If Skeptics can be Prosecuted for Fraud, So can Alarmists

June 17th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m glad to see this news report today, and I’ve been saying the same thing ever since the whole Attorneys General flap started:

“If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.

The cuts both ways argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration, said the letter. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.

The popular comparison of legitimate skepticism and uncertainty over the causes of climate change with hiding the risks of tobacco use is just so silly. No one can be demonstrated to have been harmed by manmade climate change, partly because there is no way to establish causation, there has been no demonstrable increase in severe weather events, etc.

Besides, can any investor in Exxon Mobil really claim they never heard of the possible risks of anthropogenic climate change? That’s all we’ve been hearing in the news for the last 30 years.

But Dr. Spencer! It can be demonstrated that flash floods have killed more and more people in their cars over the last 150 years!” Sheesh. If you really think this is a valid argument, I can’t help you.

In fact, to the extent that recent climate change has been partly caused by humans (which I do believe…even though I cannot prove it), the positive externalities have likely outweighed the negative externalities (cold weather still kills more people than hot, crop productivity goes up with increasing CO2).

That is in addition to the fact that we have no large-scale replacements for fossil fuels yet, and to the extent we force expensive renewables on people, we make poverty worse. And poverty does kill.

Environmental groups that have pressured decision makers into bed with them on the issue should be held accountable for their deceit.


309 Responses to “If Skeptics can be Prosecuted for Fraud, So can Alarmists”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Michael van der Riet says:

    Call me a fence-sitter or a lukewarmist or whatever but that’s exactly my position. Global warming is real, some of it is caused by humans, even if it were all caused by humans the degree of warming will be minor, and the outcome is most unlikely to be catastrophic. Even if it were all caused by humans the costs of eliminating carbon to the extent that any significant reduction of warming is achieved, are so high that it would indeed be a catastrophe, as it already is. With present technology we have three options: get used to living in a high-carbon world, switch entirely to nuclear, or return to the Stone Age. I have faith that the rapid advance of artificial intelligence will soon allow it to solve problems way beyond any human brain, and thus to invent a cheap clean energy generator. Provided the machines don’t eliminate all organic life from the planet as an unnecessary encumbrance, that is.

    • Those of us so-called “skeptics” that don’t deny that atmospheric GHG could have some modest and non-harmful warming effects on earth surface temperatures, but don’t believe the alarming global warming projections resulting from un-validated climate simulation models, have very convincing data to support our position. A growing body of published work that determines climate sensitivity to atmospheric GHG based on actual data analysis, and not un-validated climate simulation models, proves there is not an immediate problem requiring immediate action, especially given the “official” range of uncertainty on global warming published by the IPCC.

      Climate alarmists only have speculation imbedded in the assumptions and code of their climate simulation models to support their position. Our experienced team of NASA Apollo Program veterans are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and rational decision-making used by our US government to react to the AGW alarm. The high level of uncertainty claimed by climate scientists in their global warming projections is not caused by available data; it is a result of their belief in output of their un-validated climate models. In our NASA manned space experience, such models would be officially barred from use in critical decision-making. Read NASA Standard NASA-STD-7009 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140017301 regarding use of models in critical design or operational decisions affecting human safety.

    • Tony Rohl says:

      Living in a high carbon world?. What nonsense. Our planet and everything on it is composed of carbon atoms.

  2. Michael Shaffer says:

    “Environmental groups that have pressured decision makers into bed with them on the issue should be held accountable for their deceit.”

    Specifically, which deceitful statements would those be?

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Good question, Michael! Let’s subpoena the last 10 yrs of e-mail records from environmental organizations and find out!!

      • Ross says:

        It is your air of superiority that lands you trouble and comments like this that make you be person you really are.

        I along with many hundreds of thousands of Christian’s worldwide are embarrassed by you and your lack of tolerance for environmental concerns. We should have a church debate on the science in front of your Baptist audience.

        And this article of yours was about character and truthfulness after all.

        • fonzarelli says:

          Can’t a man be facetious on his own blog?

          • Stephen Richards says:

            Not when their are people who seriously believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

        • mpainter says:

          Well, well, Ross doesn’t like it when Roy Spencer suggests that this subpoena business should be turned around and pointed in the other direction. Curls his lip, he does, and preaches about Christian values, he does. Makes me laugh.
          He does.

        • Kate says:

          His “lack of tolerance for environmental concerns”? It’s truly pathetic that alarmists have to categorically misrepresent the views of skeptics to engage on the issue of climate change. As a poor substitute for any facts in support of your own position, or for any substantive challenge to a much more complex, balanced and nuanced pov than you seem able to tolerate, let alone comprehend, it reeks of a major superiority complex – as does the claim that you speak for “many hundreds of thousands of Christians worldwide” – as does the fact that diversity in opinion ’embarrasses’ you. Character indeed.
          Your response is the tactical equivalent of me accusing you of hating poor people, who disproportionately bear the burden of climate change policies. That’s a fact – but not one that I need to rely on to debate you on the failure of global warming models, the corruption of IPCC data and the fact that your beloved carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, solar and wind, Kyoto, – you name it – are simply corporate welfare and wealth redistribution programs which do ZERO to reduce global GHGs or ‘stop climate change’. What they will do is destroy western economies along with the middle class and render us beholden to OPEC dictators who routinely violate human rights. women’s rights, worker’s rights, and gay rights, and who don’t give a flying fig about the environment.

        • mpainter says:

          Roy makes a good point. There’s a good chance that the intention to deceive will be documented in the emails of the environmental organizations. Hopefully, we shall some day have those. We now have Overpeck’s emails, and these should provide some peeks at what’s being done in the dark.

    • Jim Thompson says:

      Oh, where to start? How about the UN claim in 2005 that within 10 years there would be 50-200 million “climate refugees” worldwide due to rising sea levels. Ten years later the population of the areas mapped had grown and some were the fastest growing areas in their countries. Now they claim it will be 2020. Don’t hold your breath.

      Or how about the Pentagon claim in 2003 that by 2013 California would be inundated by inland seas and The Netherlands would almost cease to exist. The polar ice caps would be almost gone during the summers and massive storms would rake the planet. This report was the basis for the claim that global warming was a national security threat.

      Or maybe the claim in 2000 by the CRU at East Anglia University that within a few years there would be no more snow anywhere in England or Scotland. In 2014 Scotland had more snow than any time in the previous 7 decades.

      Al Gore made several claims from 2007 to 2009 that there was a 75% chance that by 2013 the Arctic would be ice free during the summer.

      One can go on but I think that give a general idea. These kind of predictions are still being made. I agree with the good Doctor. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • spalding craft says:

        How’s that for starters, Michael.

        I guess my basic thought is that neither alarmist nor denialist claims have caused any quantifiable harm. It’s political speech that has gone over the top on both sides. This is why the attorneys general campaign is so stupid. And the campaign itself has caused several legitimate organizations to spend a lot of money defending themselves.

        The AG’s need to stop this foolishness now, or they deserve the retaliatory actions that will inevitably come. They will pay for their blatant abuse of power.

        • Je Pense says:

          “…neither alarmist nor denialist claims have caused any quantifiable harm.” I strongly disagree. There’s a long list of financial damages arising from alarmist claims to date, involving public and private funds. I would list Obama administration payments to the Green Climate Fund, public and private losses in bankrupt renewable energy companies (e.g., Solyndra), subsidies for renewable energy which will never provide a return, higher electricity costs, coal industry losses due to CPP, public expenditure for the AG investigations, Exxon-Mobil’s legal bills for same…

          • mpainter says:

            I Agree wholly.

          • spalding craft says:

            Again, the question of quantifiable harm, and the examples Je Pense provides, is a function of politics and is small potatoes in the scheme of things. We’ve avoided really expensive things like carbon pricing schemes and extremists efforts to destroy fossil fuel interests.

            What I’m trying to do here is tone down this endless tit for tat and endless laundry lists of things that offend one side or another. The climate wars have worn me out and have caused millions to turn their attention elsewhere. Hard core skeptics and warmists are no longer convincing anybody other than their own choir.

            What I favor is the approach of scientists like Roy Spenser and Judy Curry – i.e. constantly hammer away at the uncertainties and constantly demand verification of statements and projections arising from climate models (the heart of the warmist cause). This is where skepticism and skeptical behavior will pay dividends.

          • mpainter says:

            But I can’t agree with anything in your comment. You are wrong from start to finish.

          • ColA says:

            Australia has several desalination plants which cost hundreds of millions to build which were never needed and NEVER used! and still cost millions to maintain in a mothball state because our politians were stupid enough to listen to the likes of Tim flim flam Flannery when they wrongly said all the dams would be empty! I wish to God someone would take him properly to task for all his bullshitzer wrong predictions!

          • Je Pense says:

            I have no problem with focusing on uncertainty, if that’s one’s preference. But nothing is gained, and further harm is caused by ignoring the real damage being done by public policy focused on reducing CO2 “at any cost”.

            It’s important to bear in mind that there are really 2 debates going on–scientific, and public policy. Ignoring or downplaying the exceptionally bad benefit/cost ratio of major “climate change” public policy initiatives to date does real damage, especially to the poor, and encourages more of the same. Don’t take my word for it–ask a coal miner.

        • An Inquirer says:

          spalding craft says: “neither alarmist nor denialist claims have caused any quantifiable harm.”

          It is a justifiable concern that a person who appears to be reasonable and thoughtful could make such a statement. It points out the failure of our educational system to teach analytics . . . maybe we have had that failure for decades.

          Here is just a few examples on harm that have come from alarmists.

          1. To fight global warming, the United States mandated that an increasing percentage of motor fuel must have ethanol in it. As a result, corn prices doubled. Now, the U.S. with all of its processed foods, a doubling of grain prices translates only into a 5% increase in food prices, but in countries where large segments live on only a few dollars a day, a doubling of grain prices could mean starvation, and it certainly means food riots. People died because of this legislation.

          2. Also, this legislation also caused the deforestation of thousands of square miles of Amazon tropics and subtropics trees. Definite harm to the environment.

          3. When alarmists convinced government officials in Australia that permanent drought would exist in that country, they cancelled plans to build dams and put their resources into desalination plants instead. Those plants never were finished, but the lack dams to handle heavy rains meant that people died.

          4. In Maldives and other low-lying islands, authorities have turned to scapegoating global warming for problems with sea encroachment — when the real problem is overuse of fresh water, inappropriate land use, coral damage, etc. Alarmists have switched focus and resources away from the real problem.

          5. Alarmists have succeeded in getting thousands upon thousands of wind turbines built. These wind turbines have killed millions of bats. These bats are no longer around to eat mosquitoes. Mosquito populations and problems from mosquitoes have consequently increased.

          6. Windmills have killed millions of birds as well, and their potential impact on the condor should not be taken lightly.

          7. Take a look at the what alarmists push for wind energy has done to the land in China where rare earths are mined. A tragedy and severe harm.

          8. Rules installed after Kyoto caused many factories to relocate from Europe to India and other Asian countries. This made pollution worse and increased health problems — and yes, people died.

          9. Here is a minor example, but it shows the pervasiveness of alarmist attitude. White Bear Lake in Minnesota is losing water. A few years of scientific study concluded the reason is that its aquifer is overused — the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitted too many municipal wells to be dug into that aquifer. Rather than admitting the mistake and devoting resources to solving the real problem, DNR blames climate change — even though other lakes in the area are not receding. So people who care about the lake needed to take DNR to court to get them to take corrective action . . . truly a waste of resources. Climate Change has become the scapegoat when officials make mistakes.

          The list could go on and on, but I hope that you get the picture that alarmist have caused quantifiable harm.

          • spalding craft says:

            Use of ethanol blended in gasoline has been with us since the 1990’s, and had nothing at all to do with fighting global warming. The reasons were to come up with a renewable fuel source that could stretch our gasoline supply and make us less dependent on imported gasoline. It also was an agricultural boondoggle to prop up the price of corn at a time when corn was cheap. Some advocates argue that ethanol fights global warming but this claim is bogus.

            I’m talking about large expenditures in this country – these are the expenditures we have a right to complain about. Supposed harm in Australia, China and the Maldives happen on someone else’s watch. I don’t know about these things and I doubt that you do either.

            Wind generators also have nothing to do with global warming alarmism, but make good sense in windy regions. In some states they are heavily subsidized but not in Texas and Oklahoma where they’ve attracted lots of private capital. Your numbers on birds and bats killed are vague and certainly overstated. And no method of electricity generation is benign.

            Whether Kyoto has caused widespread poverty and death is arguable and is one of those vague claims, usually relied upon by alarmists, that are impossible to substantiate.

            As to White Bear Lake, I’m not sure I understand this. DNR should not be allowed to get away with using climate change as a scapegoat.

            Lots of dumb things have been blamed on global warming, and places like the European Union have bet the farm on renewable energy sources, with possibly disastrous consequences. These big bets have not been made in the U.S.- we have conservative politics to thank for that. Government in the U.S. has wasted a lot of money on a lot of things, and I would never argue that climate change is not one of those things. But we haven’t bought into really expensive schemes likeothers have elsewhere. I’m sure I’ve paid a few tax dollars to fight global warming but I don’t think it amounts to much.

            If you think I’m a “global warming” advocate you are seriously mistaken. But I think you and others here seriously exaggerate the impact of global warming alarmism in real life.

          • mpainter says:

            Spalding, in your comment above you say

            “Hard core skeptics and warmists are no longer convincing anybody other than their own choir”

            ###
            As a skeptic, I find it most objectionable that you should categorize me with the alarmists. I find it objectionable that you should dismiss the efforts of skeptics to fight the evils of the alarmist cult so contemptuous. You do not appear to have any grasp of the issues, nor of the stakes.

          • mpainter says:

            Also, Spaulding, above you use the term “denialist”. Where did you pick up this term and how long have you used this? Your use of such a term marks you.
            And yes, wind turbines in the US are an outgrowth of climate alarmism. Your attempt to nay say that reveal you. You are not so clever.

          • An Inquirer says:

            In reply to Spalding Craft: You are right in some things, but you seem to miss some key elements which seem to make your conclusions questionable.
            Yes, it is bogus to claim ethanol fights global, and, yes, ethanol is a boondoogle as practiced in the U.S. However, global warming was given as a key reason for the legislation. In case you missed it when the bill was passed, you can read the Congressional Record for the references for the need to pass the ethanol mandate to fight global warming.
            You express doubt that I know what is going on in Australia, China and the Maldives. I do not know what criteria you would be using. Do you doubt that I do not know about the Holocaust because I was not there? FYI, I have seen the devastation of rare earth mining in China. I believe the news reports out of Australia I do not believe they made up dead people! And I have done extensive research on low-lying islands in the Pacific.
            Also, I have picked up dead bats under wind turbines. You claim that my numbers are vague and certainly exaggerated. Smallwood (2013) determined that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed every year in US by wind turbines. Even if Smallwood is off by a factor of 2, it does not take many years to get into the millions of kill. Moreover, more recent studies suggests that Smallwood underestimated the kill. If there ever was a geographic ideal place for wind turbines, it is the Altamont Pass; but over 3000 Golden Eagles have been killed there. The 1.5 cent subsidiary, the exemption from property taxes, and public policies driven by warmist mentality have pushed wind to levels it should not be. Yes, no generation method is benign, but if coal which produces 50 times the electricity killed a 1000 birds, the outcry would be huge.
            I do not know if I would claim that Kyoto has caused widespread poverty and death, but the impact has not been insignificant. Kyoto-compliant countries actually increased total CO2 emissions by 10% when consideration is made on the production that was shifted from them to Kyoto-exempted countries. Only a person unreasonable in the extreme could ignore the real pollution that occurred by shifting production in the manner induced by Kyoto. I would encourage you to read up on the HFC 23 schemes before you dismiss Kyoto as having minimal impact. The damage of Kyoto is no limited to pollution; it also aided crony capitalism / socialism. But let me repeat: a few other issues have bigger impact on poverty and death than Kyoto does.
            The White Bear Lake experience is only one of many examples where resources are diverted because of global warming becomes a scapegoat. Individuals had to sue and argue in court that the DNR should do its job and not hide behind global warming. That is a waste of resources.
            I do not know how much you pay in taxes, but taxpayers have paid over $100 billion because of global warming alarmism. In addition, utility bills are higher. Etc. etc.

          • BigWaveDave says:

            I remember in the late ’60s when Lake Phalen was losing water. The problem was that it had a leak through the sandstone that is under most of St. Paul and vicinity.

            I am skeptical about attributing the cause to wells. There are so many ‘viros whose goal in life is to blame humans for everything that ever happens..

        • Kate says:

          What Je Pense says … plus the brainwashing of an entire generation.

          • Jim says:

            “As to White Bear Lake, Im not sure I understand this. DNR should not be allowed to get away with using climate change as a scapegoat.”

            – Sounds like you understand it perfectly! 😉

    • mpainter says:

      Deceitful statements:

      For starters, James Hansen : “The oceans will boil and wind up in the atmosphere”

      There’s about 10,000 other instances from the alarmist crowd. The day of reckoning is coming and these types will have to answer for their concerted attempts to panic the public with their alarmist fictions based on their dubious science.

    • How about “hide the decline”? How about the “censored data” file among Michael Mann’s data related to his hockey stick graph? These and others already mentioned are just the tip of he iceberg. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is loaded with examples (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Hockey+Stick+Illusion), likewise his Hiding the Decline (https://www.amazon.com/Hiding-Decline-W-Montford/dp/1475293364/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=99ZYK1A0Q2JCH0EG7CDW) and Steve Mosher’s Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-CRUtape-Letters-Steve-Mosher-ebook/dp/B003552M76/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466184000&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Crutape+letters). These document instances in which it’s clear from some alarmists’ own words, in their own emails, not that they were asserting as fact some things that others would consider non-fact, but that they knew some things they were asserting as fact were false.

  3. The test for the climate theories is now in the making, finally. Game on! It looks like solar activity going forward will FINALLY be reaching the criteria I have stated that will result in a cooling trend ,while at the same time we have CO2 increasing which is suppose to cause warming.

    Now we will find out which side is correct. No spin no excuses. We should have a very good indication probably within in a year or two from now.

    I have maintained if solar activity becomes low enough it will result in lower global temperatures not only due to the weak solar activity itself but the associated secondary effects ranging from an increase in clouds(cosmic ray related?), snow cover ,sea ice, a lessening of ocean heat content , a more meridional atmospheric (n.h. especially) an increase in volcanic activity to mention some, and I might add a weakening magnetic field. All these factors should combine to bring down the global temperatures, if this does not happen I will admit to being wrong.

    THE SOLAR CRITERIA NEEDED IN MY OPINION TO GET THE BALL ROLLING BRIEFLY

    SOLAR FLUX SUB 90 SUSTAINED

    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KT. SUSTAINED

    • Roy Spencer says:

      well, of course global temperatures are going to cool over the next year or two just due to La Nina. How would you establish any solar causation with such a huge internal climate oscillation going on?

      • That is true which is why we will have to see how much cooling takes place and how persistent it is.

        If the cooling is in excess in magnitude/duration of time then past typical cooling events associated with internal climate oscillations (such as we are having now) when the sun was more active last century, then at that point the question will be what could be the cause of the excessive cooling?

        I just know if volcanic activity were to pick up while the sun was quiet everyone will say it is the volcanic activity.

        Of course the initial cooling is due to the ending of El Nino ,and it will take time to separate how much of the cooling as we proceed forward may be due to ENSO versus SOLAR.

        I think the answer to that question will come based on how typical or not typical the cooling that does take place going forward evolves.

        Three clues I will watch for if the cooling may be due to solar more then not, would be how negative the AO index may become going forward ,along with how much Sea Surface Temperatures on a global basis might decline , and how much might global Cloud Coverage increase.

        If these factors should take place going forward that would strengthen the solar /climate connection theory in my opinion.

        • A tendency for La Nina events to dominate relative to El Nino events would be a good diagnostic indication that high solar activity skews the system towards El Nino and warming whilst low solar activity does the opposite.

          • mpainter says:

            TSI does not vary by more than 0.1%. Difficult to see how this is any factor in temperature.

          • Aaron S says:

            There is more to the sun than TSI. You cant ignore cosmic rays (unless you are the IPCC) bc the literature is now overwhelming that they influence or force climate. Also the UV spectrum varies an order of magnitude more than TSI.

          • mpainter says:

            I think TSI includes UV. It should. Svensmarck’s hypothesis is settled science? Not to me.

          • mpainter says:

            Fonz, all I ask for is an explanation. I have seen none yet that convince. How does a 0.1% variation in TSI influence temperatures, pray tell.

          • Christopher Game says:

            mpainter, it isn’t the TSI that the solar hypothesis refers to. It is specific small-energy components (for example, charged particles) of the TSI that are proposed to be effective. The total, assessed as an overall average energy, swamps out the small-energy factors. That the specific small-energy components contribute to TSI doesn’t make TSI a reliable assessor of their efficacy.

          • mpainter says:

            And the theory is…?

        • fonzarelli says:

          Gotta figure tsi has something to do with it. (even the ipcc has blamed the weak solar cycle, in part, for “the pause”) The maunder minimum coincided with the little ice age and we’ve been warming for three hundred years…

        • Thomas says:

          Atmospheric water vapor is by many times over the most dominant producer of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect. I believe that is generally accepted as fact by all sides of this verbal flap doodle.

          IF there is a decrease in insolation energy to the planet, shouldn’t there be a decrease in evaporation from oceans, lakes and rivers thus a decrease in the presence of the most dominant component of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect thus an attendant cooling due to the reduced “greenhouse” effect?

    • doctor no says:

      “All these factors should combine to bring down the global temperatures, if this does not happen I will admit to being wrong.”

      What do you mean by “bring down”?
      Do you mean cooler than in 1950? 1960? 1970? …
      Provide us with a value.

      I doubt you will ever admit you are completely wrong.

    • Mike M. says:

      Salvatore,

      You wrote: “The test for the climate theories is now in the making, finally. … Now we will find out which side is correct. No spin no excuses.”

      Dr. No make and Dr. Spencer make good points. You need to provide specific criteria for distinguishing your prediction from natural variation. How much cooling? For how long?

  4. Ron C, says:

    I agree with the premise that exaggeration is fraud and actionable, and is much more widespread than skepticism and minimizing. But I wonder if the courts are up to deciding on the issue. I did look at how courts process scientific evidence in liability cases using the Bradford Hill factors, and judges operating without bias have the tools, if they choose to use them.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/claim-fossil-fuels-cause-global-warming/

    • Roy Spencer says:

      I don’t think any of it is going anywhere, legally. I’m just happy to see some AGs point out the hypocrisy.

    • RAH says:

      I’m no lawyer but it seems to me one factor that should be considered is that most of the concerns the Alarmist supporting AGs are going after are private while most concerns the Skeptic supporters would be going after are publically funded.

      So it would seem to me it should be legally easier and quicker to gain access to public records possibly containing evidence of fraud or malfeasance.

      For example:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/16/breaking-university-of-arizona-loses-foi-suit-for-emails-overpeck-and-bradleys-emails-to-be-made-public/

      • mpainter says:

        “So it would seem to me it should be legally easier and quicker to gain access to public records possibly containing evidence of fraud or malfeasance.”
        ##

        So it would seem but it took years of litigation to make the FOI work like it is meant to, in your example.

        • RAH says:

          Still the Alarmist will have to hurdle both the stipulation for “probable cause” as specified in the 4th amendment as well as the other legal proceedings which seem to move at the pace of molasses over sandpaper during the winter time. While the skeptics will have to deal with only the later in their FOI proceedings.

  5. mpainter says:

    I have always regarded the AGW proponents as lacking in the sort of mental balance that good judgment requires.
    This mental “imbalance” is evident in their science, in their alarmism, in their doctrines, in their behavior. The term “neo-facism” aptly describes the movement, and their shrill righteousness and hateful pursuit of skeptics echoes the fascist movements of the 30’s.

    Their cause is already lost, we are witnessing the final convulsions of the AGW cult.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      I’d like to believe their cause is lost, but I doubt that’s the case. Too many vested interests, crony capitalists needing taxpayer dollars to be diverted to expensive renewable energy projects, journalists who think it’s their job to help Save the Earth, and public who have been taught that 5 + 7 = 10.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Unluckily I have to agree with you Dr.Spencer.
        There are so much ideologically hijacked minds around, that I believe that it no longer matters if one day someone finally finds that the CO2 influence on climate is little or almost negligible.
        I’m sure that the religious CAGW movement will survive it anyways.

        I would resist to write this because it is off topic, but two days ago after the TV evening news, the weather forecaster used a new way to announce the predicted quantity of rainfall for yesterday in my area. She said something like “think! we could expect up to 100 liters of water per square meter!”
        Oh yeah! Using the usual “10cm of water” wasn’t sufficiently scaremongering, of course.
        By the way, yesterday the rain had fallen but nothing so exceptional.

        Have a great day.

        Massimo

      • Ross says:

        You have seriously lost it Roy. Waiting for your apology in the next yet higher El Nino rating of the “spike” in the Upper Troposphere as temperatures continue to climb beyond 1998 and 2016 spikes. Now for our winter results thus far – WARMEST since Climate records began in our country from colonial occupation. USA is also a part of this planet too I think. Those raging fires in California are just due to drought?

        • RAH says:

          Go away!

        • mpainter says:

          Here comes another hard core alarmist hyping an El Nino spike into climate catastrophe. A brain traumatized by fear.

        • Ayla says:

          Honestly, Ross, you want an APOLOGY?

          This the greatest existential threat humanity has ever faced and you want an apology…

        • AndyG55 says:

          As the temperatures continue to drop after the effects of the El Nino have worn of, we will be waiting for YOUR apology for you idiotic alarmism.

          But we will never get it, will we.

          You do know that the warming trend in the USA since reliable surface temperatures were recorded, is basically ZERO, don’t you, bozo !

        • “Waiting for your apology in the next yet higher El Nino rating of the spike in the Upper Troposphere as temperatures continue to climb beyond 1998 and 2016 spikes. Now for our winter results thus far”

          Ross, The temperatures have been steady since then and Roy and many other unadjusted climate data show a cooling since February this year! Open your eyes blind one!

          • And just because this winter is the warmest doesn’t mean you could blame on stupid man made global warming! Have you ever heard of elnino causing temperature spikes and 11 year solar cycle maximums. Do your research you uneducated prick face!

      • Thomas says:

        Dr. Spencer, try using the phrase “crony socialists” en lieu of “crony capitalists” just to see if maybe it conveys a more accurate picture of the actual processes to which you refer above.

        I think the condition to which you refer is certainly cronyism. I also believe it has more than just a bit of governmental fascism just to spike the punch, but for the life of me I am unable to find any legitimate capitalism at work anywhere in and among the various criminal elements who are working together to defraud honest Citizen/taxpayers and ratepayers.

        Systems of “crony socialism” take from the many who have little and use the ill-gotten gains to give more to those who already have much. Capitalism is the system that produces whatever prosperity that is available to be taken.

    • mpainter says:

      Well, Roy, the ebb tide is flowing, and they know it. Thus their desperate measures, the RICO 20, etc. I believe these desperados will get worse as the pause extends and frustrations mount; they will eventually self-destruct, imo. I would not rule out acts of terrorism, sabotage, etc by the radical hard-core as this mass neurosis/witch hunt runs its course.

      • mpainter says:

        The longer the pause, the more radical the words and deeds of the green bigots.

        • doctor no says:

          Pause ?
          What pause ?
          Oh – yes – that one. I thought it was dead, cremated and buried. You are telling me it is still alive? or, my god, has come back as a zombie?!!

          This article must be complete rubbish then:
          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/17/shattered-records-climate-change-emergency-today-scientists-warn

          • mpainter says:

            See my comment above concerning “imbalance”. This applies to alarmist rags, as well. And alarmist bloggers.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            Australia records warmest autumn ever , Great Barrier Reef: 93% of reefs hit by coral bleaching , those are just two of the preposterous claims referred to in the article by some joker called Damian Carrington.
            The author claims that the global average temperature in May has left the planet at its hottest for at least 5,000 years.
            Thats right, the temperature in May 2016 was actually hotter than that scorching July in 1189 AD, and of course not forgetting that sweltering June 1466 BC.
            Yellow-green journalism of that sort has become stale and threadbare and is generally ignored, at least by competent adults.

          • doctor no says:

            I bet you would be singing a different tune if it happened to set a cool record.

            You guys are so desperate!

          • @Doctor no Just because there’s a spike in the temperature doesn’t mean that the pause is gone and just because there are record breaking events doesn’t prove its gone either. Climate change doesn’t just happen over a year it is measured over a period of several years or more I suggest doing more research before posting such stupid articles

    • doctor no says:

      To mpainter:
      hallelujha !
      right on !
      go man go!

      p.s. The men in white coats are knocking on your door

    • doctor no says:

      “Their cause is already lost, we are witnessing the final convulsions of the AGW cult.”

      Why do your words remind me of the black knight sketch.

      Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s left arm.
      Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.
      Black Knight: Come on you pansy!

      Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s right arm.
      Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.
      Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!

      Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s leg.
      Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
      Black Knight: I’m invincible!
      Arthur: You’re a loony.
      Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Come on then.

      Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s other leg.
      Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Seems Dr No-nothing is going to change his moniker to “the black knight”

        Envy, hey Dr No-nothing.

  6. Rick Kargaard says:

    The goal of a preacher, politician or alarmist is to convince you that their point of view is the correct one. No amount of common sense argument will change their mind. The only place a discussion has a hope of uncovering some truth is amongst the undecided.

  7. ossqss says:

    Didn’t the POTUS just warn us a few weeks ago to prepare for the Climatecanes? Whom was it that was claiming a distinct 73% increase in downpours a while back, but nothing showing in any stream guage records?

    It is good to see some push back in this arena from the ongoing oppression that has been happening. It has been painful to watch this administration get a pass on so many blatent things they have done against the American will. Times are a changing…..

  8. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    The change of words will save the alarmists.
    If the world cools a bit, it is certainly climate change, so the alarm is the same, it only gets a bit harder to blame CO2.

  9. Carol says:

    How about being able to prosecute country leaders who are literally bankrupting the country they are supposed to be protecting and representing all under the guise of climate change??

  10. michael hart says:

    “Environmental groups that have pressured decision makers into bed with them on the issue should be held accountable for their deceit.”

    Bed? Actually, it seems a lot closer to: “Oh, could you pick up that daisy for me please? You just need to lean over this barrel I have placed in front of you.”

    Extremist environmental groups are going to be suing government, corporations, and individuals for many years to come. They will do this under environmental laws and EPA regulations they have already managed to get passed.

    • michael hart says:

      “Decision makers” will find that they can’t make as many decisions as they, or their electors, thought they could.

  11. Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

    Virtually every conflict/instability/mayhem of every kind in low or middle-income countries (which is to say virtually all conflicts globally because surprise surprise, rich countries don’t suffer civil wars) in the last 30 years has been ‘linked’ to climate change. Most commonly to the latter’s impacts on agriculture. The claim was most infamously made about Syria, but it’s also been made about Nigeria, Iraq, Sudan and more. I suspect if you do a google search you will find the claim for many older conflicts in Liberia, Congo and wherenot. Hell, even the IPCC preposterously suggested global warming could negatively impact food supply.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un
    (Yes, it could have some negative impacts, but the NET impact is the only thing that matters).

    And the EPA somehow manages to put a negative spin on the CO2-induced agricultural boom:
    https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/agriculture.html

    It was all nonsense. All of those conflict-afflicted countries showed greening in the last few decades, which almost certainly indicates greater agricultural productivity – surely CO2 fertilization doesn’t distinguish between wild olive trees and commercial olive trees. The very few places to show ‘browning’ were politically stable.

    Surely there must be some intention to mislead; the probability of making all these mistakes by chance, all going in the same direction, must be almost null. And surely with the definitive evidence that the world is greening the activists will learn their lesson and stop trying to link white man’s reckless gasoline burning to crop failure in Lesotho… but I suspect the ‘global warming affecting farmers’ meme will linger for a while.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    I have been trying to post for several hours using latest versions of Firefox and IExplorer 11.

    No luck. Out of desperation, fired up an ancient copy of Opera 12 and it at least acknowledged that I had already posted the post.

    Hope they don’t all show up at once.

  13. Gordon Robertson says:

    That one got through from Opera 12 but nothing from Firefox or IE 11. Did not post the same comment with Opera but it knew I had already posted it from FF and IE 11.

    Seems the comments are getting through but do not appear.

    I’ll change a few words and see it the comment gets through from Opera 12.

  14. Gordon Robertson says:

    Nope. There seems to be something in the comment that is not liked.

    Roy…are you sure your IT provider is not an alarmist?

    smile

  15. Gordon Robertson says:

    Comment…part 1

    I heard NOAA was being investigated by the US Congress for modifying data. They were given till the end of February 2016 to produce their data and last I heard they had refused to do so.

    • doctor no says:

      I have only one thing to say to this claim:
      Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)

      Surely you are not going to push that old wheelbarrow?
      Why don’t you skeptics find something substantial to argue about?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @doctor no “I have only one thing to say to this claim:
        Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)”

        Dr. Judith Curry was a co-author on the BEST study. She claims it is fudged in its final rendition. It’s only a statistical study anyway.

        As far as NOAA is concerned, explain how a responsible set of scientists can slash 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 then use a climate model to fill in the missing stations? That’s what the US Congress is investigating but NOAA is stalling in it’s release of its fudged data.

        The IPCC made it clear in 2013 that no global warming has occurred since 1998, calling it a warming hiatus. That was before NOAA slashed the 5000 stations and started the scientific misconduct. It’s plain from the UAH graph on this site that no further warming has occurred since 2013.

        We are waiting to see if the expected La Nina will smooth out the recent El Nino spike. If it does, that will be over 18 years with no average warming. Unless, of course, you’re a NOAA fan. Even at that, if there is warming, it will be from a natural process and not from anthropogenic warming.

        • doctor no says:

          “We are waiting to see if the expected La Nina will smooth out the recent El Nino spike. If it does..”

          Wishing and hoping and praying.

          2015 set a new warm record
          2016 is on track to set an even warmer record despite La Nina.

          The “pause” is definitely dead, cremated and buried. Why do you keep wanting to dig it up?!!!!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @doctor no “2015 set a new warm record…”

            Not according to NOAA satellite temperature data as compiled by UAH. Nothing exceeded the 1998 El Nino driven warming till the 2016 El Nino driven warming.

            “The pause is definitely dead, cremated and buried. Why do you keep wanting to dig it up?!!!!”

            Because NOAA buried it using pseudo-science and scientific misconduct. The US Congress is currently investigating their chicanery. The IPCC still recognizes the ‘hiatus’, only NOAA and alarmists like you think it is gone.

            If you think there’s nothing wrong with slashing 5000 global surface stations from a pool of 6500 and filling in the missing station data using interpolation and homogenization in a climate model, then I guess you’d swallow the lies about the ‘hiatus’ disappearing.

            To interpolate and homogenize the data, NOAA need to take stations up to 1200 miles apart and infer stations in between. They use only 3 stations in California, all near the ocean, and one station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic.

            That’s how you bury a ‘hiatus’.

          • mpainter says:

            One tenth of a degree over the spike of eighteen years ago.”Run!” sez Chicken Little.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @dr no…”That it beat the 1998 value by about +0.1 deg ?

            And that the values have increased, on average, by about +0.5deg since 1979 ?”

            Is that you, Josh?

            You don’t read graphs very well. The ‘true’ warming since 1979 is in the neighbourhood of half what you claim and it came in 2001, hardly a sign of AGW.

            The UAH graph has a baseline of 1980 – 2010. Anomalies below the baseline represent temperatures COOLER than the 1980 – 2010 average (so says NOAA). Any trend below the baseline is a recovery from cooling, not true warming. True warming in the UAH graph did not appear till the 1998 El Nino.

            As far as a later claim you made, that the February 2016 spike took care of the hiatus, you should know better than to claim that. A spike and an average are two different things. If the expected La Nina counters the spike, or more, the average could be back to the hiatus level or below.

        • doctor no says:

          “Its only a statistical study anyway.”

          Tell me, what type of study would you prefer ?

          Let me try and guess:
          A philosophical study?
          An artistic study?
          A chemical study ?
          A zoological study?

          or maybe you need a psychological study?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @doctor no “Tell me, what type of study would you prefer ?”

            One based on real data gathered in real time, like the UAH satellite data. I call it science.

            Anyone can go back in time using historical data and cherry pick it to get the desired result. Even at that, Dr. Judith Curry claims they did not find the results being pushed by Muller since the study ended.

          • doctor no says:

            You mean the UAH data which showed the record warm February 2016 value?

            That it beat the 1998 value by about +0.1 deg ?

            And that the values have increased, on average, by about +0.5deg since 1979 ?

            But, what would I know – I am but a simple scientist who has to resort to statistics.
            And the statistics tells me that the “pause”:
            “is no more”
            “has ceased to be”
            “is bereft of life, it rests in peace”
            “is an ex-parrot”

            References
            Monty Python

          • mpainter says:

            Here we see the alarmist in action, seizing upon an El Nino spike to carry out his AGW rant. One tenth of a degree difference between the last El Nino and the ’98 El Nino. A mind unhinged by fright.

          • doctor no says:

            The amount is irrelevant.
            Admit that the “spike” killed the pause.

            (think about a wooden stake and dracula, if that helps)

          • mpainter says:

            mpainter says:
            June 18, 2016 at 1:52 PM
            One tenth of a degree over the spike of eighteen years ago.Run! sez Chicken Little.

            “Drive a stake innit” sez Dr who?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Sorry…posted in the wrong place.

            @dr noThat it beat the 1998 value by about +0.1 deg ?

            And that the values have increased, on average, by about +0.5deg since 1979 ?

            Is that you, Josh?

            You dont read graphs very well. The true warming since 1979 is in the neighbourhood of half what you claim and it came in 2001, hardly a sign of AGW.

            The UAH graph has a baseline of 1980 2010. Anomalies below the baseline represent temperatures COOLER than the 1980 2010 average (so says NOAA). Any trend below the baseline is a recovery from cooling, not true warming. True warming in the UAH graph did not appear till the 1998 El Nino.

            As far as a later claim you made, that the February 2016 spike took care of the hiatus, you should know better than to claim that. A spike and an average are two different things. If the expected La Nina counters the spike, or more, the average could be back to the hiatus level or below.

          • doctor no says:

            Gordon- try performing a statistical study on the data and
            (1) tell me the average rate of warming since 1979 and
            (2) show me where the pause is

          • mpainter says:

            UAH data shows two flat trends connected by a step-up. This temperature step-up is about 0.25-0.3C. A step-up is not a trend. This step-up reflects increased SST due to increased insolation. See study by John McLean, 2014. Bottom line “rate of warming” is about 0.3C over the interval 1998-2002. Otherwise, no warming in the satellite data.

          • doctor no says:

            I said:
            “..try performing a STATISTICAL study”

            Not some Mickey Mouse, half-brained, visual-only interpretation.

          • mpainter says:

            The data speaks plain enough. A step-up is not a trend and CO2 cannot explain the step-up. See UAH June update. Two flat trends joined by a 0.3C step-up 1998-2002.
            AGW is a collapsed house of cards. AGW = Adios Global Warming.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Not some Mickey Mouse, half-brained, visual-only interpretation.”

            You mean like a monkey with a ruler, like you lot are.

          • AndyG55 says:

            NO WARMING before the 1998 El Nino.

            https://s19.postimg.org/f3dhdpmlv/UAH_before_El_nino.png

            NO WARMING between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.

            https://s19.postimg.org/nmwvbguyb/UAH_after_El_nino.png

            The ONLY warming in the whole satellite data come from the EL Ninos..

            ZERO CO2 signature in the whole of the satellite record.

            END OF STORY

          • doctor no says:

            Sorry – no end of story.

            Consider the La Ninas in the UAH data
            1983.20082012. AND, COMING SOON: 2016 !

            The trend is real !
            Believe !

          • mpainter says:

            End of warming. But actually warming ended with the end of the step-up circa 2002. Easy to see that the role of CO2 in the GHE has been much exaggerated.

  16. Gordon Robertson says:

    Comment part 2

    In the Climategate emails, Phil Jones of CRU, who is also an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author partnered with Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, was caught urging his cronies not to cooperate with a UK government Freedom Of Information request by Canadian Steve McIntyre to get the CRU data.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      aha …it doesn’t like the acronym H*a*d*c*r*u*t…without the apostrophes. It likes CRU but not the other.

      can’t blame it, I don’t either.

  17. Gordon Robertson says:

    rest of comment…hopefully.

    At another time, Jones commented something to the effect of why he should give McIntyre his data when all McIntyre intended to do was use it against him.

    If a statistician examines your data, finds it to be incorrect, then says so, that is deemed by Jones as a smear campaign.

    Of course, it goes much deeper. Since the IPCC depend on CRU temperature data for their surface temperatures, errors in CRU make the IPCC look bad, and the UN.

    That already happened when McIntyre and McKittrick destroyed the MBH98 hockey stick. They concluded that white noise applied to the Mann algorithms would produce a hockey stick. That was corroborated by statistician Wegman, brought in by the US government.

    The IPCC subsequently dropped the hockey stick, replacing it with the spaghetti graph, named due to it’s numerous error bars and alternate projections. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, dropped by Mann et al to get a flat shaft, were back in the spaghetti graph.

    Later, Bradley, part of the et al in Mann et al charged Wegman with plagiarism. Why would he not go after Wegman on his findings that their data was faulty? Charging him with plagiarism was a red herring attempt to discredit Wegman.

    Guess who was in the Climategate emails communicating with Phil Jones? Michael Mann of the hockey stick.

    Birds of a feather….

  18. Miner49er says:

    Prosecutors are not going to avenge those who were injured oby this fraud, interference and defamation. The remedy lies in tort law.

    These liars, hypocrites, crony capitalists and conspirators are liable in tort law for triple damages. The causes of action are defamation, commercial defamation, interference with contracts, interference, and conspiracy to deprive citizens of thsir constitutional rights

    Further, government action based on false premises has cost investors and managers of fossil fuel producers and users trillions of dollars.

    Let’s do some numbers. 300 coal fired power plants have been compelled to retire before the end of their useful lives. Another 300 are on the bubble because of the so-called “Clean Power Plan”. Say the stranded capital per power plant is $1 billion each. That amount of damage is $600 billion.

    Domestic thermal coal demand has been cut in half, by about 500 million tons. The expectation damages, at a marginal contribution of $15.00/ton for an expected life of 15 years, is $112.5 billion.

    A typical economic multiplier that reflects the incomes of miners, power plant workers and establishments in those communities, is 5. 5 x $715.5 billion = $3.5625 trillion. Triple damages makes that $10.688 trillion.

    Are you paying attention, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, and all the other charlatans?

    By the way, human fossil fuels use has no material effect on climate. it accounts for only 3% of all CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. And nature promptly converts ambient CO2 to calcite (limestone). CO2 + CaO => CaCO3.

    • doctor no says:

      I think your science is as good as your economics.

      • jim says:

        Give us a break from your BS David.

      • Ayla says:

        I’m sorry, doctor no, I thought you were on the side of the planet.

        But you keep talking about “the pause” and only deniers claim there is or was ever a pause.

        The “pause” is a mendacious fabrication of the BigOil heteropatriarchy and you clearly are one of its servile pawns.

  19. Miner49er says:

    Corrected comment:

    Prosecutors are not going to avenge those who were injured by this fraud, interference and defamation. The remedy lies in tort law.

    These liars, hypocrites, crony capitalists and conspirators are liable in tort law for triple damages. The causes of action are defamation, commercial defamation, interference with contracts, interference, and conspiracy to deprive citizens of thsir constitutional rights

    Further, government action based on false premises has cost investors and managers of fossil fuel producers and users trillions of dollars.

    Lets do some numbers. 300 coal fired power plants have been compelled to retire before the end of their useful lives. Another 300 are on the bubble because of the so-called Clean Power Plan. Say the stranded capital per power plant is $1 billion each. That amount of damage is $600 billion.

    Domestic thermal coal demand has been cut in half, by about 500 million tons. The expectation damages, at a marginal contribution of $15.00/ton for an expected life of 15 years, is $225 billion.

    A typical economic multiplier that reflects the incomes of miners, power plant workers and establishments in those communities, is 5. 5 x $825 billion = $4.54 trillion. Triple damages makes that $13.62 trillion.

    Are you paying attention, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, and all the other charlatans?

    By the way, human fossil fuels use has no material effect on climate. it accounts for only 3% of all CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. And nature promptly converts ambient CO2 to calcite (limestone). CO2 + CaO => CaCO3.

    • mpainter says:

      M49, the damage to the coal industry comes natural gas. This is today at such low price that it’s supplanting coal as a power fuel.

  20. So, the good outweighs the bad ? Tell that to the dead polyps in the Great Barrier Reef…We have adapted to the extremes that we are used to, not to the extremes we will face. And I don’t mean only humans, as they are but a single species on this planet.

    • mpainter says:

      You poor hand-wringer. Corals evolved under conditions much warmer than are seen today. You are a desperately frightened individual, bereft of the ability to reason. In other words, a typical alarmist.

      • doctor no says:

        I thought humans evolved and dinosaurs became extinct.
        Guess I was wrong in your case.

        • mpainter says:

          Corals evolved under warmer conditions than are seen today. Do you dispute this?

          • doctor no says:

            what about this?
            University of Queensland and Queensland Government researchers have confirmed that the Bramble Cay melomys the only mammal species endemic to the Great Barrier Reef – is the first mammal to go extinct due to human-induced climate change.

          • mpainter says:

            Wailing about rats. The AGW clowns at full gallop.

          • AndyG55 says:

            A small colony of rats, drifted from the mainland..

            Then got eaten by imported species

            NOTHING to do with AGW

            Just to do with Dr No-nothings moronic GULLIBILITY !!!

          • doctor no says:

            i’m gullible?
            Who told you about the “imported species” story?

  21. Ken Warenko says:

    Medical drug approvals do not use computer models for good reason. No respectable scientist would suggest that modelling a drug’s behaviour and side effects would be an appropriate substitute for clinical trials to acquire FDA approval – unless they worked for a drug company. I suspect the same is true of climate science.

    • doctor no says:

      You mean – wait and see what happens?

      Now that is REALLY smart.

      • jim says:

        Dr NO (David A.)–“Now that is REALLY smart.”
        What is really dumb is spending trillions and getting millions killed on the belief that climate models are correct.
        Especially stupid after the models’ multiple failures to make accurate predictions.

        • doctor no says:

          You want to know what REALLY dumb is
          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6?r=US&IR=T

          655,000: Persons who have died in Iraq since the invasion that would not have died if the invasion had not occurred.

          $7 trillion YES $7 TRILLION: Projected interest payments due by 2053 (because the war was paid for with borrowed money).

          And you have the nerve to complain about reducing co2 emissionssheesh!

          • Lewis says:

            Dr. No.

            That is a curious comparison. Have any more non-secquitors you’d care to contribute.

            How about: Everyone who was born will die of some cause or another so we should spend all our efforts on finding out if they are really dead, before they die, of course.

          • doctor no says:

            Please note it is spelt non-sequitur.

            Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary.

            I am not making any conclusions – merely bringing our attention to the fact that, despite being warned, people and governments can be stupid.

          • mpainter says:

            Lewis used the term correctly. Don’t be pretentious.

        • sergeiMK says:

          @jim

          Do universities shut down if climate science is stopped or does every one just take the same money for other research? Spending on research does not decrease.

          What is getting millions killed. please do not say lack of cheap energy, because no-one here has suggested how cheap energy will help the poor (who cannot even afford cheap, cheap energy).

          The whole climate problem is you should not mess with the power input to something you cannot immediately control. And when that control could take 20 to 250years to produce proven problems and another 100 to 300 years to correct (get the climate back on track) should you not be taking extreme precaution with the control settings.

          you could liken it to navigating a super-tanker through crowded waters but adding serious noise to all your sensors, eyes radar sonar gps. But with a supertanker only a few people are affected.

          • mpainter says:

            Such alarmism in face of the flat temperature trend is simply neurotic. The alarmists hype the El Nino spike and ignore the impending La Nina. Chicken Little grown large.

          • doctor no says:

            Sigh.
            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          • mpainter says:

            As in the alarmist who refuses to acknowledge that corals evolved under warmer conditions than are seen today.
            Maybe not blind, just willfully ignorant.

          • doctor no says:

            As is the denier who refuses to acknowledge that warmer conditions have led to coral bleaching.

          • Lewis says:

            Dr No,

            What has happened to the coral since 20,000 years ago – you know, when sea levels were 250 feet below where they are now.

            More exactly, do you believe there is a thermostat with which you can control the climate?

            Talk about obtuse

          • mpainter says:

            So what if coral bleached. It’s a normal occurrence. Imagine the bleaching that happened in the Eocene, when temperatures were 6-8 C higher than now. Do you imagine that it’s worse today than it was in warmer periods? You only reveal your lack of mental balance by ignoring such considerations.

          • doctor no says:

            “..Australia has weathered El Nio patterns for centuries but it was only once global warming began in earnest in the 1970s that the Great Barrier Reef began to experience repeated coral bleaching events.”

            https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/climate-change-coral-bleaching

          • mpainter says:

            Satellite record shows less than .4 C warming in 37 years. Quotes from mentally imbalanced alarmists does not change that.

          • doctor no says:

            It’s pathetic.
            Your entire argument is reduced to worshipping 37 year’s worth of numbers (NOT TEMPERATURES) from satellites.
            Do you understand what the word “climate” means ?

          • mpainter says:

            No, the microwave sounding units yield temperatures very accurately. The UAH global temperature anomaly chart will not go away simply because you screw your eyes shut.

  22. mpainter says:

    “If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration, said the letter. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”
    ###
    Yes, indeed.

  23. Sean says:

    This is more about money than criminality. The AG’s prosecution is about demonization so a toll can be extracted. Cigarettes cost $1.50/pack prior to the tobacco lawsuit and now cost $6/pack or more with the difference going to state and federal coffers. It does not matter than the poor mostly pay this toll. The AG’s and their democratic legislatures would love to have us pay as much tax to the state as price we pay to the fuel provider. Remember also, the tobacco companies still exist and their executives simply were embarrassed in front of Congress and now they generate 3x as much revenue in taxes as they do net sales.

    • doctor no says:

      You have omitted the huge health-related savings to the nation associated with people eschewing smoking.

      • Lewis says:

        Health related savings – that has not been proven and the truth may be exactly the opposite. In the meantime it’s a trite saying – kind of on the lines of 97% of scientists.

        The cigarette lawsuits were about money, pure and simple, not health. Torts lawyers and AG’s got together, sued the tobacco companies, who agreed to pay, by raising the price of cigarettes, mostly paid for by a poorer demographic. So the cigarette smokers pay a higher price, the money goes to special interests, not the taxpayer, who was supposedly getting ripped off by Medicaid costs of cigarette smokers.

        In the meantime, if they did stop smoking, the costs to the taxpayer of a longer, slower death is hardly an offset for the relatively quick, cheaper cancer we supposedly avoid.

        So much typical bs of those who pretend. AGW follows along the money path.

        • doctor no says:

          The American Cancer Society states:
          “A $1-per-pack tobacco tax increase would lead to more than $100 million in revenues in each of 44 of the states. At the same time, tobacco tax increases would save states hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs. If every state and D.C. raised its cigarette tax by $1 per pack, they would save nearly $645 million over five years by reducing lung cancer, heart attack, and stroke treatment costs. All states and D.C. would also see significant savings in Medicaid programs treating smoking-related conditions, as well as reduced pregnancy-related treatment costs.”

          Hardly bs.

  24. Tom Anderson says:

    Bravo! Well and concisely stated, Dr. Spencer.

  25. Dan Pangburn says:

    At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This puts CO2 levels in context.

    Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
    40,000 Exhaled breath
    20,000 OK in submarines
    8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
    5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
    5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
    1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
    1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
    1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
    404 Current atmospheric level
    275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
    190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
    150 All plants and animals become extinct below this level.

    • Mike M. says:

      Dan Pangburn,

      You wrote : “150 All plants and animals become extinct below this level.”

      Do yo have any evidence for that claim? It violates common sense.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        There is not much research in this area. Why would anyone care? A brief Google search revealed this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf which shows no reproductive ability below this level.

        • Mike M. says:

          Dan Pangburn,

          But that paper mentions one species that failed to reproduce at that level. And at least one other that could reproduce at lower levels, as low as 100 ppm. So maybe some species would go extinct (perfectly plausible). And others would replace them. Just like with other environmental changes. Life finds a way.

          • dave says:

            “…some [sic] species would go extinct [at 150 ppm]…”

            Hundreds of thousands. Most ecosystems would be shattered. As a top predator and exploiter, Homo Sapiens would be in immense difficulty. Certainly, agricultural production* would fall so much that a world-wide collapse of society could happen; leaving Dr Strangelove and his chosen hundred concubines to carry on.

            There is a review of the literature in;

            New Phytologist, (2010) 188:67-695

            Plant Responses to Low [CO2] of the Past,
            L M Gerhart and J K Ward.

            *The development of agriculture in the Middle East might not have been possible without the increase in [CO2] at the beginning of the present inter-glacial.

        • dave says:

          Oh I see that Pangburn is referencing that article. The narrow point about whether an individual plant can reproduce at a certain level of [CO2] is not dispositive of whether a species will become extinct or merely rare.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @DanPangburn…”275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution…”

      Dan…that’s a theorized level based on ice core proxies in Antarctica. Mann’s hockey stick study was based on tree ring proxies and it fell flat on its face. The tree rings started showing warming in the 20th century whereas thermometers were showing warming.

      Jaworowski, an expert on ice cores, claims there are several problems with the ice core sampling. For one, at certain depths, the pressure turns trapped CO2 bubbles to solids (clathrates). There’s no way to determine how that affects the concentration when thawed.

      For another, you cannot drill ice without melting it. Melt water dilutes the CO2.

      Jaworowski has estimated that the pre Industrial levels could be 30% – 50% higher.

      Studies in the 1930s – 1940s by scientists have shown CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv. Since atmospheric CO2 concentrations are related to the ocean temperatures it stands to reason that concentrations were higher in that period, which saw North American temperatures as high as today.

      Had it not been for NASA and it’s fudging, 1934 would still hold the highest temps in North America, even higher than 1998.

      Also, the pre Industrial was in the middle of the Little Ice Age, when global temps were 1C lower. Colder oceans = lower CO2 concentrations.

        • fonzarelli says:

          Gordon, the above link is engelbeen’s critique on jaworowski. Not to crazy about ol’ ferdi, but this is a worthy read. My question is always how is it that with all the problems that ice cores allegedly have then why are cores always coming up with the same numbers? They seem to corroborate each other rather well. Differing acculation rates, bubble closing time, location (ice flow…) and yet they match each other fairly well. If these problems (clathrates, water, smoothing, etc) were really problems then the numbers should be all over the map, but they aren’t…

          • fonzarelli says:

            “Not to crazy” should read “Not too crazy”… (☺)

            BTW, thanx for the smiley face!

          • Mike M. says:

            fonzarelli,

            I agree. The results don’t depend on accumulation rates or the rate of consolidation of firn to ice; they should not agree if the criticisms are correct. And cores in areas where ice forms rapidly give good agreement with the high accuracy atmospheric measurements made since the mid 50’s. So there seems to be no good reason to doubt ice the core data.

  26. Simon says:

    Should not make any difference which side you are on. If you are fraudulent in what you say or do you should get nailed for it. That goes for those on the mainstream science side and the denying team. Why should that even need to be said?

  27. Vincent says:

    As I’ve mentioned before, the main purpose and the main benefits of reductions in CO2 through the development of clean and renewable energy sources, is the achievement of a cleaner and less polluted atmosphere in our cities, as well as a cleaner environment generally, due to less mining activities of fossil fuels.

    There is also the additional security for future generations who will not become entrapped by a reliance upon dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

    Those who are optimistic about the future, hope that poverty in countries such as India, Africa and South America will eventually be eliminated. Achieving such results, and an Australian quality of living standards, will inevitably require huge amounts of energy. Exploiting fossil fuels to the maximum could achieve this. But what then? Economic collapse as fossil fuels really do become scarce?

    We know from history that societies have great difficulty in motivating themselves to build their dwellings at a standard which can resist the forces of extreme weather events that are known to have occurred in the past and will likely occur again at some unpredictable time in the future.

    We also know from the current situation that developing countries have ignored the dangers of pollution from coal-fired power stations and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, despite the fact that the consequences of such pollution have been understood for many decades, and are not in doubt.

    So what can we do about this sorry state of affairs? Any suggestions?

    • mpainter says:

      “Any suggestions?”
      ##
      I suggest that we undertake a campaign of education to help inoculate the public against the sort of inanities in your comments.
      The first thing we need to do is explain that CO2 is_not_repeat_not_pollution.
      Instead, it is the fundamental substance of life, the more the better. And that the biosphere has benefited greatly from enhanced atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels, with biomass increasing annually by several billions of tonnes. And humankind has likewise benefited from increased crop production and increased forage for livestock in rangeland, particularly in semi arid regions such as the Sahel.

      That’s the first thing we need to do. There are others.

      • Vincent says:

        How on earth does that help? You’re not making sense. Alarm about the consequences of rising CO2 levels is a modern phenomena. It didn’t exist during the beginning of China’s economic development when the country exploited fossil fuels in the cheapest and dirtiest manner. Only now is China beginning to clean up its act.

        As I’ve mentioned, societies seem incapable of acting rationally with regard to the expected repetition of extreme weather events that are known to have occurred in the past. Japan even built a nuclear reactor below previous, known tsunami levels.

        The fear of an increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, for whatever reason, might at least result in societies being more careful about the location and sturdiness of new dwellings.

        Fossil fuel reserves might in reality still be plentiful at this stage. However, as consumption increases, it’s not difficult to predict there will be a real and serious shortage at some time in the future.

        • mpainter says:

          Part of the education should be addressed toward demonstrating the neurotic tendencies of the alarmists. Then people will be able to understand how the AGW meme is based on fear-mongering.

          • doctor no says:

            Now, I don’t want to worry you, nor be labelled an alarmist.. but…

            In the first six months of the year, California has had twice as many acres burned as in all of 2015. This is the states fifth consecutive year of drought.

            This would be a drought no matter what, said A. Park Williams, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the lead author of a paper published by the journal Geophysical Research Letters. It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what. But its definitely made worse by global warming.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html?_r=0

          • mpainter says:

            According to the GCM’s, atmospheric humidity and thus precipitation, increase because of AGW. So the drought in California must be blamed on something other than CO2, I’m afraid.

            Now, you can ignore the GCM’s and AGW science, as it is presently articulated, and propagate your alarmist meme, if you wish. Let’s see what you do.

            I’m guessing that you will blame drought in California and floods in Texas on CO2.

          • RAH says:

            Speaking of “neurotic tendencies” I see that “Lurch” (John Kerry) is up in Greenland making his usual baseless Alarmist claims.

            He seems to like the month of June to go off the deep end on Climate.

            Remember these predictions?

            June 25, 2009 on the Senate Floor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOKE_DxLpQ

            June 2010
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obauzVG2mPI

          • mpainter says:

            And bleating out alarms over weather extremes stamps you as incurable alarmist. The IPCC reports no changes in weather extremes and makes no attribution to CO2 concerning such. The records confirm this and they are available. I’m predicting you will disregard them.

            Yes, you are the type of alarmist who lacks any sense of science or of the absurd.

          • doctor no says:

            “Im guessing that you will blame drought in California and floods in Texas on CO2.”

            Nope. I am open to the proposition that they were “made worse by global warming.”

          • mpainter says:

            For the neurotics higher rainfall = CO2, then lower rainfall = CO2
            Then warmer = CO2
            Then cooler = CO2
            Then they can’t understand why there’s skeptics.

          • fonzarelli says:

            “made worse by global warming”

            Is anything ever “made better by global warming”?

          • mpainter says:

            Hi fonz. Try biosphere. It does better. Warming is life, cooling is the scythe.

          • doctor no says:

            “Try biosphere. It does better. Warming is life, cooling is the scythe.”

            Of course it does better.
            So long as it doesn’t burn, isn’t flooded, not affected by rising sea levels, …

          • mpainter says:

            NOAA Mean Sea Level Trends for tidal gauges on stable coasts show no rise in sea level for thirty years.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Painter, i maybe forgot to put the /sarc tag on? Ohio State prof. Robert Wagner (aka “internet skeptic”) once showed a list of dire predictions from the 1970s global cooling scare, then compared it to those of the agw scare and they we’re virtually the same list! (we must have been at the perfect temperature back in the 70s…)

  28. Mike Flynn says:

    Without CO2 – and plenty of it – in the atmosphere, plants perish.

    Without plants, mankind perishes.

    Anybody advocating removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is advocating reduction in plant life, and subsequent adverse effects to mankind, including malnutrition, starvation and death.

    This would appear to fit the definition of a crime against humanity.

    Warmists obviously consider themselves above the law. If actually prosecuted, they would probably be able to plead insanity, inasmuch as they are delusional psychotics incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or benefit and disadvantage.

    Cheers.

    • doctor no says:

      Calm down and take your pills. Nobody is going to “remove” your precious co2.

      • mpainter says:

        Here the flaming alarmist pretends that none of the other flaming alarmists have advocated CO2 remediation.

        We actually have seen on this blog some of these types who deny the CO2 fertilization of plants. One Bignell comes to mind.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        doctor no,

        I’m glad you agree with the need for more, rather than less, food.

        Now, what about the money spent on foolishness such carbon sequestration schemes, calls to reduce the amount of CO2 replaced into the atmosphere? Was that wasted foolishly, or fraudulently?

        As I said, Warmist seem to consider themselves above the law. I’d rather see taxpayer funds used for betterment of humanity, rather than its destruction. Warmists appear singularly unconcerned with the future of anything except their own lunatic preoccupation with useless amateurish computer models.

        I may be wrong.

        Cheers.

        • doctor no says:

          “I may be wrong.”

          Mike – well done for allowing for uncertainty. I may even agree that sequestration is questionable. But I would rather err on the side of caution and try not to add more co2 to the atmosphere than is absolutely necessary. There are so many ways this can be done that make economic sense and can be justified on a risk-management basis.

          Ask any skeptic if they have any doubts about their entrenched positions. You will always get NO for an answer. Believe me, that type of response is a pointer to their state of mind.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            doctor no,

            How much CO2 needs to be added to the atmosphere? How much is absolutely necessary? Who will determine the smount?

            I’m fairly certain neither you nor anyone in the Warmist camp has a cogent answer. Just more demands for money to play their pointless computer games. Seriously.

            You may choose to take action based on Warmist wishful thinking. As I’ve said, they appear to consider themselves above the law, and disavow any semblance of accountability.

            Until somebody actually manages to raise the temperature of something using CO2 (preferably not in direct sunlight – that might confuse the experiment just a tad), I’ll remain unconvinced about the so far undemonstrated greenhouse effect. I don’t believe Uri Geller could bend spoons with the power of his mind, either.

            So I’ll ask again – what is the minimum absolutely necessary amount of CO2 you believe should be added to the atmosphere? Who calculated this amount, and where my I examine their calculations?

            Warmist make many assertions. Many demands. Factual answers seem in short supply. Can you make up the deficit?

            Cheers.

          • doctor no says:

            Mike

            A good place to start would be this article published in 2009 in Scientific American.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limits-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

            “To avoid catastrophic climate change, the world will need to emit less than one trillion metric tons of carbon between now and 2050, according to two new papers published in Nature today. In other words, there is only room in the atmosphere to burn or vent less than one quarter of known oil, natural gas and coal reserves.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr no,

            That article does not answer my question, of course.just more Warmist assertions. It doesn’t support your assertion, doesn’t mention food supplies, and waffles on as though increased energy generation is somehow bad for humanity.

            Claims of catastrophic climate change have no foundation, apparently. The greenhouse effect seems to be only in the minds of its believers, just like Uri Geller’s mental spoon bending abilities.

            You cannot even support your own statements by stating the minimum extra CO2 which should be added to the atmosphere. Just more Warmist links to meaningless and pointless journalistic flights of fancy. You don’t seem to have anything at all of substance to provide, based on fact.

            Thanks anyway.

  29. Vincent says:

    The point I’m making, which appears to be missed by many on this forum, is that a transition has to eventually be made from fossil fuels to renewables.

    If the alarm about the dire consequences of increasing CO2 levels is officially debunked, then such a transition will probably not take place until humanity as a whole is forced to make the transition at some distant time in the future, due to a real and actual shortage of fossil fuels which will cause a massive, world-wide, economic collapse.

    Politicians and leaders sometimes have to use trickery to get people to act in their own interests. If there’s no threat about a likely increase in extreme weather events, such as floods and hurricanes, then more properties will be built in accordance with inadequate building codes, in flood-prone areas, unable to withstand the normal strengths of cyclones and hurricanes that have occurred in the past and are likely to re-occur in the future regardless of climate change issues.

    To have a motivating fear, the basis of which can be neither proved nor debunked, like the existence of an everlasting Hell in Christian mythology for those who have misbehaved in this life, appears to be a necessary tactic to get many people to adhere to rules of good behaviour. Got it?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Vincent,

      You wrote –

      “Politicians and leaders sometimes have to use trickery . . . ”

      It seems they use it, whether they have to, or not. I guess that’s why people keep voting in a new lot of tricksters.

      I hope you’ve got a plan to find better politicians and leaders before the collapse. The record over the last few hundred years doesn’t fill me me with unbridled optimism.

      I prefer honesty to trickery, and fact to fantasy. I wish you luck with your attempts to convert others to your cause.

      Cheers

      • Vincent says:

        I really don’t know if politicians use trickery whether or not they have to. I’ve never seen a study or survey. However, trickery to some degree is embedded in our economy. Advertisers of most products rely upon it. Consider the causes of the recent GFC.

        Everything is cause and effect. I’m merely being objective and describing things as I see them.

        If everyone were rational and sensible like me, there would be no need for such trickery. But that is not the case. Greed, power and ego tend to dominate. Rationality, moderation and commonsense unfortunately do not always prevail.

        I’m not the only one who understands that, so it’s not MY cause. It’s a rational point of view supported by the facts of history.

        So far, the alarm of AGW has resulted in some productive research into solar power and other alternative energy sources, battery storage and the electric car. Without that alarm, I doubt it would have happened.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi Vincent,
          “So far, the alarm of AGW has resulted in some productive research into solar power and other alternative energy sources, battery storage and the electric car. Without that alarm, I doubt it would have happened.”

          No it doesn’t indeed, the researches about reliable batteries (which are at the core of solar/wind energy sourcing and electric cars reliability) started with the satellites era in the sixties and never ended.
          What the AWG scaremongering did and still does is diverting an incredible amount of money in the pocket of not smart people who just realize system already discarded by their much more smart predecessors.
          These new kind of scientists spend lot of money without doing accurate analyses of pros and cons.
          And that’s a real shame IMHO.

          Have a great day.

          Massimo

          • fonzarelli says:

            Massimo, sure is nice without “Bigmouth” around, isn’t it? (☺)

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            I suppose I know who is your Bigmouth and yes is nicer without him.
            Even if I feel a little bad knowing that there are such kind of people who consider me a liar or a fool, just because I’m honest and I’m absolutely not convinced of his truths.

            Have a great day Fonzy.

            Massimo

        • fonzarelli says:

          Vincent, your line of reasoning is exactly why politicians should NOT resort to trickery. We know that fossil fuels are going to run out, but we don’t know if agw is going to pan out. If energy policy rests on the success of agw theory, then we run the risk of doing nothing at all about energy policy if it fails. There’s no reason why governments can’t see the problem as it is (energy security) and then make policy from there. The last thing we need are more lying politicians (haven’t we seen enough of those?)…

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Vincent,

          I’m not sure, of course, but maybe you’re mistaking the US with the 95% of the world that isn’t the US. Maybe the reason that the US is but a shadow of its former self is due to the actions of its politicians and leaders.

          Do you really want to follow the example of a country which is becoming more and more irrelevant in the modern world? I’m not sure that I do.

          As to your example of benefits of AGW alarm, I might just as well say that alarm about a particular ethnic group resulted in productive research into more efficient ways of gassing people, and Zyklon B. Not so wonderful, maybe.

          Solar power has been around for 100 years. It’s still only a niche application, remaining uncompetitive for mass baseload generation – for example at night.

          Battery storage and the electric car have likewise been around for more than a century. Once again, niche applications only. They still need a cheap supply of electricity to function – usually created by burning stuff.

          Climatology is based on an effect which cannot be scientifically demonstrated, doesn’t work indoors or at night, has provided nothing of benefit to man nor beast, even though it has consumed billions of dollars. Breathless claims of “hottest month/year/decade EVAH!”, (obviously false, given the once molten nature of the surface), and pointless toy computer programs of zero predictive ability, might convince you. Not me.

          Just for fun, consider what would happen if the climate actually stopped changing, in line with the demands to prevent climate change. What then? It’s really, really, silly when you think about it! I suppose the Warmists will say they didn’t really mean to say they were trying to stop the climate from changing, but something else entirely.

          And these are the sorts of people you want to put in charge? Good luck – I think you’ll need some!

          Cheers.

    • Groty says:

      It seems to me that most of what you think you know is based on the idea that you can see the future. The global economy has been “de-carbonizing” since before John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln. See Figure 1 at the end of this Jesse Ausubel speech.

      http://phe.rockefeller.edu/AustinDecarbonization/AustinDecarbonization.pdf

      The process of decarbonization that’s been occurring naturally for at least 160 years did not happen due to government mandates or government coercion, or what you may call smart people engaging in trickery to force the rest of us to do what they think we should. No, it happened in a naturally occurring, evolutionary process by which competitive market forces caused people to innovate toward more hydrogen based fuels and away from carbon intense one. If that continues, then hydrogen – the most abundant element in the universe – will eventually become the primary fuel source that drives our world economy. But even if that takes longer than expected, we have not even touched methane hydrates yet, and there is more carbon energy in those reserves than there is in all of the coal, oil and natural gas that has existed on planet Earth combined.

      The current problem we face is that the solar and wind industry bought the Democrat Party and the left wing global elites who run the world. The government is now using coercion to mandate uneconomical and unreliable “renewable” fuels be used and they are confiscating money from taxpayers to subsidize it. It’s a gigantic wealth transfer scheme from the poor and those who lack political influence to the politically connected Democrat cronies. Trickery indeed. The sooner this corruption is ended then the sooner we can get back on the process of decarbonizing naturally that’s been underway for the past 160 years via natural processes.

      The air in the U.S. is cleaner now than it’s been since at least 1980.

      https://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

      CO2 emissions from power plants in the U.S. are lower now than they were in the Reagan administration.

      http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22372

      The fact that the air is cleaner and CO2 emissions from power plants are lower is pretty remarkable considering we have about 50 million more people living in America than we did when Reagan was president and the economy is generating about $10 trillion more in economic output per year than it did then. The “smart” central planners think their coercive regulations caused it, but it mostly happened because fracking created an abundance of low cost natural gas which is being substituted for coal as the primary fuel source to generate electricity (natural gas is less carbon intensive than coal, so there is that natural, evolutionary, de-carbonization at work again).

      For fun, Google the “Horse Manure Panic of 1894”. Horses were the main source of transportation in major cities then. NYC had about 100,000 of them pulling buses, trolleys, wagons, taxis, etc. Each horse leaves behind about 3 lbs of manure and a half gallon of urine every day. The city smelled like a sewer. When it rained the streets and roads turned to horse manure muck. Sometimes a horse would be worked to exhaustion and die on the street, where it would be unhooked from the rest of the team and left to rot and decay. Flies like laying eggs in manure so there were flies and maggots everywhere, helping spread disease which people were also spreading by walking around in horse manure. Some smart fellow who thought he could see the future did the math and announced that within 50 years the city would be 9 feet deep in horse manure. That started the panic. Smart fellows in London, Paris, Berlin and all the major cities of the world started holding conferences (predecessor to the IPCC?) to figure out how to force their fellow citizens to live. They developed elaborate urban planning schemes based on what they believed the future would look like. Then the trolleys converted to electricity and Henry Ford invented the assembly line to mass produce cars and the need for horses in the cities fell dramatically. The horse manure problem was innovated away via de-carbonization. That’s because the horses were fueled by hay, which is more carbon intensive than the coal and oil used to fuel the electric trolleys and the cars.

      Finally, if you want people to build safer structures you should encourage the government to stop subsidizing federal flood insurance on the coasts. If private property and casualty insurers won’t underwrite the risk, why should taxpayers? The dumbest thing in the world is to use government coercion to force taxpayers to underwrite the flood and hurricane risk for rich, white, mostly liberal elites to live on the coasts. They get wiped out to the tune of billions of dollars by a storm like Sandy and then use taxpayer money to rebuild in the exact same spot only to be hit by another hurricane or flood a few years later. It’s insanity. Eliminate federal flood insurance and they’ll move inland.

    • jimc says:

      Vincent, you seem to have unqualified confidence in your own omniscience and goodness and unqualified disdain for that of the remainder of humanity. Would it shock you if I told you that you are the last person I want making decisions that affect my life?

  30. Dan Pangburn says:

    It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. Thomas Sowell

  31. Dr no says:

    Sorry.
    I tried to be helpful.
    But you can only lead a horse to water—-you can’t make him drink.

    • Dr no says:

      Msg above was for mike.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr no,

      Your definition of help, like most Warmist definitions, has little to do with the definition used by normal people.

      You haven’t an answer, have you? Why not just admit you don’t know?

      The Warmist tactics of deny, divert, confuse and obscure aren’t working so well these days. Delivering pointless and irrelevant aphorisms in a condescending and patronising manner no longer disguises the fact that Warmists are essentially clueless. Fantasies, claimed abilities to see into the future, precisely no accountability for their alarmism – Warmists are demonstrating what they are. A ragtag collection of scientific wannabes. Cargo Cultists, dragging respect for the scientific method along with them, down into the abyss of ignorance.

      Climatologists – can explain nothing, but predict everything. The science is settled, except when it’s pointed out it’s not, or the funding is drying up.

      All part of the rich tapestry of life, I guess.

      Cheers.

      • mpainter says:

        Pretty good summary of the alarmist cult, Mike. I would add to that the perversion of science to advance the scaremongering tactics that they are addicted to. Yes, they represent the dark forces of humanity, and revive the fascist horrors of the last century.

        • doctor no says:

          Thanks guys.
          Your diatribes are certainly entertaining but definitely not original.
          I sense that skeptics are now repeating themselves. Or at least echoing and re-echoing each others opinions. I haven’t heard an original argument from them in ages.
          Maybe repetition gives you comfort ?
          Much like braying dogs ?

          • mpainter says:

            Did you know that higher levels of CO2 have greened the planet by 15%? Some of your type refuse to acknowledge that. How about you?

            Here’s the truth: atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, the more the better.
            So relax and reflect on the benefits of a greener earth and an expanded biomass.

  32. mpainter says:

    “tried to be helpful”
    ###

    Oh, you helped. It’s always helpful to have an incurable alarmist at hand as an example. Above, I commented about the “mental imbalance” of the AGW hard core, and no sooner said than you pop up as confirmation. And confirmation on top of confirmation. So yes, you helped. Thanks for the demonstration. Please come back, soon.

    • doctor no says:

      “Please come back, soon.”

      I think you should address this plea to the “pause”.

      • mpainter says:

        Good to see you back. What are going to say in six months when La Nina is in full swing? Will your spike-hype still be tooting?

        • doctor no says:

          What are going to say in six months when La Nina is in full swing and the temperatures are again warmer than the previous La Nina?

          • mpainter says:

            I will say that the only warming during the satellite era was the step-up at circa 2000-2002, and that this step-up is approximately 0.3 C and that it connects two flat trends.

  33. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/james-maruseks-little-ice-age-theory/

    mpainter here is the theory that I embrace and have as to why /how solar changes effect the climate

  34. mpainter my arguments for a solar /climate connection.

    Here are the specifics on solar criteria needed to impact the climate to a colder condition in my opinion. These conditions were likely present during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.

    Solar Flux – sub 90 sustained.

    Cosmic Ray Counts – in excess of 6500 units sustained.

    Solar Irradiance -ff by .15% sustained

    AP index – or lower sustained via a weak solar wind.

    EUV light – 100 units or less.

    Solar Wind – 350 km/sec or lower sustained.

    How cold I can not be specific because I believe there are climatic thresholds that could be breached if solar conditions are weak enough and long enough in duration which would drive natural climatic drivers to such extremes that climatic thresholds could come about.

    These natural climatic drivers being the following:

    1. Global cloudiness via galactic cosmic rays tied into the solar wind strength.

    2. Atmospheric circulation patters via ozone changes tied into changes in EUV light.

    3. Sea surface temperatures via changes in UV light.

    4. Volcanic Activity via changes in muons which are tied into galactic cosmic ray intensities.

    5. ENSO -tied into overall solar conditions. La Nina I think might occur if a prolonged minimum solar condition came about.

    6. Increase in sea ice and global snow cover due to atmospheric changes and lower global temperatures from all of the above.

    ALBEDO – this would change if global cloudiness increased along with ice and snow cover which if it only increased by a mere 1% would impact the temperatures of the earth.

    Weakening Earth Magnetic Field would compound solar effects and the field is weakening at a fairly rapid clip.

    That is my take on it.

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Salvatore Del Prete,

      You wrote: These natural climatic drivers being the following:

      1. Global cloudiness via galactic cosmic rays tied into the solar wind strength.
      2. Atmospheric circulation patters via ozone changes tied into changes in EUV light.
      3. Sea surface temperatures via changes in UV light.
      4. Volcanic Activity via changes in muons which are tied into galactic cosmic ray intensities.
      5. ENSO -tied into overall solar conditions. La Nina I think might occur if a prolonged minimum solar condition came about.
      6. Increase in sea ice and global snow cover due to atmospheric changes and lower global temperatures from all of the above.

      My comment is in reference to #1. No one has yet established that global cloudiness is the factor which basically explains the 33oC difference between the calculated average effective radiative temperature of the earths surface and the calculated average observed temperature of the earths atmosphere as measured 1.5m above the earths surface. So until this is established, #1 through #6 are mere perturbations, which now as I write perturbations I am reminded that this word, which was commonly used in the past, is a word I have not read in some time.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  35. COR – AP INDEX 5 or lower.

  36. Vincent says:

    Mike Flynn says:
    June 20, 2016 at 4:55 PM

    Solar power has been around for 100 years. Its still only a niche application, remaining uncompetitive for mass baseload generation for example at night.
    Battery storage and the electric car have likewise been around for more than a century. Once again, niche applications only. They still need a cheap supply of electricity to function usually created by burning stuff.
    —————————————————-

    There are many technologies that have been around for many decades, or a 100 years or more, which have developed rapidly since their invention and which have become more sophisticated, efficient and affordable as a result of mass production techniques, promotion through advertising, and as a result of people understanding the benefits of the products.

    I’ll name just a few; the automobile; flight travel; the television; the digital camera.

    Compare the quality, size and resolution of a modern 4k TV set with one of the early color TV sets. (From Wikipedia: A color model from Westinghouse H840CK15 ($1,295, or equivalent to $11,411 in 2015) became available in the New York area on February 28, 1954 and is generally agreed to be the first production receiver using NTSC color offered to the public.)

    Compare a modern digital camera with a film camera of 100 years ago.

    The improvement is staggering in all respects.

    Solar panels are not a niche market in Australia. In certain suburbs in the cities one gets the impression that about 50% of roofs have PV solar panels attached. It might also surprise you to know that as of March 2016 nearly 15% of all Australian households across the whole country have solar panels on their roofs, and that figure is rising as I write this.

    As battery storage becomes more affordable, it’s reasonable to predict that in the near future it will be possible for many householders to not only become completely self-sufficient in terms of their electricity requirements, but also drive an electric car which is charged from the household solar power, effectively providing the car with free fuel.

    Of course, only smart countries will achieve this state of affairs. I hope America does not get left behind.(wink).

    • mpainter says:

      It appears that Americans are smarter than Australians, if solar panels on roofs are to be the criteria for judging. The economics do not favor solar panels in this country.US power generation has an abundance of cheap fuel and now Natural gas is pushing aside coal for power generation. Your pie-in-the-sky storage batteries are not in sight. Thanks for the AGW drivel, which drives home the truth of skeptics.

      • Vincent says:

        mpainter says:
        June 21, 2016 at 4:47 AM

        “Your pie-in-the-sky storage batteries are not in sight.”.
        ————————————————————

        They are in Australia. Here’s one such story of someone who is already using such a system and claims that the pay-back time, as a result of plunging battery storage costs, is now around 7.5 years.
        http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/solar-boss-takes-queensland-home-off-grid-with-a-7-5-year-payback/

        And here’s more information at:
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-21/home-battery-storage-to-revolutionise-solar-industry/6870444

        • mpainter says:

          They are in Australia but not elsewhere? Pretty much proves that the land of Oz is the land of suckers.

        • mpainter says:

          There’s a sucker born every minute, Vincent. Are you looking for suckers? Your links stinks.

          • Vincent says:

            If an internet link stinks, there must be something wrong with your olfactory system. It’s fumes from fossil fuels that tend to stink. Enough said.

          • mpainter says:

            First link: solar boss sez

            Second link: from the notorius abc

            You are are the one who needs his sniffer repaired.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Vincent,

          You wrote –

          “Heres one such story of someone who is already using such a system and claims that the pay-back time, as a result of plunging battery storage costs, is now around 7.5 years.”

          Claims? Predicting the future, yet again? Or just a guess, based on wishful thinking?

          According to the story, the person intends to go off grid, but hasn’t quite done it yet. Reality may have sunk in.

          I have a relative living off grid, using a combination of solar, micro-hydro, wood, and diesel generator. No air conditioning, no electric stove or oven, and careful use of kitchen appliances. It’s practical if you are dedicated, and have sufficient financial resources. Everything requires maintenance, and replacement batteries are not cheap, nor is control circuitry. As I say, it fills a niche.

          When it comes to selling your house, however, the purchaser may not be as enthusiastic as yourself, and consider your installation as a negative, rather than a plus. I’m happy enough paying for electricity from the grid. I also use a petrol powered car, and pay someone to service it. And so on.

          Nothing wrong with alternatives, if they fill a niche. I have solar hot water, but I live in the tropics, and there’s an electric booster, if the water temperature drops too far. I assume it’s cost effective, but I really don’t know.

          Cheers.

      • doctor no says:

        “It appears that Americans are smarter than Australians”

        As usual, another bland assertion. Try some facts for a change:

        “In math, reading and problem-solving using technology all skills considered critical for global competitiveness and economic strength American adults scored below the international average on a global test, according to results released Tuesday.

        Adults in Japan, Canada, Australia, Finland and multiple other countries scored significantly higher than the United States in all three areas on the test. “

        • doctor no says:

          If painter and others here were to migrate to Australia, you could reverse the rankings.

        • mpainter says:

          Tell it to Potus. He will call you a name. Or maybe he will sic the DoJ on you for something.

        • mpainter says:

          dr no sez
          CO2 = drought
          CO2 = flood
          CO2 = hot weather
          CO2 = blizzards
          CO2 = more rain
          CO2 = less rain

          I’m delighted to see you comment here. Please don’t stop.

          • Lewis says:

            mpainter,

            I don’t see the problem. If something you don’t like happens, blame it on CO2. Problem solved.

            The temperature is supposed to be in the mid 70’s during the day, high 50’s at night. Between midnight and 4AM there is supposed to be a drizzly rain, but clear by morning. No thunderstorms, no blizzards, no droughts, no freezing rain. What’s not to like.

            I read this in a Ray Bradbury book one time. It must be true.

            As an aside, I read an ad placed in the editorial pages of the paper yesterday – “The Earth has warmed and we did it”
            They never did tell us why they prefer more snow and ice to warmer weather.

  37. Dennis Michelsen says:

    What if an increase in temperature from fossil fuels actually saves the world from the next catastrophic ice age? There are so many moving parts to our climate I think it is a reasonable assumption that we understand less of the problem than we think we understand. It was that way with severe weather and compared to climate change that is a much easier forecast problem to solve.

    • doctor no says:

      “What if an increase in temperature from fossil fuels actually saves the world from the next catastrophic ice age?”

      No it won’t. The next ice age is due in about 10,000 yrs.
      Global warming affects the next 100+ years.

      • mpainter says:

        There is no basis for predicting the length of the Holocene.

        • doctor no says:

          Milankovitch?

          Does that name ring a bell?

          • mpainter says:

            Yes, and I have scrutinized the M-Cycles closely. They do not correlate with ice age events, except in what can be attributed to random matchup.

            Do you wish to see for yourself? Easy, just overlay the interstadials with the M-Cycles. Zippo match. M-Cycles are simply more fudged climate science.

            Nor did the Isthmus of Panama close up to start the Pleistocene. That’s more climate science arm waving that’s been debunked recently.

            Is there anything else about climate that would like to know?

          • doctor no says:

            “..I have scrutinized the M-Cycles closely”
            Sounds like you have performed a really thorough study of the subject.
            And you are far too modest in your pronouncements given that they run counter to the accepted wisdom amongst climatologists, geologists, physicists etc.
            You must be an unrecognised genius.

            (Which comic book do you read to guide you?)

          • mpainter says:

            You will never do what I have done. You will never check for yourself.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr no,

        You wrote –

        “No it wont. The next ice age is due in about 10,000 yrs.
        Global warming affects the next 100+ years.”

        Gee. And I thought you might actually inject a fact into a comment.

        “No it won’t.” Dr no implicitly predicts the future yet again. No uncertainty here!

        Your attempt to employ the Warmist Weasel Word “about” (meaning that your rock solid prediction is just more Warmist Waffle), means that you’re guessing again. And of course, your guess is no better than anyone else’s.

        As to global warming, this is just another Warmist guess, based on four and a half billion years of cooling to date. Maybe you don’t believe the Earths surface was once molten.

        I wonder if you could explain how you reconcile the ice age coming after the 100+ years of global warming? Does the greenhouse effect vanish again? Does CO2 go to sleep? Maybe all the global warming joins the missing heat in the abyssal depths?

        Maybe you Warmists could come up with something useful, instead of coming up with scary reasons to stop burning coal, which is all James “Death Trains” Hansen wanted, and all the gullible wannabes just followed right along.

        Tipping points, Venus, boiling seas, imminent disaster, woe, woe, thrice woe . . ., but none of it actually happened. What a surprise! I’ll just keep doing my bit by putting as much CO2 back into the air as I can. You can fight Nature, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you lose.

        That would confirm you are a loser, I guess.

        Cheers.

        • doctor no says:

          Allow me to try and help you again:

          “Now, carbon levels are approaching 400 ppmv as the burning of fossil fuels pumps more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oCwith devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns.
          But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes wont be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.”

          https://www.technologyreview.com/s/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

          • mpainter says:

            There is enough calcium dissolved in the oceans to convert 46.8 million gigatonnes of CO2 to calcium carbonate. And you have worried yourself to a frazzle, Tsk tsk.

          • doctor no says:

            Of course !
            We need to further acidify the oceans. But it has to be done quickly. Why hasn’t somebody else thought of this? There must be millions (billions) of dollars to be made coming up with the right technology.
            Let’s form a start-up and cash in.

          • mpainter says:

            Too much science for drno? Tsk, Tsk. How long will it take to neutralize the oceans? Care to guess?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr no,

          From your link –

          “Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape.”

          You might care to read what you linked to. Unfortunately for Warmists, the nechanism described is both accurate and totally misleading. Accurate, inasmuch as the atmosphere has a mild insulating effect, misleading as it overlooks that some 30% of insolation never reaches the Earths surface, keeping it cooler, and misleading because during the night, all of the day’s heat manages to leave the surface, harder as it may be.

          Sorry, but no global warming due to magical properties of CO2.

          The rest of the article is the usual journalistic Warmist alarmism. Wishful thinking, unverifiable assumptions, Scientism at its finest.

          I agree with the writer about the dangers of progressive natural sequestration of CO2 being a threat to humanity. This is why I advocate replacing as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as possible. Burn, baby, burn!

          Thanks for your misguided attempts at help. My intellectual abilities, and maybe even my ego, are far superior to yours. I don’t wish to discourage you, as it seems to give you satisfaction in some way.

          Cheers.

          • doctor no says:

            “My intellectual abilities, and maybe even my ego, are far superior to yours”

            Possibly, but mine are used for good, not evil. I see myself as Batman versus your Joker.

          • doctor no says:

            “Accurate, inasmuch as the atmosphere has a mild insulating effect, misleading as it overlooks that some 30% of insolation never reaches the Earths surface, keeping it cooler,.”

            First prize to the person who can tell me why this stupid statement is wrong.

            Come on, don’t be shy. First year uni students get to answer this.

          • mpainter says:

            drno hates witches evil he sez tie em to a post n burn em he sez

          • doctor no says:

            Slow down. You are becoming incoherent.

            p.s. I don’t burn witches because of the co2 released.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr no,

            Aw gee. I thought you were trying to help, too.

            You can’t figure out why reducing the amount of energy being absorbed by an object doesn’t make it hotter?

            And you’re offering a “first prize”? And what my that be, pray tell? Your fulsome congratulations might not be considered terribly valuable by some.

            Go on, then. Ask away furiously. Maybe NASA can help. Have you tried a Warmist Scientism journalist?

            After you’ve awarded a “first prize”, you might consider awarding a “second prize” to anyone who can explain how absorbing four and a half billion years of sunlight managed to cool the Earth? Or did it actually heat it up?

            Ah, the magic of CO2! Incredible heating powers – but only when there are no disbelievers in the vicinity.

            Cheers.

          • mpainter says:

            Need you an explanation? Very well, AGW is a modern-day witch hunt conducted by modern day witch hunters. Throw in some environmental scammers and a herd of neurotics. Care to comment?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Having trouble posting again. Trying the multipart trick, hoping Roy has not limited my posts due to my past verbosity.

            @mike Flynn…”Drno,From your link

            Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape.”

            You did not mention a few points about anthropogenic CO2 that even the IPCC acknowledge. In the 3rd assessment, there is a graph that lays out all emissions from the planet’s surface based on a total CO2 concentration of 390 parts per million. On an adjacent page, the IPCC admits that based on 390 parts per million, anthropogenic CO2 makes up only a ‘small fraction’ of natural atmospheric CO2.

            When you do the math based on the graph, the anthropogenic CO2 component of atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%. It is well known that all CO2 makes up only 0.04% of atmospheric gases therefore anthropogenic CO2 makes up about 5% of that which leaves it concentration at about 1/1000nds of 1% of atmospheric gases.

            Alarmists react when you mention that, claiming anthropogenic CO2 comprises about 35% of atmospheric CO2 due to accumulations since the pre Industrial Era. They have no proof of that other than questionable proxy estimates based on CO2 bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice.

            Even if the 35% figure has veracity, that CO2 is now natural CO2 which is exchanged between the atmosphere and the surface. The anthropogenic CO2 referred to by the IPCC was current for the 1990s decade and it made up less than 5% of atmospheric CO2.

            All greenhouse gases make up about 1% of atmospheric gases, on average, with water vapour comprising 96% of that 1%. Therefore water vapour is far and away the leading GHG.

            What about the 99% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen and oxygen? Do alarmists seriously think that vast majority of atmospheric gas makes no contribution to heat transfer from the surface? Dick Lindzen thinks it does and gives convective forces involving N2 and O2 at least an equal effect to that of radiation.

            I thought Lindzen was overly generous with his treatment of anthropogenic CO2 but his explanation makes it clear that most heat transfer via the atmosphere from the surface to space is due to convective media such as thunderclouds and other modes of atmospheric transportation. That obviously means convection using the 99% of gases that are N2 and O2.

            The reality being avoided by alarmists is that anthropogenic CO2 is far too rare to have a significant effect. One theory suggests anthropogenic CO2 traps heat like a blanket which is utter nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped, it is infrared energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gases. IR is not heat and heat transfer must obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Part 2…

            That brings us to the other alarmist theory, that greenhouse gases trap infrared energy and re-radiate it to the surface (back radiation). One alarmist physicist has suggested that back-radiated IR is added to solar energy to super-heat the surface beyond what it is heated by solar energy alone.

            If you consider the atmosphere as a surface or body receiving heat transferred from the surface via IR you must apply the 2nd law. Even without that application, one must consider losses as well as the ability of an extremely rare gas such as anthropogenic CO2 to make up for the tremendous losses from the surface via IR.

            The error made by alarmists has been confusing IR with heat. IR cannot be applied via the 2nd law, only the 1st law and the conservation of energy. The 2nd law deals with heat transfer only and when you deal with heat transfer you MUST consider a warmer body and a cooler body.

            In the case of the surface-atmosphere interface the atmosphere is the cooler body and even a beginner in thermodynamics understands that heat can only be transferred from a warmer surface to a cooler surface UNLESS compensation is applied. That compensation requires transferring heat to the cooler body to make up for losses.

            There is no such compensation available in the atmosphere therefore atmospheric gases cannot transfer heat from a colder region to a warmer surface. In a refrigerator, there is compensation. However, that compensation comes in the form of power delivered to an electric motor which drives a compressor which compresses refrigerants which can transfer heat from a colder region to a warmer region. The key there is that heat is transferred using secondary interfaces such as a condenser and an evaporator.

          • doctor no says:

            “And youre offering a first prize? And what my that be, pray tell? ”

            Mike,
            I thought a ticket to Al Gore’s next lecture would be appropriate in your case.
            2nd prize would have to be 2 tickets !!

          • Lewis says:

            Ah, we have some accuracy from Dr. No at last. He sees himself as a comic book hero. Cool.

            Will he use his superpower to save the planet?

  38. Peter Boys says:

    Another minion worshiping at the altar of global warming! Do you hear your home with coal, oil, natural gas, electricity? Do you drive a car? Do you fly on commercial flights? Do you wear clothes made with man made fibers? Etc. Etc.

    • doctor no says:

      PB
      I have just returned home from my weekly visit to the altar. Al Gore was preaching there.
      Gave a great sermon.

      I walked home.
      I wore my kaftan made out of home-grown hemp.
      I don’t eat meat. Even the dog is vegetarian (but a bit smelly).
      I checked my solar panels and batteries before switching over to hydro-power and wind-power electricity.
      I have no need to fly as I am on the internet.
      Etc Etc.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      These Warmist hypocrites! Walking around, metabolising carbon into carbon dioxide. Breathing it out all over the place! Boasting about eating plants, which cannot even survive without CO2!

      Maybe Warmists should practise what they preach, and cease emitting evil CO2 forthwith. You’d still have to put up with a bit after they died. Oxidation of the carbon in the corpse, one way or the other.

      Warmist paranoia seems to be all based on James “Death trains” Hansen’s unreasoning fear of coal. He managed to attract an odd lot of assorted delusional psychotics, scientific wannabes, second raters and gullible fanatics.

      Where would we be without the nutters? Life would be duller by far!

      Cheers.

  39. Vincent says:

    I find it very odd on a site like this that so many ‘so-called’ AGW skecptics who like to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address issues from a rational perspective. There seems to be a great dearth of impartiality and objectivity.

    Surely it is clear that the very complex, and sometimes chaotic nature of climate change processes make it impossible to quantify the specific role that CO2 concentrations have on any changes in climate.

    It seems irrational to me to claim that CO2 levels have no causative role whatsoever in changing climate, because everything in our world is connected to some degree, however small that degree may be.

    The processes of science attempt to establish ‘facts’, or so-called ‘laws’. I’ll list a few truths about climate change which I think are established facts.

    (1) The role that changing levels of CO2 might play in influencing climate change is uncertain and cannot be established within the standard scientific procedures of repeated experimentation and attempted falsification, partly because the complexity of the situation and the long time-frames involved make it impossible to construct accurate models for experimentation.

    (2) It CAN be established that increased levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth, even when the availability of water and nutrients remain the same. This is partly because the stomata, or pores, in the leaves of plants become smaller as a result of increased CO2 levels, which reduces the rate of evaporation and allows the plant to more efficiently use the water at its disposal.

    The nutritional value of crops grown in elevated levels of CO2, is a separate issue which involves established agricultural practices. There are many studies which imply with some degree of certainty, that the modern methods of agriculture, which are focussed on maximum crop yield at the lowest cost, results in food which is lower in vitamin and nutrient content than the food consumed by our great grandfathers.

    This is a result of the de-carbonisation of the soil through modern tilling practices, the killing of many types of soil organisms, such as worms, insects and microbes, and the excess application of specific fertilizers which encourage plant growth but which might not provide certain essential compounds for human health, such as Selenium, to mention just one example.

    (3) It is a fact that belief systems play a significant role in human affairs. In the absence of certainty and true knowledge about any situation, whether it be climate change or ‘life after death’, people tend to cling to beliefs, and the stronger such beliefs the more unshakeable they are, and the more resistant they are to rational evidence that implies the contrary.

    (4) It is a fact that there is an observed tendency among populations in all countries to rely upon belief, authority, and the herd mentality of assuming that the majority is always right. Note, I say ‘tendency’. There are exceptions of course, and I’m one of them.

    (5) If we assume that the truth of point (4) above is real, then how do we (rational people like myself) deal with with this issue? That’s the question,

    Do we exploit it, for the ultimate benefit of mankind, and, in the case of climate change, develop a new technology which could result in a marvelous transfornation of freedom from pollution in the air we breathe, or do we reject it like troglodyte?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Vincent,

      You wrote –

      “Surely it is clear that the very complex, and sometimes chaotic nature of climate change processes make it impossible to quantify the specific role that CO2 concentrations have on any changes in climate.”

      I’d go a little further, and agree with the IPCC which states that the processes leading to climate are chaotic, and hence unpredictable.

      So I agree with you. In a truly chaotic system, an arbitrarily small change in the initial state of the system may have arbitrarily large effect on the output. Unfortunately, even the change in the position of an individual electron cannot be precluded from resulting in the symbolic tornado in Texas.

      The problem then arises that the position and momentum of said electron cannot be determined simultaneously. The uncertainly principle describes what happens. Therefore, in a fully deterministic chaotic system, you cannot specify the input parameters precisely – it’s both physically and theoretically impossible.

      As you say, it is impossible to quantify the role of CO2. Or anything else for that matter. The finest meteorologist in the world cannot predict, to the limits of his measuring equipment, the wind velocity and direction thirty seconds hence!

      What to do in a sea of certain uncertainty? I just make my own assumptions, using whatever knowledge I have, I proceed accordingly. If my knowledge changes, my assumptions may need revision.

      Weather changes. The average of weather, called climate, therefore changes. Always has, and as long as there is an atmosphere, presumably always will. Worry about CO2? Seems like we need more, not less. And, as you say, it’s impossible to know the effect on the weather, and hence the climate. Might be good, might be bad, might be totally irrelevant.

      Cheers.

    • doctor no says:

      “I find it very odd on a site like this that so many so-called AGW skecptics who like to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address issues from a rational perspective. There seems to be a great dearth of impartiality and objectivity.”

      Vincent,
      A a word of advice- you will be disappointed if you expect impartiality and objectivity on this site. Just accept that it is a forum for banter – nothing more, nothing less.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Doctor no,

        Phew. For a while I thought you were actually serious about the heating powers of CO2!

        I agree with you. Warmists are incapable of impartiality or objectivity. I am glad to see you were only indulging in a bit of fact free banter.

        Keep handing out the free advice, I’m sure the Warmists will appreciate it. You could always pretend it’s an offer to help. Banter on!

        Cheers.

      • mpainter says:

        Here is the only science needed: the 15 micron IR band is already thermalized by the atmosphere. That is what’s meant by saturation. There is no more forcing left in that wavelength. It is thermalized within ten meters of the surface. Double CO2, it is thermalized within ten meters of the surface. Quadruple CO2, it is thermalized within ten meters of the surface. AGW is a scientific house of cards; one poke and it collapses.

        • doctor no says:

          This is gobbledygook – not science,

          Nobody here on this site has any idea what you are ranting about.

          Please take your pills.

        • mpainter says:

          Here you reveal yourself, drno. It’s called radiative physics. Also greenhouse effect. Did it make your head spin?

          • doctor no says:

            The only spin here is your random 10 meters.

            Consider this, if the 15 mIR band is saturated within 10 meters of the surface, what do you think is measured at the top of the atmosphere?

        • mpainter says:

          Again, thanks for the illuminating example of the pseudoscience of the global warmers.
          You’ve been very helpful, do continue.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @doctor no “Just accept that it is a forum for banter nothing more, nothing less”.

        Said by an expert in banter. Someone who fails to understand the difference between banter and science.

        You can’t even read a graph or understand the difference between a trend line showing a recovery from cooling and a flat trend.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Vincent, the problem here is the presense of warmist troll’s who tend to drag everything down into the gutter with them. Liberalism has been infected by “alinski radicalism” to the point where we are not dealing with rational people anymore. I tend to like it that way (at this site) because in reality this radicalism is what we are dealing with. AGW is not and has never been a scientific discussion, rather, it has been a wholesale exercise in alinski. We’re not defeating the science of agw here (mother nature is doing that), we’re defeating alinski radicalism…

      • fonzarelli says:

        “presense” should read “presence”

      • fonzarelli says:

        BTW, it is not troglodytic to reject exploitation based on lies. As you’ve oft pointed out, there are other reasons to move beyond fossil fuels. We can promote that without resorting to lies, thus promoting not only a sustainable future, but rational governance as well…

        • fonzarelli says:

          P.S. keep up the wonderful writing, you have such a wonderful gift… (james michenor had nothing on you (☺))

        • Mike Flynn says:

          fonzarelli,

          I agree. Given a suitable energy source, CO2 could be produced without the necessity to burn stuff. Once Nature has tucked CO2 away in things like CaCO3, it’s a bit hard to get it back into the atmosphere.

          Hopefully we’ve got a few hundred years to discover alternatives. I’m optimistic, for no particular reason. Human nature, perhaps?

          Cheers.

          • Lewis says:

            Mike, just think ‘methane hydrates’ and your concern will vanish.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Lewis,

            I don’t have many concerns. Thinking “methane hydrates” or “trinitrotoluene” or “abracadabra” might conjure up a genie, but it might not.

            What are you talking about? I don’t mean to upset you unnecessarily, but have you accidentally posted a comment before you had finished? Has part failed to post?

            Are you a Warmist, and addicted to nonsensical cryptic comments?

            It’s a mystery to me, so if you feel like providing some explanations, feel free. I’ll understand if you can’t.

            Cheers.

    • mpainter says:

      Vincent, this is a science blog. Your comments are philosophical. Then you complain that no one pays proper regard to your philosophical meanderings. Your arid philosophies simply miss the target by miles. Sorry.

  40. Lewis says:

    Vincent, you wrote: “(4) It is a fact that there is an observed tendency among populations in all countries to rely upon belief, authority, and the herd mentality of assuming that the majority is always right. Note, I say tendency. There are exceptions of course, and Im one of them.”

    This is an obvious truth, but you are not an exception. You may buck the crowd on occasion but I suspect you drive in the right lane, pay your taxes and, in general, observe many of the conventions of the crowd. There are good reasons for this as it is difficult to live separately while amongst others.

    Be that as it may, your tendency to point out your heroic attributes takes away from the validity of your statements.

    —–

    Finally, I must ask: why do AGW fear-mongers advocate for more snow and ice?

  41. Vincent, Dr. No, or anyone else what are your opinions on the solar theories I have presented back a few days ago and my rational that if solar parameters meet certain criteria and for a long enough duration of time they will in time have an impact on the climate?

    I am also of the opinion due to past climatic data from ice cores for example that climatic thresholds must be out there which when breached will cause the climate to change very abruptly sometimes in a few decades or even less.

    Does anyone think first if climatic thresholds which will cause the climate to change in an abrupt fashion and further does anyone think that the sun could drive the natural climatic factors to a point of change that can make it possible for climatic thresholds to be breached?

    Some climatic factors I am talking about.

    1. Global Cloud Coverage

    2. Volcanic Activity

    3. Atmospheric Circulation Changes

    4. Global Snow / Sea Ice coverage

    5. Global Sea Surface Temperature /Ocean Heat Content

    • doctor no says:

      SdP,
      You should try and express your feelings with a few equations.
      Otherwise, I should remind you that nobody has found any link to solar.

      Consider this:
      There is either no link
      OR
      If there is, that would mean the climate system was very very sensitive to external forcings- including GHGs, which should, by definition dominate.

      Therefore you are in a lose-lode situation.

      • Dr. No, the climate is NOT sensitive to external forcing hence the solar criteria has to be extreme. Still there has to be a point where by a change in solar output will impact the climate.

        I then claim if a change in solar activity is extreme enough and long enough in duration that it will impact items that drive the climate to such a degree that climatic threshold might be reached leading to major climatic shifts.

        Something has caused the climate at times to shift very abruptly in the past and I think it is extreme solar changes along with the secondary effects these extreme solar changes cause.

        I am going to send you a theory that is just about the same as mine which may give more clarity to my line of reasoning.

        As far as solar climate links past history shows the global temperatures ALWAYS go down when the sun is in a prolonged minimum state without exception.

        If you could find data that refutes this please post it.

  42. Let me say this part over.

    Does anyone think climatic thresholds are out there that could cause the climate to change in an abrupt manner if breached?

  43. Vincent says:

    fonzarelli says:
    June 22, 2016 at 2:11 AM

    BTW, it is not troglodytic to reject exploitation based on lies. As youve oft pointed out, there are other reasons to move beyond fossil fuels. We can promote that without resorting to lies, thus promoting not only a sustainable future, but rational governance as well
    ————————————–

    My use of the word troglodyte was to imply a narrow, blinkered approach which does not consider the wider ramifications and associated pollutants accompanying the emissions of CO2.

    For example, we all know (at least on this forum) that CO2 cannot sensibly be described as a pollutant. However, the emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, including oil and gas, are always associated with a number of real pollutants, such as Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, various Nitrogen Oxides, and in the case of coal, particulate carbon, mercury and other heavy metals.

    I came across the following figures on Wikipedia, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, describing the average, annual, passenger car emissions in the United States in the year 2000.
    (1) Hydrocarbons (ie unburnt fuel) 35 kg
    (2) Carbon Monoxide 261 kg
    (3) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 17.3 kg
    (4) Carbon Dioxide 5,190 kg

    As you can see, the CO2 emissions are very significantly greater than the other, real pollutants, and I guess the CO2 emissions from the burning of coal for the same amount of energy would be even greater.

    Furthermore, in the same article it is mentioned: “A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions. According to another study from the same university, traffic fumes alone cause the death of 5,000 people every year just in the United Kingdom.”

    So, when politicians and news announcers describe CO2 as a pollutant, they are either wittingly or unwittingly (probably more unwittingly than wittingly) using the CO2 label as a short hand for all the bad emissions from fossil fuels.

    Now you make a valid point, Fonzarelli, that perhaps we should be promoting rational governance and a sustainable future without resorting to lies. I agree completely with that sentiment.

    However, my own understanding of history informs me that being truthful in politics and economics doesn’t always work. All creatures lie. Humans are no exception. We have evolved as a species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) partly through our capacity for deception, to evade predators, and/or to become more efficient predators ourselves when hunting.

    Where money and power are involved, telling the truth can be very dangerous, as many whistle-blowers have discovered.
    As I’ve mentioned before, it has been known with certainty for many decades that the average, cheap, coal-fired power station produces harmful emissions which affect people’s health. Yet this knowledge has not prevented countries from exploiting cheap methods of extracting energy from coal.

    The combination of pollutants from coal, gas and petrol-driven vehicles is staggering in many countries such as China and India.

    It’s impossible to put a precise cost on the health consequences of such pollution, again because of the complexity of human health, and it’s a cost which is often ignored.

  44. Mike Flynn says:

    Vincent,

    You wrote –

    “The combination of pollutants from coal, gas and petrol-driven vehicles is staggering in many countries such as China and India.

    Its impossible to put a precise cost on the health consequences of such pollution, again because of the complexity of human health, and its a cost which is often ignored.”

    More unfounded assertion. Staggering cost? Only in India or China? Or were they singled out fr unstated reasons? Why is it impossible to assign a precise cost? Maybe everything has a cost – love, life, happiness, death. How do you know the costs of our way of life are often ignored? Doesn’t every rational person realise that there are no free lunches? Are all politicians irrational?

    Everything has a cost. Time, effort, and money expended on one thing, obviously cannot be used for another. I don’t always agree with the way my Government allocates resources, but I’m not keen enough to take up arms against it.

    You may revolt if you wish, and you may even have my unspoken support. I enjoy a quiet life. My view, supported by Nature, physics, and fact, is that CO2 heating is nonsense. Feel free to be as irate as you like about things you don’t like. I wish you well. As long as your actions don’t affect me, I won’t mind at all.

    Cheers.

    • Vincent says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      June 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM
      Why is it impossible to assign a precise cost?
      ———————————–

      The very fact you ask such a question is astounding. To assign a precise cost to a situation of health consequences from pollution is probably even more difficult, and might be even more expensive, than trying to determine if CO2 emissions pose a threat to the future of humanity.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        I asked a straight forward question, based on your statement. If you choose not to answer, that’s your affair.

        I’m guessing you don’t know what the costs would be. I don’t think anyone else does, either. My point is that Warmists seemingly have a coal phobia, and cast around for all sorts of reasons to stop using it.

        At present, Warmists are faced with being unable to justify claims of CO2 heating anything at all, let alone a planet. Predictions of doom stubbornly refuse to come true. When it becomes evident that CO2 (and plenty of it) is beneficial to mankind, other excuses to ban the burning of coal must be found.

        More scare tactics are called for, it seems. Staggering amounts of pollutants. Implications of horrendous outcomes – albeit unspecified – in countries such as India and China. Once again, implications of doom, unless coal is banned.

        I certainly don’t advocate adding pollutants to the air we breathe. I accept that there are costs to our fossil fuelled way of life, and some pollution is a corollary. As a sideline, you may be aware, the US death toll from avoidable medical mistakes is in the order of 250,000 per year. According to the latest research, that is.

        Just the US. However, in one way, it’s unavoidable. It’s the price that has to be paid for having access to modern medical facilities. I’m sure the cost could be reduced, but the Government doesn’t really seem to be too concerned. It would rather waste money trying to prevent the climate changing, by banning coal fired power stations.

        If you are really anti pollution, rather than anti CO2, I support you. I’m sure that the Governments of India and China would prefer that pollution could be avoided. If you don’t believe me, write a letter and ask. The problem with anti pollution measures is cost. Just demanding clean air is pointless. Who wants dirty air? No one at all, as far as I can tell! It’s dirty for a reason, because people want electricity, water, cars, roads, and so on, but are not prepared to pay enough to have cleaner air.

        Sorry to be so long winded. Anti pollution is fine. Anti coal (or even anti fossil fuel) seems doomed to failure on two counts. One, we need the CO2 from burning stuff. Two, there don’t seem to any alternatives to smelting iron from iron ore and similar processes where carbon is an essential component. Making cement is another highly energy consuming activity requiring amounts of energy that cannot be economically provided by wind or solar means.

        No free lunches, I’m afraid. Not even really cheap lunches, unless you want to go back to the Stone Age.

        Cheers.

        • Vincent says:

          Mike Flynn says:

          June 22, 2016 at 12:36 PM

          “I asked a straight forward question, based on your statement. If you choose not to answer, thats your affair.
          Im guessing you dont know what the costs would be. I dont think anyone else does, either. My point is that Warmists seemingly have a coal phobia, and cast around for all sorts of reasons to stop using it.”
          ———————————————————

          I thought I had answered it. It’s impossible to determine the precise cost of the health consequences of pollution from the burning of fossil fuels because of the complexity of the causes of human illness, because of the great variability of individual circumstances, and because of the interrelatedness of so many factors that contribute towards any state of illness.

          The main issues for me regarding the use of fossil fuels are (1) the health consequences of noxious emissions, (2) the environmental degradation resulting from the mining of coal, oil and fracking processes which often appear to contaminate underground water supplies and which infuriates the farmers in Australia, and (3) the long term consequences for future generations if the world economies become totally reliant upon dwindling supplies of fossil fuels which will inevitably be used at a more rapid rate as the population continues to rise and as poor countries continue to develop and raise their living standards, as we all hope they will.

          Without that additional scare of the catastrophic consequences of CO2 emissions on our climate, there would be insufficient motive to drive the transition towards cleaner and more sustainable energy supplies. That’s my point. Sometimes lies can be useful.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Or, Vincent, lies can backfire… Just think of all the possible unintended consequences of basing policy on hysteria. (maybe some of which we’ve seen already) Governments are capable of planning. They make contingencies all the time. Energy security should be a part of what governments do on a routine basis. Rational governance; NOT this out of control (green) frankenstein monster that we’re seeing unfold before our very eyes…

          • Where are your links to support your claims Vincent?

  45. Stan says:

    Start with charging Mann tomorrow.
    Prosecute his lying ass.

  46. climate change in a nut shell:

    1. Climate change is mostly natural and has been happening for billions of years without mans help of co2 emissions to warm the planet. In fact historical data shows there are 800 year lags between co2 and temperature so for those of you that think co2 is the main driver of climate change are proven to be wrong. The sun is the primary cause of climate change. It goes in cycles. Some consisting of tens of thousands of years such as ice age/ glacial periods and interglacial periods. There are smaller cycles that consist of several years. Decades and centuries. The one we are concerned with is a 206 year bicentennial cycle which brought about global warming for the past 200 years that we know of and is about to go downhill big time if you look at correlations between the sun and changes in the earths climate. Look up john Casey who is one of the best solar and climate predictors of the U.S. And read his book dark winter if you want to
    Know more about his so called “RC” or relational cycle theory you can also find him giving presentations on YouTube and his website veritence.net. I advise you to read his commentarys which forecast a steep drop in global temps starting this year according to his accurate theory

  47. Now as far as we humans go warmists like Al gore are claiming that mans emissions of fossil fuels are causing disasterious global warming. There’s just one problem. It’s not. And sattalite data such as dr Roy Spencer’s proves it by showing no warming for the past 18 years. Many model Predictions made by the IPCC shows that average global temps should be much higher then they are in reality. Yet co2 continues to rise and we are thrown propaganda by the government and are educational system and even are churches that catosrophic man made global warming is a serious issue yet there has been no global warming now for 18 years and other times in the past such as between 1940 and 1980 even as co2 continues to rise! Not saying mans distribution of co2 and other greenhouse gases doesn’t cause any warming. It’s just that it is so small that it cannot be seen with the human eye and is dwarfed by natural changes in the earths climate like the sun which is what we should be really concerned about now. I can go on and on about the science and statistics of man made global warming but I don’t want to. I encourage you to do the research your self on search engines such as YouTube and Google like real scientists would. Look up man made global warming hoax and you should find real scientists on YouTube telling you what’s really happening with the earths climate.

  48. You should also check out 1000 Frollys account on YouTube for real science on the subject matter

  49. DR NO, the solar criteria is now starting to reach my criteria, as time goes forward either the climate will or will not respond.

    It is all on the table game on!

    SOLAR PARAMETERS GETTING LOW

    SOLAR FLUX 78

    EUV LIGHT 83 UNITS

    COSMIC RAY COUNT 6500

    These are at my criteria for solar activity if sustained will impact the climate.

    Solar wind still above my criteria of 350 km/sec and AP index still above 5 but these should fall going forward.

    So for myself the moment of truth as to if my theory has merit or not will be known within in a year or two at most.

    Time will tell.

    Reply

  50. Daniel Kelly says:

    As a Christian I am frustrated by those who claim to be Christian and have fallen for the false claims by those who belive in man made climate change
    It is time for a reasonable debate by both side so we can expose this falicy once and for all. If you chose to belive that C02 is mostly responsible for hlobal warming that is fine but please keep your hands off my tax money and fund it from your own pockets

  51. Vincent says:

    Climatechange4realz says:
    June 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM

    Where are your links to support your claims Vincent?
    ————————————————————

    Too numerous to mention.

      • Vincent says:

        Absolutely not. The number of different disciplines involved in the science of climate change is of the order of 20 or 30. We don’t know the significance of the role that CO2 might play regarding climate change, but we do know that climate change has destroyed many civilizations in the past, regardless of the causes of such climate changes.

        The problem has always been a failure of people to adapt to the changing climatatic conditions. This even appears to include the Homo Sapiens sub species, Neanderthal Man, who became extinct about 40,000 years ago. There are many hypotheses about the causes of the extinction of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, but recent research suggest that climate change, due to a series of volcanic eruptions, might have been the main cause, as the following article explains, since you like links.

        http://www.science20.com/make_love_not_war/blog/did_nonanthropogenic_climate_change_cause_neanderthal_extinction

        To quote: “The Climate Change hypothesis about Neanderthal extinction proposes that a series of major volcanic eruptions 40,000 years BC, affected the region between Italy and the Caucasus Mountains, and may have drastically reduced the Neanderthals food supply and challenged their innovative but primarily predatory hunting skills.”

        There have been many civilizations in the past that have failed to adapt to a changing climate, as mentioned in the following Wikipedia article.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_impacts_of_climate_change

        The demise of a more recent civilization not included in the Wikipedia article is mentioned in the following link:

        http://archaeology.about.com/od/medieval/qt/Collapse-Of-Angkor.htm

        To quote:”Why that happened has always been a puzzle. But recent evidence gathered by scholars and published in 2012 suggests that climate change, complicated with economic and political factors, overwhelmed the abilities of the state to cope.”

        It would be naive of course to assume that there is only one cause such as climate change, for the demise of such civilizations or the extinction of species. There would probably always be a number of interrelated causes.

        For example, if in a hundred years from now, the climate were to become excessively warm for whatever reason, and droughts and extreme weather events were to become significantly more extreme (for whatever reason), and if this state of affairs were to coincide with a shortage of fossil fuels as a result of a hundred years of continuous economic growth and rapid economic development in poor countries, then a total economic collapse could result.

        Such a state of affairs might be a cause of widespread wars and conflicts for the remaining fossil fuels, which could destroy our civilization.

        The few survivors after such world-wide carnage might reflect on the causes of the destruction of their civilization. Would it be climate change? Would it be the instinctive, aggressive and competitive nature of Homo Sapiens to fight in order to secure its own resources? Or would it be a failure to prepare for an uncertain future regarding energy supplies, which underpin absolutely everything in every civilization, including even the basic survival of our species.

        If in 100 yeart’s time, all buildings are covered in some sort of PV material, whether it be panels or paint, and solar farms are widespread, especially in deserts and arid regions, and if fossil fuels are used mainly for back-up purposes and resources for strong materials like carbon-fibre plastics, and if electric vehicles charged from solar power predominate, then all’s well.

        If the climate scientists of the future, in 100 years time, admit they got it wrong and admit that CO2 has absolutely no bearing on climate change whatsoever, do you think there would be anger and fury amongst the population at large?

        Don’t you think that the average householder, who by then would not only be energy-suficient, but would be selling surplus energy at wholesale prices through the grid, and probably making at least a small profit instead of paying regular electricity bills, and probably also getting free fuel for their electric car, would appreciate the prescience of past governments to take action despite the uncertainty? Don’t you think the world would be a better place and more secure?

  52. Vincent you say:

    “Absolutely not. The number of different disciplines involved in the science of climate change is of the order of 20 or 30. We dont know the significance of the role that CO2 might play regarding climate change, but we do know that climate change has destroyed many civilizations in the past, regardless of the causes of such climate changes.”

    We don’t know the exact significance that co2 will play in the climate in the long term but we do know that natural variability such as the cycles of the sun and the ocean current, the PDO/AMO, ash from volcanic dust, tilt of the earths axis play a much more important role in climate change then mans fossil fuels ever will! What we are dealing with is we are about to drop into a significant solar decline which will reck havoc on humanity! You people are too focused on what is going to happen hundreds of years from now rather then focusing on the climate change that we are about to experience is going to usher in a minimum so cold that we will repeat something like the 1800s and the 1600s and we will have food riots just like what happened in historical times only this time we have a population of 6 billion not 6 million so the devastation will be a lot more deadly! The sunspot yesterday was down to zero and I have a link to prove it

  53. Vincent says:

    Sorry! My response to you has been censored.

  54. Vincent says:

    Since I’m always polite and at least reasonably rational, I can’t help wondering what the true reason is for the censorship of some of my comments.

    • must be the automatic filter. If you send me what you tried to post I can see if it contains a banned word (most of which are there because of our friend down under). I only delete comments if the name calling becomes extreme.

      • Dr spencer, please understand I am a very nice 19 year old kid. I don’t study climate change because it’s my job just so I can make money off of it. I study it because it’s my interest. I will do anything to to tell the world about what’s really going on with the climate and that we are about to enter an extreme period of the sun caused by a once every 206 year solar cycle. I hate seeing people drowning in global warming propaganda not knowing that we are about to go down a major hill in terms of food, survival and agriculture. I don’t be mean because I want to be mean. I be mean because people don’t accept the facts not because I hate them but because I care about them! As much as I try to alert people just like my buddy john l cassy is I cannot stand the government saying there is major global warming to brainwash people into that there is so that they pay there carbon taxes and they get billions of dollars all because of a filthy selfish scam! I hope you understand this dr Roy spencer and I hope you understand that I am trying to wake people up from fantasy man made global warming land and warn them of what’s coming so that they can know and thrive.

        • But climatechange4realz if everyone agreed with our positions we would not be in the position we are in.

          For my part the more that do not agree with us the better it is. When we our correct.

          • Sadly yes, that is the bad truth. But it’s the way the world works:

            Three stages of science

            1. It’s ignored
            2. It’s ridiculed
            3. It’s questioned
            4. It’s changed

            Just like the global cooling scare in the 1970s which was changed to global warming and then to climate change so they can blame it on anything they wanted. If I were to say it’s snowing in south Florida people who don’t know the science will likely blame it on man made global warming as dumb as it may sound. Whatever happens those idiots who run the government will find another excuse once it becomes obvious that the earth is cooling at a rapid rate and people really start to wake up. Crop damages start to occur, people start rioting over food and such. This is only the beginning! Like the night of the museum history is about to come back to life. But people don’t believe that because we are not talk to think about the real science we are taught to believe whatever we are told just like in schools. Bio and Chen teachers continuing to brainwash our future generation. Some become climate scientists and become one of those paid of shills more money is made to support the man made global warming scam and bingo!

  55. True but if we are correct just think of the satisfaction we will have.

    The Wx. Channel is one of the biggest champions of keeping the AGW scam alive. Once global temperatures not only go down but stay down I will love to hear the spin and excuses not only they will make but all of the AGW crowd.

    The AGW crowd always tries to spin what ever is happening to the climate as being tied into global warming. That will not work if the climate should cool and evolve the way I had mentioned.