Climate change Global Warming Intelligent Design

Jimmy Kimmel vs. Sarah Palin on climate change: my take

Spread the love

Late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel has attacked former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for questioning the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and for promoting a documentary called Climate Hustle, whose aim is to expose the myths about global warming. Climatologist Judith Curry has written a review of the film, which she found to be “pretty entertaining and even interesting, especially the narratives developed around silly alarmist statements made by scientists and politicians.” Dr. Curry vouched that “there were no goofy or incredible statements about the science” in the movie, but she went on to add: “The perspective in Climate Hustle is arguably a minority perspective, at least in terms of world governments and a select group of scientists.”

Jimmy Kimmel has not watched the movie, but he quotes NASA to support his claim that there’s a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists who are active in the field, that human activities are responsible for global warming over the past century. Kimmel has even put together a 7-minute video explaining why we should trust scientists’ warnings about its potentially dire consequences.

The 97% figure has been severely critiqued on the Internet, for reasons which are summarized in a 2014 article on Popular Technology.net, titled, 97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”. However, the latest research (see also here and here) appears to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 90 to 100% of climate experts do, in fact, agree that the global warming in recent years is man-made – although I should point out that the exact definition of “recent” varies from survey to survey. Additionally, the greater the level of climate expertise among the various kinds of scientists surveyed, the higher their level of agreement that global warming is indeed caused by human beings. So I think we can award one point to Jimmy Kimmel, and against Sarah Palin, regarding the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change.

On the other hand, the consensus that Kimmel appeals to is a relatively modest one: most of the warming we have experienced in recent years (especially since the mid-20th century) is man-made. And that’s all. Currently, there’s no scientific consensus that global warming is likely to be catastrophic. And if it’s not going to be catastrophic, then Kimmel’s worries about the dangers of global warming are misplaced.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. While it’s reasonably certain that the rise in global temperatures since the late 1970s has been largely man-made, what’s not certain is how much temperatures will eventually rise in the future, as a result of further greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (or ECS), which is defined as the equilibrium change in global mean air temperatures near the Earth’s surface that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The scientific disagreement on this subject relates not to the effects of carbon dioxide but to the feedback effects of water vapor, which the IPCC claims will magnify the effects of carbon dioxide increases by a factor of two, three or four, or perhaps even six. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states that “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely [to be] less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely [to be] greater than 6°C.” That’s quite a range of uncertainty.

I might add that Jimmy Kimmel’s assertion that “we’ve had 15 of the 16 hottest years ever since 2001” was a bad slip: in fact, during the previous interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, temperatures were 1 or 2°C hotter than they are now, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. What Kimmel should have said was that according to NASA, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. (To be fair, he did say earlier on in the video that you can know that global warming is real when the hottest year “on record” is the current year.) And as climatologist and former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer points out, “even if 2015 is the warmest on record, and NOAA has exactly the right answer, it is still well below the average forecast of the IPCC’s climate models, and something very close to that average forms the basis for global warming policy. In other words, even if every successive year is a new record, it matters quite a lot just how much warming we are talking about.” Dr. Spencer has also queried NASA’s figures, which rely heavily on land and sea measurements of temperature and are prone to distortion from bad datasets, urban heat island effects and El Nino. Satellite measurements, which are more rigorous and which generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets, paint a less alarming picture than the NASA figures.

Perhaps Jimmy Kimmel will respond by appealing to the Precautionary Principle: if there’s a small but significant likelihood that global warming will prove to be catastrophic, then we should do something about it. Better safe than sorry. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that combating global warming will be very, very costly: $44 trillion on a very optimistic estimate (which will more than double if technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide can’t be deployed), and $100 trillion on a more detailed and realistic estimate, making it 1,000 times more expensive than the Apollo program, in today’s dollars.

When a project costs that much, we need to ask ourselves three questions: can we afford it, is there any way we can do it a lot more cheaply, and finally, if we decided to financially commit ourselves to the project, what other important projects would we have to give up?

Let’s take affordability first. Media claims that fighting global warming will have a negligible impact on GDP growth are based on economically flawed reasoning, and reports claiming that combating global warming will actually save us money have been criticized for their over-optimistic assumptions. One oft-cited IPCC estimate that fighting global warming will shave a mere 0.06% off GDP growth turns out to be pure poppycock. As David Roberts convincingly argues over at Grist, we do not, and cannot, know how much it will cost to tackle climate change. Roberts cites three academic papers to support his arguments – a 2015 report by Richard Rosen of the Tellus Institute and Edeltraud Guenther of the Technische Universitaet Dresden, an earlier report by Frank Ackerman (Stockholm Environment Institute-US Center, Tufts University) and his colleagues, and a 2013 report by Serban Scrieciu, Terry Barker and Frank Ackerman. In their 2015 report, Rosen and Guenther conclude that “not only do we not know the approximate magnitude of the net benefits or costs of mitigating climate change to any specific level of future global temperature increase over the next 50–100 years, but we also cannot even claim to know the sign of the mitigation impacts on GWP, or national GDPs, or any other economic metric commonly computed.” The authors recommend that “the IPCC and other scientific bodies should no longer report attempts at calculating the net economic impacts of mitigating climate change to the public in their reports.” Some economists have also claimed that replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power and/or renewable energy will actually increase countries’ GDP, but the truth is that we really don’t know. What we do know is that investing in clean energy and related technologies from 2011 to 2050 in order to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will cost over $2 trillion a year (which is about 2.7% of the current Gross World Product), if the total cost of fighting global warming comes to $100 trillion. An outlay of that magnitude is a huge financial undertaking. I should add that the detailed $100 trillion plan put forward by Dr. Mark Jacobson (see here and here) for fighting global warming probably won’t work, anyway. Back in 2013, Jacobson announced plans for the full-scale conversion of the state of New York to wind, water and solar [WWS] technology. Jacobson’s plans were widely panned, and a devastating review of them was published in an article titled, Critique of the 100% Renewable Energy for New York Plan (The Energy Collective, November 17, 2013) by energy and technology writer Edward Dodge. To make matters worse, as Professor John Morgan explains in an online article titled, The Catch-22 of Energy Storage, the ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for solar and wind power plants is far too low for them to be viable as power sources in Western countries. In short: not only are current plans to fight global warming astronomically expensive, but they may not even work, anyway.

So, is there a way we can fight global warming a lot more cheaply and effectively? That’s a question we need to ask. Bill Gates has candidly acknowledged that it will take “clean-energy miracles” to solve the problem of global warming. “Today’s technologies,” he writes, “are a good start, but not good enough.” He argues that “we need a massive amount of innovation in research and development on clean energy,” and he criticizes the United States for “severely underinvesting in clean-energy R & D”: only 2% of the federal government’s R & D spending goes on energy, while 60% goes on defense. Gates also calls for more investment in next-generation nuclear power, and contends that China is the best place for such research. Gates has personally invested a large amount of money in a company called TerraPower, which is making a “fourth-generation nuclear reactor technology.” According to Gates, there are currently a dozen promising technology paths for clean sources of energy, and he believes that “in the next 15 years we have a high probability of achieving” energy which is “measurably less expensive than hydrocarbons, completely clean and providing the same reliability.”

In a similar vein, environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, whose work has been praised by Bill Gates, argues that we should invest in future technologies, instead of subsidizing existing technologies, which are uneconomical. To illustrate his case, Lomborg cites the example of Germany, which has spent a massive 100 billion euros (or about $130 billion) on subsidies on solar panels, whose net effect will be to postpone global warming by the end of the century by a mere 23 hours, or less than one day. Gates agrees: developing countries, he writes, “can’t afford today’s expensive clean energy solutions,” and he highly commends two recent videos by Lomborg which highlight the link between energy and poverty, and which call for more research to make clean energy “so cheap that everyone … will want to buy it” – including people in poor countries.

Finally, before we hop on the global warming bandwagon, as Jimmy Kimmel would have us do, we need to ask: are there any other important projects that would be jeopardized if we were devote ourselves to the fight against global warming? Let us bear in mind that we live in a world where 2.4 billion people lack basic sanitation, where 800 million people go hungry, where 6 million children die before their fifth birthday every year, and where only half of all women in developing countries receive adequate maternal care. The world currently spends about $135 billion per annum on overseas aid. That’s a commitment we must continue to keep, no matter how serious the global warming crisis gets. It is therefore absolutely vital that the countries of the world do their utmost to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the more ambitious post-2015 development agenda. (For more information on the Millennium Development Goals, see here.)

I would contend that even if the direst prognostications of the IPCC forecasters turn out to be correct, it would be morally wrong to withhold money from children who are dying now, in order to save generations of as-yet-unconceived children. Starvation, malnutrition and disease are clear and present dangers which kill millions. Future dangers can never take precedence over these crises. For this reason, I believe that citizens should actively resist proposals to spend tens of trillions of dollars fighting a long-term menace (global warming), at a time when children are dying of malnutrition. The course of action proposed by Kimmel is too hasty: if we are going to fight global warming, we need to fight it intelligently.

In his video, Kimmel claims that sea levels are rising rapidly as a result of global warming – which, he says, is good news only if you want to be swallowed up by water. Kimmel is being melodramatic here. In reality, the latest AR5 IPCC report estimates (Chapter 13, p. 1180) the rise by the end of the 21st century at just 0.40 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.26 to 0.55 meters) on the best future global warming scenario (RCP2.6) and 0.63 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.45 to 0.82 meters] on the worst scenario (RCP8.5), relative to the average global sea level for the 20-year period from 1986–2005. 0.63 meters is about 2 feet. That’s hardly catastrophic.

The cost of building hundreds of kilometers of dykes along the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta region (which will be one of the worst-affected areas) has been estimated at more than 20 billion euros. But that’s a drop in the ocean, when compared to the $100 trillion that it’ll take to combat global warming worldwide, on current estimates.

Kimmel also suggests in his video that former Governor Sarah Palin contests the reality of the greenhouse effect. That claim is simply nonsensical: what Sarah Palin contests is the degree to which man-made increases in CO2 levels amplify the greenhouse effect.

During the last two minutes of his 7-minute video, Jimmy Kimmel asks his viewers to watch a parade of climate scientists promising their audience that they are not “f***ing with you” when it comes to catastrophic climate change. I have to say that for me, this shock tactic proved to be counter-productive: far from enhancing the credibility of Kimmel’s message, it caused me to lose respect for the scientists who would demean themselves by behaving in such an unprofessional manner. And I was even less impressed when a young child dropped F-bombs at the very end of the video. “Who put him up to that?” I wondered.

So here’s my take on Jimmy Kimmel’s attack on Sarah Palin: her understanding of global warming is not as deep as Kimmel’s, but she does appreciate the uncertainties involved in long-range forecasting. But I haven’t seen the movie, Climate Hustle, so I’d very much appreciate comments from anyone who has seen it.

What do readers think?

46 Replies to “Jimmy Kimmel vs. Sarah Palin on climate change: my take

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    he knows no more about this stuff, quality of evidence, then he does about entertainment. Thats nothing.
    Why do tv people think they know better, deserve to be heard out, and use their platform for their propaganda???
    Because they are dumb and arrogant and dumb.
    Right or wrong they are never right enough to get into the fray before large audiences.
    At least it promotes the doc.
    This Kimmel dude is the reason entertainment these days is inferior, terrible, and used to assert political/social conclusions and demands on America.
    It truly represents people whoi don’t represent the common man or a cross section of America.
    They truly are adversaries or enemies of America.
    They truly are unworthy of the wealth, privilege they presume to have and keep.
    People who have audiences are the people to keep a eye on.
    They cause most of the trouble in history and only sometimes fix problems.

  2. 2
    computerist says:

    Kimmel is another brain dead left-wing zombie that’s coincidentally promoting global warming/climate change on a COMEDY channel. I think that alone speaks volumes as to whether it’s more propaganda or science.
    One doesn’t need to promote gravity on a comedy channel.
    Kimmel asks to support climate change based on some unsupported artificial argument from “consensus”.
    A consensus that’s well known to be the product of government grants to push an agenda masquerading as science at the tax payers expense.

  3. 3
    computerist says:

    Does that mean it’s laughable science?

  4. 4
    groovamos says:

    I saw the film. I think VJT would be surprised at the onslaught of significant numbers of scientists who have completely abandoned the idea of AGW. They are many recently retired, but not all of them; also younger ones. And they not only give their opinions in the film but also their reasoning, and a common theme they relate, which is the numbers of their colleagues who confide in them their doubts too but can’t say anything publicly and you guys know why. These are erudite and carefully spoken professionals interviewed in the film, and they are all academics – and their names, current or previous positions are flashed onscreen. Excerpts from A. Gore’s film are incorporated and provide comic relief. Which btw there IS comedy to be appreciated all around this topic and its takedown; occasional laughter erupted in the theater.

    After the credits rolled, a video was shown which was made at Capitol Hill after the congressional showing. It recorded a panel discussion hosted by Brent Bozell of Media Research Center. The rest of the panel included the film’s producer and narrator, one scientist, and Sarah Palin, the last of whom I was surprised to see and she certainly looked fabulous. But I have to admit that when Sarah opens her mouth nothing useful to me ever comes out. After an introduction by Brent, he addressed her, and when she began to speak all of the redundant memes we get from conservative pundits, many of the audience headed for the doors, me included. I came back after a restroom break in the middle of the scientist’s spiel and it was nothing new either so I soon left for the evening.

    Over all the feature was a very good show and very informative. It was a little disorienting to see on the big screen visual antics which should look good in a documentary on a small screen, but I intend to watch this one again in a few months for a brush up, as I occasionally get into the debate online and want to take notes at that time.

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    When a project costs that much, we need to ask ourselves three questions: can we afford it, is there any way we can do it a lot more cheaply, and finally, if we decided to financially commit ourselves to the project, what other important projects would we have to give up?

    Ah, you don’t think it’s important to ask about the cost of not doing the project?

  6. 6
    mahuna says:

    I gave up REAL early in the main post. Anyone who’s interested in a serious discussion of the facts should surf on over to Climate Depot:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    The simple fact is that temperatures have NOT been rising at all. Scientists at NOAA and other government agencies have been caught FAKING the data for the last several decades. The warmest period of weather in the last 200 years occurred during the 1930s. Also note that many of the “Scientists” who now insist that temperatures are RISING were telling us back in the 1960s and ’70s that temperatures were FALLING. And that, specifically, jet airliners flying over the North Pole were causing more snowfall in the Arctic…

    But the facts are irrelevant at this point. Global Warming, like every other mindless Liberal campaign, is about Money and Power, with the Power (political power) being much more important than the Money, although the money is nice.

    As with non-Darwinists, non-Warmists are PREVENTED from speaking in public, and when they hold meetings on “Global Warming”, the speakers are all PRO-warming.

    But consider this 1 simple fact: circa 1000 AD, the world’s climate was warm enough that Vikings established a colony on the shores of Greenland. That colony, which survived by raising wheat and dairy cows, lasted until 1350 AD or so. The remains of the colony are now buried under several hundred feet of ice.

    Something like 95% of the world’s ice covers Antarctica. Unbiased measurements indicate the ice on Antarctica is increasing slightly. Another 3% of the world’s ice covers Greenland. Greenland ice is also, at the very least, NOT decreasing. So the periodic advance or retreat of individual glaciers (e.g., in the Pyrenees) is a simply fact of Nature that has been observed and reported on for centuries.

    So, no, the sky is NOT falling, and I expect the Liberals to stop beating this particular dead horse with any zeal over the next couple years. But those same Liberals are undoubtedly trying to pick the next new World Crisis, whose solution is, as always, the creation of an international regulatory body whose power exceeds that of any national government and whose funding comes from that body’s ability to collect “fees” or “penalties” directly, without the need to receive funding mere national governments.

  7. 7
    Zachriel says:

    vjtorley: What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that combating global warming will be very, very costly: $44 trillion on a very optimistic estimate

    So we followed the link: “That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050.”

    Keep in mind that most of the energy infrastructure gets replaced every 30-50 years, so most of it needs to be revamped anyway. In the U.S., for instance, they are long overdue for a restructuring of their electrical distribution system. Assuming 2.5% growth in global GDP, the world will produce about $4000 trillion by 2050. Investing 1% in the energy infrastructure is actually quite modest.

    vjtorley: To illustrate his case, Lomborg cites the example of Germany, which has spent a massive 100 billion euros (or about $130 billion) on subsidies on solar panels, whose net effect will be to postpone global warming by the end of the century by a mere 23 hours, or less than one day.

    The net effect is to reduce Germany’s dependency on foreign energy supplies, while helping develop new technologies that will both fuel Germany’s domestic economy, and their exports of technology and engineering to other countries.

    vjtorley: In reality, the latest AR5 IPCC report estimates (Chapter 13, p. 1180) the rise by the end of the 21st century at just 0.40 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.26 to 0.55 meters) on the best future global warming scenario (RCP2.6) and 0.63 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.45 to 0.82 meters] on the worst scenario (RCP8.5), relative to the average global sea level for the 20-year period from 1986–2005. 0.63 meters is about 2 feet. That’s hardly catastrophic.

    As you are arguing against mitigation, you may as well only concern yourself with RCP8.5, which assumes unrestricted emissions of CO2. (As humans are likely to continue to mitigate the problem, you can look back one day and say “See, I told you not to worry.”)

    The estimated sea-level rise under RCP8.5 is not at equilibrium, but will continue to rise long after the end of the century. Long term, this will probably result in permanent loss of major portions of the Earth’s ice caps.

    And just for your information, here’s the southeastern U.S. with 1.0 meter sea-level rise:
    http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx.....seaswi.jpg

    This represents the loss of trillions of dollars in real estate. Other areas of the world will similarly be affected. Add to this other climate disruptions, and the result will be mass human migration, and the ensuing social and political turmoil.

  8. 8
    Zachriel says:

    vjtorley: While it’s reasonably certain that the rise in global temperatures since the late 1970s has been largely man-made …

    And yet there is a consistent campaign calling that finding into question, such as the much recited refrain “The simple fact is that temperatures have NOT been rising at all” as seen in @6.

    vjtorley: The scientific disagreement on this subject relates not to the effects of carbon dioxide but to the feedback effects of water vapor, which the IPCC claims will magnify the effects of carbon dioxide increases by a factor of two, three or four, or perhaps even six. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states that “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely [to be] less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely [to be] greater than 6°C.” That’s quite a range of uncertainty.

    What’s interesting is that the estimates and ranges of uncertainty haven’t changed much over the last few decades, and a wide variety of studies, including volcanic forcing, energy budget experiments, and paleoclimatic constraints, have all reached much the same conclusion.

    AR5, 2015: likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C
    TAR, 2001: likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C
    NAS, 1979: 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C.
    Arrhenius 1896: 4–5 °C

    vjtorley: During the last two minutes of his 7-minute video, Jimmy Kimmel asks his viewers to watch a parade of climate scientists promising their audience that they are not “f***ing with you” when it comes to catastrophic climate change.

    That’s in response to the claim that climate scientists are being deliberately deceptive, such as the refrain that “Scientists at NOAA and other government agencies have been caught FAKING the data for the last several decades” @6. Which do you really find obscene? The language or the slur.

  9. 9
    groovamos says:

    Zachriel: The net effect is to reduce Germany’s dependency on foreign energy supplies, while helping develop new technologies that will both fuel Germany’s domestic economy, and their exports of technology and engineering to other countries.

    A country in Northern Europe with long winters is going solar. So they can be self sufficient in energy and destroy vegetation and wildlife over huge swaths of territory to try and make up for those short days in winter. How marvelous. They can put solar panels on top of their earth moving and other heavy equipment too and save a lot of diesel fuel that way. Same for jet fuel and aircraft.

    I find it amusing that people on the left are always about “new technologies” gonna save us from that carbon in the ground (note the spiritual/mortal/burial connotations), but don’t take the time to ponder where that carbon was before it was in the ground. “New technologies” is one of those kind of religious icons for the “environmental movement”, to help save you, an icon they came up with 50 years ago. It’s an icon that is always about future salvation, a salvation never attained in the present. But one thing we do know. Those “new technologies” being all about salvation are about death/destruction too, like bats and raptors encountering spinning blades, and vegetation destroyed for solar, or solar collector-cooked birds. And thousands of massive pits to mine lithium for a wonderful future of electrochemical energy storage. “New technologies”. When that wonderful future arrives, salvation is at hand. We have to push it out just a little bit more in the future, the future is where it always is. Or we get real and get that it is what it is, an icon.

    Meanwhile here in Houston we have huge engineering firms stepping into the breach for those far sighted Germans. And walking us back to reality. Thank God for red state reality thinking. Chenier Energy just last week started up their LNG compression (liquifaction) train over in Louisiana. Several more are to initiate operation in Texas and Louisiana over the next couple of years. Germany should have no concerns buying gas from a fellow NATO country, as opposed to investing in boondoggle icons or buying gas from the Russians.

    Oh and BTW the Germans are not quite as silly as you might think from my attempt at satire, or from Zachriel’s attempt at solid thinking. They have massively ramped up their lignite mining over the last decade or so. A couple of whole towns have been condemned and/or destroyed for the lignite underneath. Houston has the salvation for other towns over there:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.....rown-coal/

    The “transition” icon (hee hee, note the spiritual/mortal connotation) is always in the future:

    http://www.theguardian.com/env.....een-future

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    “it’s reasonably certain that the rise in global temperatures since the late 1970s has been largely man-made”

    Actually, this not been demonstrated and climate science currently does not have the skills to detect an anthropogenic “signal” in data.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    drc466 says:

    As dismissive as your post is, Dr. Torley, I believe you are still entirely too credulous when it comes to believing Climate Change proponents’ claims. And you leave out a slew of equally important questions:
    1) What is the non-financial cost of reducing fossil fuel consumption? Especially in developing nations already struggling with poverty and famine?
    2) What does a reduction in energy consumption actually accomplish? What does our $44-$100T actually buy us?
    3) Are the net effects of global warming negative, or positive? Cold kills – people, crops, etc. “Ice Age” was a common cry of climate change activists decades ago, why is warming bad?
    4) How much can we actually trust models like the ones pointed to by Z in #8 above? None of the Climate Change models have accurately modeled the last 20 years of global climate measurements – why should we trust what they continue to claim?
    5) Climate has always changed – the climate has never been stable. Nature has built-in recycling – how do we know that “stabilizing” the climate won’t do significant damage?

    Climate Change activists have been claiming rising temperatures would have catastrophic effects for decades (see above, re Z’s “human migration”, “lost real estate”, “social disruptions”). Yet none of those catastrophes ever seem to materialize – food production is up, land mass is steady, polar ice follows its usual cycle, the only “mass migrations” have nothing to do with climate change, etc.

    But the biggest strike against Climate Change activists is this: they do not appear to believe their own message.

    What would you think of a man who tells you that beef consumption is a killer, and that if we all don’t stop eating beef, we’ll die in less than 5 years – yet has a diet that consists of hamburgers, steak, roasts, etc? Hopefully you’d think he was a hypocrite at best, and a bald-faced liar at worst.

    Yet that is EXACTLY what our climate change moral superiors do. They tell us we have to pay higher rates for electricity, and buy smaller cars (don’t get me started on the scam of believing electric cars have a smaller net carbon footprint than gas automobiles), etc., etc., while they burn carbon by the tanker – work homes in CA, summer homes in NY, holidays in Europe and Asia. Flying private jets instead of commercial, to swanky climate change conferences all over the world. Taking caravans of vehicles 15 miles to a swanky, electricity-hog of a 5-star restaurant. Holding huge carbon-monster parties in the evenings. Voting down solar and wind projects in their neighborhoods because it looks bad and will affect property values – NIMBY!!! Etc., etc.

    This tells me that people like Jimmy Kimmel either:
    1) Are liars who don’t really believe what they are saying
    2) Are hypocrites who can’t practice what they preach
    3) Are Both

    Tell me, Z – you’re apparently a true believer – do you use air conditioning, or central heating? Do you stay home in the evenings instead of going out? Do you drive to work every day? Do you plan your shopping so that you can go to the store once a month instead of multiple times a week? How many trees have you planted? Do you sleep when it’s dark so you don’t have to use electric lighting? How much electricity and gas is “morally ok” for an individual to use? I’ll make you a deal – I promise not to use more than Jimmy Kimmel does, how’s that sound?

    Like most socialist causes, climate change is valuable for virtue signalling, feeling morally superior, exerting control over the hoi polloi, etc. As others have stated above, there isn’t a single good thing that can come out of government-enforced reduced energy consumption for the poor and middle-class of the world. But the rich don’t care, and the climate change activists are getting paid. It’s all about FORCING OTHER people to live by standards YOU don’t live by, and being part of the IN crowd.

    If you can’t tell – I have nothing good to say about Climate Change AGW activists. Get back to me when they start practicing what they preach. Until then – sod off, swampy.

  12. 12
    wd400 says:

    I find it amusing that people on the left are always about “new technologies” gonna save us from that carbon in the ground (note the spiritual/mortal/burial connotations), but don’t take the time to ponder where that carbon was before it was in the ground

    I mean… it was in the carbon cycle. And then it was taken out. And now we are putting it back in a hurry. What point are you trying to make here?

  13. 13
    velikovskys says:

    drc:
    Like most socialist causes, climate change is valuable for virtue signalling, feeling morally superior, exerting control over the hoi polloi, etc. As others have stated above, there isn’t a single good thing that can come out of government-enforced reduced energy consumption for the poor and middle-class of the world.

    Unless climate change is real, in which case it will be the middle class and the poor that will feel the greatest effect. Rich people will be fine

    But the rich don’t care, and the climate change activists are getting paid

    Some rich care enough to throw tons of money at arguing your position. You think they are doing that out of the goodness of their hearts? You think the scientists working for Exxon are not been paid, the lobbyists are working for free?

    It’s all about FORCING OTHER people to live by standards YOU don’t live by, and being part of the IN crowd.

    Maybe but if you are wrong, and the steady climb of record setting heat is indicative of correct modeling , future generations will view your stance as forcing them to live by standards that you didn’t live by.

  14. 14
    asauber says:

    “future generations”

    The Chicken Littles of the Future are already here!

    Andrew

  15. 15
    drc466 says:

    vel,

    Unless climate change is real, in which case it will be the middle class and the poor that will feel the greatest effect. Rich people will be fine

    Sure. If all the arctic ice melts, and the sea levels go up 2m around the world, and hurricanes triple in frequency, and Mrs. O’Leary’s cow dries up, and all the fantastically horrific bad things that climate change activists claim will happen, then yes, everyone will feel it. “Global Warming” due to fossil fuel usage should have been going on for almost a century now – shouldn’t we have some empirical evidence of all these tragedies by now? Why isn’t Daytona Beach now Daytona Bay? Again – get back to me when a) you have some hard evidence of bad things happening, and b) preachers practice preaching.

    Some rich care enough to throw tons of money at arguing your position. You think they are doing that out of the goodness of their hearts? You think the scientists working for Exxon are not been paid, the lobbyists are working for free?

    I’m all for people spending money and getting paid to promote their belief system. The difference is HYPOCRISY – people who don’t want to see economies and people’s lives ruined over questionable climate “science” practice what they preach – they promote energy usage, and they use that energy TO MAKE PEOPLE’S LIVES BETTER. EXXON has made life better for more people than every climate scientist, movie star, politician, etc. in the world combined.
    On the other side, people who want to ruin economies, and retard economic growth, and exercise authoritarian rule over the average joe, spend MORE money than Exxon and small independent think tanks do, and they DON’T practice what they preach.

    Maybe but if you are wrong, and the steady climb of record setting heat is indicative of correct modeling , future generations will view your stance as forcing them to live by standards that you didn’t live by.

    First of all – “correct modeling”. Lol.
    Second – You mean they’ll be upset by us lowering poverty, promoting economic growth, increasing crop yields, globalizing communications and trade, advancing technology, etc., etc.? Because we had low-cost energy to fuel all that? Aww, poor future generations.

    Here’s a thought – if we, today, are supposedly capable of converting all our energy usage from fossil fuels to renewables, maybe, just maybe…they will be too? Only better and cheaper, with decades of technological improvement? Through the natural free market process where supply meets demand? In which case, they’ll have the energy and technology to deal with the fact that the world is maybe a degree or two warmer?

    Here’s another thought – from 1800 to today, hundreds of millions of Americans MOVED. Without the benefit of our technology. You think future generations will be too stupid and too incompetent to, um, move? because the land is a little different?

    I notice you avoided the hypocrisy issue. I’m w/ Instapundit – I’ll believe it’s a crisis, when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis!

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    groovamos: A country in Northern Europe with long winters is going solar.

    About 7% of Germany’s electrical supply is solar, about 38% renewables.

    groovamos: So they can be self sufficient in energy and destroy vegetation and wildlife over huge swaths of territory to try and make up for those short days in winter.

    Most solar in Germany are rooftop installations.

    groovamos: I find it amusing that people on the left are always about “new technologies” gonna save us

    Yes, it’s amazing. Germany has succeeded in making high-quality motor fuel from CO2, water, and green energy. That makes it carbon-neutral.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/au.....-and-water

    groovamos: but don’t take the time to ponder where that carbon was before it was in the ground.

    Sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

    asauber: Actually, this not been demonstrated and climate science currently does not have the skills to detect an anthropogenic “signal” in data.

    Multiple independent statistical studies of the temperature data agree that there is a measurable trend.

    drc466: 1) What is the non-financial cost of reducing fossil fuel consumption? Especially in developing nations already struggling with poverty and famine?

    Developing nations are expected to bear the brunt of climate changes associated with global warming, while having fewer resources to respond to the challenge.

    drc466: 2) What does a reduction in energy consumption actually accomplish? What does our $44-$100T actually buy us?

    While conservation is certainly important, global energy use is expected to increase as the developing world continues to enter the modern economy.

    drc466: 3) Are the net effects of global warming negative, or positive? Cold kills – people, crops, etc. “Ice Age” was a common cry of climate change activists decades ago, why is warming bad?

    Disruption of agriculture. Extinction of species. Rising sea levels.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

    drc466: 4) How much can we actually trust models like the ones pointed to by Z in #8 above? None of the Climate Change models have accurately modeled the last 20 years of global climate measurements – why should we trust what they continue to claim?

    Climate models indicating global warming are consistent with the data. Most of the heat is absorbed by the oceans.
    https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    drc466: 5) Climate has always changed – the climate has never been stable. Nature has built-in recycling – how do we know that “stabilizing” the climate won’t do significant damage?

    What is to be stabilized is human emissions, which is causing dangerous levels of global warming.

    drc466: Tell me, Z – you’re apparently a true believer …

    Not sure if “true believer” is the correct term, but we accept the scientific findings supported by many different methodologies. As for energy consumption, it is wrong to suggest that adapting to reduce CO2 requires giving up modern conveniences. Indeed, any plausible response requires continued economic growth, especially in developing nations, and the attendant technological innovations required.

    drc466: “Global Warming” due to fossil fuel usage should have been going on for almost a century now – shouldn’t we have some empirical evidence of all these tragedies by now?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ha.....er_air.png

  17. 17
    dgosse says:

    I’ve been following the ‘climate change’ nonsense for years – since reading a book, “The Coming Ice Age” sometime back in the 80s. There are several points which overlooked or deliberately discounted when discussing the coming climate Armageddon.

    1. The medieval warm period which is usually ignored or deemed a ‘local’ anomaly but indicates a demonstrably warmer arctic than the present.

    2. The effect of tectonic activity and erosion on sea levels. How many cubic miles of material are transferred from the continents to the ocean each year and what are the effects of submarine earth movements? (I could never find even a rough estimate of the first and the second is unknowable)

    3. Thermometers have existed for a scant 300 years and have been accurate to less than 1 degree for little more than 50 years so any estimate of temperatures prior to WWII us just that, an estimate.

    4. Most of the global records that predate WWII were collected by local amateurs with imprecise instruments.

    5. Estimates based on ice, sediment, and dendrochronology are, at best, open to dispute.

    6. A few hours drive from my residence are glaciers whose retreat have been documented since the late 19th C., long before the rise of CO2.

    7. AFIK not one apocalyptic ‘climate’ forecast has actually occurred.

    8. Most of the alleged solutions are either ineffective or more harmful than doing nothing.
    https://news.mongabay.com/2008/01/e-u-may-ban-palm-oil-biodiesel/
    http://www.bbc.com/future/stor.....e-on-earth

    9. Many recycled materials, although heavily subsidized, are more costly than their non-recycled analogues – if price is a measure of resources used then these recycled materials actually have a higher resource (and probably a higher carbon) footprint than their non-recycled analogues.

    And this is just off the top of my head.

  18. 18
    PaV says:

    In the 60’s they told us we wouldn’t have enough food. Now, with the earth marginally warmer, and with more CO2 in the air, food production has gone way up. Isn’t this a good thing?

    Oh, wait, the Left will stop existing if there isn’t something to complain about and some crisis that needs their attention.

    If you want to know why the temperatures have gone up, it’s because they went from humans actually measuring temperature to weather stations connected to a network using thermometers that need “adjustments.” This is the real source of “man-made” human warming: the temperature adjustments they’ve made to raw data. The raw data shows hardly any temperature gain whatsoever during the 20th century.

    Then the Left gets hold of the data, and all hell breaks loose as usual.

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    dgosse: 1. The medieval warm period which is usually ignored or deemed a ‘local’ anomaly but indicates a demonstrably warmer arctic than the present.

    Not sure why you say it is ignored. The Medieval Warm Period has been subject to intensive investigation. In any case, the warming during the Medieval Warm Period was not uniform, and overall global temperatures were not as high as today.

    dgosse: 3. Thermometers have existed for a scant 300 years and have been accurate to less than 1 degree for little more than 50 years so any estimate of temperatures prior to WWII us just that, an estimate.

    Multiple measurements can provide higher precision.

    dgosse: 4. Most of the global records that predate WWII were collected by local amateurs with imprecise instruments.

    Scientists are well-aware of the nature of the data. Many different statistical methods have been applied, and they all show the same warming trend.

    dgosse: 5. Estimates based on ice, sediment, and dendrochronology are, at best, open to dispute.

    Estimates are subject to investigation. That’s what scientists do.

  20. 20
    bill cole says:

    It is interesting that climate change and evolution are both subjects that need to be sold by the NCSE which is a non profit political lobby group. When the pitch is scientific consensus you can be sure there is a lack of evidence validating the hypothesis. I personally think moving methodically away from fossil fuels is a good idea however the evidence for the problem being man made at this point is lacking.

  21. 21
    vjtorley says:

    Mahuna writes:

    The simple fact is that temperatures have NOT been rising at all. Scientists at NOAA and other government agencies have been caught FAKING the data for the last several decades. The warmest period of weather in the last 200 years occurred during the 1930s.

    I’m sorry, but the accusation that scientists have been faking temperature data is incorrect:

    http://www.theguardian.com/env.....rome-burns
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/.....ture-data/
    http://grist.org/climate-energ.....heir-data/
    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....heory.html

    And yes, it was warmer back in the 1930s – but only in the U.S.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea.....hansen_07/

    On a worldwide level, there was significant warming during the 1930s and early 1940s, but temperatures were not as high as they are now. And it turns out that that warming was man-made, too:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/.....930s-20115

    The reason why it cooled between the 1940s and the 1970s was because of aerosols released by the burning of large amounts of coal – and in any case, the cooling occurred largely in the Northern Hemisphere. It wasn’t observed in New Zealand. Temperatures continued to climb there, and probably in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, as well:

    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

  22. 22
    vjtorley says:

    Hi everyone,

    I’ve been looking at the evidence regarding the Medieval Warm Period, and it seems to suggest that (a) the warming that occurred probably wasn’t global; and (b) while it was warm, it wasn’t as warm as it is today.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm
    http://insideclimatenews.org/n.....5/medieval
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

    For a contrary view, see here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

    It has been claimed that the world was hotter during the Mid-Holocene Warm Period – about 6,000 years ago. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently states on its Website that “the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere”:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

    In the far southern hemisphere, it was warmer than today between 8,000 and 10,500 years ago:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

    To go back to a time when the whole world was warmer than it is today, you have to go back to the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1 or 2 degrees Celsius hotter than they are now, as I stated in my OP:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/interglacial.html

  23. 23
    vjtorley says:

    Zachriel extols Germany’s renewables push:

    The net effect is to reduce Germany’s dependency on foreign energy supplies, while helping develop new technologies that will both fuel Germany’s domestic economy, and their exports of technology and engineering to other countries.

    Er, no. Here’s an excerpt from a factsheet by Soren Amerlang, titled, Germany’s dependence on imported fossil fuels (11 February 2016):

    Despite the Energiewende, Germany remains still heavily dependent on imports of fossil fuels, as its domestic resources are largely depleted or extraction too costly…

    While the whole of the EU imported 53.4 percent of its energy consumption in 2014, Germany’s dependency was even higher with an import share of 61.4 percent – only slightly below the previous year’s all-time high of 62.6 percent…

    Germany needs to import nearly 90% of the gas it consumes. In 2013 the country produced 9.7 billion cubic metres [of] natural gas, but according to geologists, the fields are nearing depletion. Current domestic production will likely decrease during the next 10 years to nought…

    …[E]ven if Germany consumed considerably less natural gas in the long term, it would not necessarily decrease imports from Russia. That is because gas production is declining among current alternative European suppliers: Norway, the Netherlands and the UK…

    Germany’s exit from nuclear power and low wholesale electricity prices have boosted the comparatively cheap generation of electricity from coal, leading to a marked increase in imports of hard coal.

    Long-term climate targets clearly imply Germany will have to abandon coal entirely by 2050 unless an affordable technology can be found to make coal clean. But exiting coal alone will not help supply security, as Germany will initially have to import more gas to compensate, concedes Juergen Nitsch, a former scientist from the German Aerospace Centre at Stuttgart, and an expert on energy scenarios.

    Doesn’t sound too promising.

    By the way, solar panels on roofs, which are currently popular in Germany, are a bad idea. Utility-scale solar power is more efficient and economical:

    http://www.energybiz.com/artic.....make-sense

    Regarding sea levels, Zachriel writes:

    As you are arguing against mitigation, you may as well only concern yourself with RCP8.5, which assumes unrestricted emissions of CO2…

    The estimated sea-level rise under RCP8.5 is not at equilibrium, but will continue to rise long after the end of the century. Long term, this will probably result in permanent loss of major portions of the Earth’s ice caps.

    Just to be clear: I’m not arguing against mitigation. Improvements in energy efficiency are a great idea, as is a reduction in personal energy consumption. I’m simply arguing that the money we’re currently pouring into renewable energy (including solar panels) would be better spent on R & D, which will provide real and affordable solutions to the problem of global warming. And yes, I accept that it is a problem, but I’m more of a lukewarmer myself: based on observations of temperature increases over the past 35 years, I’m inclined to believe that we have about 70 or 80 years to fix the problem before it gets really serious, whereas most global warming alarmists say that we need to fix the problem by 2050.

    Regarding the cost of rising sea levels for the USA, see the following excerpt from an IPCC report:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports.....hp?idp=298

    Neumann et al. (2000) have estimated that a 0.5-m sea-level rise by 2100 could cause cumulative impacts to U.S. coastal property of US$20 billion to US$150 billion and that more extensive damage could result if climate change increases storm frequency or intensity…

    n the United Kingdom, sea defenses and shore protection works around 4,300 km of coast cost approximately US$500 million/yr to maintain at present— a figure that Turner et al. (1998) suggest will continue to rise in the future…

    The total expenditure to keep the present level of functions and stability for about 1,000 Japanese ports is estimated to be US$110 billion for a 1-m sea-level rise (Mimura et al., 1998).

    $150 billion is still peanuts, when compared to the $100 trillion cost of combating global warming, using current technologies. That’s why my advice is to focus more on R&D, to bring the cost down.

  24. 24
    computerist says:

    Doesn’t the left embrace change?

    Why don’t they embrace the climate changing?

  25. 25
    jimmontg says:

    Fighting AGW is the call to arms. There is a lot of politics going on here and where they cry the loudest. I read an article by a woman who is suffering from anxiety attacks over this. I have some solutions.
    1st. Desist with the left wing solutions to AGW. Stop IT!!
    Whether AGW is true or not, draconian measures and wealth redistribution won’t fix a thing as the Poor will always be with us and will suffer the most and the Malthusian policy makers could care less. On top of that trying to ruin people’s hope for a better life by taxing them for some “science” that too many disagree about is poor strategy in this country especially as most of us are not willing to give India, how many trillions do they demand? Demand, not ask for.

    2nd let’s actually look at things that work, like what responsible and sustainable logging does, especially as South America is learning to do, but enviro terrorist shutdown sawmills here by planting fear and big spikes in trees that have killed many people.

    3rd creating and restoring carbon sinks in the swamps and bayous that USED to shield large sections of problem areas and cities that used to count on those wetlands. Why don’t I hear about that?

    4th Stop the alarmism that keeps the weak minded awake at night. It is harmful and scares children when the weather is blown out of proportion. According to the Left Wing media we are on the edge of the end of Humanity.

    5th. Who believes this rant over and over again? The list of doubting scientists should give everybody pause and the Seychelles and Marianas Islands being inundated every year with water should work on the other side.

    I am of the opinion that whether manmade or not solutions of a sensible nature should be the rule of the day. Stop the leftist solutions and put forth solutions that work at every situation it is pointed at and as far as I’m concerned don’t EVEN ask me to spend my money on totalitarian schemes, the idea of “climate refugees” from La. is propaganda. Don’t fight the “Science”, don’t fight that at all, let chicken little bawl and cry. Fight the confidence men. Fight their draconian solutions and manipulations first and foremost.

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    vjtorley,

    Sorry, linking The Grauniad just means you don’t have any evidence.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    Zachriel says:

    vjtorley: “Germany remains still heavily dependent on imports of fossil fuels, as its domestic resources are largely depleted or extraction too costly”

    What the report makes clear is that fossil fuels are essential over the short term. However, due to the problem of global warming, there has to be a transition towards a greener future. As that green future is coming, those countries that make the transition will reap the benefits of lower fossil fuel costs, and, in Germany’s case, the benefit of exporting technology.

    vjtorley: By the way, solar panels on roofs, which are currently popular in Germany, are a bad idea. Utility-scale solar power is more efficient and economical:

    The advantage to rooftop installations is that the space is unused, and provides an immediate benefit to the investor. A mix of solutions appears to be the best solution.

    vjtorley: I’m simply arguing that the money we’re currently pouring into renewable energy (including solar panels) would be better spent on R & D, which will provide real and affordable solutions to the problem of global warming.

    The price of solar panels has dropped rapidly due to investment. However, more research and development is also essential.

    vjtorley: I’m inclined to believe that we have about 70 or 80 years to fix the problem before it gets really serious, whereas most global warming alarmists say that we need to fix the problem by 2050.

    Most economists believe that the sooner the move away from fossil fuels occurs, the cheaper the long range cost will be. Also, the world will continue to warm for decades, even after humans quit emitting greenhouse gases. And no one expects humans to quit emitting greenhouse gases anytime soon. The hope is to at least stabilize the levels of emissions, which will still mean an increasing greenhouse effect.

  28. 28
    Lamont says:

    Anyone who lives near one of the Great Lakes knows that summer cannot get started until all the ice melts. Temperatures away from the lakes are often much warmer in the spring because so much of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the melting ice. Once the ice is gone the temperature increases rapidly and the average temperature is only slightly lower than the surrounding area.

    The same principle applies to global warming. Changes will at first be small, but if all the ice melts, the increase in temperature world wide will be dramatic and catastrophic. The first and most important sign of this happening will be the melting of nearly all the ice in the Arctic Ocean. If that happens, then warming temperatures in the North Atlantic could lead to the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, and that would trigger events of Biblical proportions. The sudden shift of weight off Greenland and into the ocean basins would crack loose the earth’s plates and produce a level of earthquake and volcanic activity far greater than anything any human being has ever experienced before. The resulting political and economic chaos will be even more devastating.

    My advice is be careful of what you deny or oppose unless you want to be a scapegoat.

  29. 29
    velikovskys says:

    Andrew:
    The Chicken Littles of the Future are already here!

    True, nothing we do in the present will have any effect on the future. Insurance is just a big scam.

  30. 30
    asauber says:

    “nothing we do in the present will have any effect on the future.”

    I didn’t say that.

    Andrew

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    “Changes will at first be small, but if all the ice melts, the increase in temperature world wide will be dramatic and catastrophic.”

    The Chicken Littles of The Present are Here!

    Andrew

  32. 32
    velikovskys says:

    Andrew:
    I didn’t say that

    So what we do in the present will effect the future just not in a bad way for future generations?

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    “So what we do in the present will effect the future just not in a bad way for future generations?”

    velikovskys,

    I’m not interested in philosophical discussions about the future.

    If you have any evidence you’d like to present, please present it.

    Andrew

  34. 34
    PaV says:

    vjt:

    I’m sorry, but the accusation that scientists have been faking temperature data is incorrect:

    I’m sorry to disagree, but I think you’re wrong.

    Here’s, for example, a quote from the very first link you provide:

    In reality climate scientists process the raw temperature data for very good reasons. Sometimes temperature monitoring station locations move. Sometimes the time of day at which they’re read changes. Sometimes changes are made to the instruments themselves. In each case, if adjustments aren’t made, then biases will be included in the data that don’t reflect actual changes in temperatures.

    This sounds harmless. However, the fact is that if you look at the “raw” temperatures over time, you will find that in the U.S. everything was rather stable, and level, until such time as they switched from human monitoring to their hi-tech gadgets. You will then see a temperature range that is all over the place. A simple look at the graph will tell you that something is wrong.

    If they tell you that they have to adjust their temperature readings up by 1.5 degrees, then one has to wonder:
    (1) On what basis do they make this adjustment?
    (2) What kind of meters have they installed given that they aren’t properly registering the temperature?

    Temperatures began to rise in the early 1800’s. That, of course, was not due to “man-made” CO2 production. Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even thought “man-made” CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere. Their climate models have been wrong for 15 years, and become increasingly wrong with each passing year.

    No, vjt, when they give you nice-sounding reasons for “adjusting” raw temperatures, watch out, anything can happen.

  35. 35
    PaV says:

    From your second link:

    So you start reading the data, but over time someone buys the property near the field, and builds houses there. Driveways, roads, houses leaking heat … this all affects your thermometer. Perhaps a building is erected that casts a shadow over your location. Whatever: You have to account for all these effects.

    That’s what scientists do. That’s what scientists did. They examined the data from these thermometers all over the world, and tried to minimize the impact of outside influences. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to trust the data.

    Sounds harmless. Sounds scientific. Sounds reasonable.

    But, just a second. There is much more of a problem with temperatures being on the high side because of urban sprawl and development. In fact, it has been argued that most of the supposed temperature increase is primarily due to this. And, then, this: temperatures are generally taken in the morning. Shading effects should have no effect.

    Overall, then, the “raw” data should be revised DOWN. But, no, it is across the board revised UP.

    I went through this argument online this past summer with some fairly learned posters. And that is what I ended up digging up: all the craziness started in, and around, the late 70’s, early 80’s, as they switched away from human measurements.

    These sweet-sounding words are not to be trusted.

    And let me add this: when I posted my observations in the online discussion I had this past summer, I got the distinct impression that they had never even thought about what I was saying. All of this might be due primarily to an undue confidence in their telemetric systems.

    Is the temperature rising? Probably so. Why? The sun. The core of the earth.

    Is it cyclical? You bet it is. Can humans “stop” it? Even with some tremendous financial and human cost, the answer is “no.”

  36. 36
    asauber says:

    PaV,

    In addition to what you have comment, I’d like to add that historical temperatures are being post facto adjusted by data presenters. In what other scientific areas are numbers permanently changeable? Is this good process?

    Andrew

  37. 37
    PaV says:

    This is from a link within your fourth link:

    Given that anomalies are determined relative to some long-term baseline, you have to remove any data points that fail quality control, and you need to adjust the temperatures to account for station moves (or for other non-climatic influences, such as time of observation changes).

    If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, [You see, vjt, the “raw” data doesn’t, in fact, show warming.] after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century.

    Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.

    Really? For some reason they had to “up” the temperature readings by 0.89+1.36=2.25 Degrees? Really? Well, tell us why! But, of course, they don’t!

    And what kinds of “adjustments” have they made for “the country”? And why?

    Wouldn’t it be nice if they told us why they revised up “raw” data by 2.25 degrees. I certainly think it would be nice.

  38. 38
    PaV says:

    As it so happens, Lubos Motl has a post on this very subject, involving physicists.

    He is NOT an “alarmist.” And he doesn’t suffer fools.

  39. 39
    velikovskys says:

    Andrew:
    I’m not interested in philosophical discussions about the future.

    It is your philosophy, for a future generation it will be reality. The people who created superfund sites could say the same thing. We are paying the price of cleaning those up in today’s dollars

    If you have any evidence you’d like to present, please present it.

    Today we are paying 48 million dollars to resettle the people on Ile de Jean Charles

  40. 40
    velikovskys says:

    PAv:
    Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even thought “man-made” CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere. Their climate models have been wrong for 15 years, and become increasingly wrong with each passing year.

    Only if you cherry pick the starting date and have an idiosyncratic definition for appreciable.

  41. 41
    velikovskys says:

    drc:Sure. If all the arctic ice melts, and the sea levels go up 2m around the world, and hurricanes triple in frequency, and Mrs. O’Leary’s cow dries up,

    The main concern is land based ice, Greenland and Antarctica. Not sure about the cow

    and all the fantastically horrific bad things that climate change activists claim will happen, then yes, everyone will feel it

    All the things don’t have to happen for people to feel it. For instance if a component of the cause of the severity of wildfires in Canada is CC, people are feeling it now locally.

    “Global Warming” due to fossil fuel usage should have been going on for almost a century now – shouldn’t we have some empirical evidence of all these tragedies by now?

    Good question, what would constitute empirical evidence?

    Why isn’t Daytona Beach now Daytona Bay? Again – get back to me when a) you have some hard evidence of bad things happening, and b) preachers practice preaching.

    Why does Miami have flooding issues it has never had before? Why is the extraordinary becoming ordinary? You seem to view effects as isolated and immediate.

  42. 42
    velikovskys says:

    drc:
    First of all – “correct modeling”. Lol.

    Look at the graphs ,

    Second – You mean they’ll be upset by us lowering poverty, promoting economic growth, increasing crop yields, globalizing communications and trade, advancing technology, etc

    If it comes at a cost to them by increasing the amount of CO2 and the predictions of the long term effects come to pass, yes I expect they will view us as unwilling to sacrifice anything for long term benefit

    ., etc.? Because we had low-cost energy to fuel all that? Aww, poor future generations.

    Exactly, low cost to you because of deferred costs to them. Now sure,screw them is a possible answer.

    Here’s a thought – if we, today, are supposedly capable of converting all our energy usage from fossil fuels to renewables, maybe, just maybe…they will be too?

    Nuance isn’t your thing? Nobody think that we can convert all our fossil fuels but if CC is correct , quit digging the hole so fast seems like a good first step. So again, you are forcing them to do what you are unwilling to do, which you find objectionable

    Only better and cheaper, with decades of technological improvement?

    Of course they will have to clean up the mess we left as well as their own

    Through the natural free market process where supply meets demand? In which case, they’ll have the energy and technology to deal with the fact that the world is maybe a degree or two warmer?

    Ah, something we come up, no need to worry.

    Here’s another thought – from 1800 to today, hundreds of millions of Americans MOVED. Without the benefit of our technology. You think future generations will be too stupid and too incompetent to, um, move? because the land is a little different?

    True, there was a vast continent which was lightly occupied. Once we elimated the occupants, we took over. Just curious, how much land is unclaimed? Do forget those poor and undeveloped you were so concerned with earlier, where do they go? Look at the issue with a Syrian refugees and multiply that by all the coastal inhabitants.

    Now you may be correct, all climate scientists are scammers, how are you so sure ?

  43. 43
    vjtorley says:

    Hi everyone,

    Here are some reactions to the movie, Climate Hustle, which was screened recently:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFWgLWv9Q&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=Climate+Hustle&utm_campaign=8b91bdfae4-Jimmy_Kimmel_s_Hu_ling_us5_4_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_06cd33cf7b-8b91bdfae4-270410177

    And here’s a video about a recent paper by a respected climate and weather scientist, Professor Ray Bates, who argues that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be only about 1 degree Celsius, instead of 3 degrees, as most climate scientists currently believe:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MJD5y2Kiw

    Professor Bates’ latest Powerpoint presentation is available online if you Google “Ray Bates pptx”: it’s the fourth entry from the top, and it’s titled, “A Defence of Some Low Observational Estimates of Effective Climate Sensitivity.”

    For another point of view on Professor Bates’ work, see here:

    http://www.thinkorswim.ie/chal.....-in-chief/

    Professor Bates’s criticisms of a draft version of the latest IPCC report, and the IPCC’s responses, can be found here:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch00_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

  44. 44
    vjtorley says:

    Hi PaV,

    Thank you for your comments. Re temperature data being faked, all I will say is that even people like Anthony Watts and climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer admit that global temperatures have been rising for centuries, for various reasons (as you seem to agree), and that much of the increase that has occurred since the late 1970s is man-made.

    You write: “Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even though ‘man-made’ CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere.”

    I’d say that the “pause” is well and truly over, judging from the temperature records since February 2016:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/20.....-71-deg-c/

  45. 45
    asauber says:

    “Anthony Watts and climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer”

    Name dropping isn’t scientific argumentation.

    Andrew

  46. 46
    Limbo says:

    Science has never been based on consensus in the first place. Not sure why the consensus argument is even relevant. If the consensus argument was decisive, then we could say that naturalistic evolution is a slam dunk, which pretty much makes this website pointless.
    As for warming, keep in mind we are in a strong El Nino year, and one year does NOT make a trend (in terms of the end of the warming pause). We need to see how much temps rebound back to what has been a flat line the last few decades.

Leave a Reply