JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Climate Scientists give up on science, talk tobacco, want to jail skeptics

Poor climate scientists know they can’t win the science debate against the engineers, geologists, chemists and physicists who are better scientists, better informed, mostly unfunded and unleashed all over the Internet.

To avoid coughing up the “overwhelming evidence” the climate experts say they have, but can’t seem to find, they are pulling out the Panzers, resorting to pleas for RICO investigations. Treat the skeptical scientists like Racketeers, they say! And what’s their evidence for this conspiracy of corruption… oh lordy, these people are scientists, they must have emails, cheques, tapes and photos. Surely? But no, their evidence are pop-smear-books where the deepest darkest evidence is the common use of “tobacco tactics”! But every activist group under the sun, including honest groups, uses at least some of the exact same tactics. How does anyone point out flaws without “seeding doubt” about them? Either the flaws are real or they’re not, and that’s what a scientist discusses, not “motives”.

There is no law of science called “tobacco-tactics”. If man-made global warming is a dire threat, the evidence comes from instruments that measure the climate, not from smear-o-rama by association.

Indeed, the Team-Tobacco of climate are the believers not the skeptics

I looked up Tobacco Tactics for the first time:

A long-standing tactic of the tobacco industry and its supporters is to try to marginalise and denigrate its critics.

You mean like calling them “deniers”, denigrating their qualifications, printing fantasies about their funding, attacking their religious beliefs, and inventing spurious links to … wait, something as black as the tobacco industry, or the holocaust? How about stranding skeptics at airports, canceling their tickets, sacking them, removing climate skeptics titles and canceling email accounts. What about using students to protest emotionally at universities to stop the research even starting (see Lomborg, Bjorn, UWA)?

The Tobacco industry influenced scientists by commissioning research, and funding scientists, which is similar to the one-sided government funding that pours money at climate models we know are failing, yet doesn’t fund models built on solar factors and natural cycles. Then there is Ghost Writing, like say where Greenpeace writes a document for the IPCC, or where Greenpeace and WWF set the BBC journalistic policy?

In arguments and reasoning the tobacco groups “shift the debate away from the health issues”, just as climate scientists shift the debate away from the science and towards the pitiful tiny funding available to a few skeptics. Climate experts don’t want to talk about the missing hotspot, the uncertainties of ocean heat content measurements, the wild variations of past climates, or the way models fail dismally at predicting the last 18 years.

Legal strategies of Big Tobacco include FOI requests, which both skeptics and unskeptics use. Skeptics want the scientific data, that they shouldn’t even have to FOI. Climate unskeptics want the funding details of skeptical scientists so they can smear them by association and scare off potential donors.

We can build on this theme: please readers — fish for inspiration through the Tobacco Tactics files, and suggest away.

The letter calling for a RICO investigation into skeptical scientists:

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in
the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

h/t Climate Depot

UPDATE: RICO means Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (112 votes cast)
Climate Scientists give up on science, talk tobacco, want to jail skeptics , 9.1 out of 10 based on 112 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pcr9qfn

223 comments to Climate Scientists give up on science, talk tobacco, want to jail skeptics

  • #
    Fred

    Could climate gate not also be used against these idiots in a RICO investigation. This should open a can of worms that we all would aspire to, the Emails definitely show conspiracy and they have done untold damage to the world depriving the poor of a decent standard of living and wasting money that could have been used to solve a lot of the worlds problems.

    852

    • #
      aussieguy

      According to the following link, this isn’t the first time Pro-Warmists wanted to use RICO…

      Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
      => http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/

      …A Democrat Rep from Arizona (Raúl Grijalva) first suggested this back in Febuary. However, Obama did nothing since then.

      By the way, Raúl Grijalva did go after a scientist (Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado), because he wasn’t chanting the right Climate Change narrative and got him removed from his scientific position! (The scientist was neither for or against Climate Change!)

      Dem Lawmaker Backtracks On Climate ‘Witch Hunt’ (March 3rd)
      => http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/dem-lawmaker-back-tracks-on-climate-witch-hunt/

      Grijalva only backed off from going any further because he realised he had gone too far!


      The modern Left-Progessive:

      If they don’t like you, they want you fired, jailed, or executed. Especially when you stand in their way and they know they can’t argue the merits of THEIR OWN issues! They have no qualms in using the power of Govt, Media, and Activism to destroy you. They will create caricatures of you and bully you until you give up. Simply because you don’t speak the correct political narrative. A narrative that they themselves created! Gee, tyrannical behaviour, much? (Its a game of bluff. They win if you give up!)

      When it comes to speech, most people prefer dialogue and the exchange of ideas. A two-way street, if you will. The Left-Progressive’s interpretation of speech is a monologue. THEIR monologue. A one-way street where they talk and you STFU.

      If they wish to make war (politics and bullying) on everyone, make war back. If they wish for others to open up their books and be investigated, they should do the same with their initiatives. (Which is pretty easy to argue for, if one wants a supportive public on this issue. Since everyone wants to know where their tax dollars are going!) …And who stands to lose the most if the truth comes out? It shouldn’t surprise anyone!


      SIDE NOTE:

      While completely off-topic, the unions who attacked Justice Dyson Heydon (trying to kill the royal commission into trade unions) has backed off both publicly and legally. They know they’ve got nothing. But it proves one thing. If you are a no-nonsense, honest professional, and you persistently stand tall against their nonsensical noise; you will win.

      Unions rule out court action against Dyson Heydon
      => http://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/unions-rule-out-court-action-against-dyson-heydon-20150913-gjlg47
      …They can’t do jack, and they know it. All they produced was lots of noise.

      Its the same theme with Climate Change. They can snarl and growl all they want. We stand our ground unphased and not give in. They only win if we give up. Giving up is their victory. One must stand defiantly and give them the figurative middle-finger. :)


      Well said. Great example about Heydon. Never give in to the bullies. Never give up. — Jo

      210

    • #
      Bill

      Yes, please. Let us have a real investigation with prison time for the real criminals. I look forward to reality breaking out and the alarmist nuts and their criminal leaders having to face justice.

      120

      • #
        John

        As a USA law, RICO doesn’t apply to opinions. 1st Ammendment Rights protect Freedom of Speach for all individuals in the USA.

        Obama would be laughed off the Hill if he even proposed using RICO against individuals because of their opinions.

        However, the USA Federal Commerce Commission and Congress may be interested in the deceptive practices used by these alarmists. Protecting consumers from false claims and deceptive advertising practices could help to eliminate the Alarmist nonsense.

        20

  • #
    Manfred

    Yawn.

    Is that the best climate ‘scientists’ can do? Trawl their way one by one through the list of logical fallacies hoping that something somewhere will redeem their shonky politicised ‘science’ from of the black hole that they have modeled?

    There appear 42 logical fallacies in this elegant list.
    All here are more than well acquainted with this list thanks to the climate ‘looters’.

    Description of Straw Man logical fallacy.

    “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:”

    Person A has position X.
    Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    Person B attacks position Y.
    Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    The weather-mongers are no more than UN desperados. They betray themselves at every turn.

    572

    • #
      Manfred

      I should clarify. May apologies for any lack thereof.
      My ‘Yawn’ (#2) was directed solely at this recent climate ‘science’ tactic highlighted by Jo, one that is sadly not only predictable, but incredibly revealing.

      The extraordinary thing is that the parents of conspiracy ideation remain absent from the list of signatories.

      Recently, I have become interested in how people update their memories if things they believe turn out to be false. This has led me to examine the persistence of misinformation in society, and how myths and misinformation can spread. Stephan Lewandowsky

      This repeated and morally dubious climate strategy has the feel of the THE OOH-AAH BIRD.

      …it is much given to flying round and round in ever-decreasing circles until, eventually and inevitably, there is only that single, selfsame place left for it to go. And go there it does, head first, with astonishing abruptness and rapidity, until nothing of it remains at all – having quite literally vanished up itself.

      130

  • #
    pat

    surely all the characters listed below should be charged with [snip]!

    17 Sept: Variety: Brian Steinberg: David Letterman Will Explore Climate Change For National Geographic Docu-Series
    The veteran late-night comedian will in 2016 journey to India to examine how that nation is trying to bring solar power to its entire population within the next decade…
    Letterman will join Jack Black, Ty Burrell, James Cameron, Thomas Friedman, Joshua Jackson , Aasif Mandvi, Olivia Munn, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ian Somerhalder and Cecily Strong in the second season of the documentary series “Years of Living Dangerously,” which explores the issue of climate change and won a 2014 Emmy for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series…
    Letterman’s new endeavor may have some serious intent behind it. David Gelber and Joel Bach, the series’ producers, said they thought they noticed Letterman become more animated on “The Late Show” when discussion of climate change came to the fore, and decided to reach out to him. “You could just tell. Whenever they would have a climate discussion, he would really kind of perk up,” noted Bach, in an interview. “And it turns out he does, he cares about it a lot,” he said. “He’s definitely invested in this issue.”…
    For National Geographic Channel, “Years” is an example of the types of “ambitious projects” the network wants to see more of, said Courteney Monroe, chief executive of National Geographic Channels U.S., in an interview. The company, which counted 21st Century Fox as a backer as part of a joint venture, is now held more closely under the corporation’s umbrella than it is the non-profit National Geographic Society…
    http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/david-letterman-national-geographic-channel-climate-change-1201596066/

    172

  • #
    Victor Ramirez

    Outstanding Jo. Whilst seemingly impenetrable logic to me, I guess another fine example of none being so blind as those who will not see.

    411

  • #
    Victor Ramirez

    Having now read their letter my first thought is that a court would be the last place they would want their deception to be critically examined by independent thinkers.

    631

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “Poor climate scientists know they can’t win the science debate against the engineers, geologists, chemists and physicists who are better scientists, better informed, mostly unfunded and unleashed all over the Internet”

    Gee, that sounds like some sort of Appeal to Authority.

    “Better scientists” hey. Who and where are these mythical beasts? Few and far between… so much so that they cannot falsify the scientific theory of AGW without making stuff up.

    281

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      Dr. DeHavilland writes:

      “Who and where are these mythical beasts? … … ”

      Well, there’s one right here. My credentials include a license to practice Geology by, and in, the State of Wyoming (feel free to look it up: Wyoming Board of Professional Geologists, based in Laramie, Wyoming).

      If you want to denigrate my beliefs by stating that I’m in the pay of “Big Oil” or “Big Coal”, first show me those multi-million dollar checks I’m supposedly getting for being a “shill”.

      I have a firm belief that the whole of the AGW/CAGW myth is exactly that: a myth. Any scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable; it can never be proven, it can only be shown to be incorrect, at which point it is abandoned, or modified.

      Since you seem to have the Science/Math background, let us see you verify the hypothesis that carbon dioxide drives global temperatures. Observe the website (www)(dot)(globalwarmingart)(dot)(com), and locate two charts; one is called Phanerozoic temperatures (based on the work of Veizer), and the other is a chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, based on many works, but the one most cited in the peer-reviewed literature is Berner & Kothavala.

      Take the two data sets, and run a cross-correlation between them (yes, one of the time scales is reversed, so your digitizing routine will have to match the time-progressions to run the same direction, when you run the X-corr).

      It is not needed, but if you supply info on the window/taper you used, padding, and the name of the routine, I’ll compare it to my results; report your correlation coefficient here, or have Jo (and mods) send it to the e-mail address they have on file.

      To establish causation, you must first establish correlation; correlation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for causation. If there is no correlation, then there is no causation.

      Should you choose to respond with excuses, lame logical fallacies, or other such nonsense, I shall take that as a verification that you can see there is, in fact, no correlation of CO2 driving temperature (point of fact, it’s actually the other way around [Vostok, EPICA]), and thus you will admit that you’ve been wrong all this time. Grow a pair, put up, or shut up.

      Regards,

      Mark H. (PG # 2504)

      862

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Mark Hladik.

        I guess you missed my point about Appeals to Authority. I do point you to the IPCC AR5 report, it is a pretty good review of global warming research.

        Go right ahead and claim the Vostok ice core results show much about timing. I always find it fascinating that people who cherry-pick that result ignore the North Pole and Greenland.

        “I shall take that as a verification that you can see there is…”

        Your beliefs are your own business, not much I can do about someone who denies scientific evidence.

        181

        • #
          • #
            kneel

            Arr Beth, yer truely a bonny lass!
            But yer fergot to menshun dat in spite o’ the DECREASING perdicshuns, they woz yellin’ at us serfs that “it’s worse then we thought” tha whole time!
            An’ still is, blow me down!
            Or dat we had our last chance ta save da wurld way back in ’90′s, doncha know? Odd that we miraclussly had anotha chance in them naughties, but we blew dat one too. But never fear, we’ll have another last chance in gay Paree soon, I swear – and blow me down if that wont be the last time wes hear that neither.

            151

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Ok Twatter, if you’re so keen to silence the climate miscreants then convince your highly qualified ‘climate scientists’ to actually attend a public debate where I’m sure they’d be very eager to humiliate the ‘science’ criminals for all the world to see and finally convince everyone just how righteous they were to consider such drastic measures.

          I’ll pre-empt the reply with crickets…….and add the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

          602

          • #
            Big Dave

            I recall a televised climate debate which Roy Spencer won by default. Apparently a dozen warmists were invited, none were brave enough to attend.

            If the warmists position was a strong as they claim surely they’d be lining up to kick denier heads at every opportunity.

            572

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Yonniestone.

            Weird subject change – you obviously feel Jo Nova does not have to justify what she says.

            So you are under the delusion that science can be “debated”.

            “criminals for all the world…”

            Well I can see you know about dishonest debating techniques such as poisoning the well – debaters of poor character use techniques such as that.

            07

        • #
          Big Dave

          A laymans point of view…

          When challenged about the science you ignore the point and respond with an appeal to authority.

          Methinks a bridge somewhere is a troll short.

          522

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Dr. DeHavilland:

          So, GISP II shows the same as Vostok/EPICA, and the Phanerozoic temperature/CO2 shows the same thing, and you state that I’m denying the ‘scientific evidence’.

          Does the word, “projection” come to your mind?

          Should I just go ahead and assume that you will not produce a cross-correlation coefficient for us?

          582

          • #
            tom0mason

            Mark Hladik.
            Many thanks for the link and those names of Veizer, Berner, and Kothavala, I note they have individually, and with others, written so many papers, nearly all of them freely available in pdf format.
            Interesting reading.

            I also note that “Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time” by Robert A. Berner and Zavareth Kothavala, is now a freely available pdf.
            I not a geologist, so if I could ask Mark (as a geologist), do you see any major revelation here?

            41

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              Hi Tom (is it O’Mason?),

              Yes, as far as I know, most things are now made available; the key to B & K, though, is the graph, which one can download (TOTALLY FREE) at Global Warming Art (dot) com. It is actually a summary chart, with several studies plotted on one graph. One has to choose the B & K graph (most digitizing routines will permit selection easily enough), then at the same place, one copies the Veizer graph (make sure you digitize the raw data, not the smoothed data), and watch those time scales. They go opposite to each other, so one has to be turned around to match the others.

              Andrew (McRae)has some concerns about using these data for a cross-correlation. He has many aspects of his concern which should be taken into consideration when doing the calculation, and I acknowledge such. What it shows is that there is no correlation of CO2 driving temperature; if there is no correlation, then there is no causation.

              The short answer to your question is that the 2001 curve is in the process of undergoing revisions (I suspect better temporal resolution, newer estimates with smaller error bars, and such). GTS 2012 was also a major improvement over 2004, and the next GTS will probably take us into the Tonian.

              I think B & K was a major revelation in 2001, when it came out; it is still true today, but the Dr. DeHavillands of the world refuse to see it.

              Regards,

              Vlad the Impaler (see 6.1.1.6.4)

              61

              • #
                tom0mason

                Thanks for the reply and the useful advice Mark.
                I’m churning very slowly through all this …
                … will get there eventually.

                21

        • #
          Glenn999

          Looks like Mark Hladik just used beaverboy up.
          What do you have to say now?
          Nothing, of course.
          You got nuthin

          352

        • #
          James Murphy

          Harry Twinotter,
          If Mark Hladik is wrong, or is ‘cherry-picking’ data, why don’t you go to the effort of showing us exactly why and how that is? If you are right, then it should be very easy, and well worth the effort to show everyone how ‘deniers’ cherry-pick data, even if it is about this 1 specific thing.

          It is, after all, you, who said “…The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim…” on 12th September this year, indeed, on this very blog. You are making the claim that Mark Hladik is ‘cherry-picking’, so as such, please feel free to provide the burden of evidence for this claim.

          482

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            James Murphy.

            Well let Mark Hladik show evidence for his claim.

            152

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              Uuuuh, yeah, I did. I said, ‘run a cross-correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, show a correlation, which is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for causation’.

              No correlation, no causation. Show that there is a correlation, and then begin the search for the evidence for causation.

              Burden on you to show the correlation first, if there is one, then we can see if there is causation.

              I’ve run the X-corr; you haven’t. Run it, dispute my results (Jo or her mods can probably publish your graph), then explain your results.

              Sidebar: for some reason you seem to think that atmospheric physics operate differently in Southern Hemisphere. If Vostok/EPICA alone showed the well-established time lag between delta-T and delta-CO2, then it is reasonable that the same relationship exists in the Northern Hemisphere. Would you suggest that, just as the seasons, things are reversed north of the equator, compared to the south? What is this “claim” of cherry-picking? It sounds a lot more like nit-picking, unless you have clear evidence that CO2 acts differently between the hemispheres.

              Put up or … … … …

              Mark H.

              562

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mark Hladik.

                Off you go – and please provide a link to your results when done.

                Meanwhile people can look at this correlation chart. It is only a schematic, but I cannot find anything obviously wrong with it.

                http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

                119

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mark Hladik.

                As for your global “lag” hypothesis, please provide a reference to the study that claims a global lag. I certainly have not heard of one, so perhaps you can help.

                Meanwhile here is an easy to watch video that explains the “lag” is a myth.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

                119

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Dr. DeHavilland:

                Let’s see — – where to begin.

                First, you accuse me of “cherry-picking” when I reference the Antarctic ice-core results (primarily because of their wider distribution), and then, YOU do the penultimate ‘cherry-pick’ by referencing a temperature/CO2 chart, which starts in 1880!

                WOW!!! Just WOW!!!

                YOUR chart only manages to leave out the other four-and-a-half-billion years of Earth history! At least when I reference Veizer and Berner & Kothavala, I’m hitting about ten percent of the geological record.

                I also ran an X-corr on the 750 ma chart of temperatures vs. CO2, but the result was worse for the CAGW crowd [for those of you in Rio Linda, that means the cross-correlation coefficient was even lower than for Veizer vs B & K], so I just let the alarmist crowd use the one that comes closer to their cherished belief, as ‘dashing-of-that-belief’ as it is.

                Please explain this: “Off you go – and please provide a link to your results when done.” I have no idea what this statement is. It will be difficult to carry on any dialog with you when you fail to read my posts. I stated, Jo and/or her mods would probably be happy to assist you with posting your X-corr when it is finished. In case you did not know, they have a generic e-mail: . You can send an attachment, and request that they include it in a post. I have my cross-correlation. The key is the value at tau = zero (I was able to run from – 512 to + 512 on Veizer vs. B & K, and from – 1024 to + 1024, padding in zeros outside of tau = 784; and, as you might guess, there was insignificant difference between a Hamming window and a Hanning window), so, I look forward to your results.

                And your commentary upon those results.

                I have the results; should I post them, you’ll just accuse me of fabrication, cherry-picking, or some other ad-hom. If YOU post the results, you’ll know they are genuine. I am confident you will NOT show us your results, because you’ve already seen what the correlation coefficient is, and don’t want anyone to know that CO2 does NOT drive temperature.

                While we’re at it, your “1880 – 2012″ graph was treated in Davis & Bolling, The Search for Patterns in Ice Core Temperature Curves, in Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change, Gerhard, Harrison and Hanson, eds, 2001. Davis and Bolling found that any “pattern” of 700 years or less is spurious. The minimum time period for a meaningful correlation is about 2,000 years, or longer. What you might (or might not) be seeing today is NOT outside of natural variability.

                That is about as close as I’ll get to citing a specific reference. Why? you might ask? Easy — – I do not need references to bolster my points (or point of view). I write almost 100% from stream-of-consciousness. As far as references to the 800-year lag between CO2 and temperature, your very own AR4 and AR5 acknowledge this; my results were about 600 years on average, but that my be some differences in processing routines, or use of a different taper, windowing issues, etc etc etc. … … …

                Since you have such intimate familiarity with AR5 (citing it as your appeal-to-authority), you should be able to locate it easily. The fact that you admit that you are unaware of the lag-time between CO2 and temperature only proves that your education is lacking. Love the Facetube link — – it is so edifying to see stuff there. I listen to old Emmylou Harris songs from her vinyls that I lost many moves ago. Man!! Does she have a voice, or WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?

                Reply continues below 6.1.3.1.1

                111

              • #
                Mark D.

                Hairy says:

                please provide a reference to the study that claims a global lag. I certainly have not heard of one,

                then adds :

                here is an easy to watch video that explains the “lag” is a myth.

                Hairy has “never heard of it” yet produces a link with personal commentary about what it is he’s “never heard of”. We can confidently (>95%) say Hairy is a liar.

                Thanks for the full disclosure Harry.

                111

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mark Hladik.

                “WOW!!! Just WOW!!!”

                If you are not going to produce references to the studies you refer to, just say so. Spare us the rants and histrionics.

                09

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Dr. DeHavilland:

                I’ll ‘spare the rants and histrionics’ when you do.

                I’ve explained why I do not need references; on top of that, several here have demonstrated that YOU do not pay any attention to others references.

                You seem to be able to find plenty of references on your own; pity that skill does not include finding stuff related to EPICA, GISP II, etc, and other ice cores. You appear to have deliberately missed the context, and hypocrisy of accusing me of ‘cherry-picking’, then cherry-picking an 1880 – 2012 temperature/CO2 record, when our actual knowledge covers Cryogenian – Holocene.

                Since you did miss it, I supplied a reference, Davis & Bolling, at 6.1.1.6.3. Of course, we know you won’t bother to check it out, since it’s done by a couple of ‘ so-called “geologists” ‘ (who obviously know nothing about science… … … ).

                Thus, once again, it would appear that you will not, in fact, produce any correlation for us. Exactly what is it you are afraid of?

                Mark H.

                81

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, while you may be correct in stating that you can’t find “anything obviously wrong” with the graph that you linked to, something that you left out of your comment that I believe should be noted. From January of 1934 to January of 1981 there was a cooling trend, while from March of 1958 (unfortunately, ERSL CO2 data doesn’t go back any further) to January of 1981, CO2 levels rose by 22.58 ppm. Now, for a “correlation chart”, that seems rather strange, to have 47 out of 133 years with a decline, rather than an increase, doesn’t it? In fact, for 35% of the time on that chart, temperatures (while CO2 increased) declined.

                As for your statement about a “global lag”, here is a peer-reviewed study claiming exactly that. From the discussion section:

                By the above analysis we have demonstrated that there exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.

                There are some more here.

                41

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                I apologize; I meant to say this: “there is something that you left out of your comment that I believe should be noted.”

                31

            • #
              Glen Michel

              You’re a very naughty boy or just obtuse.Maybe,just maybe the sun will rise in the west.

              221

              • #
                el gordo

                Harry does not understand the science or he would argue his case, so even if you say the hiatus proves global warming is not happening, he will deny observation.

                In Australia there are millions of people who think the sky is falling, I spit on them.

                312

              • #
                Gordon Cheyne

                Maybe,just maybe the sun will rise in the west.

                Actually, I’ve seen this happen.
                We took off from Tullamarine Airport (Melbourne) just after sunset. The pilot alerted us to it: “Look out of the left side windows, and you will see the sun rise in the west.”
                As we gained altitude, it did.

                110

            • #
              James Murphy

              Harry Twinotter,
              I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Mark Hladik is cherry-picking data… or are you working on it at the moment? If you need help with Excel, let me know.

              162

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Mark D.

              You do not appear to know the difference between a study and a youtube video.

              010

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Mark Hladik.

              I do not know why you keep playing the victim about geologists. Honestly who cares if they are geologists as long as they get published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

              “Climate change model forecasts would be more convincing if they were based on the natural records of the Holocene (i.e., 10,000 years) and were capable of emulating climate characteristics of this epoch”.

              Really? That is a claim the authors have pulled out of their bottom.

              Anyway you have just proved to everyone you cherry-pick. Greenland is not the world. Please provide a reference for the lack of global CO2 correlation you refer to – that is all I ask.

              08

              • #
                Just-A Guy

                Harry Twinotter,

                You wrote:

                Anyway you have just proved to everyone you cherry-pick. Greenland is not the world. Please provide a reference for the lack of global CO2 correlation you refer to – that is all I ask.

                CO2 has physical and thermodynamic properties. If it has an effect in one location it has an effect at every location. Basic laws of physics.
                The opposite is also true. If if CO2 does not have an effect in one place, then it cannot have an effect anywhere. Basic laws of physics.

                Abe

                81

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Trying to dialog with Dr. DeHavilland is difficult, when there is so much projection, and you won’t read the posts. Tony showed that you do not bother to look at others references.

                First, you called “cherry-picking” when I referenced EPICA, now you call the same when I referenced (and supplied a citation) for GISP II, and now you want to know the location of Berner & Kothavala and Veizer.

                I’ve supplied all. You won’t look at the references, so that is a statement that you won’t run a simple mathematical procedure to establish a basis for the hypothesis that CO2 drives global temperatures.

                To add to ‘Just A Guy’, CO2′s ‘effect’ is temporally and spatially uniform. If you believe that something changed around 1880 that suddenly caused a trace gas to assume dominance in global climate change (yes, I did look at your graph; unlike you, I check out links you’ve supplied), you’ll have to come up with something that explains why that is.

                Second, where does this ‘victim’ statement come in? That’s just red herring. Your very own original statement what ‘where are these mythical beasts?’ if you’ll recall. Here’s one, I answered, and here’s why I’m a skeptic. In case you didn’t know, Jo herself was once a believer like you, then, upon investigating the science of CAGW/AGW/ACC, figured out what a hoax it really is, and started this forum that you’re at.

                You’re the one who started with the ‘so-called geologist’ meme. I supplied a verifiable reference to prove who and what I am (did you check it out? Of course not; you’re much to busy not answering a simple challenge, and engaging in multiple logical fallacies, not to mention all that projection). I would hazard a guess that someone here has gone to the WBPG and verified my license.

                Have you?

                I happen to think that the geological community, as a whole, resides in the skeptic camp. As with all groups, opinions run the spectrum. As far as I’m concerned, each individual is welcome to his/her opinion. As with the original statement of this article, I would not call for any who disagree with me to suffer sanction. I would pose a simple question to them.

                One that you refuse to answer.

                Regards,

                Mark H.

                71

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                You have been peer reviewed harry.

                Big Fail!

                Obviously not educated, just a True believer in the great tradition of Global Warming.

                Spacer!

                KK

                71

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mark “Vlad the Impaler” Hladik.

                Care to provide a reference to a study that is not just a blog or behind a paywall?

                You are making the claim so you provide the evidence. I am not making a claim so I do not have to do your homework for you.

                Go and summarise “The Search for Patterns in Ice Core Temperature Curves” if you wish – no one else can read it.

                And yes, I do not think you are a geologist or any type of scientists – you are unable to have a rational discussion or even make your points clear. You said yourself you engage in “stream-of-consciousness”. Looking at your word-salad, I agree with you on that one.

                06

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Wow it is difficult to dialog with you.

                I did not “cite” a study or anything else, paywalled or otherwise. My challenge to you was to run a cross-correlation using the curves found (for free) at the Global Warming Art Wiki site. You do not need to, ” … do my homework for me … ” ; I’ve already done the cross-correlation, both on Veizer vs. B & K, and on the 750 ma CO2 vs. T graph.

                You believe there is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. To establish a causal relationship, you must first satisfy the hypothesis that there is a correlation. Once again, from 6.1, ‘correlation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for causality’. Finding a correlation only lays the groundwork for seeking a causality, if there is one. Try reading that first post again. Try reading ANY of the posts. Both Tony and I have seen that when one references something, you ignore it.

                Hmmmm —- I seem to recall summarizing Davis & Bolling for you. ‘Anything less than 700 years is spurious.’ This was when you posted your ’1880 – 2012′ graph, representing about 0.000000001% of Earth temperature history.

                Thanks for admitting you’ve lost the discussion. That ad-hom was perfect! I think I’ll ask Jo if I can adopt it as my handle, so I can post anonymously like others.

                Regards,

                Vlad the Impaler
                Member-in-Good-Standing, P.E.T.A. (People Eating Tasty Animals)

                61

              • #
                Just-A Guy

                Mark Hladik,

                Excellent reply, Mark. Kudos! You covered all the bases concerning Harry’s insistence on not responding on topic. This behaviour of his is well known around here. Sort of like an inside joke.

                Cheers,
                Abe

                51

              • #
                Just-A Guy

                FYI,

                It’s not only here that Harry’s non-sense is recognized. From WUWT:

                dbstealey wrote:

                Correct, George. When their only argument amounts to accusations of “cherry picking”, we know they’ve run out of credible arguments.

                harrytwinotter says:

                The trick is to find a long enough run of data that appears to be statistically significant. I did a rough analysis and the run becomes statistically significant from 1990-2015. 25 years! Not surprising the climate people like 30 years.

                May I deconstruct? Thank you:

                First, we don’t need harry’s “trick”. And he doesn’t name his “climate people”. So I will post a name for him: according to arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones, fifteen (15) years of no global warming is enough to be statistically significant. Global warming stopped 18+ years ago. So harryt.o. needs to go argue with Jones if he doesn’t like it.

                It’s not suprising that harry “cherry pick” twinotter would want to go back to 1990. Why did he pick that year? Why not pick 1980, when the last natural warming cycle began?

                Italics in the original, bold italics mine. Abe

                Now doesn’t that look suspiciously (exactly) like what Harry did right here on this thread?

                Abe

                41

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Thanks J-A-G,

                I do see that for some reason, some of the posts had truncated content (like telling DHC-6 that the address to post things that are not easy to post is (at) (dot) ), but that should not be confusing, except to Dr. De Havilland.

                Also, I’ve decided to ask Jo to make my handle, “Vlad the Impostor”, since I’m not really a geologist. Ol’ Dr. DeHavilland should get a hold of the Wyoming Board of Professional Geologists, and have me brought up on charges of being an impostor, and practicing Geology w/o a license. I’m sure they’ll find his evidence compelling. Bonus, he can expose me as a d*nier, and have me tarred-and-feathered by all of those out-of-work coal miners up in Campbell County, since I’m trying to destroy the whole Earth with that carbon(dioxide) poison/pollution.

                Oh, wait — – I’m wrong. I’m NOT an impostor, I’m a geological VICTIM! Sorry, I just can’t keep these multitudinous stories straight.

                Ooooops! Wait — that’s not right, I’m not a geologist, or a victim, or an imposter, or an impaler, I’m a COTTON-picking cherry-picker!

                Whew! Thanks, J-A-G! I would not have made it through another day w/o your help. My best to you and yours,

                Vlad the Impostor-izing Cherry-Impaling P.E.T.A. member standing with a bunch of dead four-legged furries who died from trace gas poisoning Cotton-picker victim-ization-izer …

                (did I cover everything?)

                61

        • #
          ClimateOtter

          You are an Insult to otters.

          182

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hang on there.

            Twin Otters are quite good aircraft so he’s only an Insult to Climate Warming otters.

            You know,

            Hot Otters!

            KK

            41

        • #
          Manfred

          “…the IPCC AR5 report, it is a pretty good review of global warming research.”

          Harry Twinotter, why did you consider the AR5 merely, ‘pretty good’?

          Would you explicitly define your use of ‘pretty good‘ in the context of the IPCC Chapter 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional which stated:

          Models may be very simple, just a set of statistical assumptions, or very complex, complete global climate models: it is not necessary, or possible, for them to be correct in all respects, but they must provide a physically consistent representation of processes and scales relevant to the attribution problem in question.

          So, is this what you mean when you write ‘pretty good’, that sense of scientific satisfaction engendered within you by the unpredicted, inconvenient disconnect of chaotic reality from the haemorrhagically expensive UN IPCC models used to justify their post-2015 development Agenda?

          ‘Pretty good’ one supposes, might encompass UN IPCC (AR5) statements made in the usual despicable hand-waving manner that deliberately obfuscates, the pseudo-statistical confidence coupled with self-contradiction?

          “Regarding possible future influences of the sun on the Earth’s climate, there is very low confidence in our ability to predict future solar output, but there is high confidence that the effects from solar irradiance variations will be much smaller than the projected climate changes from increased RF due to GHGs.”

          Wow, that was ‘pretty good’ wasn’t it?

          Since AR5, the ‘pause’ has continued, so have the adjustments to temperature data sets, while the sun has grown from being dismissed to being considered more ‘important’, and tellingly, the UN post-2015 Agenda has developed a creeping language of compulsion that will be blessed by Pope Francis this Friday, 25th September at the opening session of the 70th UN General Assembly.

          All ‘n all, ‘pretty good’ for ‘settled science’ in Twinotter world.

          PS. What is the solar influence on climate? Overview of activities during CAWSES-II. Seppälä et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science 2014, 1:24.

          252

      • #
        • #
          Annie

          I laughed like a drain when I saw that graph! I’ve boookmarked the article to read later when I’ve more time.

          112

          • #
            Yonniestone

            We’re screwing with natural selection Annie, the cosseting umbrella of the nanny state will naturally lead to the rise of the ‘knife in the toaster’ types who will need to be drawn somewhere in the workforce, unfortunately we’ve lost the art and much PC bemoaned career of Window Licking……

            72

            • #
              Annie

              The Darwin Award doesn’t operate often enough Yonnie!

              I read the rest of it; a good article. I did hear an acutely intelligent woman on the BBC World radio yesterday morning (in the Science Hour). It was a treat listening to her; I don’t remember her name but I think it might have been Indian.

              20

      • #
        gnome

        The very concept of “a licence to practice (sic) geology” is a bit terrifying. Sometimes I wonder about US regulatory practices.

        Has anyone ever been regulated for “practising geology without a licence”?

        (I’m not criticising you Mark, just the overregulated environment you are forced to practise in.) (And just a bit of a harmless dig at the American habit of innocently misusing the English language. )

        111

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Understood; I was not taking it as criticism at all.

          As strange as it may sound, I actually endorse the concept of having a license to practice such professions. Considering what it takes to obtain the degree these days, the State oversight insures that we keep the profession cleaner than it might be in an “open” environment. Since I hold the degrees and the governmental endorsement (plus endorsements from professional associations as well) I can be (and have been) called to act as an expert witness in legal matters.

          Just an FYI: we also have reciprocity with all adjacent states. One of our bordering states, South Dakota, does NOT have such a system of licenses, hence a number of practicing geologists in S. D. have chosen to adopt (voluntarily) the Wyoming license, which lends credibility to their practice.

          It is not a bad system; I was wary when it first came about, but once it went into place, and our neighbors who followed our lead agreed to reciprocate, it turned out to be great thing.

          Something a government can actually do RIGHT!!!!

          Regards,

          Mark H.

          92

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Would the government revoke your license if they knew your beliefs about climate change? Have you told them?

            Also, are you saying these other geologists are wrong? : http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/31/6/485.abstract

            Since the GEOCARB3 figure is the output of a computer model, not actual measurement, on what basis do you believe that picture of CO2? Does the correlation test with temperature also fail with other pCO2 estimates from proxy measures, such as Rothman’s?
            I’ve just digitised the data from Rothman’s Figure 4 if you would like to use it. [ http://pastebin.com/1NULu2x4 ]

            Plus GEOCARB had a ten million year time step so if CO2 really dropped for a million years and was co-incident with a 1 million year glaciation you would not see the CO2 drop in GEOCARB3 anyhow. And why do you use Berner & Kothavala, which is from 2001, instead of using Berner’s more recent work?
            Why does your correlation test treat CO2 as the only driver of climate when that is the position you’re arguing against? Adjusting for the fact that the Sun was dimmer in the past offsets the higher CO2 of paleo studies.

            There are so many complications which arise from what seems on the surface to be a simple correlation test. There are probably other ways to argue against CAGW more successfully, but a plain x-correlation of 500Ma of spotty data is simplistic.

            50

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Andrew McRae.

              It is interesting some are happy to use proxy paleo-reconstructions that cross hundred of millions of years, yet others get excited when Mann et al publish a proxy reconstruction that only covers 800 years.

              I think I am familiar with one Phanerozoic reconstruction, the one that does not account for the sun getting brighter. But I was waiting for Mark Hladik, the so-called “geologist” to actually provide a real citation, not just some vague reference to a blog.

              116

              • #

                (so called) Twinotter,

                if I may make an observation here, this is where the people from your side cr@p in your own nest.

                You come here with a high dudgeon attitude, and expect us to believe every word you write as pure as the driven snow 100% absolute truth, and yet you treat everything written by everybody else as an absolute mendacity.

                Where you refer to Mark Hladik as a so called Geologist, think about that for a minute.

                Why would he say he was a geologist when if he’s caught out, it would go very poorly for him.

                When someone says they are something, why can’t you just accept that as being the truth, instead of alluding to the fact that he’s not being truthful.

                In much the same manner as you don’t believe Mark Hladik to be a geologist, I find it very difficult to believe that you are indeed a DHC-6. Perhaps you might be the one who needs to prove what he is. At least Mark uses his full name.

                I might suggest an apology would be in order here.

                Oh, and one last thing. People give references and you just ignore them, because you say that it’s just some blog.

                Twinotter, you yourself have referred to blogs. Why is it that your blogs are pure as the driven snow, and ours are nothing but outright lies not worth your time.

                I find it odd that people like you come here, and scream out loud at virtually every occasion for references. Are you so incapable that you cannot use a search engine yourself.

                And when you are screaming out for references, why I am I always reminded of this short 16 second video

                Tony.

                202

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                “… not just some reference to a blog.”

                Please provide the name, date, and time I referenced some “blog”. I do not provide references when I post, since all I’ve ever seen is the discussion deteriorate into, ” … my reference sez … ” and, ” … your reference sez … ” and so on. I just write from my training and experience, and what I’ve learned. As a climatologist, the best I can claim to be is a knowledgeable layman. If I sought a Paleoclimatologist degree, it would require quite a bit of University time, dissertation, etc. Point of fact, Geologists were ‘paleoclimatologists’ long before there was such a discipline. It’s called “Depositional Environments” and “Sequence Stratigraphy”, and if you know what those are without Googling them, you may be geologically trained. When observing the data on Global Warming Art, did you notice the sea-level curves of Haq and others? I’ve often said: if Global Warming Art ever figures out that the vast majority of their archived data contradicts their CAGW-belief, they’ll File 13 their compilation faster than a tachyon.

                Of course, theirs is just a summary; most of the data comes from published papers. It is just convenient that it is all in one, nice, easy-to-find location.

                And if Global Warming Art is the “blog” you think I referenced, you might find it interesting to note that it is run by none other than Wiki — – hardly a paragon of skepticism.

                So now I’m a “so-called geologist…”. Hmmm, I guess you didn’t try to find the Wyoming Board of Professional Geologists. I listed my license number (2504, just in case you forgot). The way I obtained my certification was first, applying, second, providing official transcripts from all of the institutions I attended, third, receiving a notice that my training credentials checked out, fourth, receiving an invitation to take the Professional Geologist exam (created by ASBOG — – Association of State Boards of Geologists), and fifth, taking and passing both parts of the exam (Part I — four hour time limit, administered in the morning, Part II — three-and-a-half hour time limit, administered in the afternoon).

                I walked out of the exam room, and advised our State Director that I would be seeing her again in the mandatory six-month waiting period for those who failed the exam. I said, “I don’t even want to see my results. I did horrible.” She refused my admonition, and sent me my results anyway.

                Part I — 93% (70 % = passing)
                Part II — 92% ( ” )

                Along with my license.

                I’m so glad you think I’m a ‘so-called geologist’. I guess to be a “real” geologist, I would have to agree with all of your beliefs about CAGW/AGW/CC and what-not. After all, only “real” people believe in Anthropogenic-caused climate change. Only morons like me are ‘skeptical’ of the all “overwhelming scientific evidence” (like those models … ?). Gee, sorry to disappoint you, I think I’ll stay a skeptic, until such time as your camp can produce irrefutable evidence (e.g., that the ‘warming’ effect of CO2 does NOT diminish exponentially above about 300 ppm).

                Yes, Mann fabricated his “hockey stick”. Of course you don’t see that; you want it to be true. Mann’s hypothesis is that tree rings (i.e., their annual growth) is function of only temperature. Mann et alobliterated documented changes in temperature such as the ‘Little Ice Age’, the Roman and Minoan warm periods, etc etc etc. Mann claimed that climate had been (essentially) ‘stable’, or perhaps we should say, ‘unchanging’ for much of the C.E., then suddenly, at the Industrial Revolution, temperatures began to rise, ‘ … in excess of natural variability … ‘. Geologists know this to be false. Other proxies, such as stalactites and ice cores, show climate changing all the time (i.e., change is the norm), and sometimes the changes are dramatic — – far in excess of a Celsius degree in a century (give-or-take).

                You have apoplexy over a very benign change in temperature, by a very benign gas. You are breathing only because of CO2, Dr. DeHavilland. Be grateful for what Nature has provided for you. When plants have more food, they produce more of what you need to live.

                I’m going to agree with Tony From Oz — – I do not accept that you are a DHC-6. I earned about 38 hours of right seat in DHC-6′s, flying out of Logan, Utah, a long time ago. I think your torque meters and EGT’s red-lined a long time ago, and your hot section melted. Sorry, you have no credibility with me. I’ve looked at your posts for quite some time now, and when I challenged you to produce some scientific evidence, you deflected. I think you took one look at Veizer vs. Berner & Kothavala, and the gig was up. Ask Jo or a mod to help you publish your X-corr (use to get assistance. I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed to assist you with posting your graph, and coefficient.

                We await your results, Dr. De Havilland.

                Regards,

                Mark H.

                51

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              Hi Andrew,

              Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.

              I am well aware that various organizations hold corporate beliefs opposing my own. Be advised that the membership of said organization was not polled or asked about their views. The “official” stance is decided by the Board of that organization.

              I also note that various organizations publish papers which oppose the “official” view.

              As to GEOCARB III: Yes, it is based on proxy data, but it is also cited (over 300 times at last count), and the time resolution is subject to limitation. As of now, it about the best (I hear rumors that IV is in the offing), and, it is useful because it shows that there is, in fact, no relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature (as one will note, upon running the cross-correlation). Now, if the data improves, and shows something different, I’ll change my view. As of now, this is what we have, so this is what I use. In a reply above, I stated that I also use the 750 ma data, which is even more tenuous, but peer-reviewed (and cited) in GTS 2004 and GTS 2012 (Gradstein & Ogg, et al). Rothman’s proxy was different, but has peculiar similarity to B & K. If I were to run things again, I might take all of the data, and use it in a “stacked” sense (data processing regulars will know what this is), which would have the advantage of improving the results.

              I understand your concern about “CO2 as the only driver”. Rest assured, that is not my position. It is the Dr. DeHavilland’s of the world who believe this. I am trying to show that CO2 is NOT a driver of climate. Earth climate is a dynamic, non-linear, coupled system. No engineer will accept that a system like that is controlled by a single variable. I am trying to show Dr. DeHavilland that his beliefs are the pinnacle of fallacy, and he should spend his time trying to solve real problems, not fake ones.

              Our State Climatologist is also a skeptic; I do not fear speaking out, or feeling the necessity to hide behind any pseudonym. People are free to disagree with me; I will defend to the death their right to be wrong, but I will not join them.

              Regards,

              Mark H.

              51

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              One additional thought, Andrew.

              You state: ” … a plain [X-corr] of 500[m]a of spotty data is simplistic.”

              I will, of course, agree with you, but on the grounds that ‘ … no experiment can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong … ‘ (A. Einstein, in case you had forgotten). What the correlation shows is that making a case for a single factor being the dominant controller of global climate is utter nonsense. No, it is not perfect; even if there existed a correlation, all that does is allow one to lay the groundwork to begin to find the cause-effect relationship.

              And, the last time I checked, simplicity was the order of the day in science. I’m sure you know Occam’s Razor (my preferred spelling). It might be the most simple thing that casts doubt upon an hypothesis. In this case, there should be massive doubt. Dr. DeHavilland shows a chart beginning in 1880, and says, “See!?!? SEE!?!?!? CORRELATION!!!! We MUST be causing it!!!!” with no attempt to look deeper.

              Very superficial, in my opinion. Proxy data now cover mid-Cryogenian to present, and I suspect that the next iteration of GTS could even put us into the late Tonian.

              Are the data perfect? HELL NO!!!! It is very unlikely that the data ever will be perfect. Are the data useful, do the data show us something? Yes; and we should use the data we have and understand what these data are trying to show us.

              I very much appreciate your thoughtful comment. You are a gentleman, and we can respectfully disagree without being disagreeable. Your opinion matters to me (I’ve followed many of your posts; love your insights!). Do keep it up, and the Dr. Havilland’s of the world will find themselves in the shallow end of the gene pool.

              Regards,

              Mark H.

              41

          • #
            Manfred

            Out of interest then, what happens if you can’t afford the fee for your ‘license’?

            30

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              Hi Manfred,

              Interesting question. I honestly do not know the answer. When the State set up the licensing board, it was explicitly stated that the cost of the license would be kept as low as possible. In part, the fee supports the operation of the Board, and at $70 per year (U. S. currency, of course), the fee is not unreasonable.

              Students are able to obtain a ‘learning’ license, but must be sponsored and directed by a licensed geologist. Once they have their degree, they are required to work for five years under a ‘provisional’; they cannot sign their work themselves; it must be countersigned by a licensee. After five years, they can apply for the license, and take the ASBOG exam (see above, response to Dr. DeHavilland), after which, if they pass, they too are licensed.

              I may be wrong, but I do not believe the fee has changed in about ten years or so. The State is keeping their word. Good thing too — – one does not want to anger the very people who provide 80% of the annual State budget!

              Regards,

              Mark H.

              31

    • #
      Bertram Felden

      Harry, you’re a long way behind the curve there. It’s not AGW any more, hasn’t been for years. First it changed to ‘Global Climate Disruption’, and then when that didn’t turn out to be true either, simply ‘Climate Change’. Which is really easy to get along with, because absolutely everybody, sceptics and useful idiots alike, know that the climate is always changing. Also, would you be kind enough to enlighten us as to your reference to ‘making stuff up’? Are you thinking of the IPCC models, or maybe the NOAA’s recent fictitious infilling and adjustments to ocean and surface data records? Just curious, since you seem know everything about AGW.

      422

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Betram Felden.

        I have not seen a semantic argument for a while. Must be some powerful words to be able to modify scientific outcomes by arguing over word-meanings.

        What does the “CC” in IPCC stand for, and when was the IPCC founded?

        I might have a bit to say about “making stuff up” if Jo Nova ever justifies her claims. Ahhh, the joy of the unchallenged bully-pulpit.

        160

        • #
          Brian

          The IPCC’s mandate was never to argue the existence of AGW but to accept it as fact, to find evidence against AGW would be counterproductive to their existence, grants and junkets. Therefore the IPCC is irrelevant other than to accumulate sometimes questionable information from one side of the arguement, so “CC” in IPCC may as well stand for “Complete Crap”! As for the other side of the arguement, it’s the work of unfunded skeptics that has compiled sensible and convincing information/evidence to try to repair the damage done to science by those who choose to prostitute themselves to the mega funding of AGW.

          452

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Keep it up, Harry. Some day you’ll stuff your foot so far into your mouth that you’ll never recover from it. I won’t rejoice at your downfall but I’ll enjoy never hearing of you again.

          342

        • #
          James Bradley

          Gotta call ‘strawman’ on you right there Twatter.

          282

        • #
          Harry Strawman

          Oh yeah, with you there brother,

          These dunderheads at Jonova don’t realise just what the IPCC actually represents, but we do, don’t we Hazza.

          The ‘CC’ in the IPCC stands for ‘Capatalist Collapse’ and through the efforts of comrades such as Hazza and me, then we will troll the sh!t out of sceptic sites until we get to the bottom of who funds ‘Big Sceptic’.

          Hazza is on to it, he has a solid history of sniffing out crap like that and if he can’t find it then, geez, he’ll just scientifically adjust the evidence… hey it’s a scientific precedent set by, like Mann, and Cook and BOM and CSIRO, and America’s EPA, and the United States Supreme court ruled CO2 was a pollutant.

          QT @ Harry Twinotter – how’d I do Hazz – I thought I diverted quite well, a bit of ‘strawman’ with peer reviewed street cred’, and I threw in a little invective, you know, to dehumanise them like we discussed, yeah, yeah, I know, but I thought the other ‘d’ word would put me in moderation.

          152

        • #
          cohenite

          The IPCC was set up not to prove AGW but to promulgate it.

          CC obviously stand for climate con.

          91

    • #
      doubtingdave

      Twinotter says skeptics can’t “falcify the AGW theory”, Harry you know full well that skepitical scientists accept AGW theory but object to dangerous alarmist claims, so you are the one using the most obvious straw man argument out there and yet somehow you seem to think you can convince people of your views when you comment here!! what kind of delusional Oreskian fantasy world do you live in

      295

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Harry you know full well that skepitical scientists accept AGW theory but object to dangerous alarmist claims’

        I don’t accept AGW theory in any way shape or form, which makes me a social pariah.

        In my book the skeptics are having an each way bet, which is pretty pathetic when you consider the real possibility of imminent global cooling.

        The only way to beat Harry and educate those ignorant warmist millions, is to cherry pick weather events and illustrate the cooling pattern.

        Dave if you are a skeptic, do you think the hiatus will last forever?

        Do you think it will become warmer or cooler over the coming decade?

        142

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I accept the Anthropomorphic part as a limited influence. Urban heat island, cropland over natural vegetation ect. I do not accept that we can change the GLOBAL atmospheric balance.

          Also, the so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 has been demonstrated in a test-tube environment, but has so far NOT been demonstrated in the atmosphere.

          But I’m only an engineer. I read the global warming blogs more for the physiologic aspect than the mathematical. I find it fascinating.

          111

        • #
          doubtingdave

          EL GORDO , (sorry for my late response to your question) i’m not convinced by the luke warmers stance on the greenhouse effect and its role in AGW ,radiation travels at or near the speed of light and so any delay of radiation leaving the atmosphere caused by green house gases would only be by a tiny fraction of a second and night time gives ample time for this to happen ( if i’m wrong please show me why). As for the end of the hiatus , i agree that it looks like a natural cooling cycle is due, if you look at proxy data that goes back to the last iceage you can clearly see a climate optimum ocurred around 5000 bc, since then each natural warming cycle, the Minoan, Roman , medieval and modern day has been less warm compared to the previous one so chances are this trend will continue . thanks

          50

        • #
          Just-A Guy

          el gordo,

          You wrote:

          I don’t accept AGW theory in any way shape or form, which makes me a social pariah.

          In my book the skeptics are having an each way bet, which is pretty pathetic when you consider the real possibility of imminent global cooling.

          Hi el gordo. Correct me if I’m wrong but AGW ™ requires that there be a greenhouse effect, or GHE ® for short. Are you saying you reject the GHE ®? Could you give me your opinion on this comment and/or this comment? I made both of them last week. (Preferably comment there, on that thread.)

          How are skeptics having an each way bet? Isn’t that what the warmists do when they use the term Climate Change ® to flip from warming to cooling?

          Abe

          41

          • #
            el gordo

            Skeptics are not going to win this debate if we say CO2 causes a little warming.

            Its time to play hard ball and say CO2 causes warming only in a test tube but not the real world, so global cooling is imminent.

            Within the Skeptic movement there are lukewarmers and coolists. I respect the former, but you will need to convince me that CO2 has more than a theoretical effect.

            41

            • #
              Just-A Guy

              el gordo,

              You wrote:

              Skeptics are not going to win this debate if we say CO2 causes a little warming.

              Agreed. As long as people continue to say that CO2 will cause some warming then the promoters of CAGW ™ can continue to argue that if some people say it causes a little warming and others say it causes a lot, then they’ll just say that if we’re unsure how much warming, why take chances. Let’s just go ahead and avoid it as much as possible. They’ve won.

              You wrote:

              Its time to play hard ball and say CO2 causes warming only in a test tube but not the real world, so global cooling is imminent.

              I agree with you in principle. Your statement has two parts and I agree with each of them. But the second does not follow from the first from a purely logical point of view.
              Just because CO2 does not cause warming does not mean that therefore the world will now begin to cool.

              I would suggest replacing the word ‘so’ with ‘and that’ like this:
              “Its time to play hard ball and say CO2 causes warming only in a test tube but not the real world, and that global cooling is imminent.”

              Like I said, I agree with both parts of your statement. My question is how do you convince the people sitting on the fence (luke-warmers) when they won’t listen to reason?

              Abe

              42

              • #
                el gordo

                Thanks Abe, good subbing,

                31

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘My question is how do you convince the people sitting on the fence (luke-warmers) when they won’t listen to reason?’

                No simple answer, personally I’m waiting for David Evans hindcast and a robust debate.

                31

          • #
            gai

            Just a guy,

            Read what these two physicists have to say:
            Dr Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University. source

            and Dr. Happer, physicist and head of dept of energy until Al Gore fired him.

            David Burton put up an audio video and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at this. link

            SLIDES: (wwwDOT)sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx
            Slides 16, 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

            You can get useful background for the physics in these comments from WIKI .
            SUBJECTS:
            Mössbauer effect (recoil energy lost during absorption <===CRITICAL)

            The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)
            Motional narrowing

            Voigt effect

            While we are talking of Climastrologists and their Whoppers, here is the biggest lie of all. The one needed to make the whole scam scary enough to frighten the sheeple.

            The Climastrologists get that high CO2 climate sensitivity by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2 and therefore multiplying the actual CO2 climate sensitivity threefold. This is the heart of the BIG LIE. They swap cause and effect. Water (ocean temperature) drives CO2 as seen by the known few hundred year lag in the ice records. Instead the scammers are saying CO2 increased DRIVES water vapor increases and dance around the fact CO2 levels FOLLOW the ocean temperature increases.

            30

      • #
        Manfred

        ‘AGW theory’ fine as it goes for a theory. As we all know, association is not causation. The 19 year trendless interval in warming is an unpredicted, unmodeled falsifying event. The science is cannot begin to approximate ‘settled’ (if indeed it can ever be) until at the very least ALL the climate forcings and feedbacks are known, and their complex chaotic interaction understood and accurately modeled ad infinitum. The adoption of the UN defined term ‘climate change’ c. 1999/2000 was the insurance policy to avoid the inconvenience of The Pause. More tellingly however, unlike the earlier hypothesis, climate change (as defined by the UN) fails not only the test of non-contradiction, it has no constraint, or end-point. It is merely the political mantra of the Global-government-in-waiting.

        61

    • #
      Brian

      Engineers, geologists, chemists and physicists deal with hard, reproducible science and have a very real idea of how the world works, otherwise livelihoods or even lives could be lost. Soft science like climate science has no requirement for reproducibility (apparently), makes predictions over timescales that ensure they are not around to be ridiculed, has a zero consequence if wrong and are accountable to nobody. Pretty slick job if you can get it! I still want to know what happens if the global temps drop rapidly? Will we need to produce more CO2? Should we start up the coal fired power plants again? Riddle me that Batman! We’re still paying for the deasal plants that the climate parasites recommended! Guess the consequences for being wrong are payed by all of us, except the parasites.

      342

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      “..cannot falsify the scientific theory of AGW without making stuff up.”

      Harry, Harry! It’s your scientific theory that’s making stuff up. The falsity stands tall in the field of facts.

      161

    • #
      RB

      so much so that they cannot falsify the scientific theory of AGW without making stuff up.

      I kind of thought that lack of warming might have done that, let alone catastrophic AGW. Remember that you are are a stinking “denier” for not playing along with the catastrophic part. The man-made (anthropogenic) part continued unabated (accelerated even) but the globe did not warm. Then the made-up stuff followed; 50+reasons for the pause, fudged data to hide the pause, sophistry to hide the damning conclusion from the pause and thousands of catastrophes waiting to happen when the deep ocean spews forth the heat that it secretly the stored in the next El Nino.

      And what’s to falsify about the theory? The direct effect of doubling CO2 levels is a barely measurable effect and far from catastrophic. Common sense would have you side with a negative feedback so its up to alarmists to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is a positive feedback. All attempts have failed badly but still the show rolls on.

      71

  • #
    Brian

    If the tobacco fiasco taught the world anything, it’s that if you own the scientists, they can be corrupted to say whatever you want them to say to protect the bottom line. Who owns just about all the worlds scientists? Governments and NGO’s who stand to profit. The one thing the climate parasites haven’t learnt is that the truth eventually prevails.

    513

  • #

    Reposted me serf comment at Judith Curry on
    this topic ,in moderation fer three linkies.(

    Contemporous with Obama’s ‘Right
    to freedom of thought’ Iowa speech*
    contemporous with evidence that
    ‘climate modeling rules’ and yet it
    cools.* (acknowledged by the team,
    ‘ The Pause’ is causing concern,)*
    even so, a cli-sci-clique would
    do a trick, ends justifying means,
    adapting criminal legislation, the
    old Lysenko trick, upon a
    non-consensus opposition,
    create a new R.I.C.O. action,
    contemptuous of science critical
    investigation, a new RICO,
    a “Rigidity, Innoculation and
    Censorship Organization.”

    * At Climate Etc Thread,‘Heterodox
    Academy’ Obama‘The idea that you’d
    have somebody in govt make a claim
    about what you should think …not
    in our world.’

    * https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png

    * at Climate Depot 29/07/2014. Long list of
    cited quotes from Phil Jones et al ‘can’t
    account fer pause in warming.

    172

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    The real problem is they genuinely believe it. They really believe there is an organised conspiracy against the wellbeing of the world and all its creatures. Don’t kid yourself into believing they know they’re wrong – they don’t.

    340

    • #
      Brian

      I agree completely, and the work of so many relies on the corrupted science(deliberately or otherwise) of so few. Almost everything published takes warming as fact and man made without question, otherwise their work means nothing.

      211

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Don’t kid yourself into believing they know they’re wrong – they don’t.

      I don’t believe they care one way or another. They want what they want and being self critical isn’t even remotely a part of it. The truth matters not one bit.

      201

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      Yes, and there’s one more aspect that complicates matters.

      We think they are (mostly) sincere, well-meaning, and completely misguided.

      They think we are (all) not just wrong, but Evil. Hence the tobacco analogy, the “denier” word, all the vulgar abuse, and the attempts to medicalize or criminalize skeptic activity.

      All that means that serious debate is utterly impossible.

      60

  • #
    ROM

    Perhaps Harry Twinotter is our wannabe Joseph Goebbels of climate alarmist science who was once described as having, “a high intellectual varnish covering the emotional world of an adolescent,”

    And applicable to those who support and believe in Climate alarmist science as does Harry Twinottter apparently or perhaps Harry is just following in Goebbels footsteps in “providing projections of a final victory that he knew were pure fantasy”.

    Goebbels of course was the author of the Big Lie, adopted by and now one of the most outstanding characteristics of the most radical and hate filled sections of climate alarmist science today just as we are seeing in this, Jo’s, the GWPF, Judith Curry’s Climate etc blogging headline posts.

    It is all just another posturing demand for a climate science pogrom against anybody, scientists as well as public figures, all those who refuse to fall into the politically correct scientific posturings of climate alarmism so necessary to the upholding of climate alarmism’s Big Lie

    And just for Harry Twinotter and all those of his particular hate filled ideological standings when he looks into that mirror in the morning and beholds his face and maybe just gets a tiny glimpse of how others see him and how they see the soul behind that face ;

    Joseph Goebbels:
    On the “Big Lie”

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
    The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
    It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    —————–
    You have signed the death warrant for science

    Peter Webster via Climate Etc

    343

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      ROM.

      Resorting to a Godwin attack – seriously?

      339

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Only a jackass would use the Godwin defence when it’s most apt, how about that debate? we’ll even ring in that foolish Monckton chap so it’ll be a sinch for those who accept the ‘scientific consensus’, no nothing to be afraid of whatsoever. :)

        272

      • #
        James Bradley

        Strawman alert, Twatter.

        211

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Calling on Godwin to shut down a conversation?

        Is there anything we can learn from history Harry? Did those things really happen?

        80

  • #

    I’d rather take a bullet for scientific integrity than bend over compliantly for the new-age equivalents of Lysenkoists.

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/

    Pointman

    353

    • #
      Brian

      That sort of attitude doesn’t pay the bills though, at least not in climate science!

      143

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Lessons from history don’t seem to be popular these days. If they were, this would be a very different world.

      One thing any decent study of history teaches is that lessons from history have never been popular. It seems to be a part of human nature that so many prefer to repeat the mistakes of the past instead of learn from them.

      192

      • #
        tom0mason

        Indeed Roy,
        If history shows us anything we should avoid listening to the hubris of the high opinionated and self qualified experts.

        If the consensus ‘climate science™’ wishes to use the ‘tobacco industry’ tactics again on non-believers, then we can highlight cases where consensus science has been very wrong.
        If anywhere ‘consensus science’ has failed it is often in medicine.

        Few medical histories illuminate the failure of ‘consensus science’ better than the discovery of the Helicobacter pylori bacteria as the infectious agent in gastritis and peptic ulcers. Up until the discovery of H. pylori in 1982, clinicians attributed peptic ulcers to lifestyle choices—consuming a diet rich in spicy foods and an inability to properly manage emotional and personal stress.

        (from: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/here-we-go-round-the-merry-go-round-part-one.1229/)
        Back in “1948 the Mt. Sinai Hospital discovered it could treat peptic ulcers with antibiotics.”
        However due to procedural inadequacies this was never followed up.
        Later “John Lykoudis, a general practitioner in Greece, treated patients for peptic ulcer disease with antibiotics, beginning in 1958, long before it was commonly recognized that bacteria were a dominant cause for the disease.” In 1961 he filed a patent for treatment of peptic ulcers using antibiotics. Drug companies of the day funded other unsuccessful trials of antibiotic therapy in the mid twentieth century, but they only a small range of antibiotics were tested. Later Mr. Lykoudis’ patent was rejected on scientific grounds, he was hounded out of his job by officialdom, his marriage then failed, and a short while later he died penniless.

        (From http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth/ and http://www.news-medical.net/health/Peptic-Ulcer-History.aspx )
        In 1982, and independently of Lykoudis, two physicians from Perth, Australia, Dr. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall, again observed bacteria associated with ulcerated and inflamed regions of human gut and began investigating its role in disease.
        The vocal medical establishment, and their paymasters of the drug company big guns immediately went into action. For the best part of twenty years the battle raged, until dramatically on live TV one of the Australian doctors drank a liquid containing the bacteria and promptly got an ulcerated stomach, then treated himself with antibiotics, and cured himself of the of “lifestyle choices” disease.

        I wholeheartedly concur with statement from phoenixrising forum –
        The way in which this new treatment became adopted, was not from the profession down, it was from the patients up. And it was through the press getting hold of this story and through their programmes and newspapers, that the patients demanded this new treatment. I think there is a problem when introducing a new treatment that cures a chronic condition from which the pharmaceutical companies were receiving a large income due to their drugs that controlled, rather than cured, the disease.”"

        Similarly in ‘climate science™’, big science establishments, and opinionated big ego experts, are comfortably in bed with UN-IPCC directed big government paymasters, and fighting with consensus ‘climate science™’ to the detriment of humankind.

        170

  • #
    Robert O

    When people talk about the acidification of oceans it just demonstrates their illiteracy in chemistry. Yes, the oceans have a pH of about 8 (basic, not acidic) are full of basic rocks, buffers, and even the dissolved CO2 is converted to carbonates and bicarbonates. Aren’t corals and the skeletons of fish and crustaceans made of calcium carbonate? What next antacids (bicarbonates) are acidic!

    312

    • #
      mcraig

      In addition to that, I believe it is physically impossible for the oceans to go below a pH of 7 so they will always be basic, not acidic. Thus the term “ocean acidification” is misleading which is nothing new in the wide, wide world of environmental alarmism.

      a·cid·i·fy (ə-sĭd′ə-fī′)
      tr. & intr.v. a·cid·i·fied, a·cid·i·fy·ing, a·cid·i·fies
      To make or become acid.

      232

  • #
    Unmentionable

    I would have just gone for excommunication and burning at the stake, even an old fashioned Gulag or Devil’s Island. Someone’s going to have to get a backhoe and remove all that global sedimentary strata though, it’s clearly in denial.

    191

  • #
    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I wonder why they don’t notice that their dire predictions are not coming true.

      Has anyone now alive seen the sea level rise by the many feet predicted by Al Gore? What Pacific Islands are now underwater as predicted? Has anyone seen weather out of the ordinary or if they have, why do they not notice that it’s colder than anything in recent memory?

      Has no one noticed the lack of anything to notice?

      Instead they argue milimeters of sea level rise over hundreds of years before the change could be large enough to make a difference to anyone.

      292

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        I was thinking about this last week, and wondering how to represent it.

        In my local town of Mooloolaba, a canal estate created back in the 70′s was created a bit too low. One of the streets has salt water coming up the catch pit in King tides. So it’s a rare twice a year event. Here now, 40 years later with an annual increase in sea levels of what? 3.2mm per year, that water should be about 100mm or more. Yet those King tides have not increased anything determinable. Coverage of a road like this is a good simple metric, it has not increased at all in the last 40 years.

        130

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

    followed by a vigilante lynch mob like the ones we played as kids watching Saderday arvo fillums.

    131

  • #
    F. Ross

    “…knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, …”
    This statement sounds an awful lot like what CAGW proponents use everyday (and twice on Sunday).
    Sheesh!

    170

  • #
    Ruairi

    With alarmist fanatical zeal,
    To Obama they make their appeal,
    That he quench opposition,
    To their climate position,
    Which so flawed they are keen to conceal.

    220

  • #
    oeman50

    So I will be accused in a RICO investigation because I commented on Jo’s website?

    A little draconian, don’t you think?

    180

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If I may paraphrase the pig from Animal Farm, “All animals have freedom of speech but some animals have more freedom than others.”

      Personally, I’m too old and too stubborn to be intimidated, even though I fear them for what they might do. But not knowing what the future will bring I cannot say there couldn’t come a point where I would change that position.

      201

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’ve never heard of RICO, so had to go to Wiki.

      The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do…

      Doesn’t sound like it would find much at all to be honest. But hey, I’d welcome their attempt.

      90

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        RICO requires a provable criminal act by someone. Or so the language of the law says. And for that matter, so does the very name of the act.

        What crime is committed in not believing something you’re told. What crime is committed in trying to get others to look at the total lack of evidence supporting climate change and simply make up their own minds about it.

        The whole thing is like PETA (and others) calling meat eaters murderers. But if repeated enough it becomes believable and we’re murderers to the PETA folks (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), some of whom are themselves provably guilty of numerous criminal acts, having actually been convicted.

        So far it has no traction. But things are going downhill…

        The pot is calling the kettle black and no one cares.

        40

  • #
    leon0112

    One of the interesting things to me now is I am not sure what we are accused of denying.

    1) Is the consensus that there was no Medieval Warming Period?
    2) Is the consensus that the climate experienced limited change in the last 11000 years until the start of the Industrial Revolution?
    3) Is the consensus that there was no Roman Warm Period?
    4) Is the consensus that there has been no pause in the recent warming?
    5) Is the consensus that there was a big El Nino in 1998?
    6) Is the consensus that El Ninos are caused by the burning of fossil fuels?
    7) Is the consensus that in the past centuries the sea level was rising? Was all of that caused by the burning of fossil fuels?
    8) The human species lives in a wide variety of areas of the Earth each with a different climate and has thrived over the last century. Is the consensus that the human species will not be able to adapt to future changes in climate?
    9) Is the consensus that existing climate models provide accurate forecasts of the future climate?
    10) Is the consensus that natural forces have limited impact on the climate?

    I am so confused.

    322

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What’s new? The tactic is as old as the human race. If you cannot counter the message, attack the messenger, jail him, get him out of sight where he cannot speak. Do anything to silence the message you can’t counter. And they’ve been doing it all along. Only now it gets more threatening than ever.

    The danger is that in today’s climate (pun intended) and given their evident desperation to get their way, they might succeed.

    We must keep fighting.

    252

  • #
    Mark D.

    One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change,……

    Yes I agree that RICO should be used to investigate the groups that have deceived the American people to profit from the fears brought about by the propaganda that is “Anthropogenic Climate Change”

    The idiots that wrote the letter can’t see well enough to be careful what they ask for.

    311

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Great point Mark. And if the wheels of ‘justice’ grind slowly, then they might find a switch in defendants after Jan 2017.

      161

    • #
      bobl

      I was going to make this point. If a RICO investigation is launched then those accused have rights to court hearings with a jury of their peers, in which they can lay out the case that the real racketteeers be hauled before the courts. That is those rackets that continue to receive public monies for “research” that has comprehensively been proven wrong, by misrepresentation to funding bodies of the state of knowledge on the subject. For example Mann’s defence of his multiply discredited hockey stick. Has Mann EVER received any funding through promoting the hockey stick, subsequent to it being proven wrong?

      It a bit like the Royal Commissions here, it is easy for such an investigation to turn on you, when you are trying to defend the indefensible, like say, recieving 5 grand from your boyfriend who is running an illegal racket…

      60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Now would be a good time to wheel out the old “Hoisted by his own petard” analogy.

      Unfortunately considering the USA’s current government/media control even an open admission of guilt in a Supreme Court would be easily explained away.

      50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “Discovery Process” – not your father’s Oldsmobile

    To avoid coughing up the “overwhelming evidence” the climate experts say they have, but can’t seem to find

    The Climate Scientists seem to know very little of the litigation process and I think every skeptic including myself would love to have our day in court.

    The “discovery” process alone would make for great entertainment…

    161

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I would love the discovery process myself if not for the one fly in the ointment. The courts give much greater weight to “recognized” experts (read academic credentials) than they do to skeptics without those same academic credentials. “Recognition” by the climate change industry itself of those we fight is very likely to overwhelm any expertise of such men as Anthony Watts and so many others.

      The courts are more likely to decide the case based on a political consideration rather than adjudicate the science. Ask yourself this — would a jury picked from a random cross section of society be able to follow the math and the science involved?

      121

      • #
        ScotsmaninUtah

        Roy Hogue,
        you are correct and certainly it is no place for amateurs, however I do not support your view on how cases are decided.

        May I cite the famous case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Professor Behe a well renowned Academic (for the defense) went up against Professor Miller (for the Plaintiff).

        Both equally credentialed (Professor Behe perhaps even more so).

        what is interesting in this case was the part played by the minions and during the discovery process, a simple secretary noticed that a piece of evidence, was a “cut and paste” of a previous document and when analyzed it was proved to be a contrived attempt at distortion and deception.

        This did NOT go down well with the Judge

        The case was decided on evidence :D

        151

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        “would a jury picked from a random cross section of society be able to follow the math and the science involved?”.

        It depends on if the lawyers could understand the mathematics involved.

        It could go either way, the jury could get lost in the detail and rely (as you suggest) on expertise. Or they could view the proceedings from a third party point of view and see obvious obfuscation tactics at play and make up their own mind who was lying.

        60

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Having sat on a jury (in Australia), I can say the jury were completely unmoved by the emotional appeal of the plaintive. All of them focused on what could be identified as true, not on what was said to be true. I do hope this is normal.

          100

      • #
        Manfred

        Roy, my understanding is that the evidential bar in a court of law lies well below that considered useful in science, with one glaring omission, climate ‘science’ in which for example statements are spun to speak of a 30% probabilities of being correct.

        In legal cases for injury compensation involving legal argument over causation, it appears sufficient to provide evidence permitting a verdict, notionally weighted at 51% on the ‘balance’ or judgement of the evidence.

        Clearly empirical causal evidence is not the lynch pin of contemporary climate ‘science’. It never appears to have been. Rather, it relies on pre-defined terms based around the precautionary principle where the highest bar required for evidence is speculation. The ‘evidence’ resembles an opinionated statement of risk, echoed by a social consensus referred to as ‘certainty’ or ‘confidence’ in UN IPCC parlance.

        So, we have policies based on the consensual estimation of speculative risk, which is nothing less than the perfect, flexible, all-embracing decoction required for UN economic and social manipulation ad infinitum.

        50

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, a jury could manage the arguments if your selection process ensured they had a 12 year education.

        The math to refute most of the warmers arguments is VERY simple. It is mostly arithmetic energy balances done in junior high. I find it ASTOUNDING that claims are so regularly made without checking energy balance.

        Then there are the moral questions as to whether energy deprivation is an acceptable means to address the supposed issue?

        60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Having been on a criminal jury myself I can assure you that it was not an easy thing to get some jurors to become strictly objective. I was foreman and I fought very hard to get a sound verdict on all four counts. In the end we were hung on one count and convicted on the other three.

        The odd thing here is that the evidence that everyone agreed convicted the defendant on one of the other counts was the same as the evidence that three jurors could not agree convicted him on the fourth count. It was a both or none situation just as clearly as it could possibly be. It just couldn’t permit guilty in one case and innocent in the other. He stole items from two houses under construction to furnish the dump where he was living and he was caught with all the loot from both burglaries. I’ve never understood the reasoning behind that hung jury.

        Bottom line though: nothing is certain in a trial, either by judge or by jury.

        20

  • #
    Trygve Eklund

    It is tempting – as I did in my Guardian comment (if it is still there) to quote Terry Pratchett: “Several miles over the madness horison, and accelerating”.

    110

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “Sheldon Whitehouse – thou doth protest too much !”

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D)of Rhode Island who is the instigator of this, was also heavily involved in the IRS scandal in which he and his fellow Democrats repeatedly lobbied the IRS to probe Republican groups.

    After the abuses of the IRS by the Nixon Government, there were post-Watergate laws enacted that prevented the White House from using the IRS for political reasons.

    In this Senator Whitehouse sought to use other means (via the IRS) when the Democrats failed to silence conservative organizations with legislation.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/04/these-senators-could-be-in-ethics-trouble-over-the-irs-scandal/

    80

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      ScotsmaninUtah. You are correct. But things have changed in the US with the election of Obama.
      For example, the majority Democrats in the House of Representatives locked the Republicans out of the deliberation chamber and passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote or statement.
      Then, when Obamacare came before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Rogers said essentially this to the Obama lawyers “You are not calling it a tax so I cannot pass it. If you call it a tax it will be approved”. After arguing it was not a tax for years, the government lawyer immediately said, “It is a tax”. Then, whamo approved by the Supreme Court.
      Since then the system has changed even more until the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives is a weak man and approves everything Obama wants; this is the same for the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate. The result is what Obama wants, Obama gets.
      Our best hope if the RICO statute is going to be invoked is to delay until Obama is out of office and we have a new president and new Republican leadership in the Congress. Sadly, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, so we will have to suffer under the Supreme Court for some time.

      61

  • #
    dp

    If our first constitutional amendment rights are suspended over a trace gas in the atmosphere and we do nothing, how long before the next N amendments are suspended? To be honest I think the American people have lost the support of our representative government already and have become the sheep our government has spent the last 60 years developing.

    Our founders chose a different path – we have no such leadership today.

    112

  • #
    dp

    How many scientists will stand together and raise their voices and demand the censure and resignation of this man we sent to Washington to defend the constitution? Should any do so they can put my name among theirs.

    102

  • #
    David S

    There is one huge difference between the tobacco industry and the climate change debate. One refers to people who are already dying whereas one refers to people who will die in the future. One has established a clear medical and physical link the other is in the future and will only be proven or disproven in time. Time has lapsed and disproofs are in.
    The fact that one side has resorted to calling the other side deniers is probably the greatest evidence that the warmists have actually run out of bullets.

    173

    • #
      Manfred

      One refers to people who are already dying

      Ummm, no, I think not. One refers to people who are at an increased risk of associated morbidity that may lead to increased mortality.

      Despite absolutist efforts, tobacco use (smoking) is a dose dependent activity, indeed one of the criteria of causality (biological gradient) developed by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, the English epidemiologist who demonstrated the existence of an association between cigarette smoking and cancer.

      One needs to be very careful here because it is exactly this absolutist thinking that gives wind to the UN proponents of atmospheric pollution that labelled CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ and whose ambition is to ban all fossil fuel combustion on the grounds of ‘health’.

      50

  • #
    hunter

    It is worth reposting the names of those fascistic cretins who signed the letter:
    Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

    David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
    Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
    T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
    Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
    Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

    121

    • #
      Ross

      It is interesting looking at those names. I am no “expert” on the subject but I have been reading and following the AGW debate quite closely for 5-6 years but I only recognise one of those names (Trenberth). Is this just a case of the others trying to get their names in the headlines?

      80

  • #
    Dennis

    The Weekend Australian today, sorry I cannot provide a link as there is a pay wall, just the headline;

    Last month was the hottest ­August in modern history, in the latest sign of an unusually warm year.

    60

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “Actions speak louder than words”

    One can often gauge what a group thinks and believes , not from what they say, but from their actions.
    Here in Utah the LDS Church (Mormons) often profess tolerance (especially for minorities such as LGBT) , but in reality they conduct convert actions designed to limit freedoms, as was revealed in the Church’s financial support in California’s Prop 8 many years ago.

    This article is a prime example of the same, and is an attempt by the Climate Alarmists to silence us skeptics and to break our resolve.

    However we skeptics are made of stronger mettle :D

    92

  • #
  • #
    manalive

    It’s all such hogwash, what in effect they are claiming in its crudest form is that CO2 is to the global climate as tobacco smoke is to human health, a nonsense analogy.
    For a start before the twentieth century lung cancer was a very rare disease, “so rare that doctors took special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity …”.
    Indeed if one were to plot the incidence of lung cancer in say Britain back a thousand years one would get a real ‘hockey stick’ graph.

    Do all these scientists listed seriously believe that 0.04% or even 0.08% atmospheric CO2 is some malignant substance and that the modest half a degree C or so global temperature rise in the past 150 years is unprecedented and even if human emissions played some part in that rise, that humanity is any worse off for it?
    Or they just trying desperately to keep their boat afloat?

    90

    • #
      el gordo

      Considering people have been smoking tobacco for many centuries its just possible that moist pipe tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer, while the hot dry Virginia cigarettes do.

      40

      • #
        brill

        Or, alternatively, the chemicals used in either the growing of the tobacco or in the processes of the tobacco could be the cancer causing agents.

        40

      • #
        manalive

        Considering people have been smoking tobacco for many centuries its just possible that moist pipe tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer, while the hot dry Virginia cigarettes do.

        Exactly so, as the U S National Instiute of Health graph specifies “cigarette consumption”.
        Also, at least as my memory serves, pipe smoke like cigar smoke is usually puffed not inhaled.

        40

  • #
    pat

    ***still trying to manipulate public opinion:

    18 Sept: WUWT: Proof-positive that AGW is not science… “World court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, says Philippe Sands…”
    Guest post by David Middleton
    from Guardian: Scientific bodies such as the UN’s climate science panel have concluded that climate change is underway and caused by humans, Prof Philippe Sands QC told an audience at the UK’s Supreme Court. But a ruling by a body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would carry much more weight with ***public opinion and help pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, he said…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/18/proof-positive-that-agw-is-not-science-world-court-should-rule-on-climate-science-to-quash-sceptics-says-philippe-sands/

    40

  • #
    pat

    18 Sept: ClimateDepot: World court should rule on climate science to quash skeptics, says Law Prof. Philippe Sands
    Prof. Roger Pielke Jr reacts: ‘Int’l Court of Justice should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, prepare for trials says Prof. Philippe Sands’
    Pielke Jr. : ‘WTF: Need to outlaw unwelcome scientific views of “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”‘
    Pielke Jr: ‘This week began with a NYT op-ed comparing climate skeptics to Hitler. It ends with multiple calls for skeptics to be jailed. Lost the plot?’
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/18/world-court-should-rule-on-climate-science-to-quash-skeptics-says-law-prof-philippe-sands/

    61

  • #
    pat

    RTCC getting a new name, new look, but will publish the same ol’ propaganda:

    18 Sept: RTCC: Ed King: EU publishes ‘ambitious, robust’ plan for Paris climate deal
    WEEKLY WRAP: Brussels backs long term goal, regular reviews and offers hope of more climate finance in COP21 package
    Europe will not settle for anything other than a tough climate deal in Paris this year, said Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete as he unveiled the bloc’s negotiation positions…
    The bloc, which Canete said delivered €9.5 billion of climate finance in 2013, is “committed” to ramping this up, pending a meeting of finance ministers in November.
    Luxembourg environment minister Carole Dieschbourg, who will represent the European Council in Paris, revealed countries were firmly behind plans for regular 5-year reviews of global climate efforts…
    Dodgy stats
    ***How much coal has China really burnt in the past decade? The answer is a lot more than previously advertised, according to the number crunchers at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). They say China may have used 14% more coal from 2000 to 2013 that it thought – with potentially huge ramifications for the climate…
    EXCITING TIMES
    From Monday you’ll notice RTCC has a new name and a new look. We hope you like it – but be assured our commitment to quality journalism and lifting the lid on the UN climate talks will not change.
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/09/18/eu-publishes-ambitious-and-robust-plan-for-paris-climate-deal/

    ***if China used 14% more coal, surely the Pause is even more perplexing.

    41

  • #
    pat

    tough-talking European Commissioner for Energy and Climate Action, Miguel Arias Canete:

    Miguel Arias Canete is a Spanish aristocrat and a politician of the centre-right..Arias Cañete was educated in Madrid, first at the Jesuit School at Chamartin before reading Law at the Universidad Complutense…
    Arias has faced accusations of possible conflicts of interests regarding his political posts and his business interests. While serving as a member of the EU’s commissions for Agriculture for Rural Development, he allegedly held interests in several businesses in the agricultural sector, leading the Spanish newspaper El Pais to describe him as always being on the edge of a conflict of interest. The environmental group Friends of the Earth and anticorruption group Corporate Europe Observatory have criticised his nomination to the Climate Action and Energy portfolio due to his family’s involvement in the oil industry (Wikipedia)

    18 Sept: NPR: Conservative Lawmaker Boycotting Pope’s Address Over Climate-Change Views
    “More troubling is the fact that this climate-change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into ‘climate justice’ and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies,” wrote Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., in an editorial for the conservative commentary site Townhall.com.
    “If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line.”
    Gosar is the first lawmaker to announce he will boycott the pope’s address. A self-described “proud Catholic,” who attended Creighton University, a Jesuit college, Gosar asserts, “The earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man.”…
    “If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change, then he can do so in his personal time,” Gosar wrote. “But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”
    ***James Martin, a Jesuit priest, editor-at-large of America magazine and author, tweeted that it was “unbelievable” Gosar would boycott the address. Martin tweeted at the lawmaker: “Have you forgotten that part of the Jesuit tradition is listening to people with different points of view from your own?”…
    (Republican House Speaker John) Boehner, also a Catholic, extended the invitation to Pope Francis, who will be the first pope to address Congress.
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/18/441469906/conservative-lawmaker-boycotts-popes-address-over-climate-change-views

    no CAGW sceptics with different views at the Vatican:

    16 Sept: Radio Vatican: Pope urges EU Environment Ministers to work hard in view of SDGs
    The Pope was speaking to Environment Ministers of European Union Member States whom he received on Wednesday morning in audience in the Vatican…
    (finale from Francis the Jesuit) Dear Ministers, the Cop21 summit is fast approaching and there is still a long way to go to achieve a result that is capable of bringing together the many positive stimuli that have been offered as a contribution to this important process. I strongly encourage you to intensify your work, along with that of your colleagues, so that in Paris the desired result is achieved. On my part and on the part of Holy See there will be no lack of support for an adequate response to the cry of the Earth and to the cry of the poor.
    http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/16/pope_urges_eu_environment_ministers_to_work_hard_in_view_of_/1172159

    70

  • #
    Neville

    This is O/T.

    Canning all over 24 hours ago. You can get your profit now. $1.07 Libs to $7 for Labor. That’s what’s called a safe bet. Now we just have to assess the swing.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/canning-by-election-sportsbet-punts-hastie-win-for-liberals/story-fnii5thn-1227531847097

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      The by-election result in Canning today, and the next federal election results too, must be considered remembering that the 2013 federal election was one of the largest landslide results in our history and therefore the margins in so many seats are unusually high. At Canning I think the 2013 margin was 11 per cent. As most by-elections result in a swing against the government of the day we should expect that margin to be reduced.

      But Union’s Labor will claim to be victorious in defeat. Their spin doctors are working on the lines now.

      60

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    ‘If man-made global warming is a dire threat, the evidence comes from instruments that measure the climate, not from smear-o-rama by association’
    Absolutely true Jo – you’ve nailed it yet again in one short sentance! We must stand up to lies and the intimidation that these ‘alarmists’ threaten us with.
    For myself, when I look around the world I see there is only natural climate change taking place. Millions like me feel the same and we will not be silenced!
    Geoff W – Sydney

    130

  • #
    pat

    18 Sept: WaPo: Pope’s visit will produce largest security operation in U.S. history
    By David Nakamura and Peter Hermann
    Federal authorities are mobilizing one of the largest security operations in U.S. history ahead of Pope Francis’s arrival Tuesday, an effort that is straining law enforcement resources in Washington, New York and Philadelphia…
    Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has designated Francis’s stops in each city a National Special Security Event, a rare designation to streamline the federal response that had previously been used for presidential inaugurations, State of the Union addresses, political conventions, NATO summits, the 2002 Winter Olympics and Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002…
    Officials offered reporters a glimpse of the Multi-Agency Communications Center where up to 90 staff members from 50 agencies will gather around the clock to monitor video, radio and other communications…
    Scott White, an associate professor of national security at Drexel University in Philadelphia, called that city’s plan to close highways and bridges for the duration of the pope’s visit potentially unprecedented. Even visits by presidents require only temporary shutdowns, he noted…
    The enormous costs of the security operations have raised additional concerns within federal agencies and local law enforcement departments…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/popes-visit-will-produce-largest-security-operation-in-us-history/2015/09/18/642ca250-5d47-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

    9 July: ReligionNews: Pope Francis’ carbon footprint: Does he practice what he preaches?
    But Lisa Sideris, director of the Indiana University Consortium for the Study of Religion, Ethics and Society, said the pontiff is just one of a number of climate activists who must travel extensively to achieve their goals.
    “On purely utilitarian grounds — judging these actions in terms of their consequences — the pope’s carbon footprint could easily be justified. The good that he does by raising awareness of climate change, particularly given the pope’s great symbolic significance, outweighs the carbon expenditure his travels entail,” she said…
    Another alternative could be the Vatican’s paying an environmental organization to offset the impact of his flights, such as the Holy See’s plan in Hungary, to balance out its overall emissions.
    But Rehman warned against “paying a tax on your sin,” arguing that people’s failure to change their approach would not stop climate change…
    http://www.religionnews.com/2015/07/09/pope-francis-carbon-footprint-practice-preaches/

    50

  • #
    PeterS

    I’m not surprised this is their next move to clamp down on the skeptics and escalate their scam. They have the advantage of lots of money and an increasing stranglehold on power at various levels and places. What they are waiting for next is some world-wide disaster, probably financial to step it up to the next and final level – total control and enforcement over the whole world. Facts count for nothing in the new secular world of neo-science. The only way to stop this evil from winning the war is for the vast majority of those scientists who are silent on the subject to stand up and be counted. It will have to be across the board, including those in other fields, such as medicine, biology, astrophysics, etc. I doubt it will happen for several reasons. The main one of course is self interest – their jobs will be at stake if they speak up. The climate scientists will succeed with their endeavors to destroy true science unless all the scientists stop being self interested. Threatening scientific debate of any kind is anti-science. It’s that simple.

    100

  • #
    John Watt

    Just to take a wider view. It would appear that “Big AGW” is taking a similar approach to what we have seen from “Big Tobacco” and “Big Sugar”. Could “Big AGW” be signalling that they have a lot at stake and are now ,in desperation , trying to defend what they now realise is indefensible?

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      they have a lot at stake and are now ,in desperation , trying to defend what they now realise is indefensible?

      Yes they have a lot at stake. No, they are not desperate as they are winning. Perhaps they do realise what they are defending is indefensible but they are not showing it. As I stated there is only one chance to destroy the scam, and that’s held by the scientific community as a whole. They are our last chance. If they don’t get together to fight this on the world stage en masse then we lose.

      71

  • #
    pat

    the following is getting some traction in the MSM. apparently Ray Hadley played it yesterday & promised to get Monckton on his program. didn’t hear it so don’t know if he correctly dated the speech.

    also heard a caller to Mike Jeffreys (Macquarie Radio Network) last nite reference this speech, asking why it wasn’t all over the MSM, given it predicted precisely what happened this week. however, the caller wrongly said the speech was given in February this year (probably because youtube videos went up in February at the time of the earlier attempt to oust the PM).

    does anyone have the exact date and location during the Sept/Oct 2014 tour for the youtube video? am hoping someone will clear this up so that some sceptic org can forward a press release to all MSM making the date clear.

    Climate Sceptics Party: Lord Monckton and the push to get rid of PM Abbott
    The following Youtube was recorded during Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia in ***September-October 2014.
    An extract from Lord Monckton’s presentation:
    “David King was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it.
    “The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN, will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. They do not want any stand-outs. And the most likely stand-out at the moment is Australia. So look after him.”
    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/

    100

  • #
    pat

    VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, THOUGH ONLY TIME WILL WELL:

    19 Sept: Bolt Blog: Before they spin the Canning results, know this
    Remember this: Tony Abbott expected to win that by-election comfortably and use the result to calm the panic in the party. Internal party polling suggested the result would be better than the 53 per cent to 47 recorded by Ipsos, and possibly even the 55 to 45 tipped by pollster William Bowe.
    That is why the Turnbull plotters were so desperate to depose Abbott before the by-election. They could not afford to let Abbott have a good result, and then three more weeks before Parliament sat again…
    UPDATE
    Interestingly, some in Labor have been telling journalists that Canning was lost to Labor when Turnbull took over. This spinning is either foolish, in building the story that Turnbull is the Liberals’ Mr Magic, or it is hostile to Bill Shorten, in suggesting he’s no match for the new Prime Minister.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/before_they_spin_the_canning_results_know_this/

    3 Sept: Bolt Blog: Tony Abbott set to defy Fairfax jihadists in Canning
    Pollster William Bowe on how the polls are calling the Canning by-election…
    “Two polls from ReachTEL have shown the Liberal Party with a primary vote of 47%, and if that’s right they’re going to bolt home. However, ReachTEL has 80% of preferences from minor parties flowing to Labor, which is not believable. If Liberal candidate Andrew Hastie gets 47% of the primary vote, he’s going to win by about 55-45.”
    Bolt: That, if true, would be a stunning result for candidate Andrew Hastie and for Tony Abbott…
    FROM COMMENTS:
    Kneel8250ofForestdale:
    The Reachtel Polls ring as I am sitting down to dinner and is an automated research tool with their version of questions that I refuse to answer as you are supposed to select an answer from their choice of answers. I actually have an opinion of my own. Imagine that!!!!!!
    VerityofPerth:
    Nikki Savva is truly the The Harbinger of Doom
    Week after week she finds some imaginary reason why Tony Abbott will be gone by the time she writes her next column, which is really a rewrite of all the others. She is becoming more bitter and twisted every week that he remains despite the efforts of 97% of journalists in this country to displace him…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tony_abbott_set_to_defy_fairfax_jihadists_in_canning/

    15 Sept: Australian: Dennis Shanahan: Abbott v Turnbull: Last supper had a hint of looming change
    What’s more, Abbott was being told that the private Liberal Party polling was much better than the published polls and was suggesting a Liberal lead of 54 per cent to 46 per cent on a two-party-preferred basis…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-v-turnbull-last-supper-had-a-hint-of-looming-change/story-fn59niix-1227527432623

    AS FOR THE TURNBULL COUP, THAT COULD PLAY OUT IN A NUMBER OF WAYS IN CANNING. WE’LL SEE.

    70

  • #
    tom0mason

    I ask you this –

    1. With all their doom-mongering, and fear-making, what good has any ‘climate scientist™’ or the UN-IPCC done that has helped anyone? What benefit has the UN-IPCC given the world?

    2. Is it not just a big money-spinning exercise determined to extract from western democracies power and wealth?

    I await any reply that shows, with verifiable proof, the beneficial utility of the world having a money-wasting bureaucracy called the UN-IPCC.

    110

  • #
    Jack

    I say do a RICO investigation of both sides, climate skeptics and climate alarmists. There’s far more public and private money flowing into the climate alarmists projects and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it is being misused. Doing a RICO investigation of both sides will keep everyone honest.

    120

  • #
    Mike Smith

    Global warming is real. The science is settled.

    But we had better start planning for the coming Ice Age!

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      It can only be a little ice age, nothing to fear.

      Food security will become more important, but unlike the old days when millions died in India and China from drought, caused by monsoon failure, the free markets won’t let that happen this time.

      30

  • #
    Tony

    It is strange to see AGW activists being compared to the tobacco industry. The anti-smoking (tobacco control) industry was the template for the AGW industry we see today.

    The tens of billions of dollars that global tobacco control get has been somewhat eclipsed by the warmists these day. But in both cases, the funding of opposition has always been pretty much non-existent.

    Another view – put together by volunteers: http://tctactics.org

    51

  • #
    pat

    for the record re Canning:

    all the MSM talk on 13 Sept was of Fairfax/Ipsos and Galaxy/Daily Telegraph polls allegedly showing a 10% swing against the Coalition in Canning.

    Leader of the House, Christopher Pyne, admitted that dismal poll results led to Tony Abbott’s demise…Guardian 18 Sept
    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/18/malcolm-turnbull-puts-coalition-ahead-in-poll-for-the-first-time-in-16-months

    the IPSOS/Fairfax poll says 9%. on its website, IPSOS publishes only a single table and question (on the China FTA unsurprisingly, as it was a Labor/Greens campaigning point):

    IPSOS: The poll of 1,003 respondents, interviewed from 10-12 September 2015…
    These findings indicate a 9% swing against the Liberals since the September 2013 Federal election…
    Q6. Do you support or oppose the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement? Is that strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose?
    http://ipsos.com.au/swing-sees-liberals-hanging-on-in-canning-fairfax-ipsos-poll/

    Galaxy has no polling data on its website since August. MANAGING DIRECTOR OF GALAXY IS FORMER NEWSPOLL GENERAL MANAGER, DAVID BRIGGS.

    incredibly, Murdoch’s Sunday Times in WA also commissioned a Galaxy poll on Canning at the same time.
    “sample of 557 voters”, but got the SAME nice round figure of a 10% swing! can u imagine that?

    13 Sept: Sunday Times: Joe Spagnolo: Canning by-election: ‘Safe’ Liberal seat hit by voter backlash
    An exclusive Galaxy Poll for The Sunday Times reveals a 10 per cent swing against the Liberals among Canning voters…
    The poll, from a sample of 557 voters in the electorate, shows primary support for the Liberals has slipped from 51.1 per cent at the 2013 federal election to 44 per cent…
    Mr Abbott commended Mr Hastie again when asked whether he would step down as leader if they lost.
    “We’re not going to lose the Canning by-election. We’ve got an outstanding candidate,” he said.
    Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek believes it’s “odds on” that the Liberals would change leaders…
    A 10 per cent swing against the Liberals on a two-party preferred basis means Canning is now a marginal seat with the party up just 52-48…
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/joe-spagnolo-canning-by-election-opinion-poll-scares-liberals/story-fnhocuug-1227524403794

    20

  • #
    pat

    17 Sept: Sportsbet: Early payout: Andrew Hastie wins Canning by-election
    Voters in the Western Australian seat of Canning are heading to the polls this weekend in a by-election, but according to Sportsbet, there’s no point. We’re paying out early on an Andrew Hastie win before a single vote is cast.
    Punters have been jumping all over Hastie since news broke that Malcolm Turnbull had given Tony Abbott the flick earlier in the week and his odds have shortened significantly to $1.07 to win the seat.
    The savvy Sportsbet customers who backed Hastie will have their winnings in their accounts in time for the weekend and can either re-invest on Hastie or just enjoy a beer on us.
    The Liberal Party’s decision to replace Tony Abbott with Malcolm Turnbull has been a winner for Andrew Hastie who Sportsbet is certain will be the next Federal Member for Canning,” said sportsbet.com.au’s Ben Bulmer…
    http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/sportsbet-news/early-payout-andrew-hastie-wins-canning-by-election

    sure, it was a Turnbull success story! LOL.
    as former PM Howard said, don’t blame the media for the COUP.

    the following crap was carried by Herald Sun, Courier Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, etc., UK Mirror, Irish Mirror, Buzzfeed, Reddit, assorted Twitter feeds incl WA Sunday Times, & FB, yet elsewhere he didn’t “SMIRK” but “stood and grinned” or “force grinned” (as the video shows). the PM was in the middle of answering a question from the media, after all.

    amazing what a single protester can achieve? who was it btw? the answer to that question might be interesting.

    VIDEO: 14 Sept: News.com.au: Canning by-election: Prime Minister Tony Abbott heckled by Perth motorist
    by Staff writers and AAP
    PRIME Minister Tony Abbott stood and grinned as he was heckled by a Perth motorist, who yelled “you’re all a bunch of w–kers”.
    Mr Abbott smirked as the motorist passed by a press conference at Perth Airport…
    Mr Abbott arrived in Perth on Saturday as an exclusive Galaxy poll commissioned by The Sunday Times predicted a swing of nearly 10 per cent against the government in the September 19 West Australian by-election…
    Originally published as Tony Abbott heckled by Perth motorist.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/tony-abbott-heckled-by-perth-motorist/story-fnii5thn-1227524932441

    how a single tweet can get MSM coverage. how low can the MSM go?

    VIDEO: 17 Sept: MichaelSmithNews: (Sky News’s) Peter van Onselen diatribe posing as question to Kelly O’Dwyer “Well what would you like me to say to that Peter?
    FIRST COMMENT: by Wayneshaft -
    As I say another reason to boycott sky news , the bucket of bile is empty the Abbott haters have won , why support the assasins?
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/09/peter-van-onselen-diatribe-posing-as-question-to-kelly-odwyer-well-what-would-you-like-me-to-say-to-.html

    40

  • #
    pat

    finally, on the National level:

    ***only The Guardian seems to have documented the whopping 29% UNDECIDED/UNSURE. that is the figure i was expecting from the earlier Morgan/ReachTEL polls.
    turnbull down another 10%. from 70 to 51 in the space of 3 polls! what a laugh.

    18 Sept: Guardian: Shalailah Medhora: Malcolm Turnbull puts Coalition ahead in poll for the first time in 16 months
    Galaxy poll published by News Corp Australia on Friday shows the dumping of Tony Abbott has boosted Coalition’s two-party preferred vote to 51% versus Labor at 49%
    On the question of who would make a better prime minister, Turnbull blitzed Labor leader, Bill Shorten, by more than 30%. Turnbull was preferred leader 51% to Shorten’s 20%.
    ***Another 29% were unsure who they would prefer…
    The survey of 1,224 voters, taken for News Corp publications, was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, shortly after Turnbull’s ascendency…
    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/18/malcolm-turnbull-puts-coalition-ahead-in-poll-for-the-first-time-in-16-months

    so all these poll include some ONLINE & automated polling. and this is what is running Australian politics!

    18 Sept: Crikey: PollBludgerBlog: William Bowe
    The poll was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday from a sample of 1224. As best as I’m aware, it will have encompassed live interview polling together with online and automated phone polling, and included a small sub-sample of mobile phones. The Newspoll series conducted by Galaxy for The Australian involves only online polling and automated phone polling to landlines.
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2015/09/18/galaxy-51-49-to-coalition-2/

    AS UNBELIEVABLE AS CAGW.

    50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Jo

    We can build on this theme: please readers — fish for inspiration through the Tobacco Tactics files, and suggest away.

    I think dispelling the “fear” will go along way to changing opinions.

    Much of the one sided support for CAGW we see now was gained in the very beginning by the introduction of the notion that the planet is in danger.

    A book written by you consolidating everything you know, but written in an very upbeat style would serve to counter the negativity that is the fuel used to power the alarmists cause.

    40

    • #

      “Much of the one sided support for CAGW we see now was gained in the very beginning by the introduction of the notion that the planet is in danger.”

      Perhaps just a honest declaration that “the planet and people are always in danger”, but mostly from governments, insisting on fixing, for the sake of the children!
      For you, my special friend, I have a very good deal, for the sake of the children!

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic but this is a video if what it looks like inside a 500 MW, I assume gas fuelled, boiler at start up. Between 3 and 6 burners of a possible 48 are running. You get the best views after about 6 min 40 sec, it is easier to see what is going on. The sheeple who support unsustainable wind and solar simply have no idea of the staggering size of fossil thermal electricity plants. It doesn’t help that as far as I know, the public can no longer do tours of them.

    https://youtu.be/Yji8pxi3Uvw

    40

  • #
    Kon Dealer

    These people are not scientists- it is a list of the culpable and gullible.

    Record it for posterity and future trails for “Crimes against Humanity” and Fraud.

    Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
    Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
    T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
    Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
    Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

    (We can’t publish this comment) CTS

    20

  • #
    Kon Dealer

    Why not? they are the real criminals.
    Policies formulated on the basis of their lies have already cost lives.

    Tallbloke didn’t have a problem with publishing exactly the same comment.

    30

  • #

    The aim of this letter is to attempt to silence people with different beliefs about public policy to their own. Even if you are a true believer in the worst scenarios, the difference between the United States’ current targets and doing nothing is a near zero. Emissions are global and so emissions reductions need to be global. Do the math and it is clear that the USA cutting emissions by 20-30%, with less than 5% of the global population, will have little impact. Australia, with 0.3% of the population, does not even figure.
    To get a sense of proportion I did an estimate of global emissions in 2020, dividing the world into eight country groups. I plotted emissions per capita against population, so the area of each block represents total emissions.
    Then I have plotted three lines.
    The highest is the average global emissions per capita in 1990 the time of the first IPCC assessment report.
    The second in pale pink is the global emissions per capita in 2050 needed to limit global warming to 3 degrees according to the IPCC.
    The second in bright pink is the global emissions per capita in 2050 needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees according to the IPCC. This is the target that countries will be supposedly signing up to later this year in Paris. That is to reduce emissions to the level of those of the average African today.
    Details of my calculations are here.
    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/2020-emissions-and-unipcc-targets.jpg

    30

  • #
    Amber

    China and India will happily take what ever green guilt cash the west will send and try not to laugh in
    the west’s face . For a country that claims “have not , developing status ” China manufactured merchandise seems to occupy about 90% of
    store aisle goods space. Any money we send will go directly to existing billionaires to keep the masses from wanting an Al Gore /David Suzuki rich and famous
    lifestyle . the money is destined to keep a lid on things because when a billion people go HULK the rich are sitting ducks and they know it .

    20

  • #
    • #
      Just-A Guy

      AndyG55,

      It just occured to me that if some-one were to succeed in falsifying GHE , in a court case for example, then all of these Universities and NGO’s etc. that have been requesting and receiving money for research, in mitigation for example, might be facing RICO charges.

      If the theory is false then there’s nothing to mitigate. Therefore, I’m of the opinion that receiving money for that purpose would be in violation of the law. Am I right?

      Abe

      10

  • #

    [...] first event is an open letter written to the President of the USA by a group of climate scientists. After congratulating the President on his efforts they say: as climate scientists we are [...]

    00