Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for denier

Comments matching the search denier:

    More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

  • CO2 effect is saturated

    Eclectic at 14:18 PM on 13 September, 2021

    Speaking of saturation and "error of interpretation of the resulting data" :-

    Coolmaster, you may be the very person I could ask for an interpretation of the recent paper by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020).

    I confess to being very nearly a physics naif  (and a naif  who habitually thinks in terms of two-and-a-half significant figures as afforded by my trusty slide-rule).   So, in reading the WH2020 paper, I skipped through the numerous formulae, and sought the Take Home message.   ~Which, verbiage aside, seemed to be minimally different from the mainstream climate science on GHG "saturation".

    Yes, assorted "AGW-deniers" immediately seized upon the WH2020 paper as a conclusive debunking of a half-century of climate physics & observations.  But there are always fringe-dwellers who seize upon anything within a million miles of the idea that no AGW is occurring (or alternatively  ~ that the AGW will doom the world irreversibly by the year 2030).

    Coolmaster, I will be grateful for your opinion, if you have time to look at the WH2020 paper.  ( I do realize that both van Wijngaarden and Happer are afflicted by severe emotional/political bias producing major motivated reasoning problems in their climate assessments ~ but all that aside, is there something of useful scientific value in their paper? )

  • It's albedo

    coolmaster at 00:31 AM on 9 September, 2021



    You probably suffer from attention deficit syndrome. Thank god I am mortally bored after repeating the simplest facts of the most simplest climate knowledge more than 3 times - and BL failing to understand them.
    I am not going to go around in circles with you a hundred times and then recommend psychopathological treatment to you after 3 months.
    This can be done much faster. If your overview is limited to the size of a beer mat - it's not my fault.

    BL:     ...Increased evaporation must lead to increased precipitation, but this does not necessarily mean that there will be more cloud...  

    BL:     ...basic meteorology, where air must cool to form clouds and precipitation,...

    So what now ???       the water vapor turns into a cloud ---------— before it rains -------------— or not ???

    [snip]   Hopefully you are not here to pluck daisies and ask yourself: Aristotle loves me - Aristotle doesn't love me - Aristotle loves me ................? #?

    You knot your brain here within 3 of your own remarkably meaningless sentences - contradicting to yourselve and not at all wondering that you have tomatoes on your eyes?

    I have posted the graphs(69) for the global radiation balances                 all sky/clear sky    so that you(and others) hopefully understand that clouds basically have a strong cooling influence on earth temperatures. [snip] You are hopelessly overwhelmed with the most simplest knowledge about CRE and watercycle. You doubt that I can produce clouds ? - ridiculous - I can produce clouds and I do it daily - my tomatoes can produce clouds - the forest next to my door even more - only BL can NOT make clouds - because he's probably    "too intelligent",    to piss a hole into the snow. You'll end up as a pangburn here if you don't take a quick break to get your neurons in order.

    It's bad enough to run into climate deniers around every corner of this world - but folks like you who circulate                                      Babylonian Language Confusion(BLC ??#??) are a whole lot worse.

  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021

    coolmaster at 23:36 PM on 5 September, 2021


    If you scroll down 2 days in the comments, you could have read the answer.

    Pangburn talking about water vapor as a GHG looking to the atmosphere ?  UUUUPS - he couldn`t see any clouds ??? -— Blind & stupid - like other deniers.

  • Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    Engineer-Poet at 11:18 AM on 4 August, 2021

    Michael Sweet @265:

    You are wasting your time talking about radiation safety.

    Oh, I don't know.  Putting your intransigence out there for all to see has value.

    My experience is that people who do not like nuclear recognize that the scientific consensus is LRNT.

    How much of said "consensus" is from people in the "radiation protection" business—in other words, people with an interest in maintaining and ever-tightening the rules so they can make money from "minimization"?  Meanwhile, health physics deals with the REAL world, and workers at university research reactors routinely take many times the dose allowed at commercial nuclear plants, yet suffer no ill effects. Why is this allowed?  It's because research reactors are not competing with the fossil fuel industry; nuclear electric plants do.  Evidence-based radiation standards would seriously reduce the operating and maintenance cost of nuclear electric plants, and applying the same radiation standards to fossil fuels would require things like the handling of radium-rich petroleum well pipe scale as radwaste with all the same protection standards as at nuclear plants.  Such cost shifts might even get people to build more nuclear and use less fossil.

    There is a LOT of uranium in the ground, and the decay chain of U-238 produces Ra-226 and Rn-222.  A lot of this uranium chemically deposits in the same strata which host coal, oil and gas, which is why natural gas from the Marcellus shale is so high in radon.  Gas stoves dump the radon straight into the air people breathe.  I don't see any major "environmental" organizations demanding protection from that,do you?

    People who are avid supporters of nuclear, like you, do not care how many people nuclear power kills

    That's libelous.  I used to spend 2 weeks a year mere miles from a Generation I nuclear power plant, and the rest of the year not too far from a university research reactor.  Neither ever killed ANYONE.  Both are gone now, with only the casks storing the used fuel showing the former was ever there (I don't know about the latter).  I now live year-round mere miles from this "danger".  Do I sound like I don't care about lives?  It's MY life on the line here.  I walk the walk.

    Know what I'd love?  I'd love a new nuclear plant on the site of the old one, causing people with radiophobia to stay away and not buy homes here.  It would reduce my property value and thus my property taxes.  Pay less money for the same or better quality of life (less crowding and cleaner air)?  Sign me up!

    and cherry pick their references to the few scientists who disagree with the consensus.

    Science is not determined by consensus.  It's determined by evidence, and anyone who will not look at the evidence has no business calling themselves a scientist. The evidence is on the side of Calibrese.  Those opposed are not scientists, whatever degrees they hold or what they call themselves.

    We are all familiar with the scientific deniers of climate change. Citing the few outliers of the LRNT consensus does not prove your point. The National Academy of Science strongly backs LRNT.

    The acronym is "LNT", and the NAS shows every sign of having been captured by special interests.  Fossil-fuel interests are notoriously wealthy.

    As you pointed out, dissenters of the consensus were allowed on the committee.

    But not allowed a voice.  Calabrese has published many papers on radiation hormesis and the errors in LNT.  None of those objections made it into the BEIR VII section on radiation hormesis, and yes I read it from end to end. What does this mean?  (lemme try list tags here)

    1. The BEIR VII report reflects a majority view, not a consensus view and certainly not a view of the actual range of opinion in the field.

    2. The majority view is subject to capture by various interests, especially wealthy ones.

    3. Those interests are overwhelmingly benefitted by fossil fuels.

    You need to acknowledge this.  (love it, list tags rock)

    Reviewing this thread I notice that opponents of nuclear power have never raised the issue of low level exposure to radiation as a reason not to build out nuclear.

    That's implicit in the use of LNT to oppose nuclear energy.

    It is raised by nuclear supporters.

    Because we see no detectable increase in morbidity or mortality due to small increases in radiation; on the contrary, the evidence supports hormesis (when you can extend the median lifespan of rats from 460 to 600 days by irradiating them with gamma rays, it very likely has the same effect in all mammals including humans).  We do see increases in morbidity and mortality with increases of criteria air pollutants and things like PM 2.5, neither of which are produced by nuclear energy.  So why are you raising these issues?  It's enough to make anyone think you're doing it in bad faith.

    1) Nuclear plants are not economic. They cost too much to build.

    France proved otherwise; France has some of the cheapest and cleanest electric power in Europe, while "renewable" Germany has some of the most expensive and continues to burn lignite.  The way you make nuclear power cheaply is the same way you make automobiles cheaply:  series production of stanard units.  That's what France did in the 80's.  That is not what France is doing now, which is why Flamanville costs so much.

    2) Nuclear plants take too long to build.

    They didn't used to.  Ever ponder what's different now?

    The breeder reactors you support have not yet been designed. Once they have a design (at least 5 years from now), the approval of the design takes 3-5 years.

    So you admit that the regulators are a big part of the problem.

    3) There are not enough rare materials to build a significant number of nuclear plants.

    Nonsense.  Nuclear plants do not require rare materials; they've just been convenient for the way we've been doing things since the 1950's.  We don't have to keep doing things that way, and there are a great many reasons not to.  Many of the new reactor concepts use other physical mechanisms than e.g. control rods to control the rate of reaction, so they have no need for the elements which go into them.

    You admit in your post 260 that there is not enough uranium for your plan.

    No, I said there's not enough land-based uranium to start the required fleet of fast-neutron reactors.  There's more than enough in the oceans, and the depleted uranium already on hand in the USA would suffice to run the entire world for about a century on fast reactors.  Also, there's more than enough thorium available to do the job (3-4x as abundant as uranium and it's almost 100% convertible to energy with thermal neutrons).

    4) Your responses to Abbott are grossly inadequate and uninformed. For examply you claim "pretty much ANY site that has ever hosted a coal plant is suitable for a nuclear plant." Only 10 miles from my house is the Big Bend power plant (it is switching from coal to gas). This plant is too close to a city to be converted to nuclear

    It's "too close" for nuclear, but far more dangerous and polluting coal (with far more radioisotope emissions from the tramp actinides) was just fine?  Ye gods, if it wasn't for double standards, anti-nukes wouldn't have any standards.

    (Mods:  there's a bug in the way the post editor JS handles closing bold and italic tags when switching from "Source" back to "Basic" after pasting in HTML; a trailing space is deleted even when it's explicitly in the source.)

  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31

    MA Rodger at 00:41 AM on 4 August, 2021

    One Planet Only Forever @1,

    You ask about the change in anomaly base to 1991-2020 "Why was it done?"

    The deniers at UAH are not alone in making this change. Both Copernicus and NOAA have made this same change although GISTEMP LOTI continue with 1951-80 as an anomaly base. The change comforms with the WMO who ruled in 2017 (see page 2 here) that "the definition of a climatological standard normal ... now refers to the most-recent 30-year period finishing in a year ending with 0 (1981–2010 at the time of writing)."  Mind, they do add, "However, the period from 1961 to 1990 has been retained as a standard reference period for long-term climate change assessments." So the correct choice isn't actually written in stone.

    The choice of anomaly base does make a difference when, say, looking at monthly anomalies through a year when there is a change in the annual cycle. Thus in UAH, throwing an OLS through each individual month shows a warming of +0.115ºC/decade for June but +0.163ºC/decade for September.

  • Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    michael sweet at 23:23 PM on 31 July, 2021

    Engineer Poet:

    You are wasting your time talking about radiation safety.  My experience is that people who do not like nuclear recognize that the scientific consensus is LRNT.  People who are avid supporters of nuclear, like you, do not care how many people nuclear power kills and cherry pick their references to the few scientists who disagree with the consensus.  We are all familiar with the scientific deniers of climate change.  Citing the few outliers of the LRNT consensus does not prove your point.  The National Academy of Science strongly backs LRNT.  As you pointed out, dissenters of the consensus were allowed on the committee.

    Reviewing this thread I notice that opponents of nuclear power have never raised the issue of low level exposure to radiation as a reason not to build out nuclear.  It is raised by nuclear supporters.  I have never raised this point in debate about nuclear power.  It is a waste of time.  Neither Abbott or Jacobson mention this issue.  I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the arguments that matter:

    1) Nuclear plants are not economic.  They cost too much to build.  It currently costs more for operation and maintenance of a nuclear plant than to build a new renewable plant with a mortgage.  Nuclear plants are shutting down because they cannot make money at the price of renewable energy.

    2)  Nuclear plants take too long to build.  The breeder reactors you support have not yet been designed.  Once they have a design (at least 5 years from now), the approval of the design takes 3-5 years.  Than it is 10-15 years to build a test plant.  The earliest that a pilot plant will be built is 20 years from now.  Production of many plants can not start before 2050.  The entire energy system will be renewable by then.  A few nuclear plants cannot make money against renewable energy.

    3) There are not enough rare materials to build a significant number of nuclear plants.  You admit in your post 260 that there is not enough uranium for your plan.  Nuclear plants use many other exotic materials that are already in short supply.  

    4) Your responses to Abbott are grossly inadequate and uninformed.  For examply you claim "pretty much ANY site that has ever hosted a coal plant is suitable for a nuclear plant."  Only 10 miles from my house is the Big Bend power plant (it is switching from coal to gas).  This plant is too close to a city to be converted to nuclear and it is very seriously threatened by sea level rise.  For both reasons it is unsuitable for nuclear power.   This disproves your "ANY site" claim and I didn't even have to look past the nearest plant to my home.  The Turkey Point Nuclear plant in Miami is almost isolated by sea level rise already.  Its location is unsuitable for nuclear power. 

  • As scientists have long predicted, warming is making heatwaves more deadly

    prove we are smart at 10:21 AM on 24 July, 2021

    Taken from Wiki:  "Mass maintains a popular weblog in which he posts regular articles on meteorology, Pacific Northwest weather history, and the impacts of climate change[8] written for the general public. According to Mass, "Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue.[9]"

    Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is a major cause of warming trend in the late 20th and 21st centuries.[10][11] He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change.[12]

    However, Mass is frequently critical of and has expressed concern that when media and environmental organizations make exaggerated claims about the current impacts of climate change, or cite climate change as the cause of specific weather events. He is concerned about misinforming the public about a key societal issue, distracting public and governmental attention from more immediate environmental concerns, and stifling opportunities for effective bipartisan policy-making to slow climate change and mitigate its effects.[13][14][15][16]

    His statements on the severity and progression of anthropogenic global warming have elicited condemnation from The Stranger[17] as well as members of activist environmental organizations[18] due to concerns that Mass's scientific approach to understanding and communicating the risks associated with global warming could result in public apathy or be used by climate change deniers to bolster their claims."

    I think Professor Mass is just typical of climate scientists giving  responses to their perceived inaccuracies in the increasing climate craziness reporting. What is different with this professor is he is more of a "personality". Possibly the second link from 2.Bob Loblaw at 22:18 PM on 21 July, 2021   disproves Mass' theory but the science though was beyond my understanding.

    The back and forth exchange between scientists peer reviewing "science" is what keeps us up to date and reliably informed. The fact Climate Change deniers can cherry pick a "headline" will never change.  I don't know whether to feel hopeful or nor when I read this either,

  • Climate's changed before

    TVC15 at 14:50 PM on 14 July, 2021

    Many thanks to Eclectic, Bob Loblaw, MA Rodger and Daniel Bailey.  

    I gain so much from each of you every time I post denier claims.

    Thank you all for your time and efforts to help educate us! 

  • Climate's changed before

    Bob Loblaw at 22:21 PM on 13 July, 2021

    A follow-up to the "sea level was higher in past interglacials" claim.

    Is this person claiming that sea level is indeed rising to dangerous levels, but it's natural?

    Is this person claiming that sea level has risen naturally in the past, so rising CO2 and rising temperatures cannot change this previous pattern?

    The part TVC15 has quoted is the usualy mishmash of vague, unspecific claims. Good luck trying to pin the denier down to a specific claim or statement that can be examined by evidence - my experience is that such individuals often are incapable of expressing themselves clearly enough.

  • Climate's changed before

    Eclectic at 17:35 PM on 13 July, 2021

    TVC15 , from experience, you know how anything & everything is grist for the deniers' mill, in their attempts to minimize and/or deny the climate science.   It's always ABCD ~ Anything But Carbon Dioxide.

    And their excuses come in cycles of excuse ~ first: It's Not Warming . . . then: It's only warming a bit . . . then: Yes, it's warming a lot, but it's Not caused by humans . . . then: Well yes it's half-caused by humans, but the Warming is really very very good for us and is saving us from disastrous cooling.

    Then it's back to: the Warming has Stopped and it's cooling now (for at least 6 years' cooling, says the deluded Monckton) . . . and a Colossal Grand Solar Minimum will have all of Canada under a mile-thick ice sheet by 2050 or somesuch date.

    For millennia, the US Southwest has been arid - the opposite of the Northeast.  And you can find other regions of the world likewise arid.  All it needs is a slight variation in climate, and you've got a mega-drought (a drought defined as >20 years) or a super-mega-drought (for centuries).   Nothing very new about that  ~ except that now our Anthropogenic global warming is exacerbating the droughty tendency.  (The exacerbation being the point your denier wishes to deny.)

    I haven't studied past Interglacials w.r.t. aridity & droughts.  Presumably similar overall conditions in the past have caused rather similar episodes. But that's all rather irrelevant to the current situation, which must be dealt with on its own terms.  And the current droughty tendency doesn't disprove the climate science, nor does it fail to point to more of the same trouble in future, as AGW worsens.

    Of course, as we look back in time, the proxy evidence (in past Interglacials) gets fuzzier & fuzzier ~ so conclusions of any sort get more difficult to make.

    The "Anthropocene" is a semi-humorous label.  Not official.  But the label does get up the deniers' noses.  Still, it does rhetorically emphasize that the Holocene is transitioning into something significantly different from the "natural".

  • Climate's changed before

    TVC15 at 16:07 PM on 13 July, 2021

    Eclectic @874, 875

    Hi Electric,

    Thanks for the responses!

    I don’t understand why this denier is trying to make it a fact that the Western half of the US always undergoes a drought during Inter-Glacial Periods when I don’t think we really know, or do we?

    They mention the other 11 interglacial periods, during which modern humans did not exist until the Holocene. I’ve also head a new epoch called the Anthropocene, with the start date of this new epoch still in debate. Not sure if this is recognized as the most current epoch.

    Since humans did not occupy most of those interglacial cycles, I don’t understand the deniers argument. There is nothing to connect the dots between past interglacials and our current situation.

    Now instead of saying climate always changes, deniers are claiming that what we are witnessing all over the globe today is typical during an interglacial cycle.

    How can we know the conditions of ancient interglacials? Did they all cause drought in the Western half of the US?


  • Climate's changed before

    Eclectic at 10:49 AM on 13 July, 2021

    . . . 2

    TVC15 , a recent high-resolution sea-shore study [ IIRC - Kulp and Strauss 2019 ] indicates that a 1 meter SLR would displace approx 230 million people from their houses and farmlands.  And factoring saline inundation by storm surge, there would be many millions of refugees displaced well before the "average"  1 meter rise is reached.  So that's likely to be getting underway before 2100 even though the full 1m rise won't come until after 2100.   And doubtless, some of these many refugees will need to settle in the neighbourhood of this denier's great-grandchildren.  No social disruption at all !

    And for a 2m rise in sea level, you can add a few hundred million more refugees . . . all wanting to go to higher ground . . . like Colorado, or wherever this unworried denier has been living.

    Western droughts come and go - and sometimes stay for centuries, judging by the history of the last 2000 years.   ( I'm sure your denier friend will tell the farmers and townsfolk, that they simply need to wait patiently, for a few generations or so.)

    Note that the PAGES12k proxy studies show that world temperature is currently same or slightly higher than the peak of the Holocene - though many deniers still falsely claim that we are "colder than the Medieval Warm Period".    Go figure !

  • Climate's changed before

    Eclectic at 10:21 AM on 13 July, 2021

    TVC15 @873  ~ yes, it's marvellous  to observe the shameless rhetorical mendacity of some of these deniers.  Hard to say whether they believe their own nonsense, or whether they simply aim to score Debating Club points by playing any arguments (arguments 100% true or 95% false).   But .... it is what it is, with these trolls.

    I love their dismissive style of argument - "It's stupid to worry about a few extra degrees of warming, when only 4 billion years ago the Earth's surface temperature has been 200 degrees hotter."   And so on.

    As you know, TVC15, each glacial cycle is somewhat different from each of the others - but what we have to face up to is to deal with modern problems : not the problems of a million years before humankind arrived.   So why is he himself running away from facing up to the present situation?

    Perhaps your denier friend would be unfazed by having a sea level 3 meters deep in his own house's living room?   Or is it only *other* people's houses he is unworried about.

    . . . 2

  • Climate's changed before

    TVC15 at 07:46 AM on 13 July, 2021

    My favoirite hubris spewing climate denier is at it again.

    He was smarting of to a person in Colorado who was discussing the current drought in the Westen half of the US.

    [What a coincidence.

    The same thing happened in the previous Inter-Glacial Period, and the one before that and the one before that and the other 5 before before that.

    Are you foolishly blind enough not to see the pattern?

    The West always undergoes a drought during Inter-Glacial Periods.

    Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different.

    Ice sheets and glaciers always melt during Inter-Glacial Periods.

    Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different.

    Sea levels are normally 4 meters to 14 meters higher than they are now during Inter-Glacial Periods.

    Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different.

    Tell us why the sea level should not rise at least another 4 meters like it did in the other 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods.

    Global temperatures in the other 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods were at least 7°F warmer than present.

    Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different.

    Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be a statistical anomaly and be colder with lower sea levels and no melting and no drought.

    Can you do that?]

    This denier is so hostile and over the top smug and arrogant in his replies it's hard to take them seriously.

    Is it accurate that the west always undergoes drough during interglacials?

    Also I don't think it's correct that Sea levels are normally 4 meters to 14 meters higher than they are now during Inter-Glacial Periods.

    How can this denier make this claim? Global temperatures in the other 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods were at least 7°F warmer than present.

    • Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different.

    • Tell us why this Inter-Glacial Period should be a statistical anomaly and be colder with lower sea levels and no melting and no drought.

    My response to the above bullets would be that this interglacial is nearning it's end and we should be seeing a global cooling effect, but we are seeing a warming effect due to human activity.  Not sure what more I could add to my response to the bulleted statements made by this denier.

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Nick Palmer at 09:33 AM on 23 June, 2021

    Just in case you lot are still resisting the idea that the politics relating to climate science have become extremely polarised - in my view to the point where ideologues of both the left and right think it justified to exaggerate/minimise the scientific truths/uncertainties to sway the democratically voting public one way or the other - here's a video blog by alt-right hero and part of the original Climategate team who publicised the emails, James Delingpole basically saying that 'the left' have infiltrated and corrupted the science for the purpose of using political deception to seize power for themselves.

    Deconstruct or follow up Delingpoles' rhetoric elsewhere and you will find a helluva lot of intelligent articulate people who believe that the public's environmental consciences are being exploited by closet socialist forces to deceive them, using 'fear porn', into voting for policies which they otherwise wouldn't consider voting for, in a dark strategy to bring in some form of latter day Marxism. They insinuate this has got its tentacles into climate science which they assert has led to the reality of the science, as presented to the public, being twisted by them for political ends. It's absolutely not just Greenpeace, as I already said, who've 'gone red' to the point where it has 'noble cause' corrupted their presentations of environmental matters and, crucially, the narrow choice of solutions they favour - those which would enable and bring on that 'great reset' of civilisation that they want to see. It's much, much bigger than that.

    I think we are seeing a resurgence and a recrystallisation of those who got convinced by Utopianist politics of the left and free market thinkers of the right taught at University - Marxist-Leninism, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith etc. Most of those students eventually 'grew up' and mellowed in time, leaving only a small cadre of incorrigible extremists but who are now, as the situation is becoming increasingly polarised politically, revisiting their former ideologies. In essence 'woking' up. I submit that the real battle we are seeing played out in the arena of climate matters is not between science and denialism of science - those are only the proxies used to manipulate the public. The true battle is between the increasingly polarised and increasingly extreme and deceitful proponents of the various far left and right ideologies and their re-energised followers.

    It is now almost an article of faith, so accepted has it become, amongst many top climate scientists and commentators, that 'denialism' is really NOT motivated by stupidity or a greedy desire to keep on making as much money as possible but is rather a strong resistance to the solutions that they fear are just 'chess moves' to bring about the great Red 'reset' they think the 'opposition' are secretly motivated by.

    Here's an excellent article by famous climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe identifying those who are 'solutions averse' as being a major factor in denialism. It touches on the 'watermelon' aspect. You can turn a blind eye to what I am saying if you want, but in that case you should also attack Hayhoe too - but don't expect many to applaud you...

    Also try this:

    I think some people who fight climate science denialism still have the naive idea that just enlessly quoting the science to them, and Skepticalscience's F.L.I.C.C logical fallacies, will make denialists fall apart. I too used to think that if one would just keep hammering away, eventually they would give up. Anyone who tries this will find that it actually does not work well at all. Take on some of the smarter ones and you will rapidly find that you are, at least in the eyes of the watching/reading/listening public, who are the only audience it's worthwhile spending any time trying to correct, outgunned scientifically and rhetorically. That's why I don't these days much use the actual nitty-gritty science as a club with which to demolish them because the smarter ones will always have a superficially plausible, to the audience at least, comeback which looks convincing TO THE AUDIENCE. Arguing the science accurately can often lose the argument, as many scientists found when they attempted to debate such notorious, yet rhetorically brilliant sceptic/deniers such as Lord Monckton.

    I haven't finished trying to clarify things for you all but right back at the beginning, in post#18, I fairly covered what I was trying to suggest is a more realistic interpretation of the truth than the activist's simplistic 'Evil Exxon Knew' propaganda one. In short, most of you seem to believe, and are arguing as if, the science was rock solid back then and that it said any global warming would certainly lead to bad things. This is utterly wrong, and to argue as if it was true is just deceitful. As I have said, and many significant figures in the field will confirm, I've been fighting denialism for a very long time so when denialists present some paper or piece of text extracted from a longer document as 'proof' of something, I always try and read the original, usually finding out that they have twisted the meaning, cherry picked inappropriate sentences or failed to understand it and thereby jumped to fallacious conclusions - similarly I read the letters and extracts that Greenpeace used and, frankly, either they were trying deliberately to mislead or they didn't understand the language properly and jumped to their prejudiced conclusions and then made all the insinuations that we are familiar with and that nobody else seems be questioning much, if at all. The idea that Exxon always knew that anthropogenic climate change was real (which they, of course, did) AND that they always knew that the results of that would be really bad and so they conspired to cover that bad future up is false and is the basis of the wilful misreading and deceitful interpretation of the cherry picked phrases, excerpts and documents that has created a vastly worse than deserved public perception of how the fossil fuel corporations acted. Always remember that, at least ideally, people (and corporations) should be presumed innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. Greenpeace/Oreskes polemics are not such proof. Their insinuations of the guilt of Big Oil is just a mirror image of how the Climategate hackers insinuated guilt into the words of the top climate scientists.

    Here's a clip from my post#18

    NAP: "When activists try to bad mouth Exxon et al they speak from a 'post facto' appreciation of the science, as if today's relatively strong climate science existed back when the documents highlighted in 'Exxon knew' were created. Let me explain what I think is another interpretation other than Greenpeace/Oreskes'/Supran's narratives suggesting 'Exxon knew' that climate change was going to be bad because their scientists told them so as far back as the 70s and 80s. Let me first present Stephen Schneider's famous quote from 1988 (the whole quote, not the edited one used by denialists).

    S.S. "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.""

    Stephen Schneider, as a climate scientist, was about 'as good as it gets' and he said that in 1988. Bear in mind that a lot of the initial framing to prejudice readers that 'Exxon knew' used was based on documents from considerably longer ago, so what are the activists who eagerly allowed themselves to be swept up in it until no-one questioned it turning a blind eye to? It's that the computer models of the time were extremely crude because computer technology back then was just not powerful enough to divide Earth up into enough finite element 'blocks' of small enough size to make model projections of much validity, in particular projections of how much, how fast and how bad or how good... Our ideas of the feedback effects of clouds and aerosols back then was extremely rudimentary and there were widely differing scientific opinions as to the magnitude or even the direction of the feedback. The scientific voices we see in Exxon Knew tend to be those who were suggesting there was lot more certainty of outcome than there actually was. That their version has been eventually shown to be mostly correct by a further 40 years of science in no way means they were right to espouse such certainty back then - just lucky. As I pointed out before, even as late as the very recent CMIP6 models, we are still refining this aspect - and still finding surprises. To insinuate that the science has always been as fairly rock solid as it today is just a wilful rewriting of history. Try reading Spencer Weart's comprehensive history of the development of climate science for a more objective view of the way things developed...

    ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers told Scientific American in 2015. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys (Inside Climate News) go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”

    Look at the phrases and excerpts that were used in both Greenpeace's 'Exxon Knew' and 'Inside Climate News's' exposés. You will find they actually are very cherry picked and relatively few in number considering the huge volumes of company documents that were analysed. Does that remind you of anything else? Because it should. The Climategate hackers trawled through mountains of emails - over ten years worth - to cherry pick apparently juicy phrases and ended up with just a few headline phrases, a sample of which follow. Now, like most of us now know, there are almost certainly innocent and valid explanations of each of these phrases, and independent investigations in due course vindicated the scientists. Reading them, and some of the other somewhat less apparently salacious extracts that got less publicity, and comparing them with the 'presented as a smoking gun' extracts from Greenpeace/Oreskes/Supran etc I have to say, on the face of it, the Climategate cherry picks look more evidential of serious misdeeds than the 'Exxon Knew' excerpts. Except we are confident that the Climategate hackers badly misrepresented the emails by insinuating shady motives where none were. Why should we not consider that those nominally on the side of the science did not do the same? Surely readers here are not so naive aas to believe that everyone on 'our side' is pure as the driven snow and all those on the 'other side' are evil black hats?

    Here's a 'top eight'

    1) Phil Jones "“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”

    2) “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” [Kevin Trenberth, 2009]

    3) “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple." Keth Briffa

    4) Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” [Phil Jones, May 29, 2008]

    5) “Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….” [Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, December 20, 2006]

    6) “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [Phil Jones, July 8, 2004]

    7) “You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember it.” [Phil Jones, May 12, 2009]

    8) “If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….” [Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, to Phil Jones, September 28, 2008]

    Please at least consider the possibility that Greenpeace, who have been deceiving the public about the toxicity and carcinogenicity of this, that and the other for decades (ask me how if you want to see how blatant their deceit or delusion is... showing this is actually very quick and easy to do) were, in a very similar way, and motivated by their underlying ideology, deliberately (or delusionally) misrepresenting innocent phrases to blacken names excessively too.

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    MA Rodger at 04:04 AM on 22 June, 2021

    Nick Palmer @80,

    Would I also be "waaay" off if I were to suggest that your habit of throwing your dead cats at us pidgeons (rather than explaining yourself properly) is entirely incompatible with somebody who is "one of the very few climate science denier fighters who can actually beat them," an ability you tell us (amid the self-trumpeting @31 upthread) that you possess. I see no sign of any such ability within your comment down ths thread, none whatever.

    Due to the high wordage, I havdn't properly read your input up-thread until now. Having now done so, I must say it does not make for pretty reading. Thus you kick off @1 by blaming Joe Public for AGW. Big Oil are just doing what the public want, so don't blame them for AGW. "Whatever concerns the great mass of the ordinary public may have had and now have is clearly outranked by their desire to continue using the products and services more or less as usual."

    And your contributions continue from there peppered with similar denialist nonsense all the way to the latest serving #80 where we are boldly informed that "back then [20 years ago] it was an entirely reasonable position for a corporation to take to assume technological progress would be delivering the CCS magic machines in time to do the job of nullifying emissions to atmosphere" although you "think the business risk they took twenty years ago will not pan out for them." A business risk? Do explain the risks those nice Big Oil companies took which they hoped would ensure their lucrative FF extraction were compatable with a stable cimate!! (Persumably this would not be an anachronistic risk given, as you argue @18 the scientific findings "at the time were just not solid enough to mandate massive corporation change without a lot more scientific work.")

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Nick Palmer at 06:31 AM on 16 June, 2021

    I think you lot are trying to hard to prop up a very long standing meme, originated by Greenpeace and subsequently promoted by, IMHO, political forces not related to pure climate science. I've never said that Big Oil should have done what they did, just that their motivation to do it may not have been that which was attributed to them by that meme. FWIW, I think the true culpability of Big Fossil Fuel is not for resembling the activist meme of them being shadowy psychopaths intent on destroying the world for profit but rather for being like the punk in Dirty Harry who, when neither of them knew for certain whether there were any bullets left in the Magnum, recklessly took a chance and paid the price.

    If you've ever seen that analogy used in the climate wars, I originated it. My argument to denialists back then was that, by analogy, 'denier punks' had a right to risk their own lives by believing that there were no climate change bullets left, or that possible low climate sensitivity meant that any bullet would be nearly a blank, but that they had a much greater responsibility to not take any view which would put everyobdy else in the world at risk if they were wrong. I had long discussions about this general concept with Greg 'What's the worst that could happen' Craven whose approach of risk analysis I still think is far superior at getting through to the majority of the public rather than the 'This is what the science says', 'Oh no it isn't', 'Yes it is', shouting match that the public arena is.

    I came to my ideas from a lot of experience over several decades debunking 'ordinary' denialism, but I also found it quite often necessary to debunk alarmists too, who went much further than the peer reviewed science actually said. Alarmism gives deniers a lot of amunition to smear the actual science, in the minds of the public, by proxy. A lot of current denialism consists of holding up the silliest statements of extremists to ridicule, rather than attacking the science directly, but unfortunately that rebounds badly on the actual science in the public's view who have little way of knowing which of the very confident sounding sides are accurate or legit.

    Long before John Cook started off the whole Denial 101 F.L.I.C.C initiative, I had been made well aware of the multiple deceptive rhetorical 'tricks' used by ordinary denialists to deny the peer reviewed science. I also became aware that the vast majority actually completely believed their position, whether it was the 'almost mainstream' luke-warmer position or the weirder 'against the second law of thermodynamics' pseudoscience types. What I did notice was that, say, in the comments of WUWT, virtually none of the former ever criticised the latter. It was only a very, very few, such as Mosher, who took on the real loonies. I also came to see that the reverse was also the case in environmentalist literature. Apart from a few such as myself, who has always tried to root out any mistakes, delusion or deceptions wherever they may be found, activist alarmism in publicly available media seemed to get a 'free pass' from those who normally argued the science, such as skepsci types. For what it's worth, I find it much harder to deal with activists, rather than with the more moderate 'denialists' as activist ideology isn't really based on a rational bullet-proof knowledge of the science, but rather on persuasive memes and Hans Eysenck's 'hobgoblins' to scare the public. I couldn't help noticing that BOTH sides used the same techniques of misdirection, cherry picking etc although, back then, it tended to be the more extreme - the incorrigibles of the denialist side - who did the lion's share of it. In the last few years, as the political aspects of the climate arena have suddenly popped out of the closet far more than ever before, and the sides have become ever more partisan, I'd say 'what lies beneath' the surface of people on all sides debating climate policy is surfacing.

    I used to sit on my former Government's Energy panel, which was set up to deal with energy policy relating to climate science and the energy transitions required and I became pretty well connected with some significant movers and shakers in the climate science arena, both scientists, civil servants and media folk. For what it's worth, the panel also had representatives on it from gas and oil 'fossil fuel' corporations, plus the area electricity supplier.  That's another reason why I'm virtually certain that the Greenpeace/Oreskes meme, that even some smart people seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker, is a fair distance from the truth. The meme has a lot of the smell of simplified 'hobgoblins to sway the public' about it, rather than it being a completely accurate piece of historical reportage...

    Anyway, it's been interesting to see the, in my view somewhat biased, kick-back from long term Skepsci followers. I think what I might do in due course is approach John Cook to see if we can arrange a Zoom meeting. He and Stephan Lewandowsky are right at the forefront of the 'psychological' approach to deconstructing denialist attitudes and methods. Maybe they'll be more welcoming of a new hypothesis than others...

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Nick Palmer at 04:39 AM on 14 June, 2021

    Incidentally, I'm going to re-link to the video of greenman3610 - Pete Sinclair - interviewing Marc Morano because I spotted many contributions by me to the comments below it.

    My screen name back then (8 years ago) was aylesmerep. Most of the denier/sceptics myself and my tag team partner yubedude (who I never knew the real name of - anyone know who they were?) took on deleted their comments because we 'whupped their arses', so it's very difficult to follow the threads nowadays but I remember their content. Realoldone2 was a cracker! I think Robert '1000frollyphd' Holmes was there too.

    I find it fascinating to see how arguments in the climate science wars have changed so much in such a short period. Back then many denier comments to such videos were really smart and they always argued the science and nothing but the science. It's only really the last few years that the 'reds under the bed' hypothesis to explain why climate science was, they assert, faked up has taken off like wildfire in the general and conservative media. It doesn't help that some well known climate science media 'go to' figures, such as Professor Kevin Anderson, who is one of Greta Thunberg's support team, is nakedly left in his politics and his choices of solutions he thinks appropriate.

    I think what has happened is that the 'debate' has become rapidly polarised recently on political ideology grounds and the various political stances of major figures are now being increasingly blatantly paraded. I wish the political biases of the various protagonists could be stripped out of the public arena, as this development is wholly counter-productive in my view

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Nick Palmer at 01:20 AM on 13 June, 2021

    Well, there's too much to address there! Just a couple of points.
    Phillipe@28 wrote: " However, that would leave one wondering why they continued to support the bullshit factories churning out propaganda favorable to their short-term financial interests in the following 30 years, as uncertainty dwindled away."

    I thought I'd already addressed that. The short answer is that Big Oil continued to support the "B.S. factories" because they were effective at trying to protect those corporations against unwarranted attack.  Pharmacological/vaccine corporations are currently coming under similar COVID19 propaganda type attacks to their detriment - they have less of a need to use 'B.S. factories' because most of the population have been familiar with vaccination most of their lives, so they know that the attacks are mostly baseless. The general voting public have no such familiarity with climate change, and the effectivess or otherwise of the many and various solutions put forward out there, so they are vulnerable to political manipulation by ideologically motivated types who think 'the answer' to the whole (not just climate change but biodiversity loss, inequality, 'white supremacy', LBTQ+ gender inequality etc etc) situation is to change 'the system' to end up with a world where we all live in some sort of vaguely defined harmony with nature and everybody is equal and all the wealth is redistributed to achieve their faith-based dreams of a socialist paradise. Part of that playbook is undermining established big industry and 'decentralisng'.

    Anyone who regularly takes on the really incorrigible denialists, as I do - I don't mean the brainwashed rank and file Hicksville idiots, but the much smarter ones - soon discovers that beneath all the high sounding 'alternative science' of the 1000frollyphds, the B.S. factories, Heartland's James Taylor, Quora's James Matkin etc are people who are almost always actually motivated by just a couple of things, of which by far the most common is extreme ideological antipathy to the 'big government' solutions promoted by extremist activists - the deep green environmentalists, the 'Smash Capitalism' closet reds and the 'System Change, not Climate Change' demonstrators.

    I really don't know if these 'denialist/lobbyist' people truly believe all the propaganda they put out, in which case they would have been driven to delusion to protect their favoured clients and industries to sabotage the 'stop all fossil fuel use today and indict the corporations types' or if they cynically know that they are deliberately spreading deceit and misdirection to achieve the same end.

    The 'Greenpeace knew' report and the recent Oreskes/Supran paper really are not evidence showing which way the truth lies being, as I've suggested before, chock full of cherry picking and insinuation and, in my view, the leading-the-reader attribution of malignant motives to innocent(ish) behaviour because of the underlying ideology of the authors. Oreskes is known to be significantly left wing and long ago Greenpeace's leaders adopted similar, or stronger, politics and I find their campaigning and assertions have got increasingly slanted and deceptive too.

    BTW, when I refer to left wing I am not referring to centre'ish politics like that of the US Democrats but more towards the sort of Utopian student revolutionary type beliefs.

    Blowing my own trumpet, I am one of the very few climate science denier fighters who can actually beat them to the point where they shut up (the smarter ones) or else (the dumber/madder ones) they resort to increasingly irrational conspiracy theory ideology to respond (not 'the scientists are all faking it for grant money' conspiracy but full-on Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, New World Order - even the shape shifting lizards!) which lets the reading/listening audiences see 'what lies beneath'. What is noticeable is that no matter how convincingly one may have demolished their case, give them several weeks, or a couple of months, and one will often find them using exactly the same flawed logic, cherry picked facts and deceptive framing as before. This could mean either they have some sort of mental condition where their mind edits out their defeat so, like psychics who forget all their wrong predictions and only remember any correct ones, they maintain a spurious sense of their own abilities or they don't care much if you demolish their case in public because their only goal is to sway the public mind to their desired end and they know that the public has a very short memory and that the short denialist memes 'it's the Sun, it's cooling, it's cold now in Hicksville, it's cosmic rays etc have a very powerful ability to fool, or at least induce doubt and uncertainty in, the public's minds.

    A clear example of the second type is Marc 'Climate Depot' Morano who is so confident of the validity of his position that he even proudly described it on camera to greenman3610 (Pete Sinclair).

    He still appears to believe in his 'in denial of mainstream climate science' position but he does admit here to using misleading rhetoric etc to achieve his ends, which are to sway the views of the public. He more or less admits to using 'the game' to propagandise. Even this is not necessarily smoking gun evidence of 'evil' if he truly believes his own rhetoric is accurate, it's just yet another example of what I call 'non-clinically diagnosable insanity' of which the online world is now suffering a tsunami!

    My main point is still this. I'm just about certain that the underlying motivations and beliefs of all major figures in the climate change wars are far more nuanced, and often hidden, than the simplistic 'they knew', 'they're evil', 'they're stupid' etc epithets flung at them by their opponents, whose motivations are similarly complex.

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Bob Loblaw at 07:36 AM on 11 June, 2021

    Nick Palmer:

    I agree with what Phillip and NigelJ have said to a much larger extent than I agree with what you have said. I will focus on a few points in your latest comment.

    "I was referring to the definite and real uncertainty in the science BEFORE Hansen's 1988 speech"

    Give me a break. I was studying climatology for 10 years before Hansen's speech, and a dozen years before the 1990 IPCC report. I did not need Greenpeace or any other media reports to know what was going on - I was reading the primary literature. I found about papers like Manabe and Wetherald (1967) by reading them when they were still <20 years old.

    "It is less than honest of people to assert that our modern established science in any way is comparable to the nascent science back then,"

    It is less than honest for people to assert that there was not a lot that we knew back then, either. We knew in the mid 1980s that Sherwood Idso's arguments for negligible warming were wrong. That did not stop special interests from funding him for decades afterwards. That funding was not intended to pursue a legitimate sicentific goal - it was to sow doubt.

    Climatology was not "nascent" in the 1980s. It was "nascent" in the 1880s.

    "I submit that these tactics of Big Oil were just ordinary political manoeuvring to resist irrationally draconian 'green/red' calls until the science got strong enough. "

    I submit that if this were the case, then Big Oil would have tried to argue the real science and legitimate uncertainty, instead of funding positions that were already known to be bunk.

    "...government pandering to the views of misinformed activists ..."

    You mean like the denial industry that was created specifically to maximize the extent to which politicians and the public were provided with misinformation? As you point out, right-wing politicians like Margaret Thatcher had a reasonably realistic view of the science several decades ago. Something - someone - managed to convince them otherwise.

    "It is a matter of record that the fossil fuel industry increasingly deserted the early 'denialist' fossil fuel organisation - which was formed in 1989 - the 'Global Climate Coalition' - until by the early 2000s it was disbanded, and this was because the science had got strong enough."

    Alternate explanation: as early denial organizations lost credibility, it was easier to let them die and fund new organizations that could spout the same misinformation under a new name. Until that organization loses it credibility. Or don't even wait - just create a whole bunch of them and make it look as if there is widespread doubt.

    Much of the rest of your comment dives into "the mean lefties made them do it". I heard the same kind of arguments being made about general environmental issues when I worked in the oil patch in the early 1980s. It was not a reaction to climate isuses - it was a standard rhetorical tactic long before then.

    "BTW, are there are any links to Big Oil documents which actually deny the science in the way that deniers do - it's the Sun - it's cooling - it's cosmic rays - the temperature record was tampered with - it's all fraud etc? I've never seen any actual full-on denialism in them. "

    Because they learned from the problems the tobacco industry ran into over their internal documents? And funneled the money through shell corporations or institutes to hide the source, letting the denial groups do this for them? People that don't want to get cuaght doing what they are doing usually figure out eventually to not keep records.

    It doesn't matter if Big Oil believed the denialism or not - they sure funded it. Out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they thought it made good business sense?


  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    Nick Palmer at 02:05 AM on 11 June, 2021

    Phillipe and NigelJ. I think you two have somewhat missed that I was referring to the definite and real uncertainty in the science BEFORE Hansen's 1988 speech and the formation of the IPCC. That is when the documents in 'Exxon Knew', which are now held up as evidnec of 'certain' knowledge and associated deceit, were created. It is less than honest of people to assert that our modern established science in any way is comparable to the nascent science back then, upon which it would have been simply wrong to base far-reaching, global economy affecting/dismantling policies. It is verging on deceit to cast aspersions at targets who are not guilty or, at least, very much less guilty than they are being accused of being, using sophisticated rhetoric, cherry picking, misattribution of motivation etc and all the liguistic techniques that such as John Cook has clarified the denialist 'side' as using.

    The uncertainty I was referring to (ordinary man-in-the-street definition, not the scientific one), at the relevant time, and what was not well understood then, was of such a magnitude (look again at the Dessler quote I gave) that it was entirely justified that Big Oil did not turn on a sixpence and shut down when the environmental organisations seized on this new way to attack Big Industry by using activist's frequent tendency to make unwarranted speculations on fragmentary evidence, then deciding that whatever unlikely speculative doomy result they came up with is almost certain to happen and then using that to justify calling for bans and authoritarian restrictions to avoid that end.

    There can be no doubt that Big Oil sponsored think tanks, Institutes and lobbying organisations that used actual denialist rhetoric as part of their portfolio of techniques to try to influence politicians and policy formulations but, and I think this is where a lot of people go wrong, this should not have caused people to jump to the conclusion that Big Oil was deliberately spreading denialism because they were actually in denial of climate science - pause for a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth by the extremists! I submit that these tactics of Big Oil were just ordinary political manoeuvring to resist irrationally draconian 'green/red' calls until the science got strong enough. The primary function of such lobbying organisations is to help their clients fight back against what they see as heavy handed legislation or inappropriate policy making by government pandering to the views of misinformed activists and those members of the voting public whose views have been changed by them to the point where they would vote in such draconian and misconceived action.

    It is a matter of record that the fossil fuel industry increasingly deserted the early 'denialist' fossil fuel organisation - which was formed in 1989 - the 'Global Climate Coalition' - until by the early 2000s it was disbanded, and this was because the science had got strong enough.

    "The GCC dissolved in 2001 after membership declined in the face of improved understanding of the role of greenhouse gases in climate change and of public criticism"

    Anyone who engages with denialists, the right wing or who defends the basic priciples behind environmentalism (which are, of course, still very valid) will pretty soon be accused of being a 'watermelon' - green on the outside, red on the inside, by which they mean that environmentalists have a superficial layer of concern for the environment masking a far left 'smash capitalism' ideology underneath. This is not a conspiracy theory! It is clear that many recent significant spokespersons indeed do have a very deep seated antipathy towards the capitalism system, upon which they lay the blame for all sorts of mankind's woes and they have an ideological zeal that only their pet version of international socialism will save us all - which goal, to them, justifies the deceit and propaganda they use as they try to 'socially engineer' the masses.

    It is these 'fifth columnists' who created the Patrick Moore's, the Patrick Michael's, the Bjorn Lomborg's and who gave such as the Heartland Institute such large amounts of ammunition to doubt the integrity of the genuine, reasonable scientifically based policies. Bear in mind that one of the very earliest politicians to warn about the dangers of potential climate change in public and political circles was the rather far right Margaret Thatcher

    and it was the far left who more or less started denialism off by insinuating that it was all fake science to justify shutting coal mines down, to handicap the development of the Third World and to accelerate the expansion of nuclear power. It was only afterwards that the left realised that if they became anti-global warming they could have a powerful stick to hit Big Industry, the international monetary system etc and slip their desired political outcomes in by the back door. That change in outlook in turn created the right wing/libertarian opposition - first to the 'solutions' the left claimed were mandatory and then their political 'chess moves'  generated out and out deceitful-but-plausible-sounding denialism to undermine the legitimate science by appealing to the U.S.'s conservative blue collar population that it was actually a reds-under-the-bed attempt to undermine their freedoms.

    Here is the very rational Zion Lights explaining why she disavowed her earlier extreme, ideology based, environmental beliefs and how she sees those beliefs as counter-productive these days.

    Whether activists like it or not, I believe it was the environmental organisations excessive and unwarranted views, and the political engineering of (some) of their leaders, which led them to make simplistic and ill thought out (or craftily planned) demands for policy changes which would have been disastrous. A far more likely explanation of Big Fossil Fuel's stance and acts is not that their execs were real denialists possessed of a psychopathic disregard for humanity but that their adverts and public facing statements were their attempt to resist politicians moving against them and implementing the type of draconian policies called for by those with fallacious, or at least well over-the-top, views in some cases motivated by an underlying 'closet' political ideology - Smash Capitalism! - that the public would never actually vote for if it was expressed out loud.

    BTW, are there are any links to Big Oil documents which actually deny the science in the way that deniers do - it's the Sun - it's cooling - it's cosmic rays - the temperature record was tampered with - it's all fraud etc? I've never seen any actual full-on denialism in them. That's why I made my point that the words in the documents have likely been mischaracterised by Oreskes and Supran et al to insinuate and attribute motives which really weren't there.

    I think you really shouldn't characterise Stephen Schneider's views as "the opinion of one person". He was a very well regarded early climate scientist, who was also acknowledged as a brilliant communicator of that science to the public. His (unedited by denialists) quote which I gave is still a very accurate statement on the science and its communication and comprehension by the public. Unfortunately, in this area, he is almost peerless these days. Richard Alley, Katharine Hayhoe, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are really good but, in my opinion, they are not quite at the same level. Schneider could take on a hostile audience of denialists and either defeat them or make their apparently plausible views look as irrational as they really are.

    BTW, Phillipe, I actually referred to the CMIP6 models (not the CMP5 ones, as you incorrectly stated I did) running (considerably) too hot. This is not contentious. Ask Gavin Schmidt or any other similarly credentialled scientist...

  • The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

    KR at 13:23 PM on 10 June, 2021

    Micawber - I'm reminded of the quote (which may or may not be real, but still relevant):

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

    ― Winston S. Churchill

    The same applies to peer review. There are occasional failures, biases, and downright foolishness (especially for off-topic or denier controlled venues) - but in the end it's the best system we have, and inherently (over time) self-correcting. 

  • A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

    Eclectic at 01:05 AM on 6 June, 2021

    Nigelj @12 , please excuse my lengthy reply.

    ( I have been pondering your analysis of the denialati at WUWT blogsite.)

    As you have seen, I enjoy bagging WUWT  ~ and I have been over-indulging a bit, lately  ~ but perhaps justifiably, in view of WUWT's  "facilitation" of Dr Koonin's half-truths & propaganda.   The editors  and chorus at WUWT  have given Koonin plenty of headlines plus glowing review of his new book plus praise for his contrarian attitude plus scathing denigration of his critics/opponents.

    Nigel, I don't advise you to spend much time on WUWT.   I myself do spend time "there" because (A) I am entertained & intrigued by the range of psychopathologies to be found in the comments columns, and (B) it allows me to construct & internally rehearse counter-arguments to the rubbish currently fashionable in the deniosphere, and (C) there are some - not many - points of information to be picked up (mostly in the OP's).  And I will grant that WUWT  has value in its (frequent!!) enumeration of the difficulties we are & will be  experiencing in attempting rapid transfer away from fossil fuels.  We definitely should not be viewing these difficulties through rose-tinted glasses.

    You are right, as to the types of denialists to be found at WUWT.   About half of them are pretty hopeless intellectually ~ they come to vent their anger into a receptive echochamber.  They are angry - in a wingnut extremist way - "libertarian" anger about Big Government and any taxes [except for military expenditure].   Anger about their money being siphoned off to go to the poor (especially to poor foreigners).   Anger about their [USA] nation being degraded and taken over by The Left and by The Woke and by the socialists / communists / Warmunists / Chinese / communists / socialists / socialists (have I mentioned "socialists" enough?)   I suspect there's a lot of wh-supremacism in there too  ~ but the "race" word is taboo in the comments columns there.  

    Very little of this has to do with climate science, but WUWT  is certainly a magnet for it all.  Basically they are an angry crowd, with little or no charity or compassion for other human beings.

    The other half of them are educated and moderately intelligent ~ some, very intelligent.  But their emotional baggage causes them to view the scientific world through a powerfully-distorting prism.   Cognitive dissonance & motivated reasoning are rampant, and debilitating.

    As you say, Nigel, they can start off looking fair . . . until their scaly netherparts hove into view.   Sad.

    Constituents : mostly American (plus expatriate Americans) and a modicum of Brits, and a surprisingly large component of Aussies.  Kiwis rare.

    As to loneliness ~ well, they get a sort of community at WUWT.   From time to time, you will hear a confession that "all of my family disagree with me : they are dupes of the leftist media propaganda, and I can't budge them."   [ A pleasant sign to you and me, eh, Nigel.]

    Saddest and loneliest are the handful of complete climate science crackpots.   Week after week, they keep publicizing their screed of crackpottedness.  Sometimes ridiculed, but mostly ignored by the other denialists (some of whom are GHE deniers also!).   Some - but not all - also fit in the political extremist basket.

    Overall, Nigel, the WUWT  is a magnet for quite a range of dysfunctional characters.   I am uncertain whether the WUWT  blogsite is a bad thing (in echochambering and reinforcing their nonsense) . . . or whether it is a good thing, in keeping the denizens occupied among themselves, with less time to get up to other mischief.

  • Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable

    prove we are smart at 21:43 PM on 1 June, 2021

    Thanks Evan for introducing me to Prof Kevin Anderson- this link to one of his youtube classes really hits home

    I also followed his advice to watch this also  " Merchants Of Doubt" . The sound is a bit low and a quirky way the poster got around the copyright but if only the climate deniers could watch it

  • Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Eclectic at 09:33 AM on 28 May, 2021

    Nigelj , I am in much agreement with you.   MA Rodger earlier pointed out the long back-story of Koonin's employment in the oil industry.

    People can change . . . but sometimes they don't . . . and it is easy to see the possibility that Koonin's previous sphere of employment would give him a bias towards retrospective justification of his earlier activities.

    There is no need to posit any recent financial influencing of Koonin.  The past connection may well be enough, psychologically, to have him self-censor his intellect.

    Nigelj,  I am sure you can think of many cases where prominent individuals have been "turned" by means of big amounts of money.  But psychologists' experiments show that one can often achieve large influence through surprisingly small payments.  It seems the smallness of the reward causes the recipients to over-compensate by becoming even stronger in their advocacy role.  Example: the very small stipend that was paid by Peabody to Lindzen.

    But we needn't get too bogged down in all these sorts of analyses.  The real problem is the actions of the deniers, rather than their motivations (which are difficult to change).

  • Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Eclectic at 06:51 AM on 28 May, 2021

    Yes, thank you Jim Hunt @19 .

    Author Boslough's phrase: "Koonin's trust of those [poor] advisers and lack of rigorous independent verification"  can be seen as a sort of semi-apology for Koonin.

    But that doesn't really wash ~ for there is even less  excuse for a very intelligent guy like Koonin to fall into the usual Denialist incompetence of intellect (in matters of climate).

    Figuratively speaking, something is rotten in the state of Denmark ~ and presumably that something is a powerful lot of motivated reasoning going on in the mind of Koonin.   And for me, it is quite unclear what is the underlying emotion driving Koonin.  Whatever it is, it only partly overlaps with the emotional driving force to be found in the usual average denier.  (But the end result is the same.)

  • Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?

    Greg at 06:20 AM on 23 May, 2021

    Having been around since FDR was US President, and having been a Republican, an Independent and a Democrat, I have seen and experienced many ups and downs with how things are going in the US, but the existential threat posed by climate change is by far the greatest threat that we will all face. When I talk to people about climate change, whether they are deniers or not, I ask them if they have noticed changes in the climate, regardless of the cause. The answer is usually yes. Then I ask if they think humans are contributing at all to the problem. Most are now saying yes, and for those who say yes and are on the denier side of the coin, their response is usually followed by saying there is not much they can do regarding climate change anyway. Unfortunately, nearly all Americans do not understand the causes of climate change nor do they understand the pros and cons of alternative actions that could be taken to eliminate the production of greenhouse gases. This, I believe, is due primarily to misinformation from Big Oil and politicians, whose interest in wealth, power and profit undermine attempts of obtaining a sustainable and acceptable future for us all. So, for those who feel there is nothing they can do, I tell them there is a very easy and significant first step they can take now and that is to not vote for ANY Republican politician (Representatives, Senators, Delegates, etc., at both the State and Federal level) who are lawmakers for at least the next decade. Even though their body language or verbal response indicates that there may be some truth to that position, their body language or verbal response indicate that that will never happen.

    So, is there any hope? Yes, I am seeing a glimmer of hope coming from a strange place – the recent announcement that the Ford F150 Lightening pickup truck coming out at the end of the year (the F-150 product line is a multi-billion dollar business for Ford and is popular with many – over 750,000 sold last year). This is not a Ford commercial. Also, the more electric vehicles sold, the more it will help shift the momentum to electric vehicles. And, whether Ford, Tesla, VW, Volvo, etc., more charging stations will be needed and more people will feel comfortable with electric cars. Hopefully, it will help kick off an exponential growth of green vehicles. And, I think that even climate change deniers will buy the new trucks because they can power their table saws at the jobsite, power what they need at campsites, and power key equipment at home when the grid goes down the next time, without saying they are doing it for the climate.

  • What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?

    Philippe Chantreau at 04:50 AM on 20 May, 2021

    The trend over the length of the record is statistically significant. 10 years may not be enough data to extract significance but that is irrelevant, since there are much more data than is needed to assess a real trend. Such analysis will likely show that, not only there is a significant warming trend, but that it also is accelerating.


    Excerpt from the NOAA page: "the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate."

    Considering the observed increase in decadal trends, and considering the physical reasons for the trend to continue, Ado's remark doesn't have much value.

    Some of SkS contributors made a bet with the No Tricks Zone deniers and of course, they won, because the trend is unmistakeable. I have no doubt the same bet will yield the same result for the next decade. It will most likely be very close to 0.2 degC/decade, Ado's uncertainty notwithstanding.

  • 'Freedom from Fossil Fuels' - a climate science framework for non-scientists

    nevergiveup at 02:22 AM on 14 May, 2021

    Thank you so much Stephen ! I continually try to find words to describe climate change in a way that is easily understandable to people, especially the deniers, so I think you have cracked it ! I appreciate all the hard work it must have taken you to get to this point. Fantastic work. I look forward to your shorter versions ! Thanks again, from a climate activist

  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19

    Eclectic at 01:12 AM on 12 May, 2021

    Jim Hunt . . . an addendum :-

    I got a smile, from someone saying you were "a denier of consensus".


    In another direction, there was also a neat comment by Joshua :-

    "the basic science implies danger (within a range of uncertainty)"

    ~ and I shall try to remember that quote.  Very neat.

  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

    Dale H at 09:54 AM on 29 April, 2021


    Thank you for the information. I have read the attached and the climate sceptics link explaining the information and alot of the comments and will look through the rest. It is a big help as well I will follow all the links.

    Bob Loblaw @9, Doug Bostrom @10 & scaddenp @11

    Thanks for reading my ideas and thank you for your time on responding. First I apologize on modelling comment as it was the wrong wording for what I was trying to explain and yes it is about statistical models not physics models. I will study all of the links and information to learn more. As you can tell I am also not a statistician but have used large amounts of data/statistical models to help change the behavior of people in all of the studies delivered which is difficult because people naturally resist change because of the risk involved and sometimes their own agendas so alot start out as deniers.

    My point was we could strengthen our arguement by looking closely at the period when it was higher with all the different forcings and tie it back to the current increases to strengthen the predictions which I haven't seen done that often at least to the public level. In a simple sense it gets to us as the model said so without explaining the different pieces. Once again I come back to the premise that all of you have thought of these things and are not getting near the credit for all of your brillance and hard word.

    I think we have convinced all of the scientists and now maybe broaden the approach with a full view aimed at a larger audience. As with everything else I mentioned you have probably done this already. I was just trying to understand the bigger picture and offer any help on understanding then educating and selling the ideas.

    Thanks again as I have already learned alot in the last week.

  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

    Dale H at 09:38 AM on 28 April, 2021


    Thank you for the information above as it was all new to me as my investigation into climate change has mainly been from 1880 to the present with a little bit around the little ice age plus the higher sea levels 1000 to 1250 AD.

    I am sorry about breaking policy guidelines as it wasn't my intent and will adjust my questions. It was just one question lead to another and I didn't see threads with graphs about CO2 and temperature levels in the dinosaur age on the website as I had noticed were higher on google but wanted good data. I also started here because on the newbie page I mainly saw people complaining about deniers and was hoping for some colaboration to help point me to which projects have a greater acceptance.

    As mentioned I have delivered over 1000 projects and workshops in the food business on 4 continents and we always let the facts and models find as close to truth for us and then model out multiple scenarios to help achieve results on their goals and what they can afford. The data has no room for denial but people don't like change so their starting point on most things is denial and we use facts and to help and outcomes to help change them. There is some advantage that the Food business isn't political but there is always different agendas in corporations etc.. on having the results that would benefit them. I found it surprising at the amount of politics on the website which will immediately get the opposing parties backs up and stop the exchange of ideas. I truely believe there is alot more hard work and wisdom in the area that isn't getting out to the public probably on the 5 to 10 fold scale. On deniers one of the reasons I honestly looked at the area at first is I was hearing outrageous claims of what was going to happen. I said maybe but would have to look at as much of the raw data and model outputs myself. Once I looked into it I could see some classic cherry picking the time period, changing the scale etc.. which would give misintented results that is easy for deniers to poke holes in the conclusion and once you lose credibility on the data set it is difficult to get back. I also saw that if you looked at the whole dataset the trend and results show the same result of an increase but maybe on a slightly longer timeframe and was a missed opportunity on changing deniers opinion in some cases. For myself it led to realize that we are affecting climate and I had to tease out the last few questions I had to see any natural increase. (sea level going up before the industrial revolution, why the slow down in the 30's & 40's and a few other things).

    I do think you are selling yourselves a little short and have an opportunity to point out that we have over powered the latest decrease in solar irradiance and sunspot decrease and the temperature is still rising as further proof.

    My hope was to learn more and possibily collaborate on the full picture to help in anyway I could. As you all know in modelling you can predict outside the current data but the model error will go up as leave the data set. My thinking was as we leave the most recent area were CO2 has been the last few million years why not try to learn as much as we can in the dinosaur period when temperatures and CO2 were hotter to help our knowledge and what we are up against. In addition, as you know match your presentations to your audience varying details/complexity to some groups and the big picture with simple reasonable outcomes with executives.

    I will continue to go through the site to look for knowlege on the areas mentioned for question to stay within policy. If you have any good datasets and hypothesis it would be appreciated. Since this may not to policy and not to bore everyone on the site please contact me and I would love to learn and help in anyway.


  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

    Dale H at 05:43 AM on 26 April, 2021

    I am new to the site but have followed climate change as a hobby for over 15 years. For the record I am not a climate denier and have seen data debunking most of the climate myths listed. I am trying to learn more through facts or strong hypothesis as I have spent the last 30+ years working in the food industry convincing Directors to Presidents with data and models on what is driving their businesses.

    My question is there any information that has caused the change in earths temperatures about 1.2 million years ago? We seemed to have been cooling off and then entered a new phase. Is it the sun's orbit?

  • Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'

    Wol at 11:24 AM on 22 April, 2021

    As a long retired civvil pilot I have but a superficial training in meteorology and climatology (I can still use a tephigram but probably get the wrong answers<g>).

    I'm politically somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun; however this doesn't mean that I am obliged to close my brain down and go along with what has become a political fight by denialists.

    There's certainly been a shift in public opinion about global warming these last five years but - and, America, I'm looking at you - there's a significant percentage of the population that is NEVER going to take the trouble to check the veracity of the huge amount of misinformation out there. It's almost comical that some can quote temperature CO2 and sea level data from millions of years ago yet without blinking rubbish what the same science is telling us now.

    It's psychology bordering on psychiatry that's the issue, and I don't think there's any way of countering it - certainly not with facts.Scott Morrison, here in Australia, is making faint noises about minimal investments but it's merely to assuage some of the criticism without breaking from his close relations with parliamentary colleagues and the FF industry.

    The even sadder thing is that, in the unlikely event that global gree efforts DO hold temperatures to a manageable level, the deniers' descendents will of course cry "There you are, what was all the fuss about - it was rubbish". We saw just that with the millenium bug!

  • 'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate

    TVC15 at 06:29 AM on 21 April, 2021

    Why on earth was a warning placed on this video?  Could it be those climate denier algorithms?

  • 'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate

    TVC15 at 06:20 AM on 21 April, 2021

    @ Marcin 

    I'm located in the US and when I click on the link it takes me to my YouTube account and once the video loads it states "This video may be inappropriate for some users” I have the option to click on the link below the warning that states: "I understand and wish to proceed".

    It's sickening to me to see what my country has become. This video puts it in the spotlight. As a biological and medical scientist I am disgusted by the anti-science I see here in the US. We are seriously considering leaving this country.

    Just last night I visited a forum I used to participate in trying to educate the climate deniers. I was astounded with the human caused climate denier comments. There's no getting through to a person with a climate denier mind. I wanted to jump in and correct all the distortion of facts and disinformation, but I realized I never want to waste anymore of my time on a forum with people of that mindset. I wasted years on there and the same people are parroting the same BS.

    I digress.

  • There is no consensus

    Karlengle at 23:58 PM on 9 April, 2021

    Tom Dayton, Thanks for the insight into the peer review process!  Sounds pretty grueling... 

    I was asking because one of the main responses I get from deniers when I give the studies on consensus, are links to notable deniers going into details on their own reviews about the studies always claiming a smoking gun of trickery and deception on these studies.  One usually has to get pretty deep in the weeds to dispel those.  I always look for the simpler explanation that makes sense to the possible audience of my discussion.  I've usually given up on convincing the other person, but I want to always frame my arguments to appeal to those with a cursury interest and not get mired in the snowing attempts from deniers.  It would be good to argue that denier biased "reviews" of studies are not reliable, and the scientific peer review process is much better at catching bad science.

  • There is no consensus

    Karlengle at 06:45 AM on 9 April, 2021

    Hi, I have a question about peer reviews.  Are there lists somewhere that show who has peer-reviewed studies/papers being mentioned?  For example, I have been searching for peer reviews of Naomi Oreske's consenus study, but I'm not having any luck?  Any places you can point me to?  When offer these studies at online discussions, I invariably get linked to critiques given by bloggers.  Of course, these bloggers, being climate deniers offer all sorts of claims of dishonesty and bad studies, but it seems like if these studies where peer reviewed, those reviews would hold much more water than a denier blogger with no real expertise in climate science...

  • CO2 is plant food

    TVC15 at 07:02 AM on 7 April, 2021

    Ops I meant Canadian denier. 

  • CO2 is plant food

    TVC15 at 05:00 AM on 7 April, 2021

    The climate deniers are getting out of hand here in the US.

    I have a Canidain denier trying to covince me that CO2 is plant food and good for the earth.  He proceeds to back his beleif by posting this on LinkedIn.  

    …CO2 is Greening Planet Earth…


  • CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Daniel Bailey at 09:27 AM on 6 April, 2021

    Sigh.  If only people would stop checking their cerebral cortex at the border to Denierstan: people live in the troposphere, not the thermosphere.

    I know they both start with "t", but that's all they have in common.

    From NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak:

    "There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface. NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface."

    "Observations have shown that solar flare activity on the surface of the Sun is in the quiet phase of its continuing 11-year cycle. This causes cooling of the thermosphere—a layer of the atmosphere that starts 65 miles above the surface—and will not cause noticeable cooling at the surface"


    Please surprise us by demonstrating some actual skepticism.

  • Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Eclectic at 05:43 AM on 3 April, 2021

    Rkcannon, permit me to add a comment, as a non-expert in these matters.   Measuring the alterations in outgoing IR radiation from Earth, is a matter of measuring a very small quantity against the background of a very large quantity.   Rather like measuring your bodyweight on ordinary bathroom scales ~  with and without wearing your wristwatch.   It is hard to get an accurate assessment of the weight of your wristwatch, even though you repeat the measurements daily over many years!

    (Nevertheless, basic physics and common sense do combine to tell you that the wristwatch has a real positive weight, not a negative or zero weight.)

    Taking a step back and looking at the climate situation :-  over many decades, the observed surface temperature is rising, and the observed Ocean Heat Content is rising, and the observed planetary ice-sheets are melting, and the observed sea-evel is rising.   And these changes are in accord with our understanding of radiational basic physics, too.

    So only a fool (or scoundrel) would assert that Global Warming is not occurring.   (Despite the difficulties inherent in a situation of continual variations and distributions of planet-wide cloud types.)

    Speaking of which :- the NoTricksZone  website has an appalling track record of presenting distorted and/or misleading information.   It is clear that "NTZ"  has a strong agenda of presenting disinformation via misquotes and misinterpeting of scientific papers.   Yes, I am making an ad hominem comment ~  and it is a very well deserved ad hom in the case of NTZ  and its chief editor.   Whenever you see something "scientific" reported on NTZ  website, your own proper skepticism should immediately go to Triple Red Alert overdrive status.

    There are several versions of reporting circulating about an initial study (Kramer et al., 2021).    NTZ's  effort mentions a Zoe Phin, who is IIRC one of these "GreenHouse Effect does not exist" people ~  so again, your skepticism should result in a close examination of what's being put forward.  (Unless you wish to dismiss it all as a huge waste of time for you to investigate.  Just as you do when faced with a complicated "proof" of Flat Earth . . . or a new Perpetual Motion Machine . . . or a complicated screed of mathematics supplied by AGW-deniers like Christopher Monckton.)

  • UK is now halfway to meeting its ‘net-zero emissions’ target

    nigelj at 15:54 PM on 23 March, 2021

    Imo the UK have made some impressive achievements cutting emissions, but the title of the Carbon Brief article "UK is now halfway to meeting its ‘net-zero emissions’ target" is just woefully misleading and hands deniers ammunition and says shoot us. Gains made by covid 19 don't count because most of them are temporary, so should not be used to claim the UK is half way to achieving its emissions target. The achievements without covid 19 impacts are quite good, and didn't need this sort of embelishment in the title. 

    It would be interesting to know why more progress hasn't been made with EV's. Perhaps its because the UK don't appear to offer the subsidies for EVs that Scandinavian countries do.

  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9, 2021

    Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 17 March, 2021


    We coud add that said Hurricane was a monster 1800km in diameter at its largest, that made it all the way to 40 degrees latitude. Of course, you can blame NY flooding on the storm surge, but there the sea level and storm surge combo is what takes the cake. Deniers will deny.

  • Most important steps to build out a completely renewable energy system

    michael sweet at 03:01 AM on 17 March, 2021


    How to store excess energy from windy days to use on windless nights is the key issue of using renewables.  I am surprised that you could not find where Jacobson et al and Williams et all address long term storage.  Most of both papers is dedicated to addressing this issue.

    In general, there are a lot of ways to address this issue.  For example, current hydro power is used to supply primarily peak power in the middle of the day.  If usage of the dams was altered, hydro power could provide a lot of the backup power needed on most nights instead (solar production is pretty constant.  Windless nights are the harder problem.).  Batteries can be used for storage of solar power for use at night or wind energy at night for use the next day.  Long term storage (from summer to winter) is generally too expensive for batteries.

    Storage of gasses and liquids is much cheaper than storage of electricity.  Then the gasses (or liquids) can be used to generate electricity  when it is needed.  According to the EIA, currently existing underground storage of  natural gas is about 6,000 billion cubic feet in the USA alone. source  Usage (same source) is about 70 billion cubic feet on peak days.  This is about 90 days of complete supply.  Either electromethane or hydrogen can be stored in existing storage.  On windy days in summer you make hydrogen (or electromethane) and store it.  On windless winter nights you use the gas to generate electricity in currently existing gas turbines.  Fuel cells using hydrogen are more energy efficient if they are developed in the next 10 years (this technology exists.  The question is the cost of scale up to the entire country).  This would easily supply the examples you give.  Even if electrical usage was much greater there would still be enough storage.

    Your wild claim that electromethane is not a viable option is completely unsupported.  The three peer reviewed papers I cite show that storage is economically available to power 100% of the economy using current technology.  If fuel cells are developed than hydrogen might be cheaper.

    If you have trash to energy plants they can stockpile material to use to supply peak power.  A lot of energy can be saved by customers who reduce use to get cheaper electricity.  Many high users of electricity currently reduce use on peak usage days.  My brother programs his electric car to charge only when there is excess power since the electricity is cheaper.

    Williams et al and Jacobson et al describe their systems running for 4 years without problems supplying total energy to the economy. 

    In addition, scientists have found that the larger the grid the less incidence of windless nights occurs.  

    Germany will never generate 100% of all energy all the time, it is too small.  They will be in a European grid that helps back them up.  Norway has tremendous hydro that could imaginally back up all Europe. 

    You have to look at the big picture.  Deniers in the past have used examples as small as a single wind turbine to argue against renewables.  Scientists have shown that large grids (the bigger the better) generating All Energy for the economy are the cheapest way to go.  Texas will have to connect to the grid.

  • 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?

    Crystal_Wolf at 08:39 AM on 14 March, 2021

    Tom Curtis @30 "It turns out that you are just another denier who poses as a neutral questioner, but whose real agenda is to raise doubt - any doubt regardless of rationality - with relation to any evidence for AGW." Actually Tom I think the physics to AGW is valid. People are burning lots of carbon based fuel and are most likely increasing the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. It will cause some warming of the Globe. As this website states, a denier is one who will not change based upon valid evidence. I am a skeptic in this issue (Weather extermes due to Global warming). I will change my view when valid evidence is presented to prove this conclusion. What I have been requesting is balance with historical data as well as wanting some mechanisms to explain why warming is causing the extremes. If it be flooding, drought etc. what is the warming atmophere doing to cause these events to take place at a greater frequency or intensity. Jeff Masters lists a lot of bad events that happened in 2010 but provides very little linking mechanisms to explain how global warming was responsible. He is a PhD meterologist and would have the knowledge to provide links and mechanisms. If I am given this type of information and would still deny it, then your label of "denier" would be most correct. (-Snip-). I agree with Norman.

  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9, 2021

    jamesh at 07:01 AM on 5 March, 2021

    I found doug-bostrom's posting very helpful inasmuch as it focused on several issues that can be discussed in a frendly atmosphere.  The first is the warming of our invironment in the US in the years since the end of WW2.  at the end of the war we had a population of 14o million.  Housing developments were built on what was farm land.  Power plants were built,  both nuclear fossil fuel.  The interstate HWY system was built. plus a lot of secondary roads.  Dams were built for the purpose of generating electricity.  The Marble canyon dam created the enormus Lake Powel.  I don't know the impact of Lake Powel, I leave that to the experts.  The St. Lawrence Seaway project was built to genrtate electricity.  New power lines were built to transmit all the new power.  At least 30 pct of transmited power is lost to the environment.  We built shopping centers, high rise buildings, waste water treatment plants which were designed to use the aerobic process, drinking water treatment plants. solid waste disposal methods which were very energy  Americans had to pay for all of the above energy intensive projects, so to call them deniers is unfair. The next issue I want to deal with is the measurement of energy in the environment.  We have heated up our invironment, and I assume it can be decteded by sattelites,  but there is hidden energy which can be computed but not detected.  To prove my point I chose to pick a municipal reservoir used for drinking water.  Such reservoirs are closely monitored for PH, temp. etc.  The water is soft and the goal is to keep it that way.  Said reservoir recieves a certain amount of solar radiation every day, which can be estimated.  Once the energy is adsorbed by the water it is essentialy in storage, we cannot measure it, and it doesn't matter where we try to measure it,  we cannot see it.  If we know the temp. of the water we can calculate how much energy is lost through evaporation.  When the evaporation process  takes place, we still cannot takr a direct measurement of the watervapor.  The watervapor will eventually cool and release it's energy.  So it looks to me like we have an energy transfer system to which our instruments are totally blind.

  • Hurricanes, wildfires, and heat dominated U.S. weather in 2020

    scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 24 February, 2021

    Jamesh, it is very unclear to me why you are posting here.

    Let's get one thing very clear. If you wish to convince readers that the science is wrong, then you cannot do so by displays of ignorance. You certainly cannot disprove science by insisting it make predictions that it manifestly does not.

    A "build up of heat in the environment" manifests itself as a temperature increase. A temperature increase of the observed size will definitely have effects such as we are seeing, but not more.

    Here is how the game is played. If you want to dispute the science, then you point to what the science consensus says. The IPCC reports are the best way to do this, or quote from peer-reviewed research. (If you have learnt your climate science from denier sites, then chances are everything you think you know is wrong or distorted. ) Then you point to observations or papers which you think clearly show that the stated science is wrong. Beware of cherry-picked observations from denier sites. Deniers largely rely on strawmen statements about science and cherry-picking as the main rhetorical devices.

  • 2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8

    swampfoxh at 01:54 AM on 23 February, 2021

    The above article by Robert Reich is awfully political. Since when did SkepSci post stuff that goes after the Rich? Is it scientific to defecate on the oil company owners while lamenting the plight of "ordinary" Texans? Is Reich's rant subject to any peer review? I'm pretty sure most of those Texans, in trouble, are climate deniers and are just "getting what's coming to them" for their ignorance of the problems in the climate. Texas is a heavy Red State, they could use some climate education, but less climate politics.

  • Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming

    Hans Petter Jacobsen at 23:53 PM on 20 February, 2021

    When I wrote this blog post in December 2012, the temperatures measured so far in solar cycle 24 were much higher than SSH (Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum) predicted with their solar cycle model in [1] and [2]. In 2014, I wrote about the failure of their model on a Norwegian discussion forum. Solheim, the lead author of the two articles, participated in the discussion afterwards. He defended his model. He stressed that we have to wait till solar cycle 24 has ended before we can evaluate the model's predictions for that cycle. It ended in November 2019, so now we have the answer. The average temperatures in solar cycle 24 became much higher than SSH predicted with their model.

    In [1], SSH predicted that the average temperature on Svalbard in solar cycle 24 would be between 1.5 and 5.5°C colder than it was in solar cycle 23. According to the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, the average temperature at Svalbard Airport Longyearbyen increased by 1.7°C from solar cycle 23 to 24. According to Berkeley Earth, it increased by 1.0°C at a location inland, not far from Longyearbyen.

    In [2], SSH predicted that the average temperature in a northern region including Iceland and Norway would drop by at least 1°C from solar cycle 23 to 24. According to Berkeley Earth it rose by 0.3°C on Iceland and by 0.7°C in Norway including Svalbard.

    Figure 1 in the blog post shows how the HadCRUT3 temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere fit with the predictions of the solar cycle model. Then solar cycle 24 had just started, and the blue star for solar cycle 24 showed the temperatures measured so far in that cycle. Now the blue star can be replaced with a blue circle showing the average temperature in solar cycle 24. That is done in the Updated Figure 1.

    The Solar Cycle Model with the HadCRUT4 temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere

    Updated Figure 1: The observed and the predicted mean temperatures in solar cycles up to and including cycle 24.

    The original Figure 1 used the HadCRUT3 temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, just as SSH did in [2]. Met Office has replaced the HadCRUT3 temperatures with the HadCRUT4 temperatures. The Updated Figure 1 therefore uses the the HadCRUT4 temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

    The Updated Figure 1 shows the same for the northern hemisphere as the examples do for Svalbard, Iceland and Norway. The temperatures in Solar Cycle 24 became much higher than they were in the previous cycle. Not colder as predicted by SSH.

    See the blog post Solar Cycle Model failed totally when predicting colder temperatures for more information and more plots.

    The lead author Jan-Erik Solheim and his two co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board in an organization run by climate deniers in Norway. Some months ago Solheim wrote on their web site (in Norwegian) that solar cycle 25 has started. He did not mention his failed predictions for solar cycle 24. On the contrary, he wrote about the connection between solar activity and the climate, about the little ice age caused by low solar activity, and that it will be exciting to see if low solar activity in this century will cause a colder climate. He has obviously not learned from his failed predictions for solar cycle 24.


    1. Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures 
    Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum.

    2. The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 
    Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum.

  • 2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells

    michael sweet at 16:18 PM on 13 February, 2021

    John Hartz,

    Reading your link and then searching a while online I see reports that the cold spell you report is the coldest in Europe in the last 10 years.  I found a report that one country set a cold record in a different cold spell in the middle of January.

    Going to the National Climate Data Center (USA national) they have a record temperatures page.  Settting the page on global records (they do not have a European only page) I see in the last week there were 837 cold records and only 273 daily high records.  In the harder to achieve monthly records there were only 12 low records in the past 7 days with only 2 high records.  There was only 1 all time cold record globally in the last 7 days and no hot records. 

    Trying to measure a longer time in the past year there were 50,000 daily cold records and 109,000 hot records, hardly an ending of global warming.  For monthly records there were 2100 cold records and 7,000 hot records.  For all time records there were 32 cold records and 487 all time hot records.

    In Europe last week it was cold compared to the past 10 years of hot weather.  It was normal weather for 100 years ago.  The denialists can only remember the past ten years so they think it is cold when it is really not.  In addition, they often say record snow means it is cold.  Record snow is not the same as record cold.  Science predicts that in a warming world there is more precipitation.  In cold areas that means more snow.

    By contrast, the Summer in Winter in the USA and Canada (in March 2012) produced thousands of daily records and hundreds of all time records.  In some locations the low temperature at night was higher than any previously recorded high temperatures!

    Of course, regular readers of SkS are already aware of this.  The NCDC records page is a good location to counter this denier myth.

  • 2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells

    John Hartz at 06:00 AM on 13 February, 2021

    Here we go again!

    Climate deniers are using a spell of unusually cold weather in Europe to incorrectly argue that CO2 emissions are not warming the planet.

    How global warming can cause Europe's harsh winter weather by Jeannette Cwienk, Environment, Deutsche Welle (DW), Feb 11, 2021

  • A Climate Bet Impossible to Lose

    bvangerven at 07:30 AM on 2 February, 2021

    Interesting ...

    I can 't figure out whether climate change deniers genuinely believe that the earth is not warming. But now I am starting to believe that some of them are sincere, even though they are wrong. I think it is called "emotional investment". As they have invested years, even decades of their life defending the denier position, admitting their mistake now would be admitting they have wasted years.

    Humans are a social species. Of course, believing falsehoods is not a clever survival strategy. But being loyal to the group you belong to – sometimes by agreeing with what everyone in your group claims to be true – IS a valuable survival strategy. You have a better chance of survival in a group than on your own. But that also means that such people cannot be persuaded by logical arguments or by facts.

  • It's satellite microwave transmissions

    michael sweet at 03:31 AM on 1 January, 2021


    Waste heat does add to AGW.  There is a waste heat thread that deals with this issue.  In the title of the waste heat thread it says greenhouse warming is 100 times waste heat.  The key issue is that greenhouse gasses accumulate every year while waste heat dissipates into space every year.  Since the waste heat does not accumulate, the amount of temperature increase from waste heat is negligable.  The heat accumulation from a single year of carbon emissions is not that much but since it accumulates over time after a while it becomes problematic.

    The energy released from burning fossil fuels adds to the energy coming in from the sun.  The sun provides so much energy that the waste heat is very small by comparison.

    If you have many nuclear reactors near each other the waste heat can cause problems in the heat sink (usually the ocean but also big lakes and rivers).  This is especially a problem in rivers during droughts.  Sometimes traditional power plants have to be shut down during heat waves in  summer because they cause too much heating in rivers.  (Wind and solar do not have this problem).

    Solar panels and wind generators also have small issues with local heat accumulation from changing albeido and wind patterns.  These are sometimes hyped by deniers.  They are not significant compared to the effects of carbon pollution.

  • Human Fingerprints on Climate Change Rule Out Natural Cycles

    MA Rodger at 02:21 AM on 19 November, 2020

    Wol @1,

    The 'many thousands' of ppm CO2 in the distant past do make for a pretty powerful message. Of course, as you say, it is not inconsistent with the same science that says AGW will be a problem at 'several hundred' ppm CO2. The IPCC scenario RCP6.0 is so-named because by 2100AD it will have provided a climate forcing of 6W/m^2.

    And while the CO2 levels were indeed up at perhaps 2000ppm 200My ago and perhaps even 6000ppm 500My ago, the sun was weaker back then and the CO2 effect is logarithmic, so the resulting climate forcing  those hundreds-of-millions of years ago was less than the forcing we are set to deliver over the next 100 years. (The SkS post 'Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2' presents this graphically.)

    And the SkS post doesn't account for the changing geography of the planet which is alos a big factor. CO2 hasn't been anything like todays' level for 3 million years, back when N & S America were yet to join together. And to find CO2 higher than today, it is 13 million years ago when the Himalayas were still being formed.

    The denialist will push simple stuff (like CO2 was once thousands of ppm) but they tend not to be well versed in the full story - because if they were, they wouldn't be deniers.

  • Human Fingerprints on Climate Change Rule Out Natural Cycles

    Wol at 16:32 PM on 18 November, 2020

    What always bugs me is when deniers say that xx Million years ago the CO2 was yyy and the temperature was ZZZ and THEREFORE blah blah blah so we cannot believe the scientists.

    When it's pointed out that unless they have some unknown source for their figures they come from SCIENCE - the very same SCIENCE that they won't believ - as usual they change the subject to another myth.

    Can't win.

  • What did 1970’s climate science actually say?

    Nick Palmer at 22:23 PM on 13 November, 2020

    As any one will find out when dealing with 'hard core' deniers (as opposed to the gullible majority of 'sceptics'), who repeatedly post the same misinformation even after having been corrected multiple times, it's hard not to be driven to the conclusion that they are actually deliberately using deceit and insinuation to drive their readers to certain conclusions.

    In this case the desired conclusion they want their audiences to jump to is that if scientists changed their mind once before, then it's unsafe to rely on what they are saying now, particulary about science based policy that is being planned to globally make big changes.

    The insinuation and deceit is in how they frame their assertion. It uses a form of the 'magnified minority' technique (here's John Cook Tweeting about it

    The misleader will say or write something like this

    'but, but, but scientists predicted an ice age in the 70s - it was in Time and Newsweek -  now they've changed their minds, so how can we trust them now?'

    The thing about this deceit, like the best propaganda, is that it's technically true but rests upon the ambiguities of language to mislead.

    The nitty gritty of the deceit is that the word "scientist's" can be taken to mean all scientists or as few as two. It gives no idea of the relative numbers, yet the insinuation in the 'imminent ice age' meme is that all, or the majority of, scientists supported the hypothesis.

    The mention of the Time and Newsweek articles, which the public are infinitely more likely to remember and be far more familiar with than the consensus scientific view in the literature at the time, is highly likely to tip the undecided 'quantum state' of the public's appreciation of the topic towards their accepting that the scientific consensus back then was different to what it actually was...

  • How you can help to keep Climate misinformation on Twitter in check

    Wol at 08:58 AM on 4 November, 2020

    I don't "do" Twitter, Facebook or any of the so-calld "social" media so can't comment on those. However the anti-science brigades are pretty active on online newspaper comments columns, which amounts to the same thing.

    Frankly I think it's pointless entering into debates in any internet sites: because you are not face to face any debunking you put forward is either ignored, the subject is changed to another and/or often a heap of abuse is thrown.

    A TV debate is better - but even here it's usually the science versus (for balance, you understand) an equal number consisting of of a genuine scientist denier and a crowd of pseudoscience deniers.

    Even then you can see how rational argument is up against ignorance: Brian Cox talking to Malcolm Roberts on Australian TV's Q and A is a good example.

  • How you can help to keep Climate misinformation on Twitter in check

    Nick Palmer at 08:36 AM on 4 November, 2020

    Ermm... The climate scientists I mentioned, that Botsentinel identifies as problematic or disruptive, are not tweeting 'sceptic' stuff! They are defending the science against deniers! That's why I suggested that Botsentinel is next to useless - it identifies 'Friends of Science' as 'normal' fer chrissakes...
    link to wiki on FoS

  • CO2 effect is saturated

    MA Rodger at 03:16 AM on 28 October, 2020

    aoeu @587,
    The paper you link-to is apparently co-authored by the physicist and climate change denier William Happer so if it did conclude with the message presented on the article you link-to on the rogue planetoid Wattsupia, there would be no real surprise. Happer has been the author of quite a bit of arrant ninsense on te subject of climatology.

    The Wattsupian take on the paper runs:-

    "In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect."

    However, this account of the paper is total nonsense (so par for the course for Wattsupia). The paper actually concludes by saying it finds 2xCO2 without feedbacks would increase global temperature by +1.4ºC and with feedback (constant relative humidity) under clear-sky conditions by +2.2ºC, this finding close to other studies.

  • Climate's changed before

    Eclectic at 10:44 AM on 25 October, 2020

    Hal Kantrud , I would like to add a few disparate points which may be of interest to you.  (And you may already have come across some of them.)  As always, I shall be grateful if MA Rodger (who is extremely well-informed on climate matters) sees fit to make any corrective comment!

    1.  The term "BP" / bp  stands for Before Present, but does not mean "up until right now this year of [2020]".   BP is a convention used by the paleo scientists to standardize the reference to past ages - whether centuries, millennia or mega-years [ma].  BP at point zero is taken as year 1950.AD

    Some "contrarians" have not been aware of this convention (for instance the slightly-contrarian scientist Loehle has had to go back and correct some of his work, because he was initially unaware of the paleo convention).

    Hal, this paleo convention is enormously important, since there has been a huge rise in global surface temperature since 1950.   Even today, some Denialist blogsites are publishing graphs which misrepresent reality, and are showing a graph's final temperature as 2000.AD or 2010.AD . . . when the original graph only went up to 1950.AD  . . . and worse, the denialists have sometimes doctored or airbrushed-out the most modern temperatures.  Sometimes this deliberate deception is outright concealed - and sometimes the deception is camouflaged under the term "Adapted from [a certain scientific paper]" .

    Another small point is that some of the ice-core temperatures are recorded up until around 1855.AD , since later/shallower levels of ice are unrepresentative of their ambient conditions.

    [You will have noticed how almost all science-deniers are still falsely (and vehemently) asserting that both the Holocene Maximum and the MWP were hotter than 2000.AD and current years.]

    2.  The Holocene Optimum [sometimes called Holocene Maximum] was roughly 8000 years ago, but as MA Rodger rightly points out, the Maximum was more of a plateau of roughly 5 millennia.   Over the succeeding 4 or 5 thousand years, the temperature has dropped roughly 0.7 degreesC as part of the background cooling which would eventually lead into the next glaciation.  But AGW has intervened - with global temperature rising like a rocket in the past 100-200 years (dare I say like the end of a Hockey Stick?)   Hockey Stick is yet another term which causes Denialists to choke on their cornflakes.

    As a consequence of the natural cooling down from the Holocene Maximum, the global sea level has reduced by about 1 or 2 meters . . . and that fall should have continued onwards as we slide into the next glaciation.  Except for the modern AGW-caused rise in sea level, a rise which is slow but accelerating.

    3.  Each glaciation cycle of the past 800,000 has been subtly different, owing to differences in the variations of the Milankovitch cyclings.  That makes it difficult to predict when the next glaciation would have occurred in the absence of human influence.  One figure I recall seeing, is the next chilly glaciation being due in roughly 16,000 years.  So we humans have plenty of time to fine-tune our climatic effects before any threat of severe glaciation!   (Some denialists maintain that the "New Ice Age" was due in a few centuries from now . . . and our anthropogenic CO2 has fortuitously been raised only in the nick of time... )

    4.  I won't comment on your point of interest about the New World grasslands.  The changes there would be quite minor in the overall picture.

  • Climate's changed before

    Eclectic at 12:10 PM on 22 October, 2020

    MA Rodger @835,

    Thanks.  Yes, I had heard that the "frozen Thames" events had occurred even during the Medieval Warm Period (though those are never mentioned by Denialists).

    I was interested in the "meme" of Thames freezings being held up as an example of the world-chilling severity of the Little Ice Age.  And as I was saying to Hal Kantrud (who seems just starting out on learning about climate science) . . . the main point to remember is that the LIA and the MWP were pretty small beer compared with earlier climate changes.

    As you yourself know very well, the LIA is greatly misrepresented by the climate-science Deniers :-

    (a)  Firstly, they exaggerate its severity ;

    (b)  Secondly, they falsely claim that our modern rapid warming is (somehow)  "just a rebound from the LIA" .

    (c)  Thirdly - with amusingly unintended irony - they claim that the huge temperature excursions of MWP & LIA make the modern warming look insignificant . . . and yet at the same time they claim that the planet's Climate Sensitivity is so very low that we need not be concerned about the "slight" warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.   Superb!

    MA Rodger, you might not have seen it . . . but on one of the Denialist blogs recently, a particular Denier asserted that (by his calculation) Earth's Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity was around 0.4 degreesC.   Improving on that, he then (based on the negligibly-small rise in CO2 which he attributed to humans) calculated that, of the modern warming, only 0.02 degreesC was human-caused.  To repeat: 0.02 degreesC.   Not a misprint.   (Ah, who needs to pursue comedy, when so much is freely available on the Denier blogs! )

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    michael sweet at 01:52 AM on 24 September, 2020

    This Guardian news article describes a poll where 70% of voters were  in favor of climate action.  The article claims that this result indicates that in the upcoming election politicians who are climate deniers will suffer from voters who want climate action.  

    I hope that is true.  Even if it is not true this election, this is a much stronger result than polls in the past about climate action.  More politicians are discussing renewable energy and other climate actions.  Hopefully we will start to see real action with the next presiident.

    Vote Climate!

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 21:24 PM on 18 September, 2020

    Great, MA Rodger, but don't you think you're becoming a touch unreasonable, if not abstract yourself, as toward my argument?

    I just said Al Gore lit the conversational fire and the deniers kept it going by forced move... now we have multi megawatt wind turbines as a result- plus much more- to thank him for!

    I thought my idea was quite straight forward to follow actually, instead there seems to be a whole team of idiots on here set to bark at anyone daring to have a brain cell that dare deviate from the whistle blown song sheet.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    MA Rodger at 19:04 PM on 18 September, 2020

    Addressing the assertion that "Al Gore sparked the deniers" is made more difficult by the term "deniers" being used as a euphemism for 'industry actively preventing AGW mitigation' (although not always and not always obviously so) and also because Al Gore has had such a long record of calling for AGW mitigation. As a Congressman in 1976, Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change." So the 'sparking' alluded-to could be referring to events as far back as the 1970s.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Eclectic at 16:32 PM on 18 September, 2020

    Keithy @39 , thank you for clarifying that your chief concern is the role of Al Gore.

    BaerbelW's post at #31 demonstrates that your own "suposition" was quite wrong.  As you see, the deniers' propaganda machinery was gearing up, from the late 1980's.  Some years before Gore made a big splash on the climate science scene.

    And it's well to remember that Gore is not a scientist ~ there were some of his comments that were incorrect (in a trivial way) or were oversimplified (and mis-reported, often).  But then, he wasn't speaking to scientists.  He gets a B+ score for his "essay".   Look in the scientific journals (and SkS website) if you want to improve your own knowledge about climate !

    Keithy, it still seems mysterious why you made comments about business/ capitalism/ government ~ subjects where you are clearly speaking in empty slogans, and your understanding of them is shallow.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 14:58 PM on 18 September, 2020

    Eclectic, I'm saying Al Gore got the ball rolling by making sweeping statments and forcing the deniers to nail their colours to the mast.

    You're on some weird trip trying to imagine I am anti-science or something. Some business man you must be, lol!

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Eclectic at 14:12 PM on 18 September, 2020

    Keithy ~ Google is your friend.  You can very easily research for yourself the gradual development of wind turbines.

    But your questions are all over the place, like Brown's cows.

    Concentrate the focus of your mind.  Identify the basic "heart" of what problems are worrying you.  What is it that is truly bothering you?

    The world is warming gradually (from a slow start in the 1800's ).  For the past 50 years, the average warming rate is around 0.15 degreesC  : which is super-fast, in planetary/geological terms.  And this will continue for decades into the future, with increasingly unpleasant consequences for most humans (but not for a very small minority).

    Governments & businesses will adapt to some extent ~ but overall they won't enjoy it.  And so the intelligent thing to do is to aim to minimize the adverse effects which are heading down the line toward us.

    The deniers are in favor of taking no action ~ apart from bullshitting everyone.   But what say you, Keithy?   (It is a fruitless waste of time mulling over whether Al Gore stirred up the deniers, or the deniers stirred up Al Gore.  That's history.  We have to play the golfball from where it's sitting right now.)

    Keithy , what do you think should be done about the AGW situation?  Ignore it and deny its existence?  Run around in circles in a panic?   Surely, between those two crazy extremes, there is some prudent & logical action to be taken.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 09:29 AM on 18 September, 2020

    BaerbelW, how vocal were the deniers before Al Gore?

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Philippe Chantreau at 05:15 AM on 18 September, 2020

    It seems indeed that the only point to be extracted from Keithy's contribution is that Al Gore caused the denialism we have been witnessing and the pseudo-debate that is now raging. As Baerbel showed us, the timeline does not support that argument.

    It's possible that an in depth analysis could in fact reveal that Al Gore managed to attract on the subject more public attention, an attention that some of the work of deniers ironically had aimed at keeping off the problem. So, if anything can be gathered from Keithy's contribution so far, it's that Al Gore forced the denial supporing industries to ramp up their effort. Wow! How unexpected, how surprising. We are so fortunate that someone came up to bring that powerful insight.

    If there is anything left for Keithy to argue, that would be that the overall balance of Al Gore's climate campaign has been negative, but he has come nowhere near supporting that with facts and analysis; it would be a very difficult case to make in my opinion. Surveys of the general public, even in the ill-informed US, where denial is the best organized, most vocal and best connected, shows that the majority of the population is well aware of the problem and realizes its importance.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    BaerbelW at 03:18 AM on 18 September, 2020

    Keithy @various

    This graphic from our resource section shows that your "theory" of Al Gore sparking the deniers is off by almost 20 years - denial thrived way before Al Gore's AIT:


  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 01:19 AM on 18 September, 2020

    MA Rodger, I think I was actually more saying the debate only exists because the deniers exist... Al Gore sparked the deniers and they put their money into advertising the whole issue.


    Win, win, win scenario.


  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    MA Rodger at 20:23 PM on 17 September, 2020

    Keithy @various,

    You seem to have been vacillating between two arguments which is not helpful to setting out yor arguement.

    Your initial point @9 concerned Al Gore's 2007 message which had been described @5 as not being denier-proof. You counter saying Al Gore's message had to resonate with a public audience meaning 'facts' are less important than 'drama' and (perhaps less well explained by yourself) that such a message would kick off a public debate which would include denialists.

    @14-16 you imply that industry/business is synonymous with 'denier' and set out a second argument that unless AGW mitigation is made worthwhile for industry, they would not assist in it. (@19 you rather confusingly seperate 'blue chip company' and 'the garden variety denier', presumably this latter being the denialist public with presumably the former requiring 'facts' and the latter 'drama'.) In terms of which of the two is more important, industry or public, you assert @23 that it is primarily  industry/business which needs to be convinced of the requirement to act on AGW.

    And in similar vein you state @25:-

    "Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep."

    In trying to make sense of this "waffling" (as Eclectic terms it), I would suggest that there are certain industries which have been attempting to push back against AGW mitigation. A giant oil company, for instance, has assets on its books in the shape of oil reserves worth billions and it would be employing divisions of workers to find more, such operations also being book assets worth billions. AGW science is saying these assets should not be exploited and the search for more oil reserves should stop immediately. That presents such companies with the prospect of massive loss of assets. So to delay such AGW mitigation, even by a decade or two, is a very profitable enterprise for such companies.

    But the vast majority of industry would not react so aggressively against AGW mitigation. And industry does not "go to sleep" when faced by the need to mitigate AGW. Certainly some industries will have a harder time than others in the carbon-free energy-scarce world which will closely follow successful AGW mitigation. Many will see once-profitable business likely disappear (eg steel cans & glass jars replaced by bio-plastic-&-cardboard containers) but when the economic writing is on the wall such industries will evolve into new businesses, either scaled down or providing the modern replacement product.

    Of itself, industry is not a barrier to AGW mitigation. What is a barrier is a denialist public whose existence prevents an honest political AGW debate (which is required to mitigate for AGW). Certain industries have actively promoted public & political denialism and they are likely greatly surprised how successful they have been at it so far.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 15:20 PM on 17 September, 2020

    scaddenp, false arguments are a dime a dozen: big business has only ever been forced to make public statements on the issue because of denier fed fier sparked by Al Gores sweeping statements.

    The garden variety denier cannot be the public statment of a blue chip company because these public companies have reputations.

    Once again, the climate change denier has every right to make his argument but an argument he must make. The consuming voter has power... He doesn't have to buy bulldust just like investors don't have to listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry or the blue chip companies themselves who compete against each other when push comes to shove.

    Iff it were the case that the blue chip companies don't compete against each other then that would indeed be illegal, though it also the law that the shareholder is their priority.

    Politics is all human relations....

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Philippe Chantreau at 14:34 PM on 17 September, 2020


    I've been at this long enough. Deniers are not careful with the evidence underlying their lines of argument. It ranges from the carbonic snow in Antarctica delirium to the Soon-Baliunas fiasco, hitting the grotesque Arcitc sea ice predictions by Jo D'Aleo and innumerable ridiculous pieces of idiotic nonsense. It works, although mostly with the Anglo-Saxon public, with the exception of New-Zealand. They are careful with how they deliver their message, with the best propagandist methods known to date. Perhaps that's what you meant by careful, it does not add anything to the message validity.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 14:16 PM on 17 September, 2020

    No, nigelj, the problem does not speak for itself.

    Most people don't care unless they are made to... Al Gore made sweeping statements that big business knew had to be refuted because investment certainty is a must in big business.

    He lit a fire under their posterior.


    All he did was use the age old political trick of making some noise(read: HEADLINES) and then massaging the message when he gets the required attention.


    Welcome to the conversation fed by deniers...


  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 14:07 PM on 17 September, 2020

    Phillipe, didn't you ever consider that deniers have to be careful with their line of argument?

    The voter is also a consumer... as such they can invest in publicly listed companies... publicly listed companies have reputations!


    Like I said: the deniers are essential to any conversation or else there is no conversation.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Philippe Chantreau at 10:51 AM on 16 September, 2020

    I object to the term "debate." A debate can happen when participants are arguing in good faith. That is clearly not the case with deniers.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Philippe Chantreau at 03:25 AM on 16 September, 2020

    Keithy "without them there is no conversation in the public square."

    Well then it's a catch22 because there is no conversation possible with them either. They deny, they mirepresent, they mislead, refuse to acknowledge evidence, portray minor issues as if they could distract from the weight of the evidence, etc, etc. They are so dishonest that there is really no communication possible. They do, however, have good techniques, inherited from various industries who practiced denial before them, and are advised by experts in mind manipulation techniques, so they are convincing for the masses with little scientific literacy and limited critical thinking skills. That does not make them right or legitimize the so-called "conversation."

    Deniers do not "advertise" (whatever that may mean) the "whole problem." They fool their audiences with methods in comparison to which Al Gore's small shortcomings are essentially negligible. They make an argument, shown to be entirely wrong, only to turn around and then pretend that the initial argument was not applicable anyway, not acknowledgeing that they initiated it. The list of their dishonest behaviors is almost as long as the myths listed on this site, or the the catalog that can be found in Wikipedia under "logical fallacies." Calling their participation a conversation would be a joke, if it was funny.

  • Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

    Keithy at 23:42 PM on 15 September, 2020

    Nick, Al Gore chose drama over facts because in the end the people lead and governments follow.

    Governments are designed to work slowly and so only the voting public will be able to make any difference when push comes to shove.

    He invites the deniers to the conversation in the public square because without them there is no conversation in the public square.


    The deniers advertise the whole problem,... so Al Gore played a very good hand by making vague and sweeping statements that made the deniers have to take a stand... and the conversation began!

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    Eclectic at 01:02 AM on 15 September, 2020

    KR @45 , yes the WUWT  blog and the Curry blog are an entertaining read, IMO.

    The Curry blog is a somewhat upmarket version of WUWT , with notably less frothing-at-the-mouth . . . but only marginally less of the super-selfish political extremism (see the recent "Politics Only" thread, where the regular commenters flaunt their underlying philosophies).

    Willis Eschenbach is one of my favorites ~ a guy with a high IQ and a sense of humor . . . but a bad case of Motivated Reasoning, and a sad lack of insight & common sense.   Crackpot, but at least not one of the "bad actor" Shills, I think.

    As you probably know well, WUWT  has not only hordes of climate-deniers of the ultra-lukewarmer type and wingnut type, but also a goodly share of CO2-greenhouse deniers plus a few super-wackies who are even more extreme in their anti-science beliefs.

    Pretty much all commenters there have a bad case of "We Are The Only True Scientists Remaining In The World".    And it is indeed amusing to see the mutual contradictions and squabbling.   But ~ they unite as one pack, to pile schoolyard vitriol onto the rare commenters (Nick Stokes and a few other brave souls) who occasionally try to fly the flag of rational scientific thinking.

    The Curry blog ~ nowhere near as bad, mostly.   On the surface !

    Sadly, I get the impression that the Host (Hostess?) at ClimateEtc  has for many years been gradually veering into less and less rationality re climate science.   Perhaps her Geothermal advocacy is a single aberration of the ultra-wacky type?   Or just a bigger Red Flag?

  • Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

    Climate Detective at 02:26 AM on 11 September, 2020

    You can’t use the carbon cycle to prove that human respiration isn’t increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere because the carbon cycle only describes the steady state. As others have already noted, the human population has grown exponentially over the last 100 years. It has almost quadrupled since 1920. That is not a system operating in the steady state or at long-term equilibrium.

    To put it simply, the carbon cycle describes five carbon reservoirs (vegetation, animals, soil, the ocean and the atmosphere) all of which also act as carbon pumps. Moreover, these five reservoirs are all interconnected, and the pumping capacity of each depends on their size. Generally, the bigger they are, the more carbon they pump. That means that changing the size of one will change the size of all the others in order to balance pumping rates and conservation of mass. This will happen as the system seeks to find a new equilibrium position. So an increase in the human population affects everything else. It changes the pumping rates and it changes the relative size of the other reservoirs. And the thing is, we can estimate what size this change might be.

    As the average 70 kg person generates about 1 kg of CO2 per day, that means they transfer 100 kg of carbon to the atmosphere every year. With nearly 8 billion people on the planet that equates to about 0.8 GtC per annum (GtC = gigatonne of carbon).

    But that is not all. The average person probably eats their own bodyweight in meat every year. So the growth in the human population since 1920 must be reflected in the growth in the number of farm livestock. If we assume 2 kg of livestock per 1 kg of human (i.e. a 2 year supply of meat in production), then the overall CO2 production from both is 2.4 GtC per annum. This is about a quarter of our fossil fuel CO2 output. So is this directly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels as some climate deniers might claim? The answer is no, or at least not directly.

    Some people have suggested that the increases in human and livestock CO2 emissions are offset by increased crop production. Their argument is that, as all the carbon we breathe out comes from crops, any increase in the CO2 produced by the human population will be offset by a commensurate increase in crop production required to feed the extra humans and their livestock. This is not true either.

    Increased crop production comes at the expense of other types of vegetation (e.g. forests). The total area under human cultivation may increase, but the total amount of land and vegetation won’t. Deforestation in the Amazon region to grow crops and farm cattle does not increase the rate of CO2 capture in the region. If anything, it decreases it.

    Increasing the number of animals does not increase the amount of vegetation or its growth rate. Instead it decreases the amount of carbon going into the soil. Animals eat plants before those plant can die and before they can decay in the soil. This means that animals replace the CO2 producing capacity of the soil. That is where the substitution occurs. And if the pumping efficiencies of both animals and the soil were the same then nothing much would change as the animal population increases. But they aren’t the same.

    The carbon pumping efficiency of the soil is only 4%. The soil contains over 1500 GtC but emits 60 GtC per annum. Humans store only 0.1 GtC but emit 0.8GtC per annum. That is an efficiency of 800%. It also means that the increase in CO2 production from humans and livestock is the same as that produced by about 4% of the Earth’s soil. That means that the total volume of soil must reduce by 4% over time as its pumping capacity is replaced by animals and as the volume of carbon entering the soil decreases. So 60 GtC will be lost from the soil while only 0.1 GtC will be transferred to animals and none to plants. There is only one other place that most of the 59.9 GtC can go: the atmosphere. This 59.9 GtC will increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30 ppm.

    So the human population increase could have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by up to 30 ppm over time, and about 20 ppm since 1920. Is this an upper estimate? Yes, probably. It assumes that the growth in the human population and farming livestock is a net gain and does not merely substitute for loss of other species. But we know this is not true. Humans and their livestock do displace other creatures to some extent. It also omits any additional loss of CO2 to the oceans and changes to vegetation volumes through loss of soil and increases in CO2. But what it does demonstrate is that when the human population changes, everything else changes.

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    MA Rodger at 00:05 AM on 8 September, 2020

    seattle @29,

    I don't think there is anything in my comment @28 which would lead to the inference you make @29. That a lunatic buys his onions in a particular supermarket does not turn that supermarket into a lunatic asylum. But a man buying stones from a shop that insists they are sellng him onions does give pause for thought for both the man and the crazy shop.

    If you were wishing to find some support for the Berry paper (although myself I would not bother wasting time on such a fool's errand), there is the point that Berry (2020) has been published in an allegedly peer-reviewed journal. However, not all journals are high quality. Indeed some are less concerned with quality of content than the quantity of content and will publish anything for a fee.

    But even if the journal were of quality, it is not entirely wrong to publish crazy papers if they have some level of merit within the arguments they set out. The isotopic analyses of Berry's paper could have pehaps be considered as providing such consideration except you will note Andrews (2020) 'Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14 C Data' (which is the second citation accrued by Berry 2020) who debunks Berry (2020) as well as a few other denialist papers who plough that same particular furrow.

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    Eclectic at 23:06 PM on 7 September, 2020

    Gseattle , thank you for giving me a good laugh ~  with your re-rendering of some of my earlier commentaries at SkS.   You are a treasure.

    I hope the Moderators will leave your lengthy post untouched and unedited, for the entertainment of the general readership here at SkS.   Perhaps, in your haste to collect a bag full, you made one or two errors in quotation (not to mention a lack of context) . . . but hey, let's not quibble !    And quite rightly, you have been unable to dispute the accuracy of my observations [on the clientele at WUWT  website and science-deniers more generally].

    MARodger , it was very kind of you to devote so much time to Gseattle, to point out to him some of the fundamental errors in Ed Berry's thinking.   Let's hope Gseattle won't now demand you explain all the gross errors in the thinking of each & every one of the 31,000  "scientists" who signed the Oregon Petition of yesteryear !

    Thank you as well, MARodger , for linking to the "serious nutcases" at Principia Scientific International (PSI).   And thus the Desmogblog  exposure of PSI.    Just when I thought Gseattle's efforts could not be topped . . . I saw the letter [April 2013] where Christopher Monckton described the Numero Uno at PSI as "confused and scientifically illiterate".   Ah, such black humor (of the Pot and Kettle type).

    Poor PSI's Numero Uno, being looked down upon  by that well-known scientific exemplar Lord Monckton.   It gives fresh meaning to the old saying: "Lower than a snake's belly".

    All getting a bit Off-Topic for this thread, though.  But worth it.

    Priceless !

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    Eclectic at 23:15 PM on 6 September, 2020


    Gseattle @18 ,

    you should look up the definition of Ad Hominem Argument ~ you seem confused about its meaning.   And with particular regard to the egregious Dr Ed Berry whom I mentioned again in post #16 :- if you read carefully, you will see I did not denigrate his arguments because of his imperfect (or perfect?) personal traits . . . but I denigrated them as being plainly wrong.

    And the more intelligent a Denier is, the more he uses "Doublethink" to deceive himself that he is right ~ even when part of his brain knows he is plainly wrong.   That's bad in itself ~ and even worse when he sets out (intentionally or otherwise) to grossly mislead the readers of his statements.

    Gseattle, my apologies for my long postings . . . yet you may find the contents educational.

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    Eclectic at 23:01 PM on 6 September, 2020

    Gseattle @18 ,

    in your final paragraph, re Comments Policy, you seem to be misunderstanding the ordinary meaning of words.

    For instance : where science is being discussed, the label "denier" is an accurate description of someone who promulgates untruths i.e. who asserts statements contrary to well-established facts

    e.g. statements that evolution does not occur

    . . . and that the Earth is Flat

    . . . and rapid global warming is not occurring  (or that it is not primarily human-caused; or that it is happening only to an insignificant extent; or that CO2 has little or no Greenhouse radiative effect; and so on. )

    You will also see similar labels such as Denialist or science-denier or climate-science-denier or climate-denier and suchlike.  The meaning of these terms is very clear ~ and in a "hard sciences" area like climatology, it is very easy to see who is a scientist and who is a pseudo-scientist.  (Here I would emphasize the definition of a scientist as someone who thinks scientifically full-time, rather than part-time.)

    The attribution of "another person's motives"  for being anti-scientific, is usually best avoided, for we humans have complex brains and attitudes, often involving a Gordian Knot of tangled motives and emotions (some contradictory, some subconscious & unknown even to the possessor of anti-scientific views). 

    Perhaps, Gseattle, you have not recognized the psychological condition Motivated Reasoning ~ where an otherwise-intelligent person is driven by his emotional biases, to deny plain scientific evidence, and to use his intelligence to concoct all sorts of spurious reasons for denying well-established mainstream science.

    Your man Dr Ed Berry (that you introduced in an earlier post) is a prime example of a Denier.  Possibly a nice guy . . . possibly very correct in some other areas of science/engineering . . . but WRT the highly-important field of AGW/Climate science, he is a Denier.   And it is efficient useful and proper, that we call a Spade a Spade.

    In most cases, we can't be certain of the motives of climate-deniers.  Some are crackpots, who can't think straight, but have a weird obsessive bee in their bonnet . . . though without an obvious political-extremist association.   Others are simply "financial" shills who are paid to propagandize untruths & misleading half-truths.   Some have extreme personality traits of anger and selfishness (you will see many of this sort on denialist website comments columns).

    And some are in the very early stages of dementia from age, cranial arteriosclerosis, alcohol, etcetera  ~ this can be the case with those elderly once-famous scientists who come to develop a Galileo Complex where they fancy that they can newly take up the science of climatology . . . and demonstrate how all the world's expert  climate scientists are grossly mistaken!   Amusing, but sad ~ so perhaps I shouldn't mention here some of the prominent names you will see associated with propaganda organisations such as Heartland and GWPF.

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    gseattle at 15:39 PM on 6 September, 2020

    In the Comment policy it says: "If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error,

    you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread".

    Unfortunately I need to bring this up, I'd prefer to discuss it by email but I emailed John and didn't hear back.

    A portion of what I wrote above was deleted by moderator DB. At minimum, I need to know what portion was supposedly sloganeering. His comment was not specific but I think it might have been the idea that some of my text is presumably covered in #34 but I can't find mention of amoc or slowing there. Can I be allowed to know what I said was considered bad?

    To summarize it, I mentioned that part--and I believe I used links but it's deleted now--like to the European Space Agency (ESA) on that, and then brought it right back to Greta, saying basically I want her message to be as sound as possible, expressing my well-wishes "I want her respected with a great future", and then I went back to the species question which is always a cornerstone of her message, I wrote some words to try to spur your community into presenting a scientific paper for the species claim, I showed IUCN's official extinction numbers, and then I suggested a route forward for Greta which I'm afraid to repeat now since it was deleted, I thought it was a pretty reasonable idea.

    The moderator DB said:

    [DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped. Please up your game and cite reputable sources, in-context.

    That's quite a set of sins there and I don't understand what I presumably did wrong your honor.

    The other thing is I am always trying to be civil, the Comment policy disallows ad hominem, critique of another person's motives, labels such as "denier", and an inflammatory tone, so I'm wondering, why are they allowed to violate those terms against me continuously above?

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    MA Rodger at 22:36 PM on 5 September, 2020

    gseattle @13,

    You are quoting the fake scientific paper of a climate change denier to misrepresent the IPCC. The denier and the IPCC do not reach any significant 'agreement'. Indeed, the denier shows this. You do not.

    You quote the first sentence of the abstract yet the second sentence is entirely wrong. Barry (2019) Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 which begins its abstract saying:-

    "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today's atmospheric CO2." [My bold]

    The IPCC would give the size of the natural 'inflows' of CO2 into the atmosphere over a year as being roughly 210Gt(C). And the IPCC would give the 'inflows' of anthropogenic CO2 today as being roughly 10Gt(C). So the ratio between these two numbers is roughly 5%. Yet it is not a very informative value. And do note that the second sentence in that abstract is flat wrong.

    210Gt(C) would raise atmospheric CO2 by roughly 100ppm. With the annual CO2 cycle in the atmosphere showing a peak-to-peak value of just 5ppm, it is obvious that there are 'outflows' operating to balance these natural 'inflows'. And year-to-year, with the variation in the pre-industrial CO2 level pretty-much flat, it is evident that the natural inflows & outflows balance almost perfectly.

    Holocene CO2 levels

    Through the industrial period, the rising CO2 levels is entirely due to anthropogenic emissions. And the rising CO2 has also increased the natural 'outflows' so that today about 55% of anthropogenic emissions are diverted out of the atmosphere by natural processes. This includes 'outflows' into the ocean which are evident by increasing ocean acidity. Thus it is not 100% of the CO2 rise that is man-made but 220%.


    You balk at the spreadsheet data presented by the Global Carbon Project (linked @12) and instead present a tertiary reference to another spreadsheet which is almost ten years out-of-date (so add about 300Gt(CO2) to the values given for today's values) and now provides broken links to its data sources. The 1,374Gt(CO2) value for FF 1850-2011  concurs with the GCP value which gives 1,364Gt(CO2). The 1,832Gt(CO2) value "to end of 2010" is not so obvious but presumably includes LUC emissions. (Note, unlike pre-1850 FF emissions, pre-1850 LUC emissions are significant if included.)

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    Eclectic at 19:00 PM on 5 September, 2020

    Gseattle @13 ,

    It appears you have not read the information available here in Climate Myth Number 34.   And you have not read information provided by the IPCC.

    Instead, your quotation about the IPCC  "[which] agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent [etcetera]"  . . .  is taken from a website by the science-denier Mr (or Dr? ) Ed Berry.   Sorry, Gseattle, but that statement by Ed Berry is carefully designed to mislead those (such as yourself) who are ill-informed and have given little thought to the CO2 situation.

    Berry is trying to deceive you (and at the same time deceive himself).  Berry is not a climate scientist ~ he is one of those intelligent crackpots who are little better than Flat-Earthers.

    Gseattle, if you are serious about educating yourself, then start by reading Climate Myth Number 34.   Then you will begin to understand why Ed Berry's climate arguments are of the "nutcase" type.

    And you might finally grasp why your own CO2 assertions are based upon a fundamental logical error ~ you have confused CO2 accumulation with CO2 inflow/outfow ( = flux ) .   Which is rather like a businessman who has confused profit with turnover.  

    In short, please take your CO2 comments to Myth 34 thread.    (Where it will be On-Topic. )

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    MA Rodger at 19:27 PM on 4 September, 2020

    Gseattle @8 & @10,

    You venture into consideration of atmospheric CO2, a subject area in which  you evidently have very little understanding.  I would add that levels of atmospheric CO2 are not directly a factor in the rate of species extinctions.

    The pre-industrial atmosphere contained some 280ppm CO2. The increase from 280ppm to today's 412ppm (this a current annual global average) is almost wholly directly due to human emissions. The rate of increase in CO2 has been accelerating through the industrial period and is now running at +2.5ppm/year.

    I don't recognise the numbers you present for (what I assume you consider to be) accumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions in that @10 you talk of 1,370Gt and this being in some way equivalent to 177ppm.

    The Global Carbon Project assess anthropogenic emissions from Fossil Fuels since 1750 as 441Gt(C) = 1,617Gt(CO2). If such a quantity of CO2 were added to the atmosphere it would increase atmospheric concentrations by 207ppm.

    Additional to FF emissions are the anthropogenic emissions from Land Use Change. The Global Carbon Project assess these LUC emissions back to 1850 and thus arrive at a total for anthropogenic CO2 emissions (FF + LUC) of 645Gt(C) = 2,361Gt(CO2), a quantity which would increase atmospheric levels 303ppm if added to the atmosphere.

    Global Carbon Project assess the level of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from human activities through the industrial period amounts to 277Gt(C) = 1,106Gt(CO2) and which would (and indeed does) increase CO2 levels by 130ppm. The ocean & land sinks that have drawn CO2 from the atmosphere through the industrial period are show to account for the difference between the all-emissions 303ppm & the emissions-plus-sinks 130ppm.

    None of this atmospheric CO2 business is in any way controversial outside the febrile and ridiculous reasonings of climate chage deniers. As the RealClimate item you reference @8 proclaims:-

    "The basic facts about the global increase of CO2 in our atmosphere are clear and established beyond reasonable doubt."

    For reasons that cannot be explained by me, you chose to ignore this message and instead choose to quote from a piece of climate denial being debunked by the RealClimate item.

  • 2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

    nigelj at 13:05 PM on 3 September, 2020

    gseattle @8

    "[2] NASA: 1880 to 2020 CO2 increased from 291 ppm to 414 ppm = +123 ppm. 123 / 140 years = .88 ppm average per year. 95 percent come from natural sources. Therefore our CO2 is .88 ppm x .05 = only .04 ppm per year average. "

    You are very mistaken in your conclusion. The page you link to says: "Die Welt presented a common number-trick (deception, nonsense) by climate deniers, (as follows): In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent........"

    The 95% carbon dioxide added by natural sources is largely from the biosphere, and volcanoes etcetera and has been largely constant over the last 100 years and is absorbed back into natural carbon sinks, so it cannot explain the increase from 291 ppm to 414 ppm. Only human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation explain it, because these has been ever increasing activities, and not all the CO2 is absorbed back into carbon sinks. If you refer to the list of climate myths on this website page at the side,  you will find some detailed explanations.

    "That's why NOAA pointed out the covid shutdown didn't make a dent in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa Observatory, because nature's portion is so vast."

    No that is not the reason. NOAA are saying the effects of covid on CO2 levels cant be detected atmospherically because they are masked by the quite large cyclical variation of CO2 you get within one or two years due to seasonal changes and el nino. If the covid shutdown went on for say 5 years you would see a change in atmospheric levels.

    So you have misinterpreted things quite badly.

    I agree population growth is a problem in terms of virtually all environmental impacts, but I think that manipulating this trend is unlikely to do much to stop either the climate change problem or species extinction, as follows. Population started to slow since the 1960s as countries have entered the demographic transition which has favoured smaller families, and as governments have sometimes pushed population growth rates down deliberately. There may be more that can be done to slow population growth, but it would seem unlikely that people will stop having children and more likely that they might settle on 1 - 2 chidren.

    This means the population trends still lead to about 9 billion people or so by the end of this century, so this would not have any significant effect on slowing down the climate problem or biodiversity loss, this century anyway. And by then the damage will have been done. 

    So its important we change our sources of energy, and reduce deforestation and change how we farm.

  • A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

    Eclectic at 17:00 PM on 28 July, 2020

    Thank you Baerbel and John ~  I have now caught up with that Boyle article on  (a good article, but gloomy).   Moving to another computer solved the problem of access.   ( I was reading on an old Chromebook, which seems to allow loads of ads to come through : but obviously not enough to satisfy the setup. )

    Gloomy article.  But let's hope the coming events of Nov/Dec/January will help Facebook gain a bit of backbone for 2021 onwards.

    The toxic mentality of Deniers is quite a study.  You may have noticed from some of my older posts, that I am an observer of WUWT  blogsite, especially the comments sections.  The comments sections are a fascinating study of the extremist  fringe of humanity.  A good number of the commenters are quite intelligent ~  on topics other than climate science and social politics.  But on those two topics, they show a "marvellous" mixture of intellectual insanity & moral uncharitableness.  (Not that you aren't well aware of their mental flaws!)

    I am seeking an accessible crevice in their armor.  But unsuccessfully so far.  The armor keeps re-configuring itself, like a kaleidoscope (just as John Cook et alia know too well).   Another analogy is : like trying to reason with an out-of-control paranoid schizophrenic . . . a task without much chance of success, unless some extraordinary "key" can be discovered.

    Outvoting them seems the main path forward.

  • A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

    John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 27 July, 2020

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    Everybody’s entitled to their opinion - but not their own facts': The spread of climate denial on Facebook.

    'The arguments are that people can't trust scientists, models, climate data. It's all about building doubt and undermining public trust in climate science'

    by Louise Boyle, The Independent (UK). July 24, 2020

    John Cook is quoted extensively in this article.

  • Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    Eclectic at 23:32 PM on 22 July, 2020

    Ah, Michael, you are bordering on faint praise there!   I would say that MA Rodger has a multi-year track record of excellent posts on several forums** , not just at SkS.   A slightly different style of writing, compared with the outstanding (but now retired) Tom Curtis.   [ ** Forum, like Octopus, should always take the English plural, no?]

    Back on topic ~ and it will be interesting to see if Preston Urka (above) can make a good case.   Since many strongly-pro-nuclear advocates have rather fallen flat in the past, it might be prudent for Preston to first "run the gauntlet" in the comments columns here, before undertaking the work of a formal article.

    I can see the attractions of using numerous small Molten Salt Reactors : partly for redundancy of electric power, especially in sub-arctic regions and/or on smaller islands.  One particular advocate projects a [levelised?] cost of 4 cents per Kwh ~ but he never substantiates this claim.  And I very much fear that such low-cost claims are carefully ignoring the "external" cost of security. (Guarding against a commando-style terrorist raid intended to explode, or worse abduct, fissionable materiel.  And strengthening the containing vessels against a 911-style plane attack.)

    But, as MA Rodger says, there is the Pudding problem.  And the same can be said of fusion reactors, only more so.   Admittedly, the science-deniers use the same Pudding argument against wind/solar Renewable Energy . . . but they steadfastly turn a blind eye to the demonstrated efficacy & plummeting cost of renewables ~ and to the fact that private financiers are putting up money for RE installations, even as subsidies fade out.

    Yet for fission reactors, private financiers are running scared.   AFAIK only Rossatom and other governmental money is actually being used for building new reactors at scale.  (Not that I myself am opposed to a modicum of governmental money being diverted into a measure of nuclear building ~ but governmental money is a question that will likely stick in the craw of those Libertarian extremists, whenever they pause in their efforts to denigrate RE.   And the same Oily Interests which oppose RE, are probably quietly undermining Nuclear.)

  • A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

    sauerj at 12:07 PM on 19 July, 2020

    Reasons to Stay or Leave: 4 Reasons for each group. Rating each 1 to 5 (1 = stay, 5= leave)

    Reasons for staying on FB:

     1) No One Polices False Information: FB does not self-control (police) false information. Neither does most other media organizations (Fox News), and neither does MeWe. There will still be climate denier groups and individuals all over MeWe, peddling false information within their echo groups, once it gets a full spectrum of users. So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3.

     2) Flow of False Information Likely Only Slightly Less on MeWe: Many climate deniers are not FB users. They get the misinformation from many other sources. Even if everyone moved to MeWe, the flow of climate denial into MeWe will be the same (coming from other media sources). (Certainly the self-amplification of this misinformation within FB will be stunted - see first two points in next section - but I believe this internal amplification is a smaller accelerant of the flow of misinformation on FB compared to the incoming flow of misinformation from other media sources.) So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3. ... (Although, since the flow of misinformation may be less (if even slightly less), then one could argue this should be a 4 favoring leaving.) 

     3) Loss of Readership & Loss of Penetrating the Internet w/ Good, Truthful Material: FB users like the "one stop shopping" aspect of FB's news feed. Not having to click around on different sites, just scroll down to see media material from groups & individuals of interest is very fast and convenient. But, there are many other social media (SM) platforms that users do click on, so adding MeWe to the list is only a partial inconvenience. But, until MeWe use builds, the readership of SkS on SM would plummet in the meantime if fully moving to FB. So, this is not a show stopper for leaving, but it is a major reason to stay (for now): Rating = 1.

     4) Buy out of MeWe or future change of MeWe: There is no guarantee that MeWe won't succumb to future money interest. So, loss of readership and other headaches could be all for naught in a few years from now. But, this is only speculation: Rating = 3.

    Reasons for leaving FB

     1) No Profile Specific Ordering of News Feed: FB users can order their newsfeed based on time too (just like MeWe); but they have to click on this feature with every refresh; while, with MeWe, this is built-in. Odds are that only <5% of FB users methodically do this. Therefore, this reduces the "outrage trigger potential" of MeWe compared to FB. This is one reason why the internal self-amplification of false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 5.

    2) No Profile Specific Ads: FB users can block ads using adblockers (very effective) and hiding the rest (a minor inconvenience). But, only 30% of internet users use adblockers. So, 70% of FB users are getting profile specific ads which potentially feed their "outrage & false information addiction". So, this is another reason why the internal self-amplification of outrage and false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 4. (or maybe a 5)

     3) Make a Moral Point about the Social Health Fallout caused by FB: Most media publishers get their paycheck off of peddling "outrage" in order to draw readership so to sell ads. Some publishers rely on this to the extreme (Info Wars, Fox News, CNN, FB); others much less so or not at all (AP News, MeWe). Social media (vs older media forms) speeds up the flow of this "outrage quotient" by 1) being constant in time and 2) enabling the viewers themselves to contribute to the circulation of outrage, like a virus. This can take this flow & buildup of "outrage" to socially unhealthy levels of polarization and radicalization which can even overpower the old social stabilizing institutions that, in the past, would keep up with dampening past lower levels of outrage (keeping it in check). So, today's intense flow of "outrage" caused by social media groups, like FB which feeds off of it for its paycheck and purposely is designed to amplify it, is a serious social health issue. However, MeWe doesn't block incoming "outrage" content; but it does thwart the internal self-amplification of this outrage, via #1 and #2 in the above 'Leaving' reasons. By leaving, this is taking a stand against this kind of socially unhealthy pathology against FB's purposeful amplification of outrage for the sake of making a buck. Rating = 5.

    4) Make a Moral Point about FB not controlling Climate Denialism: As a climate pro-science site, it would only seem fitting & in keeping with its mission that SkS should make a moral stand against FB's nefarious climate denial inaction. Rating = 5.

    Average Rating = between 3.625 to 3.875

    Conclusions & Recommendations:
    Based on this, I would work to leave FB but do so with as much noise as you can. I would try to team up with as many climate action advocate groups as you can (scientists, climate groups, institutions, schools, companies, churches, etc). Then, I would write a mass article, signed by all, to be published in a couple major papers (Guardian, Forbes) so to announce your plans to leave FB on Date = XYZ, unless FB meets specified demands in writing by that date (and spell out your demands in detail). The points above in #4 and #5 in the 'Leaving' section should be made clear (like a social condemnation against FB and how they are nefariously polarizing the world for the sake of a buck). Then, follow thru (in mass) and leave FB if they refuse to meet the demands in full by that date. Give instructions to your readership on how to set up MeWe accounts with plenty of "overlapping" time to ease the transition.

    I have accounts w/ both FB and MeWe; although I am not a frequent MeWe user yet.

  • A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

    Vasco at 00:57 AM on 19 July, 2020

    Have you ever considered having a strong Skeptical Science presence on WT.Social? It is the type of environment amenable to the content and procedures espoused on Skeptical Science itself; and from there you coud snipe at climate change deniers' platforms of choice.

  • A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

    Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 17 July, 2020

    Facebook is somewhat like the United Nations ~ which is far from perfect, but is The Only Game In Town.   Withdrawing from the UN is an option with little benefit.

    Facebook's AI "engagement algorithm" produces a toxic effect on society/democracy.  And, as you know, it is very open to manipulation by outside interests.   We can hope that governments & major corporations (of the benign type) will gradually push Facebook in a healthier direction.

    Just like we can hope that the UN will improve.  [But how to do it?]

    Yet the climate-science deniers aren't having it all their own way.  They claim persecution [as always, of course!]   Several days ago, the marvellous blogsite WUWT  posted an article saying that they were being deplatformed  by "our hosting provider" per "a big increase in hosting costs".   And so, after >2 years, they are moving back to Wordpress.  Attached comments were filled with sentiments about "the suppressing of scientific dissent" ; and Conspiracy by the extensive Climate Alarmist institutions ; the "politically biased cancel culture" ; and "cultural Marxism" ; and suchlike.

    WUWT  will have some temporary disruption of service, and of commenters' postings.  And Mr Watts is keeping an extra-tight moderation in place, until the changeover is complete.  (It might be amusing, to see the tenor of comments there, once the Usual Suspects are free to let rip  about this persecution.)

  • Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo

    MA Rodger at 07:04 AM on 13 July, 2020

    Edwin Drake @6,

    Your reference to educational courses mirrors that of a differently-named commenter of recent days and this leads me to speculate as to whether you adopt the name of the pioneer of oil drilling rather than post with your true name. But let me address the substance of your post.

    The evidence you present, which is pretty-much identically sourced to that raised by that differently-named commenter, rests solely on the bold assertions of climate contrarian Judy Curry and also a band of 500 climate change deniers who send a petition to the UN disputing the science which has established AGW (their reasons being generously adjudged as having "very low" scientific credibility. If you look even Judy Curry did not consider it worthy of her support).

    Perhaps I should be so bold as to suggest a glaring difference between climate change deniers and Galileo.

    The climate change deniers have been bashing on about AGW being somehow based on flawed science since the 1980s but over the following four decades have entirely failed to produce any convincing reason to support their contrarian belief.

    Galileo was confronted by dogmatic refusal to accept certain scientific findings yet within the decade this science was being widely published and presented to the world (eg Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae) and readily accepted as being correct by all those free from the dogma that attempted to gag that science.

  • Models are unreliable

    Eclectic at 12:28 PM on 5 July, 2020

    Deplore_This , 

    Firstly, allow me to thank you for bringing entertainment to this thread.

    Secondly, allow me to state the obvious ~ being what all readers here are thinking ( including you yourself! ).    It is obvious that part of your activity is you indulging yourself in some trolling (but please be calm, because my words are charitable ~ since the alternative diagnosis would be distinctly more unflattering.)

    But I see that you are actually here for two purposes (whether you realize it or not).    For like many people who start off as climate-science deniers and visit SkS, your mind is split in two.   One part knows that it is in the wrong about the science.  And actually would like to learn "climate".   The other part angrily rejects that self-acknowledgement, and wishes to challenge (and troll) the mainstream science position.   [ Here, I won't now go into your subconscious motivations for rejection of the well-established science ~ but you really do owe it to yourself to do some self-examination.  It is sad for anyone to live the "unexamined" life. ]

    One part of your mind knows that it really ought to learn about such important science.  And because in the long run, the science always wins (and history condemns the foolishness of the Flat-Earthers, Geo-centrists, Anti-Evolutionists, et alia.)

    The other part of your mind (call it the Denialist part) wishes to fight on, and cause as many waves as possible.   Inevitably, this ends up with you embarrassing yourself publicly ~ but the Denialist part is too angry to care about that, and rather enjoys making futile waves.

    Ah, we humans are an interesting lot

    . . . often Deplorable, yet always Interesting.

  • Models are unreliable

    Bob Loblaw at 06:55 AM on 4 July, 2020


    You have now reached the point where moderators are starting to cut stuff.

    You posted a long story from E&E. You are hitting all the main climate denier sites. Well done. You are selecting to quote places that confirm your bias.

    FYI, I started learning about this stuff in the 1970s. I read a lot of the primary literature long before there was an IPCC. I can tell when someone is trying to fool me.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us