Climate Izzums and Schizzums

It has become not only easy, but almost de rigueur for climate alarmists to retreat to false classification–almost objectification–of their opponents, especially when they cannot respond satisfactorily to arguments made against them. But the classifications are getting more discrete, if not discreet. Where before the hate speech term ‘denier’ was almost enough to serve their needs, now we read of things like ‘Breakthrough-ism’ or ‘Pielke-ism.’ These are dismissive terms for people who are on board with the science but who, like me, will not sign on to the policy proposals trumpeted by the Konsensus, a group of lobbyists, bloggers and a few scientists who are trying to step in front of the very real consensus of scientists regarding climate change.

As is so often the case, my comment at a consensus weblog is in the holy state of perpetual moderation. In this case, the blog is the NewSpeakingly named ‘Open Mind,’ and the post is more aptly titled ‘Talking Points.’

My comment was:

“I’m a lukewarmer who often ends up closer to the skeptical side of arguments than I do the consensus.

Your post fairly accurately captures why. I am in complete agreement with the science that shows the earth to be warming and am entirely comfortable with attributing half or more of the warming since 1978 to anthropogenic contributions.

However, almost all of what I have read (and I have read a lot) regarding the danger from anthropogenic climate change has turned out to be speculative and not closely tied to evidence.

Obviously if atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is 3C or higher, there will be consequences. But that possibility seems to be receding. And while global warming of 2C this century seems very possible, it does not seem dangerous.

It will be expensive to adapt and efforts to mitigate this rise even more so. The consequences will be real and we will certainly regret not having done more in advance.

But dangerous? The scientific papers and public discussion I have read do not show danger. Indeed, forecasting by people like Nicholas Stern take as an assumption that population will continue to rise, as will broad measures of wealth (GDP, energy consumption).

In 2014 the IPCC published Working Group 2’s contribution to the Summary for Policy Makers for AR5. It is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

That summary is far closer in its forecasting to my perceptions of what is coming and is far from what I would term ‘dangerous’.

I am happy to discuss. However, for those ready to term this line of argument ‘Pielke-ism,’ ‘Breakthrough-ism’, etc., let me try and forestall you. It is in fact ‘IPCC’ ism, for good or ill.”

In fact, more and more we see that people who rely on, cite, or otherwise focus on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are the new objects of derision and spite from the Konsensus. That’s simply because the IPCC is not scary enough.

For those who read the various publications of the IPCC–and we are not large in number, due to the length of those publications–it has become very clear that what the IPCC is telling us is very different from the Konsensus. It has been a quick transition.

A case in point is the recent lawsuit brought by various municipalities and organizations in San Francisco against the major oil companies, charging that their not-so-benign neglect of the climate issue in their strategic planning and corporate communications was criminal in intent and consequences.

The successful defence used by the energy companies involved blanket reliance on the writings of the IPCC, which admits of greater uncertainty than Konsensus doctrine allows. The IPCC didn’t single out human emissions of greenhouse gases as a partial culprit for the current warming until relatively late in the game–and neither, say the energy companies, did they.

This has led the most apoplectic (not to say apocalyptic) of the climate brigade to start disparaging the IPCC, a prospect which should delight ye skeptics as much as we lukewarmers. It is a sign of the great splintering of the Konsensus, whereby the publication which served as the Bible of all the climate concerned will now be dissected and disputed by different groups with differing aims.

So no matter how often we are targeted with disparaging ‘isms,’ it will be as nothing compared to the coming climate schisms.

But that’s what happens with religions.

schism

 

51 thoughts on “Climate Izzums and Schizzums

  1. They don’t want to talk about climate change or the solutions, they want you to agree with them and for CO2 to magically drop. In the same way people don’t want to talk about the real problems that beset those who voted for Brexit or Trump. They have no answers for those issue and so cling to something they feel comfortable with ie that criticism of their dogma is a mental condition.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Obviously if atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is 3C or higher, there will be consequences. But that possibility seems to be receding.

    I don’t think this is true. There are a number of recent studies suggesting that the ECS is above 3C. There are also some suggesting otherwise, which would (in my view) suggest that the best estimate is probably still around 3C (with a close to 50% chance of it being higher).

    And while global warming of 2C this century seems very possible, it does not seem dangerous.

    This depends very much on how much we emit. Even if CS is on the low side, we have the potential to emit enough to warm by more than 2C by 2100. Current INDC committments would suggest something close to 3.5C is quite likely. Dangerous is a judgement, but warming more than 2C by 2100 would probably mean a lot of damage to coral reef ecosystems, and no summer sea ice in the Arctic.

    Indeed, forecasting by people like Nicholas Stern take as an assumption that population will continue to rise, as will broad measures of wealth (GDP, energy consumption).

    As I understand it, continued economic growth is an assumption in many models that try to quantify damages due to climate change. Therefore, given how much larger our global economy is expected to be (under this assumption) climate damages would need to be utterly catastrophic to have a large relative impact. My understanding, though, is that if one tries to consider how climate change might impact economic growth, the impact could be substantial.

    Like

  3. The consensus was invariably upheld and considered an edifice from which there was no dispute – the whole thing being a monolith. New understandings and refinements scarclely dented its facade. Like all edifaces it eventually crumbles from within. Trump’s election was supposed to be a major blow, but it would appear that the significant damage has been produced by wicked big oil using the IPPC as a shield (or battering implement). You couldn’t make it up.
    I wonder if CRU is revising its climate change degree notes? Love to be a fly on the wall. Alternatively California never happened and will be ignored.

    Like

  4. ATTP,
    When you allow skeptics to post freely at your blog, it will be worth replying to you and your strawman arguments.
    Until then you are only a pathetic coward unworthy of serious discussion.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Said it once and I will say it again.
    The best place to stand to take issue with the “consensus” is from INSIDE the science,
    inside the IPCC.

    actually the whole point of my lukewarmer definition..

    Meanwhile “sceptics” get saddled with the wacked out views of Monkton, Goddard, and skydragons.

    Like

  6. Ho ho hi! The guy who encourages on his site deranged lunatics such as BBD to indulge in scatological ad hom abuse against critics says that he moderates for tone. Another sign that ATTP is a complete moron.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. ATTP, you banned me from your site without ever explaining why. I was polite on your site, and even on mine, until you called me an idiot.

    There may be (although I doubt it) an equal number of recent studies showing sensitivity above as below 2C. But taken together with observations, the lower part of the spectrum seems increasingly likely.

    You say it depends on how much we emit in terms of increasing temps by 2C by 2100. But it equally depends on sensitivity. I have seen talented people try to explain this to you, but you prefer to bury sensitivity behind the artificial figures in Representative Concentration Pathways.

    And in the document I linked to above, the IPCC projects modest damages at most from 2C. What part of the IPCC are you denying?

    Your arguments are circular at best.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Okay, I thought maybe you’d got over the whole banning thing (you tend to ignore that you banned me from your site. It is also slightly bizarre that you claim it wasn’t explained, since it was.)

    I’m well aware that how much we warm depends on how much we emit AND on climate sensitivity (I’ve written about this many times and made this clear on many occassions). Currently, most who work in this field think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C.

    And in the document I linked to above, the IPCC projects modest damages at most from 2C. What part of the IPCC are you denying?

    I’m not aware of denying anything. I’m simply pointing out that if we warm by more than 2C, we will probably do extensive damage to coral reef ecosystems and will probably lose summer sea ice in the Arctic, amongst other things. The impacts are probably also non-linear, so the impact of warming from 2C-3C is probably much greater than the impact of warming from 1C-2C. Whether you think that this suggests doing something to avoid this additional warming, or not, is really up to you. However, if your argument is that we probably won’t warm this much even if we do little to reduce our emissions, then I think you’ll end up being wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Hi Hans–thanks, I’ll have a look.

    ATTP, no you never did explain why you banned me. In fact, all you ever said was that you didn’t ban me. Then, after my comments continued to fail to appear, you said your co-blogger had banned me. But neither of you ever said why.

    So I will continue to maintain that you banned me because you could not answer my arguments. Feel free to prove me wrong and un-ban me. I’ll promise to behave.

    When you say most in the field “think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C,” you could provide a reference. I think we will approach something close to 2C by 2100, but I see no evidence that we are “currently heading for about 3.5C.” Certainly that isn’t stated or even implied in AR5.

    I would also like to see a citation for your assertion about non-linearity of impacts. The only discussion of that that I have seen is by non-scientist alarmists who think the great ice sheets will melt rapidly, something real scientists have been very clear is not going to happen. If you have other evidence to bring to the table, please do so.

    The document I linked to in the OP is from the IPCC and it does not suggest non-linear impacts. The IPCC does not say we are ‘currently heading for about 3.5C.’ That is the basis for my question–do you deny the IPCC?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Feel free to prove me wrong and un-ban me.

    Ahhh, I took you off my blacklist ages ago. I do moderate my blog though, so if having a comment deleted/moderated winds you up, maybe you should show some restraint.

    When you say most in the field “think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C,” you could provide a reference.

    Try here. You could also consider the carbon budget tables here. A 66% chance of staying below 2C would require emitting no more than something like another 1000GtCO2 since 2011. We’re emitting about 40GtCO2 per year. So, about 25 years at current emissions.

    I would also like to see a citation for your assertion about non-linearity of impacts.

    As far as I’m aware, the damage functions used in IAMs are all non-linear. See Equation 3 in this, for example.

    However, I really shouldn’t need to do this. You’ve been involved long enough to be aware of what I’ve said above. If you don’t accept it, or haven’t bothered checking yourself, there’s probably little I can do to change your views (not that I have any interest in doing so, to be clear).

    Liked by 1 person

  11. ATTP, the Climate Scoreboard you link to shows no assumptions regarding sensitivity, but does show fairly obviously the various RCPs. They base their conclusions (3.3C) on RCP 8.5, which not only was never intended to be a projection or prediction, but has been invalidated by events since its publication.

    Nordhaus’ paper is about the social cost of carbon. It says nothing about non-linear impacts of climate change. And, as with all such papers, it leaves completely unaddressed the social costs of removing carbon. In any event, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

    The SWAG of a 66% chance of staying below 2C is again dependent on outlier assumptions for sensitivity. So you are continuing to argue the same point–that sensitivity is 3.5C or higher. But mainstream estimates of sensitivity are in fact edging lower every decade. It’s not just Nic Lewis.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Tom,

    They base their conclusions (3.3C) on RCP 8.5

    Umm, no, they don’t. They base it on the emission pathway we are likely to follow if the committments are met.

    Nordhaus’ paper is about the social cost of carbon. It says nothing about non-linear impacts of climate change.

    It shows that the damage function is assumed to be non-linear. What else would you mean by “non-linear impacts of climate change”?

    The SWAG of a 66% chance of staying below 2C is again dependent on outlier assumptions for sensitivity. So you are continuing to argue the same point–that sensitivity is 3.5C or higher.

    No, it’s not and no I’m not. I have never argued that sensitivity it 3.5C, or higher. This analysis is not based on it being 3.5C, or higher. It is based on the mainstream estimates for climate sensitivity, not outlier estimates.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Let’s face it it is impossible to debate with someone who never ever acts in good faith.

    “Umm, no, they don’t. They base it on the emission pathway we are likely to follow if the committments are met.”

    “I have never argued that sensitivity it 3.5C, or higher. This analysis is not based on it being 3.5C, or higher. It is based on the mainstream estimates for climate sensitivity, not outlier estimates.”

    Am I alone in detecting mustelid odours here?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Well, again: The Climate Scoreboard that ATTP references merely allocates x amount of warming to y amount of emissions. They have a data page. It has no data, no underlying assumptions, and crucially no figure for sensitivity. We are merely supposed to accept the if x then y that they put forward.

    ATTP writes, “I’m well aware that how much we warm depends on how much we emit AND on climate sensitivity (I’ve written about this many times and made this clear on many occassions). Currently, most who work in this field think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C.”

    ATTP writes, ““I have never argued that sensitivity it 3.5C, or higher. This analysis is not based on it being 3.5C, or higher. It is based on the mainstream estimates for climate sensitivity, not outlier estimates.”

    I remain confused as to what ATTP is trying to communicate.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. ATTP, When I wrote “When you say most in the field “think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C,” you could provide a reference.” you referenced the Climate Scoreboard, saying ‘try here.’ I did.

    The Climate Scoreboard is found here: https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/

    After viewing the page I wrote, “They base their conclusions (3.3C) on RCP 8.5.”

    You responded, “Umm, no, they don’t. They base it on the emission pathway we are likely to follow if the committments are met.”

    The site has a page titled ‘Science and Data’ found here: https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/

    On that page we find, “Assumptions inherent in C-ROADS:

    The C-ROADS reference scenario (also called “business as usual”) accounts for the UN’s medium fertility population projections, historical GDP per capita rates that converge over time to be consistent with other integrated assessment models, and GHG per capita projections for each gas that reflect trends over the last decade for CO2 and follow the IPCC’s RCP8.5 for the non-CO2 greenhouse gases.”

    Liked by 1 person

  16. The same Science and Data page says, “C-ROADS uses a climate sensitivity of 3 (that is 3°C of temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration.)”

    It also says, “C-ROADS allows inputs of emissions reductions targets for 12 countries (U.S., Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, South Korea, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia) and three blocs of countries (EU, “other developed” and “other developing”). For the 12 countries with individual controls, we adjust that country’s modeled emissions from a reference scenario (based on the IPCCs RCP 8.5 scenario)”

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Tom,

    I remain confused as to what ATTP is trying to communicate.

    You do realise that how much we warm and climate sensitivity are not the same thing? That the current committments would be expected the lead to about 3.5C by 2100 does not imply that climate sensitivity is 3.5C or higher.

    The C-ROADS reference scenario (also called “business as usual”) accounts for the UN’s medium fertility population projections, historical GDP per capita rates that converge over time to be consistent with other integrated assessment models, and GHG per capita projections for each gas that reflect trends over the last decade for CO2 and follow the IPCC’s RCP8.5 for the non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

    Yes, this is their reference scenario. This is not the same as what they project if we satisfy the current committments. If we satisfy the current committments we will warm less than their reference scenario. The 3.3C is, therefore, not based on RCP8.5, it is based on how much we will warm if we satisfy current committments and nothing more. That is compared to a reference scenario doesn’t suddenly mean that it is based on this reference.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I’m sorry, ATTP–I remain confused.

    I wrote, “When you say most in the field “think it very unlikely that we can avoid warming by 2C by 2100 and suggest that we are currently heading for about 3.5C,” you could provide a reference.”

    You provided a reference: https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/

    They have a reference case of 3.3, not 3.5C.

    You say we should not refer to your reference of their reference case but to their hypothesis of what will happen if countries meet their Paris commitments, which only one (the US) shows any sign of doing.

    Perhaps you will forgive my confusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Tom,

    They have a reference case of 3.3, not 3.5C.

    I said “heading for about 3.5C”. I didn’t say “heading for precisely 3.5C”.

    You say we should not refer to your reference of their reference case but to their hypothesis of what will happen if countries meet their Paris commitments, which only one (the US) shows any sign of doing.

    I’ve no idea what the first part is saying, but the second part is kind of the point. You seem to think that we will probably only warm by about 2C by 2100 and yet few countries seem to be showing signs of doing what would be required.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. ATTP, that’s because my assessment of the climate trajectory does not include any assumptions on the success or failure of the Paris Climate Accords. Various analyses of the effects of complete success of that initiative lead me to believe there is no appreciable impact from the Accords.

    Therefore I think their reference case, flawed as I consider it to be, is the appropriate one to look at.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. If we’re talking about global warming in the 21st century – and most banter relating to climate change policy is – then the Transient Climate Response is a more appropriate measure. Recent best observational estimates of TCR are around 1.3C-1.4C. A warming of 1.4C-1.6C (allowing for a little extra ‘in the pipeline’) post 1850 with CO2 around 560ppm doesn’t sound too catastrophic to me. But that’s only half the story. If natural variability is rather greater than estimated by the IPCC (and currently it looks more likely that this will exert a cooling influence on global climate over the next several decades), then the warming expected from GHGs is going to be substantially offset by natural climate variation. Therefore looking at the prospects for climate change over the 21st century, in particular over the next 50 or 60 years, the rush to reduce emissions by going full throttle on the roll out of expensive and inefficient renewables, looks to be ill conceived, to put it mildly, especially when that policy is so lopsided against developed nations.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I must intercede and correct a flaw in ATTP’s thinking. (italics mine)

    01 Apr 18 at 9:44 am

    This depends very much on how much we emit. Even if CS is on the low side, we have the potential to emit enough to warm by more than 2C by 2100.

    …..

    Therefore, given how much larger our global economy is expected to be (under this assumption) climate damages would need to be utterly catastrophic to have a large relative impact.

    01 Apr 18 at 5:09 pm

    I’m well aware that how much we warm depends on how much we emit

    …..

    I’m not aware of denying anything. I’m simply pointing out that if we warm by more than 2C, we will probably do extensive damage to coral reef ecosystems and will probably lose summer sea ice in the Arctic, amongst other things.

    01 Apr 18 at 8:52 pm

    You do realise that how much we warm and climate sensitivity are not the same thing?

    Ken, in common with many climate alarmists, forgets that the core hypothesis is that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global GHG levels to rise, which in turn is believed to cause global average temperatures to rise by a non-trivial degree. But geographically there are about 7600 million people on this planet, living in at least 195 nations. When Ken talks about what we should do, he is speaking for all 7600 million people. But the reality is that 80%+ of the world’s population live in countries who have no intention of reducing their emissions. In effect, Ken is treating the reality as a computer game model where his opinion is the reality, and where he is omnipotent.

    The political reality to this form of thinking is evident in the UK and other countries. It is largely irrelevant whether national policies in aggressively reducing emissions are successively or not, as it will not significantly impact on the global picture, and will not prevent the 1000 GtCO2e being breached. The other way of looking at the issue is from the supply side. As McGlade and Ekins 2015 estimate, proven fossil fuel reserves will produce about three times those emissions if burnt. They further estimated but not proven fossil fuel reserves at an additional 8000 GtCO2e. From multiple sources, I estimate that actual fossil fuels could (if extracted and burnt) produce 50000+ GtCO2e.

    I broke down the McGlade and Ekins estimates into major countries. Basically, for Ken’s we to apply to the real world, means that all these countries must agree to leave at least 75% of their proven reserves (and all of any future discoveries) in the ground. I find no evidence of alarmists trying to seriously enlighten them to the Science. What is actually happening is that my living standards and my children’s future are being damaged by policies that are useless by any measure. All because policy-makers share Ken’s flawed we thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Please don’t tell anybody how to incorporate those writhing simulacra of various climate unworthies so much beloved of Brad into their comments. Their should be SOME safe spaces.

    Like

  24. Thomas,

    Right-click on an image and “open link in new tab”.
    Copy and paste the url displayed.

    When using my own images I copy and paste the “File URL:” of the image.
    If the URL has any code after the file type I delete it.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. …and Then There’s Physics says: 01 Apr 18 at 9:44 am
    ” I don’t think this is true. There are a number of recent studies suggesting that the ECS is above 3C.”
    1)Could you please state what you mean by “ECS is above 3C.”? 2) Have you any physical evidence that increasing tropospheric CO2 levels above 165ppmv is some ’cause’ for increased atmospheric temperature at any location? 3) Can you define ‘atmospheric temperature’ other than whatever number some thermometer indicates; does ‘atmospheric temperature’ have any meaning suitable for statistical analysis? 4) Have you or any other, ever measured spontaneous EMR flux being emitted in a direction of higher radiance temperature? 5) What can you possibly mean by “radiative feedback”?

    Like

  26. Rudy Clausius eponymous law: Do not ascribe to malice that, which is likely ignorance.

    Like

  27. ==> And then there’s physics: So, if I published a paper stating that I think the climate sensitivity is +100C, it would in your view raise the probable actual sensitivity by a weighted average of all of the estimates before plus mine. How about +400C? We’d “really” be in a pickle, then.

    Averaging BS estimates of temperature gives you a BS estimate, and nothing else.

    Like

  28. Michael,

    So, if I published a paper stating that I think the climate sensitivity is +100C, it would in your view raise the probable actual sensitivity by a weighted average of all of the estimates before plus mine.

    No, that would be silly.

    Like

  29. If the IPCC is now no longer flavour of the month with the Konsensus, but is quotation fodder for Chevron, does the NIPCC have any support at all? I must admit to a feeling of adriftness. Can I come in from the cold?

    Like

  30. Stephen Mosher says: “Meanwhile “sceptics” get saddled with the wacked out views of ….Goddard……..”

    Tony Heller isn’t the one making things up.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. dennisambler says: 04,Apr,18:13:16

    Stephen Mosher says: “Meanwhile “sceptics” get saddled with the wacked out views of ….Goddard……..”

    Can we hope dat foul Moshpit refers to the wacked out views of NYC-NASA-Goddard,(soon to be De-funded)! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  32. catweaz.

    that chary is precisely the kind of made up bullshit that gives skeptics a bad name.

    but amuse me explain what that chart shows and why it means anything.

    we can debate it. i will ask simple questions and see if you can answer or defend…

    so start. explain what you conclude from that chart and why.

    Like

  33. Hiya Steve, ni hao ma? Beijing shi bu shi hen piaoliang… Have you started singing ‘Wo Ai Ni Zhonguo?’ Not very catchy, but the same could be said for all national anthems, I guess.

    What about Catweazle’s chart sets your teeth on edge? Is it just the provenance? Are there studies missing? Are the values for ECS / TCS incorrect?

    If it is complete and accurate, it shows a lot–as might be expected, subsequent studies on sensitivity have narrowed the range, lopped off the tail on the high end and show the effects of better instrumentation.

    It’s very effective. My question is whether it’s effective at demonstrating a real trend or just effective propaganda.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. “that chary is precisely the kind of made up bullshit that gives skeptics a bad name”

    Presumably because it was produced by your arch-enemy Steve/Goddard/Tony Heller, and not because there is anything actually wrong with it, correct?

    So I’ll tell you what, why don’t YOU explain to ME precisely what is wrong with it?

    I’ve spent my career in various branches of engineering, including some that deal specifically with many of the concepts of gas behaviour and thermodynamics that are fundamental to climate science – and in far more demanding and regulated regimes than climate scientists, and subsequently been paid to write software relating to non-linear dynamics, and I’ve followed Goddard/Heller’s investigations of the “adjustments” of climate data for some years, and frankly, you and your fellow data manglers aren’t fit to lubricate a REAL engineer’s slide rule (my 50-odd year old example with extended log scales is at present within arm’s reach, incidentally).

    So come on, don’t be shy, instead of your usual bluster and insults, tell us what is wrong with it, in detail.

    Goddard/Heller blows you and your fellow data Mannipulators with your AlGore-ithms right out of the water and further damages your already highly tenuous credibility, and I’m damn sure you know it.

    And by the way, for a man who claims to have some sort of paper to say how good you are at English, your writing is truly appalling, have you no shame about that, either?

    Liked by 2 people

  35. As a friend of Steve, let me just note for the record that he comments using a crap mobile phone and is usually smoking at least one cigarette while doing so. And now he’s living in China–I’m surprised he isn’t posting in Hanyu characters…

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Steve’s delphic deconstruction is to ne expected. He fell for the manipukation and destruction of the data records awhile back.
    But please let’s cut him slack on what happens when English texting happens on foreign language platforms.
    I suffered from the same last fall. I would see words changed after the fact into strange blends of Spanish and English or just plain go wrong.
    If only Steve would lend his insights into the institutional bias credible people have demonstrated time and time again irt the temp records. Instead he seems to have this misplaced tough love treatment on skeptics.
    Steve,
    best wishes in China!

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Off topic, but it is worth looking at the latest over at Polar Bear Science.
    The alarmists are following the predictable pattern of con artists. Her report is fascinating.

    Like

  38. TWF: “I am in complete agreement with the science that shows the earth to be warming and am entirely comfortable with attributing half or more of the warming since 1978 to anthropogenic contributions.

    However, almost all of what I have read (and I have read a lot) regarding the danger from anthropogenic climate change has turned out to be speculative and not closely tied to evidence.

    Ken: ECS. Blah blah blah.

    This, again, demonstrates my observation that climate change debates descend to science.

    It’s like saying “don’t think of an elephant”; ‘basic physics’ must rear its boring head.

    Alternatively, it may be a mainstay of Consensus Enforcement that the discussion of impacts must return to ‘basic physics’, because the discussion of ‘impacts’ is simply too challenging for any value of ECS less than [Insert Preferred Immediately Terrifying Figure Here].

    Like

  39. False classifications of Climate opponents ?
    So what do you say to this essay, girls & guys ?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s