Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 101 to 150:
-
Nick Palmer at 06:49 AM on 7 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
Does anyone have a reference for the claim that Lindzen has used the 'God wouldn't let us wreck our climate' argument. I knew both John Christie and Roy Spencer have very strong religious beliefs which makes them kind of believe that God wouldn't let us do it, which colours their views, but I've never heard anything similar about Lindzen.
In any event, I think it's unfair to characterise Lindzen as a denialist because his basic position is that he "accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming."
This is his hypothesised 'Iris effect'. This is why he believes that climate sensitivity is about 1/3 that of the figures 'IPPC science' works with. If he's right, then global warming genuinely will not be a problem. He often phrases his rhetoric to assert that 'science shows' that the sensitivity is a lot less than the IPCC's, but he's usually referring to his own papers and sort of implies that science generally supports him - but it's just his own views about clouds in the tropics.
Moderator Response:[BL] According to Wikipedia, Richard Lindzen has signed onto the Cornwall Alliance's evangelical statements. Web searches provide a variety of hits indicating a strong connection with the Cornwall Alliance.
-
nigelj at 04:23 AM on 7 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
KR said: " I wonder, at this point, whether the reward for such denial is financial (I don't think either has published much recently), ideological (against government control/pro libertarian), or just consistency with past assertions?"
The denialism may be a mixture of all three motinations. Humans often have multiple motivations for a particular action or view. This is a basic finding of psychology.
We humans are reductionist we prefer a simple singular explanation. Occams Razor being the formalisation of this broadly saying that the simplest explanation for an event that can explain all the facts is usually correct. But with human behaviour the simplest explanation that works is sometimes a not so simple.
And I think you can add more motivations for climate science denialism. Religious beliefs and extreme attention seeking. And unusual stubborness. Some people have a big narcissistic ego so it becomes difficult and downright painful to admit they are wrong or made a mistake so people hold onto absurd beliefs their whole lives. Of course we are all egotistical but most of us are capable of admitting we made a mistake. People at the extreme end of the ego spectrum have a huge problem walking back from their views. They are unusually stubborn.
And some people are super smart and over confident so they believe they just cannot be wrong. But everyone is fallible
Of course its hard to know precisely what motivates Lindzen but the evidence suggests it may be some sort of combination of money and religion and I reckon over confidence and attention seeking.
When reading denialists comments and getting in discussions with them a large number do seem to have very strong libertarian leaning anti government regulation ideologies, so denying the science is an obvious strategy to prevent governments control. Nick Palmer is right.
I dont like accusing people of lying. Its hard to know if they are lying because lying means deliberately spreading falsehoods that they know are falsehoods. Sometimes they are just mistaken. Genuine lying does happen of course and can sometimes be proven, but in scientific issues its tricky to prove because scientifc findings have error bars and theories are not the same as facts. So someone like Lindzen may really believe his numbers are the truth. I think hes more in the delusional category. Hes certainly spreading "miss"information.
-
Eclectic at 22:29 PM on 6 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
Plincoln @4 :
Lindzen may be the exception, indeed. IIRC, roughly 19 years ago [aged 65?] he gave an interview where seemingly his fundamental denialism was on the religious basis that Yahweh would prevent the Earth's climate deviating from the Eden-like state. Doubtless Lindzen's viewpoint would also be reinforced by the usual political and/or motivated reasonings of the true Denialist.
Yes, Lindzen had received some small payments/stipends from the usual industry suspects. Interestingly, the psychologists say that small payments of cash or other benefits, can have a remarkably strong effect on the mindset of recipients.
Happer and the other elderly Denialists ~ in which I include the youthful [mid-70's] Koonin ~ seem to have the more typical mishmash of ego/Emeritus-Syndrome/wingnut/etcetera distortions of logic as well as a deficiency in Charity.
But I guess we should update the traditional virtue of Charity, to be re-named as Empathy.
Moderator Response:[BL] A note to all participating in this thread: please try to avoid inflammatory accusations such as deceit, etc.
Lindzen was a well-respected meteorologist and did some good work early in his career. Happer was a well-respected physicist. Both have wandered away from good science in their positions on climate change, but they do not deserve having us ignore the SkS Comments Policy statements against accusations of deception, etc.
-
plincoln24 at 21:33 PM on 6 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
I was not aware of these interviews where Happer and Lindzen are straight up lying to the public. They are lying about the most elementary facts that any climate scientist should have under control. This is extremely frustrating. To my knowledge Mr. Lindzen is supposed to be a climate scientist, but I am not sure about Happer. I have to wonder if they are being paid for their dishonesty.
-
Nick Palmer at 21:26 PM on 6 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
KR#2
"ideological (against government control/pro libertarian), or just consistency with past assertions"
I don't think such pathological scepticism is motivated by money, at least, not directly. I find most nowadays is strongly ideologically based and caused by what Katharine Hayhoe calls being "solutions averse". This is that they don't like the solutions offered up, such as distributed wind and solar and 'Big Goverment'/Internationalist type restrictions, so intensely that they choose denialism as a strategy to head off restrictions on 'freedom' etc.
I've had some success arguing with the most extreme by pointing out how virtually unanimous the science is about the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and then asking them why, instead of embracing denialist propaganda as a political strategy, they didn't come up with alternative 'free market' type solutions. Most actually shut up...
-
Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
Same old nonsense from the same few denialists. I wonder, at this point, whether the reward for such denial is financial (I don't think either has published much recently), ideological (against government control/pro libertarian), or just consistency with past assertions?
It's certainly not based on facts. At all.
-
prove we are smart at 08:22 AM on 6 November 2025Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer
It was easy for me to comprehend that if you really wanted to understand the truth about anything, why not listen to a variety of sources. Use critical thinking to look for biases, including your own and choose experts/scientists to get the information.
Believe your opinion can be changed if new facts/information thoughtfully assessed becomes available. I used to think this miracle of the internet/social media would finally enlighten and connect us all- man, I'm not such a naive fellow now.
Education can set you free, I guess the opposite is true too. With the quality of the elected rulers in many cosplay democracies hitting rock bottom, this might help explain why such corrupted mainly right wing influences are believed and increasingly so. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBRVvkKre1E
-
Eclectic at 21:11 PM on 5 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
Belated apologies.
Major typo (or brain flatulence?).
@153 should read : "... paper must fit in the 'warming' category."
And nowhere near "neutral" category.
-
Eclectic at 19:30 PM on 5 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
Angusmac @152 :
I have been following your commentary, and that of your respondents.
From what you have quoted @152, that paper points to two scenarios ~ (A) a major/colossal decrease in the solar constant, versus (B) ongoing industrial activities, as was already evident at the time of the paper.
Since (B) was the scenario actually taking place, and (A) was not in evidence (nor expected) . . . then surely one must deduce that the paper must fit in the "cooling" category.
Have I misunderstood your position?
Moderator Response:[BL] I agree with your take on this (subject to your correction of "cooling" to "warming", as indicated in your next comment). Angusmac's table linked in his first post explicitly indicates that he disagrees with the PCF-08 evaluation of Sellers (1969). PCF-08 said "warming", while angusmac says "neutral".
To claim that PCF-08 is wrong, angusmac needs to evaluate using the same criteria: a time scale of decades to centuries. If he is to gain any credibility, he needs to outline where in Sellers (1969) he finds support to argue that Sellers thought that the solar constant would decrease by this amount (or any amount) over the next century. To paraphrase Law and Order" "Objection your honour. Assumes facts not in evidence."
-
angusmac at 15:46 PM on 5 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
I will attempt to work through your comments but, firstly, I reply that the Sellers (1969) paper should be considered to be neutral because it states that the "major conclusions" are:
- “…that a decrease of the solar constant by 2-5% would be sufficient, to initiate another ice age”.
- “and that man's increasing industrial activities may eventually lead to the elimination of the ice caps and to a climate about 14C warmer than today”.
I fail to se why any rational person could not view the Sellers paper as being anything except neutral since it concluded that its model could be either “another ice age” or “14C warmer than today”. Both of these outcomes were “specified so as to be physically realistic”.
Consequently, I contend that I have not mischaracterized Sellers (1969).
Moderator Response:[BL] Wow. Talk about selective reading. Let's put in more text from Sellers (1969), not your cherry-picked partial quote. At the start of his section "Variations in the solar constant" (p397), we see (emphasis added):
"One of the favorite theories of climatic change during the last million years attributes the ice ages to variations in the intensity of solar radiation..."
At the end of the section (p398), Sellers says:
"...the model seems to indicate quite conclusively that a decrease in the solar constant of less than 5% would be sufficient to start another ice age."
The whole purpose of his examination of changes in solar constant was to look at possible explanations of known past variations in climate, over long time periods. Absolutely nowhere in the paper does Sellers suggest that such a decrease in the solar constant was likely to happen in the decades or century following the 1970s.
I fail to see how any rational person could confuse "millions of years" with "decades to a century".
Consequently, I contend that you either are incapable of understanding what Sellers (1969) has done and written, or you are intentionally ignoring the aspect of the PCF-08 paper that specified that the evaluation of the Sellers (1969) paper (and all papers they evaluated) was based on "time scales from decades to a century".
You are changing the criteria for evaluation to one that is different from PCF-08. We have yet to see exactly what your criteria are. The NoTricksZone analysis did exactly the same shifting of goal posts that you are doing here.
-
Cedders at 09:53 AM on 5 November 2025CO2 is just a trace gas
I'm surprised that this argument is so low on the popularity list, 77 out of 200. Possibly it’s more common offline: meeting some contrarians at real-life events (stalls etc), it’s practically what opens the conversation when you are pegged as one of the climate-concerned. ‘I bet you can’t tell me the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.’
If you express an answer in parts per million, or perhaps as two million million tonnes, then they will want it converted to a percentage (even though most of the atmosphere is transparent to infra-red, and it’s the amount rather than proportion of greenhouse gases that determines the greenhouse effect). 0.043% sounds negligible somehow, perhaps because of common uses of percentages in polling or economics or pay rises. Without empirical knowledge of effects of a substance in a small proportion, people can fall back on what seems like a reasonable guess.
An underlying assumption by people stressing concentrations seems to be that if people knew CO₂ was ‘a trace gas’, they wouldn’t be concerned about climate change, and so the way most people can’t answer in percentage terms means that they are ignorant about the subject matter, or have been manipulated. (The conversation may then proceed to ‘life flourished in the Jurassic because of higher CO₂’ myth, about as accurate as One Million Years BC with Raquel Welch, or combine several misunderstandings into one sentence or question.)
So, supporting the large effects of trace substances argument, and as some people reject the ‘poison’ or ‘alcohol’ analogy as too indirect, I’d like to post this table. If comparisons across the electromagnetic spectrum are somehow valid, then 0.043% turns out to be a lot.
-
Cedders at 05:36 AM on 5 November 2025CO2 is just a trace gas
Bob Loblaw @60: "As for JJones idea that CO2 in trace amounts can't absorb enough radiation, there are commercial CO2 gas analyzers that are designed to measure CO2 by measuring the amount of IR radiation it absorbs, and they can do this on very small quantities of air."
Indeed I've bought an air quality meter for about $10 online, which uses non-dispersive infra-red (filters) to detect carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds. It takes a minute to literally warm up, and is of course nowhere near as accurate as the infra-red equipment scientists use to measure CO₂, but it will at least detect breath, poor ventilation and includes a hygrometer.
Whether actual hands-on experience of such things will help someone accept radiative physics is one question. And whether finding that kind of evidence against the most convenient rationalisation available changes wider world-view about who is responsible for climate change is a different one.
Scaddenp @61 : "I am interested in how people build up their mental models, and how we update these mental models as new information is presented."
(digression) So am I, although I often find it hard to persuade people to share their reasoning, particularly if they are quickly on the defensive. I think humans in general do some 'hill-climbing' in their professed beliefs, aiming at local maxima of practical, satisfactory narrative. New information may change the landscape, but people only move their position slightly, rather than doing the tiring cognitive work of re-evaluating the bigger picture. Hence why goalposts are moved and people rapidly move on to the next myth.
One thing I do find is quite common among contrarians in real life (besides an understandable but exaggerated distrust of authority that is a mirror image of acceptance of consensus) is a simplistic version of Popper's falsificationism. Here's apparent evidence why climate science is wrong, and that is enough to disprove it. (Some do then accrete other supporting arguments.) This mischaracterised epistemology is something to apply to any scientific 'hypothesis' that may have been painted as inconvenient or costing money or jeopardising worldview, but from my experience they use a more common-sense Bayesianism for everyday life.
To JJones @48, one could add that 'a significant amount of heat' is radiated from Sun to Earth and Earth to space. If the latter is mostly in the form of long-wave infra-red, and carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infra-red, where does the 'heat energy' go? And then maybe explain emission layer displacement in simple terms.
-
Riduna at 09:58 AM on 4 November 2025Climate change strengthened Hurricane Melissa, making the storm’s winds stronger and the damage worse.
1.2C =1.2F ! ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Hmmmm. Some sort of gremlin in the matrix. The original at Yale Climate Connections says "1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5°F) warmer than average". We'll have to try and fix that.
[2025-11-04] It's been fixed!
-
kootzie at 04:32 AM on 4 November 2025It's the sun
I am semi-active on Research Gate and elsewhere and doing my bit to [snip]
swat and bitch-slap denialists as they emit their oral-methane emissions to contaminate the discussions and spread anti-science drivel
I notice that the likes of
D*n P*rn
H. D*s L*oot
J*k Br*n
and others regularly engage in denialist mis-information
I notice that none of them appear to be significant enough to
merit (or dis-merit) inclusion in your rogues galleryTheir latest drivel stream purports that not only does increased atmospheric CO2 concentration not contribute ANY increase in global average temperatures, that CO2 does not have any effect on GAT at all.
They claim that WV aka Water Vapour, is a far more potent GHG
(which is arguably a defensible proposition) but that WV is the ONLY
GHG which has ANY effect on temperature, and ipso-facto ergo QED
anthropogenic Global Warming does not exist - its all on the natch.They regularly mis-interpret mis-comprehend mis-represent physics.
They fundamentally deny that CO2, a non-condensible GHG with a long lifespan drives global temps and insist that WV, a condensible GHG with a short lifespan is not merely a feedback / feedforward mechanism but the fundamental / ONLY driver.https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-vol-20-20-wis.z78fQn.WeNzqnj5Kkg#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-the-error-7ZbX2nqyRgGc19k2y45u_Q#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-paraphras-Lrr7UYOjQAitC93qUR10EA#1https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_environmental_protection_and_biodiversity_be_improved_by_using_current_ecological_technologies#view=6908dd880ea281189c0a137f/312/313/312
Moderator Response:[BL] Your words are:
- Inflammatory
- Off-topic
Please read the Comments Policy before commenting again.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:10 AM on 3 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
Here is another one, figuring as "confirmed cooling": Borisov (1969)
Only the abstract comes up: "Soviet climatologists are vitally concerned with the problem of ameliorating the climate of Siberia and other northern lands as a means of developing these regions for an expanding population. P. M. Borisov, a candidate in geographic sciences, Moscow, examines one means of warming the climate by the transport of Atlantic Ocean water across the Arctic Basin. This could be done by pumping water out of the Arctic Ocean at the Bering Strait, thus accelerating the flow of warmer Atlantic water into the basin. Flow direction would be controlled by means of a dam across the Bering Strait. Borisov predicts dramatic improvement in Arctic climate would result. Huge areas of permafrost would be freed for agriculture in northern Canada and Siberia. Grass would grow in the Sahara Desert. This article, appearing first in the Soviet journal, Priroda, was translated by the Canadian Defence Research Board. It is reprinted here through the courtesy of the Board and by special permission of the editors of Priroda." I don't see how this paper makes a prediction that future global climate will be cooling.
I think I am done with this little list of "papers."
Moderator Response:[BL] It has taken the SkS team a bit of time to response to angusmac's comment 146, but we have finally added a moderator's note to his comment. We agree that his comment and attached database of papers has little merit, and have noted some of the weaknesses you present in your series of comments (147-151). Of particular note is the lack of any explanation regarding criteria used to define "warming", "cooling" and "neutral".
You (Philippe) have dug further into the database angusmac has presented than I did. I only chose one paper to look at in detail: Sellers (1969), JAM 8, 392-400. I chose this for two reasons:
- It is the first paper in the provided link that angusmac changed from "warming" (in the original PCF-08 paper) to "neutral" (angusmac's classification)
- It is a paper that I am very familiar with, having first encountered it in the 1970s when it was still a rather new paper. Coincidentally, the 1970s is also the time period in questions with respect to the views of the climate science community.
angusmac is fooling himself in thinking that Sellers (1969) represents a neutral position on predictions of climate change in the decades to century that covers the period of interest - i.e., the period that represents "imminent cooling" as of the 1970s, as addressed in the myth in this rebuttal (and the PCF-08 paper).
The Sellers paper present a new, simple one-dimensional (zonally-averaged) climate model. Sellers then examines how this model reacts to several hypothetical changes in input conditions:
- Removing the arctic ice cap
- A decrease of the solar constant by 2-5%
- Human industrial activities. This includes two effects: waste heat accumulating in the earth-atmosphere system, and the effects of changing atmospheric infrared transmissivity - also known as the greenhouse effect.
Only one of those hypothetical changes is considered to be something that Sellers expected to change in the short term: atmospheric CO2. His paragraph on this matter ends with "Hence, the global mean temperature should slowly rise due to this factor." None of the other factors that Sellers examined in his model represent any sort of prediction of trends likely to happen in the decades or century following the 1970s.
Given angusmac's mischaracterization of Sellers (1969) I did not see any value in digging further.
Readers that end up here without reading the moderator's comment to angusmac's post 146 should take a look at the following two SkS posts, which discuss the problems associated with NoTrcksZone's database of "cooling" papers. Unfortunately, angusmac has used NoTricksZone's database as a primary source for his own analysis.
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-II.html
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:59 AM on 3 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
As I look further, my skepticism increases, although I may have mistaken some papers as cooling when they say neutral. In fact, they are likely neither, or irrelevant. Another example: Eichenlaub (1970) This one is strictly about Lake effect snow events in the Great lakes region, makes no claim about global climate and contains these words in the conclusion section: "While this increase in lake effect snowfall cannot, as yet, be ascribed to any single cause, a tendency toward colder winters recently in
southwestern Michigan may be partially responsible for the upward trend in that area. Further evidence is needed before valid conclusions can be drawn regarding the role of air pollution in this climatic change."This paper was an attempt at finding possible causes to a recent past change in a specific region. It makes no mention at all of global climate, or any forecast of future trends, and stops short at stating anything with any level of certainty.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 3 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
I have to confess an error: I was trying to click on the Wahl and Lawson 1970 link (which is broken} and instead went to the Battan piece, which supposedly discusses "pros and cons of geoengineering" and is "confirmed neutral. Here is the "paper" that supposedly is "confirmed" to be neutral:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/51/11/1520-0477_1970_051_1030_sospow_2_0_co_2.xml
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:34 AM on 3 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
To elaborate on the previous post, I'll add that I was somewhat lucky in being able to access that "paper" at my first try. Multiple other attempts on different pieces led to broken links or paywalls. One paywalled let me read a first page that did not suggest it was taking a strong position on forecasting future trends.
Another one was accessible but hardly relevant: "Summary of Soviet publications on weather modification." It nonetheless contained this bit: "Budyko, Drozdov and Yudin (1966) stated that in
less than 200 years the heat released by man's activities will have a greater influence on climate change than solar radiation changes." I recommend reading through it so that nobody accuses me of cherry picking. The bulk of it is about cloud seeding for agricultural purposes. Some parts reflect the insane arrogance of the Soviet approach to inhabiting this planet, especially the getting rid of Arctic ice ideas near the end. A fun read, but it's still hard to see how it could be construed as a research paper forecasting cooling of the Earth climate.I am not sure I will have the patience to continue wading through this. So far, I am profoundly unimpressed with this "57 cooling papers" claim.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:12 AM on 3 November 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
So far, it is difficult to take seriously the classification proposed in that "database." I have taken random samples and I can not understand what criteria are used to declare that a particular piece can be said to point to future climate cooling rather than warming.
Example, the first I decided to look into: "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change", George S. Benton. This was published in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 898-899, October 1970. However, it is not at all a research paper. It is a short summary of basic principles intended for a symposium, as it says in the header: "Contributed to the Symposium on Aids and Threats from Technology, April 29, 1970." The intent is to attract attention to the fact that Earth climate needed to be better understood. In the paper, it says things like:
"The effect of carbon dioxide is to increase the earth's temperature by absorbing outgoing terrestrial radiation. Recent numerical studies have indicated that a 10% increase in carbon dioxide should result, on the average, in a temperature increase of about 0.3OC at the earth's surface. The present rate of increaseof 0.7 ppm per year would therefore (if extrapolated to 2000 A.D.) result in awarming of about 0.60C-a very substantial change."
Interestingly, this prediction was very close to what actually happened. The rest of the letter goes on to review other factors affecting climate, such as aerosols, including that from volcanic activity, solar irradiance, and others. It concludes with these words: "Some years from now, man will control his climate, inadvertently or advertently. Before that day arrives, it is essential that scientists understand thoroughly the dynamics of climate. Only by such an understanding and by active intervention can man assure himself in the long run that this planet will continue to be a suitable place to live."
The only little tidbit that would fit the "it points to cooling" narrative would be this: "In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.60C; from 1940to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C." This is an accurate factual statement but is not used has having any bearing on predicting future trends, and the letter does not even make the claim of having a clear explanation for it, although aerosols are cited as likely contributors.
Citing this piece as scientific work predicting future cooling of the Earth climate is downright mendacious.
-
angusmac at 11:41 AM on 30 October 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
This SkS rebuttal appears to be incorrect because the enclosed database of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period shows that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (see Figure 1).
The consensus was 65% for the whole period but greatly outnumbered the warming papers by 3.4-to-1 during the 1968-1975 period, when there were 57 cooling papers (77%) compared with 17 warming (26%).
The supposed SkS rebuttal has placed too much reliance on Petersen et al, 2008 (PCF-08) However, it appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.
I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, my review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming (refer to enclosed database.
I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
Database of Cooling Neutral and Warming Papers 1965-1979.pdf
Moderator Response:Thank you for your comment. The SkS policy is to encourage discussion of the points raised in our material, including correction of errors. Please note, however, that we do put a lot of emphasis on analysis that is presented in the scientific literature. This is outlined in the opening paragraph of the Comments Policy.
Now, as to the details of the information you present in your comment. The PDF file that you link to provides a list of papers, along with your opinion as to whether they represent a warming, cooling, or neutral position. Your file gives no indication as to your search criteria for generating a list of papers to consider, or your methodology for assessing the position taken in the paper. You have not even given a clear indication of exactly what question you are trying to answer. What is a “cooling paper”? What distinguishes it from a “warming paper” or a “neutral paper”?
Depending on search criteria, it is quite possible that a general search produces hits that don’t even address the question that you are trying to ask. Depending on your search criteria and assessment rules, it is very easy to introduce bias in your results. Without details on your methods, it is impossible for a reader to assess your methodology or the validity of your results – or to duplicate your analysis. This is essential in order to determine whether your opinion has any scientific merit.
The Peterson et al (2008) paper (PCF-08, using your abbreviation) does all of the above. It expresses a clear question: was there a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (p1326). Note that there are four essential aspects of this:
- The views during the time period of the 1970s
- The views on global cooling or a full-fledged ice age.
- That such a change in climate is imminent.
- That the question is intended to address the future trend of climate, not historical observations
PCF-08 also explains how they performed their literature search (which included a citation analysis). They also explain that they restricted their analysis to papers that projected or discussed climate change on time scales from decades to a century. Note that they stated “While some of these articles make clear predictions of global surface temperature changes by the year 2000, most of them do not.” (See their section “Survey of the peer-reviewed literature”, pp1329-1330.) This is why it is essential that any analysis express clearly both their search criteria and their method of assessing the papers. Just because a paper shows up in a search does not mean that the paper addresses the research question.
With this in mind, it is worth pointing out that papers that discuss observed cooling trends prior to 1970, or ice age predictions thousands of years in the future, or local trends are not applicable to the PCF-08 analysis.
Now, we are also aware that you already know most of this, as you have a blog post from 2018 at your web site that provides more background on your analysis. You didn’t think it worth providing a link to your blog post, so we won’t either. In that blog post, you state that you include a large amount of literature sourced from Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone. The figure you have provided in your comment here seems to be the same as the one in your blog post, so we conclude that you have not done any further analysis since your 2018 blog post.
As a result of your literature search methodology, your analysis will suffer from any weaknesses in Kenneth Richard’s analysis – you are using his data. Skeptical Science has assessed the work at NoTricksZone in a pair of 2018 blog posts:
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-II.html
In short, the NoTricksZone (NTZ) suffers from many weaknesses and errors, and is not a reliable source of information relevant to the accuracy of PCF-08. No indication of search criteria, and it includes papers as late as 1989 – so far beyond the 1970s period in question. NTZ includes papers that look at pre-1970 cooling trends – so not predictions of future change at the decades to century scale. It appears to include papers that may look at local historical trends – so not projections of future climate change.
But you are also aware of those SkS posts, as someone pointed you to them in comments on your blog in 2022. You dismiss those SkS posts related to NTZ on your blog with nothing more than a wave of the hand.
So, we have no reason to think that your criticism of this SkS myth rebuttal has any more merit that the weak NTZ analysis.
Should you disagree with the SkS summary of the NTZ analysis, please post those criticisms on the relevant post where they will be on topic, as linked above.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:05 AM on 26 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
Link to Wikipedia Doublespeak Award I failed to include in my comment @9.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:03 AM on 26 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
prove we are smart @4,
Mallen Baker’s presentation definitely helps understand ‘The Problem’. Developing sustainable improvements requires a proper thorough understanding of ‘The Problem’.
However, I think the ‘Right to Lie and related claims that it is justified Free Speech’ is just a more extreme version of Doublespeak. And Doublespeak has been a Problem, of varying degrees of severity, for as long as humans have been competing for perceptions of superiority and related pursuits of leadership influence. (links to Wikipedia items for Doublespeak and Doublespeak Awards - note that the 2005 Award was given to "Philip A. Cooney, for editing scientific reports to deceive the public about the nature of global warming and climate change and of the Bush Administration's negligence in dealing with these issues.")
The efforts of misleaders to benefit from Doublespeak amp-up in absurdity as the general population gains increased awareness and improved understanding regarding matters. Those who unjustifiably obtained perceptions of superior status via harmful unsustainable misleading actions have to double-down on their Doublespeak.
An example of the doubling-down of Double-speaking is the following (related to my comment @6):
CBC News item: Danielle Smith affirms Alberta's 2050 net-zero goal at testy committee appearance.
The following is a selected quote from the article:
“Her virtual appearance included testy exchanges as Bloc Quebecois MP Patrick Bonin repeatedly demanded to know whether Smith believes in climate change. She suggested that as a Quebecer, he could not grasp the substance of one of Canada's biggest industries.
Bonin repeatedly asked the premier whether she agreed the climate is warming up, and if human activity is primarily the cause.
Smith initially dodged the questions — first by talking about forest management practices, then by diving into Alberta's 2050 emission reduction plan. She and Bonin continually talked over each other as she repeated her points and he continually insisted she was not answering his question.
The exchange got so boisterous, Liberal chair Angelo Iacono was forced to interject to bring things back under control.
Bonin finally got an answer when he asked Smith to state "yes or no" whether she believes the climate is warming.
"Yes," she said.
Smith then said she agreed humans are contributing to climate change but wouldn't say it's the main factor driving it.
"I don't know the answer to that. I'm not a scientist. But we do know we need to get to carbon neutral by 2050 and we have a plan to do that," Smith said.
Later, after Bonin asked Smith if Alberta knew whether its plan to double oil and gas production would affect its 2050 net-zero target, Smith questioned his knowledge of the sector.It is important to understand that although the need to reduce global warming emissions from Alberta, ultimately having no impact by 2050, was understandable well before the 2015 Paris Agreement, there has been no measurable action by the industry in Alberta towards that reduction (there has been limited government subsidized carbon capture).
It is also undeniable that wealthier portions of the current global population, like the portion benefiting from extraction and export of Alberta’s fossil fuels, need to minimize how harmful their actions are as they transition towards ending their harmfulness. The total amount of harm done is the important measure, not a promise to maybe-end the harmfulness at some ‘Future date’ like the claim to be ‘Net-Zero by 2050'.
Net-Zero may not actually be ‘harmless’. Double-speakers will just claim they are harmless, claim that they are not the problem, and/or claim that others are the problem.
Also reduction of impact now is more beneficial than reduction later.
As a worst case example, rapidly doubling the rate of Alberta oil and gas export but doing nothing to reduce the emissions, then shutting it all down in 2050 would theoretically meet the promise (the Promise is not a Lie).
The worst case for the future of humanity is Doublespeak continuing to be successful. Hopefully, the Welsh Senedd will act in a way that triggers the beginning of significant action to sustainably limit the success of Double-speakers trying to maximize their benefit from being harmful.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:55 PM on 24 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
The following article supplements the Alberta Government item I linked at the end of my comment @6: CBC News -Alberta throne speech pledges new pipelines and a boost for artificial intelligence
In addition to arguing against an emissions cap that would limit the harm done by Alberta’s pursuit of benefit from extracting and exporting fossil fuels, particularly the oil sands, the Alberta government has presented other objectives. They deny that they have any obligation to limit the global harm done by their pursuit of benefit from exporting fossil fuel resources. The following are quotes from the article:
…the speech outlining the provincial government’s agenda says it has been successful at convincing the rest of Canada of the importance of selling Alberta’s natural resources and recommits the province to doubling oil and gas production by an unspecified timeline.
...
“Alberta is winning and will continue to win this battle for our freedom and provincial rights – because your government believes we are on the right side of history and Albertans will not be denied their prosperous future,” the speech says.
…
Although (Premier) Smith did not point to a specific international agreement Canada had signed that Alberta wished to opt-out of, she said timelines to meet climate goals the federal government "arbitrarily arrived at" have harmed Alberta's economy.They also want a new pipelines to increase the rate of oil sands export. A pipeline to the northern BC coast would negatively impact BC and many First Nations groups. The Alberta Government would need to obtain agreement from all affected parties. Instead of doing that they have tried to claim that the opportunities for BC to benefit from its coastal resources are not BC opportunities. Supposedly the BC coast is Canada’s coast, not BC’s. And Alberta’s leaders try to claim that the Federal government needs to force the pipeline onto the affected parties (CBC News: Alberta will need B.C. government’s support to build proposed pipeline: energy minister). Of course that way of arguing also means the oil sands in Alberta are not Alberta’s resource, they are Canada’s eh?
Being reasonable and developing sustainable Common Sense understanding are not strengths of Alberta’s leadership-of-the-moment, no matter how many times they claim they are being reasonable or claim their beliefs are Common Sense.
And, picking a rotten cherry to put on top of that harmful misleading nonsense, following the lead of other harmful misleaders pursuing personal economic benefit who ‘unjustifiably attack others, especially immigrants’, there is the following:
“Using Alberta’s constitutionally protected provincial rights, the government of Alberta will return to a more stable number of primarily economic migrants, so that newcomers come here to work and contribute as they have historically done, while Canadian citizens living in Alberta are given first priority to the social programs, jobs and opportunities our economy creates,” the speech says.
Historically, many refugees and poorer immigrants have started their lives in Canada in Alberta.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:26 AM on 24 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
A couple of minor corrections and clarifications:
- My comment @6 is to Nick Palmer @5,
- In my comment @3: I ahve now downloaded the book and see that it is presented as 13 chapters. The Chapter numbers match the numbering in the SUmmary.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:19 AM on 24 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
Nick Palmer @3,
It is indeed unfortunate that there was insufficient UK leadership support for action to limit the ability of leadership competitors to benefit from being harmfully misleading.
Hopefully the people pursuing meaningful action to limit the success of harmful misleaders will be able to develop a good example in the Welsh Senedd.
Reading the items I linked, especially the 2025 February: Welsh Parliament: Standards of Conduct Committee: Individual Member Accountability - Deliberate deception document, indicate that this is a complex issue needing rigorous Reasonable Common Sense evaluation by all involved.
A particularly challenging aspect is making it very difficult for a misleader to abuse a provision that ‘allows misleading action that is deemed to be in the National (or regional) Interest’. There are many examples, in the past as well as daily today, of harmful misleaders claiming their actions are justified by 'the need to protect the National/Regional Interest’.
In Alberta, Canada, where I live, the current government (and previous governments) misleadingly argue(d) against action to limit climate change harm that would ‘reduce the ability of Alberta to benefit from extraction and export of fossil fuel resources’. As an example, the current government is arguing against a cap on harmful emissions from oil sands operations:
Alberta Government Document:
Alberta's response to the federal oil and gas emissions cap : Government of Alberta technical submission -
Nick Palmer at 20:11 PM on 23 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
OPOF #3
Sadly, the UK Parliament's Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill 2022-23 was a Private Member's Bill that did not complete its passage and has not become law.
-
prove we are smart at 19:53 PM on 23 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
The right to lie, listen to how we got here and this USA disease intentionally causing a divided populous. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czk9QF3nLfU
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:07 PM on 23 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
wilddouglascounty @1,
I downloaded and read the ‘Book Summary’ last week. This book was presented in last week’s Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2025 (it is the first item in the ‘From this week's government/NGO section:’).
The book title at the beginning of the text in the green box at the top of this post is a link to the book’s webpage. The Book and the Book Summary can be downloaded from that webpage.
I have just re-read the summary and offer the following:
- Chapters 11 and 12 (presented as items 12 and 13 in the summary) appear to be almost exclusively related to your interest.
- Chapters 2, 5, and 9 (summary items 3, 6 and 10) appear to include some content addressing your interests.
- The other chapters of the book may include content related to your interest but the summary does not specifically indicate that they do.
I would add the following action as something helpful being done. The UK government Bill “Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception)” to “Create offences in relation to the publication of false or misleading statements by elected representatives; and for connected purposes”. It was “Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 28th June 2022”
The following is a sequence of some of the reporting on actions by the Welsh government.
- 2024-07-03: Breaking: Welsh government commits to ban lying in politics - by Compassion in Politics
- 2025-02-19: Welsh politicians caught lying could lose their seats – BBC News
- 2025 February: Welsh Parliament: Standards of Conduct Committee: Individual Member Accountability - Deliberate deception
- 2025 May 3: This Welsh lawmaker is trying to make it illegal for politicians to lie – CBC Radio
- 2025 October 6: Draft Bill giving Welsh voters power to remove Senedd Members published
And I will finish by raising a new concern: The deliberate harmful misleaders have been ruining the term “Common Sense” by calling their misleading nonsense “Common Sense”.
Trump uses 'common sense' to make a political point. It has populist appeal – NPR News
The harmful misleaders have also been ruining the term “Reasonable” by calling their irrational unjustifiable unreasonable claims “Reasonable”.
Developing sustainable improvements for humanity is challenged when people are misled to believe that Unreasonable Nonsense is Reasonable Common Sense.
Regressing to the days when “the Earth is Flat and the center of the universe” was considered to be reasonable common sense is not sustainable improvement.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 23 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
The commentary says:
The key method for cultivating these disbeliefs is by FLICCing off scientific integrity—using the five techniques of science denial:
Fake experts
Logical fallacies
Impossible expectations
Cherry picking
Conspiracy theoriesAll good, but does it need a category of "pseudoscience", where flawed but superficially convincing scientific reasoning is used to attempt to debunk the greenhouse effect, or climate models, etc,etc.
-
wilddouglascounty at 00:17 AM on 23 October 2025New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment
Looks to be an impressive compilation of the climate denial industry. Does it add significantly to the already existing body of evidence, i.e. does it provide any new tools for those in the trenches listening to the new wave of climate denial that seems to be cresting in our political and financial circles? Specifically:
-The divestment from fossil fuels and investments in conservation/renewables movement seems to be hitting a real wall and is being reversed in several circles. Does this compilation provide any effective strategies for managing and reversing this change of direction and getting back on track? Who in the financial and investment circles are doing this and how can we assist them under the current assault coming from so many corporate reversals who are walking away from their sustainable goals?
Dismantling the scientific infrastructure that is providing information collection essential to understanding our climate in publicly funded collected data thru NOAA, EPA, as well as corporate funding for that matter, etc. seems to be going full speed ahead. Does this book provide any defensive bulwarks that can address this horrendous active suppression and dismantling of the scientific endeavor that has provided our current understanding of the dynamics of our climate as it relates to human activities?
I haven't read this book, but it seems like it's a great effort that describes PAST efforts at misinformation and delays. But I'm really worried that our efforts for understanding this obstruction is not what is currently needed. Understanding the type of gasoline used, how it was poured through the house and who brought the match to light it is important in the long run, but what we need now is a fire truck, plenty of water and firefighters to put out that fire, because the house is on fire RIGHT NOW and we are inside that house!
I want to see who the firefighters are right now, who is putting out the most water most effectively, and how we can support the most effective efforts. Like with so many other fronts, we are all shocked at how quickly our efforts have been crumbling under this assault. But unless we can take our understanding and translate it into counteracting and reversing the assault, it will become a largely irrelevant historical exercise.
Bill McKibben has done an admirable job in providing a counter narrative, but he seems to be pretty lonely out there. I'm hoping that Skeptical Science can play a role in actively highlighting successful efforts whereever they can be found and thereby helping us all weather the current storm.
-
prove we are smart at 11:37 AM on 18 October 2025Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops
Thanks Eclectic for letting others know of one of my trusted youtubers too. The corrupt and cruel Trump administration has now, besides lying and gaslighting talking points-attempting to contol all the press. www.youtube.com/shorts/zI8GEamXE7g
Moderator Response:[BL] Please try to keep the tone civil.
-
Eclectic at 10:39 AM on 17 October 2025Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops
Prove @ 3 :
Yes, Mallen Baker is a pundit making many comments on American and international matters ~ with a heavy emphasis on the American, owing to the fire-storm [the most polite word I could find] of American politics of recent years. To be clear, Mallen Baker is very much worth hearing, for his calm "outsider" views & analysis.
For "at home" commentary & analysis, I would also recommend another youtuber calling herself "Belle of the ranch". She presents herself as Farmer's Wife and ex-military nurse, and gives a 3 or 4 minute video several times per day. She seems intelligent, with a good network of expert connections, and her commentary is laced with dry humorous witticisms. Good value !
Moderator Response:[BL] Edited reference to Prove's post, to point to #3, #4 was a duplicate.
-
prove we are smart at 08:47 AM on 17 October 2025Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops
Good news for the world is bad news for the worst polluting of the shipping companies, that also means anything the climate change denying and corrupt Trump administration gets upset about means it is good for humanity.
So this is about the International Maritime Organization which operates under the United Nations umbrella as part of its net zero framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. It has spent the last two years negotiating a legally binding framework to levy charges on vessels that underperform on efficiency.
Here Mallen Baker,an English commentator on corporate social responsibility and a former politician explains the situation www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvBCnCh28UU
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:35 AM on 17 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
History suggests that the authors of the DOE report are largely incapable of being embarrassed. Their determination to spread their message, in spite of numerous criticisms and corrections, is quite remarkable.
Charlie Brown @ 4:
That is an interest take: that they argue 3 W/m2 is small compared to the total radiative flux. It seems that they are using the "it's a trace/small amount compared to [X]" template that has been used in a variety of poor contrarian arguments; vis a vis:
Anthropogenic emissions are small compared to natural cycles
Are there any other arguments that fit this same template?
DenialDepot had a fun post (15 years ago!) on how to cook a graph by playing with the Y-axis. Of course, in its standard mocking of the contrarians, DenialDepot accuses Skeptical Science of cooking the graphs by not expanding the Y-axis to make the change look minuscule. (DD looked at sea ice.) DD shows the "proper" method should be to compare the lost sea ice area to the total area of the earth. In DD's words, "That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem."
It's like a defendant in court arguing "how can it be grand larceny? I only took $100,000. He has billions."
-
EddieEvans at 21:37 PM on 16 October 2025Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops
Greed seems to be a common explanation for anti-science these days. But there's more, for sure. Here's another useful Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
prove we are smart at 09:40 AM on 16 October 2025Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops
I must give a well done to this blog site to calling out the outright lies this current Trump administration is broadcasting-and certainly not only climate "facts". When I wondered why this admin is so anti-science and anti-change, these facts helped me. Where do the richest billionaires live? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
And which countries are the biggest GHG pollutors? worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-country
And guess what- four of the top five worlds biggest emitters are home to the most billionaires worldwide. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires
I think the heat being added by the equivalent to 40 Hiroshimas atomic bombs every 10 seconds is beyond tragic.4hiroshimas.info/
You know a million seconds is over 11days-a billion is over 35years!.
-
prove we are smart at 09:45 AM on 10 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
I have to use simple breathing techniques to read/listen to anything from this Trump regime! Enabled by a political party of grifters and cowards with little conscience and no mirrors in their many houses.
Generations of this countrys populous fed on years of media stereotyping dumbing most down and culminating in electing a malignant man not once but twice. A mob boss,whose arsehole has swapped places with his mouth.
Indeed, Wikipedia on their "false and misleading statements by Donald Trump" page, have trouble deciding whether to split the narrative into 2 pages! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
I guess it is about people voting against their own best interests. Seeing the big picture without the baggage you have grown up with or picked up along lifes journey. It seems not becoming a fatalist is much harder now and giving in to such is a guarantee of a dismal future for those generations to come.
-
Charlie_Brown at 10:30 AM on 9 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
Apologies for misspelling Dr. Dessler's name.
-
Charlie_Brown at 10:28 AM on 9 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
An excellent description of proper use of statistics for data evaluation. I thank Dr. Dressler for the illustrative graphics.
My choice for most embarrassing would be something simpler because it is obvious once identified. Then it is revealed as an undergraduate level misrepresentation by irrelevant comparison. Here is an excerpt of my submitted comments.
On p. 13, Section 3.1.1 Historical radiative forcing
“Figure 3.1.1 shows that the anthropogenic forcing component was negligible before about 1900 and has increased steadily since, rising to almost 3 W/m2 today. However, this is still only about 1 percent of the unperturbed radiation flows, making it a challenge to isolate the effects of anthropogenic forcing; state-of-the-art satellite estimates of global radiative energy flows are only accurate to a few W/m2.”
Comparing 3 W/m2 to 240 W/m2 is misleading and diminishes the significance of 3 W/m2. It is an example of science denialism by distraction, obfuscation, and omission. Straightforward, fundamental physics including conservation of energy and radiant energy calculations combined with atmospheric properties allow the effects of anthropogenic forcing to be isolated by calculation. The calculated spectra of energy loss to space is verified by satellite measurements (Hanel, et al.,1972) (Brindley & Bantges, 2015). 3 W/m2 is sufficient to cause and continue observed global warming. The anthropogenic forcing is not determined by difference of two large, measured numbers and does not rely on just satellite estimates of radiative energy flows. There is very little uncertainty about the effects of increasing gas concentrations.
Even a relatively simple radiant energy model can isolate the effects of anthropogenic forcing that are used for changes in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere caused by changing conditions. Sophisticated climate models use the same approach for radiant energy calculations.
References:
Brindley & Bantges, “The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change,” Current Climate Change Reports, 2, July 2016. doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5
Hanel, et al., “The Nimbus 4 infrared spectroscopy experiment: 1. Calibrated thermal emission spectra,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 77(15), May 1972. -
nigelj at 05:42 AM on 9 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
In my opinion The DOE report is pure idiocy. Just venting my annoyance with it. Thankyou to the many people that have written good submissions rebutting it including the one above. While rebutalls are sometimes claimed to spread the lies / distortions I think its still important to rebut such reports as they can be superficially convincing to fence sitting decision makers.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 9 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
Good commentary, however I think it would have been helpful to include table 12.12 in your commentary, or at least a link to chapter 12. This is a link to chapter 12:
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf
Table 12.12 is on page 1856 in the link well down near the bottom.
-
wilddouglascounty at 22:57 PM on 8 October 2025Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?
Thank you for putting this together and sharing this important document, a concise response to all of the information distortions and misinformation circulating. By putting it out here and in Climate Brink, folks will surely disseminate it far and wide.
My request is that even though public hearings have closed for responses to this deeply flawed document, composed by a "flash committee" that disappeared almost as quick as it was created, I hope that efforts will be made to place this in the hands of relevant Senate and House Committe members as well. Namely, members and staff of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee (Bret Guthrie chair), the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee and on the Senate side: members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Objections to this flawed rationale for gutting coordinated efforts to reduce carbon emissions, conserve energy, incentivize renewables while removing fossil fuel subsidies should continue to be challenged and protests and objections should be mounted at every step of the way. The current Administration's push to replace a sane energy strategy for the future with short sighted attacks on that strategy in the name of short term gains for the well positioned financial interests should be exposed for what it is at every turn. Trump's handlers need to know that ignoring physics and biology is like tearing up a parking ticket in a big city: the cost only goes up!
-
John Hartz at 04:35 AM on 7 October 2025The thermodynamics of electric vs. internal combustion cars
Recommended supplementary reading:
Will your next EV have a solid-state battery — and improved performance?
-
John Hartz at 13:19 PM on 6 October 2025The thermodynamics of electric vs. internal combustion cars
Jeff Cope:
You wrote:"The EV wastes 80% of the energy in the gasoline; including the 80%, the whole system wastes 95% of the energy in oil."
I cannot get my head around what you are trying to say. Please elaborate. Also provide source citations.
Thank you.
-
Jeff Cope at 06:16 AM on 3 October 2025The thermodynamics of electric vs. internal combustion cars
In fact the waste of fossil fuels is even bigger than that 80%. You've already lost a lot of energy finding, drilling, transporting, refining, transporting oil... before the big waste of burning...ancient daylight. The EV wastes 80% of the energy in the gasoline; including the 80%, the whole system wastes 95% of the energy in oil.
-
Evan at 06:31 AM on 28 September 2025Koonin providing clarity on climate?
Charlie Brown@3. Yes, I understand the Milankovitch cycles well. Yes, warming starts a very complicated feedback cycle, but CO2 is a magnifier. CO2 is a primary cause of the temperature fluctuations through complex feedback cycles.
But my point is that we live in an ecosystem that is very delicately balanced, and just 100 ppm of CO2 is enough to cause huge swings in sea level and temperature. This time around, regardless of the cause, we are pushing the system way beyond anything experienced during the ice age cycles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:23 AM on 28 September 2025Koonin providing clarity on climate?
There is more to understand regarding immoral behaviour related to current human caused climate change impacts than Charlie Brown briefly noted at the end of his comment @3. Morality includes ‘someone being harmed’.
People are harmed in many ways. Morality is involved when a person could have, but did not, ‘learn what is harmful and responsibly freely choose to not be harmful to themselves or others’.
The most immoral people knowingly mislead in ways that tempt other people to avoid learning how to be less harmful and more helpful to others. Their ‘freedom to be harmfully misleading‘ is an important freedom. Lots can be learned from the actions of the harmful misleaders. Ensuring that that freedom to be misleading results in more people learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others is essential for humanity, or any collectively governed sub-set of humanity, to have a sustainable improving future.
-
Charlie_Brown at 05:09 AM on 28 September 2025Koonin providing clarity on climate?
Ken Rice is lenient with the authors of the DOE Climate Impacts report and with Secretary Chris Wright. Chris Wright states in the Foreword: “I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today.” I care more about substance than credentials. My public comments included: “The Foreword highlights that the purpose of the Critical Review is to challenge and counter mainstream science. It certainly does not represent the state of climate science today. Rather, it provides a rationalization for weakening current policies for combatting climate change. The authors are neither representative of the scientific community nor diverse.”
The science is not that complex. The report is full of misrepresentation, distraction, and obfuscation. It is not worthy of an undergraduate term paper let alone a critical review of science by PhDs. Many points have been thoroughly discussed and debunked here on the SkS website. My comments included:
1) “Section 2.1 is oversimplistic. CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient. It discusses photosynthesis as a benefit but ignores adverse effects resulting from CO2 as the primary cause of climate change including drought, extreme temperatures, excess rain, and cropland relocation.”
2) “CO2 below 180 ppm is an irrelevant distraction to the discussion of modern global warming.”
3) “Changing ‘ocean acidification’ to ‘ocean neutralization’ is semantic posturing that does not change the effects. To say that pH reduction is not acidification until the pH drops below 7.0 it is not meaningful.”
4) “Implying that the IPCC uses data manipulation to satisfy preferences is baseless accusatory language. The change in radiative forcing due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun is negligible within the period of modern global warming. The change due to sunspot activity is measured and found to be negligible.”
5) “Comparing 3 W/m2 to 240 W/m2 is misleading and diminishes the significance of 3 W/m2. It is an example of science denialism by distraction, obfuscation, and omission. Straightforward, fundamental physics including conservation of energy and radiant energy calculations combined with atmospheric properties allow the effects of anthropogenic forcing to be isolated by calculation. The calculated spectra of energy loss to space is verified by satellite measurements (Hanel, et al.,1972) (Brindley & Bantges, 2015). 3 W/m2 is sufficient to cause and continue observed global warming. The anthropogenic forcing is not determined by difference of two large, measured numbers and does not rely on just satellite estimates of radiative energy flows. There is very little uncertainty about the effects of increasing gas concentrations.
The effect of clouds is the largest uncertainty in climate models. However, average cloud cover does not change without a driving force. Therefore, the effect of increasing GHG can be isolated by holding clouds constant. Specific humidity will rise with increasing surface temperature, resulting in positive water vapor feedback. This can affect clouds."Others have submitted many more excellent comments, but I have made my point. The science can be explained and understood by most scientific-minded people who are interested in learning. One does not need a PhD in climate science to understand the flaws in the DOE report.
Disbanding the CWG may not be a sign of progress. It may be a way to avoid the lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists that would restrict the use of the report.
-
Charlie_Brown at 01:43 AM on 28 September 2025Koonin providing clarity on climate?
Evan @ 1 100,000 year cycles are caused by the Milankovitch cycles of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. CO2 fluctuations were the result of ocean temperature changes. It is hypothesized that at the beginning of ice ages increased dissolution of CO2 in cold water, the result of the temprature dependence on Henry's Law, slows cooling by reducing CO2. Evolving CO2 from warm water at the end of an ice age enhances the rate of warming.
This time is different. This is the first time in the history of the planet that CO2 and other GHG concentrations are increasing rapidly due to emissions from human activities.
Everyone dies. That is natural. When someone causes someone else to die, that is immoral.
-
prove we are smart at 10:48 AM on 25 September 2025The Cartoon Villain's Guide to Killing Climate Action
The tobacco playbook was very successful/profitable for decades. The lack of ethics in ignoring the catastrophic results from fossil fuel use in all its forms is a moral crime.
"You don't have to be right-just create doubt". It seems the misinformation is about to go to a new level with the use of AI. Simon Clark explains the coming battle and why truth is becoming rare and how to help ourselves and a better future. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKtCuwfUCJg
