikie says:

          “There’s a difference between ‘enable’ and ‘blame’ or ’cause.’

          Undeniably, the Holocaust never would have happened and never could have happened without those centuries of Christian antisemitism first, sorry.”

          There an infinity of things which can “enable” totalitarian
          government to do many different kinds of evil things.

          And it’s wasn’t just the Jews which were put into concentration camps- others which were also “scientifically” considered genetically inferior which were also use for scientific experiments and exterminated-
          but maybe you think it was more reasonable that such non-Jews were abused and exterminated by a government.

          By saying it was enabled by “murderous Christian antisemitism” you are distracting/misdirecting from the most important aspect which was the Nazis government was a totalitarian government.
          And all totalitarian governments have always done and are doing very evil things.
          Though it’s possible you might hear about it from their state run media [or from CNN, specifically, in regards to Saddam's Iraq].
          Or no one should wish a Cuba government on any people.
          Or Iranian, Syria, Chinese, Russian, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, etc, government.

          • cRR Kampen says:

            You seem to think that the Shoa was the only genocide on Jews and you are so utterly wrong.

            Antisemitism is actually, characteristically, typically: christian. Some example of earlier ‘Shoas’: pogroms (Russia/Ukraine), Swedish Wars (multiple operations across Europe), Reconquista (genocides on Jews and muslims from the Spanish Catholics) and of course the Crusades (same).

            Enjoy this small primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism .

            Mass murder on a people does NOT necessarily come from totalitarian governments. Sorry mate, reality is murderous jungle.

            /cRR

          • gbaikie says:

            “You seem to think that the Shoa was the only genocide on Jews and you are so utterly wrong. ”

            Well, you don’t seem to make wrong assumptions, you do make wrong assumptions.

            “Antisemitism is actually, characteristically, typically: christian. ”

            That is pretty stupid.

            Yes, the are a lot Christians in the world.

            ““There are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84 percent of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion,” the analysis states.

            • 2.2 billion Christians (32 percent of the world’s population).
            • 1.6 billion Muslims (23 percent).
            • 1 billion Hindus (15 percent.
            • 500 million Buddhists (7 percent).
            • 400 million people (6 percent) practicing various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, American Indian religions and Australian aboriginal religions.

            There are 14 million Jews, and an estimated 58 million people — slightly less than 1 percent of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, “to mention just a few,” the study says.”

            Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/#ixzz2uRMcPH7C
            Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

            So if 1% of Christians were Antisemitic, that would be
            22 million Christians.
            There probably more than 1% Christians which anti-christian,
            as probably more than 1% of Jews who are antisemitic.
            And 70% of people believe in UFOs.

            And there is surprising amount Americans who will say
            that Elvis still lives. August 14, 2002:
            ” “While more people believe in visitors from outer space, and the absolute percentage is small,” comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman, “these results show that nearly 16 million American adults still believe Elvis is alive … that should keep the lines at Graceland long for many years to come.”

            The national poll shows little change in Elvis-believers since a similar question was asked five years ago. In August 1997, six percent of Americans said there was a possibility that Elvis is still alive while 89 percent said there was no possibility and five percent were unsure.”
            http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/08/14/poll-for-few-true-believers-elvis-lives/

            So if only aware of US and Europe, then year odds favor
            there is more Antisemitism among Christians, simply because
            there hundreds of millions of them.
            But go someplace where Christian are minority, like say Egypt, then find Egyptians who think Jews are causing any bad weather- or whatever they think is the problem at the moment- I that should qualify as Antisemitism.
            It’s actually an ism, or can called a belief that large numbers seem to believe.

            And probably there is more 1% of the Jews that generally think all unwashed red neck Christians amount to some kind plague which should somehow should be remedied.

  213. Noel says:

    Never trust an atom. They make up EVERYTHING!

  214. Doug A Scott says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH–

    Oh, wait. You’re serious. [backs away slowly]

  215. RW says:

    Whoa, Roy – you really stirred up a hornet’s net here!

  216. john robertson says:

    Dr Roy Spencer, I think you hit a nerve.
    Bully boys, like the Catastrophic Climate Cult, insist only they have the right to slander and smear.
    Global Warming Nazis is too long, may I suggest Eco-Nasties.

    This is short,humorous phrase combines both branches of these humourless, intolerant fools.It also mocks their self importance.

    The attacks on the foundation of science, scepticism and the freedom to express ones doubt are all intentional, name calling is a basic tool of those who seek to enrich themselves from the work of others.
    However the nasty abuse of all who question, has been an ongoing own goal for these fools and bandits.
    Perhaps take a break and do not repeat their error.
    Your scientific work speaks for its self, this alone will win in the end.
    The cause is dying, hence the increasing vileness and flinging of faeces by the emotionally challenged.
    The true believers are turning on themselves.
    Relax and enjoy, the hostility toward humanity and civil society expressed by these would be tyrants will not be forgotten, this internet is a tool of great potential.

    • gbaikie says:

      I think Global Warming Nazis is pretty good.

      But totalitarians of Changing Climate might be more accurate.

      Whatever the totalitarians of stripe, they are all “moving forward” so as to get backward to primordial blissfulness of mass ignorance. Dreaming of the bliss of converting billions
      of people into millions of very special people.

      But for shorter description, I generally call them Lefties.
      But it’s referring to Socialist, Statists, or useful idiots of the nanny state- those followers of liars like Al Gore, Kerry, and a flock of power starved millionaire manics.

      All of them eager to embrace many Big Lies for sake of their “cause”.

    • Villabolo says:

      Projection.

    • barry says:

      “I think Global Warming Nazis is pretty good.”

      Tactically, it’s a complete loser.

      • gbaikie says:

        barry says:
        February 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM

        “I think Global Warming Nazis is pretty good.”

        Tactically, it’s a complete loser.

        Well, the Guardian doesn’t like it:
        “For example, Richard Lindzen has been wrong on essentially every position he’s taken on major climate science issues over the past quarter century, and yet the conservative media continue to treat him as a foremost climate expert. Therefore, it’s important to remind ourselves what these few climate scientist contrarians really believe, and whether their arguments have any scientific validity.”

        And the Guardian has consistent track record of being wrong about everything.
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap
        Other Google searches with: Global Warming Nazis
        Give 2011 story from American Thinker:
        “The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory”
        “Long before Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” green Nazi Guenther Schwab played a large role in catalyzing the frightening theory of global warming. With no small thanks to Schwab, the Great Tribulation of Global Warming was ushered into the modern consciousness behind the collapse of the Millennial 1,000 year Third Reich.”
        http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_nazi_origins_of_apocalypti.html
        Unlike the Guardian, the American Thinker generally is mostly correct. And couple year ahead of Dr Spencer.

        Another google entry:
        “Referring to the alarmists as “global warming Nazis,” Dr. Spencer warned that their “pseudo-scientific ramblings” and support for fascist-style “radical policies” literally threaten the lives of millions of people — especially the poor.

        What appears to have set off Spencer — a Ph.D. in meteorology and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — are the ever-more vicious and absurd tactics of extreme global-warming theorists.”
        http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17685-climate-scientist-global-warming-nazis-threaten-humanity

        It always seems the Americans tend to be better getting things right, the socialists infested areas across the pond.
        But confident they eventually come around.

        But anyhow, tactically speaking what would think is much better?

        • barry says:

          If you want to be taken seriously by the GP, referencing nazis is not the way to do it. Net-savvy observers who haven’t picked a side will automatically consign such extreme comments, and the views of those who deploy them, to the intellectual waste bin.

          Take the high ground is a better tactic if you’re going to talk about complex science. Nazi references are almost always juvenile, and certainly regarding this topic.

          New American – the writer can’t seem to make up his mind whether “alarmists” are commies or nazis (check his other articles), but, whatevs, he’s sure they are all anti-capitalist and hate prosperity. What a fool.

          • gbaikie says:

            “If you want to be taken seriously by the GP, referencing nazis is not the way to do it.”

            You keep on saying this, but no one take you seriously because you continuous fail offer any good ideas regarding what we should call these global warming Nazis.

            “Take the high ground is a better tactic if you’re going to talk about complex science. Nazi references are almost always juvenile, and certainly regarding this topic.”

            We already have the high ground. We also have the majority.
            Why not throw rocks at the bums from the high ground?

            Even if wanted the low ground it’s too crowded with stinky, screaming, and hysteric Al Gore believers.

          • barry says:

            You keep on saying this, but no one take you seriously because you continuous fail offer any good ideas regarding what we should call these global warming Nazis

            I said don’t call them anything. A tit for tat game engages people who like tit for tat games.

            If you must describe ‘sides’, if your approach is entirely political rather than aimed at a neutral assessment of the science, then call them ‘proponents’ of AGW, or whatever particular theme you are addressing. Take the high ground. A race to the bottom is a lose/lose. Do you really need me to spell out why?

            Better yet, address the science and not the monolithic personality you seem to see as ‘opponents’. There is a spectrum of opinion amongst proponents and also amongst detractors of mainstream AGW. Leave the rhetoric alone. It allows for no distinction, creating a false dichotomy.

            “no one take you seriously…”

            Personal advice for you: don’t imagine you speak for everyone. Displays of hubris also reflect poorly on the commenter. Be honest and own your own thoughts rather than try to validate them with appeals to an imagined majority. It may be that no one takes my comments seriously, but you don’t know that, and neutral readers know you don’t. It’s a dumb comment.

            “Why not throw rocks at the bums from the high ground?”

            Because that will only impress some familiars. For the rest, you will be placed in the category of teenagers aquabbling over which is the best game console. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you have greater ambitions.

    • Rob Dekker says:

      Exactly who is part of this “Catastrophic Climate Cult” you talk about, John ?

      • Chris says:

        Any one who says “don’t you care about your children or your grandchildren” would qualify in my view.

        It also tells me they have lost the scientific argument and are now hoping to win the emotional one.

        • Rob Dekker says:

          If you are my age, your grand children will live until 2100, a time when the medium global temperature projections by the IPCC for the A2 and A1F1 scenarios are some 4 C above 2000.

          I rest my case.

        • It also tells me they have lost the scientific argument and are now hoping to win the emotional one.

          Ah. Because, in contrast, Roy Spencer wrote an article filled with scientific arguments to which the reply was written? I don’t think so. All just political and ideological arguments and appeal to emotion by Roy Spencer. How can an appeal to emotion in reply to Roy Spencer’s article then be an indication for having lost the scientific argument? Your comment lacks logic.

          And let me guess, you don’t make the assessment that Roy Spencer had lost the scientific argument, because of his resorting to ideological ranting, overboard accusations against all the climate scientists who think that AGW is real and significant, and his wild conspiracy fantasies.

  217. I agree with your cause. Undoubtably, you will use hard science and hypothesis testing to prove your position, and let others replicate using the same assumptions.

    However, I object to the use of the word “Nazi” as it cheapens the debate and brings emotions to it that aren’t proper. I understand the parallels, but if we overuse the comparisons, it lessens the memory of what a true Nazi is.

    Perhaps Fascist would be a better word for the global warming cult.

  218. gallopingcamel says:

    Thank you for not censoring folks like “Jimbo”.

    Jimbo’s opposition makes your case better than your supporters (like this camel) can.

  219. Scott Basinger says:

    Climate parasite would be a more apt description.

    It seems to me that you’ve pretty much lost it Dr. Spencer. I understand your frustration given the jackboot tactics of the climate parasites to anyone who would get in the way of feeding on their host, but calling them Nazis is professional seppuku.

    You may want to reconsider and apologize.

  220. Rob Dekker says:

    Roy said “Yeah, somebody pushed my button.”

    and

    “When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers””

    Exactly which politicians and scientists did, Roy ?

  221. For those looking for evidence of Nazi-like behavior when confronting the Dark Side of the AGW Consensus, here’s a link to a discussion I started at a “Leftist” blogsite that wholeheartedly endorses and advocates AGW theory. Not surprisingly, I was banned, but not after taking a number of pot shots and sucker punches.

    http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37274

    And yes, all those who advocate AGW own this. Take care of your own house first before you seek to do battle with those who don’t think the science is settled. McPherson continues his March of Madness unabated and unchallenged because those in the AGW Consensus crowd are too busy calling people who don’t prostrate on their alter of human sacrifice, “Deniers.”

    • Lewis Guignard says:

      Interesting that Dr. Spencer uses the term Nazi and is excoriated, yet reading the responses and about the actions of those who advocate for large responses to perceived AGW, the truth is that they ARE totalitarians. This is a reflection of their political style which has the President being divisive and accusatory against those he disapproves of, and so follow his teammates.

      It is a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in, where the many things we have accomplished as a species, to help ourselves are declaimed as evil by so many. Al Gore comes to mind as does Obama. But if you look at how they live, they only deny the right to use hydrocarbons for others, not themselves.

      Very much a totalitarian mindset on their part.

      • yet reading the responses and about the actions of those who advocate for large responses to perceived AGW, the truth is that they ARE totalitarians.

        Please could you quote some specific examples for those responses here, which you mean?

    • Rob Dekker says:

      Holefield,

      The reference you give presents dozens of postings on about a hundred pages of text, yet mentions “global warming” only once in one sentence, in this context :

      “Global warming is not something looming in the future, but is here already..”.

      If that statement makes it a ““Leftist” blogsite that wholeheartedly endorses and advocates AGW theory”, then maybe you need to check where your own balance of opinion is hanging out.

      • Rob,

        I understand you don’t have the time and inclination to research it any further, but don’t dare to opine on it if you don’t. If your mind’s made up, it’s made up. Your mind is obviously made up. I once stood in your shoes, Rob, and I now realize I was misguided and mistaken. It’s called growth. Try it sometime. It makes life worth living. Roll your rock. Your moss is showing.

        • Rob Dekker says:

          My mind is never made up, Cold.

          I’m evaluating evidence, and the evidence you present of “Nazi-like behavior when confronting the Dark Side of the AGW Consensus” appears to be based on a single, truthful statement in a blog that otherwise does not even mentions AGW.

          Which is why I suggest you check where your own balance of opinion is hanging out.

  222. Kyle says:

    I have been calling those global warming radicals a different and more accurate term: “envirofascists.” My term goes far beyond climate change, and expands into issues like energy creation, the EPA, and extreme measures that put animals over humans.

  223. James says:

    So to the alarmists, a few weeks ago it was the oceans absorbing the heat. That didn’t hold up so I read today it is volcanic activity causing the 17 year pause in warming. The facts are that, one, we do NOT know what the temperature of the planet is supposed to be because the planet has never ever had a constant steady state temperature. Anyone who believes there is a “correct” temperature to the planet is a total idiot. Two, we do know there have been at least 7 ice ages and periods of warming occurred after each one. Considering the Little Ice Age ended around 1800, what would one expect to happen after? A warming period maybe? Three, the models, as Dr. Spencer has pointed out, are so far off in their predictions from actuals they should be considered useless in terms of predictability. Four, sea ice is running at about its average globally. The problem is only the Arctic gets any play because it is slightly down. Fifth, if you believe humans are the cause then really nothing short of eliminating a LOT of humans is ever going to solve the problem. Are the alarmists really for doing this? I think not. Fact is, more humans add to CO2 in the atmosphere since we exhale it. So more humans means more CO2 and since alarmists think that is a pollutant then how can you justify your own life?

    • Eli Rabett says:

      and is a fine word in most languages.

    • D. Ap says:

      Spencer and Christy’s model comparison graph has some serious problems with baselining. Details here:

      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/

      • James says:

        Other than Dr. Spencer, there is other evidence of how far off the models are. Anyone that places faith in models to predict the future might as well call the psychic hotline. Indeed, the problem is the actual data is reporting far less warming than the model predictions and it gets worse over time for the models. The alarmists are going to keep believing. It is an orthodoxy now. No questioning of that orthodoxy allowed. So we go to a site that calls Dr Spencer a flat earther essentially and supposed to take what they say as gospel truth? Please. Just by the terms they use they have disqualified themselves as anywhere close to legitimate because they are attacking a scientist using terms like “flat earther” or “denier” or any other number of terms. It’s the politicization of global warming alarmism and the religiousness of it as well. I would suspect the alarmists would love to have an inquisition to make everyone believe the orthodox of alarmism.

  224. Bully For Science says:

    @VTHomie – Clearly you haven’t studied historical records of hurricanes in New England (including Vermont). In 1938, a catastrophic event took place. Pretty sure this was well before AGW. And the lack of land-falling hurricanes on the CONUS in 2013 is now BECAUSE of AGW? I hate the cherry picking of data that AGW alarmists use. There are so many different variables involved that we cannot, with any shred of certainty say that CO2 is the sole determining factor. How about ANSO, PDO, Solar Minimums and Maximums, Solar Flares, Magnetic difference, etc.? Let’s not call names, and let’s use logic and reason to find alternative fuel sources, but NOT because of AGW, but because, well, they are a good idea!

  225. Ruairi says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer,
    In support of your cause,I would suggest that those who direct the term ‘denier’at climate realists,need to be constantly reminded and educated that climate realists do not ‘deny’ but they certainly do ‘refute’. Climate realists can for example,very effectively refute ( to the increasing frustration of the A.G.W.lobby),that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, does not necessarily lead to ‘catastrophic run away global warming’ and ‘tipping points’,as so many gullible and impressionable people were led to believe.
    The word ‘refute’ makes a very good acronym (Refute Eco. Fascism & Unscientific Tyrannical Environmentalism), which can be used by climate realists to defend the science of climatology in any way they think fit.

    • Rob Dekker says:

      “higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, does not necessarily lead to ‘catastrophic run away global warming’ and ‘tipping points’,”

      It does not need to.

      The MEDIUM global temperature projections by the IPCC for the (high growth, do no mitigation) A2 and A1F1 scenarios are some 4 C above 2000.

      I rest my case.

  226. H. D. Hoese says:

    Growing up during WWII with a father named Adolf does not make me an authority, but has given me a lot of incentive to try to understand the situation, which none of us can simplify in a short message. Today I read an op-ed saying that if he was a rich man he would hire somebody to take a 2X4 to the denier’s brains but that would not damage their smarts.

    Juvenile, of course, but recently I made a list of the parallel events going on in pre-war Germany to that today, one of which was an environmental movement, which some have connected to the present. This was partly an anti-technology fear.

    My major mentor in marine science made it clear that the job of science was not to make value judgments, just predictions that wiser ones could put into practice, both suffering the consequences, with the credibility of the former firmly based on the available facts. I could amplify because marine science has been a leader in promoting “crises.”

    The irony is that calling a scientist a “skeptic” or a “denier,” while used pejoratively, is actually a compliment.

    The Social Democratic Party in Germany had wide support, even in this country. Even if the holocaust had not happened it would not be remembered fondly.

  227. Judy Ryan says:

    The climate hysteria is all about global governance, corruption and power. It is truly sinister.
    Thank God for the internet and our democracy that still allows us to use it.

    Stallin used mass extermination by starvation to subdue the Ukranian people at the beginning of last century and it worked. He used Lyzenko’s faked data to enforce planting policies onto the farmers. Of course the crops failed because the data that underpinned the science had been faked. Wether it was an unforeseen consequence or not, we do not know. But it was useful for Stalin.

    This is not a conspiracy theory, it is history.

    Now the evil oligarchy appears to be trying to use mass extermination by energy deprivation to subdue us.

    We will use the internet and the technology to increase the power of the people to bring this scam down. We will hold its perpetrators individually accountable, as was the fate for Lyzenko. For if we don’t, God help us

    • We will hold its perpetrators individually accountable,

      Please could you be a bit more specific? Who exactly do you count as “perpetrators”? Any specific names? Or how many are there? Who belongs to them? Where can they be found? How do you recognize them? For what actions exactly, carried out where and when should those “perpetrators” be held accountable? How exactly will this holding them accountable look like? And about whom are you talking, when you say “we”? Let us take a peek at your mind, which is supposedly not one governed by conspiracy fantasies, according to you.

    • D. Ap says:

      Climate change isn’t about global governanace.

      But the left’s solution to it does probably include that.

      If the right disagrees, then propose solutions that align with your ideology.

      Denying the science isn’t a solution. If you fail to be part of the solution, you will get stuck with whatever solution your enemies propose.

      And you will have only yourself to blame.

      • Rob Dekker says:

        Well stated, D. Ap.

      • gbaikie says:

        - D. Ap says:
        February 25, 2014 at 12:31 AM

        Climate change isn’t about global governance.

        But the left’s solution to it does probably include that.

        If the right disagrees, then propose solutions that align with your ideology.-

        Stop requiring utilities to buy “green energy”. Stop requiring gasoline to have ethanol. Cease all federal subsidies. Have the Energy Dept actually do things which
        actually effective in regard the nation energy- or cut it’s budget.

        Don’t hinder dredging of river in any way if such dredging would lessen adverse effect from flooding.

        Nationally increase amount reservoirs and dams used for hydropower.
        Look and find ways to speed up the regulatory process related building or energy related infrastructure.
        Time is money, government caused delays is large drain the economy.
        Stop subsidizing insurance in high risk areas- it’s waste
        tax dollars and it’s encouraging development in areas of high risk.
        If nation is not having economic growth of 3% or higher,
        at least realize this a problem.
        Open coastal area to oil development and encourage the use of ocean methane hydrate. The low cost natural gas is not in anyway a “problem” and should want more supply of natural gas and even lower price and should also exporting natural gas.

        Longer term energy policy should be focused on methane hydrate {and natural gas in general}, nuclear fission {governmental nuclear fusion research has been going no where) and focus should be having cheaper energy.

        It also should know that if the costs of getting into space could be lowered significant then global energy can gotten from the space environment. Also lower costs of getting into space will give ability to control global climate.
        And present ability to have access space, has been the single most important aspect related to understanding and mitigating effects of global climate/weather.

  228. D. Ap says:

    Roy Spencer wrote:
    Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did

    You are using the poor as an excuse. It’s time to stop.

    YOU are rich. Why shouldn’t YOU pay for clean energy, even if the poor cannot?

    A carbon tax-and-dividend would mean, in the US, that 60% of Amercans would get back more than they pay in taxes.

    IT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE POVERTY.

    On a global scale it would do even more.

    It’s time for you to stop piously hiding behind the poor and answer some of these questions. Start with the first one above.

    • James says:

      Wow. Just wow. You do realize that cap and trade doesn’t do a thing to stop pollution? For instance, if your business is naturally non-polluting and mine is polluting, I can buy your carbon credits and keep right on polluting.

      Also, hate to tell you, tax increases don’t solve anything and won’t get anyone out of poverty. Government takes a good chunk of any and all taxes and it is not heavily transferred to anyone poor. This is a total false belief of leftists who think they can tax the world to prosperity. What makes the world prosperous is a growing economy. Taxes tend to shrink economies.

      I don’t see anyone hiding behind the poor either. If you believe as you are stating, do you make anymore money than the lowest paid worker? How can you justify it given your attack on Dr. Spencer?

  229. D. Ap says:

    If, in 1975, someone said there would be 0.6 C of warming by 2014, what would Dr. Spencer have said in response?

    And why?

  230. Santa Baby says:

    When they go after the person and not the argument it means they have no more arguments or don’t want to debate and that you have won the debate?

    It’s just provocations to distract from the debate and if you respond everybody will look stupid?

    My response is: I am not a climate denier or sceptic. What I am is a sceptic of the political established UNFCCC.

  231. jwm says:

    what’s in a name? i’ve correctly called out “EnvironmentalNAZIs” for years

  232. YOU are rich.

    That’s news to me. I consider Roy firmly middle class. Al Gore? Now that’s rich. Funny that. If you dispute that, explain the TV tower outside of Roy’s house. Rich people don’t live next to TV towers.

    http://grist.org/article/griscom-windmill/

    Environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy, Jr., a key figure among those opposed to the project, also argues that the company has failed to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis from the standpoint of the locals. “The economic burden this project imposes on the Cape Cod community is enormous — the injury to marinas, the injury to beaches, the injury to property values.” Take, for example, the boating community, says Kennedy: “Why would they want to spend the three weeks of their vacation paddling around in the middle of an industrial zone when they could go someplace pristine?”

    The stark hypocrisy of Robert Kennedy, Jr. is pristinely perfect in every way. I mean, it says it all, doesn’t it? I like the Don Quixote quote from the link:

    Look there, friend Sancho Panza, where 30 or more monstrous giants rise up, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes. For this is righteous warfare, and it is God’s good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth.”

    “Look, your worship,” said Sancho. “What we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the vanes that turned by the wind make the millstone go.”

    • Thomas says:

      Nor do rich people want to live next to fracking or even a water tower supplying water to fracking as Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil.just proved:
      http://grist.org/news/fracking-infrastructure-not-in-my-backyard-says-exxon-ceo/

      • I won’t argue with you there. You assumed I would because you’ve characterized me as an ideologue. I’m not. When people ascend to these levels, the farcical “Left/Right” binary divide becomes so obscured it really doesn’t exist for all intent and purposes. These are the levels that determine policy, and any policy with an economic impact that’s enacted must meet the litmus test of what can it do to perpetuate and expand the power and wealth of those who have ascended to these levels. The myth that “Dems” are for the poor and the environment and the oppressed and tyrannized is just that, a myth.

  233. A carbon tax-and-dividend would mean, in the US, that 60% of Amercans would get back more than they pay in taxes.

    IT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE POVERTY.

    Yes folks, there are adults who still believe in Santa Claus. You really can’t believe this is how THAT would shake out. That taxing scheme would quickly become regressive and force even more to the margins and into poverty.

  234. Terry says:

    Is it not time we developed new cleaner forms of energy?

    I don’t get the similarity between “denying” and planned institutional genocide. Do we have to keep suffering oil, coal ash and chemical spills while we cut down the mountains to burn coal rocks?

    Do we keep having to endure cancer clusters around fossil fuel industry?

    The energy spent being angry, name calling, and bullying from many folks who sound smart could be much better put to use promoting energy conservation and supporting new cleaner paths to energy independence. Ironically, while these terrible names are being invoked, Germany is a champion power from solar.

    There are many exciting new technologies afoot that won’t cause acid rain or leave dangerous toxins behind. Why does the idea of a cleaner future cause all this anger. Doesn’t everyone want a cleaner future? Does anyone want to live with pollution all around them?

    There are more than enough scientists that believe in AGW to make it a real possibility and that number appears to be growing. Taking action to deal with AGW will hopefully be positive but not doing so will be a disaster if these scientists are correct. Certainly, the anger and name calling don’t help.

  235. Terry, the path to a “cleaner” world is not via AGW Theory. CO2 is not a pollutant, at least not anymore than water vapor is a pollutant, so taxing it isn’t going to make the world a cleaner place, but it is going to make some rich people even richer and some powerful people even more powerful.

    Let’s take a “green” solution already implemented; this nutty light bulb legislation where we’re now required, by law, to purchase toxic, crappy light bulbs for a small fortune. Why not keep a proven technology and eradicate the wasteful, planned obsolescence; a traditional light bulb that lasts a lifetime or more unless it’s defective or broken? They could be sold for double the previous price and ultimately any additional revenue and profit would come from breakage and population growth. Why wasn’t that chosen as a potential “green” response, Terry?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfzQzGNYaiU

  236. William says:

    Illegal immigration is also an issue. It’s as clear as crystal that in the western media the people who question it in the name of sustainability, are also labeled Nazis. It’s OK to attacker westerners who raise the issue of the US population dramatically increasing – mostly on account of immigration – but don’t dare try to question the border policies or the politics of the countries from which these people originate. Their own countries are often an overcrowded mess, on account of their religious and cultural philosophies. This is warming the planet because they are having too many children irrespective of who they are and where they come from; it just so happens most of the growth is attributed to certain regions. It’s INSANITY to stick your head in the sand and see the US be swallowed whole, and yet this is what the politicians want, this is what the corporations want – it’s profit for them. This demonisation of those who question the real reasons for the problems we face needs to stop and we need to address the reasons why it’s done. Then we’ll progress.

  237. Clyde Spencer says:

    Jimbo,
    Your incoherent ranting hasn’t contributed anything substantive to the discussion. It sounds like Baby Boomers have created you, so maybe we have made some serious mistakes.

  238. Just found out about your paper, great to see a known scientists call it as it is. I adopted the term the “Green SS” gang on my website. The “SS” stands for Settled Science. I didn’t come up with it, I saw it a year or so ago on No Tricks Zone, so I adopted it.
    I have video’s posted and I believe you are in one of them, you can see it at http://www.suanews.com/uncategorized/the-war-on-co2.html
    It’s from 1998, but it still stands today explaining the value of CO2.
    I’ve been fighting to get the truth out since 1992 and have tried to promote scientists to speak in more Dick and Jane terms so the average American can understand. Our side needs to adopt some of Steven Schnieder’s tactics to get the truth out there.
    Editor
    http://www.suanews.com

  239. The following was lost in another thread where it would have never been seen. It’s dishonest, imo, but not surprising.

    David A. says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:15 PM

    Who said the science was “settled?”
    All of it?
    Parts of it?
    Which parts?
    Who said this?

    Oh gee, I don’t know. Let’s start with Jeff Nesbit at livescience.

    http://www.livescience.com/39954-with-ipcc-report-climate-change-is-settled-science.html

    • D o u g   says:

      The thermodynamics of planetary atmospheres is a very specialised field in which major advances have been made since about the year 2002 when some physicists began to realise there is a fundamental fallacy in the garbage promulgated by the IPCC, namely that their assumption of isothermal conditions is wrong, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies isentropic conditions prevail, thus smashing the GH conjecture.

      Furthermore, the concept of “pseudo scattering” of radiation is also just starting to be understood. I was one of the pioneers in this field with my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (Douglas J Cotton) published on several websites in March 2012.

    • barry says:

      Thanks for provding a reference here. People who critique the “science is settled” theme rarely go into detail of what that actually refers to.

      It’s a simple matter to quote this bit, which sums it up for Nesbitt.

      …scientists are still trying to determine how much things like El Niño, excess water vapor and ocean sinks mask the extent of how rapidly the planet is warming from greenhouse gases.

      But the central portion of the artificial science debate — the one that has vexed policy makers for decades — is now over. Climate change is real, human beings are responsible for a good portion of it…

      Nesbitt interpretation of the IPCC statements is actually conservative. “Good portion” for Nesbitt, “extremely likely more than half” for IPCC.

      So, parts of the science is settled. Central parts. Like;

      * Physics of radiative absorption of GHGs in
      earth’s atmosphere
      Resulting temperature change at surface from doubling of CO2 in a no-feedback scenario
      * Atmospheric CO2 increase of 40% since pre-industrial concentration levels
      * Vast majority of that increase is anthropogenic in origin
      * Globe has warmed over that period

      On these points, even the qualified skeptics agree – Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Pileke Snr, Jnr and others.

      Most (but perhaps not all) of those would agree that the sum of feedbacks is positive.

      Few of those, if any, would agree with the proposition that human activity is mostly respomsible for the warming of the last 50 years.

      Qualified researchers of all persuasions agree that more CO2 will warm the Earth in the long term.

      So that much is settled. I think most researchers would agree that the exact climate sensitivity is not settled, or how much influence ocean/atmosphere fluctuations affect short-term temperatures.

      Policy, then, is a risk management exercise. Some researchers emphasise the high-end potentials, others push low-end estimates, and some consider the range. I am in the latter group.

      • I see. Thanks, barry. So, by your own analysis, Spencer, Lindzen, Christie et al are not “Deniers” because they concur the science is settled. What then, pray tell, is all the fuss about? Why the need to call them “Deniers” if they agree about the settled science? Is it to make them, disingenuously, convenient foils? Afterall, many lay people just scan the headlines and don’t consider the substance, so most people aren’t going to interpret Nesbit’s (it’s one “t”, by the way) propaganda the way you have; they’re going to see the headline and believe, as the headline emphatically states, the science is settled.

        • barry says:

          Then blame the press. I do. It is incredibly easy to find out those few facts. And if you think it is legitimate to call people deniers who reject that the world has warmed over the last century, or that physics is well enough understood to be confident about the change in surface temperature from a no-feedback doubling of CO2, then we have some of those right here on this thread. Do we have any hard words for the propgandists who promoted these fallacies?

          A few months ago I googled ‘climate change science is settled’. Got through a few pages and quit when every article spoke about a specific component of climate change. Except the critical articles. Amongst them there were no such distinction.

          This much is settled: Increased atmospheric CO2 has a warming effect on the globe. Our current trajectory of CO2 emmissions will cause the globe to get warmer and we don’t know by how much or how soon.

          Anyone who denies that these are facts requiring our keen attention probably deserves the epithet. It’s got nothing to do with Nazi Germany.

  240. Rob Dekker says:

    Does this mean that cartoonists Michael Kupperman and David Rees the first identifiable “global warming nazis” ?

  241. Roy,

    As a retired psychiatrist, I would like to respond.

    Denial is a real, common and well-recognised psychological defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts, truths, realities, facts, feelings and emotions, associated with aversion to dealing with same.

    I regularly dealt with denial in my consultations.

    It happens with alcoholics who refuse to accept that they are alcoholics. It happens with skeletal young women who refuse to accept that they have an eating disorder.

    We all do denial to some extent, for instance, in forgetting dentists’ appointments.

    Anyone who knows an individual who is in denial can see that they have a problem, except when some friends and acquaintances may be sucked in to the individual’s belief system.

    Every argument, fact or emotional pleading is countered by the individual in denial with “No, but what about x y and z?”

    The condition can be resolved, but it needs enormous investment of supportive care, knowledge, wisdom and patience on the part of the community, mediated mainly by psychiatric services.

    The critical factor in resolution of denial lies with the subject experiencing the unpleasant reality that is being denied. The alcoholic may need to experience loss of job and family before they join AA. The smoker may need to experience his heart attack before he gives up.

    So denial in individual psychology is generally accepted among scientifically trained psychiatrists as a recognisable mental condition.

    I leave it to you to decide whether the fossil fuel industry’s pain in contemplating loss of profitability might possibly push them in the direction of denial.

    • gbaikie says:

      “I leave it to you to decide whether the fossil fuel industry’s pain in contemplating loss of profitability might possibly push them in the direction of denial.”

      I don’t think they suffering from such pain.
      Some people think “Big Oil” controls everything would
      such people find pain in idea that this is just nonsense
      they have invested too years believing?

      What large holder of oil in the ground fear is lower prices
      of future oil, so increase in US oil production could be
      something they are denying might in the future. And stop more
      exploration by others, is there real fear.

      So Obama wanting to increase the price of energy, is not
      something large energy are concerned about- if nothing else
      they have lobbyist and they buy Dem or Rep politicians.
      When consider Obama bailout companies too big to fail, aren’t
      you living in some silly fantasy land?

  242. I’m evaluating evidence, and the evidence you present of “Nazi-like behavior when confronting the Dark Side of the AGW Consensus” appears to be based on a single, truthful statement in a blog that otherwise does not even mentions AGW.

    That poster’s statement was in no way truthful or reasonable and he/she completely avoided my evidence and instead called me a liar when I quoted it all IN THEIR OWN WORDS. That site, by the way, has several very long detailed threads on AGW Theory. Here’s a quote from your little darling from one of those threads (886 posts & 19,311 page views). This poster presented it as evidence of AGW. Do you want to stand by his/her side on this and agree with the article from “experts” he/she smugly presents as evidence?

    http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&start=825#p531909

    Massive Antarctic Glacier Uncontrollably Retreating, Study Suggests

  243. Steve says:

    Thank you Roy for throwing rhetoric right back at them. Let the global warmists be blanketed with new fallen snow.

  244. John S. says:

    I’m not a fan of the Nazi angle because I think there are more effective and more accurate names to call them.
    Calling them Nazis is inaccurate because CAGW crowd is more Stalinist than Nazis. Besides calling people Nazis has a long track record and I no longer think it is that effective. Rush Limbaugh uses the term “Feminazis” which works for him because he is not really calling them Nazis merely implying they use Nazi like tactics.

    Better to call them “climate bullies”. For they are bullies. And “bullies” will hurt them more because…it is truthful. Nazis is not truthful…though they may deserve to be called bad names because the average prominent alarmist is usually not a nice person. e.g. Michael Mann, Cook, Greenman, etc… Best the drop the Nazi angle. The alarmists beat us to the punch by calling skeptics deniers and calling for Nuremberg like trials from skeptics. Let them make the mistake of calling skeptics Nazis. We need to avoid that trap and call them what they truly are…bullies.

  245. Ric Werme says:

    It’s about time someone stood up against the use of Nazi/Holocaust tags against the skeptic community and you’re a good person to take that stand, and I think this is right time to do it.

    You certainly have pressed the ADL’s hot button, which is unfortunate, but I’ve contributed to the backlash to their condemnation. Perhaps when it gets back to their national HQ tomorrow and someone actually looks into why you acted they’ll realize they’re late and misdirected in their response.

    I don’t think they’ll be very effective, but it might be fun to send them off to battle against SkS.

  246. barry says:

    Obama doesn’t think the poor are conspiring against the American people. US aid to underdeveloped countries and poorer communities includes medicine, food, agricultural and energy assistance.

    The handful who have publicly connected criticism of mainstream climate science with holocaust denial (literally, 3 or 4 in the last 10 years) are sensationalizers and idiots. It is woeful that Spencer has decided to join the fray at this wretched level of discourse. And why? ‘They did it first.’ The rationalization of a juvenile trying to excuse their poor behaviour.

    No, keep making comparisons to Nazi Germany. Widely broadcast this theme. Get it published in news media, take it to the streets, take it to parliament/congress. Make you tubes. And name names. Compare Michael Mann to Goebbels. Hansen to Himmler. Make sure to compare Obama to Hitler. Because that will draw people to think rationally about AGW.

  247. EJ says:

    Mr. Spencer, Maybe we should call them Global Warming Deceivers.
    BTW, really like your article :) . I totally agree with you !

  248. yonason says:

    Here’s more proof, and something that the ADL should know, but obviously doesn’t.

    “One of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, foundational to the academic left and deep ecology of the greens, was committed to Nazism.”

    I post it here, rather than in response to your ADL article, because it is also relevant here, and probably more so.

    You are correct, Dr. Spencer, and maybe even more than you know?

  249. Rick S. says:

    Hops and Brian Valentine…

    GOOD RIDDANCE !

    If you fail to admit the “Lies” of the climate change alarmists (Speaking of change, up to just a few years back, the word in the “Scientific” circles was “Global Warming”, but that word/tag didn’t work out to well now did it?)

    • b fagan says:

      Climate change has been in use for at least as long as global warming. Global warming is the increase in heat content of the overall climate system (atmosphere, oceans, ice). Climate change is the differences in temperature, wind and precipitation patterns as a result of the increased energy (warming) in the climate.

      Here’s an early use of the term – search for
      Thomas C. Chamberlin, “A Group of Hypotheses Bearing on Climatic Changes.”

      You’ll find a paper from 1897 talking about changes in atmospheric carbon and changes in climate in the past.

  250. Keith99 says:

    Guys, it’s all the sneaky implementation of Agenda 21 – at the federal, state and local levels. Look it up and weep. We definitely need to push back – hard and fast.

  251. barry says:

    A climate change ‘denier’ is someone who rejects any of these propositions:

    * CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    * Human industry has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% since the industrial revolution.

    * All else being equal, increased atmospheric CO2 should cause some warming at the surface.

    * Uncertainty on feedbacks and the surface response to a doubling of CO2 yields a climate sensitivity (ECS) with a large range, and a central range estimate of 1.5 to 4.5C.

    * It is important to get a lock on the magnitude of the impacts of our industrial emmissions.

    ‘Warmists’

    * Prove to within an inch of their lives that AGW has a significant influence on global climate and weather patterns.

    * Treat anything that smells of dissent with hostility.

    * Downplay scientific dispute and cite selectively.

    ‘Alarmists’

    * Contend or imply that climate-caused catastrophe is inevitable.

    * Refer only to, or overemphasise, the upper bounds of climate sensitivity.

    * Foretell the end of glaciers/species/civilization.

    Eco-fascists/Nazis

    * “indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened….”

    * “advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause…”

    * “are anti-capitalist.”

    * “are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism.”

    * “are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else.”

    * “invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

    * “[support] policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did…”

    Which group are you going to side with?

  252. David Small says:

    People with PhDs aren’t stupid, they’re arrogant and self-assured. If they went to MIT or Princeton or other Ivy League schools, they’re for the most part insufferable. You will rarely meet an Ivy League PhD who doesn’t think themselves to be extremely brilliant. I have 2 PhDs and consistently run up against arrogant, Ivy League educated imbeciles with doctorates who think themselves to be the foremost experts on everything, including the atmosphere. Imagine a Civil Engineer telling someone like me with a PhD in Meteorology that they understand the weather better than I do. I hear it all the time from MIT educated Civil Engineers.

    Most of the people talking about climate change know nothing about the atmosphere. They are too arrogant to admit that they don’t understand anything about the subject. They equate having passed calculus with having the expertise to understand the atmosphere. I don’t tell engineers how to pour concrete or size pipes, why do they try to tell me about the atmosphere?

    Be very afraid of engineers (or physicists) talking about climate change. They understand nothing about the atmosphere and want to make huge changes to our world.

  253. Pointman says:

    Since you’re mentioned by name in the piece, out of common courtesy a link to it Dr. Spencer.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/do-we-call-them-nazis-or-not/

    Pointman

  254. Ron says:

    I read a scary amount of emotional argument on this site. If you love your grandchildren blah blah blah. The most troubling part is I read this kind of argument on both sides. Can I suggest a book to read, as a start to doing your own research?

    http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394127520&sr=1-2&keywords=the+chilling+stars

    The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark is a great place to start.
    Then read some of the Russian research.

    You just might come to the same conclusion I have. Man made global warming is a myth. Global warming and cooling are cyclic and they are most influenced by forces outside of our earth and in some cases outside of our solar system.

    The Russians believe we are going into a Mauder Minimum or in other words a mini ice age. I live in Canada and am 57 years old so I’ve seen a few seasons here. I fully agree with the Russians.

    Are you noticing a trend here. People in Northern latitudes are seeing things a little differently.
    Maybe you warm latitude folks are watching cold air masses clashing with your warm air and producing some violent weather.
    I think you are coming to the wrong conclusions about why.

    Stop listening to want to be presidents like Al Gore and do your own research.
    I suggest you stop whining like a bunch of women in the ladies room and get ready for what’s really coming. The world has gone through flood and glaciation before.
    To quote “The Chilling Stars” warming cycles kill people but cooling cycles kill a lot more people. Most civilizations of the past have not complained about the warming cycles. Don’t be sheep. Do your own homework.

    • Len Holliday says:

      I agree with you 100%! We are already in the early stages of the next ‘Little Ice Age’ that will last for 50 to 75 years or longer! I’m the Lead Forecaster with firsthandweather.com! We predicted this cold winter all the way down to telling everyone Jan. 7th of 2014 would be the coldest day of the Winter in the Southeast and it was! We put this forecast on our site way back in August of 2013 or 6-months before the Winter Started! Go look; firsthandweather.com THANKS! Len Holliday lenholliday@yahoo.com

  255. Ed Scott says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, the original theory put forth by the IPCC was that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide was the major cause of global warming. The IPCC commissioned a multitude of climate predicting computer models, with the predetermined conclusion, that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide is, indeed, causing a global warming, that a hundred years, hence, would endanger the Fauna on Earth, though probably not the Flora, as many greenhouse growers increase the Carbon Dioxide concentration inside the greenhouse to 1000 ppmv, which results in more rapid, luxuriant growth of the Flora inside the greenhouse. Worst case: Flora will take over the environment of Earth. But, but, Flora requires Carbon Dioxide and Sunlight (an overlooked component required by the environment) to thrive. Not to worry. Nature has the capability to instantaneously emit tons of Carbon Dioxide via volcanic eruptions.

    Dr. Spencer visited the Carbon Dioxide monitoring site atop Mauna Loa on the Big Island of Hawaii, where he was assured that monitoring was halted when the wind was from the direction of the active Kilauea volcano, a few miles down the slope, which emits tons of Carbon Dioxide daily.

    Several years ago, a French journalist surveyed all the available material on global warming and wrote a monologue, on global warming. His conclusion was: computer models are not reality, Nature is reality.

    The global warmists have been allowed to change the language of the debate from Anthropogenic Global Warming to global warming/climate change, and claim proof of the theory by “consensus.” There is no factual, proven correlation between anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and any adverse changes to the Earth’s environment.

    Global warming and global climate change are in the purview of Nature and Nature will effect changes as Nature is wont. I will not argue against Nature. but will argue against the unproven theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    The intent of the UN/IPCC attack on anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide is to diminish the industrial productivity of the Western cultures and achieve power and control on a global scale.

    Spread the wealth, anyone?

    I am dismayed at the attention given to an obvious plant like Jimbo. Jimbo’s sole purpose seems to be a filibuster to inhibit any meaningful discussion of the subject.

  256. Heath says:

    Hello, its good article about media print, we all be familiar with media
    is a impressive source of information.

  257. Liza says:

    It’s an remarkable piece of writing in support of all the internet people; they will obtain
    benefit from it I am sure.

  258. Felipe says:

    Thanks , I’ve just been looking for info approximately this topic for ages and
    yours is the best I’ve found out so far. But, what about the conclusion?

    Are you sure about the source?

  259. I’m really loving the theme/design of your web site.
    Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems?
    A few of my blog readers have complained about my site not working correctly in Explorer but looks
    great in Firefox. Do you have any solutions to help fix this problem?

  260. Colette says:

    you’re actually a good webmaster. The website loading
    pace is amazing. It sort of feels that you’re doing any distinctive
    trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterwork.
    you have done a wonderful process on this matter!

  261. Len Holliday says:

    Dr. Spencer, I have always been a big fan of yours! You are a good man and a very smart and talented Meteorologist! I am the Lead Forecaster With Firsthand Weather a weather site my son is the CEO of! Matthew is a last year Meteorology Student at the University Of Oklahoma! I do not believe in Global Warming and neither does he! As a matter of fact, both of us know for sure that we are already in the 2nd or 3rd year of the next ‘Little Ice Age’! All these stupid people should listen to you, because you are 100% correct. Global Warming is now in the history books for the next 50 to 75 years at least! An extremely dangerous hibernation of the Sun has already begun and we are going to have many challenging decades ahead to say the least! And before someone starts calling me names and saying how stupid I am, I put out our Winter Forecast 6-months in advance as we told the world the Winter Of 2013-2014 would be the coldest winter in the Southeast, U.S. in 50 years and even told the world the coldest day of the entire Winter would be Jan. 7th of 2014 way back in August of 2013 as was right to the day! If any of you have put out a forecast this accurate then I’ll listen to what you have to say! If not, then O’Well! I did’nt think so! Keep up the great work Dr. Spencer and if you need any help keeping these name calling Nut Jobs at bay, just let me know! THANKS, Len R. Holliday(Lead Forecaster with firsthandweather.com)! lenholliday@yahoo.com You can read my profile on LinkedIn!

  262. Now says:

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on clash of clans hack.
    Regards

  263. Manual says:

    Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all people you actually recognise what
    you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also visit my website =).
    We can have a link change arrangement between us

  264. As for the causes, some individuals may still find it liver
    injury leading to anger and despair, while an individual
    realize its the result of cholecystitis, and also eating
    too much meat can lead to the release of abnormal gastric
    acid. Some of the popular compositions are lansoprazole, pantoprazole, omeprazole, and esomeprazole etc.
    Other like to blame spicy foods such as hot curries or
    Cajun seasonings; others cite grapefruits, oranges and antacids or acid suppressors like ranitidine, omeprazole or
    cimetidine.

  265. barry says:

    It’s a cartoon. It’s not meant to be serious.

  266. David L. Hagen says:

    barry
    People similarly dismissed Hitler’s rhetoric. The consequences were horrific:

    As early as 1922, [Hitler] promised his followers, “If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job.” This principle, which figures prominently in his book “Mein Kampf,” was the rationale for the comprehensive anti-Jewish laws enacted by the Nazi regime, and, after the outbreak of war provided the opportunity to carry out the long-contemplated plan, formed the basis for genocide.

    Even as he harped on the need to destroy the Jews, Hitler cleverly insisted that it was world Jewry that was conspiring against the German people. Nazi rhetoric portrayed Jews as an aggressive cancer whose elimination was necessary to guarantee the health of the German nation, and in a speech before the Reichstag in 1939, on the eve of World War II, Hitler asserted that it was “international finance Jewry” that wanted to “plunge the peoples into a world war,” and the result — entirely defensive — would be “annihilation” of the Jews.

    Today’s ecofacism is equally deadly though not as obvious.
    Obama denying cheap power to developing countries because its coal fired, is equally causing millions of children to die early deaths for lack of medicine made unaffordable by hindering economic development.

  267. @David L. Hagen:

    Thus, you mean rhetoric that vilifies a specific group of people and that displays this group of people as extraordinary, deadly threat to another group of people, or even to humankind as a whole or large parts of it? Rhetoric claiming that this threatening group of people was part of a global, evil conspiracy pursuing goals of world domination/control or similar? Rhetoric implicating that, because this group was such an extreme threat, even extreme measures against the members of the group were a justified defense against the threat, accordingly?

    Right?

  268. yonason says:

    He was quoting the NYSlimes. That’s their idea, not his (unless he agrees with them).

    And, yes, they DO mean it!

  269. RichardLH says:

    Anyone who uses terminology that seeks to denigrate another’s opinion is wrong.

    Address the science, not the person.

  270. barry says:

    I thought it was the alarmists who can’t tell when someone is joking.

    And who is they? Naomi Oreskes? What does a Rico-style prosecution have to do with the NYT cartoon?

    ‘They’ seems to be anyone who says something bad about skeptics.