There Are Two Key Points Skeptics Miss Or Something

This comes to us via Vox’s David Roberts, who, though a long confirmed Warmist, who I thoroughly enjoyed over at Grist, is not one of the nasty and/or offensive types. Deluded? Yes. Nasty? No

The two key points that climate skeptics miss

….

1) Climate science represents a convergence of evidence

Why do so many scientists and scientific organizations accept that climate change is real, human-caused, and dangerous?

It’s not because of any single line of evidence or any one prediction. Rather, says Shermer, “there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry — pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase — that all converge to a singular conclusion.” Scientists call this sort of convergence of independent lines of evidence “consilience.” Biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a very good book about it.

Climate denialists — indeed, most people — do not fully grasp the implications of consilience…

Of course, all the Warmists BS boils down to flawed computer models and consensus. If the computer models are failing, then it’s time to look back and find why, adjusting the results and expectations, not changing the data to reflect the desired results. Furthermore, consensus is not hard science.

2) Climate “skepticism” does not

Writes Shermer:

For [climate] skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. … This they have not done.

I’m not sure the disengaged public understands this: Climate skepticism is not an alternative theory. The climate skeptic community is a hodgepodge, a farrago of theories and conspiracies that range all over the map, from sunspots to adjustments in particular temperature data sets to hoaxes by scientists greedy for grant money. There’s no shared alternative framework, just a fixed certainty that the consensus must be wrong.

What’s missing here is that we do not need to disprove anything. It’s up to Warmists to prove the validity of their hypotheses, which they have failed to do. Yes, the world is in a warm phase. Yes, there have been several periods of spiking warmth. Yes, the world has warmed a bit over .8C since 1850. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But, what the Warmists have failed to do is prove this is mostly/solely caused by Human activities, particularly from “carbon pollution”.

“Because we say so” is not evidence.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

45 Responses to “There Are Two Key Points Skeptics Miss Or Something”

  1. Zachriel says:

    You failed to address the point, which was the consilience of evidence from multiple fields of study, and multiple methodologies.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    First, one must assume there is a “consilience of evidence” for CAGW.

    There isn’t.

  3. Phil Taylor says:

    i think for a start they need to tell us what the 20th century adverage temperature is.
    What it is now, and what it will be if we exceed it by 2C.
    The reason they do not do so is because most of the writers of these articles do not know and those who do would never print it as it is only a 100th of a degree or so either way. The same would be valuable if we knew the ice coverage now, a year ago, five years and a decade ago.

    I think any reasonable person would find it hard to believe a small fraction of a degree would be responsible for all the damage that is claimed in it’s name.
    It is because it is being claimed by those who do not know what the temperature actually is and think it is much higher.

    Also, I do not know how acurate the temperature rise is this past century. In 1850 much of the world was undiscovered let alone measured for temperature. As i write this it is likely at leat 2c colder than where you are reading it and extinction is not happening to you yet.

  4. alanstorm says:

    I’m always amused (in a sad sort of way) to read these articles promoting SCIENCE! from “journalists” who know absolutely nada about science except for the popular buzzwords of the day.

    Unfortunately, one can get an “education” w/o learning anything about actual science.

  5. Jeffery says:

    What’s missing here is that we do not need to disprove anything. It’s up to Warmists to prove the validity of their hypotheses, which they have failed to do.

    Sorry, but that’s not how science works. Theories are never proven, so you can’t disprove one, but you do need to falsify the theory. Can you come up with any evidence that falsifies the Theory of AGW? The same way that evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming, the evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.

    Which hypothesis do you want to falsify first? Can you demonstrate that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? That the ground, oceans and atmosphere are not warming?

    Can you or the Minions tell us what evidence WOULD persuade you that CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is causing the Earth to warm? If you don’t know what evidence you’re looking for how will you know if it’s available?

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    Sorry, but that’s not how science works. Theories are never proven, so you can’t disprove one,…

    Nonsense!

    1. The spherical earth theory put forth by Pythagoras.
    2. Hubble’s Law of the expanding universe.
    3. The existence of atoms
    4. The heliocentric solar system

    And so on..

    All theories proven.

  7. Jeffery says:

    You accept the evidence supporting those theories.

    Have you ever seen an atom yourself?

    How do you know the universe is expanding?

    How do you know that the Sun is the center of the solar system?

    You believe these theories because you accept the evidence or the authority.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Oh child, you are so far out of your league I almost pity you.

  9. Phil Taylor says:

    >Can you demonstrate… That the ground, oceans and atmosphere are not warming?

    Yes look at the temperature of the ground, oceans and atmosphere.
    I did and so did you.

    Now subtract that temperature from the 20th Century average to see the degree of warming.

    Now look at the rate of warming (or cooling since C02 started to rise in 1945) What is the difference? Little to know difference. In fact less since C02 really started to rise in the year 2000 and onward.

    So what is the temperature now anyway? What was the temperature of the last century. Surely you know.
    How warm is the ocean and the atmosphere? (barring effects of el Nino)
    Why won’t you tell us?

    >Can you or the Minions tell us what evidence WOULD persuade you that CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is causing the Earth to warm?

    Yes this minion would like the earth to get noticeably warmer.
    This minion would like the C02 climate models to even remotely reflect the actual temperature.
    This minion would like noted climatologists to go on major networks proclaiming that AGW is true.
    This minion would like warmers to stop saying the science is settled on “a theory”
    This minion would like AGW newscasts to include the current temperature as well as the mean temperature of the last century.
    This minion would like the IPCC to be run by scientists, not bureaucrats.
    This minion would like AGW supporters to stop embarrassing themselves by proclaiming outlandish doom and gloom scenarios that make them sound like street corner Armageddon religious nuts.
    This minion would like the U.N. to promote R&D into green energy, instead of bribing poor countries to stay poor by denying them energy to develop their societies.
    This minion would like someone to invent a perpetual motion motor to end this debate and deny the moochers of the world a reason to exploit the worlds poor for their own financial gain.
    This minion would like AGW advocates to voluntarily donate (as an example to the rest of us) 1000.00 a year to IPCC to redistribute to those who do not deserve it and did not earn it.

    This minion would like to know how the third world will spent their booty to stop C02 emmissions when the technology is not there yet for us to do so.
    This minion would like to know why the U.S/Canada will not allow thorium nucular power plants to add to and replace uranium nuclear power plants.
    If you worked on REAL solutions to this so called problem, like green alternatives no one would care but if you focuss most of your energy to use AGW as an excuse to rob the productive, then you have to be a little suspect of the true motives.

  10. Jeffery says:

    N.B. – Few of your criticisms relate to what evidence is needed to “prove” the Theory of AGW.

    Fact: The Earth is warming. At this time, the ONLY plausible mechanism is from the increase in greenhouse gases. If there are other plausible mechanisms, the conservative movement should identify them and support their position with evidence. It IS possible (but unlikely) that a previously unidentified physical mechanism is causing the current warming. Discovering this mechanism and supporting it with evidence could falsify the Theory of AGW. Good luck.

    Fact: The increase in greenhouse gases (mostly CO2, methane) is from human activities.

    Yes this minion would like the earth to get noticeably warmer.

    – The Earth has warmed nearly 1.5F. Noticeably? Humans have difficulty identifying a difference between 25F and 26.5F or between 89F and 90.5F. But the Earth’s climate processes DO respond to changes in the global average surface temperature. This increase of 1.5F, though not noticeable to a human is causing the sea levels to rise, the ice sheets to melt and changes in food production, all effects that humans do and will continue to notice.

    This minion would like the C02 climate models to even remotely reflect the actual temperature.

    – Good, because the models predict the temperature rise. It’s possible you are ignorant of the actual evidence.

    This minion would like noted climatologists to go on major networks proclaiming that AGW is true.

    – Huh? Really? If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like warmers to stop saying the science is settled on “a theory”

    – You misunderstand how science works. Science is never settled, yet as evidence accumulates in support of scientific theory, and no contrary evidence emerges, the theory becomes accepted (but not proven). Almost all climate scientists, and most scientists in general, accept the evidence supporting the Theory of AGW. The same way you accept that the evidence supporting biological evolution is overwhelming (but doesn’t prove the theory), climate scientists and non-conservatives accept the overwhelming evidence in support of the Theory of AGW. Remember, gravity is just a theory, too. If climate scientists stopped saying this would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like AGW newscasts to include the current temperature as well as the mean temperature of the last century.

    – Can you explain to us why you find this critical? If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like the IPCC to be run by scientists, not bureaucrats.

    – Good. Many bureaucrats are trained scientists. If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like AGW supporters to stop embarrassing themselves by proclaiming outlandish doom and gloom scenarios that make them sound like street corner Armageddon religious nuts.

    – Yes, the truth is daunting. If this changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like the U.N. to promote R&D into green energy, instead of bribing poor countries to stay poor by denying them energy to develop their societies.

    – Good. It’s interesting that the conservative movement withheld energy sources from poor countries for a century, but now seem eager to outfit them with nuclear power, wind farms and solar panels! This will take a few trillion dollars. If the UN promoted R&D into green energy, would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like someone to invent a perpetual motion motor to end this debate and deny the moochers of the world a reason to exploit the worlds poor for their own financial gain.

    – Agreed. We should stop those that exploit the world’s poor for financial gain! If this policy was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like AGW advocates to voluntarily donate (as an example to the rest of us) 1000.00 a year to IPCC to redistribute to those who do not deserve it and did not earn it.

    – The angrier you get, the more your ideological bent slips out. This is a common meme with conservatives. Someone else needs to pay first, then I’ll consider it! Would the charity habits of others really change your acceptance of scientific principle? Really? Explain that process please.

    This minion would like to know how the third world will spent their booty to stop CO2 emissions when the technology is not there yet for us to do so.

    – As a responsible conservative, you know that the use of payments by a harmed individual are up to the harmed individual. If you smash your car into another’s car, you do not get to decide what kind of car the person you harmed buys. That said, as we redistribute some of your wealth and mine to the poor countries we’ve harmed and continue to harm, we should hope these nations find ways to remediate the damages we’ve caused. If this was sufficiently explained to you would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    This minion would like to know why the U.S/Canada will not allow thorium nuclear power plants to add to and replace uranium nuclear power plants.

    – I have no idea. If this policy was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    What your list of questions proves once again, is that conservative climate change Deniers “skeptics” hate the social and political consequences of climate change and use arguments against climate science evidence as a tactic.

    Why are you ashamed to just admit that? “Obviously, humans are causing the overall climate of this Earth to change, but we hate where this is leading – government interference on a global scale.”

  11. Jeffery says:

    fluffingpuppies,

    How do you know the universe is expanding?

  12. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: First, one must assume there is a “consilience of evidence” for CAGW.

    To address an argument which points to a concilience of the evidence, you have to address the evidence.

    drowningpuppies: All theories proven.

    In science, all claims are considered tentative, no matter how strongly supported. However, some claims are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

    Ergo, proven.

  14. drowningpuppies says:

    Lil’ jeffy, child, how do you know Reagan invaded Panama? Outta your league, little one.

  15. Jeffery says:

    lil’ fluffypuppy,

    Reagan didn’t invade Panama. Although I acknowledge how important it seems to you.

    You brought up the “proof” of the expanding universe, not me. All I’m asking, in very general terms at that, is what evidence persuades you that the universe is expanding?

    Of course, my point is that the evidence you accept for an expanding universe is likely less robust than the overwhelming evidence in support of the Theory of AGW. I do recognize the conservative mindset that craves “certainty” and “proofs” and “absolutes” – but that’s not how the scientific process works. That also probably answers my previous question as to why there are so few conservative scientists.

    Further, it “proves” that your opposition to the Theory of AGW is political, not scientific. Your anti-science argument is a mere tactic.

    I’m trying to engage you and yours in a rational argument and you answer with vitriol! We understand.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    Reagan didn’t invade Panama.

    So, little one, you’re now admitting that you were wrong when you asserted he did?

  17. drowningpuppies says:

    No, little one, you started this whole diatribe with your assertion that “THEORIES ARE NEVER PROVEN,…”

    Examples were given of proven theories.

  18. Jeffery says:

    “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

    Ergo, proven.

    Sadly, No. At least not in a scientific sense. But it’s quite understandable that you would think that in a non-scientific sense.

    Theories are never formally proven.

    I’ve asked the following question of you and yours many times, “What evidence would you need to see to persuade you that the Theory of AGW is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”?

    If you cannot or will not answer this question, why would you pretend to argue about the science of global warming?

  19. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Ergo, proven.

    Do you understand the term “provisional assent”? It’s not the same as formal proof.

    If a claim is “proven”, then it can’t be overturned by later evidence. In science, all claims can be overturned by new evidence; for instance, Newton’s Theory of Gravity was supplanted by Einstein’s General Relativity. From the other perspective, something that is strongly supported, even while leaving some residual doubt, should still be taken seriously.

  20. drowningpuppies says:

    Keep deflecting.

    AGW has never been empirically measured.
    If it exists, it is simply too small to be measurable.

  21. drowningpuppies says:

    Do you understand the term “provisional assent”? It’s not the same as formal proof.

    Is the earth spherical?
    Is our galaxy heliocentric?
    Do atoms exist?

    Theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses.

  22. Jeffery says:

    fellatingpuppies,

    Reagan didn’t invade Panama.

    So, you’re now admitting that you were wrong when you asserted he did?

    If I typed that Reagan invaded Panama, I fully admit I was factually incorrect, wrong, flawed and imperfect. Is that why you’ve been obsessed with this?

    Why do you conservatives have such difficulty admitting your own mistakes? I think it stems from your basic insecurity living in a complex world. Admitting your mistakes doesn’t imply that everything statement you make is false.

    Maybe now you will briefly review the evidence that proves to your satisfaction that the universe is expanding. And why do you accept that evidence but not the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

  23. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Is the earth spherical?

    Sort of.
    http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

  24. Jeffery says:

    AGW has never been empirically measured.
    If it exists, it is simply too small to be measurable.

    What do you mean? The evidence supporting that the global average surface temperature has increased is solid. Are you suggesting that the Earth is not warming?

    Or are you suggesting that the evidence supporting the link between the demonstrated warming and its likely cause, increased atmospheric CO2 from human activities, is not solid?

  25. drowningpuppies says:

    Are you suggesting that the Earth is not warming?
    NO

    Or are you suggesting that the evidence supporting the link between the demonstrated warming and its likely cause, increased atmospheric CO2 from human activities, is not solid?
    YES

  26. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffery:

    >Fact: The Earth is warming.
    You keep saying that but you do not say what the temperature is? Why? do you not know. Do you believe without knowing?

    > The Earth has warmed nearly 1.5F.
    From what temperature to what temperature?

    >But the Earth’s climate processes DO respond to changes in the global average surface temperature. This increase of 1.5F, though not noticeable to a human is causing the sea levels to rise,

    What is the sea level now and what was it before?

    >the ice sheets to melt

    What is the ice coverage in the arctic now and last year and five years ago and in 1979 the end of the last cold cycle.

    >and changes in food production.

    For the good or bad?

    >This minion would like the C02 climate models to even remotely reflect the actual temperature.
    Good, because the models predict the temperature rise. It’s possible you are ignorant of the actual evidence.

    Yes I am. All AGW climate models show grossly exaggerated levels of rise if AGW was the cause. However, the actual temperature is far below that. A rational person would conclude then the atmosphere is not as sensitive to CO2 as predicted because the world did not warm as predicted. Many highly regarded climatologists conclude that.

    >This minion would like noted climatologists to go on major networks proclaiming that AGW is true.– Huh? Really? If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?
    Wouldn’t hurt. it would remove one red flag of doubt.

    >This minion would like warmers to stop saying the science is settled on “a theory”
    – You misunderstand how science works. Science is never settled, yet as evidence accumulates in support of scientific theory, and no contrary evidence emerges, the theory becomes accepted (but not proven). Almost all climate scientists, and most scientists in general, accept the evidence supporting the Theory of AGW.

    Ok name three.

    >The same way you accept that the evidence supporting biological evolution is overwhelming (but doesn’t prove the theory),

    If I was going to be robbed in it’s name of evolution and charlatans were going to take my money that would be better used to actually help the poor, I would at least read Darwin. Since they are not, I am willing to give the theory the benefit of a doubt and I have experience no glaring red flags in the theory

    >This minion would like AGW newscasts to include the current temperature as well as the mean temperature of the last century.
    – Can you explain to us why you find this critical? If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    It would go a long way to help. It would sound less like propaganda.

    >This minion would like the IPCC to be run by scientists, not bureaucrats.
    – Good. Many bureaucrats are trained scientists. If this was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    Not the Former head of IPCC or the current head. Again this would add credibility to their intentions that it is about CO2 reduction not wealth redistribution. The current head is an expert in wealth redistribution economics.

    >This minion would like AGW supporters to stop embarrassing themselves by proclaiming outlandish doom and gloom scenarios that make them sound like street corner Armageddon religious nuts.
    – Yes, the truth is daunting. If this changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    If they claimed that the temperature may increase slightly, and that we may need to adapt and mention many of the benefits of a warming planet in which there are many, I would be less suspicious.

    >This minion would like the U.N. to promote R&D into green energy, instead of bribing poor countries to stay poor by denying them energy to develop their societies.
    – Good. It’s interesting that the conservative movement withheld energy sources from poor countries for a century, but now seem eager to outfit them with nuclear power, wind farms and solar panels! This will take a few trillion dollars. If the UN promoted R&D into green energy, would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    ***This is the TRILLION dollar question!!! The answer is I would give AGW the benefit of a doubt because money spent this way would have an great benefit to humanity. Lower air and water pollution etc.. My money used for this would be ok. It would be even better it was used with my concent. However, their emphasis is to give this money instead to buy very very expensive dresses to IPCC leadership and money to world leaders to spend as they wish.

    >This minion would like someone to invent a perpetual motion motor to end this debate and deny the moochers of the world a reason to exploit the worlds poor for their own financial gain.
    – Agreed. We should stop those that exploit the world’s poor for financial gain! If this policy was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    I would give AGW a benefit of a doubt despite strong evidence to the contrary.

    This minion would like AGW advocates to voluntarily donate (as an example to the rest of us) 1000.00 a year to IPCC to redistribute to those who do not deserve it and did not earn it.
    – The angrier you get, the more your ideological bent slips out. This is a common meme with conservatives. Someone else needs to pay first, then I’ll consider it! Would the charity habits of others really change your acceptance of scientific principle? Really? Explain that process please.

    >My comment it to demonstrate that those advocating wealth redistribution are always reluctant to step up to the plate first. All socialists who claim the rights to my wallet, will not pay from theirs until we all do. If the cause was so dire they would pay regardless of others. I donate to causes that are important to me. I do not expect others to do the same. Those who advocate AGW have enough money for this cause. Let them pay voluntarily. Let me pay volutarily.

    >This minion would like to know how the third world will spent their booty to stop CO2 emissions when the technology is not there yet for us to do so.
    – As a responsible conservative, you know that the use of payments by a harmed individual are up to the harmed individual. If you smash your car into another’s car, you do not get to decide what kind of car the person you harmed buys. That said, as we redistribute some of your wealth and mine to the poor countries we’ve harmed and continue to harm, we should hope these nations find ways to remediate the damages we’ve caused. If this was sufficiently explained to you would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?

    Answer: You need a trial first. I would love to see AGW on trial. AGW with a good lawyer would demonstrate there is not sufficient proof. I would like to know how the money is to be used to be sufficiently explained. That should be a prerequist. i do not want the money to show up in some despot’s Swiss Bank account.

    >This minion would like to know why the U.S/Canada will not allow thorium nuclear power plants to add to and replace uranium nuclear power plants.
    – I have no idea. If this policy was changed would you accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of AGW?
    Again I would give it the benefit of a doubt despite my knowledge of the topic.

    >What your list of questions proves once again, is that conservative climate change Deniers “skeptics” hate the social and political consequences of climate change and use arguments against climate science evidence as a tactic.
    Why are you ashamed to just admit that? “Obviously, humans are causing the overall climate of this Earth to change, but we hate where this is leading – government interference on a global scale.”

    I am not ashamed to admit this. I do hate the social and political consequences of climate change. Because I am smart enough to know that they will not work even if AGW was true. This ideology never works well.
    Any smart person knows the best way to resolve this is to invest massivly into green energy like thorium nuclear or even nuclear or anything else that works as well as fossil fuels. No conservative rejects this. They reject using AGW as an excuse to to rob others on behalf of the poor.

  27. Jeffery says:

    Here’s the latest draft of the Paris accord:

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

  28. Phil Taylor says:

    Thank you for sending this.
    I will review as soon as I can…

  29. Phil Taylor says:

    “The agreement calls for developed countries to raise at least $100 billion annually in order to assist developing countries.”

  30. Jeffery says:

    “The agreement calls for developed countries to raise at least $100 billion annually in order to assist developing countries.”

    This is 0.1% of annual world GDP and about 1/8th what the US spends each year on “defense”.

    A relative small cost to save humankind.

  31. drowningpuppies says:

    Unfunded financial goals as real as unicorns. Nothing is binding except resubmitting INDCs every five years.

  32. Phil Taylor says:

    > A relative small cost to save humankind.
    It certainly is a small cost to save humankind. But that is not what it will be used for.
    It is a large cost to give to undeserving charlatians and moochers.

    >Unfunded financial goals as real as unicorns. Nothing is binding except resubmitting INDCs every five years.
    Sadly In Canada we have a new majority government and a Prime Minister who is a champaign socialist.
    This deal will be switly passed here. He is a millionaire but he still wants the government to pay for his children’s childcare.
    He lives a mile from his office but he won’t take the bus to work.

  33. Jeffery says:

    > A relative small cost to save humankind.
    It certainly is a small cost to save humankind. But that is not what it will be used for.
    It is a large cost to give to undeserving charlatans and moochers.

    Now, now. Here in the US we have been funneling the productivity and profits from the working classes up to the superwealthy for decades. We have been extracting resources from and dumping our trash in third world nations for decades. We have been injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a century causing present and future harm to poor nations who have NOT been injecting much CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Can you send me to a reputable source discussing the “charlatans and moochers” as you describe them?

  34. Phil Taylor says:

    >We have been extracting resources from and dumping our trash in third world nations for decades.
    Ok pay for that. Oh wait a minute, the U.S has contributed charatable donations to more third world countries than all other countries combined.
    Based on cash. Not GDP.

    What did those leaders do with that money. Help their people, or help themselves. Do i really need to provide evidence of that.
    On story comes to mind on 60 minutes where the U.S paid for (some country) to have an advance tsunami warning system.
    The leader spent it. The tsunami came. People died.

    >We have been injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a century causing present and future harm to poor nations who have NOT been injecting much CO2 into the atmosphere.
    These countries do not even have catalytic converters. Go there and smell the pollution. These societies pollute WAY WAY WAY more than you say they do.

    >Can you send me to a reputable source discussing the “charlatans and moochers” as you describe them?
    They have not mooched yet from AGW other than those countries who pay a carbon tax that is not used to fight AGw. ..but there is lots of articles on charlatans, but you would not accept them. However, i will send you them after you tell me the pre-industrial temperature and the current temperature and three climatologist names. The internet should have this is a simple google search.

  35. Jeffery says:

    Try https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508#temp

    The 20th Century average was 15.6°C (60.1°F).

    The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record. This value surpassed the previous record set in 2014 by 0.09°C (0.16°F).

    If you add 0.88°C to 15.6°C you get 16.5°C as the average for August 2015.

    Are you willing to explain why you find this so important? If you do that, I will explain why climate scientists use anomalies. (Hint: Anomalies are independent of baseline errors of the instruments. If an instrument is stable, regardless of its baseline accuracy, one can obtain an anomaly from baseline over a period of time.)

  36. Phil Taylor says:

    This is for AUGUST. Not the yearly average. We would expect a higher than average temperature for SUMMER in an El Nino year.
    Someone forgot to tell Berkeley, Karl, RSS, UAH. because they disagree.

    >Are you willing to explain why you find this so important?

    Yes. I have many times explained why this is so important. However, I will do so again because you made an attempt to find it.
    By fact checking yourself, you can see for yourself the rate of warming. How would we know if we have exceeded the 4c 2C soon to be 1.5c threshold if you do not know the starting point. Do you just believe? Do you just trust the IPCC whose jobs are based on it being warmer?

    Imagine a discussion on falling oil prices, covered in all the media without them ever mentioning what the current oil price is. Without them ever mentioning what the price used to be. Without them ever mentioning what the available reserves are. Would that not raise a red flag?

    What if the media claimed that we are running out of oil by the end of the decade. Yet instead of talking to geologists who are experts in the oil industry, all we saw on TV were celebreties and politicians claiming we are running out of oil. That we need to TRIPLE oil prices to conserve.
    Some say we are running out and some say we are not. Who do you believe? Simple. No one.
    You find out what the oil reserves are and how much we consume, and then you can see for yourself how soon we will be out. Then you except it or you don’t. But at least you are informed.

    ***If AGW is true then the pre-industrial temperature should be easy to find. The current temperature should be easy to find. But it is not. Why?
    It is easy to find August’s temperature. They don’t need anomalies for that. It is easy to find CO2 levels. Just not the temperature.

    **** if AGW is propaganda based on a theory from the 1980’s that looked to be true but has not stood up to the test of time, then we should see signs to hide this from the public. We would see that it would be hard to find the temperature last century and now. We would see that experts would be shy to add their name to the propaganda campaign, but politicians and celebrities would not be shy because they do not actually know, whereby experts do. We would see that anyone that tries to enlighten the public would be shut down for fear that the word will get out.. We would see scare mongering to get people to comply. If is easy to rob a willling guilt ridden victem. Harder to rob a defiant one.

    If you knew the 20th century temperature. The current temperature, and the ice sea coverage you would not believe. You don’t know, therefore you accept it on faith.
    I do know these temperatures, therefore I don’t believe. But do not take my word for it. Check it out for yourself and tell me the results so that we can compare. I am dying to tell you, but won’t believe me unless you discover it for yourself.

  37. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: You keep saying that but you do not say what the temperature is?

    The Earth’s mean surface temperature is about 16°C. It varies by season, but has been generally increasing.

    “Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    Phil Taylor: A rational person would conclude then the atmosphere is not as sensitive to CO2 as predicted because the world did not warm as predicted.

    The heat contained in the Earth’s surface system has continued to increase. The distribution of heat within the system is chaotic. It is thought that much of the heat of the last few years has been absorbed by the oceans. The current El Niño has pushed warmer waters to the surface, and has led to record mean surface temperature anomalies.

    Phil Taylor: We would expect a higher than average temperature for SUMMER in an El Nino year.

    We would expect the current El Niño to be closer to an average El Niño rather than record high temperatures.

  38. drowningpuppies says:

    The Earth’s mean surface temperature is about 16°C. It varies by season, but has been generally increasing.

    Generally increasing by how much for how long?

    The heat contained in the Earth’s surface system has continued to increase. The distribution of heat within the system is chaotic. It is thought that much of the heat of the last few years has been absorbed by the oceans.

    If the distribution of heat is chaotic why would one think that the oceans have absorbed much of it?

  39. Jeffery says:

    This is for AUGUST. Not the yearly average. We would expect a higher than average temperature for SUMMER in an El Nino year.

    August is summer in the northern hemisphere (half the Earth’s surface).

    Someone forgot to tell Berkeley, Karl, RSS, UAH. because they disagree.

    These datasets disagree that the GLOBAL average in August 2015 was warmer than the 20th Century average?

    Generally increasing by how much for how long?

    Nearly 1C in the past century.

    If the distribution of heat is chaotic why would one think that the oceans have absorbed much of it?

    It’s been measured. It’s a good question to ask about the physical mechanism responsible for the “chaotic” distribution of the heat the Earth is retaining. These mechanisms are under intense study. Why does the Pacific release so much heat into the atmosphere during El Nino? You can see the chaotic nature of surface temperature by looking at a time-temperature chart over the past 30 years or so – Peaks and valleys. But the trend is up. We can identify global events that contribute to the peaks and valleys. Cooler La Nina (Pacific absorbs heat), cooler after major volcanic events (aerosols block solar energy, like the theoretical nuclear winters) and warmer El Ninos. But the trend is up.

  40. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Generally increasing by how much for how long?

    About .13°C/decade since 1950 (NOAA).

    drowningpuppies: If the distribution of heat is chaotic why would one think that the oceans have absorbed much of it?

    A number of reasons. The Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting, and energy is conserved. Studies of ENSO show that the oceans operate as a heat capacitor. Direct measurement shows that the oceans are warming.
    https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

  41. drowningpuppies says:

    The Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting, and energy is conserved.

    But you stated that the distributon of heat is chaotic which one would assume that it is spread throughout the atmosphere.
    However, the troposphere hasn’t warmed significantly for almost 19 years.
    So are we to assume that all of this “excess” heat is being “stored” in the oceans?
    Do the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply?

  42. Phil Taylor says:

    Thank you all for your comments.

    Here is the answer according to NASA. They have the satelittes. NOAA have the bobbers.

    The pre-industrial temperature is thought to be 14c

    The current temperature is thought to be:
    14.6 give or take a 100th of a degree for 2014,
    14.6 give or take a 100th of a degree for 2013
    Slightly cooling since from 2010.
    Now up a bit as a likely result of EL Nino.

    The oceans trapping the heat is a THEORY to explain the lack of warming predicted by climate models.
    However, according to NASA’s website, this theory has yet to be proven.
    Scientists working for NASA has yet to see any significant warming that can be not be attributed to natural viability such as El Nino.
    I know there is propganda to the contrary, but i am using NASA as the source.

    This years El Nino is expected to be bigger than others. As big or bigger than 1998 which was the warmest year on record at 14.7 give or take a 100th of a degree. You cannot assume that this larger El Nino is a result of AGW. Not all El Nino’s are expected to be the same. Some are larger and some are smaller. If AGW was a major contributing factor then the El Ninos of previous years would have been influenced and they were not.

  43. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: But you stated that the distributon of heat is chaotic which one would assume that it is spread throughout the atmosphere.

    Energy is distributed through the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere. The oceans are the greatest heat sink, as water has a high specific density, and is liquid so can transport heat through convection.

    drowningpuppies: However, the troposphere hasn’t warmed significantly for almost 19 years.

    The troposphere has warmed 0.12°C/decade since 1979 (RSS), when satellites have been observing the atmosphere. The tropospheric temperature has plateaued, but ocean heat has continued to accumulate.

    drowningpuppies: So are we to assume that all of this “excess” heat is being “stored” in the oceans?

    We don’t have to assume. We can measure the increased ocean heat content.
    https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    drowningpuppies: The oceans trapping the heat is a THEORY to explain the lack of warming predicted by climate models.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HeatBucket/Images/ocean_heat.gif

  44. drowningpuppies says:

    Good job, Phil.
    Thanks.

  45. Zachriel says:

    Misattributed the last comment.

    Phil Taylor: The oceans trapping the heat is a THEORY to explain the lack of warming predicted by climate models.

    We don’t have to assume. We can measure the increased ocean heat content.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HeatBucket/Images/ocean_heat.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 5315 access attempts in the last 7 days.