Letter To A Climate “Skeptic”

This will be a difficult read for you, but I am trusting that you are mature enough to handle it. At least I hope so. Please understand that this is not an attack on you, nor a judgment of your abilities or intelligence. I say this as a friend who is hoping to help you see how you have been conned and how you continue to be conned, both by the professional con men and by yourself.

To begin I would like to sample a few of your arguments about climate change to demonstrate both that they are wrong, and also that really you should have seen immediately that they were wrong.

You see, the problem here is not so much the errors in the arguments, but your apparent determination to believe them. The ironic truth is that those who see themselves as being immune to being hoodwinked are often the easiest to fool.

One claim you have made is that the IPCC failed to consider past climate changes and that the Earth has historically been hotter than now. Of course you had only to search the Internet for ‘IPCC’ and click two links to discover this claim is total nonsense. The summery report includes a 64 page chapter discussing past climates and their relevance .

You suggest that past warming somehow prove that the current one is natural. If a person says cancer kills a lot of people, you would not assume that they are also saying that all deaths are caused by cancer. Why then do you imagine that when scientists say that the current warming is caused by humans that they are also claiming that all warming must be caused by humans? It is a very basic logical error that you would not normally make, yet you have this time.

What puzzles me is the belief that the very scientists who are the ones who told us about past climates in the first place somehow forgot about them when talking about climate change. In fact information on past climates is taught in grade school and may be found in ‘Wonder Books’ for children. How could anyone seriously believe that millions of scientists would overlook this? or think they could avoid discussing it? The premise is hopelessly absurd.

You explained that many professionals, such as geologists, physicists and meteorologists question anthropogenic climate change. You obviously never checked the websites of the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Union, the American Geological Union, or any other of thousands of scientific organizations. You would have found that they are all solidly supportive of the science and reject Denierism for the nonsense that it is.

The explanation is simple of course. First, most of these “professionals” have only an undergrad degree and do no climate work. Uninformed coffee room banter is cheap and meaningless, and even professionals say some of the stupidest things about aspects of their field that they know nothing about.

Of course they should know better, but they are human too. When these professionals sit down with the actual science and examine it critically they realize that the science is solid and claims to the contrary are nonsense. That is why all of their professional associations reject Denierism.

You say “follow the money”, implying that scientists lie about their results in order to get funding. Like all of the Denier arguments this is so silly it defies belief. In the first place science gets funded to study something before the answer is known, not based on the results it will get. It overlooks the fact that to get funding you say that the answer is unclear, not that it is settled. It also asks us to believe that millions of scientists across over a hundred nations and tens of thousands of research institutes are all in a global conspiracy … yeah, right.

The argument itself is a logical error (Circumstantial ad hominem) because someone profiting from a fact does not make the fact wrong. That would be like claiming that gravity is a hoax because the airlines profit from the belief that people can’t fly. It’s just absurd. If you can show that the facts are wrong then the supposed profits might explain why they are, but showing possible profit is not a substitute for having actual evidence.

You said “follow the money”, but never asked yourself who profits from climate Denierism. The possible profits from green technologies are supposedly corrupting the political and scientific process, but the actual trillions that the oil industry makes from the status quo is not motivating them to lie about the science? Or to interfere in the politics? Of course it has. Why did that never occur to you? And why didn’t you check?

Another inconsistency that I thought would cause you to reflect on the legitimacy of the whole ‘climate skepticism’ argument. In presenting evidence to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming the Republicans chose not a scientist, but a journalist as their only witness. Not merely a journalist, but one notorious for getting all of his facts wrong (here , here, here and here). Why have an idiot spouting nonsense as your chief spokesperson if you have actual evidence? Did that not seem odd to you?

In fact every one of the Denier claims are total nonsense, as you can find at such sites as Skeptical Science , How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic , and Peter Sinclair’s excellent Climate Denial Crock of the Week series. They are easy enough to find … why did you never look?

Which brings up what should be another disturbing question for you. If the so-called skeptics have any real argument at all, why do they bury it with all of these lies and hoaxes? Logically if one had any argument of substance you would highlight it, place it center stage … not make it impossible to find.

A skeptic is not merely skeptical about one side of an alleged controversy, they question all claims. Question, and check … or at least opt to remain undecided until they have a chance to check. You didn’t. You blindly accepted the claims of the Deniers. Why?

You pride yourself on your intelligence and thoughtfulness, and not without cause. Generally that is an accurate description of you. Unfortunately the pride has gotten in the way this time. The image of the maverick who questions deeply is so attractive that you embraced the image without bothering to do the questioning. You have not been skeptical at all. You have been, if anything, quite gullible. In fact real skeptics detest the climate Deniers for the charlatans that they are.

Science is not afraid of real skepticism. It is the very life blood of science. I want you to be skeptical, to be a real skeptic. Critically examine the Denier claims. Don’t believe either set of arguments, check for yourself. That’s what skepticism is.

I am not worried that you might check the science. I want you to, and as soon as possible. We need many more climate activists, and there is nothing more effective at creating one than knowing what the facts are. You actually are an intelligent and thoughtful person, so get the facts … and then get those bastards who have been lying to you.


a skeptic by © Ahmosher

Skeptics by wburris

Randi Q&A by wka

clean your soul skeptic by constantskepticupdates

This is so me. by giveawayboy


73 Responses to Letter To A Climate “Skeptic”

  1. +17 Vote -1 Vote +1TinyCo2
    June 14, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Aw bless, you’ve really tried hard with this little post haven’t you. Ten out of ten for trying.

    Of course your post will fall on stony ground because you haven’t actually researched your subject matter properly and no I don’t mean climate science, I mean sceptics. Instead of telling us what we believe and then trying to debunk it, why not ask us? You’ll discover a very large range of opinions and many of them will be more informed and thoughtful than your own.

    I will start you off.

    One of the reasons that I’m a climate sceptic is the tendency for CAGW proponents to jump to conclusions and then exaggerate or cherry pick the facts to support their opinion. Your letter is a good example.

    However, I suspect that your letter is just a (thinly) veiled insult and you don’t really want to understand scepticism. Which is a pity, because if CAGW is real then you need to bridge the gap between scepticism and belief. In 30 years time, will you feel you really made a difference with this jeering missive or will you accept you just pissed people off?

    • -13 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
      June 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm

      In other words you cannot cite a single example to support your claims, and have no understanding of the science whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to make that obvious.

      • +22 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm

        Oddly, it would appear that those hawking catastrophic CO2-driven warming are the ones who have no understanding whatever of the science.

        Consider, for example, the NOAA’s FAQ page (which was copied almost word-for-word by the EPA in their defense of the insane decision to regulate CO2 emissions):

        They offer basically three reasons:

        1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
        2. The recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years.
        3. Computerized climate models get it wrong without attributing most of the warming to CO2.

        The first is true but clearly irrelevant in a climate system which is, in effect, an enormous engine for moving gargantuan quantities of heat and moisture (H2O is also a greenhouse gas) from point A to point B, storing and releasing huge quantities of heat in an ocean capable of absorbing thousands of times more heat energy than in the entire atmosphere, and subject to wind and current effects that are just now beginning to be rigorously studied. In a system such as this, the notion that increase in an atmospheric trace gas from three parts in ten thousand to four parts could have measurable effect — much less cause catastrophes — is a very long shot indeed and borders on delusion.

        The second is not demonstrably true, for the simple reason that global average temperature calculations depend on proxy studies (as they note elsewhere in the answer), and the 25-year period of warming in the modern era (roughly the last quarter of the 20th century) is lost in the inherent uncertainty of time resolution with nearly all historical proxies. For specific areas where we have long-term detailed records dating back three centuries or more — e.g. Central England or Prague — the rate is not at all unusual.

        The third would only amount to actual evidence if it had been demonstrated that these models incorporate accurate calculations of all phenomena affecting global climate; but obviously they do not — for example, in order to match observed temperatures during the 20th century, a fudge factor is arbitrarily introduced and labelled “aerosols”, when the IPCC itself admits that aerosols are so poorly understood that not even the sign of their effect is known with certainty. They might as well have called it “pink stuffed bunnies.”

        Moreover, all of the models referred to there are based on Hansen’s original models designed when he was studying Venus in the early 1970s, a planet with an atmosphere 98% CO2 and zero H2O. More recent scholarship suggests that this model is wrong even for Venus. In addition, every prediction of the models — from upper-troposphere warming rate to monsoon precipitation to tropospheric humidity — has proven spectacularly wrong. Thus the models cannot support any theory, much less any attribution.

        So the “answer” to this question amounts to little more than propaganda. This is utterly unworthy of a publicly-funded scientific institution. The page should be removed and replaced with one which simply says, “We don’t, but we can get more taxpayer funding if we claim we do.”

      • +18 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 14, 2010 at 3:59 pm

        Sorry, contributor, I forgot to ask: Where precisely in AR4, WG 1, Ch 9, “Attribution” — which is the only relevant part of the entire report, obviously — is the actual evidence for the anthropogenic CO2-driven warming theory, and where in either WG 1 or WG 2 is the actual evidence that there is any possibility of catastrophic consequences?

        Thanks; I’m depending on you, since you have such an encyclopedic understanding of the science…

        • -16 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
          June 14, 2010 at 6:28 pm

          1) “… but clearly irrelevant ”

          How glaringly, absurdly wrong can you get? Your leap of blind faith is no substitute for facts.

          2) Wrong again. The 50 year trend is more than clear “How to decide climate trends
          Results on deciding trends

          3) Wrong again:
          Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm
          Myth: Models are unreliable
          The 16 Climate Models http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/16-climate-models.html
          Climate Models

          Pls spare us any more of your unsubstantiated false allegations … try reading the IPCC report for comprehension.

          Mike Kaulbars

          • +13 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
            June 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm

            I’m sorry; apparently I forgot to allow for your reading comprehension difficulty:

            Where precisely in AR4, WG 1, Ch 9, “Attribution” — which is the only relevant part of the entire report, obviously — is the actual evidence for the anthropogenic CO2-driven warming theory, and where in either WG 1 or WG 2 is the actual evidence that there is any possibility of catastrophic consequences?

            Page number, please.

            • -8 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
              June 15, 2010 at 11:43 am

              Yet another tired, juvenile debating trick.

              The scientific case is obviously built upon all of the evidence from tens of thousands of studies http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html

              The pretense that there could or should be one single study that reveals everything about a huge and complex system demonstrates either deliberate obtuseness or a failure to grasp even very simple science.

              Kindly stop with the childish sophistry … it is tedious and boring.

              Mike Kaulbars

              • +14 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
                June 17, 2010 at 4:02 am

                … and AR4 is supposed to be an assessment of all those studies.

                I repeat ….

              • +11 Vote -1 Vote +1Katabasis
                June 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm

                “The scientific case is obviously built upon all of the evidence from tens of thousands of studies”

                — This bald assertion is itself “”Yet another tired, juvenile debating trick.”

                –The vast majority of the “thousands” of studies you refer to *do not* make the case for CAGW itself, but instead study the consequences of CAGW *if it is assumed to be correct*.

                –You are being shamefully evasive and insulting.

                –Craig has it right – the “attribution” is the most important part (followed closely by “detection”).

                — If these two parts are bunk, *every* other CAGW “study” is too.

              • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
                June 18, 2010 at 6:20 am

                “The scientific case is obviously built upon all of the evidence from tens of thousands of studies ”

                You seem to think that those who are skeptical about the so-called “climate crisis” reject the entire body of research developed by climate scientists. This is not true. In fact, I have no problem with large parts of the IPCC reports. My problems with the IPCC is that certain critical findings that are necessary to infer a “crisis” are based on the findings of relatively small groups of scientists and are not supported by convincing empirical evidence. I, for example, have no problem accepting that global average temperatures have been increasing over the past 150 years. A key line of evidence to support this fact is the satellite measurements from the past 30 years that were developed and are maintained by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, two of the most prominent critics of the IPCC.
                Neither of them, by the way, would in anyway argue against the propositions that mankind has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and that the increase in CO2 is very likely responsible for part of the increase in global average temperatures.

      • +12 Vote -1 Vote +1TinyCo2
        June 16, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        Umm, now you see I didn’t mention the science deliberately. I like to deal with the easy stuff first, before moving on to the hard questions. Instead of responding to my points you decided to prove my case about this letter being an attempt to annoy and insult.

        What were you trying to achieve?

  2. +25 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
    June 14, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    You seem to be under the strange misapprehension that the problem is that skeptics have done no research and don’t understand the science.

    We have done the research. The problem is that we DO understand the science. And we are not taken in by the vacuous armwaving of either the IPCC or such as RealClimate.

    Twenty years ago, the only “evidence” for anthropogenic CO2-driven warming was “our models can’t reproduce the warming without CO2.” This is of course no evidence at all, since models are hypotheses, not data. Now, after two decades and $100 billion in tax-funded research, careful reading of the only relevant portion of the IPCC’s AR4 reveals that the only “evidence” for anthropogenic CO2-driven warming is STILL “our models can’t reproduce the warming without CO2.”

    And you seriously expect us to buy this, just because the politicized bureaucrats running a couple of professional societies find it in their interest to pretend they believe it? Please.

  3. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    June 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Nice try but major fail. Laughable.

    Millions of scientists? hahaha.

    You guys are so funny.


    • -15 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      June 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm

      Yes, millions of scientists in many different contributing fields from nearly every country in the world over the past 4 decades. Why is that laughable?

      • +17 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm

        Possibly because it has been shown without any doubt whatever that the actual number of “scientists” providing writings to specifically support the CO2-driven warming theory are on the order of two dozen; the rest are “if this happens, what happens next” and “how can we keep this from happening?” guys.

        Give it up.

  4. +14 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    June 14, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

    Here’s a nice read: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

    The global warming scam is dead. Let’s bury it.

    What’s next?

    • -15 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      June 14, 2010 at 4:17 pm

      Whatsupwiththat is not a credible source, never has been. Give me something from a reputable place.

      • +22 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm

        What, precisely, would you regard as a “reputable source”, and why?

        Sources do not matter in science; openness and truth do.

      • +10 Vote -1 Vote +1Olaf Koenders
        June 18, 2010 at 4:04 am

        So, Olson, what exactly convinced you that WattsUpWithThat isn’t a credible source and, how is it you somehow know that it never was a reputable source?

        You haven’t qualified anything except your fundamental hope that impressionable readers of your post will believe it outright without checking. This is why courts don’t admit hearsay as evidence.

  5. Vote -1 Vote +1rgdaniel
    June 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Well-argued… if not well spell-checked….

  6. -20 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
    June 14, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    It always fascinates how Deneirs attempt to refute observations about how they behave by simply doing more of the same. The 1st 4 commenters make unverified and largely irrelevant claims that don’t even address the issues raised, and clearly they have never taken the trouble to check whether they are spouting utter nonsense or not.

    Jack at least cites a source, which he uncritically believes without ever checking the original

    Had he done so he would have found the Mosher article misquotes, distorts, and takes out of context much of what Hulme and Mahony had to say.

    Further, he opts to pretend that the IPCC report is the only evidence for a consensus, ignoring the fact that pretty much every major scientific organization on the planet endorses the IPCC report.
    Scientific consensus

    Finally, he asks us to accept the claims of Mosher as factual, but not any one else’s … a huge leap of unquestioning faith.

    Thank you one and all for providing clear examples of the kind of unquestioning, unsubstantiated belief that I describe in the article (no folks, this has not been staged).

    Mike Kaulbars

    • +14 Vote -1 Vote +1Daniel Fierro
      June 14, 2010 at 8:36 pm

      People who are intelligent and base opinion on fact and logic are not ‘deniers’. You do know you are showing up your ignorance and stunted growth by even using such language that I read no further your inflammatory post.
      Face the truth and facts, not programmed propaganda.

    • +14 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
      June 14, 2010 at 9:14 pm

      Ahh, yes, Wikipedia, which proves beyond any doubt that William Connolly believes in anthropogenic global warming. This was not, however, seriously in doubt.

      As to science, it makes absolutely no difference if the Supreme World Council of Rational Scientific People, or the Universal Catholic Anti-Galileo League, unanimously endorses a proposition. Only evidence matters.

      Where precisely in AR4, WG 1, Ch 9, “Attribution” — which is the only relevant part of the entire report, obviously — is the actual evidence for the anthropogenic CO2-driven warming theory, and where in either WG 1 or WG 2 is the actual evidence that there is any possibility of catastrophic consequences?

      • -17 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
        June 15, 2010 at 7:48 am

        If the Wikipedia list is bogus then cite sources refuting it and don’t waste our time with dismissing the source as if that were anything but poor thinking.

        Further, it is a tiresome and juvenile debating trick to demand that the opponent spell out lengthy points that have already been made and/or are commonly available.

        Would you like me to write out the Encyclopedia Britannica for you are well? how about the complete Oxford English Dictionary?

        Science has made the case and it is freely available to anyone with basic literacy skills. If you can offer credible evidence refuting it (ie not the tired frauds of the Deniers) then do so, but spare us the childish games.

        Mike Kaulbars

        • +21 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
          June 17, 2010 at 4:05 am

          Sorry, apparently I failed to make myself clear. All I need is even ONE page number.

          Where precisely in AR4, WG 1, Ch 9, “Attribution” — which is the only relevant part of the entire report, obviously — is the actual evidence for the anthropogenic CO2-driven warming theory, and where in either WG 1 or WG 2 is the actual evidence that there is any possibility of catastrophic consequences?

          Your evasions so far simply reinforce the point.

  7. +13 Vote -1 Vote +1Daniel Fierro
    June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    No one with half a brain believes the unscientific lies of the IPCC, Al Gore and Greenpeace over the ridiculous claims of Global Warming and AGW.
    Even Al Gore and Gaia dude have come out to BACKFLIP on their lies… the joke is on the sheep and their blind ignorance.

  8. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Lou Vinny
    June 14, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    that actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.


  9. +11 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
    June 15, 2010 at 3:48 am

    It becomes so tiresome to read refutations of strawmen arguments. Here is a reasonable, but not perfect, summary of the intelligent sceptic’s case against catastrophic AGW written by a law professor. http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf. Please respond point by point to the major contentions in this article, and you will have my ear.

    • -18 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
      June 15, 2010 at 8:34 am

      The problem with Johnston is not refuting his points, it’s finding any points worth refuting.

      For example, he goes on at some length about the difference between night and day thermal circulation patterns and why this makes day vs night temperature comparisons invalid. Since the temperature comparisons made by the IPCC are night to night and day to day, Johnston’s point is an irrelevant Straw Man argument … a complete waste of time.

      Further, this is not a complex or subtle point; it is very simple, basic science and logic. Is Johnston that clueless? or just disengenuous?

      So, can you point me to anything in Johnston that is not an obvious error or irrelevant? anything that is of real substance in any meaningful way? I don’t see any.

      Mike Kaulbars

      • +14 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
        June 15, 2010 at 9:09 am

        I’ve read the section to which you refer and it appears to me that you have missed his point entirely. Those who are truly interested can read the article for themselves and see what they think. Or they can read Roger Pielke Sr.’s peer review articles that he is summarizing:
        Roger Pielke Sr. et al., Uresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface
        temperature trends, 112 J. Geo. Res. D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229 (2007)(hereafter referred to as
        “Unresolved issues with global land surface temperature trends”).
        28 Roger Pielke Sr. et al., Uresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface
        temperature trends, 112 J. Geo. Res. D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229 (2007)(hereafter referred to as
        “Unresolved issues with global land surface temperature trends”).

      • +15 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
        June 16, 2010 at 10:34 am

        “The problem with Johnston is not refuting his points, it’s finding any points worth refuting. ”

        I truly find articles such as this one the purport to debunk the claims of skeptics to be tiresome. It is possible to debunk random arguments made by persons with no recognized credentials and respond to them. This might make AGW alarmists to feel good, but it does little to persuade intelligent skeptics who easily see through this silly game.

        If want to persuade intelligent skeptics you need to address head on the best arguments made the best spokesmen for the skeptic’s positions. I think that most skeptics would quickly agree that the best arguments made by the best spokesmen who are skeptical of the IPCC position are the positions expressed by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy. There may be some other prominent skeptics, but all of these men would be on everyone’s short list of prominent skeptics. Each has Phd’s in climate science fields. Each has published extensively in peer-reviewed literature and each has written extensively in the popular press, as well as the internet.
        The first thing I would note about this group is that not one of them has ever expressed any of the arguments you debunk above. In fact, they would agree with most of what you have written above.
        Second, I think that it would be fair to say that many of the arguments made by this group of prominent skeptics are accurately summarized in Professor Johnson’s article cited by me above. That is why I think the article is helpful. It ties together in a tight summary many, but not all, of the best arguments made by the best skeptics of the IPCC in a way that is clear to experts and skeptics alike. . Dr. Johnson even took the extra step of soliciting feedback from Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Pielke concerning the article to make certain that their views and the views of other skeptics were accurately expressed.
        You state that these arguments are not worth responding to. You are free to reach this conclusion. Howver, if this is so, why don’t you address them in your open letter rather than wasting your time addressing arguments that have never been expressed by the most prominent skeptics of the IPCC?

  10. +13 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
    June 15, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    “I missed the point, but you can’t say what it is? Yeah, right … I believe that.”

    Well, I didn’t try to restate the authors summary of relevant studies because I find it difficult to do so more succinctly than the Johnson does. However, if you insist here is my summary:

    1) The trend in suface temperatures reported by the CRU and HadCrut are derived from daily average temperatures computed as the midpoint between what are usually the nighttime minimums and the daytime maximum temperatures.
    2) From the mid 50’s to the mid-nineties the nighttime minimum temperatures have risen at about twice the rate of the daytime maximums. Accordingly, most of the increase in the reported global average surface temperatures during this period are the result of increases in nightime minimum temperatures.
    3) For reasons that are outlined in the article and supported by the peer reviewed references cited, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the night time minimums are more sensitive to local land use changes and overstate actual surface warming.
    4) There seems to be more and more evidence that there has been a systematic trend upward since the 1950’s in the type of variables that would have caused nightime minimum temperatures to overstate the actual surface warming trend.

    Now that is summary of the argument, which I think is different from the caricature you present. I am aware that many climate scientists dispute this argument, but I am also aware that credible climate scientists are making this point in peer-reviewed literature. Ultimately, the point Johnson makes throughout his article is the IPCC overstates its case regarding the degree of consensus that exists among climate scientists regarding very basic points and this is just one of many illustration he uses.

    • -11 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
      June 15, 2010 at 10:57 pm

      PaulD, it is you who miss the point.

      You are citing an economics-oriented paper that does not seriously challenge AGW, even though you seem to believe it does.

      You are absolutely free to believe it does, but it is a working paper by law and economics specialist Jason Johnston that heavily relies on the debunked science of Lindzen and Pielke and an appeal to the authority of commercial law (not science) to argue against the regulation of greenhouse gases via cap and trade.

      It’s sloppy work by an otherwise competent academic.

      Johnston’s past papers have included discussions of equity and the differential impacts of climate change. While he objects to cap and trade schemes, he does NOT deny climate change. He advocates for solutions that involve technological innovations.


      • +16 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
        June 16, 2010 at 3:39 am

        I think you must have read the wrong article. It does not address whatsoever any issues regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases via cap and trade and doesn’t even mention commercial law, let alone make an appeal to authority of commercial law. Try searching the article for the phrase, “cap and trade” or “commercial law”. The terms are not mentioned.

        As to your assertion that he relies on the “debunked science of Lindzen and Pielke, that is consistent with nearly every other response to the article I have read from the catastrophic AGW crowd: no substantive reply, just hand waiving. Or as in the discussion here, sloppy misrepresentations of the arguments made.

        Further, I agree that he does not deny climate change; no serious skeptic does.

        Finally, I understand that people don’t want to provide detailed responses in comments to a blogpost. I would be interested to see, however, to just a link to an article to responds to his analysis of global climate models, in the section, “Obscuring Fundamental Disagreement Across Climate Models in both Explanations of Past Climate and Predictions of Future Climate” which, by the way, is much more significant than the relative minor points he makes about the temperature record.

        • -10 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
          June 16, 2010 at 5:56 am


          You are not understanding.

          It is as I explained. This paper by Johnston is economic-oriented policy work and he appeals to the authority of commercial law because he is an authority on commercial law. He claims to ‘cross-examine’ the evidence. Get it? 😉

          If you’re not quick to understand conceptual frameworks, that’s o.k.

          Your request is really for links showing the validity of the models and their role in contributing to the development of current climate knowledge.

          Try Google. Scientists are well aware of what the models can and cannot do.

          • +9 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
            June 16, 2010 at 7:21 am

            O.K. you wrote:
            “it is a working paper by law and economics specialist Jason Johnston that heavily relies on the debunked science of Lindzen and Pielke and an appeal to the authority of commercial law (not science) to argue against the regulation of greenhouse gases via cap and trade.”

            I thought from the above statement that you were asserting that the paper makes an “an appeal to the authority of commercial law (not science) to argue against the regulation of greenhouse gases via cap and trade.” This assertion is simply false. If you meant to say that the paper is written from the perspective of an economist who elsewhere in publications argues against the regulation of greenhouse cases via cap and trade, that may be true. Johnson is an economist, but I am not familiar with his other writings.

            You also write” “Your request is really for links showing the validity of the models and their role in contributing to the development of current climate knowledge.

            Try Google. Scientists are well aware of what the models can and cannot do.”

            I think I agree with the statement that “Scientists are well aware of what the models can and cannot do” If one reads the IPCC with a fine-toothed comb most of the weaknesses described by Johnson are acknowledged. In fact, Johnson repeatedly cites relevant portions of the IPCC that acknowledge the weaknesses he describes. The problem is that the weaknesses are glossed over and their implications are not carefully explained to policy makers and members of the lay public. Johnson’s point, that he makes effectively, is that if the weaknesses of climate models and their implications were carefully and fully explained, the policy makers and the lay public would put less faith in the conclusions of the IPCC

        • +17 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
          June 17, 2010 at 4:29 am

          “… the debunked science of Lindzen and Pielke …”

          Interesting choice of terms. Clearly you’re a follower of the armwaving and misdirection that characterizes the propaganda site RealClimate. Scientists do not “debunk” each other; politicians do. Scientists debate and disagree. Like Mr. Kaulbers, though, the “Team” at RC steadfastly refuses any actual debate in favor of ad-hominem rants.

          It is interesting, though, to read through the Climategate emails and note the tone of concealment and desperation in much of the correspondence. Very un-sciencelike.

          • -16 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
            June 17, 2010 at 5:39 am

            I see. You wish to tell me the proper use of ‘debunk’ in a sentence, then on the basis of that, make the argument that it can only be used to describe the activity of a politician.

            Did you want to define reality, too, while you’re at it, now that you’re the man in charge of words?

            As you know, the term debunk commonly refers to exposing false claims, exaggerated claims, etc. We can easily understand this to include exposing cherry-picked claims, deliberate lies, and plainly stupid claims, too.

            In other words, it is used to describe the activity of exposing false claims and stupidity.

            Debunking lies about science is done with science. It is an activity increasingly associated with that part of science education that is about communication, such as when scientists explain the current science to the public and expose how they have been confused and lied to by deniers.

            So-called climategate? That ship sailed and amounted to nothing – other than ongoing criminal investigation of the hacker and increased understanding of the excessive harassment experienced by scientists via the abuse of FOIA by industry shills.

            If you’ve got more information about climate science than climate scientists, and more information about a criminal investigation than investigators, you must contact them at once.

            I’m sure they’ll take your call. 🙁

            • +9 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
              June 17, 2010 at 6:23 am

              “Debunking lies about science is done with science.


              “If you’ve got more information about climate science than climate scientists”

              Not by appeals to authority.

            • +10 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
              June 17, 2010 at 6:52 am

              “In other words, it is used to describe the activity of exposing false claims and stupidity.”

              So when you say that the arguments of Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Pielke have been “debunked” you are saying that they have been exposed as “false claims and stupidity” Perhaps you should submit your evidence of this to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Dr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

            • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
              June 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm

              Ahh, yes. Well, since you regard yourself as qualified to judge competing scientific claims, it would appear you, too, regard yourself as an expert in “climate science” — now, thanks to Climategate, widely regarded as an oxymoron.

              And speaking of Climategate, it is evident from your post that you have never actually read the documents, but are depending on tendentious summaries. Hardly a scientific attitude.

  11. +13 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    June 17, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    It’s shameful how these people continue to push global warming scam despite there’s no data to support their hypothesis. None.

  12. +14 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    June 17, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Millions of scientists? C’mon, get with the problem; people aren’t that stupid.

    Millions of scientists and none can provide empirical evident to support their hypothesis.

    This global warming scam has stopped before people really get upset.

    All you the warmists have now are debunked Mann Hockey Stick and Climategate — wow after close to 100 billions of taxpayers’ dollars later.

    Thanks for nothing.

  13. +14 Vote -1 Vote +1kdk33
    June 17, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Wow. Such name calling. But, you’ve offered exactly zero evidence of CO2 induced, dangerous climate change. Or maybe your counting that part where you referred to the MILLIONS (Egads!) of scientists.

    Let’s be clear. Climate was changing long before CO2 could have had an effect. Climate may be changing now. There is no need to prove that climate can change without influence from CO2 – the evidence is overwhelming. Asking others to prove that climate change is NOT caused by CO2 is NOT evidence for CO2 induced climate change – that is an elementary logical fallcy.

    Melting ice, higher temperatures, rising sea levels, and dead lizards (assuming this data is accurate, clearly not a given) is evidence of changing climate. It says nothing (zero, zip, zilch, nada) about CO2. And blaming CO2 without evidence is dangerous because it drains resources we could otherwise use to mitigate the consequences or address the real cause (I’ll ignore for now that the consequences are routinely exagerated , by a really awful lot).

    So, care to stop calling people names and offer some science, your compelling evidence that CO2 emmisions are changing climate in a dengerous way.

    Scary stories, appeals to authority, name calling, arguments from ignorance: these are the alarmists tactics.

  14. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1kdk33
    June 17, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    “Had he done so he would have found the Mosher article misquotes, distorts, and takes out of context much of what Hulme and Mahony had to say.”

    I forgot to mention: arguing about arguments from authority.

    • -4 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
      June 21, 2010 at 9:54 am

      Referencing the source and suggesting people actually read it is an argument from authority???

      You’re joking, right? you cannot possibly be serious.

      Mike Kaulbars

  15. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Sundance Kid
    June 17, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Mike Kaulbars

    As a professional would you please share with me any parameters of falsification for man made CO2 being the primary cause of warming that you have established. What would you need to see happen for you to reconsider your position. Thanks.

    • -5 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
      June 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

      “What would you need to see happen for you to reconsider your position”

      Any credible evidence at all, anything that wasn’t an obvious fraud like the entire Denier Canon

      Mike Kaulbars

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Sundance Kid
        June 21, 2010 at 11:59 pm

        Mike, thanks for the response. The reason I asked was that Gavin Schmidt answered this question in a post at Real Climate in 2007 and the MET Office published a paper last year indicating what it would take for their climate model to be falsified at the 95% level. Gavin and the MET were similar in their approach and only differed in the time frame that they offered as a testable parameter. There are other climate scientists that have established their own parameters to test of the hypothesis and I was just curious to see if you had formulated any test to validate or refute the CO2/AGW theory.

        I agree that credible evidence is key to the climate discussion. To me (I have family members involved in climate modeling) the best way to go forward is to fully test the accuracy of GCMs as this is an that has not been tested. The current problems with models and data gaps are best explained in this mission overview being proposed by a NASA mission called CLARREO. The lead NASA scientists point out the need to test climate prediction accuracy:

        Accurate decadal-length records are essential for climate change detection, attribution, and for testing climate prediction accuracy. They represent the most critical test of uncertainty in future climate change prediction.

        While process study missions (e.g. CALIPSO/CloudSat) are critical to improve underlying climate model physics (e.g. clouds), decadal change observations are critical to determine the impact of those climate model improvements on the accuracy of predicting future climate change. Both elements are critical, and CLARREO is the major Decadal Study mission addressing serious accuracy issues in decadal climate change observation.

        CLARREO provides new solar reflected and infrared emitted high spectral resolution benchmark radiance climate data records that can be used to test climate model predictions, improve climate change fingerprinting, and attribution.

        Key climate variable decadal records impacted by CLARREO include: atmospheric temperature and water vapor profiles, land and sea surface temperatures, cloud properties, radiation budget including Earths albedo, vegetation, surface snow and ice properties, ocean color, and aerosols. The data is also relevant to greenhouse gas monitoring.

        The absolute accuracy of CLARREO, when used to calibrate other sensors in orbit can dramatically reduce the impact of data gaps on decadal change data records across many climate variables.

        CLARREO provides the first spectrally resolved climate observation of the Far-Infrared spectrum from 15 to 50 micron wavelengths, where half of the thermal infrared emission of the earth to space occurs, and the source of almost all of the Earth’s water vapor greenhouse effect.


        This NASA data would be open source and available to the public in near real time. We have spent billions on instruments (Fermi, Cern etc.) in an effort to validate particle theory. Doesn’t it make sense to spend a few million to test GCMs and assure that they are accurate and credible before committing enormous amounts of money and resources to climate change policy?

  16. -13 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
    June 17, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    “appeals to authority…are the alarmists tactics”
    “Perhaps you should submit your evidence [re. Lindzen] to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology”

    Actually, we frequently can’t do without appeals to experts and their information. The point is to pragmatically and critically evaluate the quality of sources of information when we appeal to authority. This is in part what scientists and others are doing when they cite the overwhelming evidence and seriousness of AGW accepted by the majority of climate scientists. It’s not an error in reasoning — quite the opposite.

    On the other hand…we can also examine your shadowboxing. Lindzen is a meteorologist who is a life support system for the free market Heartland Institute in addition to his work at MIT. Somehow he found time to star in that absurd docu-fraud, the Great Global Warming Swindle. Even other deniers say it is embarrassing, so one can only imagine how it really went over at MIT. Regardless, his claims that the Arctic is cooling (never mind that cigarettes do not really cause cancer) have been debunked by other scientists in relevant fields. No doubt he has done better work.

    Still, you could appeal to this old (in climate science terms) work of Richard Lindzen by highlighting his meteorology credentials, ignoring thousands of scientific papers published every year, and claiming different conclusions than the IPCC. However this reveals some clearly questionable underlying assumptions e.g. that Lindzen and friends are smarter than everyone else, there is a hugely widespread conspiracy, etc.

    Also, at least one of you has problems with really basic reasoning in addition to the obviously shared trouble of hidden assumptions. It is problematic to argue that the same science that brought us paleontology and its relevance to climate change knows nothing about paleontology and its relevance to climate change.

    Of course, deniers could still be absolutely correct in rejecting AGW and the seriousness of the climate crisis, in addition to having no climate science qualifications, vested energy industry interests that dwarf all other interests, and unusual views about climate science that have no evidentiary basis in the relevant critical science. 🙂

    • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1pauld
      June 18, 2010 at 3:27 am

      Well I suppose we could keep this back and forth going forever, but would accomplish little. So far you haven’t really said anything of substance that could not be summarized with “deniers are stupid, climate scientists are really smart and know what they are talking about. ”

      I have suggested that people who are interested in reading an intelligent critique of the catastrophic AGW should take some time and look at this article written by a law professor http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf . Please do. Then do as much research as you want concerning how the climate alarmists respond. I think you will find that the articles cited in the main post about how to respond to climate skeptics won’t be much help. Draw your own conclusions. You can. Intelligent laymen can understand the basic issues.

      I’ve also suggested that climate alarmists spend more time addressing the real arguments of skeptics rather than tearing down straw men arguments as was done in the article here.

      • -4 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
        June 18, 2010 at 11:35 am

        Actually it accomplishes something very worthwhile. Given just the little bit we were able to examine of your arguments, it is easy to see that you will repetitively argue your point, no matter how ill-reasoned or false. An inability to make correct inferences is not a skeptical approach. 🙁

        What you demonstrate is techniques of persuasion used by deniers. Nothing more.

        Thank you for clarifying that. I think that was the contributor’s point.

        • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
          June 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm

          “Given just the little bit we were able to examine of your arguments”.

          Geez, I didn’t really present any arguments. I just suggested that people interested read an article that I think provides a good summary of the skeptic’s position.

          I suggested that the arguments set forth in the article were much better and significantly different from the strawman arguments “debunked” in the original post.

          When the author of the original post misstated a relatively minor argument set forth in the article, I provided a more accurate summary of the point made in the article.

          At one point, I clarified that intelligent skeptics do not dispute the entire body of climate science literature and, in fact, accept large parts of what is presented in the IPCC. Well-informed skeptics have a problem with certain key parts of the IPCC that are based on the work of a relatively small group of scientists and which lack good empirical evidence. I know this is fairly vague and that is why I have referred to the more in-depth article.

          When you made a misrepresentation about the article, I pointed out the misrepresentation. When you said that scientists understand the strengths and weaknesses of climate models, I agreed with you, but suggested that most policy makers and laymen do not. When you claimed that arguments made by Dr. Richard Lindzen had been “debunked”, which in your words means that his claims had been shown to be false or stupid, I pointed out that he is a named-chair professor at MIT one of the most prestigious science universitys in the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean he is smarter than everyone else or even that he is correct. It just means that he has well-established credentials and should be read by anyone who is intested in understanding the controversy.

  17. +6 Vote -1 Vote +1kdk33
    June 18, 2010 at 4:45 am

    “never mind that cigarettes do not really cause cance”
    “vested energy industry interests that dwarf all other interests”

    Ooops, I forgot to mention invoking irrelevant corporate boogie-men – or maybe that falls under scary stories.

    I missed the part where you offerred any evidence that CO2 was altering the climate in a dangerous way.

    • -7 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
      June 18, 2010 at 11:47 am

      Ooops, I forgot to mention that the basic C02 science is over 150 years old and right in front of you if you know how to use Google.

      I guess you missed the part where I am not your private tutor.

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
        June 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm

        No one who knows what they are talking about disputes the basic CO2 science that is over 150 years old.
        As Dr. Roy Spencer explains:

        “Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101

        It is this weak effect that is well-established and can be verified empirically with laboratory measurements.

        The reason some climate scientists are alarmed is because their computer models predict that there are strong positive feedbacks in the climate system that could amplify the small amount of warming caused by CO2 alone. This aspect of the climate alarmist’s theory has not been empirically verified and, in fact, based entirely on computer climate models.

        As Dr. Richard Lindzen notes:

        ” Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities [than caused by CO2 alone]. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible. There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks . . ..The notion that the earth’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth’s climate offers some guidance on this matter.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

      • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Katabasis
        June 19, 2010 at 3:34 am

        1824: Joseph Fourier calculates that Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

        1859: John Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of gases could bring about climate change.

        1896: Svante Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emission of CO2. He wrote “warm is better than cold.”

        1897: Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

        1899: Nils Eckhol (another Swede and friend/colleague of Arrhenius), an early enthusiastic spokesman for anthropogenic climate control believed that by controlling the production and consumption of CO2, people would be able to “regulate the future climate of the Earth and consequently prevent the arrival of a new ice age.”

        1900: Knut Angström concluded that atmospheric CO2 and water vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same spectral regions and the any addiional CO2 would, therefore, have little or no effect on global temperature. It was thought that atmospgeric CO2 had already absorbed all the long-wave radiation; thus any increases in CO2 wold not change the radiative heat balance, but might augment plant growth.

        1920: Chamberlin’s (and other’s) CO2 climate hypothesis falls out of favor. Chamberlin writes to Charles Schuchert (Yale’s Peabody Museum), “I greatly regret that I was among the early victims of Arrhenius’ error.”

        • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
          June 19, 2010 at 7:42 am

          Thanks for the excellent post.

          Warmists prating about the physics of CO2 remind me a lot of the time I was waiting for my car to be fixed and a little girl, bored waiting with her mother, came over to me and said, “I can speak French. Bonjour!”

          “Bonjour,” I said. “Comment tu t’appelles?”

          “Bonjour!” she said.

          “Ta jupe est jolie,” I said.

          “Bonjour!” she said.

          “You speak French wonderfully,” I said.

          Ah, yes, they have a wonderful understanding of climate physics…

      • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1pauld
        June 19, 2010 at 4:03 am

        I think this comment illustrates that you have not read the positions of the prominent skeptics. None of them dispute the basic physics of greenhouse gases that have been established in the laboratory. For example, if you go to Dr. Roy Spencer’s websity, he provide a good, basic explanation of the physics of greenhouse gases.

        He also explains what you apparently are not aware of when he writes:

        “Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

        So if the effects of CO2 by itself is relatively weak, why do some of the climate models project extreme warming? The answer is that these climate models predict that there are strong positive feedbacks in the climate system that amplify any small warming caused by CO2 alone.

        This is where the climate skeptics have a problem with the models. These predicted strong positive feedbacks have not been shown to exist empirically and there is a growing body of observational data that suggest that they do not. The feedbacks so far have been shown to exist only in the models (and there they are simply an artifact of the assumption made by the programmers) and have not been demonstrated in the real world.

        So don’t bothering giving people silly lectures about greenhouse gas physic that only crackpots dispute.

        • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1pauld
          June 19, 2010 at 4:11 am

          Just to clarify, my comment above was in response to Martha’s comment:

          “Ooops, I forgot to mention that the basic C02 science is over 150 years old and right in front of you if you know how to use Google.

          I guess you missed the part where I am not your private tutor.”

          • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Katabasis
            June 19, 2010 at 4:19 am

            Paul – you might be interested in this, though I’m sure Martha won’t as she already “knows the truth”:


            If its a reliable temperature proxy then that’s a 4 degree C rise in a geologically almost identical period to the current one without any of the alarmists’ runaway positive feedbacks. Also, if accurate it would put paid to the other regular claim that the Earth has never experienced such temperatures in a recent geologically relevant period.

            Over to you alarmists…

      • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm

        Martha, you confuse me. Above we find Mike asking, “Spare us Pielke’s outdated work, this is 2010” — referring to a paper published in 2007.

        Now you assert that a reason to believe in all this CO2 nonsense is that “the basic science is over 150 years old.” — which puts it, interestingly, in the period when the aether theory of light propagation held sway — but I must ask, which is it? Is 2007 too long ago but 1860 the font of wisdom?

        • -5 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
          June 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

          Martha’s point, obviously, is that the CO2 science has stood the test of time and NOT been refuted as nonsense in a century and a half, while Pielke’s work was exposed as such more or less immediately.

          Mike Kaulbars

          • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
            June 22, 2010 at 1:30 pm

            Yep. The radiative facts about CO2 are quite correct; their effect as an infinitesimal part of a chaotic system is almost certainly unmeasurable.

            Or at least, the IPCC has provided no actual evidence that it’s measurable.

            Or maybe they have. Tell me, Mike, where precisely in AR4, WG 1, Ch 9, “Attribution” — which is the only relevant part of the entire report, obviously — is the actual evidence for the anthropogenic CO2-driven warming theory? The chapter is really not all that long, by the IPCC’s wordy standards.

  18. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Gator
    June 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I really get a kick seeing warmists “prove” their AGW theory by not questioning it. The warmists have abandoned the scientific method and in so doing have abandoned science. Not one warmist model has ever been able to accurately predict climate and this alone shows they are way off the mark. If it were not for the manipulation of temperature stations around the globe, we would have an even better understanding of just how wrong the alarmists are. I did not make up a bogus hockey stick graph or demand the majority of cool biased stations be removed from the record. I have never blackballed scientists or editors of scientific journals. I do not deny the natural variability of the Earth’s climate. I do not assert a minor trace gas outdoes the Sun in heating our planet. I have nevere profited from my postion on climate change. But I do know that Enron and BP were the original proponents of Cap & Trade. I also know that the warmists receive over 20 times more funding than the sckeptics. I do know Al Gore stands to be the first carbon billionaire. I also know there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 10 years. I know that in the late 1950’s the ice at the North Pole was thinner than it is now. I know that Mike Kaulbars will look even sillier in 10 more years.

  19. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1pyeatte
    June 19, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Wow, the condescension on the part of the AGW crowd never seems to have a limit. I can only be redundant on the topic of CO2, being a trace gas, not causing any significant warming. Dr. Ian Plimer has a great book to give ammunition to fight the AGW crowd. The footnoting would keep someone busy for months. It is very clear this is all about big money and political control of the people – definitely not about clmate. Climate is merely a tool and expect something else to take its place.

  20. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Olaf Koenders
    June 19, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 18, 2010 at 3:16 am
    Mike Kaulbars obviously didn’t see what’s really happening in the recovering Arctic:
    He also fails to mention CO2 has a logarithmic effect:
    Further, he avoids mentioning that temperature change PRECEDES CO2 level change by some 800 years. Kaulbars probably doesn’t know that CO2 was some 10-15x higher in the Jurassic some 100Mya, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, the proof of which are the pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish in our museums that keep popping up.
    In fact, the polar ice caps came into being in the late Jurassic, due to orbital changes around the Sun and oceanic current changes caused by continental drift.
    If CO2 didn’t have a logarithmic effect, the temperature would rise, then CO2, more temp, more CO2.. The planet wouldn’t have gotten past the last 1Bn years.
    Kaulbars also cleverly avoids mentioning the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1800, the starting point for most IPCC and alarmist graphs. Mankind couldn’t possibly have influenced the climate back then to initiate the current warm cycle. Kaulbars probably doesn’t know that CO2 is used by farmers in their greenhouses to max plant growth.
    He also conveniently fails to mention ice ages with many times higher CO2 than today, and warmer periods with less CO2. Climate change is natural and the ice core data from both poles proves that:
    Naturally, he also avoids informing you about NASA GISS’ James Hansen deliberately falsifying the figures to “prove” warming:
    There’s just so much fraud going on in the CAGWist camp, it’s hard to keep up. I’ll say it again – follow the money. I’m not paid by big oil unfortunately. However, Enron were one of the biggest proponents of cap-and-trade or carbon taxing, since fraud within that industry is rife:
    Does Kaulbars or any of his alarmist buddies actually understand that even using the IPCC’s bloated figures, to reduce global temperatures by 1C, would require a complete global shutdown of industry. No planes, cars, factories or campfires, for 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age. Using the correct figures would blow that out to 200 years. Thankfully that won’t happen, as China and India will never get aboard that train.
    You and your alarmist buddies, Mike Kaulbars, would be shivering in a cave somewhere wondering what the hell went wrong, all the while nature continues to spew out CO2 and do what it likes. How do YOU intend to control nature? Surely you’re not that arrogant to think you can.
    CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and man’s contribution is just 3% of THAT (nature-640Gt/Yr, Man-30Gt/Yr)! That’s a grain of sugar in the middle of an atmospheric dinner table. You’re crying over 0.0009% of the atmosphere and, as I’ve already shown due to the logarithmic effect, has no measurable impact by any instrument today. Man’s CO2 impact can’t be separated from the natural noise.
    The same bad science and political control is being used to scare us from CO2 as was with CFC’s:
    What’s the next big eco-scare? N2O (Nitrous Oxide) destroying the ozone layer. Wait – then why did we ban CFC’s? Were they wrong? Umm.. maybe not politically..
    Many might reply that I’m quoting from bunked sites just because they don’t like the information, that I’m not a climate scientist, blah-blah.. But you can’t ignore the real data, as CAGWists always do. You don’t even have to be a climate scientist to understand that climate change and CO2 aren’t linked. And just “saying” those sites are bunked, and that I’m on the payroll of big oil without direct evidence of those accusations is simply rubbing your own dung in your face.
    And don’t get me started on the trendy term “straw-man” that alarmists will always find a way of placing in their text as if it proves they know something.
    I say “bunked” because if information is claimed “bunk”, then proven not “bunk”, it becomes “unbunked”, therefore “debunked”. Get the terminology right.
    Kaulbars’ letter is simply that – a letter. No evidence, just quoting misguided propaganda. It’s what he deliberately leaves out that says everything..”

    Why is my comment STILL awaiting moderation??

    • -3 Vote -1 Vote +1contributor
      June 21, 2010 at 9:46 am

      Olaf needs to learn to use a search engine.

      Actually the lag was predicted by Lorius et al (including Hansen) before it was discovered
      If you actually understood the science you would realize that one thing that they would have had trouble explaining is if there was no lag … you have it totally backwards.

      – The “Temp leads Carbon” Crock
      The lag between temperature and CO2
      ‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags”
      Discussion: A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussion-role-for-atmospheric-co2-in.html
      Mind prisons and prisms: CO2 lag and Global Warming
      Why CO2 lags behind temperature; another climate change skeptic myth explained

      Lindzen & Choi has been exposed as false:

      For the latest attempt they cherry picked a data set “the model simulations they chose to use were those from the AMIP project, which is a comparison of atmospheric models forced by historical SSTs.”
      “A quick comment on Lindzen and Choi”
      < http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html?showComment=1250735815572>
      “Re-visiting climate forcing/feedback concepts…”
      Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is STILL Not Very High
      Lindzen on Climate Feedback

      Re: Sea ice … most people learn to grasp that area (extent) & volume are not synonyms by age 6:

      Arctic Sea Ice: Brace Yourself for the Spin
      Arctic Sea Ice is Thinning
      Arctic Sea Ice by the Decade
      New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning

      and so on … spare us the cherry picking & disinformation and pls make some attempt to engage in the discussion honestly & intelligently.

      Mike Kaulbars

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1PaulD
        June 21, 2010 at 1:22 pm

        I think that the lag between temperature change and CO2 is not particularly helpful in determining whether CO2 drives climate change or not. Dr. Roy Spencer’s discussion regarding this issue properly explains the ambiguity of the ice core temperature/CO2 record. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ice-ages-or-20th-century-warming-it-all-comes-down-to-causation/

        The best evidence from ice cores indicates that at the end of each ice age, there is evidence of an initial warming caused by something. Following the initial warming by a period of about 1,000 years, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere begin to increase. The CO2 concerntrations follow the warming by about 1,000 years for the entire period of the warming and then the warming reverses. As the warming reverses and the earth becomes colder, the CO2 concentrations start declining with about a 1,000 year lag.
        Everyone agrees that the change in CO2 is in part caused by the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. When the oceans warm, they release CO2. When the oceans cool, they absorb CO2. This explains in part the relationship between temperature and the lagged response of CO2.
        There is more to this relationship, however, than this one-way causation. CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas. So as CO2 is released, it will cause some additional warming through the greenhouse gas effect. This is a positive feedback. There are other positive feedbacks that also undoubtedly effect the temperatures in interglacial periods. For example, as the earth warms, ice melts and this makes the earth less reflective of sunlight, causing more warming.
        Most informed skeptic don’t seriously question that there are some positive feedbacks from the release of CO2 from the ocean and the melting of ice during both the interglacial period and the modern warming period. The big questionis how strong are these feedbacks. Are they sufficiently strong to cause a crisis or will they simply cause some moderate warming?
        With respect to the interglacial period, if one assumes that all of the warming after the very initial warming is caused by CO2 and ice albedo feedbacks, then it would appear that the earth’s temperature is extremely sensitive to changes in CO2. The CO2 feedbacks are strongly positive. Similarly, if one assumes that all of the modern era warming is caused by changes is CO2 concentrations, then it would appear that the earth’s climate is moderately sensitive to changes in CO2.
        The problem is that these are assumptions. We don’t have a complete understanding of what drove temperatures during the interglacial period and we do not have a complete understanding of what is currently driving temperature changes. Dr. Spencer identifies in his brief article some possible drivers of climate during the interglacial period and the modern period that are unrelated to CO2. He provides in much greater detail alternative theories on his website.
        There are at least two reasons,other than the obvious lag, to suspect that something other than CO2 was driving the temperature changes during the interglacial period.
        First, something stopped the warming. If the warming was driven by CO2 and strong positive feedbacks, then something fairly significant would have had to happen to reverse the warming. I haven’t heard a good explanation as to what that might have been. Normally, natural systems that are dominated by strong positive feedbacks result in runaway feedbacks. This is not the case with respect to climate.
        Second, if CO2 and associated positive feebacks were entirely responsible the warming during the interglacial period that occured after the initial increase was set into motion, this would imply that the climate is far more sensitive to CO2 than current observational record supports. As Dr. Spencer explains, “if [CO2 changes] caused the full range of temperature variations [during the interglacial periods], then today we still have as much as 10 deg. C of warming “in the pipeline” from the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.” By “in the pipeline”, Dr. Spencer is referring to temperature changes that we have not yet observed.

      • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig Goodrich
        June 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm

        Thank you, Mike, I was overwhelmed with joy to see a link to RealClimate explaining why CO2 lags temperature. The mere fact that my beer goes flat if I let it sit and get warm (which now, being an enlightened scientist, I never do; drink it quick while it’s still cold) and that unchilled champagne goes all over when you pop it — this wasn’t enough for me. I had to see how all this was another argument for CO2-driven anthropogenic catastrophic disastrous really, really bad Global Warming.

        So I read it.

        Imagine my disillusionment with you, Mike, when I discovered that it was simply more of the same armwaving, evasion, and doubletalk that RealClimate always uses to confuse the gullible. My disappointment was beyond words (well, not completely beyond words; I’m still posting).

        So I’m sorry, Mike, I can only conclude that you simply don’t understand the science. Please understand that this is not an attack on you, nor a judgment of your abilities or intelligence. I say this as a friend who is hoping to help you see how you have been conned and how you continue to be conned, both by the professional con men (such as Mann) and by yourself.

        Mike, the problem here is not so much the errors in the arguments, but your apparent determination to believe them. The ironic truth is that those who see themselves as being immune to being hoodwinked are often the easiest to fool.

        Your friend,


You must be logged in to post a comment Login